PDA

View Full Version : Josh Willingham trade value?



darin617
05-30-2012, 11:57 PM
What do you think Josh Willingham would be worth to a contender? 2 more years under contract for $7 million a year is pretty cheap and under control for 2 more years. I would love to keep him but I don't see the Twins willing to contend any time soon. At least you could possibly get a good young arm to rebuild the rotation around for him.

Top Gun
05-31-2012, 12:09 AM
You can't trade all your best players. You have to field a team. The rotation is fine, Twins are winning.

glunn
05-31-2012, 12:21 AM
Depending on how he plays as the trade deadline approaches, I would think that the Twins could hold out for a lot. Willingham seems a little streaky, and it will be good if he can stay hot.

Willingham is 33 years old, and he may be 36 or 37 by the time that the Twins are ready to contend again. So he seems expendable.

On the other hand, if this looks like a salary dump, fans should be resentful. I would love to see a trade where the Twins deal with a smaller cap team who will give up excellent prospects if the Twins agree to eat some of Willingham's salary. The Twins could show good faith to the fans by spending some money if an opportunity arises to get one or more excellent prospects as part of a trade with a smaller cap team.

Shane Wahl
05-31-2012, 12:34 AM
He's signed for three-year deal. He isn't going anywhere. And he shouldn't. I don't give up on seasons like everyone else does, but even given my stupidity . . . he has a multi-year contract . . . no one with one is going to be traded. Full stop.

TwinsGuy55422
05-31-2012, 12:36 AM
I would hate to see him go. But at this point, the focus has to be the future. If we can get some quality pitching talent, I would pull the trigger.

Shane Wahl
05-31-2012, 01:26 AM
I guess Boston could be the one spot where a 2.5 year deal would be acceptable . . . but still doubtful. Trading for players with 1+ plus is rare, so thinking about trading for 2+ years is pretty stupid. Willingham is here into 2013 at the least.

Highabove
05-31-2012, 02:22 AM
Should we keep anyone worth watching next year?

Who will be first in line for tickets?

Someone will have to pay for the 55 million dollar payroll next year.

spideyo
05-31-2012, 06:11 AM
As a fan and a Target Field employee, it would really REALLY piss me off if they traded away Hammer. If I wanted to watch a bunch of young kids and washed up veterans, I'd start going to Saints games. If you want the team to contend in the future, you need to keep butts in the seats and eyes on the screen. Guys like Willingham help do that.

And who would you replace him with? Plouffe should NOT be starting right now, Mastroianni is a 4th OF at best. Benson, Tosoni, and Hicks are all in AA, Dinkleman is hurt, and I don't think anyone wants Clete "strikeout machine" Thomas getting another crack at starting.

CharacterGroove
05-31-2012, 07:28 AM
Doubtful. He plays better than his contract and is more productive than the reasonable potential of 95% of prospects.

That said, anything's possible. A big market team could offer something too generous to turn down.

Yoshii
05-31-2012, 07:59 AM
wtf didnt we just sign him to two years? Why would we trade him? Hes like are one good player and the core of the team right now.

tpb8
05-31-2012, 08:19 AM
So a contending team desperate for RH power calls and offers a nice package. We don't move a guy who is essentially a full-time DH and 33 years old? Because some people want to buy tickets to watch him hit HRs for a rebuilding team?

Chance
05-31-2012, 09:11 AM
So a contending team desperate for RH power calls and offers a nice package. We don't move a guy who is essentially a full-time DH and 33 years old? Because some people want to buy tickets to watch him hit HRs for a rebuilding team?

Kind of have to agree with this. I liked the proposed topic because I really wasn't sure what I'd do. I sure don't want Willingham to go, I look forward to his at bats and you are locked in the whole plate appearance. But at the same time if a contender is willing to part with a top prospect and maybe a couple other talents with some upside I'd like the twins to make the trade.

And for those complaining about not wanting to watch a game without him since we are rebuilding then don't watch at all ever. This is baseball it happens when you arent a major market team live with it and enjoy watching prospects.

jmlease1
05-31-2012, 09:40 AM
Willingham has been excellent and a value buy at $7M per. Who would replace him? And what would we really get for him, even if he was on the table? A couple of A-ball pitching prospects? No one is going to be breaking down the doors for him right now, and by mid-summer you have to expect that his BA is going to settle in around .260-.270. Even with his 30-hr pop, is he going to be a guy that someone is going to part with a top prospect for? Seems unlikely. So how much of a benefit is it to deal a guy with a good contract that fills a real team need for a roll of a dice on prospects? If this were the last year of his deal, or even the 2nd-to-last, I'd consider it (perhaps be all for it), but not in year 1 of a 3 year deal.

There's a lot of talk right now about the Twins dealing their veteran players, but most of it seems unrealistic/foolish, and everybody wants us to get pitching. Mauer would cause a PR hit and either require taking on a bad contract or not getting good value, and we don't have a viable replacement. Morneau's injury history makes him difficult to move, and until Parmelee proves it, we don't have a full-time replacement. Span's the most easily moved, but why would we? He's in his prime, can play multiple positions in the OF, his contract is good...and we don't know yet if Revere can hit enough to take his place. (and we don't have a replacement leading off, unless Gardy defies all prior history and puts Mauer in there)

Flipping veterans sounds good in concept, but the reality for this team is much more problematic.

cr9617
05-31-2012, 09:51 AM
You can't trade all your best players. You have to field a team. The rotation is fine, Twins are winning.

You are joking...right??

Blake
05-31-2012, 09:51 AM
Oddly enough, I think the Twins have too many questions to answer before any players can be traded. For instance, Morneau really cannot be traded right now, because of injury history and lack of replacement. There are too many unknowns when it comes to the rotation at this point. (Although the bullpen problems from last year seem to have been solved) For instance, what if it turns out Walters and Diamond are serviceable big league pitchers? What about Liriano?

Third base is another gaping hole. And the Twins don't know if Dozier is the answer up the middle.

Right now, if the Twins make a move, I think it looks more like making a move just to make a move, rather than a careful assessment of team needs.

Obviously, if another team comes across with a deal that sends a bunch of top flight prospects for, say , Span, then I'm sure the deal would be considered.

Anything other than a haul of minor league players probably means the deal won't be done.

twinsnorth49
05-31-2012, 09:57 AM
So a contending team desperate for RH power calls and offers a nice package. We don't move a guy who is essentially a full-time DH and 33 years old? Because some people want to buy tickets to watch him hit HRs for a rebuilding team?

A full time DH who has started 44 games in left field? People who buy tickets do need something of interest to watch, it's pretty easy to just suggest we trade away every legitimate major leaguer for prospects but it just doesn't work that way. No discredit to Hammer but I have doubts anyone is going to give away the farm to grab him anyway, he did sign with the Twins for 7 per over 3.

mike wants wins
05-31-2012, 09:59 AM
those of you saying don't trade him, how do they get better next year if they don't trade players? Look at AAA and even AA, where will any players come from, if you don't trade for them?

twinswon1991
05-31-2012, 10:03 AM
You can't trade all your best players. You have to field a team. The rotation is fine, Twins are winning.

The rotation is fine????? They are worst in the league and were on record pace for futility a few days ago.

At this point all vets should be on the block and they should be building for 2015. Whether they win 40 or 75 games the next two years is meaningless if winning championships is the goal.

twinswon1991
05-31-2012, 10:09 AM
those of you saying don't trade him, how do they get better next year if they don't trade players? Look at AAA and even AA, where will any players come from, if you don't trade for them?

Well stated. When you have no minor league talent you need to trade to acquire young talent.

Curt
05-31-2012, 10:10 AM
Memo to Terry Ryan: Take all calls please.

cr9617
05-31-2012, 10:14 AM
The rotation is fine????? They are worst in the league and were on record pace for futility a few days ago.

At this point all vets should be on the block and they should be building for 2015. Whether they win 40 or 75 games the next two years is meaningless if winning championships is the goal.

Exactly.
The could lose 100 games plus with Hammer, Span, Morneau, Mauer in the lineup. If you can't pitch, you can't win. What difference does Span and the Hammer make if you have the worst record in the league??

I hope the FO realizes it needs to get drastic in order to have any chance of contending in the next 3 or 4 or 5 years. I would love for them to make some forward thinking moves just once, rather than pretending they can piece together a contender with journeyman minor leaguers and washed up veterans. I HOPE they realize this....but I doubt they have the balls to think big enough.

travistwinstalk
05-31-2012, 10:17 AM
I think trading Hammer would send such the wrong message to the fan base. Terry Ryan sold us that Willingham would produce equally as well as Cuddyer at a limited wage. So far he has surpassed Cuddyer in every offensive stat. So what is the point of trading him it is not like he is making crazy money. they only have 65 mil committed to 2013 so there is no need to trade him. Its like anytime the Twins get a good player some want to trade him. He is doing well so don't mess with that.

mike wants wins
05-31-2012, 10:27 AM
No, it's like this team is the worst team in baseball, and they have nothing in AAA or AA that looks like it is coming up and making a difference. Look at the FA pool for next year, and find me a 2B, SS, 3B, 3 starting pitchers....that they'll pay for and are good.

What message do you send the fan base if you don't make trades? That you are happy with a AAAA team? If you have another way to get talent into the system, other than trading players (and signing big time FAs just will not happen with the Pohlads and Ryan in charge), I'm all eyes.

TwinsGuy55422
05-31-2012, 11:07 AM
I disagree with the concept that trading Willingham will send a bad message to the fan base. I think if the right kind of trade is made that it will send a positive message that the goal is to win a championship not just be mildly competitive to put fans in the seats.

IdahoPilgrim
05-31-2012, 11:16 AM
At this point all vets should be on the block and they should be building for 2015. Whether they win 40 or 75 games the next two years is meaningless if winning championships is the goal.

The cynic and the realist in me says that "winning championships" is not the goal, at least not the true goal. The goal is to make money; baseball is a business, first and foremost. To do that, you need fans in the seats and ratings on TV. To get those, you have to win 40-45% of your games and you have to have players people like to watch. Purists will be happy to see the team blown up for the hope we can contend in 2015. The average fan isn't willing to wait that long for the Twins to be interesting. There has to be a balance between building for the future and putting a competitive team on the field today.

cr9617
05-31-2012, 11:28 AM
The cynic and the realist in me says that "winning championships" is not the goal, at least not the true goal. The goal is to make money; baseball is a business, first and foremost. To do that, you need fans in the seats and ratings on TV. To get those, you have to win 40-45% of your games and you have to have players people like to watch. Purists will be happy to see the team blown up for the hope we can contend in 2015. The average fan isn't willing to wait that long for the Twins to be interesting. There has to be a balance between building for the future and putting a competitive team on the field today.

I don't disagree with this take at all. The thing is, the Average fan doesn't really understand A) How bad the situation really is B) How difficult it will be to get out of this box(pitching in particuliar) C) How meaningless it is to have decent veteran players on a team that loses 100 games.

This team needs to start thinking bigger, and the sooner they do that, the sooner we might be competetive again.

SweetOne69
05-31-2012, 11:36 AM
The cynic and the realist in me says that "winning championships" is not the goal, at least not the true goal. The goal is to make money; baseball is a business, first and foremost. To do that, you need fans in the seats and ratings on TV. To get those, you have to win 40-45% of your games and you have to have players people like to watch. Purists will be happy to see the team blown up for the hope we can contend in 2015. The average fan isn't willing to wait that long for the Twins to be interesting. There has to be a balance between building for the future and putting a competitive team on the field today.

The owner's goal is to make money, for everybody else in the organization it is to win championships.

IdahoPilgrim
05-31-2012, 11:39 AM
But is the situation really that desperate? Granted, starting pitching sucks on a historical level, but if one or two things go right that can bounce back quicker than people are thinking in a year or two. If either Diamond or Walters turns out to be a for-real back-end starter, if Gibson recovers well from TJ surgery (which happens more and more all the time), if we pick up 1 or 2 decent arms via free agency, the rotation is no longer a disaster - not where we'd like it, granted, but not a disaster.

And notice - over the last 22 games, the Twins are 11-11 - 500 ball. Are we going to contend this year? No. But I'm not assuming that 100 losses is a given. 90, probably, but not 100.

Jim Crikket
05-31-2012, 11:42 AM
The people saying "trade Willingham now" are the same ones who will be back here a year from now whining about the fact the Twins have nobody who can hit the ball out of the ballpark. You don't get the best return in trades in May and when you DO trade, you trade from surplus, not from areas where you're already thin. Just saying, "there are a lot of outfielders" among the team's top prospects doesn't look deep enough. You need more than just 3-4 speedy glove-types who can't hit the damn ball out of the infield, much less over a fence. Willingham is signed for a reasonable amount for several years. You don't get in a hurry to trade away one of the few power hitters you have when it means you just have to go back in to the free agent market to buy ANOTHER power hitter, because you have none of them in your organization that are likely to be ready for the Big Leagues for 2-3 years.

Even IF an offer for Willingham comes through that's too good to pass up, it's not going to happen now. GMs don't get stupid until July.

John Bonnes
05-31-2012, 11:47 AM
This gets to a really interesting question of just how far to go. Because there is NO QUESTION that Willingham has value right now. That contract looks downright amazing to anyone looking for a right-handed slugger. There is real value there, and not jsut to teams looking to overspend. But yesterday in Grantland on his team rankings (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7982239/no-one-able-topple-texas-white-sox-climbing-charts), Jonah Keri had an interesting note:

Twins fans don't need any more reminders of how bad this team has been. So let's try this: You can count the 1-3-4-5 combinations that have been better than Denard Span (.306/.362/.404), Joe Mauer (.306/.412/.422), Josh Willingham (.271/.399/.535), and Justin Morneau (.240/.304/.529) on one hand. All right, maybe two hands. Tops.
I can't tell if Keri is being facetious here, but I don't think he is, but the stats tell the story - this team still has a solid offensive core. And historically, as far as offense goes, THAT'S THE HARD PART. You might look at it and say that they just need to fill in the pieces offensively, and my gut feel is that is correct.

The problem is the other side. There is no starting pitching and there isn't going to be any really good starting pitching barring some miracles. And historically, as far as defense goes, THAT'S THE HARD PART. So do you tear down the half that we already are fortunate to have or do you gamble on the other side somehow coming together?

I suspect the consensus here is that it needs to be torn down, but that's almost always the easiest (and least interesting) choice in my opinion. One doesn't have to look any further than the Wolves or Gopher football team to realize that sometimes taking a couple steps back just means taking a couple of steps back. Or the Royals or Pirates to see how difficult it can be to build those two cores at the same time to become relevant again.

Curt
05-31-2012, 11:52 AM
The Twins would take Bryce Harper for Willingham, right? OK no one would offer that much and the Twins would also accept less. So there is a line somewher where, above it, the Twins would accept a deal. This is true for every player on every team. Poorly managed and desperate teams tend to draw the lines in the wrong places. The Twins have misplayed their new stadium so far, imo. I hope they are not desperate but I hope they realize the size of the hole they are in. You have to be willing to part with players who are playing well as they are the only ones with value.

USAFChief
05-31-2012, 12:26 PM
I doubt the Twins are seriously considering flipping Willingham. Whether or not it's even a good idea is debatable, and IMO I doubt ownership or management is ready to admit to themselves or the fan base that a total rebuild is necessary. Hell, I'm not sure it is...it's very possible if ownership was willing to spend the money they might be able to buy their way back into contention. The everyday lineup isn't that far away if they can keep the core together and healthy.

Highabove
05-31-2012, 12:29 PM
Kind of have to agree with this. I liked the proposed topic because I really wasn't sure what I'd do. I sure don't want Willingham to go, I look forward to his at bats and you are locked in the whole plate appearance. But at the same time if a contender is willing to part with a top prospect and maybe a couple other talents with some upside I'd like the twins to make the trade.

And for those complaining about not wanting to watch a game without him since we are rebuilding then don't watch at all ever. This is baseball it happens when you arent a major market team live with it and enjoy watching prospects.

I was not referring to simply watching a game, just turn on the TV for that. I am referring to buying tickets to watch a game.
We just assume that hundreds of thousands of fans will continue to buy tickets and pay Big Market prices to see a bad product.
The Twins can still have a watchable product while they are rebuilding. Even bad teams have a few players who Fans come out to watch.
The Twins are not a Major Market Team, but they are also not a Small Market Team. (subject to change)

SwainZag
05-31-2012, 12:36 PM
The Twins would take Bryce Harper for Willingham, right? OK no one would offer that much and the Twins would also accept less. So there is a line somewher where, above it, the Twins would accept a deal. This is true for every player on every team. Poorly managed and desperate teams tend to draw the lines in the wrong places. The Twins have misplayed their new stadium so far, imo. I hope they are not desperate but I hope they realize the size of the hole they are in. You have to be willing to part with players who are playing well as they are the only ones with value.

Ideally the only way the Twins part with Willingham is if someone is willing to overpay at this point. The guy is a historically fast starter, he is 33 years old, he plays a below average defense at a corner OF position and he has 2.5 years left on his contract. As good as his numbers have been thus far, no team is going to give up a over the top prospect package for him.

USAFChief
05-31-2012, 12:36 PM
I was not referring to simply watching a game, just turn on the TV for that. I referring to buying tickets to watch a game.
We just assume that hundreds of thousands of fans will continue to buy tickets and pay Big Market prices to see a bad product.
The Twins can still put out a watchable product while they are rebuilding. Even bad teams have a few players who Fans come out to watch.
The Twins are not a Small Market Team ether. (subject to change)

This is spot on. "Don't watch" is about the least insightful response I can imagine. The Twins are in the entertainment business, competing for disposable income. If you seriously think that fewer fans in TF and fewer eyeballs watching FSN is any kind of way to improve the team, or something that ownership/management isn't concerned about, your opinion is seriously flawed.

twinslover
05-31-2012, 12:56 PM
Does anyone know how long this team had been looking for a RH power hitter before this year? The answer is forever. I don't think Willingham get moved this year unless the Twins get back major league ready starting pitching prospects and that is very unlikely. Either way, the lineup is and will continue to be irrelevent when it comes to winning if this rotation does not improve dramatically. Remember the Rangers before they loaded up with pitching? They scored tons of runs, but were never a contender. A winning organization always starts with pitching. Terry Ryan knows this and will consider any option available to improve the Twins staff. The only "untouchable" player on this team is Mauer and that's only because no GM would touch his contract.

Jim Crikket
05-31-2012, 01:01 PM
This is spot on. "Don't watch" is about the least insightful response I can imagine. The Twins are in the entertainment business, competing for disposable income. If you seriously think that fewer fans in TF and fewer eyeballs watching FSN is any kind of way to improve the team, or something that ownership/management isn't concerned about, your opinion is seriously flawed.

It's a fine line, however. You're right that fans who want the team to eventually improve need to continue supporting it with their eyeballs and their wallets. That said, if everyone does that, it would mean near-sellouts regardless of the quality of the play on the field. That would send the message to ownership that it really doesn't matter how good the talent is or how competitive the team is because people will buy tickets, regardless. There has to be a mix of both... ownership needs to know there ARE consequences to them for not putting a quality product on the field. And fans have to understand that there will be good and bad years and you don't just turn your back on the team when things take a downward turn for a year or two.

tpb8
05-31-2012, 01:11 PM
I doubt the Twins are seriously considering flipping Willingham. Whether or not it's even a good idea is debatable, and IMO I doubt ownership or management is ready to admit to themselves or the fan base that a total rebuild is necessary. Hell, I'm not sure it is...it's very possible if ownership was willing to spend the money they might be able to buy their way back into contention. The everyday lineup isn't that far away if they can keep the core together and healthy.

When has this organization EVER payed for high-end free agents? I mean....EVER? They have not and they never will. If you are waiting for them to hold onto all of the vets and then go out and "buy their way back into contention" you are waiting for something that has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Like Delmon Young walking or Nick Blackburn striking someone out. It just doesn't happen. That's no solution.

Look at the history of this organization and look at Terry Ryan's track record and then tell me how they Twins front office is going to address their needs. Deal in reality a little bit.

Dilligaf69
05-31-2012, 01:24 PM
Unless they get blown away with an offer which i doubt then they should just keep him. He's already 33 and although VERY affordable you won't get a top of the rotation prospect for him...teams just don't give those types. Next deadline or winter of 2013 if he's still producing then I can see a trade.

nicksaviking
05-31-2012, 01:25 PM
It seems that the people who want to hold onto Willingham are thrilled that he is exceeding expectations. So than does that mean he should be traded after he has come back to earth when his value is down and the Twins would get less for him? The next couple of years do not look to be bright so the negativity is going to follow regardless of having a possible 30 HR LF. When was the last time someone said they were happy that the Twins held onto Marty Cordova after two strong first seasons despite the fact that the Twins were in the middle of desperate rebuild mode? A better example would be established star Chuck Knoblauch. Fans were up in arms about trading him away despite the fact that they had just completed their fifth losing season in a row, yet it turned out to be a great move for the Twins and no one's complaining now. Knoblauch was a career Twin who was a big part of the last World Series team. Willingham has been here two months. Fans would get over it.

mike wants wins
05-31-2012, 01:27 PM
I would 100% prefer not to trade Willingham, but I don't see a good path to improving this team other than rolling the dice on a bunch of prospects for veterans. Willingham's $21MM deal is the largest FA deal in Twins' history. let that sink in for a while......back? We all know that in the offseason, they'll say they consider Greinke or some other great pitcher, but it is foolish to tie up that much money and that many years in a pitcher. That will leave them with Marquis quality pitchers to choose from. Go look at the 2B, 3B, SS options next year for free agency, it's ugly. You think Willingham is old? Not even close compared to the names on those lists. If you are not willing to trade your good players, and you won't sign free agents to big money deals, and you won't trade prospects for veterans, how do you propose getting better?

PMKI
05-31-2012, 01:27 PM
What kind of prospect could the Twins expect to receive if Willingham maintains what he is doing and the Twins are willing to part ways with him?

greengoblinrulz
05-31-2012, 01:28 PM
Agree there 'could' be a market for him, but if you're not blown away with a Type A prospect....not interested.
Don give away a guy like him.....but listen.

Dilligaf69
05-31-2012, 01:32 PM
I agree with Bonnes......I just don't want to become a team that's constantly rebuilding...like the Pirates and the Cubs and Royals etc... Also people want Gardy fired...well look at how many managers the teams I just mentioned have gone thru??/ and still they have nothing. I think Span is more likely to get traded and could maybe fetch more then Hammer. I agree they have to upgrade their starting pitching but you would'nt you trade from your OF depth in the minors rather then a cheap RH slugger which we have'nt had in yrs!

Dilligaf69
05-31-2012, 01:33 PM
What kind of prospect could the Twins expect to receive if Willingham maintains what he is doing and the Twins are willing to part ways with him?


Change your avatar I had it first...;)

cr9617
05-31-2012, 01:40 PM
But is the situation really that desperate? Granted, starting pitching sucks on a historical level, but if one or two things go right that can bounce back quicker than people are thinking in a year or two. If either Diamond or Walters turns out to be a for-real back-end starter, if Gibson recovers well from TJ surgery (which happens more and more all the time), if we pick up 1 or 2 decent arms via free agency, the rotation is no longer a disaster - not where we'd like it, granted, but not a disaster.

And notice - over the last 22 games, the Twins are 11-11 - 500 ball. Are we going to contend this year? No. But I'm not assuming that 100 losses is a given. 90, probably, but not 100.

Do you realize how many "ifs" are in this statement? And sooner or later, Walters will most likely come back down to earth and prove he's nothing more than a fill-in. His minor league track record is average, at best. Diamond has only a little more upside than Walters.
Do you really think the Twins will go out and overpay for a free agent pitcher or two? They never have before. The Jason Marquis, Sydney Ponson and Livan Hernadez type guys don't count.

jmlease1
05-31-2012, 01:46 PM
The problem is the other side. There is no starting pitching and there isn't going to be any really good starting pitching barring some miracles. And historically, as far as defense goes, THAT'S THE HARD PART. So do you tear down the half that we already are fortunate to have or do you gamble on the other side somehow coming together?

I suspect the consensus here is that it needs to be torn down, but that's almost always the easiest (and least interesting) choice in my opinion. One doesn't have to look any further than the Wolves or Gopher football team to realize that sometimes taking a couple steps back just means taking a couple of steps back. Or the Royals or Pirates to see how difficult it can be to build those two cores at the same time to become relevant again.

This is exactly the problem with tossing Willingham/Morneau/Span or even Mauer over the side for prospects. If a bunch of those prospects all come together at the right time and are supplemented with smart FA acquisitions, then the team is back as a contender and could have another lengthy run. The other side of that coin is the Royals, who have been rebuilding for 20 years (2 winning records in 20 years. And how many times have we heard about all the great KC prospects about to break through?). Pittsburgh is even worse (and has made even more foolish FA veteran signings). It's tough to catch lightning in a bottle.

Here's the other argument in favor of hanging on to at least some of your veterans: it positions you better to win when a couple of prospects break through, instead of needing 4-6 to be ready at the same time. When the Twins were still in the Dome it made more sense to flip the vets and go looking for more prospects because it didn't make sense to lose money on a team that couldn't win. This Twins team isn't going to win, but as constructed it won't lose money. Keeping some of these veteran assets will help it stay more competitive on the field, too, which will keep butts in the seats.

Rosterman
05-31-2012, 01:59 PM
A contract like Willingham's was great for the Twins and is perfect for trading. His worth goes up if he keeps his average high (between .260-.270) and keeps banging the ball.

It was a good investment for the Twins, cause he can always switch to DH if the Twins had a viable candidate to replace him in the outfield. Right now, no they don't. Benson is a year away again. Hicks two years. Both can be pushed.

And if he is traded, it will be for 2-3 prospect pieces, guys that may contribute, but are blocked from the major in other organizations.

It will be interesting to see.

No player on the Twins is untouchable. Even Mauer.....

mike wants wins
05-31-2012, 02:00 PM
So which 2B, SS, 3B, RF, SP, SP, SP prospects do you expect to break through in the next two years while Wilingham is here? They were the 2nd worst team in baseball last year, and will probably be in the bottome five again next year. They lose (probably) Liriano and Pavano. I'd expect them to be in the bottom 5-10 again the year after next, Willingham's last year. So, what good will it do to keep him, from a winning perspective? To me, if you lost 85 or 95, it's the same thing.

mike wants wins
05-31-2012, 02:01 PM
That should say bottom five this year....not next year.

cr9617
05-31-2012, 02:03 PM
A contract like Willingham's was great for the Twins and is perfect for trading. His worth goes up if he keeps his average high (between .260-.270) and keeps banging the ball.

It was a good investment for the Twins, cause he can always switch to DH if the Twins had a viable candidate to replace him in the outfield. Right now, no they don't. Benson is a year away again. Hicks two years. Both can be pushed.

And if he is traded, it will be for 2-3 prospect pieces, guys that may contribute, but are blocked from the major in other organizations.

It will be interesting to see.

No player on the Twins is untouchable. Even Mauer.....

All true.....

Except Mauer...he's untouchable, but not from the Twins perspective.

Dark Kinetic-Grip
05-31-2012, 02:29 PM
All true.....
Except Mauer...he's untouchable, but not from the Twins perspective.

There is a noble way out of this conundrum for both Joe Mauer and the Twins, but it would require Joe Mauer to man-up as both a man and a true Minnesotan. Go back and rewrite the contract with a $10M/yr guarantee, and a tiered system of incentives leading up to the full $23M/yr. Joe Mauer would return to home-town hero status immediately and forever, he's just got to ask himself, is an extra $100M in the bank going to be enough to make up for where he's actually headed in baseball history?

birdwatcher
05-31-2012, 02:32 PM
What a great thread! Thanks everyone for an intelligent and thoughtful discussion.

Shane Wahl
05-31-2012, 02:45 PM
Willingham is not going to be traded this year given that he has two more years on his contract. Sheesh.

nicksaviking
05-31-2012, 02:58 PM
There is a noble way out of this conundrum for both Joe Mauer and the Twins, but it would require Joe Mauer to man-up as both a man and a true Minnesotan. Go back and rewrite the contract with a $10M/yr guarantee, and a tiered system of incentives leading up to the full $23M/yr. Joe Mauer would return to home-town hero status immediately and forever, he's just got to ask himself, is an extra $100M in the bank going to be enough to make up for where he's actually headed in baseball history?

You don't seriously think the players union would let Joe even consider this do you? I really doubt you'd give back your paycheck if your boss said you were doing a satisfactory job but they were hoping for more.

CDog
05-31-2012, 02:58 PM
There is a noble way out of this conundrum for both Joe Mauer and the Twins, but it would require Joe Mauer to man-up as both a man and a true Minnesotan. Go back and rewrite the contract with a $10M/yr guarantee, and a tiered system of incentives leading up to the full $23M/yr. Joe Mauer would return to home-town hero status immediately and forever, he's just got to ask himself, is an extra $100M in the bank going to be enough to make up for where he's actually headed in baseball history?

1) Fairly sure major leauge baseball deals can't be re-worked. 2) I've said it before, but it sure is icky to me when people decide they're in charge of what other people should do with their money. 3) He has to buy something to make up for a path possibly heading to the Hall of Fame? Or the positive baseball history that's already done? (Three batting titles as a catcher, for instance.)

mike wants wins
05-31-2012, 03:00 PM
mauer is under no obligation to do anything with his deal. None. He can rework his deal, but it cannot decrease the amount of money he gets, that's a summary of the rule...not the whole rule.

Dark Kinetic-Grip
05-31-2012, 03:32 PM
You don't seriously think the players union would let Joe even consider this do you? I really doubt you'd give back your paycheck if your boss said you were doing a satisfactory job but they were hoping for more.

I think perhaps I'm arguing for a strategic and moral direction, more than the a legal or realistic one. The players union wouldn't like it at all--though I understand their point--I recall well how my beloved Oakland A's players were treated in the early 70's by Charles O. Finley, and watched the great players leave one by one, for good reason.

From an outside perspective, the current contract practices of MLB seem insane and unsustainable, at least in creating a league where 30 or so teams can *actually compete*. Sigh. Maybe a bit of owner collusion at this point would be a good thing, again.

I seriously have just as much fun these days at a Saints game. That's something for MLB to think about, if nothing else.

2003freak2003
05-31-2012, 04:07 PM
Too many nerds in here who have probably never played baseball and focus too much on numbers and stats and probably just hopped on the twins train the past 5 years. Mauer Restructure deal will save all. HAHA. You have got to be kidding me.

jokin
05-31-2012, 05:10 PM
I would 100% prefer not to trade Willingham, but I don't see a good path to improving this team other than rolling the dice on a bunch of prospects for veterans. Willingham's $21MM deal is the largest FA deal in Twins' history. let that sink in for a while......back? We all know that in the offseason, they'll say they consider Greinke or some other great pitcher, but it is foolish to tie up that much money and that many years in a pitcher. That will leave them with Marquis quality pitchers to choose from. Go look at the 2B, 3B, SS options next year for free agency, it's ugly. You think Willingham is old? Not even close compared to the names on those lists. If you are not willing to trade your good players, and you won't sign free agents to big money deals, and you won't trade prospects for veterans, how do you propose getting better?


This is the Twins misconception that they use as an excuse not to do a better job at researching the available FA pitchers and spending a little money and upgrading an obviously glaring need. As I pointed out in another topic, there were plenty of available FA pitchers if the Twins were willing to step up to the plate and fulfill their promise to the fans in return for having a new playground built for them.

To reiterate, with the purging of the high-priced players from last season and acquisition of Willingham, Doumit and Carrol, the Twins were down to a $94 Million payroll to start this season, with the subtraction of either a Blackburn or Liriano, the Twins easily could have afforded going after some near-ace-to-decent quality starters and still had their payroll at or below the 2011 $112 Million. Marquis was a joke signing, seemingly everyone except Terry Ryan knew that to be the case. I proposed signing 3 starters with short-term contracts, keeping the risks low and buying time for the TJ-surgery arms to heal and the farm system to produce #3-5 level SPs like, hopefully Diamond.

My non-Marquis-type plan was signing these three (who all signed one-year contracts with their current clubs):

1)Eric Bedard Age: 33 Team: Pitt. $4.5 Mil. OBA: .247/ WHIP: 1.35/ERA: 3.12

2)Paul Maholm Age: 29 Team: Cubs $4.25 Mil. OBA: .245/ WHIP: 1.26/ ERA: 4.62

3)Edwin Jackson Age: 28 Team: Wash. $10.958 Mil. OBA: .219/ WHIP: 1.03/ ERA: 3.17

<There are no statistical anomalies, most of these numbers are close to their career averages.

>The AL average for OBA is .251/WHIP: 1.31/ERA: 4.05

>The Twins average for OBA is .285/WHIP: 1.42/ERA: 5.25

These guys were very available and a good set of negotiations could have realistically landed all three (admittedly, Jackson would have been the toughest) and, there were others that signed short-term deals that currently sport similar or even better numbers. Even if the Twins overpaid to outbid the other teams to acquire these guys, they still could have come in at a salary number at, or under the 2011 payroll.

Shane Wahl
05-31-2012, 05:16 PM
I agree about Bedard and Jackson. Maholm is overachieving.

Rosterman
05-31-2012, 05:22 PM
Willingham has a great tradeable contract. You can get something for him similar to what the Twins did when they traded for Capps///a player that has starting potential that is blocked (say Ramos) and a possible prospect (Testa). Might even be able to get a second prospect. But you should be able to get a guy that can be more than serviceable in the major leagues. A starter, I don't know...unless you are also trading for salary and grabbing someone in the last year of arbitration, but only if you caremto sign longterm and that's part of the deal.

jokin
05-31-2012, 05:27 PM
I agree about Bedard and Jackson. Maholm is overachieving.

I agree about Maholm, I did throw him in there to avoid the appearance of cherry-picking. Still, his numbers on the miserable Cubs team, in a hitter-friendly park, are still impressive. His career slash line is OBA: .281/WHIP: 1.42/ERA: 4.37 which is still a far better career line than Marquis and 4 years younger, for only $1.25 Mil more.

Shane Wahl
05-31-2012, 05:27 PM
There's 2.67 years and $18 million on it right now!

mike wants wins
05-31-2012, 05:50 PM
Oh, I agree, there were better choices available than Marquis, but since he's one in a long line of similar signings under Ryan, I'm assuming he'll continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over. I hope to be wrong. Heck, with guts, they could have found takers for those contracts you mentioned, let Capps go, and signed Darvish.....

Nick Nelson
05-31-2012, 05:58 PM
1)Eric Bedard Age: 33 Team: Pitt. $4.5 Mil. OBA: .247/ WHIP: 1.35/ERA: 3.12

2)Paul Maholm Age: 29 Team: Cubs $4.25 Mil. OBA: .245/ WHIP: 1.26/ ERA: 4.62

3)Edwin Jackson Age: 28 Team: Wash. $10.958 Mil. OBA: .219/ WHIP: 1.03/ ERA: 3.17

<There are no statistical anomalies, most of these numbers are close to their career averages.
Bedard is looking like a huge whiff. But the Twins had no reason to pay Jackson $10M, and they already have a cheaper Paul Maholm clone in Brian Duensing.

It is sort of amazing how the Twins always seem to sign bottom-of-the-barrel free agent SPs while passing on guys who, while slightly more expensive, go on to have much more success. I wonder if the issue here is a true unwillingness to spend the extra $1.5M it would take to get a guy like Bedard, or if the player evaluation is so bad that they actually think they're getting a good bargain when they sign guys like Marquis, Ponson, Livan and Ortiz. I'm not sure which would be worse.

ashburyjohn
05-31-2012, 06:22 PM
There's 2.67 years and $18 million on it right now!

Here's what I don't get: around six months ago, any of the other 29 teams could have signed Josh Willingham. All they had to do was outbid the Minnesota Frickin Twins - not a hard thing to do most off-seasons. "Josh, they're offering you 3 years and only $21M? We'll make it $22M." Done. Now, here in May-going-on-June, some team is suddenly going to offer an attractive package of young talent, in order to take on $18M or so of the remaining contract? Are they going to rub their hands in glee and say "we saved $4M and all we had to give up was our best starting pitching prospect and a couple of middling hitting prospects"? Why would they do it?

The Twins have to wait until someone's need due to injury or whatever is a lot higher than right now.

PopRiveter
05-31-2012, 06:25 PM
Fun thread, but almost none of the responses attempt to answer the question.
I expect Willingham would bring a higher return in a trade than any other player on the roster. A:he's healthy B:good track record C: currently producing at a high level D:great contract status
i would hate to see him go, but if you want to use trades to rebuild, he is exactly the player you need to swallow hard and trade away. Consider too E:as a free agent, all they have invested in him is this year's salary.
to sign Willingham, pay him for a few months and flip the modest investment for a good prospect could be a shrewd way to add some needed talent.
What sort of starter might Willingham realistically fetch in a trade?

Nick Nelson
05-31-2012, 06:37 PM
Here's what I don't get: around six months ago, any of the other 29 teams could have signed Josh Willingham. All they had to do was outbid the Minnesota Frickin Twins - not a hard thing to do most off-seasons. "Josh, they're offering you 3 years and only $21M? We'll make it $22M." Done. Now, here in May-going-on-June, some team is suddenly going to offer an attractive package of young talent, in order to take on $18M or so of the remaining contract? Are they going to rub their hands in glee and say "we saved $4M and all we had to give up was our best starting pitching prospect and a couple of middling hitting prospects"? Why would they do it?
Great post. I think a lot of people are exaggerating Willingham's trade value. As you mention, everyone had a shot at signing him during the offseason and he didn't draw much interest. Two good months aren't going to suddenly have teams across the league clamoring for him. The downsides that tempered his market – his age and his injury history – haven't gone away.

This isn't the first time Willingham has started our at a Herculean pace. Check his halfway stats in '09 and '10. GMs are aware of that.

twinzgrl
05-31-2012, 07:32 PM
Love the Hammer. But, seriously, the Twins need a decent starting pitcher. They need one BAD. They must listen to all offers to get one. To be respectable again, or even .500, we need a good starter. Only problem, one might not be enough.

Top Gun
05-31-2012, 07:54 PM
The Twins will win 80+ games this year, so what is your problem?

mikeee
05-31-2012, 08:05 PM
Keep the hammer. I don't think they could get a good starting pitcher that cheap.

SweetOne69
05-31-2012, 08:57 PM
Fun thread, but almost none of the responses attempt to answer the question.
I expect Willingham would bring a higher return in a trade than any other player on the roster. A:he's healthy B:good track record C: currently producing at a high level D:great contract status
i would hate to see him go, but if you want to use trades to rebuild, he is exactly the player you need to swallow hard and trade away. Consider too E:as a free agent, all they have invested in him is this year's salary.
to sign Willingham, pay him for a few months and flip the modest investment for a good prospect could be a shrewd way to add some needed talent.
What sort of starter might Willingham realistically fetch in a trade?

From what I understand both the Reds and Indians had interest in Willingham and he chose to sign with the Twins.

cr9617
05-31-2012, 11:59 PM
The Twins will win 80+ games this year, so what is your problem?

How does 18-32 project to 80+ wins?

Riverbrian
06-01-2012, 12:34 AM
Here's what I don't get: around six months ago, any of the other 29 teams could have signed Josh Willingham. All they had to do was outbid the Minnesota Frickin Twins - not a hard thing to do most off-seasons. "Josh, they're offering you 3 years and only $21M? We'll make it $22M." Done. Now, here in May-going-on-June, some team is suddenly going to offer an attractive package of young talent, in order to take on $18M or so of the remaining contract? Are they going to rub their hands in glee and say "we saved $4M and all we had to give up was our best starting pitching prospect and a couple of middling hitting prospects"? Why would they do it?

The Twins have to wait until someone's need due to injury or whatever is a lot higher than right now.

Great post... I agree completely. I'm am worried about the state of Twins pitching and fear a stretch of mediocre or worse because of it. I would trade anyone for an arm. I don't see Willingham as giving back much in return unless he continues to rake up to the all star break and injuries deplete a contender. Willingham will most likely be with us in 2014 because his value to us will be much greater than the value he provides as trade bait. 2014 is The year our return to glory begins. (hopefully).

jokin
06-01-2012, 01:39 AM
Bedard is looking like a huge whiff. But the Twins had no reason to pay Jackson $10M, and they already have a cheaper Paul Maholm clone in Brian Duensing.

It is sort of amazing how the Twins always seem to sign bottom-of-the-barrel free agent SPs while passing on guys who, while slightly more expensive, go on to have much more success. I wonder if the issue here is a true unwillingness to spend the extra $1.5M it would take to get a guy like Bedard, or if the player evaluation is so bad that they actually think they're getting a good bargain when they sign guys like Marquis, Ponson, Livan and Ortiz. I'm not sure which would be worse.

1) I'm not sure why the Twins had "no reason" to go after Jackson. If they were serious about putting the team back on the rails and making a statement that 2011 was an anomaly, this was the logical acquisition- ie, a front-end starter with an incentive-laden short-term contract.

2) Good call on the statistical clone to Maholm being Brian Duensing, it does look identical on paper. However, Duensing has only had one year primarily as a starter and last year was an unmitigated disaster (especially the L/R split), and exposed why the Twins did not and apparently do not consider him as a potential future starter. This is the ugly 2011 slash line: OBA: .299/WHIP: 1.52/ERA 5.23. Maholm has never appeared in a MLB game except as a starter, making 194 starts for the terrible Pirates and now the terrible Cubs, a "proven" starter with underwhelming numbers. Sadly, but accurately, Maholm would still have represented an upgrade to the Twin starting pitching.

3)Your suppositions in your summary paragraph are spot on and identify and clarify a set of systemic problems in the Twins organiztion, not just the Bill Smith Era. I think the answer is: "BOTH" and they are equally disastrous to a team with little margin for error in personnel evaluation.

darin617
06-01-2012, 05:51 PM
All true.....

Except Mauer...he's untouchable, but not from the Twins perspective.

Don't you mean Mauer is untradeable with the years left and the amount of $/yr for a "catcher" who has not played catcher for half of the games he has played so far this season. Mauer's contract reflects an MVP contract not a guy who will hit for average with no power. If you really want to think about what separates Golden Joe and Doug Mientkiewicz? 40-50 points on the batting average and the power numbers probably equal....

darin617
06-01-2012, 05:56 PM
Willingham is not going to be traded this year given that he has two more years on his contract. Sheesh.

I guess if this was 2013 then this would be brought up every other day. Just think what Carlos Beltran cost the Giants for a rental for a few months last season. Zach Wheeler the 6th pick overall 2009 MLB June Amateur Draft.

Nick Nelson
06-01-2012, 06:26 PM
1) I'm not sure why the Twins had "no reason" to go after Jackson. If they were serious about putting the team back on the rails and making a statement that 2011 was an anomaly, this was the logical acquisition- ie, a front-end starter with an incentive-laden short-term contract.
Do you think they really believed they were going to be able to contend this year? Look at how far away they are. One starter wasn't going to make the difference and they probably understood that.

Also, Jackson wasn't going to sign in the AL when all he's doing is trying to do is maintain/boost his value on a one-year deal to take another shot at FA next winter.


2) Good call on the statistical clone to Maholm being Brian Duensing, it does look identical on paper. However, Duensing has only had one year primarily as a starter and last year was an unmitigated disaster (especially the L/R split), and exposed why the Twins did not and apparently do not consider him as a potential future starter. This is the ugly 2011 slash line: OBA: .299/WHIP: 1.52/ERA 5.23.
Meh. Duensing's numbers during last year's "unmitigated disaster" were not much different from Maholm's career marks. Neither gets RHB out.

jokin
06-01-2012, 06:52 PM
Do you think they really believed they were going to be able to contend this year? Look at how far away they are. One starter wasn't going to make the difference and they probably understood that.

Also, Jackson wasn't going to sign in the AL when all he's doing is trying to do is maintain/boost his value on a one-year deal to take another shot at FA next winter.


Meh. Duensing's numbers during last year's "unmitigated disaster" were not much different from Maholm's career marks. Neither gets RHB out.

'I would have thought it impossible to defend Duensing's performance last year, if that wasn't an exposure of one man's limitations, I'm not certain what else would be. Maholm's mediocre career .281/1.42/4.37 is statistically different enough that Maholm has been a career starter exclusively and Deunsing has apparently convinced the Twins he is only a glorified LOOGY, even on the worst team in baseball (2011) and 2nd worst (2012). And, given the sorry state of the current Twins starting staff, a staff to which Duensing no longer evidently qualifies for, Maholm's 2012 numbers would be sparkling by comparison, even with the unfavorable RHB comps.

jokin
06-01-2012, 07:06 PM
Do you think they really believed they were going to be able to contend this year? Look at how far away they are. One starter wasn't going to make the difference and they probably understood that.

Also, Jackson wasn't going to sign in the AL when all he's doing is trying to do is maintain/boost his value on a one-year deal to take another shot at FA next winter.

No, I didn't think they believed they were going to be able to contend, my argument on the other thread was just that, in that they had grossly misallocated resources. I profferred a scenario to make a quick fix to carry the team over until the next cycle of players are ready. I agree that one starter wouldn't have made a difference, but given the state of the pitching staff, and the promise made to the community, it was incumbent on the Twins to hit the pitching FA market hard, attempt to get not one, but three starters. The Twins actually did less than nothing, by acquiring Marquis, who obviously had nothing left. Jackson would have been a tough get, but you can't make a blanket statement with certainty about what Jackson would or wouldn't do, especially once Ryan and the agent get into the same room, you never know what can happen when/if/as the agent's, player's and GM's agendas converge (IE "pitcher-friendly" park, cheaper COL rate, an extra $Million or two, agent's other FAs, etc.) and he was a late signee showing there was time to negotiate.

beckmt
06-01-2012, 09:11 PM
Maholm is a National league pitcher. That makes him worse than comparible stats from the American league.
Twins need to find out how many of their minor league outfielders will make the grade, I have serious doubts about Benson ever being major league quality.
Unless TR gets a deal he can't refuse, Willingham should be here this year and to the middle of next
You have to pitch to win, but bying 3 type 3 or better SP will be expensive.
Doumit will be a much better trade canidate this year as will Span.

USAFChief
06-01-2012, 09:38 PM
Do you think they really believed they were going to be able to contend this year? Look at how far away they are. One starter wasn't going to make the difference and they probably understood that.



I'm not so sure the Twins completely wrote off contending in 2012. I know it's mostly just PR for public consumption, but pretty much everything coming out of the Twins mouths for the past 12 months has been about injuries and bad luck. If they were convinced they had no shot in 2012, why sign Carroll? Doumit? Willingham? For that matter, why sign Marquis?

Hell, I'm not even convinced Twins management is ready to admit the severity of the situation to themselves or the public today. There's a certain, I don't know, arrogance to the whole Twins management regime that hasn't evaporated yet.

Highabove
06-01-2012, 11:53 PM
Rule 1. Never pay a Closer for a non contending Team.

Ryan paid over 4.5 million tight budget dollars + 1st round draft pick for a Closer.

A. Ryan must have believed that the Twins would be a contender.

B. Ryan has turned stupid the second time around.

Which is it? It has to be one or the other!

Bark's Lounge
06-02-2012, 01:07 AM
If the Twins do indeed intend on trading the likes of Willingham, Span, or whomever, they better have their eyes focused on a grand prize. MLB GM's are tight fisted when it comes to giving up top prospects. That is the game now. You need an upper echelon player to fetch upper echelon prospects. Willingham and Span are very good players, but do not constitute that brand. We would better off holding on to them rather than trading them for a supposed future #4 Starter. As a fan, if that kind of trade went down, that would most definitely sink my ship.

glunn
06-02-2012, 03:01 AM
If the Twins do indeed intend on trading the likes of Willingham, Span, or whomever, they better have their eyes focused on a grand prize. MLB GM's are tight fisted when it comes to giving up top prospects. That is the game now. You need an upper echelon player to fetch upper echelon prospects. Willingham and Span are very good players, but do not constitute that brand. We would better off holding on to them rather than trading them for a supposed future #4 Starter. As a fan, if that kind of trade went down, that would most definitely sink my ship.

It seems to me that most of us would agree that a "supposed #4 starter" would not be enough. The issue for many seems to be what would it take for us to feel good about such a trade. A potential #2 starter? A potential #3 starter plus a risky single A starter? Who can say for sure what a contender might offer if they feel a desperate need for a right handed batter with power?

Nick Nelson
06-02-2012, 12:44 PM
'I would have thought it impossible to defend Duensing's performance last year, if that wasn't an exposure of one man's limitations, I'm not certain what else would be. Maholm's mediocre career .281/1.42/4.37 is statistically different enough that Maholm has been a career starter exclusively and Deunsing has apparently convinced the Twins he is only a glorified LOOGY
He wasn't that bad last year. Second-most IP on the team, 4.07 xFIP, solid K/BB ratio. Gave up a lot of hits but there was some bad luck and bad defense involved with that. I think calling his season an unmitigated disaster is a bit over-the-top.

To me, the Twins' decision to keep Duensing in the bullpen is more about playing to his strengths. The guy is elite when it comes to shutting down lefty hitters and you really mask that skill by playing him as a starter and letting opponents stack their lineups with righties. With that being said, I think he's a better option than some of the guys the club's throwing out there right now (such as Swarzak and DeVries... possibly Blackburn) so at this point I'm not opposed to giving him a shot even if it's not ideal.


If they were convinced they had no shot in 2012, why sign Carroll? Doumit? Willingham? For that matter, why sign Marquis?
One word: Stopgaps.

I'm not saying the Twins felt they had NO chance to compete this year. I just think they felt like the odds were slim enough that it wasn't worth investing $10M to add one extra pitcher. And they were right.


Rule 1. Never pay a Closer for a non contending Team.

Ryan paid over 4.5 million tight budget dollars + 1st round draft pick for a Closer.

A. Ryan must have believed that the Twins would be a contender.

B. Ryan has turned stupid the second time around.

Which is it? It has to be one or the other!
When it comes to Capps, logic seems to go out the window.