It's been nagging me for a few weeks. The thought that this is sort of like 2015 all over. That the Twins will be stuck in a neutral universe. Too good to sell, and to bad to buy. I know that there are lots of teams that are on the periphery, just within playoff contention. But there are differences in these teams. Some have the talent to be there, but have not played well, and some don't have the talent, but have played over their head. I find the Twins in the latter group. There should be no conceivable way they are contending with this pitching staff. Credit must be given to Cleveland for their absolute refusal to run away from a weak division. But that curtesy does not change the fact that the Twins are still deeply flawed. Their many attributes are cancelled out by their many deficiencies. Leaving them what they are. A .500 team at best. As discussions here have shown, being a buyer or a seller is largely a matter of personal preference by fans. But I hope when Falvine makes their upcoming decisions they put more weight into what is best for the long term sustainable success of the franchise, than the short term feel good of yet another faux #2 WC chase.

2015 was fun, right up until the end. That's nothing to sneeze at.

No denying that. 2015 was fun. And 2016 was great for those of us who enjoy the dark side of humor. But in a manner you clarify my premise. I hope Falvine does not make decisions on whether we will enjoy August and September, or whether they can sell another 100,000 tickets. I hope decisions are based on long term sustainability.

The rotation looks scary on paper but you gotta look at the papers of every team in the AL. Two starters below 4.00  and 3 starters who are not is what everyone else has. 

 

The Twins are not that far off in comparison. 

 

 

Well, they've stated they're concerned about building the team for the long haul; have any actions been taken to indicate otherwise?

 

Lasting fun is okay, too.

I orginally thought I would like to them to sell at the trade deadline but I reviewed some facts. First, our movable assets aren't worth much out there. Brian Dozier doesn't have much demand since 2nd base is a loaded position and he's been merely good this year, not great. Santana has had a good/great year but any GM can go look at his advanced stats and see he's been getting lucky. Sure, some of that is Santana at his finest but I doubt he could snag a top 50 prospect at this point. Kintzler same thing. 

 

So if cashing in isn't looking that amazing, might as well go for it. Or at least make a couple "safe" moves that don't hurt the furture and make the players feel like they have a chance.

I know .500 ball seems like a real relief from five of the last six years, but if we reach that "neutral" position and stay there it will not be Twins fans will clamor for a team that can get into and do something in the playoffs.  Being in the hunt as a playoff team is the next step and when you are worried about changing the dynamics of a .500 team you cannot climb to the next wrung.  If the Cubs and Astros taught us anything it is that you have to reorder the entire system, take some chances, and emphasize youth - the White Sox are following that lead right now and have a chance to leapfrog us if we stay a 500 team in the future. 

 

No denying that. 2015 was fun. And 2016 was great for those of us who enjoy the dark side of humor. But in a manner you clarify my premise. I hope Falvine does not make decisions on whether we will enjoy August and September, or whether they can sell another 100,000 tickets. I hope decisions are based on long term sustainability.

I don't know if 2015 was even dark humor fun....first year I literally tuned out on the Twins season (and I watched the entire 90's run....all of it....).

 

No denying that. 2015 was fun. And 2016 was great for those of us who enjoy the dark side of humor. But in a manner you clarify my premise. I hope Falvine does not make decisions on whether we will enjoy August and September, or whether they can sell another 100,000 tickets. I hope decisions are based on long term sustainability.

 

I see no reason to think that their decisions won't be based on long-term sustainability since that is what they have said repeatedly since the day they took over. 

Does anyone think that the Yankees are that much better than the Twins? We have a young team and we're playing those young guys. Enjoy the ride.

 

 

Does anyone think that the Yankees are that much better than the Twins? We have a young team and we're playing those young guys. Enjoy the ride.

Yes, this.

 

And it's quite rare for teams to go from 70 wins to 90 wins in a season. Baseball is usually played by season-over-season baby steps.

 

Get to .500, give both the players and fans a taste of exciting baseball, and then use your offseason to improve upon your flaws.

 

Expecting a team to tank and then return to relevance in a single season is a good way to ensure you never see a good baseball team take the field.

 

I see no reason to think that their decisions won't be based on long-term sustainability since that is what they have said repeatedly since the day they took over. 

 

Like trading for a 3 month rental? I mean, that's not exactly about long term sustainability. I'm not saying its the wrong thing to do, but how does that help the long term?

 

Like trading for a 3 month rental? I mean, that's not exactly about long term sustainability. I'm not saying its the wrong thing to do, but how does that help the long term?

A single move rarely addresses all concerns. Long term, it shows a young locker room we intend to provide the support they need to win.