KirbyDome89

So after watching the Haley debacle last season the pushback against the decision to force another Rule V pick onto the 25 man is an invalid? You don't have to be a GM to see that the risk/uncertainty they lost was less than the risk/uncertainty the brought in. Add to that the loss of a roster spot and yeah, it isn't difficult to see why the move isn't particularly popular right now. There are plenty of minor league statistics available for all 3 players and some have even been posted in this thread. What's laughable is the argument from authority that seems to be thrown around in some of these threads. Drafting a player in the Rule V burns a 25 man spot. When that player has no business being on a MLB roster it's poor roster management.

"Handing out big contracts to names like Wade Davis or Greg Holland could end up preventing money being spent elsewhere." "a long term/high ceiling starter would make for one successful offseason." So are we Darvish or bust at this point? Unless they're committing $ to a front end starter they shouldn't have to penny pinch in the relief market, and even then the dumpster diving probably isn't warranted. Right now the only "building," they've done is adding a 41 year old reliever and burning a 25 man spot on a Rule V pick. Hopefully some significant moves are made in the near future.

The Twins are bringing in the same types of players they're exposing to the Rule V. If it's "pointless," to consider what they're giving up then isn't it "pointless," to participate in the Rule V altogether? I'm not a fan of losing Burdi, especially considering what they brought back, but I do think the Rule V can be used effectively. For that to be the case the player(s) you select should project better than what you've given up. I'm not certain that's the case here.

"Not the $." Exactly, I'm talking about the financial impact, not how long his leash is.

"very attainable," incentives suggests to me they're likely more usage/durability based. Unless he melts down to start the season Rodney will likely be able to hold on long enough in this bullpen to reach the necessary checkpoints.

I understand the volatility of relief pitching. It's one of the reasons I'm hoping the Twins eventually start using their bullpen as a feeder for young arms looking to join the starting rotation. That said, I've seen this signing called low risk, and I agree that it is. If Rodney implodes at 41 years old the $6M owed isn't going to sink the Twins. If we're shrugging off losing $6M this season why does a reliever going belly up in year 2 of a $15M deal become an issue? If the point is having no confidence in a reliever returning value to start a multi year deal then perhaps the issue is signing relief help at all and not so much the number of years committed.

As simply a bullpen addition the move is fine. Given how analytically driven this FO strives to be, I was hoping nontraditional bullpen use might be one of the first noticeable on field indicators. The emphasis placed on his career saves, his "closing experience," and the apparent desire for a "closer of the future," suggest more rigid bullpen roles.

Best description for a low risk/high reward gamble for 2019.

I think the name is carrying a lot of weight in this instance. Don't get me wrong, he's a clear upgrade over anything they have right now, but only having him for 2 years is tough. It depends on what they would have to give up for archer but 4 years at least gets them to the FA years of Buxton, Sano, ect. Cole for 2 years is easier to swallow if by some miracle they decide to spend $$ and get Darvish.

It sounds like people are conflating the dislike for the Kintzler move with a desire to "go all in," at the deadline. It's possible to agree that gutting the farm for a short term rental is a bad idea, and at the same time realize removing the top bullpen piece for a marginal prospect probably wasn't the best decision either.

I think a more appropriate example of a fanatical position is counting on a marginal prospect as long term improvement. If the Kintzler trade was one in a series of veterans being moved for prospects then sure, that would've made sense but if they were going to essentially stand pat then why give him up? It's hard to say that bringing in a "meh," prospect really improves the long term outlook for the team. It's not hard to say that losing an all star reliever certainly doesn't help the in season outlook. Management 101 goes beyond being a slave to numbers, context and circumstance are equally meaningful. The on field product was consistently outperforming statistical expectations. At some point the team is just better than expected, even if it happens to be by a wide margin. I'm not sure how that was reflected, if at all, by whatever formula was used to arrive at 5%.

Perhaps it was luck. I think that's a pretty clear cut situation where correlation doesn't equal causation. It directly contrasts with the premise of the article. The article was praising the new FO for the moves they've made. Some have pointed out that they may be getting credit for moves that weren't necessarily helpful. Given the limited number of moves/decisions this FO has made I'd say the deadline decisions do make a difference in how the FO is viewed. If you're looking for an argument about whether or not the Twins need front end rotation help I doubt you'll find it.

Why can't it be a case of making an ill advised move but getting a positive result? I was pushing for decisiveness at the deadline one way or another. Either sell big or bring in real help. Instead it was another "middle of the road," trade deadline for the Twins. I'm assuming we can agree that the team was better with Kintzler than some low level prospect. The way the game played out in October isn't particularly relevant to the argument being made against the decision making. The point was that the team was still in contention for that WC spot when the move was made. They had no idea if they would reach the WC game and if they did how much they would have to rely on the bullpen. If you're not making significant moves in one direction or another why trade away a late inning bullpen piece? Aren't you better off just keeping Kintzler at that point?

It isn't bringing in Darvish that has posters concerned. It's the fact they've done nothing to address the major issues in the rotation. The evaluation period is over and it's time for moves to start being made. I think that's all some want to see. Hopefully we have some clarity in the next few months. However, until some of those needs are addressed I don't thinks it's unfair to withhold applause for the new FO.

Definitely interesting to see their strategy during the draft and adding picks with the international money is a bonus that could look even better if the $ comes back. "But as far as winning in 2018 is concerned, Falvey and Levine haven't done much of anything." I think this is the larger issue though, and it doesn't apply to just 18' but the following seasons as well. I'm anxious to see how this offseason goes, but as of right now it's hard for me to say they're crushing it, even if the comparison is the previous FO.

No, and it's a fair point. I said as much in my OP, this could all be nothing and the Twins could easily clear it up. I do think it's odd that he would sign in early July and not have a physical until November. I also think it's weird not to announce he failed it during the summer if they knew the information would eventually be made public.

Yeah man, I said as much...."Obviously it's all conjecture at this point." Have you read a single post that claims anything the Twins have said is false? I haven't. What I've said is the timing of events seems funny. An unlikely MLB career, the "good relationship," with the team and the lack of noise from other clubs have all been used as evidence the Twins didn't do anything out of the ordinary. That all could be true. However, isn't that speculation as well? It's far from firm evidence. I don't see any definitive claims that the Twins are "playing dirty," but I do see questions about the circumstances, and I don't think it's wrong to ask them.

Agreed the optics are certainly complicating the matter. If Marte does resign it'll raise more questions. Obviously it's all conjecture at this point but: Why would the Twins be interested in resigning him if the eye condition is as serious as others are convinced it is? If they're certain he won't be a big league player why waste the remaining money resigning him? I can't get past the timing; the apparent non release of the contract being voided and the announcement for the availability of the money coinciding with Ohtani making his way to the states just seems odd. If the Twins are going to resign him doesn't that hint that the eye condition might not have been as disastrous as portrayed? If that's the case can the actions of the Twins be viewed as some sort of tampering? Marte's value clearly would have been affected and potentially the reason other clubs have been hesitant to sign him. It's clearly the most sinister scenario but is it the craziest thing in the world to think a team would sacrifice a player like Marte in order to have a shot at Ohtani? Another part I can't get past though is that if Ohtani had decided to come to MN this wouldn't have been an issue. Even if the Twins had f***ed this kid over the Ohtani signing would have overshadowed anything done to get him here. I can't I wouldn't have overlooked it myself. Or you know, it could just be a condition the Twins aren't comfortable with so they decided to move on, i.e. business as usual.

Fair enough, I wouldn't be shocked to see him fall somewhere around where he was the past two seasons. Arbitration obviously would reflect that so it certainly wouldn't be wasted money. Honestly, I'm not concerned about the money at all, or even the fact he's still with the team. When I said "move on," I meant distance ourselves from the idea a light has suddenly turned on for him.

I've resigned myself to the fact that Gibson will pitch for the Twins in 2018. It's far from ideal, but he's going to start games; they just don't have enough proven arms to toss him out, and I get that. What I don't understand is the optimism surrounding his spot in the rotation. We heard before 17' that he had made mechanical changes and he was turning a corner. We heard before the 16' that the 2015 version of Gibson was real and he was going to build off of that. Clearly I have Gibson fatigue, but at what point can we just call him inconsistent/below average rotational filler and move on.

That conclusion seems pretty absolute but we'll assume that scenario played out for every college arm they drafted. Would the lack of production matter? Does the DFA matter? Who cares if you're burning service time, you've already decided they aren't good enough to be protected on the 40 man anyway. If nothing else you would at least know what you're giving up. If they're so down on these college arms as to not care about protecting them then why the fuss about fast tracking them?

As opposed to turning 25 and being exposed to the Rule V draft before pitching for the Twins?

Or before they get hurt in the minors (every college arm they draft) and exacerbate the slow track even further.

Upgrading the front of the rotation is progress. The Twins need front end help. Maybe you disagree, but I can't see them making noise in the postseason with it. The article presumes the Twins operate under a tight cap as they have the past few seasons. IMO it's easier to build the back of a rotation than the front. If they have the opportunity to bring in a guy like Darvish then I think they have to take it, even if that means trading Ervin. As I said, Mauer and Dozier are off the books after next season, and Hughes follows shortly after. Next offseason is Kershaw of bust in terms of big arms so good luck to the Twins winning that war. If they're waiting until 2020 to find help Buxton, Sano, ect are hitting arbitration and two years w/o front end help have passed. Losing Ervin and not bringing in anybody certainly doesn't help the rest of the rotation, but I would rather go 1 year without high/elite level pitching as opposed to 2+. Who knows, maybe they could make a move to bring on an cheap, unspectacular, but semi reliable starter along with Darvish. All of this of course hinges on the Twins actually being a big player in FA, which I have next to no confidence will occur. I don't know why you're so hung up on spending. Again, NOBODY is saying don't increase payroll. NOBODY wants to trade Ervin. The article was a plan B in the event ownership decides not to make drastic changes regarding the payroll. If you'll be upset if the payroll doesn't bump up significantly this offseason I'll be right there with you.

What is the difference between the TR led FO talking about trades they were "close," to getting done at the deadline and this new FO "showing interest," in FAs? I see them as two slightly different versions of the same thing.