BD57

I'd love to see the Twins contend in 2026. Problem is, where are the runs coming from? Buck & Jeffers are productive. Wallner, I'm not sold on. I'm not sure what we have with Lewis - prior to this year, I was thinking good things, now .... Pitching, what would we have if Joe & Pablo are gone? I don't see a #2 starter in the bunch, let alone a #1. Seems the Twins are forever stuck with ownership which wants to make a buck off of baseball WHILE they own the club as well as when they sell. While it's their money & they have every right to spend it however they wish, they're not giving Twins fans much to root for.

i'm thankful I have a team in each league that I follow . . . and that the NL team (the Phillies) is actually good. Front office blew up the roster at the trade deadline. Based on how the team came out of the All Star Break, hard to argue it was "wrong" to do so . . . the roster we had wasn't going to contend for anything. That said . . . there's little to nothing I can see which offers grounds for optimism. Seems we're going to look at mediocrity until the farm system produces a roster capable of playing good baseball. Which could take a while.

The "pre-sale" roster wasn't playing good baseball & blaming that on injuries isn't persuasive. Strikes me as as a "pare down the payroll & get some prospects for new ownership to inherit," essentially a "clear the decks & give the new ownership some room to maneuver. I'm all for the team being sold. While new ownership will have no obligation to spend its own money to make the team good, I'm hoping it'll be open to it.

A good manager challenges his players to be better. A "player's manager" treats them like men, expects the players to act accordingly, and holds them accountable if they don't do it. Part of accountability is "playing time depends on performance." Starting this season, the offense has been putrid & pitching hasn't been good. Getting swept by the Braves when they've had a bad start of their own ... not something that can be acceptable anywhere. While they're "not dead yet," there ain't much life there either. The Twins current "business model" requires the farm system to send a core of very talented kids who perform upon / soon after arrival to succeed. Farm system's not good enough to do it. Twins need ownership which gets a thrill out of owning a team - hate to say it, but "Operating the Twins like a business" isn't going to get it done because of the relationship between "amount spent on payroll" and "Winning." Current ownership isn't prepared to subsidize the roster to the extent required to put the Twins on the same level as Boston / Yankees / Mets / Dodgers, etc. I'm barely watching, which is a real disappointment, given how much I've enjoyed following the Twins in years past. Now . . . we see a group which finds a way to lose.

Seems really early to be drawing conclusions. Seems more like attendance being used as a hook for an article the gist of which had already been written.

The Suns are chaotic, and for all the chaos, they've achieved little to nothing. While increasing $$$$ available for payroll would help, in the end, the money needs to be well spent. The Phoenix Suns are not an example of "money well spent."

It's fine for the Bananas because they're playing a different game. I suspect it would often be used to get a team's best hitter up twice in the same inning against the same pitcher (more pitches seen, and all that). So . . what do you do when the "Golden Batter" strokes a single or double & is still on base when his regular spot in the lineup comes up? Do you get a 'ghost runner' (someone on the bench) who takes his spot on the basepaths so he can bat again? Do you send the guy whose at bat was swiped out to run the bases for the "Golden Batter" who gets a hit? It's a gimmick. If you think there's not enough offensive action, do something which addresses that . . . make the ball bigger & easier to hit, back the pitchers up a few feet (yes, I know changes of this type could have drastic impact on pitcher health). Don't make the ball more lively - "slow pitch softball" is not what you're trying to sell., So much about Manfred is a disappointment. His openness to gimmicks is high on the list.

Lack of consistency - awful to start the year, hot for an extended stretch, and then back into the tank to close out the year. We needed the offense to pick up the pitching staff in the end, when injuries took their toll. It didn't happen.

It's sad that Buck getting to 100 games is considered noteworthy. Need your best guys in the lineup more than 5 times in 8 games, but that's what we've got. Offense went seriously in the tank down the stretch. For the year, C- / D+ . . . wondering about our approach to hitting.

And Julien takes ANOTHER called third strike . . . what in the heck has happened to this kid?

Buck @ less than 100% is a "no go" for me. He doesn't bring enough to the party if he's less than 100%. If he aggravated / reinjured himself, then what. Even if we could replace him on the roster next game due to injury, it doesn't make sense to have someone you really can't count on being / remaining available on the roster.

Nice and ambiguous . . . . Buck isn't right. Hasn't been right all year, IMO. A guy hitting .210, striking out bunches and unable to play the field has very limited value (IMO). Either Buck isn't doing the work to get himself right (unlikely) or his body isn't capable of the grind which is MLB (more likely). We have more than enough experience with this by now to believe "it's not going to change." At a point now (IMO) where he needs to be sent to someone who really knows this stuff to get fixed.

Knee again? I ask because honestly I don't know for sure. What I do know is I don't like his "Home Run or Bust" approach at the plate. He's turning himself into MIguel Sano.

While I could be wrong, my sense is our minor league system isn't overflowing with big-time prospects right now. All this could be part of "restocking the pond" - rather than trade away kids who might turn into something (but aren't there yet), keep them & let's see what htey become. Again - we weren't going to make this roster dangerous in the post-season via a couple of trades.

This isn't a dangerous roster, not one which "could go far in the post-season by adding the right one or two guys from the universe of 'guys available'." Only way this group becomes dangerous is if a whole bunch of guys start performing "at their potential." Need Correa & Buxton to step it up, big time. Need Polanco & Lewis to get healthy & play at a high level. Frankly, need too many "happy answers" to the questions facing this team to believe the core group here now is capable of being "post-season dangerous." While pitching hasn't been great since All-Star break, even when they were hot, they're not enough to carry this offense ("Whether any staff could be" . . . probably not). "Trade Deadline" is when you get the guy or two who'll push you over the top 0R you get a start on remaking your roster for next year. Twins were in no-man's land: Not good enough to think adding a couple of guys would make them dangerous in the post season. Lacking in commodities which would get them excellent prospects in return. No one (or two) guys acquired in a trade was going to do that for this roster. So . . . do you trade for rentals / short-term guys & give up your best assets when you believe doing so won't make you significantly better "right now?" Or do you stand on what you have & put the job of making this group successful on the guys in the clubhouse?