KirbyDome89

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.

If it's his job to lose, I'd considered the spot locked down. Semantics maybe.

Barring some sort of miraculous flurry of moves where the Twins sign and/or trade for 3 better pitchers Bundy is an absolute lock. They were happy rolling with Shoemaker and Happ in a year where a deep playoff run was the expectation.

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.

Removing prime production years and using a SSS don't really jive with "hard facts." Teams spend money on FAs that make them more competitive every offseason. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of debating the merit of signings on an individual basis.

The history of FA, or a selective history? You want to sign them because you have a hole that isn't able to be adequately filled by internal options. If you aren't filling those holes, and getting better over time, I don't know how you expect to reach the talent and/or win threshold where you yourself would consider signing a top dollar pitcher. If your answer is draft & development, it's clear that doesn't occur linearly. We'll just disagree on the generalization that FA SPs turn into pumpkins after 1-2 years. I understand there's risk/volatility involved, but the same goes for drafting and developing players. It makes zero sense not to utilize each avenue concurrently if the goal is to win a WS.

You're missing the point; waiting for the stars to align, or assuming that they will, isn't a viable strategy. Teams need to take advantage of an opportunity to get better when available, not hold out until 95% of the roster is set and/or bank of that same opportunity existing down the line.

What you're advocating for isn't a realistic goal. High end starters aren't signing 1-2 year deals and waiting for all the pieces to fall into place, i.e. pulling the trigger when you're "a piece or two away," is a good way to ensure you're constantly short that piece or two.

One answer assumes a lot more than the other.

You literally said you didn't think he'd sign for any amount. I don't see any way in which that isn't forcing his way out but ok. I'm not going to play the game where anything short of the Twins coming out and saying "we didn't want to pay him," means every opinion on the matter is pure conjecture and therefore all opinions are assigned equivalent weight. If you want to leap from "Nobody really knows," to pulling "Berrios didn't want to be here," from praise for a new city, and then land on "blame him not the Twins," go for it, but again, we can see empirically that this FO doesn't want to commit long term to pitching.It's baffling to me that something so widely accepted at this point, i.e. the simplest solution, can't be the answer, and we need to do these mental gymnastics to protect hurt feelings.

What's being mischaracterized? Are you not of the opinion Berrios forced the Twins to move him? Do you not support fan discontent being aimed at him rather than the Twins? Sure, we can ignore the fact that my pushback is supported by years of spending habits, similar contract offers, and reported contract details, and pretend that this a "my truth vs your truth," situation wherein objective reality ceases to exist.

A player praising the city he just signed a long term contract to stay in; not exactly original or controversial in any way. I'm so tired of this MN inferiority complex constantly being used to distract from the fact that this club won't commit the years & money it takes to land top arms. Can you name a single instance where the Twins tendered the highest bid and were turned down? Like I said before, if you want to argue that moving Berrios was the right thing to do based on the return, there's an actual argument to be made there. I'm inclined to disagree, but it's at least a reasonable take. What I'm calling you out for perpetuating this idea that Berrios punched his own ticket out of town and that fan angst over his departure should be directed at him. We're on offseason number 6 with this FO, and it's been a slew of short term deals, and in what's arguably the most important 4-5 month stretch of their tenure, while the club is desperate for pitching, they sat on their hands as top targets all signed deals that were viable even within the Twins payroll structure. We've seen the long term deals the team was willing to give Kepler and Polanco, and it's painfully obvious why Buxton and Berrios were turning those offers down each year the Twins approached them with similar structures. Yeah, the notion that MN was willing to back up the Brinks truck for Berrios but he simply wouldn't hear of it, forced a trade, and then rushed to signed a reasonable deal with Toronto apparently due to some weird combination of relief and spite is ahhhh "left field," to put it nicely.

Right. I agree. That Berrios signed so quickly and so easily with Toronto doesn't imply the Twins didn't try, at least not to me. It implies that Berrios didn't want to be in Minnesota. He even said it himself ... he likes the diversity in Toronto, and his consistent messaging about wanting to experience free agency. How this unfolded to me is a clear indicator that no matter what the FO did, he was gone. So, we got something for him when we could. And so far, I'm happy with the returns, but I will be happier if the return performs to expectation. And while, yes, we need pitching and he'd be great to have, I never saw him as a #1 pitcher. He might have been the best we had, but that was more an indication of our pitching staff than Berrios being *that* good. All in all, I'm in the 'don't know' category. I've liked some things, disliked other things. Mostly it's an 'It's out of my control and I certainly could not do better and do not know what happens behind closed doors and I don't know who else I'd want' thing, so ... honestly, I don't know. I posted this in another thread, but what's more likely; that Berrios was asking for the world, wanted to force his way out (despite no reports of discontent and statements from Berrios himself that run contrary to that portrayal) got his wish, realized he'd overplayed his hand/miscalculated his market, then immediately settled on a deal that suites both team and player, or that the Twins never approached Berrios with a number he viewed as market value and Toronto was willing to meet that price? This offseason alone should provide all the clarity necessary to see which scenario is more likely. The Twins were reportedly "nowhere near," the winning bid to the only upper tier arm they expressed interest in. If you're happy with the return, fine, but spinning Berrios' desire to get paid market value as some sort of dig at Minneapolis, or endorsing fan outrage at him because the Twins wouldn't even entertain paying him what he's worth, I mean, c'mon....

I'd define "results," as certainty moving forward that, at minimum, 2 of the prospects will slot in as 3-4 spots in the rotation moving forward. They can't piss away this season with Bundy, Pineda (or somebody in that tier) plus maybe another flier and then watch the prospects that are healthy enough to accumulate innings "take their lumps." I'm counting Ryan as a prospect, Ober not so much. Maybe that changes. We can't be in the same position, being sold prospect hope/upside, to start next year. Ditto, but I see the chances of doing either as slim, and both as essentially nonexistant. More likely I can see a trade for another Odo type. Story is probably a pipe dream unless he's willing to take a short term high AAV deal and the Twins are willing to give him one + move Donaldson.

Yep, that's why I said I agreed with the logic, but doubt the outcome.

If the Twins won't play in FA then nobody should be off limits as far as trades to bring back pitching are concerned. I'd rather that not be the case, but this team can't forgo the option to buy front end pitching, designate top prospects as untouchable, and then expect to develop a staff when there isn't a single prospect that profiles even on the level of Berrios.

In theory I agree, but I probably have a little less faith than you do that the Twins would be quick to move on from Simmons if he's signed. The Twins were still jerking Nick Gordon around in August because a "logjam," prevented him from getting regular playing time. This is a team that publicly stated that the second half of '21 was about the development of young players, then optioned a young SS/CF that they needed to make a roster decision on after playing him sparingly, in favor of a journeyman 30 year old platoon OFer, and all the while Simmons, still abysmal at the plate, continued to be entrenched at SS. I'm with Chief, the fact this is a consideration pisses me off. That good will from the Buxton extension wore off relatively fast.

Having a career year isn't development. I'm going to pass on splitting hairs over which bottom dwelling teams are worse. In the last 20 years + the Twins haven't been good at identifying, developing, or "polishing," pitchers. That's objectively true. Again, we can pick out maybe one pitcher per decade that other teams coveted long term. This FO has repeatedly stated their goal is to build a sustainable winner. We agree that to this point they've failed mightily in FA. Trades haven't yielded any long term stability or success. We're into year 6, the clock is running out on the prospect patience as well. You can cherry pick his worst years at either stop and you very well might win that bet. That's an awfully low bar to clear though. More realistically, I think the odds of Bundy returning to his '16 form, i.e. an averg-ish pitcher, are less than 50%.

Your post was a caution against committing long term. I pointed out the downside to frequent reshuffling. Cruz isn't a pitcher. I wouldn't put Bundy in the same category as either Ray or Gausman, as each of those two had much more success prior to signing "prove it," deals. With Bundy, the ceiling is him returning to league averag-ish form from 5 years ago. If he has a career year, great, but I'm not holding my breath hoping he turns into something he's never shown any indication he's capable of being.

I posted something similar in a thread earlier in the year, but I don't think the prospect reinforcements are as strong as some believe, at least for this season. Duran and Canterino barely pitched last year and each battled elbow injuries. Surgery isn't guaranteed, but those types of injuries usually lead to intervention. Winder's shoulder issues to end the year could fall under the same category, or maybe it just was fatigue (still not great considering he only threw 72 innings.) They had to shut SWR down, not for injury, but because he was pitching so poorly. That leaves Balazovic. Add to this the fact that both Ryan and Ober threw just over 100 innings last year. Neither of them, even if healthy, is going to be able to pitch a full season, unless they're making 4 inning starts. Good luck constructing a bullpen capable of absorbing that on top of the occasional short starts from whoever else is added into the starting mix. If they're putting a bulk of their eggs in the prospect basket they're 100% throwing away the season. Hell, I'd argue that eschewing affordable arms in FA, and barring some big trade(s) for a front line arm this winter they're tossing away more than just this year. Maybe the prospect "luck," completely turns around, but it seems like an unnecessary amount of risk to take on.