KirbyDome89

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.

I think it's much more about pointing out how badly the swing and miss on Happ/Shoemaker has been rather than anyone banging the drum for Flexen.

So now the FO was forced via financial constraint into making poor decisions? If I accepted that as true (I don't) wouldn't the fault still lie with the FO for putting themselves in that position? Record payroll rings hollow. These franchises aren't going to suddenly stop printing money, particularly in the era of tv deals. Natural progression means we'll continue to see payroll and contract amounts rise, even for our awe shucks, small market Twins. In comparison to the rest of the league they're still sitting where they normally do, middle to bottom third. If you're determined to pocket protect, there are at least 3-4 current SPs on 1 year deals that would've fit within the money owed to Happ & Shoemaker, or those two + Colome, and they'd all be considerable upgrades.

There isn't much to suggest that trio would've had decent success as a starting group, even if they all rotated through that 5th. Again, if that's your last rotation spot and you have a starting caliber pitcher forcing their way onto the active roster than sure, a team can live with Happ + others every 5th day for a limited amount of time. That clearly wasn't the situation with the Twins. When I say "in a vacuum," I mean you can likely justify almost any signing to some degree, but roster construction needs to be taken into consideration as well. The issue is that both Happ and Shoemaker were the same type of pitcher; bounce back candidate, back end guys that carried bust potential. You can defend Happ as a 5th guy, I'd point out that expecting a trend reversal at 38 was a big gamble even for that spot, but with Shoemaker aboard that obviously wasn't going to be Happ's role and so the expectations shift. Adrianza was a decent utility guy, but if he opens the season starting at 3B by design and puts up utility-esque numbers that's a problem. I really doubt (hope) this FO wasn't banking on Ober or Jax taking over in June, or even July. That'd be a nearly unforgivable dereliction of duty in a season where this team was expected to compete. Maybe, maybe they thought Duran could be up at one point but even banking on that would've been questionable entering the season. If they're signing pitcher(s) with the expectation that they become ineffective/replaceable within the first 2-3 months then I think that raises more serious questions than talent evaluation in regards to this FO. Expecting prospects to take over multiple rotation spots and hit the ground running while competing for a division is ahhh....yeah. Nobody is suggesting we foresaw the team being this bad. Nobody. There isn't one glaring f*** up to blame this miserable season on. It's a series of failures that has gotten us to this point.

Shoemaker not working out wasn't exactly unpredictable. If you want to say they saw something in Happ's '20 performance and chose to ignore '19 then fine. If he was the 5th starter and there was a capable backup at or near the majors then it's justifiable, but that wasn't the case. If Happ is your 4th starter and the guy ahead of him in the rotation spends a good chunk of each season on the DL, the guy behind him hasn't been reliable and/or good for 4 years, and the only internal replacement option is Randy Dobnak, that's a problem. These signings can't be viewed in a vacuum.

I don't understand the hindsight argument. How else should these decisions be judged other than by the results? Of course the FO likely didn't foresee just how terrible both starters would be, but that doesn't mean the decision to go with either of them was sound, or any way defensible at this point.

Shoemaker hadn't been healthy in years and wasn't all that good in 2020 but relying on him as the 5th starter with Happ in the 4 spot was sound? He wasn't much, if any less of a question mark than Flexen as far as ability to stick in the rotation goes, and I promise if you dig through threads at the time of the signing you'll see his issues highlighted.

I'm not necessarily against making some moves but saying "do what TB would do," when this organization isn't in the same ballpark operationally isn't a surefire path to success. You need to have elite talent evaluation and development to reshuffle the deck and stay competitive. If not, you're the Pirates of the early 2000s.

What signs have you seen that Shoemaker is turning things around? He had his worst start of the season prior to being relegated to the pen and his two recent outings there have been awful.... The signings have been a disaster. Full stop. You can't excuse the failures because FAs can be volatile and at the same time defend the decision to address 2/5 of the rotation and the back end of the pen via FA. Tossing around names is beside the point. Again, if you're going to sign rotation pieces, particularly in an organization that doesn't have much, if any, SP depth, you simply can't miss this badly. Period.

Can you point to any discernible signs that he's turning things around? He's been atrocious for 2.5 months now, this isn't a recent development. I'm at the point of audibly laughing every time I read a "there's no replacement for Shoemaker," defense for his continued presence on this roster. You don't think there was a better use of $16M other than Colome, Shoemaker, and Happ? There are at least 3-4 SPs on one year deals within that budget that would be marked upgrades. To Cheif's point; you can't whiff badly on 2/5 of your rotation plus a bullpen anchor and then throw your hands up and say "we don't have the depth to overcome this, what were we supposed to do."

Yet even in those innings Shoemaker found a way to cost this team another game. Barnes is on a very similar progression path and he's been pretty damn good at AAA, similar to Ober. Yeah, I think it's odd that a pitching starved team like the Twins haven't tried to get him some innings, particularly when his track closely matches those who have gotten that opportunity. Bloodlust? How far backwards are you willing to bend to defend the FO's decision to continue with Shoemaker? How much longer do we need to watch these performances before "bloodlust," becomes necessity for you? The names are irrelevant, the point was that any replacement represents a chance to see improvement from that roster spot. Short leash, few days, ect was the defense last week....

Not necessarily, but it's at least an attempt to be better. If he's a lame duck then cut bait and bring in a stop gap to mop up for a week. Setting a date by which he needs to be out isn't really a defense of his continued presence on the roster.

Old friend Homer Bailey is still unsigned. Rick Porcello, Mike Leake if he's open to playing, Cole Hamels if he's healthy enough. Not exactly appealing options, but it doesn't have to be a starter, just find a mop up bullpen arm. I just don't believe the Twins simply can't do better than what Shoemaker has given them.

I think it's more about a reluctance to admit defeat with Shoemaker than it is about concern over Barnes preparedness. I don't think he'd be selected in the the Rule V either, but if he was, a soft tossing guy with modest numbers isn't someone even this site would be up in arms over. If you're concerned over him blocking actual prospects on the 40 man that kind of says it all about his standing in the organization. I'm with you, I'd rather not see this team use their resources poorly, but I don't think his addition right now would fall into that category. What kind of leash do you think a guy like Barnes would have in a season where the Twins aren't fighting for the 1st pick in the draft? Is it any better to be a 40 man casualty because he was forced to be added and opportunities were limited? He spent three years in college, he's soon to be 26, he's on his second run in AAA, and he's nowhere near prized prospect status. I don't think the situation is all that fragile. It isn't really a matter of whether he continues to be this bad for 3 more months, it's more a question of what allowing him to be this bad at the present time does for this organization. We clearly have different views on that.

Me neither, but in the specific case you brought up we're talking about a 26 year old college arm that's a fringe prospect at best. I think the 3.5 months remaining are more valuable than the likely limited opportunities he'd likely get if the Twins were to wait and bring him up when they had to add him.