What is the plan for Brent Rooker?

Criticism loses its weight when literally every decision is 'wrong', save maybe 1 every 5 years or so. That's just criticism for its own sake.

Most incisive post ever made on TD! 

Our opening day starter at LF is Luis Arraez. Who has 160 MLB innings of experience in the spot. Prioritizing defense might be a little exaggerated.

The only other weak link is Sano. 7 of 9 is pretty darn good. Ignoring Arraez will play there part-time while also ignoring they brought in Donaldson last year and Simmons this year might be a little pessimistic, especially given they already have great defense in CF and RF.

If I were running the Twins FO, I'd see what I could get in a trade for the package of Sano, Rooker and Smeltzer.

 

If that would yield another solid starting pitcher or a 1B who is an upgrade over Sano defensively and contact wise, I'd listen.

You're only including one significant asset (Sano, who is coming off a down year) in that package and hoping to either improve 1B (which is the position you're including as the primary asset) or pitching (which everyone needs/wants). Smeltzer's value is unfortunately low. The twins see him as somewhere between 7th-10th as a starter for this year and he's got nothing in his most recent track record to really sell him as a prospect. Would someone take him? Sure, but it'd be to buy low and hope they can unlock something. Rooker has a valuable skill (big power) but the same holes that kept him from beating out Garlick reduce his value significantly in trade.

You simply can't expect to upgrade the team without giving up real assets. I'm quite certain the twins FO would package those guys together to upgrade like you've outlined, but I'm also quite certain their not calling around on it because unless you find someone who is deeply in love with Sano's power they're gonna laugh you out of the room or throw scraps back.

And trying to dump salary in a sano trade is simply not gonna happen: look at the rotten yield Colorado got for Arenado, a far superior player. Teams aren't taking on salary unless you're the Mets, Dodgers, or Yankees right now.

Drafting a lot of corner OFers.... and none are ready?

The mistake here was drafting Rooker in the first place.

Rooker reached MLB last year and was playing fine until he got hurt. What other corner OFs has the front office drafted that you would expect to be ready, based on typical timelines, factoring in a lost season to Covid?

Oh, and fun fact - the prior 18 players drafted at #35 overall, before Rooker, have combined for less than 6 total career WAR. So, yeah, what an epic whiff, when the guy might still turn into a contributor and, in fact, could *easily* wind up with more career WAR than any #35 pick since the White Sox took Aaron Rowand in 1998.

But, you know, those facts sure aren't very fun when mindless criticism is available instead.

Don’t you think we should let them play the first game before determining it's a disaster? Might want to wait a month or two. You might even want to wait until the end of the year and see if they were able to successfully transition Rooker / Kirilloff or Larnach into LF while bridging the gap between Rosario and his successor. Production anywhere near Rosario will be a net positive considering the savings allowed us to sign Simmons.

 

Might also want to consider that MLB is littered with less than celebrated players that were traded with less than 1,000 ABs and then became league average or above. I would bet some Dodgers fans cursed Turner and Muncy getting playing time when they first came along. The Ray’s and A’s have managed to compete despite very limited financial resources by spotting and acquiring this type of player.

 

I will consider it a big win if we get a combined wRC+ of 100 from a LF platoon. Rosario’s wRC+ is 98 in his last 1,000 ABs. Cave’s is 103. Garlick really struggled like many others last year but his wRC+ was 114 with the Dodgers in 2019. So, 100 seems very reasonable. Anything above that is probably better than what we would have got out of Rosario. To do this while transitioning to Kirilloff / Larnach / Rooker would be great execution.

Why do any of that when it feels so good to just foam at the mouth?

I corrected myself if you scroll up in the thread. The offense was far worse than the management. However, I feel like the lack of offense had to do with Rocco, in a “lack-of-fire” emotion type of thing. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

I still object to that. Gardy was the one of the fieriest managers in the league and it never helped our offensive output in the playoffs, and couldn't prevent the start of the longest playoff loss streak in sports history. It's been 17 years since they've scored more than 4 runs in a playoff game!!

Our opening day starter at LF is Luis Arraez. Who has 160 MLB innings of experience in the spot. Prioritizing defense might be a little exaggerated.

So because Arraez has limited time in LF and started over Rooker, you conclude the team has not prioritized defense?  Lets see we signed Donaldson who is a top defender when on field, can hit too but not just a bat.  We signed Simmons over other better offensive guys out there, which allowed moving Polonco over to 2nd where he projects to be much better on defense than Arraez.  The comments on Rooker from Rocko was that he needs to work on his defense.  I am pretty sure over the last few seasons the Twins have shown they want better defense than what they had. 

Mindless? I didn't like the pick at the time. He was older and one dimensional. I also didn't say it was an epic sized mistake. It's almost like nuance is not a thing, and only extreme outcomes are......

Since the #35 pick almost never does anything in the Majors, "not liking" a #35 pick will almost always result in you being "right." It doesn't mean anything. You aren't a scout and have no ability to independently evaluate draft picks. You can certainly provide an uneducated opinion and, as noted above, negative opinions on draft picks will usually be correct, outside of the very top of the draft.

So, don't offer them? I'm not sure your point. Calling it uneducated is what, exactly, compared to a positive one? Other than insulting?

You have a habit of implying management is stupid based on an assumption for which you offer no validated as in this case. I can think of two very specific instances. Your constant harping on the subject made wonder if your position had any merit so I researched it myself.

The first one was you insisted the team should sign a high-end FA starter even if it was rather clear the team was not ready to compete until at least the following year. Turns out that those starters have a horrible track record after the first year of the contract. The second one was basically that our organization was too cheap the sign the very top International Free Agents. As it turns out, the 3-4M at very best are no better than the $1M-1.5M draftees. The sample size is modest but the 1-1.5M draftees have actually turned out better in the years I researched. Therefore, the most productive strategy is probably to spread out the international allowance instead of blowing it all on one 16 year old kid.

You have a tendency to derive conclusions based on assumption. Then, assume the people (front office) who have far more and far better information than you don’t know what they are doing. If you are going to critique the front office based on poorly formulated assumptions, don’t be offended when called on it.