Front Page: A Message To The Front Office

[drivlikejehu]

 

So you agree with me.

 

I think there are certain basic realities that everyone agrees on.

 

The difference is that some people, like yourself, have thrown temper tantrums over the front office's actions without a legitimate basis to do so.

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

I'm not sure how a salary cap helps with the "no one wants to come to MN" problem.

 

Do the Twins have a disadvantage compared to higher revenue teams? Yes....yes they do. But they've chosen to be in this business, and it is their job to overcome those disadvantages. Or not. They can choose to ride that space of spending just enough to be just good enough, and hope to get lucky occasionally. Also their choice how they invest.

Exactly. When we are bad we hear" don't spend money since it would be a waste anyway". Then when we are good its " well we're already competitive we need to save our flexibility so we can be good longer".  Cases in point are last season not acquiring a TOR when Syndegaard could have been had. This reminds me of the 2'000,s. After 2002 Jim Thome was available for money. The Twins saw no need so watched him go to Philly since we were already competitive. Thome was again available after 2005, again we watched him go to CWS. Instead of getting the players that could put us over the top we are content to watch a competitive team.

 

I'm all for being OK as long as possible sure. But those true chances of a WS are usually very short lived. 

[USAFChief]

I think there are certain basic realities that everyone agrees on.

 

The difference is that some people, like yourself, have thrown temper tantrums over the front office's actions without a legitimate basis to do so.

I hope I'm always passionate enough about the Twins to be able to summon up a good temper tantrum every now and then. Otherwise, what's the point? I might as well be watching paint dry.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I hope I'm passionate enough about the Twins to be able to summon up a good temper tantrum every now and then. Otherwise, what's the point? I might as well be watching paint dry.

 

Throw temper tantrums as you see fit, but if the subject of said tantrum is the Twins off-season, well, it's far from over. 

 

But that does go hand in hand with that other message board hallmark, where posters make predictions that are hilariously wrong, but then pretend they never happened, and go back to the same line of thinking all over again. 

 

The off-season is the off-season. Much less is going on compared to the season itself. I personally don't get a baseball fix from crying nonsensically about things that haven't even happened, but hey, suit yourself.

[jorgenswest]

I hope I'm always passionate enough about the Twins to be able to summon up a good temper tantrum every now and then. Otherwise, what's the point? I might as well be watching paint dry.

Really respect the reply here. Short, genuine and humorous.

 

I don’t find myself as passionate but it captures so well for me the passion of many.

[FargoFanMan]

It’s only been said a million times on here. Most by me haha. What does everyone prefer? A.) A team that continually wins its division and plays the course every year using the farm system to supplement FA losses. Never making any big moves and always getting to the playoffs but never having enough firepower to make an October run to the World Series(2000’s Twins). B.) A team that builds from Within. Stacking up high draft picks in order to build a team. Continually at the bottom of the league. Finally getting a core, makes very aggressive moves and trading away top prospects to supplement your core. Making the World Series 2 years in a row and winning it once. After that returning to the bottom to hopefully do it again in 5-10 years.(2013-2016 Royals). There’s no such thing as dynasties anymore in MLB. You get to chose one of these. Which do you pick?

[RaymondLuxuryYacht]

 

I hope I'm always passionate enough about the Twins to be able to summon up a good temper tantrum every now and then. Otherwise, what's the point? I might as well be watching paint dry.

Passion is the Philadelphia excuse for throwing snowballs at Santa.  Pure BS 

[Jham]

Here's the thing. We were told we shouldn't get free agents while we were rebuilding even though signing free agents is a way to shorten the rebuild. We were told we should only get free agents to put the boot on the throat as we entered a window with still cheap talent hitting their prime. Then we're told that lengthy contracts (a requirement for top free agents) are dumb because it limits you going forward. And it feels like we're being punked.

[Mike Sixel]

20 of the top 27.....

[Linus]

20 of the top 27.....

Exactly. The chronological date of the off season doesn’t matter. It’s what good players are left. By that measure the off season is coming to a close

[drivlikejehu]

 

Exactly. The chronological date of the off season doesn’t matter. It’s what good players are left. By that measure the off season is coming to a close

 

Almost nothing has happened from a trade standpoint. So, no, the off-season is not coming to a close.

[USAFChief]

Almost nothing has happened...

concur.

[Mike Sixel]

Almost nothing has happened from a trade standpoint. So, no, the off-season is not coming to a close.

How many number two pitchers have been traded in the last four or so off seasons?

[howeda7]

 

Here's the thing. We were told we shouldn't get free agents while we were rebuilding even though signing free agents is a way to shorten the rebuild. We were told we should only get free agents to put the boot on the throat as we entered a window with still cheap talent hitting their prime. Then we're told that lengthy contracts (a requirement for top free agents) are dumb because it limits you going forward. And it feels like we're being punked.

It feels like it, because we are. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. But with stats. 

[howeda7]

At this point, I'd trade play-off appearances for the next 3 years for a new owner and new front office. 

[drivlikejehu]

 

How many number two pitchers have been traded in the last four or so off seasons?

 

No. 2 starters are hard to come by, period. There are contenders with deep pockets that need one and haven't been able to make it happen. There are posters on here that just aren't in touch with reality and don't understand the concept of scarcity.

 

The Twins are not going to start the season with the current rotation. That's just a fact. Whether you accept reality or not is up to you. The only question is who they are going to add. 

 

Yes, Wheeler would have been a nice addition. That was the only #2 free agent starter that has signed a contract (and that's being somewhat liberal with the "#2" designation). The national reporting was that he didn't want to come to Minnesota.

 

Maybe there's a national conspiracy to cover up the Twins' activities. I personally think it's more likely to be the truth, but hey, there's no law against ignoring facts.

 

That's the thing with whining on a message board - if the Twins do pick up a good starting pitcher, one way or another, all of the people saying Falvey is clueless, ignoring the rotation, etc., will just pretend the hundreds and thousands of whining posts never happened. So there's no downside to people carrying on in this fashion. It does lower the quality of discussion on the site, but obviously that's another thing the whiners don't care about.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

As far as I can find, the so-called “national reporting” that Wheeler did not want to come to Minnesota traces back to a single sentence in an Athletic article. A single sentence that got amplified by people like Darren Wolfson and then repeated over and over on these discussion boards, until those who wanted to believe it finally believed it.

 

Meanwhile, Bumgarner’s entire press conference was devoted to his love for Arizona, the beautiful sunsets and his desire to play there.

 

So, compare the two, and you tell me.

 

Now, although Wheeler does not mention anything about family in his Philly press conference (linked below), there was a cryptic remark by another person at the table that might be worthy of some discussion here, if anyone wants to take me up on it.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KWfR8aGTwgE

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

How many number two pitchers have been traded in the last four or so off seasons?

Jury is still out on whether Odorizzi is a #2 pitcher, though he did pitch like one last season. That trade was in February. Gerrit Cole was a January trade if I recall, a trade I really wanted the Twins to make. But I really don’t see any Gerrit Coles out there this year.

 

 

Edit: Vanimal and Seth also began discussion threads in favor of trading for Gerrit Cole two years ago. Maybe they have some ideas for who to trade for this offseason.

[drivlikejehu]

 

As far as I can find, the so-called “national reporting” that Wheeler did not want to come to Minnesota traces back to a single sentence in an Athletic article. A single sentence that got amplified by people like Darren Wolfson and then repeated over and over on these discussion boards, until those who wanted to believe it finally believed it.

 

Well, even if you completely discount anything Twins-specific, it was widely reported (and nowhere disputed) that Wheeler turned down a higher offer from the White Sox to sign in Philadelphia. It strains credulity, to say the least, that Wheeler had a problem with going to Chicago, but was jazzed by the idea of coming to Minnesota. 

 

Obviously, at some salary level, he would have gotten over it. Clearly, $25 million a year wasn't enough. Would $30 million a year have worked? Maybe. I don't object to saying that's a reasonable counterfactual. So let's assume it's true. 

 

Last year, here were the league- and park-adjusted ERA- and FIP- (i.e., league average is 100, below is better, higher is worse) numbers for some pitchers:

 

Berrios: 79/84

Odorizzi: 75/73

Pineda: 86/87

Wheeler: 96/80

 

And for some small sample size fun:

Thorpe: 133/75

Dobnak: 34/63

Smeltzer: 83/99

 

Wheeler's ERA was slightly better than average, but his FIP was pretty good, 18th among starters with 150+ IP. That was the best showing of his career, at age 29; his overall career line is 99/93 (Berrios is 95/93 and and Odorizzi is 94/99).

 

So objectively he's a good #3 starter. But let's pretend he's a #2 anyway. Is it clearly indefensible for the Twins not to have offered $30 million a year? I don't think the facts bear that out, certainly not yet. I'm open to someone giving me a detailed explanation of how he would materially improve the Twins' odds of winning the World Series - AFTER seeing what the Twins do instead. 

 

Of course, I say that in the full knowledge that no such argument will be forthcoming. The only argument is "Falvey cheap why no get Wheeler." Zero analysis, zero basis beyond that.

[Major League Ready]

 

Exactly. When we are bad we hear" don't spend money since it would be a waste anyway". Then when we are good its " well we're already competitive we need to save our flexibility so we can be good longer".  Cases in point are last season not acquiring a TOR when Syndegaard could have been had. This reminds me of the 2'000,s. After 2002 Jim Thome was available for money. The Twins saw no need so watched him go to Philly since we were already competitive. Thome was again available after 2005, again we watched him go to CWS. Instead of getting the players that could put us over the top we are content to watch a competitive team.

 

I'm all for being OK as long as possible sure. But those true chances of a WS are usually very short lived. 

 

I am not sure why you use the Royals as an example of free agents contributing to winning a world series. The free agents they had are they type that are ridiculed here. The problem I see here consistently is the insistence that signing free agents is the path to post season success. Have you noticed this position is never supported here by any actual history of success.

 

The were actually better and won the WS after their big acquisition was gone. Cueto was a deadline pick-up so that example does not support complaining they have not done anything yet. Cueto who had nothing to do with getting them there as he pitched relatively poorly. He was decent in the playoffs but they won 4-1. Pretty hard to say his acquisition was essential to the Royals winning the WS.

 

The trade for Davis was actually more important to them winning the WS and he would certainly not been considered a big acquisition at the time of the trade.

[Major League Ready]

 

Well, even if you completely discount anything Twins-specific, it was widely reported (and nowhere disputed) that Wheeler turned down a higher offer from the White Sox to sign in Philadelphia. It strains credulity, to say the least, that Wheeler had a problem with going to Chicago, but was jazzed by the idea of coming to Minnesota. 

 

Obviously, at some salary level, he would have gotten over it. Clearly, $25 million a year wasn't enough. Would $30 million a year have worked? Maybe. I don't object to saying that's a reasonable counterfactual. So let's assume it's true. 

 

Last year, here were the league- and park-adjusted ERA- and FIP- (i.e., league average is 100, below is better, higher is worse) numbers for some pitchers:

 

Berrios: 79/84

Odorizzi: 75/73

Pineda: 86/87

Wheeler: 96/80

 

And for some small sample size fun:

Thorpe: 133/75

Dobnak: 34/63

Smeltzer: 83/99

 

Wheeler's ERA was slightly better than average, but his FIP was pretty good, 18th among starters with 150+ IP. That was the best showing of his career, at age 29; his overall career line is 99/93 (Berrios is 95/93 and and Odorizzi is 94/99).

 

So objectively he's a good #3 starter. But let's pretend he's a #2 anyway. Is it clearly indefensible for the Twins not to have offered $30 million a year? I don't think the facts bear that out, certainly not yet. I'm open to someone giving me a detailed explanation of how he would materially improve the Twins' odds of winning the World Series - AFTER seeing what the Twins do instead. 

 

Of course, I say that in the full knowledge that no such argument will be forthcoming. The only argument is "Falvey cheap why no get Wheeler." Zero analysis, zero basis beyond that.

 

Were the Dodgers, Angels and all of the other teams interested just cheap too? 

[Otto von Ballpark]

I am not sure why you use the Royals as an example of free agents contributing to winning a world series. The free agents they had are they type that are ridiculed here. The problem I see here consistently is the insistence that signing free agents is the path to post season success. Have you noticed this position is never supported here by any actual history of success.

 

The were actually better and won the WS after their big acquisition was gone. Cueto was a deadline pick-up so that example does not support complaining they have not done anything yet. Cueto who had nothing to do with getting them there as he pitched relatively poorly. He was decent in the playoffs but they won 4-1. Pretty hard to say his acquisition was essential to the Royals winning the WS.

 

The trade for Davis was actually more important to them winning the WS and he would certainly not been considered a big acquisition at the time of the trade.

First off, post you quoted said nothing about the Royals. Did you quote the wrong one?

[Major League Ready]

 

First off, post you quoted said nothing about the Royals. Did you quote the wrong one?

 

Sorry. I did in fact quote the wrong post. This is the post I meant to quote.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s only been said a million times on here. Most by me haha. What does everyone prefer? A.) A team that continually wins its division and plays the course every year using the farm system to supplement FA losses. Never making any big moves and always getting to the playoffs but never having enough firepower to make an October run to the World Series(2000’s Twins). B.) A team that builds from Within. Stacking up high draft picks in order to build a team. Continually at the bottom of the league. Finally getting a core, makes very aggressive moves and trading away top prospects to supplement your core. Making the World Series 2 years in a row and winning it once. After that returning to the bottom to hopefully do it again in 5-10 years.(2013-2016 Royals). There’s no such thing as dynasties anymore in MLB. You get to chose one of these. Which do you pick?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should add I don't agree with the concept. I agree dynasties are a pipe dream, especially for mid-market team. However, sustaining a window or success or however you want to measure it is possible.

 

I watch almost every game / every year. The Royals sucked for most of 20 years, got hot as a wildcard team one year and they were a dominant team for one year. Now the suck and probably will continue to suck for a long time. Not a model I care to emulate. I understand there are a lot of fans who prescribe to the go all in theory. I don't find that to be sound judgment given that particular outcome happens once every 30 years if our franchise wins their fair share and I don't want to watch 100 loss teams. 

 

[FargoFanMan]

Sorry. I did in fact quote the wrong post. This is the post I meant to quote.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s only been said a million times on here. Most by me haha. What does everyone prefer? A.) A team that continually wins its division and plays the course every year using the farm system to supplement FA losses. Never making any big moves and always getting to the playoffs but never having enough firepower to make an October run to the World Series(2000’s Twins). B.) A team that builds from Within. Stacking up high draft picks in order to build a team. Continually at the bottom of the league. Finally getting a core, makes very aggressive moves and trading away top prospects to supplement your core. Making the World Series 2 years in a row and winning it once. After that returning to the bottom to hopefully do it again in 5-10 years.(2013-2016 Royals). There’s no such thing as dynasties anymore in MLB. You get to chose one of these. Which do you pick?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should add I don't agree with the concept. I agree dynasties are a pipe dream, especially for mid-market team. However, sustaining a window or success or however you want to measure it is possible.

 

I watch almost every game / every year. The Royals sucked for most of 20 years, got hot as a wildcard team one year and they were a dominant team for one year. Now the suck and probably will continue to suck for a long time. Not a model I care to emulate. I understand there are a lot of fans who prescribe to the go all in theory. I don't find that to be sound judgment given that particular outcome happens once every 30 years if our franchise wins their fair share and I don't want to watch 100 loss teams.

 

You are right on this. I guess my main point is whether we want playoff wins or regular season wins. Building a team up through the farm to capture regular season wins is the model. That’s fine and gets you to the playoffs. The part that bothers me is the Twins never make the all in moves like the James shields and Wade Davis for high level prospects moves to acquire impact players for a run moves. We always stand pat and hold those top level prospects. That’s good for sustaining long runs but wouldn’t it have been nice to pick up Thor for Buxton and a few high level prospects? I like Buxton and Lewis and Kirilloff but I like an ace more. Maybe it would’ve amounted to the same Yankees pummeling that we got but man would it feel pretty good going into this season having a solid rotation. I’m not saying sell the farm but just making a big impact trade or a big impact signing would make me feel as if the front office is doing something. Cole was had for almost nothing a few years ago. We need to find that trade if we’re not going to spend big for pitching.

[Jham]

Of course, I say that in the full knowledge that no such argument will be forthcoming. The only argument is "Falvey cheap why no get Wheeler." Zero analysis, zero basis beyond that.

I think you're getting "lack of analysis" mixed up with an "overall impression" or "general synopsis": basically a conclusion reached after years of analysis. You're cutting the ownership spending analysis off the same way you're accusing others of cutting off the Wheeler analysis. I'll try to provide some context and nuance.

 

Wheeler and Bumgardner were 2 of, and perhaps, our top 2 targets in free agency. Acquiring "impact pitching" was the stated goal of both the FO and fanbase.

 

 

Not coincincidently, these were two of our top targets at the trade deadline as well. Now perhaps a trade for a mere rental only gives us a better chance of upsetting the Yankees. Or perhaps it gives us a foot in the door to signing them. Perhaps it shows a commitment to winning. Maybe it shows Wheeler or Madbum how much more we value them compared to the competition at a time they might not have been feeling the love from their own teams. Perhaps they see a passionate fanbase chanting their name and wanting them to stay. Perhaps they build friendships, and find August evenings in the 70s agreeable. Maybe they see that our high taxes correspond with great schools, that our northern lakes have better bass fishing than most southern reservoirs, that Canterbury Park has higher purses for similar horses compared to Turf Paradise. Perhaps sending the message that players we plan on targeting in FA are mere "rentals" at the trade dead line has consequences. Perhaps that line of logic is as equally unsound as "we can always get Escobar back at the end of the year." (Escobar extended any AZ before hitting FA for less money than Marwin while putting up better numbers than Kris Bryant).

 

In the alternative, showing a player we want them more than everyone else, that we believe in them enough to give up a prospect knowing we're taking a risk probably at least keeps Wheeler's agent from telling us "don't bother" as some are suggesting. Hence "cheap".

 

Perhaps we view Minnesota as an awesome place to play that doesn't require a foot in the door. But no doubt, if we're not going to show players why they should come here, we shouldn't be surprised when they don't pick us, and then the only way we can show them we want them more is more money and more years which we don't do. Hence "cheap". I'm also not sure December is the ideal time to market MN as a great place to play baseball.

 

Thank goodness Odo took the QO, but I bet he's not happy. Are we giving him reasons to want to stay. Think what a scramble we'd be in if he turned it down.

 

So anyway. We're now in position to make a trade. But every other team is tied with us in the standings. Our trade partners have heard our FO talking, have noticed us missing on free agents, and know they have leverage. Talk of trades before opening day will shift to trades at the deadline. Will cycle back to not overpaying for rentals, etc. The single most likely trade we are likely to make regarding or rotation is selling off Odorizzi at the trade deadline.

 

The Polanco and Kepler contracts are viewed as smart, team-friendly deals. Do you think that's how players view them? Or is cheap an accurate description? Do you think those deals make Berrios, Sano, or Buxton trust the FO more or less? The organization has subtly marketed frugality as intelligence. The "get to know 'em" campaign that suggested that following new young players making league minimum was a more satisfying fan experience than actually winning is a concept that still resonates. To this day, we don't trade away prospects, we market them, we compare them, we heap expectations.

 

We called ourselves "small market" before the numbers showed we're mid market and extolled the "Twins Way". We convinced a fan base that it should be proud of being competitive on the cheap. These organizational concepts stuck to the point where after 2 decades people don't question lunacy like single-year budgets with no carryover, no contract discussions after spring training, prospects aren't moved for prospects, young position players are more valuable than young pitchers, players are never traded before the deadline. And finally, we can always get so and so via trade until we can always get so and so via FA.

 

We were upset the Jays didn't circle back on Stroman. The only way that's upsetting is if we didn't intend to beat that offer. The only way they don't circle back is if our prior discussions were so lowball, it wasn't considered worth it.

 

Bottom line, there's way more analysis that goes into the feeling that the front office overvalues the financial implications of single deals compared to overall longterm budget, competitiveness, championships, and fan input.

 

Like waiting for 2020s to come out before purchasing a 2019 vehicle makes sense in a vaccuum, but you might sacrifice color and features, and not get the vehicle you really wanted by then, and while you're waiting for that "perfect deal" you're own vehicle might drop a transmission and head gasket, and you'll lose all your trade value and have to buy something you didn't even want just to get to work.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Well, even if you completely discount anything Twins-specific, it was widely reported (and nowhere disputed) that Wheeler turned down a higher offer from the White Sox to sign in Philadelphia. It strains credulity, to say the least, that Wheeler had a problem with going to Chicago, but was jazzed by the idea of coming to Minnesota. 

 

Obviously, at some salary level, he would have gotten over it. Clearly, $25 million a year wasn't enough. Would $30 million a year have worked? Maybe. I don't object to saying that's a reasonable counterfactual. So let's assume it's true. 

 

Last year, here were the league- and park-adjusted ERA- and FIP- (i.e., league average is 100, below is better, higher is worse) numbers for some pitchers:

 

Berrios: 79/84

Odorizzi: 75/73

Pineda: 86/87

Wheeler: 96/80

 

And for some small sample size fun:

Thorpe: 133/75

Dobnak: 34/63

Smeltzer: 83/99

 

Wheeler's ERA was slightly better than average, but his FIP was pretty good, 18th among starters with 150+ IP. That was the best showing of his career, at age 29; his overall career line is 99/93 (Berrios is 95/93 and and Odorizzi is 94/99).

 

So objectively he's a good #3 starter. But let's pretend he's a #2 anyway. Is it clearly indefensible for the Twins not to have offered $30 million a year? I don't think the facts bear that out, certainly not yet. I'm open to someone giving me a detailed explanation of how he would materially improve the Twins' odds of winning the World Series - AFTER seeing what the Twins do instead. 

 

Of course, I say that in the full knowledge that no such argument will be forthcoming. The only argument is "Falvey cheap why no get Wheeler." Zero analysis, zero basis beyond that.

I was with you up to the last sentences. I don’t think the typical fan posting here has the time or interest in producing the type of numbers you are looking for. On some basic level, I think the front office needed to step back and just say to themselves “is Wheeler/Bumgarner good for this rotation?”... and the answer is Yes, and I think fans get this. You and the front office take the other view of looking at it purely analytically. The rotation is in shambles. I don’t think this is going to end well, but we’ll see.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I was with you up to the last sentences. I don’t think the typical fan posting here has the time or interest in producing the type of numbers you are looking for. On some basic level, I think the front office needed to step back and just say to themselves “is Wheeler/Bumgarner good for this rotation?”... and the answer is Yes, and I think fans get this. You and the front office take the other view of looking at it purely analytically. The rotation is in shambles. I don’t think this is going to end well, but we’ll see.

 

That is most definitely *not* what the front office needed to do. Any team managed in that way would wind up in the gutter. And if the Twins did give Wheeler $30 million a year and he put up a 4.50 ERA (highly possible in the AL), fans would torch the front office for not doing a better job analyzing him.

 

The idea that analysis is a bad thing is a troubling one. At the end of the day, anyone having to make a decision performs some level of analysis. For a $1 stocking stuffer, you probably don't think very hard about it. When buying a house or car, you probably put a good amount of thought into it.

 

No business can sign $100 million+ deals without looking into the details. That's really not a reasonable expectation . . . it's hard to see the "just do it" argument as anything other than a cop out for folks that can't back up their opinions. 

 

And again, it's that much worse of an argument when the off-season isn't over. You know the Twins aren't going to start the season with this exact rotation. So why pretend that they are? I just don't get it. 

[ashbury]

Now, although Wheeler does not mention anything about family in his Philly press conference (linked below), there was a cryptic remark by another person at the table that might be worthy of some discussion here, if anyone wants to take me up on it.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KWfR8aGTwgE

That's a 20-minute video. Can you point out where the remark is?

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

That is most definitely *not* what the front office needed to do. Any team managed in that way would wind up in the gutter. And if the Twins did give Wheeler $30 million a year and he put up a 4.50 ERA (highly possible in the AL), fans would torch the front office for not doing a better job analyzing him.

 

The idea that analysis is a bad thing is a troubling one. At the end of the day, anyone having to make a decision performs some level of analysis. For a $1 stocking stuffer, you probably don't think very hard about it. When buying a house or car, you probably put a good amount of thought into it.

 

No business can sign $100 million+ deals without looking into the details. That's really not a reasonable expectation . . . it's hard to see the "just do it" argument as anything other than a cop out for folks that can't back up their opinions. 

 

And again, it's that much worse of an argument when the off-season isn't over. You know the Twins aren't going to start the season with this exact rotation. So why pretend that they are? I just don't get it.

 

I don’t disagree with any of this, and I do think there will be a minor signing and minor trade made before the season starts. But the really impactful guys are taken, at this point.

[USAFChief]

That is most definitely *not* what the front office needed to do. Any team managed in that way would wind up in the gutter. And if the Twins did give Wheeler $30 million a year and he put up a 4.50 ERA (highly possible in the AL), fans would torch the front office for not doing a better job analyzing him.

 

The idea that analysis is a bad thing is a troubling one. At the end of the day, anyone having to make a decision performs some level of analysis. For a $1 stocking stuffer, you probably don't think very hard about it. When buying a house or car, you probably put a good amount of thought into it.

 

No business can sign $100 million+ deals without looking into the details. That's really not a reasonable expectation . . . it's hard to see the "just do it" argument as anything other than a cop out for folks that can't back up their opinions.

 

And again, it's that much worse of an argument when the off-season isn't over. You know the Twins aren't going to start the season with this exact rotation. So why pretend that they are? I just don't get it.

first of all, neither of us KNOW they're going to add to the rotation. They should...and they probably will.

 

But adding to the bottom of the rotation is pretty much the same as not adding at all, in terms of what it actually accomplishes. And FA options have dwindled down to one.

 

So we're down to that one option, or adding through trade...where options are extremely limited, and will be very expensive.

 

So why pretend there's unlimited time, and unlimited options, to add "impact pitching?"

 

I just don't get it.