KirbyDome89

I would shed 0 tears over Kinley being cut loose and a 25 man spot opening up.

I think the fact they're in on Darvish is encouraging, but I also remember the old FO mentioning players they inquired about at trade deadlines. Wherever Darvish ends up, I think the offer MN puts on the table will truly determine how differently we can expect this new FO to operate.

It makes me hopeful the Twins are in on another pitcher if they were indeed willing to pass up that offer for Cole.

The fact he wanted to be in the Midwest, to the point he was willing to give up a year of security, is interesting.

But, but, but....multiple years? Honestly though it doesn't look like a bad signing. I agree with the notion to keep spending.

You could easily say the same thing about Rosario. He certainly was helped by a hot August/September last year. He has had his own issues with consistency and there are other obvious warts. Why is he an extension candidate but Buxton isn't?

No, I've considered them. I agree that there is talent in the farm system, and if some of that high end talent was on the pitching side it would make the addition of a front end starter less of a necessity, but that isn't the case. The budgets of those teams aren't going to change anytime soon and their young players aren't going anywhere either. Should the Twins just sit this one out? The point of adding Darvish is to catch those teams. If the threshold to cross before before adding FAs is reaching the talent level of Boston or NY then they're unlikely to sign anybody. When are you finding a 28 y/o ace in FA? None of the elite pitchers in the 19' or 20' fall in that age range. Gerrit Cole might be the closest they could find but he isn't available until 2020 and I wouldn't put him on the same level as Darvish. I get that FA signings are by definition an overpay. I feel like most posters in favor of bringing in Darvish are realistic about both the pros and cons. Like I said in the OP, the Twins have put themselves in a s*** situation, where they either have to overpay in FA or give up prized prospects just to put together a competent rotation.

I think they can sign a pitcher and work out extensions over the next few years just as easily. My position is that he makes the Twins better. Do you see any of those 4 teams falling apart in the next few years? "add a Darvish type player half way through a Darvish contract." I'm not sure how they're finding that type of player other than a trade but that isn't the point. You're against signing Darvish because of the back end of his contract but you're advocating they bring in pitcher like him on the back half of his contract, or sign a pitcher to a similar deal and that opens a massive window of contention. You can't have it both ways. If we're assuming the end of the Darvish deal will be disappointing, which I think we both agree it will be, then we have to assume that bringing in a pitcher at that point in his contract will be a disappointment as well. The same goes for signing a pitcher in a few years, not only are they failing to improve the pitching in the short term , but if the Twins are handing out extensions to all of the core alongside a massive pitching contract those "down years," become an even greater albatross than a Darvish deal. Signing Darvish now means he is gone within 1-2 years of the core extensions. There is still opportunity to reset and make another run. Committing 6 years to a pitcher at the beginning of the years severely limits the flexibility they might have with those players in their prime.

I think your plan involves as much, if not more risk than handing money to Darvish. You're assuming all of the core is open to extensions and don't have interest in hitting FA. Then they're guaranteed to find a front end starter in two years? I also don't understand how you can be worried about years 3/4-6 on a Darvish deal but somehow the ace we sign in 2 years locks us into contention for a 10 year window. Also, why are you trading for a "Darvish type," halfway through a contract if you're worried about the back end? If the Twins are paying for the back side of a contract wouldn't it make sense to just sign Darvish and get the first few years, which are the highest production, as well? Then, if an ace won't sign and they can't work out a trade they'll just find another Verlander? There are so many moving parts and all of them have to work in the Twins favor just to get a pitcher like the one they have an opportunity to sign right now. How are they supposed to catch NY, Boston, Houston, or Cleveland if they aren't adding pieces? Are we convinced those teams won't be good in two years? Should the Twins wait longer if they're not? I'm so over the argument that player X won't get them to the WS so don't sign them right now. They have a 4 year window where all their young talent it cheap. Take advantage, don't wait until they're all hitting arbitration and eventually FA to decided that adding pieces is a good idea. There is no reason Lewis and Co. can't supplement an already good team rather than be relied upon to get them to that point. We'll disagree on what kind of difference a front end starter makes for the Twins.

I'm with you that they aren't thrilling candidates. I guess the way I see it is if the Twins don't sign Darvish they're in a position where they almost have to make an offer to either of those two barring a trade being made. They're in a s*** situation right now. You're right, neither moves the needle forward much, but adding one of them would be an improvement over Gibson/Mejia/who knows. If they don't do something to solidify some of that rotation they're burning a year, which I would hate to see. Fingers crossed for Darvish or a good trade.

You did, you stated that the front page wasn't the place for this article. There was no paraphrasing there. If normal operating procedures are suspended and an article isn't allowed on the front that is censorship. It doesn't matter whether your issue is the content or the timing of publication. Apparently we disagree on the definition of the word. "For the sake of full disclosure, I had this written last week prior to Sano's news. That being said, this should be viewed through a lens completely aside from that scenario." The request to view the baseball decision apart from the personal issues wasn't explicit? That's flat out untrue, and you know as much, as is evidenced by your attack of the idea of separating the issues regarding Sano. So you're not questioning why the article was written, only the entire premise from which it flows? There doesn't seem to be much distinction between questioning why a piece is written and questioning its' viewpoint entirely. You're absolutely entitled to your views on this article, where it belongs, and anything else pertaining to Sano. That said, your response to me was essentially splitting hairs and a fairly overt misrepresentation of the article pretext. I can confidently say we aren't going to find much common ground on this issue, so it's likely best we agree to disagree and move on.

Not at all inappropriate, but we'll disagree about the sensitivity, respect, and relevancy of the article. I can't claim total knowledge about publication either, but I will say I've seen the author's work fairly regularly on the front page, along with the other prominent writers, which leads me to believe the article was made for publication. I think it's safe to assume that a hierarchy of writers exists, and so I'm not sure that the process for blog publication is an effective measuring stick for articles such as this. You're asking for an article to be excluded from the from the front page because of its' content. How else should I interpret that, other than censorship? I'm aware that other posts touched on the allegations, but yours was the only one that questioned the validity of the article and called for its' relocation. I took issue with what I perceived as a purposeful redirection of the thread, especially after if was explicitly stated that this thread wasn't intended to go in that direction. If you say that wasn't the intention then I'll take your word for it. As to why the article was written, I believe that rationale has already been given.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/196662/revenue-of-the-kansas-city-royals/

They made $231 $273 and $246 million in revenue from 14'-16'. The highest their payroll reached was $112 million during that time. I think they had a few spare dimes to lock up some of those players that are now on their way out. Extended? Where did I say that? They absolutely did maximize it though. They were "a decent team that got hot," one year and a "dominant," team with a very similar roster the next season? Maybe they were just a good team that made two WS appearances in two years. Two of those core players in their prime, Cain and Moustakas, each missed significant time in 16' and they lost Ventura before the 17' season. Those events can't be foreseen at the time of the trade but even if we're counting it all against KC it's still 2 WS appearances and one title in 5 years. For a team that operates like KC that's the definition of maximization. What is this one game playoff nonsense? They got two very productive full seasons out of Shields, and he was there for the run to game 7 of the 14' WS. They had Davis until the end of the 16' season which includes the WS championship. No GM makes that move? I'll disagree.

The author provided you with an explanation that further expanded on the one he prefaced the comments section with. Neither of those comments were necessary, nor did they need any clarification, but he was kind enough to give both. If the idea of discussing Sano in any context apart from the mall incident infuriates you, there are at least 3 other threads devoted entirely to the allegations surrounding him. This one isn't the fourth. If you're asking that a recent article not be allowed to cycle through the front page, as all current articles do, then yes, you're asking for censorship.

KC is a great example of what refusing to play on the high end i.e. expanding payroll will do. They're just a few years removed from back to back WS appearances and already an afterthought. Kudos to them for drafting and developing all that young talent, not to mention the trades and starting the "super pen," phenomena. It's honestly sad to see them fighting to keep one of Moustakas, Cain, and Hosmer, with Davis and Holland already out the door. That was a team that could've been a serious contender for at least 5 years had they decided to keep some of that talent. They certainly maxed out their window of contention, but as a Twins fan I want more than a few years of contention.

I'm putting zero stock in the Twins acting incompetently as the article suggests, but I do think it's fair to question the interest of both Darvish and the Twins. We can assume the Rangers meeting was nothing more than an exit interview, but that still leaves meetings in TX with both Houston and Chicago a few weeks ago. I understand Levine was with the Rangers when Darvish came over, but he's also with a new organization, a new owner, a new PBO, and in a new city/state. If familiarity was the key as the tweet suggested you would think Houston would also be exempt from meetings as well. I can't help but think these sit downs are more than just meet and greet interactions, but you're right, who knows what is actually taking place. The lack of a meeting to this point isn't great, at least optically. I'm sure they've done more than their due diligence regarding communication with Darvish and his reps and maybe I'm placing too much importance on the in person meeting aspect, but the way it looks right now is that other clubs are approaching the pretty girl while the Twins are content to slide into the DMs. The leverage is a good point. The only scenario I can see where he doesn't need a meeting with MN is if both the Cubs and Astros are outpacing the Twins preliminary talks in guaranteed years and/or money. Even then you would think he'd feign interest just to keep another team in the race, but that may not be possible if that other team doesn't feel inclined to meet, as the tweets suggest. Hopefully that's not the case and the Twins have their sit down soon enough.

Maybe if you can find a front-line starter that shares the same same levels of youth, talent, and team control. I wouldn't try to move a player like Sano for a discount rate.

Certainly it could've been easier to meet with Texas first. The order of meetings is meaningless IMO, but the fact he still chose to meet with the Rangers and not the Twins after spending the past 5.5 seasons in TX is odd. Who knows what's actually going on but the twitter reports so far are raising more questions than they're answering.

No, it doesn't. We're assuming all of those players are willing to sign extensions and not test FA. That seems unlikely. Also, why does it have to be an either/or scenario? The Twins have plenty of money coming off of payroll next offseason, but the FA pitching market looks horrendous. Part of the appeal of signing a big FA pitcher this offseason is that they would being paying him for 4 years before any of the core hits FA. There is ample time and opportunity during that 4 year stretch where the team can extend Buxton, Sano, Berrios, ect.

Their biggest signing is a pitcher who is coming off major arm surgery and is unlikely to see the field until 2019. The wait and see approach is fine at this point, there are still lots of dominoes to fall, but I think even the most patient fans would have to admit this FO hasn't done much the last two offseasons to improve this team for either the long or short term. Like you said, there's still time, but right now the Twins are watching the pack pull away.

If we're placing bets I'll take the over.

Agreed, Trump undoubtedly does draw support from unsavory groups. Although, I think this is often a starting point for mis-associations that lead to write ups either side would characterize as "fake news." The logic flows along the lines of "If candidate A has support from group X, then he/she also must endorse group X, and subsequently everybody who voted for candidate A supports those views as well, with candidate A serving as their proxy." It's maddening that it's so easy to find any number of articles where these logical leaps are made. Not everybody seems to value the detached approach of your OP, and that's unfortunate. Frankly one of the things I find most embarrassing is that we have an individual in office, who seemingly has made it his mission to outdo himself in an effort to provide opportunity for criticism but apparently that isn't enough. We're still forced to cross reference and filter critiques that come across our screens. Seriously, it's beyond low hanging fruit; the guy is handing it to us on a platter but we're still dealing with revisions, retractions, and resignations because of unfounded reporting. It's unreal. Lazy/unethical journalism and personal agendas are very real, very dangerous, and very serious issues. It's too bad that the idea of "fake news," has become a parody of itself.

Few things are more frustrating/exhausting than having to forage through search results and articles to find facts and data that haven't been presented to encourage leaning in any particular direction. I would make one small amendment though. Rather than one side being more prone to extremism, I would say they are lacking in either the desire or the ability to camouflage that position.

No, not a misunderstanding. You made an absurd comparison and I pointed it out. Again, there is no "context," that changes that classification.