1 minute ago, KirbyDome89 said:

No, my argument is pretty pointed so I don't think angst is an app description. Annoyance is more accurate, but I suppose that was the reaction you intended to elicit, so congrats, you win the internet.

Why is this hard? It's about the staff this FO rolled out to begin their tenure vs right now. I don't care how many awful TR staffs you lump into this meaningless league average argument.

They're straight up lists. Nothing more. Why would I bang the drum for Santiago or Colon? It's a snapshot of where this team is/was at each moment. Remove Berrios from the sure fire major leaguer list and say they only had 2 in the '17 rotation, but that's still 2 more than they currently have. All three of the "good not great," bullpen arms would've been the best arm the current pen has. For those of you who don't believe this FO inherited any talent it should be even less excusable that the current group doesn't stack up. Again, sell me on the future. Who knows maybe some of the wishful thinking comes to fruition; I hope it does.

They clearly weren't gifted a championship, and I haven't seen a single post that suggests they were. We can probably put the hyperbolic statements to bed right? Selectively choosing where to attribute developmental success isn't a road worth traveling.

Bro.  You got annoyed that I responded directly to an assertion you made, saying I was trying to create an argument.  Don't try to shift the goalposts when someone refutes what you say on a message board for crying out loud--that's losing the internet.

If we can't agree that the staff Falvine rolled out in 2017 was the staff left them by TR (which is kind of the point you've been making--that Falvine inherited at least the makings of a good staff), then we're approaching the sequentiality of time in completely different ways--I guess you're Billy Pilgrim, and therefore see beyond the linear connection between TR fielding terrible staffs from 2011-2016, with only one decent year in 2015 and 2016 being the worst of all, as somehow not related to the staff Falvine fielded in 2017.

You are the one making the assertion that the staff entering 2017 was better than the one we have right now--you then listed a bunch of members of that staff--I'm supposed to somehow infer which ones you see as positives, and which as negatives?  You listed Santiago and Colon on your list.  No one else brought them up.  If their presence in non-consequential or at odds with the point you're trying to make, why include them?

The 3 good-not-great bullpen options were not better (at least in 2016) than what we have right now--did you bother to read my post, where I explicitly spoke to that?  If so, at least try and make some kind of informed response, not just a re-statement of what you've already said.  Thielbar has a 2021 FIP- equal to or better than Pressly, and Kintzler in 2016.  Rogers, Gant, Coulombe, and Farrell all have better FIP- this year than all three did in 2016.  Duffey and Stashak are better in FIP- than Pressly.  You're looking largely at what Pressly and Rogers became when you say they're better, not what they were when 2017 started, which was young, anonymous, potentially good pieces for the bullpen.  The fact that Pressly and Rogers have been 2 of the 10 best relievers by FIP- for the last 5 years is because this FO helped them reach their potential.  You know, the EXACT point I've been trying to make?

Posters on this board have absolutely made the assertion that the players left to Falvine would have become good players no matter what--it's what has fueled the vast majority of the conversation in this thread.  This is based on a ridiculous assumption that players are in no way impacted by coaching or analytics, which is akin to saying we shouldn't force people to go to med school to become doctors, since if they're going to be good doctors, that will happen whether they're taught or not.  Falvine has, for every year of their tenure, had superior staffs to the entire 2011-2016 regime--as bad as this year's staff is (and it is quite bad) it is still better than what BS/TR ran out there for SIX.  STRAIGHT.  YEARS.  The fact that they were able to fix that in 2-3 offseasons is remarkable.

This season has surely been bad on the pitching front, and while some of that is definitely on Falvine, not all of it is (Maeda pitching hurt the entire year then getting mid-season TJ, Pineda injuring himself multiple times, Dobnak hurting his finger, Rogers hurting his finger, Thorpe not able to stay healthy, Smeltzer not able to stay healthy, Duran and Winder both hurting themselves, Balazovic not starting the year healthy, Canterino being constantly injured).  That's 10 guys who all could've figured prominently in making this staff better.  If Falvine can't show real improvement on the pitching side next year, then I'm willing to believe that 2019/2020 were just good fortune, and we need someone else.

15 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

So your answer to a post about inherited talent (to which you frequently erred in assessing to add a cherry on top) was to compare 2017 to 2021 when no one is making that argument?

The Twins were not left with much talent.  What was done to get to 2019 and 2020's significant improvement is owed largely to savvy moves that dramatically improved the team by this FO.

The 2021 failure is due to a lot of crappy moves by that same FO that EVERYONE AGREES WERE CRAPPY.  I hope the all caps puts that twisted argument to bed.

Sarcastic ass memes would be less necessary if we all stayed inside reality.  Anyone celebrating the state of the post-2016 Twins on the pitching front isn't doing that.  It's the entire point of contention and it is demonstrably nonsensical.

My OP was in response to the thread topic. Yes, I see the current staff as worse than what the FO started with in '17, and to me that's an indictment of their philosophy/execution when it comes to arms. I really don't think that's debatable but here we are. If we're staying inside reality then let's acknowledge the starting hand. The pitching wasn't in good shape, no doubt. The issue is we're 5 years deep and in my view it's in worse shape. That isn't difficult ground to secede. I don't know why you're conflating my post with the pre-'16 Twins. 

The bulk of '19 and '20 is due to savvy FO moves? Seriously? 6 out of the 9 position players starting playoff games in '19 were inherited. 11 out of the 21 innings that series were covered by arms they inherited. Yeah, Cruz was a great addition. I was a fan of the Marwin signing even though it was slightly disappointing. Odorizzi had a career year, and Pineda was pretty good before he was suspended. They were able to piece together a back end of the bullpen that was successful, but the May/Duffey/Rogers trio carried that group. That doesn't equate to being a significant amount of the improvement for me.

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

My OP was in response to the thread topic. Yes, I see the current staff as worse than what the FO started with in '17, and to me that's an indictment of their philosophy/execution when it comes to arms. I really don't think that's debatable but here we are. If we're staying inside reality then let's acknowledge the starting hand. The pitching wasn't in good shape, no doubt. The issue is we're 5 years deep and in my view it's in worse shape. That isn't difficult ground to secede. I don't know why you're conflating my post with the pre-'16 Twins. 

The bulk of '19 and '20 is due to savvy FO moves? Seriously? 6 out of the 9 position players starting playoff games in '19 were inherited. 11 out of the 21 innings that series were covered by arms they inherited. Yeah, Cruz was a great addition. I was a fan of the Marwin signing even though it was slightly disappointing. Odorizzi had a career year, and Pineda was pretty good before he was suspended. They were able to piece together a back end of the bullpen that was successful, but the May/Duffey/Rogers trio carried that group. That doesn't equate to being a significant amount of the improvement for me.

No one is having that debate?  You're having a hard time reading what people are actually saying.  Gunnathor started by asserting that the Twins were left with good pitching talent by Ryan for the new FO.  That's demonstrably false.  There have been several pages of evidence that have been posted rebuking that claim and most of the responses to that evidence have been muddled arguments that aren't addressing the core issues.  As your post is here again.  At some point, you and others have tried to shift that into a competition of "What's worse?" between '16 and '21 which is utterly irrelevant.  No one (NO ONE!!!!!) is arguing '21 isn't in bad shape because of blunders by this FO.  They screwed up and the team's pitching at the major league level is in rough shape.  

Your second paragraph is exactly what's wrong with what you and gunnathor are doing.  You shift the conversation all the time so everyone talks past each other.  This entire conversation has been about pitching.  Why would something I say about the pitching apply to the hitting?  You know, the hitting side that I have TWICE acknowledged was in good shape when Ryan left?  The 2019 and 2020 rotations were entirely built by the FO other than Berrios.  The depth in the bullpen and in the rotation were both significantly better because of their additions.  The lineup?  Definitely most of that credit goes to what they inherited.  I shouldn't have to make that point a third time when we were talking about pitching!!!!

Subtle shifts in the argument to misdirect what people are saying isn't good form.  The claim made that the FO inherited good hitters has been roundly agreed upon.  The claim made that the FO horribly wrecked the pitching this year has also been roundly agreed upon.  The debate is about how much time do you let them have to show if those blunders are an outlier or not as well as whether or not the FO inherited good pitching talent to go with the hitting they had.  The former is open to a lot of interpretation and some great ideas have been throw out there.  The latter is pure nonsense and people citing evidence - not hugs and feels for Terry Ryan - have demonstrated that again and again.  If you have some evidence about how much Terry Ryan regime pitching talents contributed to '19 and '20 - let's see it.  Otherwise, stop shifting the discussion please.

3 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Bro.  You got annoyed that I responded directly to an assertion you made, saying I was trying to create an argument.  Don't try to shift the goalposts when someone refutes what you say on a message board for crying out loud--that's losing the internet.

If we can't agree that the staff Falvine rolled out in 2017 was the staff left them by TR (which is kind of the point you've been making--that Falvine inherited at least the makings of a good staff), then we're approaching the sequentiality of time in completely different ways--I guess you're Billy Pilgrim, and therefore see beyond the linear connection between TR fielding terrible staffs from 2011-2016, with only one decent year in 2015 and 2016 being the worst of all, as somehow not related to the staff Falvine fielded in 2017.

You are the one making the assertion that the staff entering 2017 was better than the one we have right now--you then listed a bunch of members of that staff--I'm supposed to somehow infer which ones you see as positives, and which as negatives?  You listed Santiago and Colon on your list.  No one else brought them up.  If their presence in non-consequential or at odds with the point you're trying to make, why include them?

The 3 good-not-great bullpen options were not better (at least in 2016) than what we have right now--did you bother to read my post, where I explicitly spoke to that?  If so, at least try and make some kind of informed response, not just a re-statement of what you've already said.  Thielbar has a 2021 FIP- equal to or better than Pressly, and Kintzler in 2016.  Rogers, Gant, Coulombe, and Farrell all have better FIP- this year than all three did in 2016.  Duffey and Stashak are better in FIP- than Pressly.  You're looking largely at what Pressly and Rogers became when you say they're better, not what they were when 2017 started, which was young, anonymous, potentially good pieces for the bullpen.  The fact that Pressly and Rogers have been 2 of the 10 best relievers by FIP- for the last 5 years is because this FO helped them reach their potential.  You know, the EXACT point I've been trying to make?

Posters on this board have absolutely made the assertion that the players left to Falvine would have become good players no matter what--it's what has fueled the vast majority of the conversation in this thread.  This is based on a ridiculous assumption that players are in no way impacted by coaching or analytics, which is akin to saying we shouldn't force people to go to med school to become doctors, since if they're going to be good doctors, that will happen whether they're taught or not.  Falvine has, for every year of their tenure, had superior staffs to the entire 2011-2016 regime--as bad as this year's staff is (and it is quite bad) it is still better than what BS/TR ran out there for SIX.  STRAIGHT.  YEARS.  The fact that they were able to fix that in 2-3 offseasons is remarkable.

This season has surely been bad on the pitching front, and while some of that is definitely on Falvine, not all of it is (Maeda pitching hurt the entire year then getting mid-season TJ, Pineda injuring himself multiple times, Dobnak hurting his finger, Rogers hurting his finger, Thorpe not able to stay healthy, Smeltzer not able to stay healthy, Duran and Winder both hurting themselves, Balazovic not starting the year healthy, Canterino being constantly injured).  That's 10 guys who all could've figured prominently in making this staff better.  If Falvine can't show real improvement on the pitching side next year, then I'm willing to believe that 2019/2020 were just good fortune, and we need someone else.

No, my is annoyance is with the smarmy meme. I imagine you knew that though. The argument creation I mentioned is your continued effort, even now, to twist my general post into some pro TR pitching pipeline defense. I fail to see where goalposts have been moved...

I honestly don't know how to make this any more clear. I don't think they inherited a great pitching situation. At all. I do think the current staff is worse than what they began '17  following their first offseason. That's the problem. You see that right?

Of the three (Gant, Farrell, and Coulmbe,) Gant leads the group with  26 IPs. Two, or even all three of them might not even be on the roster next year. I mean, c'mon. Thielbar has had a nice comeback, no doubt. Idk where you're going with Cody Stashak; he didn't even debut until '19 and he's thrown 15.2 innings this year. 

Ok so we'll continue the hyperbole. Point to the post that says players are in no way impacted by coaching or analytics. You're making just as much of an assumption, that FO intervention is the reason for the success we've seen from guys like Berrios or Rogers. Again, cherry picking the "success," stories without mention of the failures isn't a conversation worth having. 

As far as 2021 goes, I will 100% secede the Maeda and Rogers injuries. You can have Pineda too, though I'll still contend we've watched a decline that isn't due solely to injury. Dobnak was demoted in a shortened season last year, and was awful prior to his injury this year. I don't want to hear the usage excuse either. I'm not putting Smeltzer or Thorpe anywhere close to impact injury status. Losing the prospects hurt, probably more from a viewing/excitement standpoint, but if the plan was to have Duran or Winder step in and throw serious innings down the stretch then yikes. 

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

No one is having that debate?  You're having a hard time reading what people are actually saying.  Gunnathor started by asserting that the Twins were left with good pitching talent by Ryan for the new FO.  That's demonstrably false.  There have been several pages of evidence that have been posted rebuking that claim and most of the responses to that evidence have been muddled arguments that aren't addressing the core issues.  As your post is here again.  At some point, you and others have tried to shift that into a competition of "What's worse?" between '16 and '21 which is utterly irrelevant.  No one (NO ONE!!!!!) is arguing '21 isn't in bad shape because of blunders by this FO.  They screwed up and the team's pitching at the major league level is in rough shape.  

Your second paragraph is exactly what's wrong with what you and gunnathor are doing.  You shift the conversation all the time so everyone talks past each other.  This entire conversation has been about pitching.  Why would something I say about the pitching apply to the hitting?  You know, the hitting side that I have TWICE acknowledged was in good shape when Ryan left?  The 2019 and 2020 rotations were entirely built by the FO other than Berrios.  The depth in the bullpen and in the rotation were both significantly better because of their additions.  The lineup?  Definitely most of that credit goes to what they inherited.  I shouldn't have to make that point a third time when we were talking about pitching!!!!

Subtle shifts in the argument to misdirect what people are saying isn't good form.  The claim made that the FO inherited good hitters has been roundly agreed upon.  The claim made that the FO horribly wrecked the pitching this year has also been roundly agreed upon.  The debate is about how much time do you let them have to show if those blunders are an outlier or not as well as whether or not the FO inherited good pitching talent to go with the hitting they had.  The former is open to a lot of interpretation and some great ideas have been throw out there.  The latter is pure nonsense and people citing evidence - not hugs and feels for Terry Ryan - have demonstrated that again and again.  If you have some evidence about how much Terry Ryan regime pitching talents contributed to '19 and '20 - let's see it.  Otherwise, stop shifting the discussion please.

A rhetorical device? 

We agree, Ryan didn't leave much as far as pitching goes. I'm not, and haven't held up the '17 staff as some kind of talent laden group that TR gifted this FO. I think that the current staff is in worse shape then what we saw starting '17. I understand there are prospects on the horizon, and (hopefully) an offseason spending prior to the first pitch in '22, but I don't feel the pitching staff, as it currently exists, is acceptable 5 years into this job. That's the criticism; the staff wasn't good to begin with, and they've fallen below that level in my view. Idk if you read the dear Cap'n's response to my general post, and were just so triggered that you needed to get in on this perceived pro TR pipeline argument, but I've made it clear that wasn't my stance. I even pointed out, in my OP, that the TR vs. current FO debate shouldn't be the focus. This nonsense about me "misdirecting what other's have said," or "debating in poor form," can gtfo, particularly when my OP wasn't in direct response to any specific poster. If you feel like my criticism is in the margins, or so obvious that it doesn't merit attention, then ignore it. 

"The Twins were not left with much talent.  What was done to get to 2019 and 2020's significant improvement is owed largely to savvy moves that dramatically improved the team by this FO."

I think there is a decent number of posters who feel this FO "made," a lot of these position players too. I'm not saying you share that sentiment, and I wasn't aware you'd expressed otherwise previous times. Looks like we're also in agreement about inherited positional talent. Why did I bring up the position players? The statement I quoted seemed rather general and not specifically pointed towards pitching. Perhaps my OP was viewed in a similarly as far as overall talent is concerned. 

 

6 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

A rhetorical device? 

We agree, Ryan didn't leave much as far as pitching goes. I'm not, and haven't held up the '17 staff as some kind of talent laden group that TR gifted this FO. I think that the current staff is in worse shape then what we saw starting '17. I understand there are prospects on the horizon, and (hopefully) an offseason spending prior to the first pitch in '22, but I don't feel the pitching staff, as it currently exists, is acceptable 5 years into this job. That's the criticism; the staff wasn't good to begin with, and they've fallen below that level in my view. Idk if you read the dear Cap'n's response to my general post, and were just so triggered that you needed to get in on this perceived pro TR pipeline argument, but I've made it clear that wasn't my stance, so this nonsense about me "misdirecting what other's have said," or "debating in poor form," can gtfo, particularly when my OP wasn't in direct response to any poster. If you feel like my criticism is in the margins, or so obvious that it doesn't merit attention, then ignore it. 

"The Twins were not left with much talent.  What was done to get to 2019 and 2020's significant improvement is owed largely to savvy moves that dramatically improved the team by this FO."

I think there is a decent number of posters who feel this FO "made," a lot of these position players. I'm not saying you share that sentiment, and I wasn't aware you'd expressed otherwise previous times. Looks like we're also in agreement about inherited positional talent. Why did I bring up the position players? The statement I quoted seemed rather general and not specifically pointed towards pitching. 

 

Kirbs, you are a great poster and I appreciate reading your contributions.  I think you got sucked into a sidetrack.  The nexus of the conversation has been gunnathor's assertion about the state of the pitching in 2017.  I didn't differentiate the hotting because I thought the context did that.  Apologies.  

Analyzing '17 vs. '21 sounds like an exercise in self harm.  All yours

I am just happy Rob Antony isn’t making decisions anymore.

7 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

No, my is annoyance is with the smarmy meme. I imagine you knew that though. The argument creation I mentioned is your continued efforts, even now, to twist my general post into some pro TR pitching pipeline defense. I fail to see where goalposts have been moved...

I honestly don't know how to make this any more clear. I don't think they inherited a great pitching situation. At all. I do think the current staff is worse than what they began '17  following their first offseason. That's the problem. You see that right?

Of the three (Gant, Farrell, and Coulmbe,) Gant leads the group with  26 IPs. Two, or even all three of them might not even be on the roster next year. I mean, c'mon. Thielbar has had a nice comeback, no doubt. Idk where you're going with Cody Stashak; he didn't even debut until '19 and he's thrown 15.2 innings this year. 

Ok so we'll continue the hyperbole. Point to the post that says players are in no way impacted by coaching or analytics. You're making just as much of an assumption, that FO intervention is the reason for the success we've seen from guys like Berrios or Rogers. Again, cherry picking the "success," stories without mention of the failures isn't a conversation worth having. 

As far as 2021 goes, I will 100% secede the Maeda and Rogers injuries. You can have Pineda too, though I'll still contend we've watched a decline that isn't due solely to injury. Dobnak was demoted in a shortened season last year, and was awful prior to his injury this year. I don't want to hear the usage excuse either. I'm not putting Smeltzer or Thorpe anywhere close to impact injury status. Losing the prospects hurt, probably more from a viewing/excitement standpoint, but if the plan was to have Duran or Winder step in and throw serious innings down the stretch then yikes. 

The smarmy meme that was on something like page 2 of this thread, and hasn't featured in our conversation for at least 5 or 6 posts now?  Move on friend.  If one picture is enough to annoy you for multiple days, you either need to learn to relax, or get off the internet.  Also, I had no idea that's what was annoying you.  None at all.  Because I generally don't assume that adults get upset over harmless pictures on the internet.  If that picture is the most annoying thing that's happened to you lately, you have a blessed life.  If it's not, perhaps engage in some perspective.  It's a picture, man.

As Leviathan has pointed out, no one is accusing you of saying TR should have been kept.  I'm simply trying to say that it is not cut and dry that the post-16 pitching staff is superior to the current one.  In many ways, it's not.  I doubt that after 2016, when the Twins had the clear-cut worst pitching staff in major league baseball, a consistent trend for basically the last 6 years at that point, no one thought there were good pieces on the staff.  So no, given the loss of an entire year of MiLB development, and the run of injuries to the current staff, I don't think Falvine has a worse staff right now than the one they inherited.  Does the staff need improvement?  Absolutely.  But there is more reason for optimism now than there was in November 2016.

Cosy Stashak is under control by the Twins, and therefore is a potential future piece in the bullpen.  Seems like a germane point in a conversation about if the current future pieces are better than the 2016 future pieces.  None of the three I listed might be on the roster next year, but that's not the point I was making.  All three of them are performing better this year than any of the three best bullpen options you had on your list of the 2016 pitching staff.  I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to admit.

Here's the key quotation from the post that has driven this entire thread--it's from Gunnarthor, and is literally the second post in the thread;

"they [Falvine] were given a team with a nucleus of Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Polanco, Berrios, Rosario along with solid vets in Santana, Gibson, Escobar, Dozier and a few up-and-coming prospects who, while not core quality, were good in May, Rogers, Duffey and Garver. The team was a year removed from nearly making the playoffs. They were also gifted a solid farm system and the first pick in the draft as well as a supplemental first rounder. That core was going to win, no matter what" (emphasis added)

That doesn't sound like someone saying coaching and analytics doesn't matter.  I'm also not cherry-picking by pointing out that some pitchers markedly improved after an analytical front office which focused on player development, particularly on the pitching side took over.  Unless you expect me to list every failure anytime I want to highlight a success, which is not feasible.  Has Falvine had some misses?  Of course.  But by your definition, since you haven't highlighted any successes, I suppose I could assert that you're simply cherry-picking failures.

What are you basing your assertion that Pineda's decline is non-injury related on?  You've given no explanation, so I categorically reject it--that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  If you don't understand that Thorpe and Smeltzer were options 7 and 8 for starting this year, and not having them is a big part of why the rotation right now is Ober, Gant, Ryan, Barnes, Albers, etc. than I guess read about the importance of depth?  Devin Smeltzer has a career FIP- of 97, meaning he is better than league average--that wouldn't be helpful?  Especially considering it's better than any mark Kyle Gibson put up in his Twins career, save 2019?  The Kyle Gibson that was supposedly a nice piece for the future in 2016?

Also, the plan wasn't to have Duran/Winder/Balazovic throw innings down the stretch--but one of them could have, like Liriano in 2006.  What if 6 weeks ago all three of them were performing, and had been healthy the whole year--maybe one of them comes up and has a Joe Ryan like impact.  The Twins lost 8-9 of their top 12ish starters to injury at some point this year; perhaps that has had an impact on the terrible pitching?

5 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Kirbs, you are a great poster and I appreciate reading your contributions.  I think you got sucked into a sidetrack.  The nexus of the conversation has been gunnathor's assertion about the state of the pitching in 2017.  I didn't differentiate the hotting because I thought the context did that.  Apologies.  

Analyzing '17 vs. '21 sounds like an exercise in self harm.  All yours

Likewise, and no apologies necessary. If I came across as a little ruthless, it was some pent up frustration, a vast majority of which had nothing to do with you. I get the linkage, but I felt the distinction was clear, yet continually disregarded. You're right, and I've been here long enough to know better than to take the bait. Best not to feed them as they say. 

I guess I underestimated the controversial nature of what I thought was a pretty straight forward take. That, or I'm just a glutton for punishment.

9 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

That, or I'm just a glutton for punishment.

We're all Twins fans who hang out on a Twins forum. Does this question really need to be asked?

On 9/13/2021 at 5:58 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

At the end of the day, you need people to come to your games/watch them on TV.  The Minneapolis metro area is 3.5M--here are some others;

Chicago--9.5M (call it 4.75M per team)

New York--20.3M (call it 10.1M per team)

Los Angeles--12.5M (call it 6.2M per team)

Boston--4.9M

Philadelphia--5.7M

Atlanta--5.9M

DC--5.4M

Houston--7.1M

Toronto--6.3M

Phoenix--4.6M

Dallas--6.4M

That's 14 teams that have at least 1M more fans in their metro areas than the Twins--9 have at least 2M more.  The Twins payroll and budget like a mid-market squad because they are one.

Sponsorship dollars matter far more than attendance so the corporate population of Minneapolis matters more that it's metro population in terms of revenue dollars. Minneapolis is tied with Atlanta for the 4th highest US city in terms of fortune 500 headquarters. The Twins are operating at 30 mil less payroll than Atlanta despite an equal corporate ad dollars market.

 

The argument regarding baseball payroll is always funny because it tends to devolve into you can't possibly spend what the Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers spend. That is 200 mil and no one is really advocating for that. There is a huge gap between 200 mil and the 117 the Twins spend. Polhad has people convinced that this franchise needs to operate like a poverty franchise that can't afford to keep any of it's home grown stars unless they take a discount but that is false. If the Twins are going to pay a FA SP 20 mil, there is an easy argument to be made that with their market, they can afford that extra 5 - 10 mil to keep players like Berrios. Same for Buxton. 

 

16 minutes ago, chopper0080 said:

Sponsorship dollars matter far more than attendance so the corporate population of Minneapolis matters more that it's metro population in terms of revenue dollars. Minneapolis is tied with Atlanta for the 4th highest US city in terms of fortune 500 headquarters. The Twins are operating at 30 mil less payroll than Atlanta despite an equal corporate ad dollars market.

The argument regarding baseball payroll is always funny because it tends to devolve into you can't possibly spend what the Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers spend. That is 200 mil and no one is really advocating for that. There is a huge gap between 200 mil and the 117 the Twins spend. Polhad has people convinced that this franchise needs to operate like a poverty franchise that can't afford to keep any of it's home grown stars unless they take a discount but that is false. If the Twins are going to pay a FA SP 20 mil, there is an easy argument to be made that with their market, they can afford that extra 5 - 10 mil to keep players like Berrios. Same for Buxton. 

This is the wrong way to look at it, unfortunately. More Fortune 500 companies doesn't mean they pay more for advertising space because advertising pricing ultimately comes down to audience numbers.

Not only do the Twins have, at most, a mid-market size of audience, that audience shuns cable television in greater numbers than other markets (going from older data from memory, I cannot find recent numbers).

And that's where the money is, cable television. And the Twins are working at a disadvantage there even compared to most other comparable markets, much less larger markets like Houston, NYC, or San Francisco.

I’m sorry, but it is not baiting to say that the state of pitching in this organization was just fine in 2017. It was not great but it was not terrible. Probably about middle of the pack.

We tried to go down the list, one player at a time. I am willing to do that again.

I think one thing that is overlooked in these discussions is how bad ownership has been for the Twins for 30+ years. It's to the point we take it for granted. Ryan, Smith, and now Levine were handcuffed by ownership's refusal to spend reasonably. Until MLB created the draft pool for the 2012 draft, the Twins couldn't necessarily draft the best player, they had to draft players they can afford. Even when they picked Mauer, Pohlad was quoted as saying he felt it was his duty to not overpay for draftees.

This FO has, by far, more payroll flexibility than the previous Twins but they still are hamstrung. Berrios should have been an obvious player to stay but if he won't take a team friendly deal, they had to move on. They are almost certainly going to trade Buxton this offseason.

If I had a choice between new owners or a new FO, I'd easily take new owners.

3 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

I think one thing that is overlooked in these discussions is how bad ownership has been for the Twins for 30+ years. It's to the point we take it for granted. Ryan, Smith, and now Levine were handcuffed by ownership's refusal to spend reasonably. Until MLB created the draft pool for the 2012 draft, the Twins couldn't necessarily draft the best player, they had to draft players they can afford. Even when they picked Mauer, Pohlad was quoted as saying he felt it was his duty to not overpay for draftees.

This FO has, by far, more payroll flexibility than the previous Twins but they still are hamstrung. Berrios should have been an obvious player to stay but if he won't take a team friendly deal, they had to move on. They are almost certainly going to trade Buxton this offseason.

If I had a choice between new owners or a new FO, I'd easily take new owners.

And this is all pretty reasonable, though it seems the Pohlad kids are looser than good ol' (bad ol') Carl.

But really, ownership across baseball is pretty rotten.

As for Berríos, I mostly agree. And if they trade Buxton, I'm going to be furious. Everything in baseball right now is about "efficiency" and "maximizing value" and all of it is code for "THE OWNERS DON'T WANT TO SPEND MONEY".

The Twins should have paid Berríos, they should pay Buxton, because this is a spectator sport and those players and GOOD and FUN TO WATCH. I understand that a reality of modern sports is cheering for laundry but that doesn't have to be the case 100% of the time or even close to 100% of the time. If the team has a good player that fans like, pay the man and let fans continue to enjoy his on-field play for years. A big reason why I'm such a devout Twins fan is because I grew up knowing nothing but Puckett and Hrbek being on my favorite team until I was almost out of my teenage years.

Per Brock Beauchamp

"........But really, ownership across baseball is pretty rotten. ......."

Not just baseball. Many pro sports owners seem to regard owning a "major league" franchise as simply another diversion to go with yachts and jets. The huge amounts of money now involved have totally distorted the simple mission of winning games whatever the game is. The win loss record is now nothing but a by product of huge bureaucracies and varying interests that go way beyond what takes place on the field. By the way, Sano played a great first base last night in the second game and I liked Pyrzensky's (sp) commentary. Need a couple like him on the team now.

4 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I’m sorry, but it is not baiting to say that the state of pitching in this organization was just fine in 2017. It was not great but it was not terrible. Probably about middle of the pack.

We tried to go down the list, one player at a time. I am willing to do that again.

That wasn't what "bait," was in reference to. 

I'd stop short of calling it just fine but I think having, at minimum, 2 capable major league starters puts that group ahead of where we're currently at.

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I'd stop short of calling it just fine but I think having, at minimum, 2 capable major league starters puts that group ahead of where we're currently at.

If we're calling fresh-out-of-2016 Berríos capable, what are Bailey Ober and Joe Ryan?

It's an honest question because Jose was highly regarded but was just so awful in 2016 that he was still very much a question mark entering the 2017 season. I don't see any way to consider Jose capable while not putting either/both Ober/Ryan in the same category, or at least strongly considering them to potentially be in the same category of "will likely be a solid MLB contributor".

Standard Pitching

Year	Age	Tm	Lg	W	L	W-L%	ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	BK	WP	BF	ERA+	FIP	WHIP	H9	HR9	BB9	SO9	SO/W	Awards
2016	22	MIN	AL	3	7	.300	8.02	14	14	0	0	0	0	58.1	74	56	52	12	35	0	49	5	0	1	281	53	6.20	1.869	11.4	1.9	5.4	7.6	1.40

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 9/15/2021.

42 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

If we're calling fresh-out-of-2016 Berríos capable, what are Bailey Ober and Joe Ryan?

It's an honest question because Jose was highly regarded but was just so awful in 2016 that he was still very much a question mark entering the 2017 season. I don't see any way to consider Jose capable while not putting either/both Ober/Ryan in the same category, or at least strongly considering them to potentially be in the same category of "will likely be a solid MLB contributor".

Standard Pitching

Year	Age	Tm	Lg	W	L	W-L%	ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	BK	WP	BF	ERA+	FIP	WHIP	H9	HR9	BB9	SO9	SO/W	Awards
2016	22	MIN	AL	3	7	.300	8.02	14	14	0	0	0	0	58.1	74	56	52	12	35	0	49	5	0	1	281	53	6.20	1.869	11.4	1.9	5.4	7.6	1.40

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 9/15/2021.

Even Jax would play, if those numbers are the qualifiers.  Unless HR9 is the ultra-qualifier.

Year	W	L	W-L%	ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	BK	WP	BF	ERA+	FIP	WHIP	H9	HR9	BB9	SO9	SO/W
2021	3	3	.500	6.72	14	10	2	0	0	0	64.1	64	50	48	18	24	0	51	2	0	6	282	64	6.43	1.368	9.0	2.5	3.4	7.1	2.13

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 9/15/2021.

53 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

If we're calling fresh-out-of-2016 Berríos capable, what are Bailey Ober and Joe Ryan?

It's an honest question because Jose was highly regarded but was just so awful in 2016 that he was still very much a question mark entering the 2017 season. I don't see any way to consider Jose capable while not putting either/both Ober/Ryan in the same category, or at least strongly considering them to potentially be in the same category of "will likely be a solid MLB contributor".

Standard Pitching

Year	Age	Tm	Lg	W	L	W-L%	ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	BK	WP	BF	ERA+	FIP	WHIP	H9	HR9	BB9	SO9	SO/W	Awards
2016	22	MIN	AL	3	7	.300	8.02	14	14	0	0	0	0	58.1	74	56	52	12	35	0	49	5	0	1	281	53	6.20	1.869	11.4	1.9	5.4	7.6	1.40

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 9/15/2021.

Gibson and Santana weren't major league pitchers?

6 hours ago, chopper0080 said:

Sponsorship dollars matter far more than attendance so the corporate population of Minneapolis matters more that it's metro population in terms of revenue dollars. Minneapolis is tied with Atlanta for the 4th highest US city in terms of fortune 500 headquarters. The Twins are operating at 30 mil less payroll than Atlanta despite an equal corporate ad dollars market.

 

The argument regarding baseball payroll is always funny because it tends to devolve into you can't possibly spend what the Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers spend. That is 200 mil and no one is really advocating for that. There is a huge gap between 200 mil and the 117 the Twins spend. Polhad has people convinced that this franchise needs to operate like a poverty franchise that can't afford to keep any of it's home grown stars unless they take a discount but that is false. If the Twins are going to pay a FA SP 20 mil, there is an easy argument to be made that with their market, they can afford that extra 5 - 10 mil to keep players like Berrios. Same for Buxton. 

 

Brock hit a lot of points here (specifically, fortune 500 companies won't pay as much to advertise teams with fewer fans--there is nothing that prevents Target from sponsoring the Yankees, or United Health Care the Dodgers), but your idea that attendance is all fans is good for is just wrong.

Fans also buy the cable packages that provide a huge chunk of team revenue.  The more fans watching, the more the team can extract from cable channels for rights.  Fangraphs estimates (in 2020) that the Twins would make $43M from their cable package--they peg Atlanta at literally twice that.  Are the Braves just that much better at negotiating rights fees than the Twins, or is it because there are more fans in Atlanta (due to having 70% more people in their metro area) who will buy the cable package, and therefore see the ads?  Attendance is also a giant chunk of revenue.  If the Twins average 20k fans a game, who each spend $30 on average (almost assuredly low when you consider ticket, concessions, and merch) for 81 games, that's just shy of $50M.  Clearly, having more fans to attend your games is a big deal, and if you look at the 2021 attendance numbers, you'll understand how big a deal having people, more so than corporations in your market is.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

https://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

14 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Gibson and Santana weren't major league pitchers?

I... guess?

Kyle Gibson had an 83 ERA+ in 2016. He also had an 87 ERA+ in 2017.

If that's the bar we need to clear to be considered "capable", John Gant has a 91 ERA+ this season and is under control for next season should the Twins want to go that route.

To elaborate a bit further, exiting the 2016 season, Gibson had a career 88 ERA+.

Do you know who else has a career 88 ERA+? Randy Dobnak.

18 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Gibson and Santana weren't major league pitchers?

They were, but they were also rapidly approaching the end of their career (Santana), and were statistically worse than the average MLB pitcher (Gibson).  The Twins entered 2017 with a #2 who could fall of a cliff at any moment, a #4 who was about to turn 29, and a 22 year old who everyone hoped would be an ace, but had just finished a season where he pitched like a AAAA guy.

The 2022 Twins will have a 26 year old #4 (Ober), a 25 year old who has pitched like a #2/#3 for his entire professional career (Ryan), 3-5 highly-regarded starters at AA or above (Duran, Winder, Balazovic, SWR, Strotman), and $30-$50M to spend in FA to procure pitching.  That's better.

31 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I... guess?

Kyle Gibson had an 83 ERA+ in 2016. He also had an 87 ERA+ in 2017.

If that's the bar we need to clear to be considered "capable", John Gant has a 91 ERA+ this season and is under control for next season should the Twins want to go that route.

To elaborate a bit further, exiting the 2016 season, Gibson had a career 88 ERA+.

Do you know who else has a career 88 ERA+? Randy Dobnak.

Gibson also threw almost 400 innings of decent ball in '14 & '15. He was always frustrating for me to watch, and I'm far from a member of the fan club, but I don't believe he was viewed as a fringe pitcher coming into '17.

Gant is outperforming his peripherals by a considerable margin this season. Idk if ERA+ is the metric I'd rely on, but I guess you can hope the trend continues and pencil him in.

Dobnak has just over 125 career innings. He posted an ERA+ of 288 over his first 28ish innings. I'm not sure his career ERA+ means much of anything.

7 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I’m sorry, but it is not baiting to say that the state of pitching in this organization was just fine in 2017. It was not great but it was not terrible. Probably about middle of the pack.

We tried to go down the list, one player at a time. I am willing to do that again.

The next time you post any evidence to support this will be the first time you've done so.  By all means.  I consider "fine" roughly league average.  Prove your case.  A list of A-ballers and two dudes who were ok is not a "fine" pitching staff.  But maybe I'm wrong.  

Let's see your evidence.

I am way happier and see a brighter future under this front office and the prior Terry Ryan one, in which I had zero confidence, but the evidence mounts.  If Berrios really wasn't going to sign here, or if he wanted too much money, then trading him was the only option, but would need to know why he wouldn't sign here.  Buxton being kept in the minors way back when to preserve one more year of control may cost the Twins him, as well.  I didn't like that move at the time and still feel it was a cheap shot.  Alex Columbe has to go and should never have been signed.  Again, the evidence is mounting.

 

43 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Gibson also threw almost 400 innings of decent ball in '14 & '15. He was always frustrating for me to watch, and I'm far from a member of the fan club, but I don't believe he was viewed as a fringe pitcher coming into '17.

Gant is outperforming his peripherals by a considerable margin this season. Idk if ERA+ is the metric I'd rely on, but I guess you can hope the trend continues and pencil him in.

Dobnak has just over 125 career innings. He posted an ERA+ of 288 over his first 28ish innings. I'm not sure his career ERA+ means much of anything.

By decent, you mean a 100 and a 97 FIP-, in his age 26 and 27 seasons?  You're right, he was not fringe, but no one is saying he was fringe.  What I and others are saying is that Gibson was not a particularly attractive piece for future rotations, other than his ability eat innings while providing league average results.  He was not young enough (he turned 29 at the end of the 2016 season) to be seriously seen as an upside candidate, and his performance (league average) was not good enough to make him a nice piece.

That said, you're right--Kyle Gibson's 88 ERA+ exiting the 2016 season, given that it covered far more innings than Dobnak's 88 ERA+ is more meaningful.  Post-2016 Gibson had done much more to prove that he was a below average MLB pitcher than Dobnak has.

57 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Gibson also threw almost 400 innings of decent ball in '14 & '15. He was always frustrating for me to watch, and I'm far from a member of the fan club, but I don't believe he was viewed as a fringe pitcher coming into '17.

I don't know if we can consider Gibson's 2014 "decent", though. He pitched to an 87 ERA+.

He was decent in 2015, for sure.

Then he regressed massively in 2016, pitching to an 83 ERA+.

My point is that if you flash back to the end of 2016, no one looked at the career of Kyle Gibson and felt comfortable that he was an acceptable MLB starter going forward. Saying otherwise is purely hindsight. We HOPED he could become a decent pitcher but he didn't even do that in 2017, either. It was all the way into 2018 when he finally started performing at a consistent level (2015 was a yo-yo that gave us hope but had plenty of bad mixed with the good).

32 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

That said, you're right--Kyle Gibson's 88 ERA+ exiting the 2016 season, given that it covered far more innings than Dobnak's 88 ERA+ is more meaningful.  Post-2016 Gibson had done much more to prove that he was a below average MLB pitcher than Dobnak has.

And this is the catch for me. Gibson *thankfully* improved and gave the Twins one very nice season in 2018 but being 12% below league average while approaching 30 years old did not instill confidence in anyone to open 2017. And not only was he 12% below league average for his career - which wasn't an insignificant number of innings at that point - but in 2016 he was 17% below league average.

At that point, is Dobnak's lack of innings and relative youth to 2016 Gibson a plus or a minus? I don't know, that can be argued either way but that's not what we're talking about here... we're talking about whether anyone was confident in Gibson being a rotation fixture after 2016 and that answer was unequivocally "no".

So now we're down to Ervin Santana, who was a legitimately solid MLB starter but was also paid as such and was entering his mid-30s. Essentially, he was Kenta Maeda without the upside and paid *a lot* more, to boot.

13 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

The next time you post any evidence to support this will be the first time you've done so.  By all means.  I consider "fine" roughly league average.  Prove your case.  A list of A-ballers and two dudes who were ok is not a "fine" pitching staff.  But maybe I'm wrong.  

Let's see your evidence.

I’m not trying to argue.

I’m pushing back against misleading claims. There is plenty of evidence. Anyone can see it. Things like this have been said in this thread: 

— “Look at the awful minor league pitching they inherited”

 

— “a list of A-ballers and two dudes who were ok.”

 

— “None of those pitchers are good.” (In reference to Ynoa and Gil, Wells, Graterol, Stewart, Romero, Jay, Gonsalves, etc.)

 

If Gil and Ynoa were still in this organization and pitching with this much promise, we would be gushing over them, right?

 

There was a time around 2018 when Nick Gordon and Stephen Gonsalves were Top 100 prospects. I wanted to trade them both together. The response was “maybe trade one, but not both.” Heh.

We are dreaming on these young AA prospects today the same way we dreamt on those other prospects yesterday. Maybe it will turn out better this time. Let’s hope.