KirbyDome89

He's allowed 71% of his inherited runners to score this season. I'm sure that's factored into some performance metrics already but it's a pretty atrocious stat line if we're talking about somebody as being above average.

We might be. Yes I think the '22 option is irrelevant as well. Yes I don't believe he'd survive the 40 man turnover if he were to make it to that point. No I don't see this years option as irrelevant. Yes I'm fine with him being shuttled. My stance on Burrows is that if you've handed a 40 man spot to a player like him then you might as well find out what you have sooner rather than later.

Sure, the first gaff was signing him, but failing to move on when it was clear he was of no value to the team in either the present or the future was a mistake in itself. Exactly, so it makes no sense for him to spend a bulk of his time in the minors and burn a year, particularly with a 40 man shuffle imminent. One option remaining isn't justification enough for holding onto a subpar reliever. If he's too much of a project to get innings for a team on pace to lose 100 games then he's not going to help next year, option or not.

They should. He isn't taking ABs away from anybody who needs them. Kirilloff can take over as the everyday 1B if Sano can't find some semblance of his former self, and the Twins aren't any worse off.

For sure, that's what I meant when I said the Twins aren't going to DFA him and eat that contract while he plays elsewhere. As bad as he's been, teams would line up for the chance to see if he regains his old form. If the Twins are desperate to move on then you try to trade him and even if it's only a 20% return, or a prospect or two, that's better than nothing. I'd rather keep Sano than eat $24M and get a bucket of balls in return. My point was simply that it makes zero sense to cut him right now.

I get the Sano angst, but this team isn't paying him $30M to go away. They'll have to eat money in a trade, how much and what they get in return is the sticking point. Going that route at least provides potential salary relief, or at the very least it can be spun as purchasing talent.

Rounding makes for easier math. He was one of the worst pitchers in baseball, but 2 relatively clean innings against the Reds bought him another 10 days? The notion that he needed to go out and have another poor performance to justify releasing him is pretty ridiculous. If you're at that point then just cut bait. We're all well aware of the injury situation, but if you're diving for starters (Coulombe) then diving for a mop up man in the bullpen shouldn't be off the table. At least take the minuscule chance you find somebody that can stick. Burrows already burned an option this year, and only has one remaining. The Twins will have to protect internal options, plus add offseason additions, and potential deadline acquisitions to the 40 man. You're not claiming Burrows to stash him at the back end of the 40 man.

The defense for holding onto Shoemaker after proving to be equally as awful in relief as he was starting was that the leash was short (Week + a few days give or take) and that the Twins "couldn't find anybody to replace him." That was 3 weeks ago.... In that time Detroit castoff Beau Burrows was added to the 40 man, and I had the pleasure of watching a Danny Coulombe start in person. Shoemaker gave up 8 runs in 2.2 innings tonight. Certainly a waiver claim or internal option can't replace that... Where's DaveW with a Shoemaker status thread when we need one?

The question was borderline rhetorical. In my view aptitude is at play beyond just a process, i.e. the natural ability of the individual(s) at the top to interpret and select is what sets them apart, and I have very serious doubts that can simply be learned or followed. TB's success is predicated on their ability to replace said players, not on the fact they're unwilling to pay for retaining their services. The Twins are certainly capable of trading away Buxton, Berrios, ect, that has never been a question. The argument centers around how easy or attainable accomplishing that second part really is. I think we'll just disagree here.....

I'd use the term douche but angry is certainly accurate. I'm putting spider tack in the same file as videoing opposing signals and relaying them. I'd imagine essentially every team has players that have used, or still are using tack. Every fan base should be careful about preaching from their soap boxes right now. I'm also curious whether Donaldson's "list," includes any Twins pitchers or any other teammates during his tenures with different clubs.

He was one of the top prospects in baseball; becoming an AS isn't exactly a meteoric rise.

What I'm asking is how you intend to bridge the gap between the decisions the Rays actually make, and the decisions those trying to emulate them think they'd make. If it's simply a matter of hiring a consulting firm and firing anybody who doesn't get on board, why haven't the 29 other teams had the same level of success? Are they all incompetent? If you hold the secret to accomplishing this monumental feat I'd recommend selling it to the Pohlad's.

Yes, we'll disagree about whether TB heavily utilized the draft to build these teams. Not once did I say "hold onto everyone." I was clear about using context when making those decisions. Mike said it perfectly, process alone isn't enough. What's your solution for emulating the decision making aspect of TB's FO? We watch baseball and accept that there are varying levels of physical and mental performance, i.e. a hierarchy exists, but those norms don't apply to TB?

TB's success and how it has been achieved isn't in question. The issue is whether the Twins, or any other franchise for that matter, can fully replicate it. I'll ask again, what has this FO done via FA or trades that makes you believe they're capable of being TB? The disagreement centers around whether other teams are able to identify and/or then develop these players in a similar fashion. Like I said above, we've got 15 odd years worth of evidence that says they're not. If the Twins were in contention, and they traded Simmons for 2 relief pitchers, who is replacing him at SS? He was signed because the team wanted to move away from Polanco there. There isn't a Wander Franco to call up. If Berrios is moved in July, who is taking his place in the rotation? TB has a line of succession: Shields, Price, Archer, Snell, and now Glasnow, that the Twins can't touch. Internal replacements are only one part of the problem. The FA signings by the Twins, particularly on the pitching side have been pretty dismal. How high is your confidence level with talent evaluation right now? If this team is going to move established players at positions of scarcity they can't afford to miss on the return. At the moment Alcala is the only player on the active roster who was acquired in the type of move you support. It certainly hasn't been a roaring success. That isn't an indictment of the process, but rather the execution. Nobody is saying that the Twins shouldn't look to acquire guys they view as on the verge of a breakout, but given the current state of the organization it'd be irresponsible to bank on "being the Rays," when there's no safety blanket in the minors, no successors in the current rotation, and a middling track record of success when it comes to acquisition/development.

Every team dives to some extent, I think the point of contention is the degree to which the Twins do it. A backup catcher, 26th man, back end bullpen arm, ect is fine; 40% of your starting rotation isn't. As far as expiring contracts, sometimes it makes sense to say farewell (Rosario) other times if there isn't an in house replacement (Berrios) or the player is an elite level talent (Mauer) it makes sense to hold on rather than gamble in FA. I don't understand your last two sentences in that paragraph. What has this FO done that makes you think they're capable of operating at, or even near, the level of TB? I don't hear the argument that the Twins shouldn't strive to be as elite as the Rays. I'm simply pointing out that realistically they're unlikely to reach that status, and currently they're nowhere near it, which is why I said the practice of dumping stars rather than paying them won't yield the same results. TB has been doing this for 15ish years now, I'm certain all other franchises have taken notice. If the TB process was truly replicable I have a hard time imagining 29+ other executives choosing to ignore it. At the major league level player identification is lacking; the results speak for themselves. I think "we don't know," in regard to player development won't hold up much longer. I'm totally fine with the draft strategy we've seen, but I had hoped that some of these early round college bats, or the players they replace would be packaged for pitching. There's a lot riding on only a few pitching prospects, and I agree with an earlier comment, none of them are the prospect that even Berrios was. This team needs help at the front end of the rotation. A guy like Ober sliding into a back end spot is valuable, but it doesn't move the needle much. Maybe Winder makes multiple leaps this season; lets hope so, because Duran's year might be done.

I don't like the Betts example. You said it yourself, Boston has ample cash to play with. They didn't need to move MVP, even if they wanted out from under Price's terrible contract. They finished last in their own division the previous season, and the team to which they traded Betts, one know for making big moves, won the WS with him as their CF. It's hard to call that move W for Boston, let alone a winning strategy. I've said this in another thread; "do what Tampa does," sounds great, but unless the Twins get markedly better at player development and talent evaluation overnight copying the type of moves that organization makes isn't a surefire path to success. Right now the Twins are more likely to be the Pirates of the 2000's than the current version of the Rays if they start trading away their best players and rely on internal replacements and then FA to patch any remaining holes. Houston went out and traded for Cole, Verlander, and Greinke. Those are massive moves. I'd call Oakland TB light, and similar to the Rays, if the Twins or any other team can replicate what they do on a budget that'd be great, but unless Beane can be lured to MN I don't know how repeatable that process is from a distance. There's more than one way to skin a cat right? Spending big, whether it's FA or a trade, shouldn't be avoided altogether, rather a measured approach and a plan to supplement should go hand in hand with such moves. I'm all for the Tatis trades ect if they're there. A team like the Twins shouldn't be ruling out options to improve this club, even if we as fans have been conditioned to be averse to "big," spending.

They didn't have a problem with Jax missing some starts. If the argument is that Barnes must remain in a rotation, there's still room at the major league level. Ideally that data is from games played against major leaguers. This thread exists because there was a spot and it was given to a waiver claim.

He either needs to be added or exposed this offseason. He'll be 26 by that time. He's a college arm on his 2nd stint in AAA and he's already made 8 starts this season. A Beau Burrows is always available, why not collect some data on your own fringe guys first?

Payroll certainly is part of the whole picture, but arguing that the signings were sound based on expected performance and then that they were sound based on financial constraint isn't the same. We'll just disagree about whether the Twins had the ability to spend better than this FA group. I don't know why you're trying so hard to force the payroll argument. We both agree this team operates under a self imposed cap. I never once argued they should've been spending X amount more last offseason. We've already covered the fact that there were much better signings within the Twins budget. The criticism is over who they chose to pay, and what roles those guys were expected to fill. You literally brought it up in your last post as a way to lump all the viable FA pitching options into the same group. Of course we both know that isn't the expectation, my point was that it's disingenuous to set an unreasonably high bar in an effort to level the field. If every single one of those guys falls off a cliff at this exact moment that's still 2-3 months of production; that'd be huge and we likely wouldn't be talking about selling in June. Be honest, do you really believe that a team expected to compete in the playoffs should have 2/5 of their rotation be "guys they hoped could eat some innings?" That's sound decision making?

The defense has swung from expected performance to financial constraint; I'm not sure what else to call it. My criticism of the roster construction is about who they signed and what role they filled, not how much they're owed. "Outside of a vacuum," simply means looking at roster fit, performance expectations, playing time/innings, ect. Nothing about doing that denies the existence of a budget. "Spend better," isn't the same as "spend more." I hope that's clear now. If you want to argue that they were up against a self imposed cap, I'll again point out that's a position they spent themselves into, not a defense for failed signings We can play the name game and poke holes in every option but I don't see the merit in doing so. There were options, they choose poorly, and we've seen the results. Period. Nobody is saying the last rotation spot should be able to start game 3 of a playoff series. Nobody....

Second, for whatever reason for all of the mistakes that were made this offseason, Shaun Anderson (who has minor league options and is 26 years old) is the first addition the front office has admitted failure on by placing him on waivers. Meanwhile J.A. Happ, Matt Shoemaker and Alexander Colomé continue to “eat innings” with absolutely zero chance of having any future on this team beyond 2021. It’s simply baffling. I think it's more than fair to ask what the rationale behind this decision is. The FO took a fringe 40 man player, whose ceiling is a utility OFer and swapped him for a position of need that they thought they could straighten out. It failed, but I'm ok with that swap. I don't think the Twins have been hurt in either the short or long term by playing who they have in the OF. I don't think the move is worthy of much hand wringing. Congrats to Wade on a good month.

Of course, I'd imagine most don't and it's completely understandable. Yep, there's undoubtedly risk involved in waiting 1.5 years.

6/125 represents a hypothetical I'm assuming Mike threw out as a means to test the "pay him want he wants," perspective. My point was there's likely somewhere between an extreme ask and a lowball offer where the Twins can have a real conversation/shot at signing Berrios. He's gambling either way. I have a hard time picturing a competent agent advising him to ignore solid offers if that's what the Twins are putting in front of him.

I never once made the argument that they need to consistently spend in the top 10. You shifted the focus to financials after I pointed out the flaws in roster construction/expectations. FWIW during the early 2010's they were actually spending in that range, so it's possible, but again, not anywhere near the point I'm making. They chose to allocate resources heavily in favor of the position players. The position they find themselves in is of their own making; it's not a defense for terrible pitching signings. Rich Hill and Robbie Ray equal what Happ + Shoemaker cost, if we're entirely rejecting the notion that the Twins couldn't have spent even a penny more. Kluber was affordable if they wanted to actually aim high and erasing the 6.25 million they wasted on Colome certainly would've made that a realistic signing as well. The names aren't really even relevant, the point is that they had options, and very clearly chose the wrong ones.

I'd imagine there's a sweet spot somewhere between 5/80 and 6/125 that gets the ball rolling. I understand what you're saying in response to the "pay him what he wants," sentiment. That said, I'd be fine with an overpay. I'm 100% with you in that if this team doesn't get SP contribution from the minors, i.e. at least two of the Duran/Balazovic/Canterino/whoever group needs to stick in the rotation or they're not going to compete any time soon. Ted is right, FA pitching has been a disaster for this FO and expecting them to hit on 60-80% of a rotation that way is asking for disappointment. If the pitching you're required to bank on is cost controlled, and most of the position players that project to be part of the team beyond the next year are either pre arb or signed to team friendly deals, I think it's ok to shell out for a guy that admittedly isn't an ace but is reliably at the top end. A huge part of Jose's deal would be done by the time the Twins are trying to pay Kirilloff, Larnach, Jeffers, Arraez, Duran, ect. Worst case, you pay Jose a lot of money to pitch for a bad team in the hopes that the young guys come along and you can make a run sooner rather than later. The way I'm looking at is if you're going to be bad, I'd rather pay a good pitcher who's at least an asset rather than throw money at Perez/Lynn/Happ/Shoemaker/Hill types. Donaldson and a potential Buxton signing complicate things financially. In a perfect world, another team takes Donaldson at the deadline, MN kicks in a small amount of $$ and the FO/ownership count that as a sunk cost rather than calculating it into payroll moving forward. I'm willing to admit I almost certainly can't have my cake and eat it too in regards to keeping both soon to be FAs. Moving Berrios signals a full on rebuild in my mind, and selfishly I'd rather this group get at least one more shot before committing to another 3-4 year run of being awful.