Article: Falvey's First Stand

[Doomtints]

 

Well, I agree that the Twins need pitching but what they need is ace pitching. 

 

No, they need pitching. You sign the ace when the rest of the staff is worthy of their jockstraps. Signing an ace now is exactly as daft as keeping Dozier right now.

 

Signing an ace today would be throwing money down the drain for the Twins. By the time the rest of the staff becomes competent, the ace's contract would be up.

 

This would be sort of like the Detroit Lions when they were drafting top tier receivers with their first round picks every year in an era when they had no QB, no offensive line, and no defense.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Doomtints

[gunnarthor]

 

Sorry....how many losing years should we expect in a rebuild? And, when did they start?

Well, I think after the 2012 season is probably when they honestly started rebuilding.  The 2011 team was decimated by injuries but a lot of the core of the 2010 team was still there.  You had Mauer in his prime, Morneau was supposed to be fine after 1.5 off from concussions, Hammer could replace Cuddy and Span and Revere were good young OFers.  Liriano can't be as bad again.  Let's see what happens if everyone's healthy.  And it didn't work and Ryan started trading off all the vets.  

 

As for what we should expect, I think it's basically in place now.  The offensive core is there and the Twins will start winning when the young guys get good.  I would guess that they'll be in the 75 win range this year and make a big improvement next year.  The bullpen is crap and I sure hope the FO does something about it but Berrios should be what everyone was hoping De Leon would be.  Santana, Gibson and Santiago are experienced vets who shouldn't be as bad (as a group).  May might be put back in the rotation and Duffey taken out.  And Molitor has a coach in the dug out to make sure he doesn't **** up as much.  

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

A players value is what the free market dictates it is.
They aren't the electric company. They don't get to just set a price and force people to pay it.

 

While this is true, it ignores future value. It's akin to saying you should sell your stocks right now because, well... that's what the market says its worth. You can sit on it and hope the *market* picks back up. 

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

That is the conundrum of Dozier. He needs another year to prove last year was not a fluke. But even if that happens, he is a one year rental looking for a 80-100 million dollar deal.

That is why we don't have an offer we deem fair. But as Billie Bean and the Rays have shown, you have to trade guys with 2 plus years left. And you don't pay a guy like that from 30-35.

  

Dozier doesn't need to prove that last year wasn't a fluke, IMO. Pre-2016 he was a better player than Forsythe and Forsythe just netted the guy people think we should have traded 1-for-1 for. Therefore, if he regresses... he'll still be worth the same value.

 

Also, I'm not sure Billy Beane and the Rays are proving much, since they both won <70 games. 

[Doomtints]

 

While this is true, it ignores future value. It's akin to saying you should sell your stocks right now because, well... that's what the market says its worth. You can sit on it and hope the *market* picks back up. 

 

Every deal in baseball is based on a player's future worth. That's the market. If Barry Bonds came back today, he would sign for the league minimum.

 

And no one ever says to sell stocks now if they think the value will rise.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Doomtints

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, I think after the 2012 season is probably when they honestly started rebuilding.  The 2011 team was decimated by injuries but a lot of the core of the 2010 team was still there.  You had Mauer in his prime, Morneau was supposed to be fine after 1.5 off from concussions, Hammer could replace Cuddy and Span and Revere were good young OFers.  Liriano can't be as bad again.  Let's see what happens if everyone's healthy.  And it didn't work and Ryan started trading off all the vets.  

 

As for what we should expect, I think it's basically in place now.  The offensive core is there and the Twins will start winning when the young guys get good.  I would guess that they'll be in the 75 win range this year and make a big improvement next year.  The bullpen is crap and I sure hope the FO does something about it but Berrios should be what everyone was hoping De Leon would be.  Santana, Gibson and Santiago are experienced vets who shouldn't be as bad (as a group).  May might be put back in the rotation and Duffey taken out.  And Molitor has a coach in the dug out to make sure he doesn't **** up as much.  

 

thank you for answering. 

 

I have my doubts about 2018, but I am not w/o hope. So many of their hitters can't actually hit, that scares me. Can they get better? Sure. Will they? I hope so. As for the pitching and the manager, sigh.

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

And no one ever says to sell stocks now if they think the value will rise.

 

Agreed. And the Twins think the combination of (value of current contributions + future market value) > current market value. And i agree. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by TooSmartForEweNow

[Doomtints]

 

Agreed. And the Twins think the combination of (value of current contributions + future market value) > current market value. And i agree. 

 

The Twins are wrong. Dozier's future value will do nothing to improve this club. They will never be able to trade Dozier for an ace. Teams in contention don't trade away their aces. Teams not in playoff contention have no need for Brian Dozier on a 2 year deal.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Doomtints

[Mike Sixel]

 

Every deal in baseball is based on a player's future worth. That's the market. If Barry Bonds came back today, he would sign for the league minimum.

 

And no one ever says to sell stocks now if they think the value will rise.

 

That last line isn't true. I needed cash this month. I had stock that I felt was going to go up. I still sold it, because I needed cash. Decisions about assets are made in context, not in a vacuum. Arguing that Dozier should not be sold for 80 cents on the dollar, w/o taking into account the context of the entire system and Dozier's contract is, imo, a mistake. (and, I am not arguing you are stating otherwise, btw).

 

It's like an NFL team that has three starting caliber QBs, but the worst OL in football. Keeping the three QBs because the offers aren't "fair" isn't going to lead to many wins, because sports are team events. 

[Doomtints]

 

That last line isn't true. I needed cash this month. I had stock that I felt was going to go up. I still sold it, because I needed cash.

 

Of course. But no analyst is going to recommend that you sell stock if they are bullish on its future value. You may sell the stock anyway because you need to, but even as you do so you will feel like crap about it as that's a tough pill to swallow. Sure, you are doing what you have to do today, but you know you are losing in the long run.

 

Most people of appropriate means would take out a signature loan to deal with a short term problem long before they would sell stock to deal with that problem.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Doomtints

[TheLeviathan]

 

That last line isn't true. I needed cash this month. I had stock that I felt was going to go up. I still sold it, because I needed cash. Decisions about assets are made in context, not in a vacuum. Arguing that Dozier should not be sold for 80 cents on the dollar, w/o taking into account the context of the entire system and Dozier's contract is, imo, a mistake. (and, I am not arguing you are stating otherwise, btw).

 

It's like an NFL team that has three starting caliber QBs, but the worst OL in football. Keeping the three QBs because the offers aren't "fair" isn't going to lead to many wins, because sports are team events. 

 

That final analogy is spectacular.  We have a TJ Clemmings rotation and we're worried about our backup QB.

[TooSmartForEweNow]

 

The Twins are wrong. Dozier's future value will do nothing to improve this club. They will never be able to trade Dozier for an ace. Teams in contention don't trade away their aces. Teams not in playoff contention have no need for Brian Dozier on a 2 year deal.

 

There's a pretty prodigous gap between expecting an ace of a currently contending team and attempting to get more than a guy still in the minors with arm injury issues never projected to be higher than a #3 without a lot of luck... You are looking to rebuild, which means guys with very high upside in the minor leagues. One guy with pretty high upside isn't really that. 

 

The Twins are not wrong. Like I said above, Forsythe just got that same guy and Dozier > Forsythe. Even if Dozier "regresses" he'll still be worth someone the level of DeLeon. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

That final analogy is spectacular.  We have a TJ Clemmings rotation and we're worried about our backup QB.

 

Thank you. I've been trying to figure out an analogy that helps with understanding the context of the decision is as, or more, important, than the actual value discussion.

 

I also like, for those that think anyone offered in a trade must not actually be a good prospect:

When you go into the grocery store, do you assume all the produce is rotten, because they are willing to sell it, rather than eat it? Though, I don't think it works as well....the point being, players are assets, and you need to best use those assets. Some days, keeping them is the best use. Some days, trading them is the best use, even if the trade is not totally fair....

Edited January 26, 2017 by Mike Sixel

[gunnarthor]

 

 I hope so. As for the pitching and the manager, sigh.

Molitor terrifies me.  The pitching I can see ways around.  Berrios gets good, Santana continues to be a solid ML pitcher that he's been for 10 years, Gibson pitches like 2014-2015 Gibson, Santiago pitches more like he did after he stopped listening to our coaching staff, May gets a real shot in the rotation, Hughes arm is fixed, Mejia is a solid back-end lefty, one of our AA arms breaks out for a quick promotion, one of our journeymen signings works out, we sign Hammel etc.  Pitch framing is a real thing that improves the staff, the defense isn't the disaster it was last year, esp in the OF, and just natural positive regression.  Not all of those things will happen but some will.  But you can see where the staff might not be the disaster it was last year esp if they don't give those starts to Duffey and Albers et al.

 

But Molitor?  Man.  He didn't seem to know what role to put players in, he didn't seem to be a player's manager at all, I think the players hated playing for him. I don't think he's particularly good for young guys who are struggling, for all the bitching about Gardy, Molitor used the media to attack players a lot more, he didn't stick up for his players early in the season, Sano's showboating seems to irritate him but he's ok with Rosario's showboating.  I think Molitor can really **** this team up.  And the fact that the FO put their own coach in the dugout suggests, to me, that they agree.

Edited January 26, 2017 by gunnarthor

[wsnydes]

 

Well, I think after the 2012 season is probably when they honestly started rebuilding.  The 2011 team was decimated by injuries but a lot of the core of the 2010 team was still there.  You had Mauer in his prime, Morneau was supposed to be fine after 1.5 off from concussions, Hammer could replace Cuddy and Span and Revere were good young OFers.  Liriano can't be as bad again.  Let's see what happens if everyone's healthy.  And it didn't work and Ryan started trading off all the vets.  

 

As for what we should expect, I think it's basically in place now.  The offensive core is there and the Twins will start winning when the young guys get good.  I would guess that they'll be in the 75 win range this year and make a big improvement next year.  The bullpen is crap and I sure hope the FO does something about it but Berrios should be what everyone was hoping De Leon would be.  Santana, Gibson and Santiago are experienced vets who shouldn't be as bad (as a group).  May might be put back in the rotation and Duffey taken out.  And Molitor has a coach in the dug out to make sure he doesn't **** up as much.  

Without trying to reignite our previous discussion, now that I see your logic, can follow it, and even agree with some it I'm curious to know if you feel that the rebuild has gone as well as could be in your view?  Or as expected?  Has it taken too long or should we expect to have to continue to wait?

 

Now that I see your logic, I think the main difference between our opinions may be the aggressiveness involved.  I feel that they could have been more aggressive with the pieces they had and made better FA signings whereas you feel that they did what they could.  Is that fair?

 

I think your last line is very important to how this season goes.  Regardless of whether you think they're rebuilding or not, hiring a manager with Molitor's resume was a mistake IMHO.  I never liked it.

Edited January 26, 2017 by wsnydes

[Doomtints]

 

Molitor terrifies me.  The pitching I can see ways around.  Berrios gets good, Santana continues to be a solid ML pitcher that he's been for 10 years, Gibson pitches like 2014-2015 Gibson, Santiago pitches more like he did after he stopped listening to our coaching staff, May gets a real shot in the rotation, Hughes arm is fixed, Mejia is a solid back-end lefty, one of our AA arms breaks out for a quick promotion, one of our journeymen signings works out, we sign Hammel etc.  Pitch framing is a real thing that improves the staff, the defense isn't the disaster it was last year, esp in the OF, and just natural positive regression.  Not all of those things will happen but some will.  But you can see where the staff might not be the disaster it was last year.

 

But Molitor?  Man.  He didn't seem to know what role to put players in, he didn't seem to be a player's manager at all, I think the players hated playing for him. I don't think he's particularly good for young guys who are struggling, for all the bitching about Gardy, Molitor used the media to attack players a lot more, he didn't stick up for his players early in the season, Sano's showboating seems to irritate him but he's ok with Rosario's showboating.  I think Molitor can really **** this team up.  And the fact that the FO put their own coach in the dugout suggests, to me, that they agree.

 

I understand you are venting but Molitor both benched and sent Rosario to the minors for trying to make "impossible" plays, even when the plays succeeded.

 

I don't know if Molitor is unpopular or not (I doubt he is as unpopular as you suggest). My problem with him is that he doesn't know how to manage the pitching aspect of the game. Over the two years he has been manager he has probably cost the team a dozen wins with his terrible game management. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Doomtints

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The Twins are wrong. Dozier's future value will do nothing to improve this club. They will never be able to trade Dozier for an ace. Teams in contention don't trade away their aces. Teams not in playoff contention have no need for Brian Dozier on a 2 year deal.

We have no idea the Twins are wrong. De Leon is (likely) not an ace. People can't even agree if he's a #2 starter.

 

My problem with most of this Dozier trade discussion is that we're projecting our analysis of De Leon and accepting it as fact.

 

Here's what we actually know about De Leon:

 

1. Scouting reports are somewhat mixed on the guy. Some (Cameron) are really bullish on him, projecting him to possibly be a #2 starter. Others dismiss him as a #4 guy whose stuff won't flourish in MLB. Lots of analysts are somewhere in between. Overall, he's a (mostly) consensus top 50 guy but there's a significant difference between a #2 and a #4 starter.

 

2. The Dodgers were willing to trade De Leon but it appears they labeled other prospects untouchable. That could be a matter of 2017 roster construction or it could be that Friedman simply doesn't like De Leon that much and viewed him as the most expendable piece of the system.

 

3. None of the above matters one lick to the Twins, who have their own value set for both Dozier and De Leon. Given Falvey's accolades for Cleveland pitching success and his tendency to go with live arms who touch mid-90s, it's possible (maybe likely) the Twins were moderately down on De Leon, a guy who sits 91-92.

[Doomtints]

 

We have no idea the Twins are wrong. De Leon is (likely) not an ace. People can't even agree if he's a #2 starter.

 

My problem with most of this Dozier trade discussion is that we're projecting our analysis of De Leon and accepting it as fact.

 

Here's what we actually know about De Leon:

 

1. Scouting reports are somewhat mixed on the guy. Some (Cameron) are really bullish on him, projecting him to possibly be a #2 starter. Others dismiss him as a #4 guy whose stuff won't flourish in MLB. Lots of analysts are somewhere in between. Overall, he's a (mostly) consensus top 50 guy but there's a significant difference between a #2 and a #4 starter.

 

2. The Dodgers were willing to trade De Leon but it appears they labeled other prospects untouchable. That could be a matter of 2017 roster construction or it could be that Friedman simply doesn't like De Leon that much and viewed him as the most expendable piece of the system.

 

3. None of the above matters one lick to the Twins, who have their own value set for both Dozier and De Leon. Given Falvey's accolades for Cleveland pitching success and his tendency to go with live arms who touch mid-90s, it's possible (maybe likely) the Twins were moderately down on De Leon, a guy who sits 91-92.

 

My point is we're stuck a bit on "projections" to the point where were forgetting "needs."  

 

Let's face it, definitions of #2, #3, and #4 pitchers are fuzzy at best. Give 20 people a list of proven, MLB-level pitchers and have them write down whether they are a 2,3,4 level pitcher and you will get 20 different sets of answers. Digging in heels over whether a guy is a #2 or a #3 is odd and frankly a waste of time.

De Leon will be a middle of the order starter with periods of dominance over his career. Much like Santana has been. Do the Twins more guys like Santana or not?

Edited January 26, 2017 by Doomtints

[TheLeviathan]

I would recommend the Pioneer Press article Brock.  Knapp had interesting comments about DeLeon's makeup, he was also quite bullish.  At the end of the day the question with DeLeon is how is he maintaining a K rate that successful in the minors with that velocity and is it projectable?

 

That would take some in depth scouting as far as his deception, his changeup, or whatever it is he's using to have that sustained success.  That's a rather nuanced question none of us probably have the answer for.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

My point is we're stuck a bit on "projections" to the point where were forgetting "needs."  

 

Let's face it, definitions of #2, #3, and #4 pitchers are fuzzy at best. Give 20 people a list of proven, MLB-level pitchers and have them write down whether they are a 2,3,4 level pitcher and you will get 20 different sets of answers. Digging in heels over whether a guy is a #2 or a #3 is odd and frankly a waste of time.

De Leon will be a middle of the order starter with periods of dominance over his career. Much like Santana has been. Do the Twins more guys like Santana or not?

I agree that bickering over the definition of #2/#3 is pointless but there's a pretty sizable gap between #2 and #4, which is what we're seeing with De Leon.

 

Really, my point is that the Twins might view De Leon as a #4 guy, which explains why Dozier is still with the Twins. We simply don't know.

 

And any way you shake it, if a team is offering what you perceive to be a #4 starter for Brian Dozier, you pass and take your chances with Dozier's 2017 and hope for the best.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I would recommend the Pioneer Press article Brock.  Knapp had interesting comments about DeLeon's makeup, he was also quite bullish.  At the end of the day the question with DeLeon is how is he maintaining a K rate that successful in the minors with that velocity and is it projectable?

 

That would take some in depth scouting as far as his deception, his changeup, or whatever it is he's using to have that sustained success.  That's a rather nuanced question none of us probably have the answer for.

For the record, in no way am I projecting De Leon as a #4. I'm questioning whether the Twins view him that way, which is very possible when you consider De Leon's makeup versus what Falvey built in Cleveland.

 

We simply don't know. There are so many moving parts and different takes in these situations and we just don't have the data points on Falvey or Levine to make anything resembling an accurate call with any kind of certainty.

[Doomtints]

 

I agree that bickering over the definition of #2/#3 is pointless but there's a pretty sizable gap between #2 and #4, which is what we're seeing with De Leon.

 

Really, my point is that the Twins might view De Leon as a #4 guy, which explains why Dozier is still with the Twins. We simply don't know.

 

And any way you shake it, if a team is offering what you perceive to be a #4 starter for Brian Dozier, you pass and take your chances with Dozier's 2017 and hope for the best.

 

True, assuming this is what the Twins were thinking. It could be that they overvalue Dozier and the decision has little to do with De Leon's projection.

One must also consider that scouts have started making the distinction between "projected #4 starters" and "projected #4 starters for the Twins." One projection assumes the guy's floor, and the other the guy's ceiling.   De Leon is not equivalent to Gonsalves.  

Edited January 26, 2017 by Doomtints

[Vanimal46]

 

We have no idea the Twins are wrong. De Leon is (likely) not an ace. People can't even agree if he's a #2 starter.

 

My problem with most of this Dozier trade discussion is that we're projecting our analysis of De Leon and accepting it as fact.

 

Here's what we actually know about De Leon:

 

1. Scouting reports are somewhat mixed on the guy. Some (Cameron) are really bullish on him, projecting him to possibly be a #2 starter. Others dismiss him as a #4 guy whose stuff won't flourish in MLB. Lots of analysts are somewhere in between. Overall, he's a (mostly) consensus top 50 guy but there's a significant difference between a #2 and a #4 starter.

 

2. The Dodgers were willing to trade De Leon but it appears they labeled other prospects untouchable. That could be a matter of 2017 roster construction or it could be that Friedman simply doesn't like De Leon that much and viewed him as the most expendable piece of the system.

 

3. None of the above matters one lick to the Twins, who have their own value set for both Dozier and De Leon. Given Falvey's accolades for Cleveland pitching success and his tendency to go with live arms who touch mid-90s, it's possible (maybe likely) the Twins were moderately down on De Leon, a guy who sits 91-92.

Counterpoint: 

We were told he's a meteoric riser, a strikeout machine, and possesses a devastating change up a little over a month ago per our own Nick Nelson. 

"All About Jose De Leon"

[Mike Sixel]

 

Of course. But no analyst is going to recommend that you sell stock if they are bullish on its future value. You may sell the stock anyway because you need to, but even as you do so you will feel like crap about it as that's a tough pill to swallow. Sure, you are doing what you have to do today, but you know you are losing in the long run.

 

Most people of appropriate means would take out a signature loan to deal with a short term problem long before they would sell stock to deal with that problem.

 

I don't agree I'm losing in the long run. You have no idea what I did with that cash. Seriously.

[gunnarthor]

 

Without trying to reignite our previous discussion, now that I see your logic, can follow it, and even agree with some it I'm curious to know if you feel that the rebuild has gone as well as could be in your view?  Or as expected?  Has it taken too long or should we expect to have to continue to wait?

 

Now that I see your logic, I think the main difference between our opinions may be the aggressiveness involved.  I feel that they could have been more aggressive with the pieces they had and made better FA signings whereas you feel that they did what they could.  Is that fair?

 

I think your last line is very important to how this season goes.  Regardless of whether you think they're rebuilding or not, hiring a manager with Molitor's resume was a mistake IMHO.  I never liked it.

Quick version, last year was the only surprise year for me.  I correctly thought the 2015 Twins would be a winning team (and it was so nice of the people who disagreed to constantly use base runs all season to argue the season didn't matter).  

 

I think, generally, the trades that were made were mostly fair.  I thought the Twins should have gotten a second piece with Span (at the time, I thought it should have been Sammy Solis, who was coming off TJ surgery and was rated in the 15-20 range on Nat prospect lists).  I liked the return on the Revere trade more even though I thought Meyer was the best piece.  Injuries happen and prospects don't always pan out but the Twins farm system did a great job of growing and, I think, Brad Steil deserve credit for a lot of it.  While Buxton was supposed to be a stud, the Twins got some nice prospects out of later round picks and low level international signings that really took off after Steil.  The farm system isn't good just b/c of high draft position (although that helped).

 

My two biggest problems with the rebuild - and I don't know where the blame goes or even if blame goes anywhere - is that, with the exception of Sano and Arcia, nearly every young hitter has had a real hard time adjusting to ML pitching.  I'm not sure if they were brought up too soon or if it's the natural difficulty of the AAA to majors jump but it does seem like our hitters are caught by surprise by *something* at the ML level.  Now, maybe this happens everywhere but Hicks' constant struggles bugged me.

 

The other problem is that something ain't right with our ML veteran pitchers.  Yes, having guys like Nolasco and Milone and Santiago and Worley sucks but they all under-performed, even by their standards.  And they did this through different managers and pitching coaches.  Was it pitch framing?  Horrible defense?  The cement drying?  I have no idea but even in 2015, you could see the cracks.  And I'm honestly not sure if the Ryan regime understood that or just thought it was bad luck.  I do hope Falvey looks at this institutional failure more.  Surprisingly, I think the rookie pitchers played more like they were expected to.  

 

As to FA, I generally don't think we should sign a big FA until you're ready to win.  I thought, after 2015, the Twins could have added a FA SP but they also had a bunch of  young arms that could be blocked.  In retrospect, they should have done something there.  (But that also brings into play the Pohlad checkbood, which isn't always reliable).  

[Brock Beauchamp]

One thing I think we all can (or at least should) agree on:

 

This is the first test of Falvey and Levine. The trade, for good or bad, did not happen. Now we get to see if they were right or wrong.

 

- If Dozier is a 5 WAR player in 2017 (or on his way at the break), Falvey was right.

 

- If De Leon is a negative WAR player in 2017 or back in the minors, Falvey was (likely) right. Final judgment on De Leon will take time.

 

- If Dozier is a .700 OPS player in 2017 (or on his way at the break), Falvey was wrong.

 

- If De Leon is a 4 WAR player in 2017, Falvey was wrong.

 

Of course, there are combinations that muddy the situation (a good/good or bad/bad outcome) but overall, the scouting and decision-making acumen of Falvey and Levine should make themselves apparent in relatively short order. That will not definitively declare whether they're awesome or terrible at their jobs but they'll be the first real indications of what to expect in coming years.

[wsnydes]

 

Quick version, last year was the only surprise year for me.  I correctly thought the 2015 Twins would be a winning team (and it was so nice of the people who disagreed to constantly use base runs all season to argue the season didn't matter).  

 

I think, generally, the trades that were made were mostly fair.  I thought the Twins should have gotten a second piece with Span (at the time, I thought it should have been Sammy Solis, who was coming off TJ surgery and was rated in the 15-20 range on Nat prospect lists).  I liked the return on the Revere trade more even though I thought Meyer was the best piece.  Injuries happen and prospects don't always pan out but the Twins farm system did a great job of growing and, I think, Brad Steil deserve credit for a lot of it.  While Buxton was supposed to be a stud, the Twins got some nice prospects out of later round picks and low level international signings that really took off after Steil.  The farm system isn't good just b/c of high draft position (although that helped).

 

My two biggest problems with the rebuild - and I don't know where the blame goes or even if blame goes anywhere - is that, with the exception of Sano and Arcia, nearly every young hitter has had a real hard time adjusting to ML pitching.  I'm not sure if they were brought up too soon or if it's the natural difficulty of the AAA to majors jump but it does seem like our hitters are caught by surprise by *something* at the ML level.  Now, maybe this happens everywhere but Hicks' constant struggles bugged me.

 

The other problem is that something ain't right with our ML veteran pitchers.  Yes, having guys like Nolasco and Milone and Santiago and Worley sucks but they all under-performed, even by their standards.  And they did this through different managers and pitching coaches.  Was it pitch framing?  Horrible defense?  The cement drying?  I have no idea but even in 2015, you could see the cracks.  And I'm honestly not sure if the Ryan regime understood that or just thought it was bad luck.  I do hope Falvey looks at this institutional failure more.  Surprisingly, I think the rookie pitchers played more like they were expected to.  

 

As to FA, I generally don't think we should sign a big FA until you're ready to win.  I thought, after 2015, the Twins could have added a FA SP but they also had a bunch of  young arms that could be blocked.  In retrospect, they should have done something there.  (But that also brings into play the Pohlad checkbood, which isn't always reliable).  

Thanks for the reply.  

 

What I take from your response is that my initial take was correct in that the main difference is probably the aggressiveness with it.  I think we each touched on similar if not the same points with the farm system talent and development and some of the free agent signings.  I simply feel that they could have done more sooner with the little they did have.

 

I agree completely on the FA bit.  There's no reason to spend money on a FA when you aren't ready to win.  It's wasting the money and the talent you just bought.  Plus, you may have someone emerge to fill that void unexpectedly and can focus on other areas of concern with the money.

[wsnydes]

 

I don't agree I'm losing in the long run. You have no idea what I did with that cash. Seriously.

You spent it all on Tootsie Rolls and Twinkies, didn't you?

[Doomtints]

 

One thing I think we all can (or at least should) agree on:

 

This is the first test of Falvey and Levine. The trade, for good or bad, did not happen. Now we get to see if they were right or wrong.

 

- If Dozier is a 5 WAR player in 2017 (or on his way at the break), Falvey was right.

 

- If De Leon is a negative WAR player in 2017 or back in the minors, Falvey was (likely) right. Final judgment on De Leon will take time.

 

- If Dozier is a .700 OPS player in 2017 (or on his way at the break), Falvey was wrong.

 

- If De Leon is a 4 WAR player in 2017, Falvey was wrong.

 

Of course, there are combinations that muddy the situation (a good/good or bad/bad outcome) but overall, the scouting and decision-making acumen of Falvey and Levine should make themselves apparent in relatively short order. That will not definitively declare whether they're awesome or terrible at their jobs but they'll be the first real indications of what to expect in coming years.

 

Game theory, I like it. 2 of the 4 possibilities have the Twins wrong. One possibility has the Dodgers wrong. One is unknown. The safest bet is to make the deal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Game theory, I like it. 2 of the 4 possibilities have the Twins wrong. One possibility has the Dodgers wrong. One is unknown. The safest bet is to make the deal.

Well, if we're looking at it from the Dodgers' perspective, we have to include potential outcomes from Forsythe. They have different outcomes where they could be wrong, which actually may be more likely to happen, as Dozier is a consensus superior player to Forsythe.