bird

Can we assume you will not be in attendance?

Yeah, and I'd be more concerned about health if they didn't have both quality depth on the 26-man and a handful of prospects who have at least a remote chance of emerging in similar fashion to how Arraez surprised us.

True. Let's just hope it's not most of them, and it's unlikely that the group that went from "meh" to "cool" last year will all return to "meh". Garver, Kepler, Arraez, Buxton, Sano, Polanco, even Cruz exceeded almost everyone's expectations. How many of those players are going to suffer serious regression?

Berrios, Odorizzi, Bailey, Dobnak, Thorpe, Pineda, Hill, Smeltzer, Graterol, Duran, Poppen, Colina... It would be a minor risk to start the season with this slate, but it might be enough to win the division. We have an overwhelming consensus about both the quality and depth of the position player roster, with Gonzalez, Avila, Cave, Adrianza, Wade, and Astudillo as first responders to any injury. This may not come into play in early 2020, but the reality is we have 7 quite promising prospects fairly close to ready in Lewis, Larnach, Kirilloff, Graterol, Balazovic, Duran, and Jeffers. The trade value of these prospects, or alternatively of the current regular any of them would replace, is a lot higher than what we're used to having available for trade. With this as the backdrop, it wouldn't surprise me if Falvey waited to make another rotation move until he can zero in on a stress-related opportunity, either yet this off-season (Boston?) or next trade deadline. Bottom line is that their prospect capital is still there and the final hole in the roster is one front line starter.

Yep. Another $18M lining Jim Pohlad's protected pocket.

Something just came to mind: think of how many of the players on this list, just one year ago today, would have made us go "meh". Most.

Good point. In my view, each and every one of the position players on those teams should be given an opportunity to go on record: tell the public if you participated, if you knew, or otherwise be singled out for your "no comment" thing. But they'll be let off the hook, by fans and owners and the union.

Nothing of the sort was established.

While I see how you could arrive at your conclusion, it's very possible that Berrios and his agent are simply holding out for more.

Not necessarily.

Will you be willing to acknowledge that your extremely cynical claim was laughably wrong? Your guess about guys having had enough of their bosses? I'm sorry, but that's delusional and maybe a sad wishfulness on your part. Unreal. Do you have any idea, any idea at all, as to the percentage of arb eligible players who have reached an acceptable settlement each year? This is a rhetorical question.

Of course Garver deserves most of the credit or his own progress, that goes without saying for most of us. The Yankees just hired Tanner Swanson away from the Twins. The reason? He's developed a rep as an innovative catching coach. To say the Twins had nothing to do with his development, as you are suggesting, is utter nonsense. If you went back and read the scouting reports, you'd know that Turner possessed better skills. What's clear now, is that Garver possessed greater athleticism and raw talent. If you went back and read various reports about Garver during his years in the minors, all the way up to his promotion to MLB, you'd know that there were serious and lingering questions as to whether his defensive skills were adequately improved. So again, your claim that Garver came out of college with "good defensive skills" is bogus.

He was DEVELOPED into the real deal. The better questions to ask would be: why did every team in baseball pass on him about 8 times, why were 16 other catching prospects selected before he was, and how on earth did he turn out to be more productive than any other catcher in the entire major leagues in somewhat limited play?

Not that FanGraphs doesn't miss on prospects, but I DO think they're pretty good in general. They see an elite group of 7: Lewis, Larnach, Kirilloff, Duran, Graterol, Balazovic, and Jeffers. They still believe in Javier and like Urbina. Both are at 45+ FV, just a half-grade down from Thorpe, Celestino, and Cavaco. Also in that group: Miranda, Wallner, and Canterino. But this places Javier a half-grade up from a lot of prospects people around here really like a lot: Rooker, Colina, Sands, Stashak, Rortvedt, Alcala, Blankenhorn, Wade... ...and a full grade up from Raley, Ober, and Gordon, all 35+ guys. Chalmers is a 35FV I think, not a very promising prospect in the eyes of the FG scouts.

Yeah, I think the liquidity risk thing is manifested in aversion to years, not so much dollars, and it's predicated on the asset manager's view of the depreciation schedule for a given asset, an obvious guessing game. WHat's more unclear for me is whether FO's are beginning to deploy an "active management" model where they endeavor to turn inventory more rapidly than the competition is doing in an attempt to sell high. I was thinking last year's tepid demand in free agency might be telling us something, but maybe not.

This kind of statement makes me cringe a little, Mike. It's a not so subtle demonization, is it not? How is Boros spreading it around? Or Harper? Why not demonize them too while we're at it? I know quite a few people who are employed in the organization, in jobs ranging from the top of the hierarchy to greeters, and none of these people think they're any more "underpaid" than their pals up the freeway at Medtronic. So who's being treated unfairly here? The players? The hundreds of gainfully employed people in the organization? I hate the greed myself, from owners, advertisers, players, agents...but also from fans fortunate enough to afford the occasional trip to the park and who scream for the cheap owners to give them what they want, and often think they deserve. I'll save my venting on this subject to call for fair compensation to minor leaguers (don't expect the greedy players who have made it to give a hoot on the subject) and for reducing the whole wretched excess in the system to return the sport to a more inclusive cultural treasure. I look around the sport and can't find any real heroes these days.

After the Homer Odyssey and Dick Hill? Who isn't a bit grumpy?

Your first is an excellent question, Mike. My view is that, unused, fexibility of choice is useless, Failing to invest cash in talent ( PRUDENTLY, mind you! ) lines Pohlad's pockets. Failing to horse trade major league assets when values are peaking ( a catastrophic failing of the last regime) stifles any chance at separation. Feeding the big club with better alternatives so that the turnover makes sense? Imperative to sustainable excellence. You're conflating things otherwise, I think. Don't confuse talent evaluation prowess with skills development prowess, a distinct problem Falvey is hopefully correcting. Everyone should go back and read Parker Hageman's article from last spring about what's going on in the system in that area. (some should shudder at their cynical take on it, but that's another matter). Things have changed a great deal just in the past couple of years, Mike. All teams have decent talent evaluation capacity, although there still are a few ways to find an edge (IFA presence, active scouting). A window exists to be better at development than other orgs, which is why the Twins lost innovators of huge importance like Tanner Swanson and Fatse. That window will close, just like being better at drafting closed many years ago now. So that leaves a couple of options. One, being a better horse trader. Two being a better opportunist in the face of things like financial stress or urgency (trade deadline yearnings). Which is it? Actually, the question is WHAT is it. I believe the answer is superior and active asset management of three key non-intellectual assets: free cash, liquid player talent, and prospect capital, which appreciates more predictably when developed well.

I concede that I'm suggesting a paradigm shift and have a dang good chance of operating on a false hunch about Falvey. I reject the "never once" argument as some sort of claim on future decisions by a new and very decidedly different regime. I may be wrong, but I believe that Falvey has the authority and the will to take on salary and reduce free cash, or to trade from the minors and reduce prospect capital if he deems it to be a prudent move. But he's not going to let either his talent pipeline OR his dry powder run down to nothing like Boston just did. That's not how he intends to skin the cat, IMO. But yes, they probably are going to continue to disappoint when it comes to taking on long-term contracts and salary, but it's because of their recognition of what creates graves worthy of dances. My entire argument boils down to the Twins positioning themselves as having asset value and using it wisely, whether that is roster players, prospects, or cash. Spending isn't even the main strategic weapon. In arguments on TD, spending seems to often be the ONLY measurement of anything. Again, having flexibility and USING it, as I have suggested? I see the possibility of sustained competitiveness with very short and very shallow cycles. Having flexibility and NOT using it? I agree. That lines the company coffers. I share your complaint about not putting "unspent" salary budget into "retained earnings" with the intention of splurging when the right opportunity presents itself. I differ with you, I think, in my trust that there is a crossing point of the lines where the spending converts to an investment that delivers both wins and financial rewards. I don't care about Pohlad's pockets one way or another, but I also don't believe we as fans are quite as entitled to more as we sometimes think we are. But that's going to be a point of difference here, we know that.

Two reasons I disagree, Mr. Disco. Both reasons equate to such a trade not being an opportunity, but instead a possible disaster, if two assumptions are correct. One, Buxton has a chance to impact the team's performance more than Syndergaard, and for a longer period of time. Two, Buxton is NOT redundant by any stretch of the imagination. You'd be creating a massive deficit in favor of partially filling another one. Unfortunately, Cave and Rosario represent the most glaring surplus area. Perhaps, by the deadline, We'll have a couple of AAA guys champing at the bit and can move someone like Duffey for a Dyson-like return. All three of the prospects we gave up in that trade get 40FV or better from FanGraphs, which puts them up there with Javier, Wallner, Canterino, Urbina. I want my team on the other side of that kind of trade due to having smartly built a surplus. But yes, I want Polanco on the market if Lewis can step in and match his production pretty much immediately. Polanco is just an example here. He's valuable. He's liquid because he's attached to a reasonable contract in years and AAV. But only IF trading him doesn't fill one hole and create another.

I define it in financial terms myself due to my own background. Free cash flow is related to operating income. According to Forbes, the Twins have a fairly average annual revenue ($269M gross last year) and budget for player salary expenses in line with most other teams with similar revenue. Their operating income last year was higher than only five other teams, which might explain, without attempting to justify, their probable stance that player payroll starts to be imprudent past, say, around $140M. Avoiding longer-term contracts is a critical component of this financial flexibility. Why? Because when a guy peters out, you have his replacement costs to pile on top of his contract. Financial flexibility is most useful, according to my theory, in conjunction with two other asset strengths: MLB assets that are liquid (no trade clauses, no contracts rendering the asset illiquid a la David Price), and high-value, redundant prospect talent. This trinity gives you all the choices: extend Kepler, take Price off Boston's hands, dangle Rosario, bid for Wheeler. Flexibility of CHOICE about how you improve your team to compete for the top prize. My theory is that, soon, the most impactful way for one franchise to set itself apart from others will be to dance on the graves of teams that suffer from inflexibility: bumping up against thresholds, expenses threatening operating income, limited tradable pieces on the roster with declining production, meager value in prospect talent. If you run a franchise with an extra $50 or much more of free cash flow each and every year, you have more of a built-in flexibility, but even THOSE franchises can mismanage things enough to feel a squeeze.

I'm wondering if Thad has possibly used language that to an extent belies the way Falvey views the organization's strategy here. I get the sense, from Falvey's conversations about two things some commenters love to mock, namely sustainability and financial flexibility, that he's attempting to construct a new paradigm. IMO, the new market inefficiency is financial inflexibility. IMO, maintaining a semblance of economic health is critical if the goal is sustainable baseball excellence. IMO, Falvey is focused on three economic pillars: available cash, liquid major league assets, and a valuable talent pipeline. I know the arguments here by heart, trust me. One argument is that the Twins never trade prospects. The other is that they never pay the big bucks in free agency. IMO, the second argument will continue to be true, and the former will become a remnant of the past regime. IMO, teams that completely forfeit "financial flexibility" are subjected to the old window thing. As are teams who completely deplete their pipeline, as, even with the highest of high draft picks, it takes a few years to replenish those assets. The last key, one Falvey has not yet had available to him, is the opportunity to trade extremely valuable MLB assets when a comparable replacement emerges from the pipeline. This year may be his first small opportunity, with Cave and/or Rosario, and perhaps with a flip or two of bullpen arms. Falvey hasn't yet had the luxury of high-value redundancy on the big league roster. Bottom line, IMO, is maintaining healthy and appreciating asset values depends on getting most of your WAR from those young, controllable players, having success in skill development throughout the system, being willing to take advantage of opportunities to cash in on players who are redundant and getting expensive, and keeping enough powder dry to grave dance on teams who suffer from financial inflexibility. No more windows perhaps?

We're probably five bullpen injuries away from seeing him pitch. That's good enough for me. In addition to Matthew's Honorable Mentions list. we might see any of Jovani Moran, Edwar Colina, Graterol, or Duran before we see Ryne Harper again. Pretty decent buffer, I'd say.

Exactly. I'd be completely shocked if the Twins haven't studied the medicals and the most recent tapes on all of these bounceback guys and at a minimum attempted to learn more in in direct and indirect conversations if their people gave them hopeful reports.

Back this up please.