TheLeviathan

I don't think it's broken, but it could use some polishing.

Pelfrey has no upside. As a Twins fan I heartily endorse their choice to sign Pelfrey.

Didn't we anyway? And yes, Hughes was a much better upside move. I completely agree. It was one of the best FA signings the Twins could have done that year and I applauded them for it. But Correia? That signing remains indefensible because it had no upside.

My only point to make was that there was a pitcher to get that year that had more upside. The problem the Twins have isn't necessarily the "who" but the "why". They are content to go for virtually no upside as long as they think the floor is high enough, but in 2012 that was a really bad way of approaching it.

Scott Feldman, Shaun Marcum, Chris Young, and others all represented better upside moves for the Twins. I included Marcum as an example that it doesn't always work, but Feldman paid off nicely for the Cubs.

Pessimist.

Eek, for my own sanity I'm going to have to avoid threads where Park's production is getting estimated. Woofta.

They were lucky when you compare run differential to wins. The point being made is that banking on another fluke month is certainly possible, but not probsble. Houston should be thinking the same.

Because if you think Matt Latos and Ricky Nolasco are even close to the same thing we found your problem right there.

Both are probably true. Either way, it'd be nice if these sorts of conversations had people at least attempt a degree of objectivity. Nick's next article should predict the Tigers go -1 and 164 after the Twins are rewarded two wins in a single game for the first time in MLB history because they are also the best looking team on the field. Only then may we escape the nexus of pessimism it seems.

I guarantee if we had Latos people would be calling for him to be near Cy Young rather than expendable trash.

I think they finish ahead of us, but how much is going to depend on if that anemic offense can manage to be just a bit better than their talent would indicate.

I stand corrected, my memory on his durability appears to have been faulty.

Yeah, but that's the same sort of depth argument we heard when we said we were 6-7 Kevin Correia's "deep". Depth only matters if you're filling the spot with a capable player and your argument hinges on stars getting hurt to even things out. To me, the biggest reason I call this about a wash is that I doubt Adam Eaton stays healthy long enough to give that team the kind of production he's capable of. Without him, then the OF becomes a more significant advantage for the Twins. But on paper, barring injuries in both length and degree that we can't predict, I think the Sox are going into 2016 with a better team. However, the youth on the Twins is a wildcard that could change that equation in a hurry.

I disagree, but largely that's because I don't know what to expect out of ours more than theirs. So some of this is obviously guesswork as it always is.

I disagree we are guaranteed to be better. We are depending on a lot of young players and anyone that tells you they can predict their production with any certainty is lying. This could be an adjustment year for us, or we may just hit the ground running. But let's not pretend that the two biggest advantages between these teams favor the Sox. Their rotation and 1B production is much better than ours.

Simply checking off who has a better player isn't fair analysis though. Tom Brady is better than both Andy Dalton and Johnny Manziel, but the difference isn't the same. The White Sox rotation is significantly ahead. And it's a known quantity. I would probably agree about 2B/3B and the OF, but the margin isn't significantly in the Twins' favor. At least not until Buxton steps up. Is Park better than Laroche? I'm not ready to say that. Abreu is miles better than Mauer. I also like their bullpen, in general, better than ours. So, yeah, I'd say on paper where they have an advantage it is much more stark than anywhere we have one. But some advancement by young guys could change that.

Correct. Twinsdaily needs an article explaining what a "floor" is, this mistake is made a lot.

I think sitting here and talking about "going forward" is intentionally moving the goalposts. We're charting them for 2016 and, at least on paper, they have a stronger roster. But that's arguably been the case a lot and the performance on the field doesn't match up.

Except, by definition, you probably didn't win "as many as possible" if you lost. Almost certainly you could have traded more or spent more money to have achieved that end. But I might suggest a more rational idea is to suggest that there be some nuance. You know, like the kind not granted to those willing to perhaps lose a few games in the short term to help invest in the development of the long term.

Right but then keep the responses in context. The argument being advanced by some is "win at all costs", I'm not sure how you can go by that mantra and consider anything short of a WS title a "success". To me, those things go hand in hand if you're truly going to pound that stance of "win, baby, win".

No, but you've liked the posts about "always win as much as humanly possible or else...." If you're going to endorse that sort of thing, I'm not sure how you can prize anything short of a WS.

Well, you also can't have it both ways. If you don't make any allowance for the GM but "win, baby, win"....then isn't that the only way to judge a GM is by if they win the World Series? It's part of the problem if there isn't much nuance to how you judge the efforts being made.

No, what I may be confusing you with is someone that says "development be damned, if it hurts Buxton long-term I don't care, as long as I get one more 2016 win" Because that is a natural consequence of what you're advocating. There are tradeoffs for forcing your hand too soon and finding that balance is important. If "win now, at all costs" is the mantra, you are casting off concern for the negative consequences (meager or substantial) for whatever (meager or substantial) rewards you might incur. I prefer to mitigate the negative consequences while maximizing the overall rewards. So I don't want to "win now at all costs". I prefer to "win as much as I can, without hurting myself in the future". That can mean different things to different people and the job of Ryan is to establish what we "can" do and what would hurt in the future. And certainly the team could be doing more to help win now and not hurt the future. But at some point you need to let your Kyle Gibsons flounder/adjust a bit so they can be ready to contribute later. Or let your Trevor Plouffes settle in where they can contribute. That comes with the very likely result of losing some immediate success for the investment in future contributions. And you can't just get out of that need to invest in players to adjust.

This sounds good as a bumper sticker, but some elements of reality disagree. Sometimes, in the maturation from losing to winning, you accept a slightly lesser return immediately for a higher return in the near future. Most young players go through a rough patch early and need to adjust to the advanced talent of the big league level. The only way to make that adjustment is to give them the opportunity. The consequence of that is sometimes a lesser performance than if you went with some vanilla, no upside player that at least gives you a higher floor than the learning young player. But it's part of the process and has to be accepted if you want to really start winning. What you're advising is putting lipstick on a pig so you can say you are "winning" more than if you were playing the kids, whereas I'd rather swing for the fences and let the talent adjust for bigger and better things than a pretty pig. In other words, I want to start to really win and sometimes that requires a small step backward first.