KirbyDome89

Depth isn't just a body to plug and go. Rob Refsnyder was depth, he could step in and hold water. Dobnak or Thorpe, that supposed first line of defense for the rotation, weren't depth, they were just bad. All depth isn't good depth right? There's fat that can be trimmed from the 40 man if the Twins choose to do so, but more likely injuries will allow to them to avoid making any such decision. Seeing as how the Twins opted to bring Cave back, despite how bad he was, I'd argue he probably does have more of an inside track. To be clear, I'm not claiming the Beckham move impacts who starts opening day at SS. If a guy like Beckham is supposed to be a last resort ("depth") but the only thing standing between him and the starting SS position is another low ceiling potential bust then he's not really a last resort. We saw this with the pitching staff last year; guys were put in position(s) where the team needed them to punch above their weight and when they couldn't it was a disaster. Has anything this franchise done during the offseason struck you as a move that a team determined to compete in '22 would make? I'm not arguing that former major leaguers have no place in the Twins' system. I am saying that low ceiling/rock bottom floor guys with clear paths to playing time do nothing for the present or the future.

The primary source of consternation at the time of the Cave deal still exists today; he has an inside track to getting innings as the 4th OFer. Rooker doesn't look MLB caliber with the bat or glove, Larnach needs to show some sort of ability to handle off-speed pitches plus his corner D, at least in LF, is suspect, and Celestino was nowhere close to ready last year. The Twins showed no interest in signing a RH 4th OFer during the pre lockout FA. That doesn't mean they won't, they've got plenty of money, but time and options aren't on their side. Barring a major splash at SS, Beckham's only roadblock (if he isn't awful in STP - big "if,") to getting innings at the major league level is a middling journeyman SS a la Simmons. It's highly unlikely we see Lewis in the majors this year, let alone at SS, and Martin seems destined to find a defensive home elsewhere. In isolation, if the signings are about bringing in JAG to be minor league depth then sure, whatever. The issue is that they're seemingly a realistic step or two away from "filling," a couple glaring holes on the major league roster, at least currently.

He was rather polished college bat when the Twins took him in '18. I know '20 was a wash but I don't think getting him ABs last season was rushing things. Ideally, "older," players should move more quickly through the minors. His debut was great, and then he wasn't able to make necessary adjustments. That's not uncommon, especially for young players.

It took intervention on the part of ownership and a willingness from Buxton to sign a team friendly deal for the organization keep him. The FO was ready to move him at the deadline. I'm not sure his contract is indicative of anything. The Twins aren't getting a return for Donaldson, they'll literally have to pay another team to take him. As it stands, he's a solid stop gap until there's some clarity with Arraez/Miranda/Martin. 2022 has been labeled a "retool," "developmental year," "reset," ect. but that's with the caveat that they see massive returns from the prospect basket they've placed all their eggs in. Have they committed to a full blown rebuild? No. Have they set themselves up to do so? Yes.

"It's clear the club doesn't want to enter a long rebuilding phase." Is it?

I'd take almost any option over Simmons or someone of that ilk. I think theres a correlation vs. causation argument to be made in regard to Polanco's health/production post position swap, but I don't have a strong opinion on which side of 2B he plays. I agree, acquiring a legit SS should still be in play, especially given the lack of clarity in minors, but I think the most likely scenario is we see some retread like Simmons and we're sold the notion that they'll be out of the picture when Martin or possibly even Lewis show they're ready. Positional fit of prospects aside, this team wouldn't sit the worst offensive player in baseball to get Nick Gordon some run in a season that'd been over for months, hence my "anything but a washed up vet," stance.

Just a refresher; Addison Reed and Trevor Hildenberger were at or near the top of IPs for that bullpen in '18. The Twins moved one of their best relievers, a position of obvious need, and that player went on to be decidedly better with his new team almost immediately. In no world is that selling high. Sure, 1.5 years of control is worth more than .5 years, but if the team had no intention to bring him back as you suggest, that was a gross misevaluation of what they had. You can't "sell high," if you're severely undervaluing what you're moving. I'm using your logic here, i.e. Santana was a Rule V pick so moving him, even for minimal value, is the correct move as long as whatever they get in return trumps the incredibly low bar they cleared to acquire him. They could've moved him at any point and as long as whatever they received in return was more valuable than a mere Rule V pick, that would've been "selling high." FWIW Santana posted more WAR during his first season in NY than the Twins received from all four prospects combined during their entire MN tenure.

So we're giving the team credit for either not understanding what they had, or being unable to unlock what Pressly had? He has been markedly better (when healthy) the last 3+ seasons, how is that selling high? His performance post Twins is absolutely relevant because it's ultimately how this move will be judged. Do you view the Santana trade as a roaring success? He was a Rule V selection as well.

I'm not denying in any way that they've had success. I'm saying that emulating that success goes beyond surface level transactions, i.e. "making similar moves." Defending the Pressly trade as "something TB would do," is only relevant if TB is the team moving him. We know the Twins aren't on par operationally. That much has been clear the last 5+ seasons.

The Pressly becoming Rivera comparison does not remotely make sense. Precisely my point, and rather applicable to the Perkins/Alcala comp no? Saying something can happen regardless of how likely it is to occur isn't really an argument. Because those are 3 games out of the 165 that they played? Do you not believe Pressly on the Twins has an impact for both MN and Houston that season? Chanting "be the Rays," ad nauseam isn't a strategy. If it was as simple as making similar moves every team would do it. Can the trade work out? Sure, but what TB and Oak would do have no bearing on that.

Who's to say Pressly can't become Mariano Rivera? I doubt you view that as a valid argument, but it's essentially the one you're making. Alcala hasn't started games since AA 3 years ago, and it went poorly, so we can probably close the book on him converting back to a SP and being effective in the majors. He was great for 20ish innings to close last season, which is encouraging, but the 40 or so innings prior to that were disappointing to say the least. Maybe he truly turned a corner or maybe it's recency bias and a pitching starved fanbase holding out hope. You're correct, there's no guarantee this version of Pressly is what the Twins would've/could've retained. I don't necessarily see that as a checkmark in the "pro," category when assessing the trade. We can't expect the Twins to help Pressly take that next step but development towards domination from Alcala is on the table? While TB and Oakland have found success with similar moves, MN hasn't. The offensive performance against NY in three games that postseason is a strawman when judging the Pressly trade.

C - Actual depth here. Hopefully Jeffers develops more offensively but this looks like a solid group. 1B - Rooker doesn't have a ML bat or glove, Sano is gone after this year, Garver and Donaldson are both FAs after the following season and I'd guess neither are too keen on switching positions. That leaves Kirilloff (coming off a wrist injury) and Larnach (who has never played 1B professionally or in collegiately.) 2B - Polanco is solid. Gordon hasn't shown he's even capable of handing a utility role. Miranda hasn't played a single inning for the Twins. If you're trading Arraez you don't also get to count him as depth. SS - Nobody. They literally don't have a SS for this season, plus there's a good chance Lewis and Martin don't fill in there either. LF - Touched on Rooker already. Cave has been abysmal for 2 seasons now. Larnach was a poor defender at the position in addition to his hitting struggles last season. Celestino wasn't ready. He's going to need to develop some sort of power if you're handing him a starting corner OF spot. CF - Buxton. They need a 4th OFer capable of playing CF. RF - Kepler is solid, the rest have been covered. DH - Can be used as overflow and/or a rotating door so I'm not going to worry about locking in a specific player. Maybe we need to define depth here. A body to plug in doesn't constitute a fail-safe in my view. There needs to be some level of skill floor involved before counting on players as actual depth.

He's replaceable/redundant for the Twins, but still so valuable that he'll net a top 100 prospect? If MN can actually get a good starting SS or a front of the rotation prospect for Arraez, it'd be hard to say no, but I just don't see a team that'd be willing to pay such a steep price. Martin and Lewis should be everyday players unless something goes drastically wrong. Miranda could be a better utility replacement, but there will be vacancies at 1B, 3B, and possibly LF depending on what happens with Larnach & Kepler. Trading Arraez this offseason to clear a hypothetical logjam seems premature.

The line of reasoning revolves around his value to the team vs. the value of a potential return. We agree, the Twins almost certainly aren't adding prospects, at least any of high pedigree, to a deal, and he's not likely to fetch a sizeable return on his own. I don't see any teams giving up a quality SS or a high tier pitching prospect for that type of package. The Twins can still pay for the type of proven big league pitching they're likely to get in an Arraez trade, and his value as a utility player is worth more to the team over the next 3+ seasons than a mid tier lotto ticket.

Arraez's offensive skillset is unique to all of baseball yet he's redundant on the Twins' roster? He isn't bringing back a front end starter by himself, which means the Twins are either adding other proven big league talent to the deal (if they're lucky) or more likely, they're throwing in a prospect or two. Teams willing to give up a 1-2 type starter with years of control left are almost certainly going to want prospects back. The Twins are sitting on $50M and we're talking about the major league team and/or the vaunted pipeline taking a hit. That's a problem. If he's part of a deal that brings in a true front end starter I can see the merit in moving on. If he's part of deal that only nets a mid rotation piece or another short term solution then what the f*** are the Twins doing? This FO wouldn't commit to adding talent when the price was only monetary, are we supposed to be confident they're willing to part with prospects to boot?

He was never asked to rely solely on FAs. He decided that "flexibility," was more important than stability, and the current mess is one entirely of his own making. We can't be at a point where year 6 is a throw away, with the positional talent, and it's excused because we're still waiting on something better than Randy Dobnak (or Ober if you want to count him at this point.) I don't think they're done with the pitching, honestly I'm not sure how they could be, but I'm not confident it'll be anything more than an Odo type addition with a veteran signing and another reclamation project or two sprinkled in. I guess they can still spend that $40M or whatever it is they're sitting on, but their best chance at adding impact talent with that $$ is gone.

All of whom were left handed, acquired on a leap year, and shared the same astrological sign right? How narrow does the scope need to be before all relevance is lost? I'd argue we're already there.

The fringes aren't really worth mentioning or arguing against. I view both '21 as well as the pitching issues as a culmination rather than a snapshot. Is it doomed because player X wasn't signed? No. Do I think it's highly unlikely they're able to field a staff capable of competing for a playoff spot at this point? Yes. The Twins weren't mathematically eliminated from playoff contention until mid September, but we knew the season was over by the end of May. I'd certainly take an Odo type, but barring a huge trade, it's a band aid on a broken arm. In fairness Detroit went all in during that run, and Dombrowski sold every asset he could to keep the window open. Maybe (hopefully) they don't reach those levels of spending again, we'll probably find out shortly. The Sox could be, and I said as much. I think the scope was narrowed to downplay the opportunity missed.

Nearly all of that WAR has vacated, hence the concern.

In the last decade Detroit was a fixture amongst the top payrolls while they were racking up division titles and making deep playoff runs; the Twins have never shown a willingness to do that. KC and Cleveland sat in or very near the bottom 5 and briefly rose to the median during WS runs; the Twins never should do that. I guess the Sox are a comp if they don't spend like they did in the late 2000s, and instead continue to mirror the payrolls of their rough 2010s run. Ray, Gausman, Stroman, and Berrios all signed deals well within the Twins budget. Spend like NY or LA is a strawman. It's understood there's inherent risk with FA pitchers. Alternatively, prospect development carries a similar, if not greater, amount of risk. "For a team like the Twins," isn't painting an accurate picture. If you're only willing to spend mid level dollars on short term deals, then sure, it'll be tough to get over the hump, but that's not really the point of this whole discussion.

No doubt, the goal of every team is to develop their own talent as a primary means to success. They'll always be judged based on team performance. The reason we're fixated on these prospects is because the FO has failed in other avenues. To say 'this was the plan all along," ignores those failures and what transpired to reach a point where so much is riding on this group, i.e. it shifts the goalposts from a team that should be competing, to one that now needs time for development. I honestly don't know why you're limiting the scope to the AL Central. Semantics maybe, but I would've considered significant to mean one of those top tier FAs that signed deals well within the Twins' budget. Rodon is still out there, and Pineda seems destined to return, but barring some massive trade (very unlikely) it's going to be another season of stop gaps, and considering what they could've had, I'd call that sitting out.

The same thing was said while the club was sporting bottom third payrolls in the early 2010s. Those savings weren't spent following those atrocious years, and whatever isn't spent this year won't rollover into some future expense account either.

Canterino threw 23 pitches last season, Duran threw 16, and each dealt with elbow issues. Assuming the Twins get lucky and there's no surgical intervention, those guys still aren't going to throw a significant number of innings, let alone get much experience at the major league level. Maybe Winder's shoulder issues were just fatigue, but even if his injury situation is also a best case scenario, breaking down after 70ish innings isn't encouraging; he's likely limited this year as well. SWR pitched so poorly the Twins decided to shut him down, but he's another guy with workload questions. That leaves Balazovic to round out the Twins' best shot at an "impact," arm, and none of these guys really profile as a front of the rotation arm. These guys aren't likely to start the year in MN. How much "learning," or evaluation is actually going to occur? From where I'm sitting the Twins still have a gaping hole at the top of the rotation, with Ryan as a long shot to fill in as a 3 rather than 4-5 type. If the belief is that the pipeline will debut and solidify the pitching need, why not get that front line starter(s) to supplement and actually try to win some games? If the prospects are still viewed as massive question marks, why not sign legitimate pitchers as insurance and again, maybe win some games. There really isn't an excuse for sitting on your hands and wasting a year, particularly with the position players in place. I sincerely hope that "the plan all along," wasn't to fail miserably in FA, be meh in trades, and pin all hope of success over the next 3-5 seasons on a good but not great group of prospect arms. Gunnarthor nailed it; the goalposts have shifted considerably if we're rationalizing sitting out an offseason and wasting a year as necessary to build a "sustainable winner," and make upcoming 40 man decisions easier.

I think arriving at a conclusion based on the worst years of these contracts, and then projecting that judgement onto future contracts is painting with a broad brush, and far from "hard fact." You said it yourself, it's a small sample, and I'd add that it's an inconsistent one as far as talent level is concerned. The certainty that these later years won't be productive and the timing/strategy of approaching them is the crux of the disagreement. It seems we've reached an impasse.

Attributes I'd consider to be more important: age, past performance, injury history, pitch repertoire/style, which franchise they're moving to, on and on. If you want to say that SPs are more likely to perform better earlier in their contracts, you'll get no argument from me. What I'm not on board with, is distilling these contracts down to their least desirable results, painting with a broad brush, and calling it hard fact. Blue Jays fans shouldn't be angsty over locking up Berrios long term because Jordan Zimmerman was a bust 6 years ago.