drivlikejehu

I get this comment even less. If you can't follow what I say, don't read it I guess. It seemed pretty clear to me.

The approximate numbers are not out of thin air. MLB game probabilities are fairly straightforward to simulate (hence why it's near-impossible to beat Vegas on MLB games or props). But in this case, I was using them more for conceptual purposes . . . as opposed to using language that can be construed many ways (e.g., "decent chance" to you might be different than to me). So by an increase of 7.5% to 10%, I don't mean that I computed it, but that it's a relatively small increase. Having said that, FG did give the Twins a 7.5% chance to win the WS last year (at the beginning of the playoffs). Obviously, there are no guarantees with anything. The Twins could assemble a 115-win roster and then have 10 guys get hurt. Every prospect could bust. It's all probabilities. But most people can't think that way or don't want to, because it's yucky math and not "baseball." But again, for fans, the math isn't really math so much as it is defining a concept for purposes of discussion or analysis. MLB clubs have to make decisions based on probabilities. That's the nature of the sport and the business, for all 30 clubs. Maybe you don't agree and think that baseball clubs should be run based on general feelings or something else, but that's not reality, and there's a reason that things are the way they are. I'm not sure what your quality starter comment is in reference to - I advocated for signing Ryu for more money than he ultimately received - I've only opposed potential signings when I didn't think the player was good, and that it could prevent the acquisition of good players.

Yeah, I mean ideally the Twins would just be completely unbeatable, but there are constraints. For instance, the Yankees and Astros, among others, are well managed and have a lot more money than the Twins. So, structurally, the Twins start at a disadvantage. The Twins biggest advantage under the current system is that they play in a division that is typically weak-to-mediocre. What most posters, yourself included, refuse to accept, is that making the playoffs (particularly by winning the division) means a legitimate chance to advance in those playoffs. This is hugely important from a strategy perspective. Even the worst division winner typically has around a 5% chance to win the World Series. So, for instance, if you want to trade future playoff appearances (e.g., by trading prospects and/or signing costly long-term deals with unproductive later years), you need to improve the current team by at least a roughly similar amount to what you're giving up in the future (unless for some reason the 2020 World Series is substantially more important than the 2021 World Series, but I don't see a logical reason for that). If the win-now strategy takes the team from 7.5% to 25% to win the World Series in a given season, that definitely would justify several years of future rebuilding. If the win-now strategy takes the team from 7.5% to 10%, it definitely would not justify such a dramatic future cost. If there was a plausible course of action the Twins could have taken to become the best team in the AL this off-season, I'd be interested to hear it. I don't see any possible series of moves that could have achieved such a goal.

This just isn't correct. There is no magical "threshold" a team has to reach to make an upset possible. Straight-up mediocre teams have won the World Series, e.g., Giants in 2014, Cardinals, in 2006, etc., let alone all the teams that scored upsets for one or two rounds (e.g., 2012 Tigers beating the A's and Yankees to win ALCS). Heck, in 2019, the Nationals defeated clearly superior clubs in the NLDS and the World Series. The Twins were good enough to beat the Yankees, they just didn't. They were underdogs, but not hugely so, and certainly not to the point where a sweep should have been expected. The Twins current streak of post-season futility is obviously a source of great frustration for fans. But it has no actual impact on their next post-season game. Any team in the post-season has a solid chance to pull an upset, or more than one.

Depends on whether you think he was unlucky from a HR allowed standpoint . . . his xFIP- numbers were better. He's so unusual in general that projecting him is difficult.

I'm not crazy about him or anything, but the problem is that proven rotation commodities are hard to come by. I was fine with the Twins passing if they figured out something else, but they haven't.

Is this like a jinx thing? Teams without strong rotations have won a lot of playoff series. The 95-01 Indians won the AL twice and won a divisional series without ever having a good rotation, among numerous other examples. It's just stated as a fact on here that the Twins will certainly lose in the first round, if they don't do "X", which varies a bit poster to poster but generally means adding an ace starter and then some. But of course, that's not a fact. It would be helpful, but not to the extremes suggested here.

Though I was optimistic also, at this point I think it's clear this is not going to happen, at least during the off-season. Between Pineda and Hill being slated to join the rotation during the year, and the relatively low need for a 5th starter early in the season, the Twins are going to go with young guys.

The downside to signing 2 guys is that it pretty much closes the door on an off-season trade for a starting pitcher. The only remaining (non prospect) upgrade possibility is someone getting hurt/being really bad and the Twins making a deadline deal (which fans have reason to be skeptical about). After all, the Twins' failure to get Stroman last deadline is a big part of the problem they now face.

Thorpe, Duran, Balazovic, Graterol, etc. are controlled for 6-7 years. Regardless of what else happens, that's going to be the key to pitching 'sustainability.'

I certainly hope so. My concern is that the front office helped create the backlash we're seeing by making a lot of noise about free agency. I don't think they can be blamed for some of the misses - e.g., Bumgarner - but surely they knew that a lot of teams would be looking for pitching. So even if/when they execute on another plan, which I still expect to happen, it was bad PR.

It is what it is. Good pitching is hard to get. The best bet for longer-term pitching is internal development, which is an area that Falvey has stressed since he was hired. The Twins have a number of guys with a chance to be contributors in the near future.

I thought the goal was to win this year?

Whoa . . . shifting from the front office to the ownership is a completely different topic. I doubt you'll find a single person that believes the Pohlads care about winning more than money. The front office is unlikely to be paid kickbacks for coming in under budget. Their goal is to win. All the decisions they make, rightly or wrongly, are towards that end. The constant claims to the contrary - that they get a kick out of bargain shopping, that they are afraid to spend their budget, etc. - are not legitimate.

He literally said: "the front office overvalues the financial implications of single deals compared to overall longterm budget, competitiveness, championships, and fan input." There is no other way to read this, other than they don't prioritize winning, or apparently even being competitive. The gist of his entire post is how cheap the Twins are, allegedly alienating both their own players and players around the league (one wonders what players must think of Oakland and Tampa!). And this is just one among many, many posts alleging that the Twins don't actually care about winning. A huge percentage of all posts this off-season have explicitly or implicitly been based on that idea, your own included.

I didn't copy in the part where you suggest that extensions for young players are evidence of being "cheap." That's not accurate, and it's a practice used by every single organization, including the largest markets. That's a red flag for your post in general because it means you are holding the Twins to an artificial (not real) standard. It's also just not true that the front office doesn't think about the big picture. The idea that Favley and Levine ignore things like future budgets, winning the World Series, etc., is just not reasonable. These are smart guys. Put yourself in their shoes. Do you really think they just don't care about winning? Just are too lazy to think about the big picture? That's what I have a problem with in a lot of these discussions. If someone disagrees with the strategy of the front office, sure, talk about that. But to state or imply that the front office is just incompetent, uncaring, etc., is not a rational claim to make. I think fans of any sports organization should take for granted that the management of that organization at least *wants* to win. Maybe they are unable to achieve that goal for some reason, but I think very strong evidence would be required to overcome this presumption. It's just an inappropriate thing to question, and if someone is questioning that, there's really nothing to say. For the people that really believe Falvey and Levine want to lose, I wonder why it's even worth participating in discussions about the team? It seems like a pointless topic until there is new management.

I certainly wasn't advocating that. But for instance, someone might not be available now that will be available later, because a potential contender tanks. I think the Twins should enter the season with a solidified roster, but you never know what will happen during the year.

Free agent + trade options. Granted, the number of different trade options is unknown. But it's more than zero. And however you want to describe the situation, Wheeler and Bumgarner did not want to play in Minnesota. So you can blame the unfairness of the universe more so than anything related to the Twins front office.

I just meant with respect to a big deadline move, the team will almost certainly be in a position to pick someone up, but we don't know who will be available.

It's a 100% chance that they will make a starting pitcher addition of some kind. If I'm wrong, I will post an apology and then never post any kind of prediction ever again. I don't need to know who it will be in order to apply basic deductive reasoning to the situation. There were never many free agent options. It was basically Wheeler, Bumgarner, and Ryu. One of them is left, and no major pitching trades have happened. There is no empirical basis to say that the Twins are out of options or that their meaningful options have dwindled dramatically.

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.

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.

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.

I think the White Sox have a good chance to be over .500 due to the fact that, like the Twins and Indians, they get to beat up on the Tigers and Royals for a significant percentage of their games. They're a step behind the Twins and Indians but far ahead of those 100-loss clubs.

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