Cap'n Piranha

Fairly certain point c) is a textbook example of tampering, and would result in massive fines and penalties, along with surefire league nixing of any trade.

My big take for the offseason is that Falvine will acquire an arm that slots behind Lopez and ahead of Ryan in our rotation; Seattle is an obvious candidate with a deep roster of starters (Castillo, Gilbert, Kirby, Woo, Miller, Hancock, and Robbie Ray theoretically returning at some point in 2024), but terrible production at 2B (Seattle 2B tied for 24th in the league with a 75 wRC+, and an OPS barely over .600). That said, it would be tough to pry away Kirby or Gilbert (the two guys you'd want), even if you offered Julien or Lee; you might have to give up both. Alternatively, Hancock might be more attainable, and could be seen as a high upside bet.

I personally would be very wary about taking the top job in Boston. It seems to me like ownership there is no longer to spend at the same level as they traditionally have, yet the expectations have not changed. This is the same group that traded Mookie Betts for pennies on the dollar, rather than extend him, while also letting Bogaerts walk. They're not really playing in FA over the past couple of years (have they signed anyone other than Storey?), and has been mentioned, play in a brutal division; Baltimore looks set to be great for years, the Rays are always competent at worst, the Blue Jays still have quite a bit of talent, and the Yankees are probably getting ready to spend like crazy. There are only so many top jobs available, and at a certain point, you have to take that opportunity if it comes, but I wouldn't do it without express promises from ownership that spending will be increased, and a contract that features a very nice severance package if I'm fired before the end of the 5 year term I'm demanding.

The postseason is a crapshoot, to be sure. At no point was I arguing that the Twins could never have made the postseason, or had success in it. My simple argument is that 7 years into the Falvine era, coming off of 2 losing seasons, this season ended up being a good one, not a superlative one as the author described it in the intro to the article. I was speaking simply in hindsight to what actually happened, not in foresight of what could have happened. I am also fairly bullish on the Twins going forward, but things are going to need to continue progressing; if Falvine thinks they can simply roll the same roster back next year and achieve better results, I think they will be proven wrong. Just to start, we need more consistent hitters that are not reliant on well-timed homers to score 4 or more runs, more depth in the starting rotation (Festa and SWR as the 6 and 7 makes me nervous), and some additional firepower in the bullpen. I believe all of that is obtainable, if management is willing to spend money and future assets to do so.

In the last 2 games, the Twins held a lead to start one half inning, they were tied to start 4 half innings, and trailed for the start of 31 half innings. In that game 4 you seem to think was so close, they had 3 hits, 2 walks, and 14 strikeouts. Houston was barely challenged during the ALDS, and thinking otherwise is rose colored vision.

87 wins and a fairly expeditious exit from the ALDS should be no one’s idea of a resoundingly successful season, that set new heights of achievement.

You had me right up until your claim that Rocco is a “master tactician”. Rocco continuously gets outmaneuvered by other managers, largely because he’s so predictable. He’s also not particularly good at anticipating how the decision he’s making in any given moment might resonate negatively 2 or 3 innings later. The Twins absolutely can win this series, but if Rocco shrewdly pulling levers and cleverly pushing buttons is the reason, I will be surprised.

Yeah, I don't know where the idea that the Jays don't have lefty pitching is coming from. If I'm the Jays, I'm tempted to use Kikuchi or Ryu as my starter in Game 2/3, and see if I can get Rocco to overplay his hand. Does he load up on righties, and then the Jays go to Berrios/Bassitt for the second inning, forcing the Twins to empty their bench almost immediately, or leave a bunch of their best hitters out of the game? This is where Rocco's unwillingness to let our lefty hitters face lefty pitchers, particularly in not-close games, might come back to haunt.

Yup, they're pretty boxed in when it comes to JJ, unfortunately. Sign him (which probably requires 5 years and $150M in guarantees at a minimum), and you're dramatically decreasing your ability to fill roster holes outside of drafting (which as Mike pointed out is so far at best an unproven for Kwesi Kupcakes, if not an outright weakness). And while I love JJ, I don't see the point in having him spend 12 years here and yet never have the team seriously compete for a Superbowl. Much as it pains me to say it, these next 4 games basically determine the course of the franchise. If you can't beat 2 out of PHI/LAC/KC, I think you have to start the firesale in an attempt to get as high a pick as possible. You then have to use that pick and JJ either in tandem or separately to get the #1 pick, and finally land a (potentially) true franchise QB. No more half measures, no more "competitive rebuilds". And probably, no more Kwesi or KOC (for all his supposed offensive genius, KOC took an offense with a veteran QB, possibly the best receiver of all time in his prime, an OL with elite tackles and high round picks on the interior, and plenty of other skill position talent--Cook, Thielen, Mattison, Osborn, and 10 games of Hockenson--and produced an offense that scored fewer points than either of Zimmer's last two offenses, one of which had 16 games instead of 17). As for Kyler, hardest of passes. I want no part of a what seems like an immature guy being paid $50M a year who relies on his athleticism, but is about to be 27 and coming off a torn ACL.

If you sign JJ, and then force him to catch passes from Mullens/Hall for the rest of the year, all to force him to break in a rookie QB next year (no guarantees you can even get Williams, by the way), you're probably going to have to trade JJ too.

Yup. The league saw what happened when the Vikings panic-traded for Bradford because they thought they were Superbowl contenders. No team wants to install a new QB after training camp ends, especially not a team that believes 100% they can roll it back next year. I hate to say it, but if the Vikings are any worse than 2-3 after week 5, the for sale signs need to be up on just about everyone. I would trade Hunter, O'Neil, Hockenson, Smith, and anyone else with less than 3 years of control for whatever I can get.

They got better, but not by a lot. The completion percentage stayed essentially the same (66.5% before TJ, 66.7% after), but due to attempting 2.6 more passes a game, they got 1.8 more completions a game. Passing yards definitely went up, by about 45 yards a game, and the offense was more efficient when passing (7 yds/attempt with TJ, as opposed to 6.2 without). However, since the offense only averaged 6 yds/attempt when TJ was targeted, I don't think you can credit him for that increase in efficiency. FInally, in the one metric that truly matters, the offense did score slightly more with TJ (25.1 pts/game compared to 24.7); I personally don't think a second round pick and 8 figure cap hits in 2024 and 2025 (years it seems like the team is unlikely to compete) are worth .4 points a game--the equivalent of one more touchdown a season.

The legacy of 2022 for the Vikings will be a season that puts the franchise back about 3 years. The odd decision to not rebuild immediately upon brining in a new GM AND coach was inexplicable, and the giant horseshoe that was last year disguised the fact that this is not an organization set up to win anything of note anytime soon. That fed Kwesi Kupcake's ego, leading him to double down on going for it now, rather than starting the painful, but necessary process of pivoting to the future. So to sum up; They'll have (projected) only $35M in cap space, and that's before an extension for either JJ or Darrisaw When Kirk becomes a FA after the season, the QB situation will be the worst in the league, fixable only by having a high enough pick to get a top draftable QB, or re-signing Kirk (who has proven he can't carry a team anywhere come playoff time) Jefferson will need a new contract, unless you want to piss him off for a second straight year with no long-term deal. If you do, you might have to trade him. The O-line still won't be good, and only has 4 players under contract for 2024; to improve it, you'll either need a lot of money (which the Vikings don't have) or you'll have to nail a pick or two in the draft (not holding my breath given the Ingram pick). The D-line has minimal ability to generate a pass rush, and that's with Hunter on board--he's gone after this year, and I see almost no scenario in which he resigns with the Vikings. Davenport will also be gone, meaning the Vikings will have 3 DEs on roster with a combined 19.5 CAREER sacks. It would appear that if the Vikings do extend Jefferson and Darrisaw, they'll have almost no cap space (unless they push incredible amounts of those deals down the road), and will still have glaring needs at QB, LG, RG, LDE, and RDE. They'll further have somewhat of a need at RB, WR3, DT, and S. It appears to me the Vikings will probably be bad this year, terrible next year, and employing a new GM and coach in 2025, who will need to rebuild. All of that could have started last year. But hey, at least we're allocating 10% of our cap to Tight Ends!

I don't know if Rocco is the reason the Twins lose, but I do know he's not the reason they win.

You said it yourself--we're talking about different things. So talk about what I'm talking about. The runner, in my scenario, absolutely affected the play. Stop equivocating and changing to a different scenario. If the runner affects the play in a manner that is NOT interference, is it an error? You also didn't answer my question about Kepler--if the ball doesn't hit his glove, is it an error? If you don't want to directly respond to my very plain questions, then just don't respond. Otherwise, concede the point or refute my exact scenarios.

I've been criticizing the Vazquez move BEFORE I realized that TB was able to counter with a righty (I had to hop on a meeting). That is straight up managerial malpractice there. This is why the Twins will do nothing in the postseason--they will be constantly outmaneuvered by opposing teams, which is horrifying given that analytics is supposedly the prime reason Rocco has the job.

Any time you can PH your backup catcher for your leadoff hitter for no other reason than a handedness advantage, you gotta do it. Even if that handedness "advantage" comes in the form of a .764 OPS and 102 wRC+.

Rocco pulls a Monty Burns and PHs Homer for Strawberry.

I assume you meant Smalldelli. Feels like that's a layup there, no?

Terrible baseball there by Stevenson. He needs to get back to second so he can tag as soon as that ball is caught. If it turns out the ball is not caught, a guy with his speed will easily score from second anyways. Might not matter at all, but that might end up being the game.

So you're saying that what we should have done is traded for Jaime Barria from the Angels? Since what he did in LA has next to no bearing on what he could do in MN, since he'd be throwing different pitches in different order to different batters against different opponents?

I'd be shocked if Polanco isn't back as well. Falvine loves depth and good contracts, and they are not going to be able to get a player of Polanco's caliber for under $10.5M. Additionally, they hate losing an asset for nothing, so they're going to exercise the option. If they do trade Polanco, it will only be if they feel supremely confident in Correa, Lewis, Lee, and Julien handling the non-1B IF positions, and they are able to get a significant pitcher in return (someone at the Lopez or Duran level, at minimum). I don't see any team trading a pitcher like that for a guy who will turn 31 next year, and is seemingly becoming more injury prone.

I don't disagree with you in theory--I want our young lefties to get PAs against lefties, to find out if they can be every day regulars, or if they will have to be just platoon guys. That said, in a tie game, with a runner on third, I think you do try and cash in on an opportunity to hit a righty against a lefty; it's unlikely a better situation than that will arise later in the game. If there's no one on base, I 100% think AK should get the chance. If it's a 4+ run lead for either team, even with a runner on third, 100% AK should get the chance. But the situation really did dictate making that move.

No brainer, Kep at $10M will be back. It will be interesting to see if Falvine tries to extend him (say tack on 2 more years and a club option for a third, turning it into, in essence, a 3 year $40M contract with a $16M option and $4M buyout).

Again, you are ignoring the situation. The runner does not touch the ball. He does not touch the fielder. He merely passes in front of the shortstop, blocking his view of the ball at a critical moment, causing the shortstop to lose sight of the ball, and not make the play. There is no action on the ball. There is no glove on the ball. An otherwise routine play was not made, but through no fault of the fielder, but rather circumstances outside oh the fielder's control. Is it still an error, since in your own words, there is no pass for conditions? On the Kepler play, you also ignored what I said. If the play had been exactly the same, other than the ball missed Kepler's glove by 2 inches, would you then say it's not an error, since the ball didn't touch his glove?