Doomtints

Sure, but don't forget there are dozens of active people here and everyone has their own opinion. You can bet that among front office employees there are an equal number of similar opinions. What matters is the person making the final decision. If the opinions here were all coming from one person, yeah, it would be messed up.

The Twins would only make a move like this if they needed to dump Santana. They don't "need" to do it, this is a "would be nice" scenario. Unless the Twins get back pitchers who can contribute next year, there is no point in working with the Yankees.

One can't trust either of those systems with the Twins, who have been unusual in the way they have lost games in blowouts, causing a run differential that does not match their W-L record. Neither system has the capacity to understand or predict what a team like the Twins will do. The number of blowout losses suffered by the Twins is unusual and the logical conclusion is that they will fall in number in the second half. This means the team should improve, not get worse. Note that both system are correct -- as in within ~5 games of a team's actual W-L record -- only around 1/3 of the time, particularly as the season is still going on. And when these systems are off, they can be WAY OFF. If anything is outside of the standard deviation -- an extreme W-L record or an extreme run differential -- the systems collapse. But we don't need either system. The sniff test can tell us this: - Heck no, this is not a .430 team. Almost none of us predicted 69 wins for this team to start the season, and the team has never shown us this on the field! - The team has a small chance of making the playoffs, but likely best case is them falling a bit short. Realistic case is they land around .500. If they sell, then we're back in the 70-80 wins range.

The Twins aren't going to face any bad team in the playoffs, probably. But yes, simply reaching the playoffs would do wonders for next year's ticket sales considering recent Twins history.

Personally, I would have waited until the conclusion of the LA series before making moves. Because, in reality, nothing has changed between this week and last week with this team. If the Twins surprised people and took some games from the Dodgers, then as management you have to take them seriously. But if they kept on as before, losing to the tough teams, then the strategy is different. The front office made moves before gauging the team, they simply looked at the standings. Moving Santana makes some sense provided the return is right. Garcia, same. However, the elephant in the room, as always, is Dozier. I think you have to try to keep Kintzler if possible.

I don't know if we have to do any fork-sticking, but this series showed us two things: 1) The Twins are where they are (~.500) because they never give up in a game. 2) The Dodgers are where they are (~.700) because they never give up in a game and they have a good team. The Twins are on the right track. Attitude is the toughest thing to get right, and the Twins players have it. If management can help the team out by fielding a competent pitching staff, the Twins will have great years sooner rather than later. So why sell? Sure, stop buying for this year. This doesn't mean you have to sell!

Love the trade.

Gibson is routinely the unfortunate odd-man out. He lays eggs game after game, but the second he strings together a couple of good starts he gets sent to the minors!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98AJUj-qxHI

Nah, let some other team do that.

I don't think Garcia is worth much, but this is the second deal the new FO could not get done. To be fair, I wouldn't give anything of value up for Garcia either. We also have to keep things in perspective. Yes the Twins are still "in it" but on the flipside they are also only 1 game over .500. Yu Darvish for Brian Dozier sounds fun but won't happen.

What you are saying here is that the Twins were fools for letting Jim Hoey go. The two of them have the same skillset.

No, with Pressly I am advocating the latter: "If Pressly cannot handle being a set up man or a closer, then he has to adapt or the Twins should let him go." Pressly does not profile as a mop-up guy and he can't handle the role that fits his pitching profile. Let him go.

Exactly. Why the heck is he batting second? Every time it seems like Molitor is figuring things out a bit, he does some nonsense like this!

Let's be brutally honest here. The only plausible reason that the Twins are marching Colon out there is to sell tickets, and this gimmick can only work more than a week or two if he can win games and it does not look like winning games is going to happen. If the Twins are smart, this "experiment" is over by the end of the month.

Sure. He was sent to the minors last year because of this. Don't forget that someone named Carlos Gomez was ridiculed by Twins fans for his terrible choices when baserunning and on defense, particularly throwing to the infield. Gomez figured it out. Don't give up on these young guys for fringey reasons that no baseball stat even measures. If something matters, you can bet someone made a convoluted stat for it by now.

Polanco is way too young to be worried about him yet. Before this year, the narrative was he wasn't going to last because of his defense. Lo and behold, here we are and he has a positive defensive WAR in his sophomore year. We know Polanco can hit and his hitting will come around eventually. He might need a break in AAA, but that's not a big deal given his age.

If Pressly's strength is a 96+ MPH fastball, he's a set up man or a closer. He's not the guy you put in to shut down a rally or in the 4th inning. If Pressly cannot handle being a set up man or a closer, then he has to adapt or the Twins should let him go.

Ya got me stumped on this question, Dave. But hey, let's release Gee and keep Pressly (or take your pick of 5 others). Who did Gee anger in the organization so much that the Twins would choose losing games over letting him pitch?

Yes, yes. We are all aware of this rule. But what I'm asking for is the text of the rule, not an article written about it. It seems unusual that there is this rule that everyone is an expert on but no one can find. I simply want to find it.

1 2/3

Yes, but this says nothing about who pays what if the player is signed by another team. We know that in the first year the cutting team is responsible. What about other years? I know you're trying to be helpful but we are going around in circles.

The MLB stated that the new one "Isn't typed up yet" -- but there are copies floating around. I got a copy from a fellow SABR member. It's not very different from the copy you found, but I can't find the section discussing this in the new one either.

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for any text on this rule whatsoever.

That's not the current one, but the new one isn't very different. What section do you see this? I don't see it.