KirbyDome89

I remember an offseason thread where you were mocked, openly, for that suggestion. My question is how independently do Falvey and Levine act? I honestly have no idea. I do have a hard time imagining Falvey doesn't have his fingerprints all over the issues you listed. If only Levine is cut loose I'd see it more as a symbolic firing, similar to something along the lines of Wes Johnson losing his job, than a sign that things will truly change.

If you're insistent on framing this argument only within the last offseason we'll disagree on scope. If you're willing to cede that FO decisions this season were in fact not made in a vacuum but you feel as though Shoemaker and Happ making up 40% of a rotation that was expected to compete for a WS was prudent, again, we'll disagree. You're not "disproving," something by failing to argue in good faith. Posters are simply choosing not to engage in an endless back forth where "rules for thee not for me," (proposed trades, signings, ect shot down by your own hypothetical outcomes) is the standard and criticism of the FO's lack of pitching continuity 5 years in is equated to being a keyboard warrior.

So they'd be 20ish games behind the Sox instead of 30ish at seasons end? They're 3 games under .500 in that stretch with Berrios starting for nearly the entirety of it; I don't see how that's cause for relief. Some better health and good breaks? The FO needs to get markedly better overnight at identifying FA arms or swing some massive trade(s) to fill out 4 rotation spots and half a bullpen but it's an overreaction to think the Twins aren't going to compete for the division in '22? Talk about exaggerating... Buxton not missing half a season helps but I haven't heard anybody arguing that this team isn't capable of scoring runs, and even his defense couldn't save this train wreck of a staff.

This is where I'm at, although I'd say I'm a little less neutral than you are at the moment. I don't think it's "entitled," (not your characterization) to criticize the total lack of impact pitching over a 5 year span, especially since it was the calling card of this FO, or at least that's how it was spun when they were brought in. I agree with @Vanimal46 though, ownership isn't exactly known for having a quick trigger, and whether or not we as fans are done with this FO next year, they aren't going anywhere. I think they bought themselves at least another 2 years, maybe (probably) more depending on how arms matriculate; rookie struggles aren't uncommon. I'm buckling in for a '22 season where we're sold hope and small positives are extrapolated in order to justify this season + the off season. I hope I'm wrong and we get the 2+ rotation arms you're calling for.

Is is reasonable to eschew other means to acquire pitching and rely on bottom tier FAs to fill out 40% of your rotation in year 5 when the expectation is to compete for a WS? This FO put themselves in that position. The disaster that is this season is a culmination of decisions that stretch back beyond just this year. They shouldn't get a pass because the FA crop, which they chose to rely on, wasn't great.

Part of the reason I couched the "might've been the best way to salvage the situation," in my OP. My confidence in their ability to spend the $$ wisely on pitching isn't exactly high, nor do I anticipate them spending if they see themselves as punting, despite whatever PR spin the fanbase is fed. Isn't avoiding replacement level players every team's goal? I don't think the Twins are unique with that approach. Berrios' departure created a massive hole, I'm skeptical the Twins are able/willing to fill it in completely.

I agree, it's a massive problem. I've never made the argument that the Twins have the financial safety net that competing teams do when it comes to spending in FA. That said, this organization made Joe Mauer one of the highest paid players in baseball over a decade ago, and he was absolutely worth it. The notion that the Twins can't pay Berrios what the market dictates rings hollow, at least for my ears. That reality set in a while ago for me. Again, my issue is how the move is being framed. They're going to need to spend at least half, if not more of that $30M AAV just to replace Berrios with an inferior pitcher in FA. He was a guy they could've retooled around, even if the next season or two wasn't competitive, that's a rotation staple for an organization that has almost zero stability on their staff. I don't that's a fair characterization of the points I've made. If one of the two prospects becomes a regular, above replacement level contributor in 2-3 years, that's a favorable outcome as far as prospect bust rate is concerned. If Martin is a utility IF/OF and Woods Richardson can slot in as the 4 man that's a great outcome relatively speaking. We wouldn't celebrate that swap. We're on the hope train, which I think has an equal if not greater emotional investment. It sounds like we agree about the should but not the could.

It's cost saving in the sense it's less taxing to develop and pay young front end talent than it is to trade for, or sign them. I'd define it slightly differently but I agree with the characterizations. Money saved today isn't available years down the road. I agree that the Twins need to develop their own pitching, but if the FO refuses to supplement prospects with FA or trades they're setting themselves up for failure. Doesn't being garbage in three years become sort of a self fulfilling prophecy at that point? Why not sign FAs with the hope that a young arms can stick? If the worst case scenario you laid out becomes a reality and the team sucks, paying FA arms won't matter because this team is looking at another half decade+ or irrelevancy.

I agree, they aren't mutually exclusive, but it's hard to look at the situation and call it a W when the odds are stacked against the Twins. We'd all go to FA in his place, but my moving him the Twins essentially told him they weren't interested in even attempting to pay him what he's worth. That's 100% on them. If they wanted him, they could have him. Sure, there is an opportunity cost for keeping him. My point was that I've seen a number of posters in support of moving him also play the "nobody knows what '22 will look like," card. It seems disingenuous. If we can all agree assembling a staff next year, even with Berrios, was going to be incredibly difficult, I think we can also agree that moving him, barring some miracle trade(s), all but guarantees this team is punting on next season. I think the "keep Berrios," camp is also dealing in probabilities when looking at the likelihood that the Twins add another pitcher of his caliber, whether that's via trade or development. I don't see a lot of the trade characterizations as sober, so we'll disagree there. My desire to keep Berrios wasn't about losing a few less games this year, it has way more to do with the fact he's the best pitcher this organization has had in a decade+, he's young and durable, there isn't any internal option that profiles to match his production, and we have a FO with a suspect track record when it comes to identifying and/or developing arms.

That type of "flexibility," has produced a laundry list of failed FA starters and has contributed in large part to the current state of the rotation. I understand the plan, and it's ideal from a cost savings perspective, but who in the organization profiles as a true 1 or 2 right now? Maybe the Twins get lucky, and someone absolutely maxes out. I'm not caping for the FO here but the odds that anybody in this organization is a legitimate ace in 2 years are low.

That wasn't aimed directly at you. I do agree with Hosken though, there's a sort of prospect lust that has shown up in these threads, to the point where the deal is being spun as a W for the Twins. Our farm system only had two top 100 prospects prior to the trade, with Balazovich squeaking in at 98. Prospect lists aren't the end all be all, but we knew the farm wasn't top heavy prior to the deal. It should be expected that a return for Berrios would slot in above most prospects already in the organization. If part of the justification for the trade was "2022 was a long shot even if Berrios was here," I don't understand the "who knows how 2022 will play out," sentiment I've seen from multiple posters. Sure, which is why I said it might've been the best way to salvage the situation, but the 0% chance to retain him is entirely of the Twins' own doing. Again, that's the overarching criticism.

Moving a pitcher like Berrios isn't a W, almost by definition. The Happ and Robles moves were unexpected but also very unlikely to yield anything. There isn't really any excuse for holding onto Pineda, the "respectability," angle for Auguest & September is laughable. The return for Cruz was impressive.

I understand the reduced value, but you're also likely punting on more than just one season by vacating his spot in the rotation. That cost of losing him needs to be acknowledged here as well. C'mon, we both know that moving him now is the Twins saying "we don't ever intend to pay you market value." What's the plan to supplement Maeda + 4 question marks and be competitive beyond 2022? Woods doesn't profile near Berrios and there isn't an internal option that does either. Do we cross our fingers and hope somebody smashes through their ceiling? I don't see any way Woods headlines a trade that brings back a pitcher at or above the caliber of Berrios, unless it's an extremely short rental, in which case what's the point? If these added assets are used to bring back a pitcher that outperforms Berrios, then sure, the '22 team is better, but I have serious doubts that we suddenly see a rash of high end prospects moved this winter for arms. To an extent I hope it happens, because the pitching situation is dire, but that doesn't exactly jive with what we've seen the last 5 years.

Ok, but I also said in my OP that moving him today wasn't their only option. It didn't stop this FO from supposedly making a serious bid for Darvish in '17. The alternative to that being a 4th roster spot that now has to be filled and committing to, at minimum, one more poor season. Look, I said in my OP that this might've been the best move to salvage the situation, but this isn't a W for the Twins, and it shouldn't be framed that way. That's the overarching criticism.

So then address trading him at the next deadline, or make an effort and actually sign him as a FA?

So buy out his last year and offer him market value? Hold onto him and trade him next year if he refuses to even entertain signing in MN?

Not sure why we're talking about a 1 year deal here.

Wouldn't signing a very good, and very durable 27 year old pitcher also be a taking a big swing, or making progress in regard to assembling a pitching staff? I think the fact that trading Berrios today wasn't the Twins only option is being incredibly overlooked. Maybe this is the best the FO could do to salvage the situation, but that's not the same as a win, and that reality should be acknowledged, not celebrated as a haul. We should know better than most how fickle prospect development can be. I get the allure, I really do, but we're selling a reliable/known talent for hope. Fingers crossed that they hit that HR you mentioned.

Recurring calf injuries as a result of baseball movements just aren't the same as breaking your hand on a HBP or fracturing your toe on a foul ball. I think we view Donaldson's injury history with the Twins differently if last season had been a normal one. He was set for a second extended absence due to another calf injury, it just so happened that it occurred a game or two before postseason play started. Buxton's youth isn't a negative. All things equal, any MLB team would rather sign a 27 year old. If you're signing Buxton, you're paying for what you think he'll become. When MN signed Donaldson it was with the hope he'd maintain a level somewhere near what he'd recently been. I don't think I've ever once dismissed the risk; I feel that up to a point he's worth it, especially to this team. Do you expect Buxton to play C, take a foul ball off the head, and suffer concussion issues for the rest of his career? I mean, I don't know what you expect me to do with that comp. There isn't a Buxton replacement on the horizon. The Twins are going to have to pay an average FA CF between 10-14M for at least the next two years, probably 3. MN isn't saving significant money to allocate elsewhere by letting Buxton go. "Yes--it is not impossible that Buxton struggles to accumulate 400 PA's for the rest of his career, and puts up 2-3 WAR while doing so." -- That's the quote I responded to. I agree, they do, but those steps don't often occur all at once. Money not spent in down years isn't bankrolled and available at a later date.

I'd be surprised if that's his base on a long term deal. Is he worth it? According to the value he brings to his team, he's been worth it the last three seasons prorating 2020. I'm not going to argue that WAR isn't overvalued on the open market, but that's FA. Buxton is set to become a FA after next year, and I'd be shocked if he wasn't negotiating from that point. Torii didn't move to RF full time until he was 35 years old. Buxton is 27. It's certainly possible Buxton remains in CF, even for the life of a 7 year deal if that's what he ultimately signs.

If you read the post to which I was responding then you understand that what I pushed back against was the notion that signing talented players is a waste if the team doesn't project to be good. If you aren't willing to commit financial resources to getting better, I don't know how you expect to suddenly go from 90+ losses to 90+ wins. If the argument is you focus on the acquisition and development of young players until you're at 80ish wins before making commitments, you're destined to be the Pirates of the 2000s, i.e. a feeder organization. Development isn't linear, or even necessarily reliable. Choosing to handicap your franchise makes absolutely no sense. Would the Phillies be better without Wheeler or Harper? How about the Angels, would they be a better team if Trout wasn't extended? This is silly. There's nothing to suggest the Twins are capable of developing arms the way a team like TB or Cleveland has. "Be the [insert team here]," has been beaten to death in other threads, go back and revive them if that's the argument you want to make.

Yeesh, the point was that Buxton opting not to leak details about the Twins offer is as meaningless as his silence on his own counter offer. Ok so.....I'm NOT comparing Buxton's injury history to Donaldson's. Donaldson was NOT signed because of the WAR he accumulated during his MVP stretch in the mid 2010s. I AM saying that his recent recurring injuries on top of his age made handing him $92M risky. I AM saying that despite Buxton's serious injury concerns, his relative youth and incredible upside make signing him a risk worth taking. I AM saying there is a comparison to be made between the risks associated with each signing. C'mon, he'd have to completely wash out of baseball in the next couple years for that scenario to play out. I'll take the over on your PA number. Teams get better by making steps, not massive leaps. Refusing to pay talented players is a good way to ensure you never make it to that 90+ win threshold.

You tossed out the $20M number, my point was that he doesn't need to hit like Mike Trout to be worth that amount. If the cost of a win on the FA market is roughly $9M then we can look at his WAR and do the math. Again, you can't just completely ignore his defense. I don't understand why you're trying to measure his value to the Twins using a stat that only encompasses offensive performance.

Well no, I'm not assuming Buxton needs to be the best hitter in baseball like he was in April. That was your addition. No, he doesn't need to rival Mike Trout offensively to be worth $20M. You can't just ignore the defensive value a player like Buxton brings. Where is this foot/second info coming from? https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-cost-of-a-win-in-free-agency-in-2020/

Buxton's camp also didn't disclose their own counter. Their silence doesn't mean anything right now. Donaldson was 7 years older than Buxton and coming off two seasons where he missed 49 and 100+ games due to a lingering injury. There was serious concern, and rightfully so, about his ability to stay on the field at his age when he signed that deal, and we've already seen those concerns become reality. Again, the comp is the risk/financial commitment, not the career profile. The way to get from 90 losses to 85 is by having better players. There is no internal replacement for Buxton.