chpettit19

Again I ask, do you have any sources (we know you love sources) that show the Twins continued to look for any starting pitchers after they acquired DeSclafani? Do you have any sources that would suggest they were ever going to bring in more than 1 MLB starter to fill their 1 MLB rotation opening? I gave you quotes from Falvey stating they were moving on to the position player side. Look, you tried to "well technically" me and asked for sources. I've provided them. He said they were shifting to the position player side and they didn't bring in anymore starting pitchers, and there weren't even rumors (that I'm aware of, feel free to prove me wrong, though) that they were talking with any other starting pitcher free agents or teams about trading for starting pitchers in any real way. You want to scold me because you think I spoke in too concrete of terms. But the facts are still that they acquired 1 major league starting pitcher to fill their 1 major league rotation hole, the head of the baseball operations department then immediately stated that they were turning their attention to the position player side, and, just like Falvey suggested, they didn't bring in any other major leaguer starting pitching nor were they rumored to be looking into it. If it makes you feel better I'll admit my statements were stronger than Falvey's. Congrats. Yet each and every one of those statements are correct so I'm not sure why you're still arguing this. They weren't "inaccuracies" and I've shown that. I'm not "setting a narrative." I've provided you with the transactions, roster situation, and quotes. I'm sorry you don't like the facts, but that's what they are. It's time for us to move on and not derail this thread, though. So give whatever final speech you feel necessary about me saying facts stronger than you'd like me to, but your fight for the benefit of others is going to have to find a more appropriate location after that.

How much below "below average" are Helman and Isola types? And how much better is the 20 mil guy that they could've signed instead of these scrap heap guys to make up that difference? Are you sure Helman (after Larnach, Martin, etc. get hurt) and Hoskins isn't a better setup than what they have now? Kyle Farmer isn't a $6M player. Niko Goodrum isn't the only other option. Farmer being worth $6M more than Niko Goodrum doesn't make spending 6 mil on a short side platoon 2B/3B something I agree with. Tim Anderson got 5 mil. Kike Hernandez got 4. Amed Rosario got 1.5. You mentioned Davis and his 2.5 mil deal. Jon Berti is making 3.6 and could've been had in trade. Gio Urshela got 1.5. Garrett Hampson got 2. Is Kyle Farmer better than Hampson and 4 mil to spend elsewhere? Or Amed Rosario and 5 mil to spend elsewhere? Don't want to rely on your minors depth? Fine, but that doesn't mean you should be trading Jorge Polanco just to pay Farmer and Santana instead. Give me Polanco and any of the guys I just listed over Farmer and Santana. They focus too much on the floor at the cost of the ceiling for my taste. I understand their desire to have depth, but I reject the idea that "below average players" is actually depth. They're just bodies. Take the slightly more below average below average player for significantly less money and use the money on above average players. I agree with this. Or they traded them away for injured pitchers. What would the depth look like with Steer and CES on pre-arb deals? Don't need to spend 10+ mil on Santana and Margot if you have them around still. I'm hoping the Keaschall/Schobel/Harry types they draft can be relatively quick to "good enough depth" over the next year or 2 that they stop paying the Santana, Gallo, Margot, Farmer, MAT types. This is also where I think many on these boards get their "depth" statements wrong. So many are constantly talking about how there's just going to be nowhere to put all this young talent by 2025 or 2026 and they need to start trading guys. I disagree with that idea wholeheartedly. I would've liked to have trade a top prospect with Polanco for a real pitcher this offseason, but generally speaking the Twins don't have the depth many claim and it's why they keep wasting 10s of millions a year on below average vets in the name of depth.

The Twins seem to expect more for $4M. Well at least they expect more for $5.25M since they signed Santana to be their everyday 1B for that. That's my problem with it. I don't like that they sign, or trade for, multiple guys in that 4-10 million range instead of bundling those salaries for the guys making more and going with the below average players that cost 740k a year (I believe that's the league minimum). I'd much rather the Twins carry Miranda for as little as possible than carry Santana for $5.25. Especially when you could pair that with not having a $4M broken SP, $4M 4th OFer, and $6.3M utility infielder (all 3 hitters being short side platoon bats). Give me Larnach and Miranda for less than $2M combined and another 17.5+ to play with (Santana, DeSclafani, Margot, and Farmer make 19.55 this year if my math is correct). While I agree fans shouldn't expect more from cheap vets I think it's far worse that the Twins seem to believe those cheap vets are a key piece of building a contending team. The team expecting more from $4M is the problem.

I will note that Polanco is not a free agent at the end of this season. He has a $12 million club option for next year as well.

Yeah, I understood it was 1:28, which is why I said 1:28 in my post and was referring to the same quote you just provided. If you want to take that as him saying they're still actively searching for major league starting pitching, great. I disagree 100%. He is literally quoted in multiple of those articles saying they're turning their attention to the position player side. I don't know why you think it's so crazy for me to suggest that them trading for DeSclafani and then Falvey being immediately quoted by multiple reliable Twins sources as stating they're shifting their attention to the position player side is him saying they're done looking for MLB starting pitching. You asked for quotes and I gave you quotes and your response is "well not those quotes, different quotes." This is a nonsense discussion. You can take his quotes however you want. You can think I was too hard on him all you want. The facts are that they acquired 1 major league starting pitcher this offseason. Immediately after acquiring that pitcher they said they were shifting their attention to the position player side. All they acquired after that was position players and throw away relievers. I pointed these things out. I'm sorry if you feel my choices of words were too strong. But I stand by them since I can provide multiple articles quoting Falvey and give you the exact transactions that took place which all support my statements. Do you have any sources suggesting the Twins were in on Lorenzen at a steep discount after they knew DeSclafani was hurt? Clevinger? Any starting pitcher at all after they acquired DeSclafani? Or did they acquire him, say they were shifting to the position player side, and we never hear even a whisper of them being in on any other starting pitcher?

That "relevant part at 1:28" was him listing off all the guys they already had and saying they were happy with them while giving absolutely no impression that they were looking for additional starting pitching. Which isn't "quite the opposite" of what I said, but in fact is exactly what I said. They had no intention of bringing in any more starting pitching after they brought in DeSclafani. I hope your "if it's not a direct quote you're flat out wrong" condescension felt good. This article doesn't quote him, but mentions that Falvey mentioned turning to the position player side after the trade, like outfield depth and first base. Which is, again, exactly what I said. Here's another one that actually quotes him about the outfield group and adding flexibility while, clearly unreliable source I shouldn't use to base my comments on, Do-Hyoung Park also says the Twins are turning their attention to the position player side after acquiring DeSclafani.. Here's one from The Athletic about the trade where he's quoted as them expecting to use the money saved to address other ways to improve the club, and mentioning DeSclafani as a starter (news flash, they already had 4 starters in the rotation so DeSclafani was the 5th and final one). Maybe Dan Hayes and Ken Rosenthal shouldn't be trusted for me to base my statements on either. Dang it, now I have to stop trusting Gleeman as well, because here's an article from him where he quotes Falvey saying "I think our focus might turn more to the position player route" when talking about getting DeSclafani in the return. Wow, Dan Hayes really doubling down on his untrustworthiness by writing another article again quoting Falvey as saying they're turning their attention to the position player side. Same quote as Gleeman so they're probably in cahoots on this misleading media mess. This article is all about how they can spend the savings from the Polanco deal. The only talk about adding another pitcher is a reference to the trades for frontline starters that didn't happen while Hayes also states "for now, it seems as if those overtures are on the back burner." I have a meeting to get to so I'm going to stop at 5 articles supporting my statements that DeSclafani was their rotation move and they weren't looking for other starters after they got him. I'm sorry I made such a stretch as to take the reporting from 4 highly trusted baseball and Twins reporters to be accurate and took the liberty to read through Falvey's masterful "media deflection" when he used the phrase "I think" instead of flat out saying it. I hope your condescension felt good. You're right, though. Technically Falvey didn't come right out and say that DeSclafani was their only rotation move and they weren't going to look for any other starters. He got real masterful and snuck in that "I think" to throw everyone off their scent. I hope 5 sources was enough to quench your thirst. And I hope your "well technically" speech felt good. That "I think" is really going to give me nightmares on how I could be so brash as to take his statement as truth. I feel just terrible for my "disingenuous interpretation" because he dropped an "I think" in there.

I don't care which side of the plate Santana stands on when righties get him out constantly. He can't hit righties. Polanco can. They worsened their everyday lineup to improve defense at the bottom of the defensive spectrum. I'm not impressed. This team would be better with Polanco. I don't want others to "make up for" Polanco's bat being missing. I want his bat on top of whatever progress the rest of the guys make. I don't think this offense is as good as others do. I think they got a nice return in terms of value for Polanco. In a vacuum. But when that value comes in the form of a prototypical "volatile year to year" reliever and 2 guys miles away from the bigs when the team is coming off an ALDS appearance I'm just not a fan. If this was after 2021 or 2022, or most of the last 15 years, I'd have a much different stance. I agree this team has too many flaws now, but some of them are self-inflicted. Like the one being discussed here. This article is about not lumping DeSclafani in with Paddack and Mahle. But I disagree with it. He should absolutely be lumped in with them, and the reason this team has flaws is because of these horrible gambles that this team continues to make on injured pitchers. This offense would have almost no flaws with Steer, CES, and Polanco in it over Farmer, Margot, and Santana. DeSclafani should absolutely be lumped in with the other injured pitcher acquisitions, and the Twins should absolutely stop taking shots an extra risky pitching acquisitions while giving up legitimate player value in return for it. It's hurting their team, in my opinion.

"The lack of any other starter moves" was because they got DeSclafani. That is why it's a big deal. They came out and said right after that trade they were moving their offseason forward looking for bats and were done looking for starting pitchers. He was penned into the 5th spot because they were only ever going to bring in 1 MLB starter and they ended up with him. It's why it's a big deal. Because it was an absolutely horrible decision. The fact that the guy they chose to bring in for their 5th starter spot fits into your personal depth spectrum around Brent Headricks should disappoint you, shouldn't it? He was their choice. They had 1 rotation spot open and they filled it with Anthony DeSclafani before immediately announcing they were done with rotation moves. Fans keeping their hopes up for another move, or trying to retroactively act like they were still looking for another move, is ignoring what the Twins were saying and revising history. They told us that was their rotation move. And they've done nothing but confirm that ever since. It was a bad move.

Why is that clear? I don't think that's clear. I think they chose to trade Polanco because they thought DeSclafani could be at least a partial answer to their rotation hole. They could've non-tendered Kyle Farmer and not signed Carlos Santana. Kyle Farmer himself has stated he was surprised they tendered him. When the player admits he's getting paid too much for his role you're probably playing too much for that role. They could've gotten Lorenzen for 4.5 if they'd waited. No, I wouldn't have raised too many alarms if guys who weren't actively hurt when they acquired them for the guy who just hit 2 hole for them in the ALDS got hurt. It's a different situation. At least those guys would've had a chance of being any value at all. DeSclafani was just another in the growing list of horrible injured starting pitcher bets this FO has made in an attempt to get starting pitching for cheap. My problem is giving up actual, real 2024 talent for an actively injured 5/6 starter that had a better chance of providing 0 value than any value at all. They traded a top of the order hitter and paid $4 million for that "injury plagued 5/6 starter" and that's why I have a problem with it. Signing any of the no name guys you want to throw out is a far better option than trading a legitimate MLB hitter for DeSclafani. I'm 100% in agreement with the one good player over three or four replacement level players. It's why I hate this trade so much. They decided to go with DeSclafani, Santana, Farmer, and Topa over Polanco and whoever else they could've brought in for the savings they got from not paying nearly 20 mil for that collection of 4 utterly replaceable players. I strongly dislike the $5-10ish million player collection they go for every year. Give me a 20-30 mil player and young guys over short side of a platoon bats and cheap starting pitchers.

Polanco would've DH'd for this team. Or played 1B with Santana never signed. Or they could've done your situation of moving Julien to 1B some and having Kirilloff and Wallner split LF and DH. I don't buy this idea that there was no place for Polanco to play. The DH spot was, and is, wide open on any team that has Carlos Santana in his age 38 season starting everyday against righties. They picked Santana and DeSclafani over Polanco. It's now turned into Santana over Polanco. I agree they went and got the best deal they felt they could for Polanco. Disagree that they had 9 guys better than Polanco and that the Polanco angle is overblown. They had all those young guys in the playoffs last year and felt he was good enough to hit 2 hole then. Healthy Buxton coming back is the only real difference outside of Santana and now he doesn't have any spot at all? Jorge Polanco would've hit in the top 5 spots in this Twins order and they got a 32 year old reliever with 1 good year and 2 A ball players in return. I don't think it's overblown to say that trade hurt the 2024 Twins. Maybe Gonzalez breaks out and the Twins "win" the trade in the long run, but I'm not concerned with the long run after coming off an ALDS appearance. I'm concerned with taking an obvious step backwards coming off that ALDS appearance. But I understand and acknowledge that others find more redeeming value in the possible future value of that deal. I'm just not interested in that at this point in their team building cycle.

It cost them 1.5 to get Jay Jackson who had pretty similar numbers last year. Hoffman and Coulombe were in camp for basically nothing last year. Duarte is on the roster for the minimum. Their entire bullpen strategy has been to bring in as many fliers as possible for as little (in any kind of resource) as possible and see what shakes out over the first half of the year. Trading an everyday, heart of the order hitter for one would be very much out of character for this FO.

Twins: "We need to bring in starting pitching this offseason." Twins: Trade for Anthony DeSclafani knowing he has arm problems and say they're not looking for any other starting pitchers for the MLB team. Some Twins fans: Well they didn't really want DeSclafani. They said they needed to add starting pitching. They added starting pitching. The narrative that they didn't want DeSclafani is ignoring their words and actions. They took a gamble and lost. Again. Do people really think the Mariners were so desperate to save $4 million that they gave up a top 100 prospect to do it? The Twins saved even more on the deal so why weren't they the ones giving up Rodriguez to get the Mariners to take on their "salary dump" of Polanco? The Mariners kicked in $4 million. So people really think the Mariners were so eager to get rid of DeSclafani that they paid $4 million and a top 100 prospect to "save" $4 million? If the Twins didn't actually want DeSclafani why didn't they just kick in $4 million with Polanco and not fill a rotation spot with DeSclafani? Would've left Seattle in the same financial position and the Twins could've gone and filled their rotation spot with someone else. DeSclafani may not have been their #1 option, but the narrative that they really didn't want him doesn't make any sense. They accepted him in the trade when they didn't have to (again, could've just kicked in the 4 mil) and announced immediately afterward that they were done shopping for starting pitching. They were happy enough to put him in their rotation. They gambled and lost. Again.

Impressive considering he plays for Tampa. He did look good yesterday, though.

The science, video, and coaching are a huge difference. And they weren't throwing max effort every pitch. They weren't even teaching that 20 years ago when I was in college. Max effort at the arm speed necessary for 98 is different than max effort at the arm speed necessary for 88. Spin has gone up. Mix that with max effort 95+% of the time for starters and 100% of the time for relievers and there's not much mystery as to why elbows are blowing up left and right. Every swing is an "A swing" now. That's new. And it's complained about everyday on these threads. Guys are bigger, stronger, faster and they're swinging max effort everytime. That wasn't how it was in the past. The science, video, and coaching has these guys pushing their bodies past anything that was done in the past. They're bigger, stronger, faster and it tests the bounds of what the body is able to do. Makes sense to me that more bodies would break when more bodies are doing more. They aren't maximizing movement for health, they're maximizing it for performance. Seems that those things are at odds as they ask the body to do things it isn't meant to do.

You didn't answer my first question. What's the difference in NHL injuries vs MLB. How many more does MLB have than the NHL? Is contact the easiest way to get hurt? If you take out the pitcher injuries what does the comparison look like? I'm pretty sure you can understand what I'm getting at here. Your stance seems to be that since the NHL has more contact than MLB it should have more injuries while ignoring the fact that many of MLB's injuries are because throwing a baseball overhand is an unnatural act that the body isn't designed to do. It's a bad comparison. When you say "rash of injuries" and suggest it isn't random, do you have some data showing that there was a significant increase in injuries to this point in the season? It may be, but I don't know what the numbers are. And, yes, it could be completely random. That is a legitimate possible answer. So if there's a basic reason for why there's more injuries that has nothing to do with what preparation a player does and is all about the human body not being built to do what baseball players do, why do you find it unacceptable for me to say "guys get hurt, it doesn't have to be the training staff or their fault?" Your explanation for why guys get hurt is "the body is not designed to make these violent motions thousands of times at high force, much less maximum force," but you can't understand why a fan would say "guys get hurt and it doesn't have to be somebody's fault?" Don't really understand that, but to each their own.

Much of the increase in injuries is the new approach of going 100% 100% of the time instead of fluctuating. Especially with pitchers. More max effort for shorter bursts leads to max stress on joints and ligaments and muscles that wasn't there previously. That isn't just a baseball thing, it's a sports world thing. Yes, something is very clearly not working with Royce. His body is a reasonable answer, though. That's my point. It doesn't have to be the training staff failing or him not putting in work or the highly paid professionals who study baseball specific movements for a living not knowing what exercises are right to keep guys healthy. Sometimes certain people's bodies just can't handle being pushed to the max of human performance. Buxton and Lewis look like they may have been cursed with bodies that can perform at extraordinary levels, but can't stay healthy while doing it.

What is the difference in injuries between the NHL and MLB? Why should the NHL have more injuries than MLB? How many MLB injuries are pitchers hurting their arms which is something completely different than anything in the NHL? What about the injuries that happened yesterday make you think it's at all connected to it being the first day of the season? Why does the point of the season even matter when it comes to injuries? Do guys not get hurt? Do you have a hypothesis about what leads to "a rash of injuries" in MLB?

I think it depends on their determination to use Santana at 1B against righties. If they're willing to make him a platoon bat I'd think the move is probably Larnach to take the DH spot with Kirilloff moving to 1B against righties and Castro being the 3B. If they're determined to keep Santana at 1B more or less everyday the decision becomes more complicated. Are they happy platooning Castro and Farmer at 3B and letting Julien play everyday? If so then Martin may be the choice to fill Castro's utility role. I don't think Miranda has been throwing across the diamond yet so he'd either be limited to DH against lefties and maybe righties depending on their willingness to play Kirilloff at 1B which would probably come down to the difference they see in Miranda and Santana's bats against righties. I agree with the idea that they should just grab the best bat, but I don't know if that'll be their plan. I want that because I have no desire to have Santana be their everyday 1B so I'd open up the DH spot by moving Kirilloff to 1B. This decision will tell us quite a bit about their thoughts on a few guys probably.

I never understand the posts about "they need to hire better training staffs" or "they need to prepare them better by doing X, Y, or Z activities." What do people think these guys do before games? Do people think it's like little league and these guys show up 30 minutes before the game and jog up the baseline a few times and call it good? These training staffs are the best of the best (even the "bad" MLB training staffs) who know how to get players ready for MLB games. Players show up hours and hours before the game and go through a ton of pre-game prep. I get that people have a tendency to need to find someone, or something, to blame, but sometimes guys just get hurt. Sometime the same guy gets hurt a lot. Not every bad thing that happens is because somebody is bad at their job or because the athlete didn't put in the work or any other excuse people want to try to find. Does Royce Lewis look like a guy that isn't preparing to play? Not many guys in better shape than that dude. He's dealt with literally years of rehab and people think he's not doing "flexibility and stretching activities" to prepare to play opening day? There likely aren't many players on the planet putting in more work to stay healthy than Royce Lewis and Byron Buxton. Sometimes the human body just can't hold up to pushing itself to perform at it's peak everyday. It's a bummer, but I can promise everyone that the Twins training staff knows what "activities" the guys need to do, and Royce Lewis is putting in the work to stay healthy.

Yeah, I decided the easier answer was just to point out that the stats in the useless data set weren't even good stats.

And he's not playing against the lefty today.

A .700 OPS against a bunch of minor leaguers is absolutely a reason to worry. Carlos Santana should be a massive concern for the Twins against righties.

Oh, I do. Been blaming the alphabet for years. Why can't the letters each just have 1 sound they make every time they're in a word?

I'd think the plan is for him to hit for Margot, but how much are they going to ignore Santana's numbers against righties for the last few years if they're down by 2 in the 7th with guys on 2nd and 3rd and 2 outs with Santana stepping to the plate against a righty? Would they go to Kirilloff there?

I don't mind the lineup. Jeffers in the 2 hole is a bold move I wouldn't have expected, but overall I have no real complaints. It's a different strategy than Rocco/the Twins deployed last year in that they've put all the pinch hit guys at the bottom instead of having them spread around with someone like Jeffers hitting in the middle of them. I assume that'll be different when it's a righty on the mound as Julien is very likely the leadoff guy in that situation so Farmer is going to step into the leadoff spot late against lefties, but I prefer platoon bats at the bottom of the lineup. I wish the Twins had 5 guys they trusted at all times to drop into the top 5 spots in the order everyday and just let the bottom 4 spots be interchangeable, but I don't think they'll be deploying that strategy any time soon. I'm just fascinated to see how things play out in the cold in what should be a low scoring game and how the managers do things. Opening day makes me think Ragans isn't going to have a super long outing so it's more likely that the Royals are going to be able to use a lefty against the lefties late in the game than it'd be if it were the middle of July and Ragans would be more likely to go deeper and the lefties would likely only get 1 AB. It's opening day for strategy questioning as well.