KirbyDome89

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.

They aren't bringing in 3 quality pitchers, relief help, a 4th OF bat, ect in one offseason. Money comes off the books after this season and ditto after 19' so the "crunch," isn't long lived. It's a creative way to bring in a front end starter now rather than bank on winning the Kershaw sweepstakes next season or wait until 2020 or beyond.

Darvish for Ervin addresses the need for front end pitching.

Nobody is arguing that they don't need more pitching or that they might have to turn to alternative means to acquire it. You're preaching to the choir advocating for spending but the point was that the article addresses a scenario where just ramping up spending isn't necessarily an option.

I'm not arguing that shouldn't or that they can't bump payroll. In fact I've been squarely on the other side of that issue. The ability to do so and a willingness to bump payroll by nearly $40 million are two different things though. The article poses a scenario where the Twins aren't likely to see a jump that significant, and therefore moving Santana clears more room to bring in a true ace. It's far from inconceivable that the Twins don't spend. Moving on from Ervin is contingent on the Twins having a deal in place with Darvish, finding a suitable trade partner for Santana, and being unwilling to bring on a large pitching contract without shedding some payroll. I think the posts bemoaning the loss of Ervin are missing the fact that all three criteria have to be met for the proposal to work. Of course everybody, myself included, would rather keep Ervin and just sign a front end starter. That's the ideal outcome. The article outlines a plan if the ideal outcome isn't an option. I happen to agree with that plan.

I'll guess we'll disagree. I think the money owed Santana contributes to the overall funds available. It certainly isn't the only factor involved in brining in a top end starter but with this ownership payroll is always going to be an issue.

So a league average season from him wouldn't be disappointing? Given what this team needed from him to make the WC game last year an average season wouldn't be a step down? Good pitchers can't have disappointing i.e. down i.e. poor seasons relative to expectations? ....*shrugs*

Money isn't a factor for this team? The way they've operated suggests otherwise. He must've been hurt that second half of 15' when he struggled too then.

We heard the same thing last offseason when people weren't enamored with Santiago being brought back. Where did I say he was a bad pitcher Brock?... A performance similar to 06' isn't poor by league standards, but for a guy who is the "ace," of a staff it shouldn't be considered a great season.

33 GS = 33 outs....33 outs/3 outs per inning = 11 IP.....211.1 IP - 11 = 200.1 IP.....so no he doesn't miss it. Who else are they handing innings to? Even Ervin with a league average ERA, no CGs, and a FIP that catches up with him is going over 200 IP. Thats a significant step down ie regression. Unless he has an extended DL stint, makes multiple trips during, or just completely falls apart this season the 200 IP mark is one he should hit given the state of the rest of the staff. He has hit over 200 IPs without any CGs. He can easily be league average or even slightly below and still hit 200 IP for this team. League average is still effective, but I would rather see the Twins put that $14 million option towards a true front end starter.

The only way he isn't hitting 200 IP is if he misses significant time due to injury so in essence it's multiple years. Even severe regression and a poor 18' campaign isn't enough to keep the ball out of his hand as long as he's healthy enough to pitch. Thats more or an indictment of the rest of the staff than praise for Ervin's durability.

It's taking one step back to move two steps forward. I'm on board if they can by some miracle sign Darvish. I can't see the Twins committing that kind of money to a FA but if moving Santana will pry the wallet open enough to sign Darvish I certainly make that move. The only part of the plan I'm not crazy about is moving Gonsalves for a bullpen piece. The idea will get a lot of heat but the reality is this team operates under a self imposed cap. They aren't bringing on money without cutting out "expensive," players. They do desperately need a front end starter (maybe a couple) and the only way that's happening is by gutting the farm or trading MLB talent. Moving on from a 34 year old Santana may sting the most right now but long term I think it's the least painful option.

I think he was used primarily as a DH because he was a midseason call up and they had a steady if unspectacular option already at 3B. The DH spot was open. Park didn't last 2 months with the Twins in 16' and Sano still played twice as many games in the field as he did at DH. They clearly aren't interested in relegating him to DH this early in his career, and they shouldn't be.

They aren't picking up the option on Perkins so consider that wish granted. Who knows if Hughes will be physically capable of pitching next season. The money is a sunk cost for the next two seasons so whether he's here or not they're paying. The best they can hope for is retirement or a recoup via insurance.

Torii Hunter was in RF in 15'..... Sano isn't cracking a Hicks, Hunter, Rosario OF. He played more games at 3B than any other position in 16' so I'm not sure why you're convinced it would've been a repeat of 15' if not for Park. Plouffe at 3B obviously necessitated the move to RF but the Twins certainly didn't view Sano as only a DH. They didn't in 16' or 17', and they still don't (I'm on board with that.) Park shouldn't be the scapegoat for their inability to move on from Plouffe.