PDA

View Full Version : Article: Available For Order: 2014 Offseason Handbook!



Nick Nelson
10-02-2013, 09:41 AM
You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=2383-Available-For-Pre-Order-2014-Offseason-Handbook!

Otwins
10-02-2013, 09:20 PM
The only thing I disagree with is that we were in contention until June or July. Looking forward to the handbook. It is always well done.

YourHouseIsMyHouse
10-02-2013, 09:40 PM
Is a paypal account required? I opted not to create one and it told me "Sorry, your last action could not be repeated." I've never had this problem before with ebay or any other online shopping, so I have no idea if the transaction worked.

SydneyTwinsFan
10-02-2013, 11:54 PM
Done. It's been a great piece of work the past couple of seasons, and time and effort you guys put into it is much appreciated.

Brock Beauchamp
10-03-2013, 07:22 AM
Is a paypal account required? I opted not to create one and it told me "Sorry, your last action could not be repeated." I've never had this problem before with ebay or any other online shopping, so I have no idea if the transaction worked.

Private message me your full name and I'll take a look at the transaction logs.

raindog
10-03-2013, 07:43 AM
Even my poor self could pony up $5 for this. Thanks for the work you guys do, love the site.

Nick Nelson
10-03-2013, 10:43 AM
Thanks for the kind words folks! I know you're going to love this year's edition, tons of great stuff included.


The only thing I disagree with is that we were in contention until June or July. Looking forward to the handbook. It is always well done.
Well, they were never really in contention, but up until then they were at least within 10 games of first place, giving us some faint illusion of relevancy.

Shane Wahl
10-03-2013, 12:35 PM
Done! And I *really* like that cover photo. It says so, so much about everything with this organization. Joe looks for other competent players. Joe looks at empty seat. Joe proudly wears his catching gear for the last time.

Brock Beauchamp
10-03-2013, 12:51 PM
Done! And I *really* like that cover photo. It says so, so much about everything with this organization. Joe looks for other competent players. Joe looks at empty seat. Joe proudly wears his catching gear for the last time.

Thanks. I searched for quite some time before finding that picture, which so accurately portrays the 2013 season.

The second option was of a player getting spiked in the nuts. Also appropriate.

Jim Crikket
10-03-2013, 05:50 PM
Just completed submitting my order. Now waiting for it to arrive.

Still waiting.

Where the hell is it????

I want it. Now.

*sigh*

spideyo
10-04-2013, 09:03 AM
Done and done

Seth Stohs
10-05-2013, 06:08 PM
I just finished my 40 man roster projections article... I wrote about 11 players that I think the Twins could add. As I posted on Twitter, the first person to guess (in the comments below) which 11 players I think could be added will win a free copy of the Offseason GM Handbook, on me. Get your guesses in.

Brock Beauchamp
10-05-2013, 06:15 PM
I just finished my 40 man roster projections article... I wrote about 11 players that I think the Twins could add. As I posted on Twitter, the first person to guess (in the comments below) which 11 players I think could be added will win a free copy of the Offseason GM Handbook, on me. Get your guesses in.

Mike Pelfrey x 11.

Now give me my free handbook, dammit.

Seth Stohs
10-05-2013, 06:23 PM
Note - This would be current Twins minor leaguers who could be added to the Twins 40 man roster in November... not Free Agents or anything like that.

Reginald Maudling's Shin
10-05-2013, 07:17 PM
Eleven huh? How about Alex Meyer, James Beresford, Deibinson Romero, AJ Achter, Miguel Sano, Pat Dean, Duke Welker, Dakota Watts, Eddie Rosario, Kennys Vargas, Byron Buxton. If you're not counting Duke yet then Adrian Salcedo.

Seth Stohs
10-05-2013, 07:34 PM
Eleven huh? How about Alex Meyer, James Beresford, Deibinson Romero, AJ Achter, Miguel Sano, Pat Dean, Duke Welker, Dakota Watts, Eddie Rosario, Kennys Vargas, Byron Buxton. If you're not counting Duke yet then Adrian Salcedo.

Welker is already a 40 man roster guy, so he isn't included in the 11.
Meyer, Sano, Rosario and Buxton do not have to be added to the 40 man roster, so they won't be.

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 07:42 PM
I have 16 guys listed, Seth. Now I just have to figure out what you think about the Kepler and Polanco situation and probably some relievers . . .

Reginald Maudling's Shin
10-05-2013, 07:43 PM
Alright then. I bought the handbook anyway, anticipating my wrong answer.

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 07:47 PM
Well, if I don't get it, someone very soon is going to do so:

Achter, Vargas, Beresford, D. Romero, Rohlfing, Dean, Oliveros, D. Ortiz, Wimmers, Kepler, Polanco

I have a few more possibilities.

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 07:50 PM
Good grief, I left out one obvious guy.

Darnell, Achter, Vargas, Beresford, D. Romero, Rohlfing, Dean, D. Ortiz, Wimmers, Kepler, Polanco.

goulik
10-05-2013, 08:11 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Buxton, Sano, Watts, Rosario, Meyer, Wimmers, Kepler, Vargas

Seth Stohs
10-05-2013, 08:20 PM
Good grief, I left out one obvious guy.

Darnell, Achter, Vargas, Beresford, D. Romero, Rohlfing, Dean, D. Ortiz, Wimmers, Kepler, Polanco.

I have 7 of those guys in my list of 11.

Seth Stohs
10-05-2013, 08:21 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Buxton, Sano, Watts, Rosario, Meyer, Wimmers, Kepler, Vargas'

6 - remember, Buxton, Sano, Rosario and Meyer do not have to be added.

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 08:24 PM
I have 7 of those guys in my list of 11.

Darnell, Achter, Vargas, Beresford, D. Romero, D. Ortiz, Wimmers, Oliveros, Ibarra, J. Gonzalez, N. Fuentes

(Forgot Ibarra completely, a bit ago)

Seth Stohs
10-05-2013, 08:25 PM
Darnell, Achter, Vargas, Beresford, D. Romero, D. Ortiz, Wimmers, Oliveros, Ibarra, J. Gonzalez, N. Fuentes

(Forgot Ibarra completely, a bit ago)

Six.

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 08:45 PM
Six.

That went backwards.

goulik
10-05-2013, 08:51 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas Beresford, Watts, Dean, Kepler, Ibarra, Turpen, Wimmers

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 08:54 PM
Now my head hurts:

Darnell, Vargas, Beresford, Achter, D. Ortiz

(I don't think they want to lose those guys, right?)

Polanco, Kepler

Knudson, Morales, Hauser, Watts (forgot him before)

(you can't say FIVE this time, so hopefully there's progress here)

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 08:58 PM
I know one guy I didn't list for sure. Not sure how I could possibly skip over him. I will wait to see the new number though.

goulik
10-05-2013, 09:31 PM
I don't think he's responding to us any more Shane...

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 09:37 PM
Well I am going to assume a higher number than 7 this time around! Add Adrian Salcedo and that will get someone pretty far. I already paid, so I am now just curious. This became a game.

Seth Stohs
10-05-2013, 10:56 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas Beresford, Watts, Dean, Kepler, Ibarra, Turpen, Wimmers

Eight.

Seth Stohs
10-05-2013, 10:58 PM
Now my head hurts:

Darnell, Vargas, Beresford, Achter, D. Ortiz

(I don't think they want to lose those guys, right?)

Polanco, Kepler

Knudson, Morales, Hauser, Watts (forgot him before)

(you can't say FIVE this time, so hopefully there's progress here)

Six.

goulik
10-06-2013, 03:01 AM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Kepler, Wimmers, Beresford, Ibarra, Knudson, Roberts, Salcedo

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 09:38 AM
I am not even sure I that could have possibly gone from 7 to 6 to 6! Goulik you have to have 9 of them, at least, right?

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 09:44 AM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Kepler, Wimmers, Beresford, Ibarra, Knudson, Roberts, Salcedo

Watts has to be one of them. I wasn't thinking about Roberts being needed because of the injuries, but there is no reason not to include him. So, I imagine swapping out Knudson for Watts could get you close.

I guess I don't understand why Ortiz wouldn't be added and why Kepler but not Polanco? I would think that Polanco is more of a risk to be taken (neither will, though) and Polanco, at this point, would seem like he could move up faster than Kepler, so the three years doesn't matter as much with him.

Anyway, goulik, you are going to get this. As long as some "observer" doesn't come in and swoop when we get to ten!

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 09:48 AM
Personally, I would add Ibarra and Watts. But I think by looking over my suggestions, Ibarra is not on it.

goulik, I think it will be your first seven there, plus Roberts and Salcedo. Add in Watts and that's ten. Hopefully I am right about that.

Seth Stohs
10-06-2013, 10:13 AM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Kepler, Wimmers, Beresford, Ibarra, Knudson, Roberts, Salcedo

six

Brock Beauchamp
10-06-2013, 10:17 AM
This is cracking me up. The only thing that would make it better is to discover that Seth is rolling a ten-sided die and posting the results.

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 10:32 AM
This is cracking me up. The only thing that would make it better is to discover that Seth is rolling a ten-sided die and posting the results.

I know! It is way more difficult to figure this out this year.

goulik
10-06-2013, 01:08 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Wimmers, Watts, Dean, Beresford, Hauser, Soliman, Farris

goulik
10-06-2013, 01:09 PM
Please tell me I have at least 9... I had 8 a long time ago...

goulik
10-06-2013, 01:14 PM
Thanks for the support Shane, I have been comparing ALL our lists. That is why some of these don't seem to fully make sense (Kepler but not polanco) but I think your right putting Watts back in. I am fairly convinced neither Kepler nor Polanco are on his list at this point...

Jeremy Nygaard
10-06-2013, 02:06 PM
I don't know what is on Seth's mind, but I'd probably throw Aaron Thompson on his list.

I haven't tried to guess Seth's 11 - but I think that might help you guys out.

Seth Stohs
10-06-2013, 03:05 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Wimmers, Watts, Dean, Beresford, Hauser, Soliman, Farris

Six

Seth Stohs
10-06-2013, 03:06 PM
Thanks for the support Shane, I have been comparing ALL our lists. That is why some of these don't seem to fully make sense (Kepler but not polanco) but I think your right putting Watts back in. I am fairly convinced neither Kepler nor Polanco are on his list at this point...

I don't think I'd make that assumption...

Seth Stohs
10-06-2013, 03:06 PM
I don't know what is on Seth's mind, but I'd probably throw Aaron Thompson on his list.

I assume that was an attempt at humor, right? :)

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 03:44 PM
six

Wait, wait, wait. You are being serious here!?

I thought there was no way this went back down and could be anything other than 9!

I need a spreadsheet.

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 03:59 PM
Back to the drawing board. It's be one thing if it were clear by now any 6 or 7 of these guys. I am not sure what you are going for here, Seth. Wimmers and Roberts off list because the injuries would scare other teams off too much?

Achter, Darnell, Beresford, Vargas, Polanco, Kepler, Watts, Salcedo, Dean, Turpen (Turpen, really????--I swear it seems based on what you have said . . . ), Fuentes.

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 04:32 PM
Wait, 6 of these 7 are on Seth's list:

Darnell, Achter, Romero, Kepler, Watts, Vargas, and Wimmers (from post 23)

From post 38: six of the following are on the list:

Darnell, Achter, Romero, Kepler, Vargas, Wimmers, Beresford, Ibarra, Knudson, Roberts, Salcedo

So what the hell? Let's say the wrong assumption was made and that Watts is on Seth's list. So 5 of the first 6 are on Seth's list. That would mean that Seth thinks the Twins are adding one of: Beresford, Roberts, and Salcedo. This is not rational for the Twins to do. The guy added *must* be Beresford, however. There is no way they are going to risk someone close enough to help infield defense. No way.

Salcedo and Roberts safe because of injury history/slash not playing in AA yet. I get that, I suppose. I could see some team taking a chance though.

So I have to think irrationally to get this damn 11 done.

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 04:45 PM
Thinking rationally, and *this* list needs no numeric response!:

If choosing only 11:

Achter, Beresford, Romero, Darnell, Ibarra, Ortiz, Watts, Wimmers, Vargas, and then Kepler and Polanco, if concerned about that latter two--if not--Roberts and Salcedo.

That's 3 (4) relievers, 2 starters, 0 catchers, 2 (2) outfielders, and 4 (3) infielders.

I really don't understand how the 11 could be not taken from this group of 13.

goulik
10-06-2013, 07:18 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Watts, Kepler, Polanco, Dean, Ibarra, Fuentes

diehardtwinsfan
10-06-2013, 08:18 PM
Kepler, Polanco, Salcedo, Vargas, Wimmers, Ibarra, Darnell, Achter, Beresford, Bigley, Morales

Jeremy Nygaard
10-06-2013, 08:20 PM
I assume that was an attempt at humor, right? :)

Completely serious. I'm not going to try to de-code the other lists and how many they got right... so here's my list of 11, without a lot of thought.

Polanco, Beresford, Kepler, Vargas, Boyer, Darnell, Achter, Wimmers, Ibarra, Thompson, Hauser

I think 3 of those are very unlikely.

Seth Stohs
10-06-2013, 09:40 PM
darnell, achter, romero, vargas, watts, kepler, polanco, dean, ibarra, fuentes

eight

Seth Stohs
10-06-2013, 09:40 PM
Kepler, Polanco, Salcedo, Vargas, Wimmers, Ibarra, Darnell, Achter, Beresford, Bigley, Morales

seven

Seth Stohs
10-06-2013, 09:41 PM
Polanco, Beresford, Kepler, Vargas, Boyer, Darnell, Achter, Wimmers, Ibarra, Thompson, Hauser

I think 3 of those are very unlikely.

seven

Seth Stohs
10-06-2013, 09:42 PM
Just remember that it is my list of 11 possibilities. My honest opinion is that they'll likely add six, maybe seven.

Seth Stohs
10-06-2013, 09:49 PM
Achter, Beresford, Romero, Darnell, Ibarra, Ortiz, Watts, Wimmers, Vargas, and then Kepler and Polanco, if concerned about that latter two--if not--Roberts and Salcedo.

That's 3 (4) relievers, 2 starters, 0 catchers, 2 (2) outfielders, and 4 (3) infielders.

I really don't understand how the 11 could be not taken from this group of 13.

I'll not give you the exact same answer, but I'll try to help by giving you were I rank them. In other words, most likely add (in my opinion) is #1, then #2, etc. So, in your list above, you have my 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10.

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 10:04 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Watts, Kepler, Polanco, Dean, Ibarra, Fuentes

8 of these, apparently. But you did us a solid and only listed 10, so that helps.

I swear it has gotta be no to Dean and Fuentes.

But you didn't have Beresford or Watts. But it would seem given all that Seth has said that they aren't included. How has no one gotten 9????

I just got 8, but Seth's 2nd most likely, 9th most likely, and 11th most likely are out there.

I have no idea who the 2nd most likely add is.

Shane Wahl
10-06-2013, 10:04 PM
Just remember that it is my list of 11 possibilities. My honest opinion is that they'll likely add six, maybe seven.

In my view, 11 isn't enough!

Seth Stohs
10-06-2013, 10:31 PM
Last year, I showed nine and it didn't have Caleb Thielbar or Josmil Pinto, and Tim Wood wasn't even in the organization yet. So, it's a just-for-fun list.

goulik
10-06-2013, 10:33 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Watts, Kepler, Polanco, Ibarra, Turpen, Oliveros, Rohlfing

goulik
10-07-2013, 06:18 AM
My original list had 11 names which Seth said 4 we're not on it and I had 6 correct. Subtracting Wimmers since he never fully came back from injury to his previous level of pitching gives me six known. Comparing those six to the other lists you can tell how many of the "other names" are right or wrong therefore only two of the four (Ibarra, Beresford, Turpin, Dean) can be correct based on the list I had with 8 correct. If Polanco is on the list than Beresford is not based on Shane's first list. Using all the lists any combos that include Ortiz or Dean seems to eliminate too many candidates leaving us with my list above which I could argue about later. Off to work, cannot see if I am correct now for next 11hours....

Seth Stohs
10-07-2013, 08:10 AM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Watts, Kepler, Polanco, Ibarra, Turpen, Oliveros, Rohlfing

Eight.

goulik
10-07-2013, 06:25 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Watts, Kepler, Rohlfing, Beresford, Bigley, Dean, Ibarra

Shane Wahl
10-07-2013, 06:56 PM
I am really quite stuck at 8, then. I have 13 guys worthy, but only 8 make the list. I cannot imagine who the other three are.

goulik
10-07-2013, 07:31 PM
30 seconds after that last list I saw a flaw. If this list is correct then Seth made a previous mistake in his numbers. I will wait to see how many I have before trying to fix it though...

Seth Stohs
10-07-2013, 08:34 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Watts, Kepler, Rohlfing, Beresford, Bigley, Dean, Ibarra

Seven.

Shane Wahl
10-07-2013, 10:04 PM
You gotta answer this of these 8:

Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Kepler, Polanco, Watts, Ibarra.

Seth Stohs
10-07-2013, 10:31 PM
You gotta answer this of these 8:

Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Kepler, Polanco, Watts, Ibarra.

seven

Shane Wahl
10-08-2013, 01:00 AM
For the record, my very first guess included Oliveros . . .

goulik
10-08-2013, 05:37 AM
My wife is frustrated now because I spent too much time going through all the possibilities and submissions and could not find a way to make this work if given the right numbers by Seth so I'd like to ask that you glance through the guesses to check to see if you made a mistake... I may have made my own but I am not seeing it yet.
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Wimmers, Watts, Kepler, Dean, Ibarra, Oliveros, Polanco

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 09:58 AM
For the record, my very first guess included Oliveros . . .

Good guess! :)

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 09:59 AM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Wimmers, Watts, Kepler, Dean, Ibarra, Oliveros, Polanco

Ten!!

goulik
10-08-2013, 11:08 AM
Achter, Darnell, Romero, Vargas, Kepler, Wimmers, Kepler, Polanco, Dean, Ibarra, Oliveros

goulik
10-08-2013, 11:22 AM
I said Kepler twice...Bigley instead of second Kepler

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 11:25 AM
Nine

goulik
10-08-2013, 01:43 PM
Achter, Darnell, Vargas, Kepler, Watts, Wimmers, Rohlfing, Polanco, Oliveros, Dean, Ibarra

Shane Wahl
10-08-2013, 02:38 PM
Can't be Dean, right? And it shouldn't be, either. Wait, is Danny Rohlfing one of them? I could have sworn something doesn't add up right from one of my first guesses then.

Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Wimmers, Watts, Kepler, Rohlfing, Ibarra, Oliveros, Polanco.

Shane Wahl
10-08-2013, 02:40 PM
I have to ask . . . why no Beresford? It seems moderately crazy not to protect him. I mean . . . it's not that likely he would be taken, but I also don't think it is that unlikely either. I think he is exactly the guy to keep around if anything involving Florimon, Dozier, and Rosario doesn't work out.

Shane Wahl
10-08-2013, 02:41 PM
In fact, Seth, my assumption that Beresford HAD to be one of them kept me in mess-up land for a few pages!

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 03:40 PM
Achter, Darnell, Vargas, Kepler, Watts, Wimmers, Rohlfing, Polanco, Oliveros, Dean, Ibarra

Ten.

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 03:41 PM
Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Wimmers, Watts, Kepler, Rohlfing, Ibarra, Oliveros, Polanco.

Nine.

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 03:43 PM
I have to ask . . . why no Beresford? It seems moderately crazy not to protect him. I mean . . . it's not that likely he would be taken, but I also don't think it is that unlikely either. I think he is exactly the guy to keep around if anything involving Florimon, Dozier, and Rosario doesn't work out.

He was strongly considered. In previous years, I only noted NINE, but this year I bumped it up to 11. I wouldn't be at all shocked if Beresford is added. I'd be happy for him. I'd be completely fine with it.

goulik
10-08-2013, 04:15 PM
Achter, Darnell, Romero, Watts, Kepler, Vargas, Rohlfing, Oliveros, Dean, Ibarra, POlanco

Shane Wahl
10-08-2013, 04:21 PM
I just have a very hard time believing that the Twins aren't going to protect Wimmers, given where he was drafted, and the potential there if healthy.

And personally I would trade Doumit for some pitcher, so in that case Rohlfing would make sense as an add. Otherwise, I don't see it happening.

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 04:31 PM
Achter, Darnell, Romero, Watts, Kepler, Vargas, Rohlfing, Oliveros, Dean, Ibarra, POlanco

Nine.

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 04:32 PM
I just have a very hard time believing that the Twins aren't going to protect Wimmers, given where he was drafted, and the potential there if healthy.

I agree.

goulik
10-08-2013, 04:59 PM
Achter, Darnell, Vargas, watts, Wimmers, Kepler, Polanco,Oliveros, Dean, Ibarra, Salcedo

Shane Wahl
10-08-2013, 05:25 PM
Same with Salcedo? Did Goulik just get it!?

goulik
10-08-2013, 05:27 PM
I know what the 10 are

Heimer
10-08-2013, 07:42 PM
Long time reader first time replying. Goulik and Shane both deserve a free copy. Everyone is a winner except for Seth. Keep up the good work writers.

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 09:13 PM
Achter, Darnell, Vargas, watts, Wimmers, Kepler, Polanco,Oliveros, Dean, Ibarra, Salcedo

Ten.

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 09:14 PM
Long time reader first time replying. Goulik and Shane both deserve a free copy. Everyone is a winner except for Seth. Keep up the good work writers.

I appreciate that you called me a Non-Winner rather than just a loser. Ha!

And, I agree!

Shane Wahl
10-08-2013, 09:17 PM
So no Salcedo.

Good god, has his name been mentioned in this thread? I cannot think of who on earth else it could be.

goulik
10-08-2013, 09:33 PM
Achter, Darnell, Vargas, Watts, Wimmers, Kepler, Polanco, Dean, Ibarra, Oliveros, Richardson

Shane Wahl
10-08-2013, 10:08 PM
Are Richardson or Reynaldo Rodriguez involved here?

I would hope not. I cannot imagine anyone else over Beresford.

Oldgoat_MN
10-08-2013, 10:23 PM
I just read this whole thread.

I had to stop half way through and make some popcorn.

Big fun.

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 11:23 PM
Achter, Darnell, Vargas, Watts, Wimmers, Kepler, Polanco, Dean, Ibarra, Oliveros, Richardson
'
ten

Seth Stohs
10-08-2013, 11:24 PM
I just read this whole thread.

I had to stop half way through and make some popcorn.

Big fun.

hard to believe we're over 100 comments now! :)

goulik
10-08-2013, 11:39 PM
Achter, Darnell, Vargas, Watts, Wimmers, Kepler, Polanco, Dean, Ibarra, Oliveros, Rodriguez

Shane Wahl
10-08-2013, 11:41 PM
Has Nate Roberts been eliminated from contention here?

Reynaldo Rodriguez, Nate Hanson, Manuel Soliman, Ryan O'Rourke are other players in the system eligible this year and who have some semblance of talent.

goulik
10-08-2013, 11:42 PM
This thread is single handed lay moving me from Single A to AA member :p

And if it is not Rodriguez, who the #*{€ is it?

goulik
10-08-2013, 11:43 PM
Has Nate Roberts been eliminated from contention here?

Reynaldo Rodriguez, Nate Hanson, Manuel Soliman, Ryan O'Rourke are other players in the system eligible this year and who have some semblance of talent.
Soliman was eliminated

Shane Wahl
10-08-2013, 11:50 PM
If it isn't Roberts, it should have been Beresford (!!!!), but whatever.

Seth Stohs
10-09-2013, 12:11 AM
This thread is single handed lay moving me from Single A to AA member :p

And if it is not Rodriguez, who the #*{€ is it?

Congratulations... you deserved the promotion...

And, no, it's definitely not Rodriguez.

Seth Stohs
10-09-2013, 12:14 AM
If it isn't Roberts, it should have been Beresford (!!!!), but whatever.

Not sure when Roberts will play next... and I already explained the Beresford thing. At this point, the only name missing is the #11 guy, and he's not at all likely to be added, so it may just be guessing at this point. There are a ton of players eligible (again, as shown in Jeremy's roster & payroll page), so it's a guess... there are probably 3-5 guys that #11 could have been, and as you know, it's just an opinion piece, and this contest is just for fun.

North Dakota Twins Fan
10-09-2013, 03:43 AM
I'll check the handbook out. 4.95 not bad. That's about the same price as a venti caramel macchiato at starbucks.

goulik
10-09-2013, 09:22 AM
I have no more ideas Seth, I surrender as I think all the best candidates are exhausted

ashburyjohn
10-09-2013, 12:53 PM
hard to believe we're over 100 comments now! :)

Yeah, and it's only the fourth inning. Could be the Best Game Thread Evar!

Shane Wahl
10-09-2013, 02:51 PM
Oh, believe me, Jeremy's page has been central to this!

Shane Wahl
10-09-2013, 03:27 PM
If I were the Twins, I would certainly protect Beresford and Danny Ortiz, but here is a list of other players off the top of my head (some mentioned before, some not):

Angel Morales
Tom Stuifbergen
Jose Gonzalez
Nate Hanson
Mike Kvasnicka

(it's Kvasnicka, isn't it Seth?)

Wookiee of the Year
10-10-2013, 11:15 AM
Has J.D. Williams been mentioned? He might make sense as the 11th most likely add.

Achter, Darnell, Vargas, Kepler, Watts, Wimmers, Polanco, Oliveros, Dean, Ibarra, Williams

...As a lurker attempting to profit off the hard work of Shane and goulik, consider this an entry in goulik's name.

Shane Wahl
10-10-2013, 11:31 AM
Goulik deserves it. The correct answer is Kvasnicka. I didn't consider him really, but I look at his stats for this year and was a bit taken aback. Not bad at all and they might as well consider him. I doubt anyone would select him. I do think Beresford should be protected.

Shane Wahl
10-10-2013, 11:32 AM
JD is eligible for the rule 5 in 2014. Don't make me think about next year right now!

Shane Wahl
10-10-2013, 11:33 AM
Anti-climatic rain-shortened game. Sorry.

Wookiee of the Year
10-10-2013, 11:47 AM
JD is eligible for the rule 5 in 2014. Don't make me think about next year right now!
Ah... yup, good call.

ashburyjohn
10-10-2013, 12:38 PM
Want to see a sample? Take a look at our 2013 Offseason Handbook (http://twinsdaily.com/docs/2013/twinsdaily-offseason-handbook-2013.pdf) and read last year's handbook.

This comment prompted me to re-read last year's book. Good stuff, and highly interesting to read with 20/20 hindsight.

Assuming the plan is to offer Blueprints by each of the site founders, I would like to see them include one more thing: what is the fallback plan if some major assumptions fall through? For instance, with 20/20 hindsight, it looks like almost all the proposed free-agent acquisitions were based on very low estimates of what it would take to sign players, and if the aim was to keep within a certain budget, what would the blueprint become (in very general terms) if all the planned moves cost a total of $10M more than budgeted?

Hopefully it's not too late in the editorial process to add a paragraph with this kind of scenario-based thinking that a real GM has to go through.

Wookiee of the Year
10-16-2013, 09:29 AM
Assuming the plan is to offer Blueprints by each of the site founders, I would like to see them include one more thing: what is the fallback plan if some major assumptions fall through? For instance, with 20/20 hindsight, it looks like almost all the proposed free-agent acquisitions were based on very low estimates of what it would take to sign players, and if the aim was to keep within a certain budget, what would the blueprint become (in very general terms) if all the planned moves cost a total of $10M more than budgeted?

Hopefully it's not too late in the editorial process to add a paragraph with this kind of scenario-based thinking that a real GM has to go through.
Honestly, if there was an offseason this would be overkill, it's this one. The Twins have (1) $23.8 million coming off payroll from Opening Day last year, (2) $25 million in new revenue from the new national TV deal, and (3) opened 2013 with a payroll $31.45 million lower than two years prior, and we know for sure the payroll cap was $10-20 million higher last year than what we actually spent. Unless a plan just goes nuts with spending, it's not unrealistic to think Plan B could be, "Make the same moves but spend more money."

Twins Twerp
10-23-2013, 12:06 PM
Is the handbook available? I have tried to download it, after paying, and it says it is not ready yet. Any ideas?

Nick Nelson
10-23-2013, 12:29 PM
Is the handbook available? I have tried to download it, after paying, and it says it is not ready yet. Any ideas?
We're still adding the finishing touches. It will be available later today or early tomorrow at the latest. Apologies for the delay; the TR interview came late so we've had to get it plugged in at the last minute.

Twins Twerp
10-23-2013, 02:38 PM
We're still adding the finishing touches. It will be available later today or early tomorrow at the latest. Apologies for the delay; the TR interview came late so we've had to get it plugged in at the last minute.

I feel like a little boy on Christmas morning...waiting impatiently for the "Batman Batcave." That is still the best gift I have ever recieved, you have your work cut out for you twinscentric

Anorthagen
10-23-2013, 07:33 PM
Will the handbook be availbe tomorrow, if not today?

Jeremy Nygaard
10-23-2013, 08:21 PM
It will be available later today or early tomorrow at the latest. Apologies for the delay.

I think so.

Seth Stohs
10-23-2013, 10:49 PM
Those that ordered the Handbook should have received an e-mail tonight with a link to download the e-book.

ashburyjohn
10-23-2013, 10:57 PM
Just downloaded mine. Woo hoo!

Twins Fan
10-23-2013, 11:10 PM
Just received the handbook. Wow!!! Nicely done. My thanks to the Twins Daily crew on a superb product!!!!!

Shane Wahl
10-24-2013, 12:24 AM
Look, I like Andrew Albers. I advocated for him to be Kyle Gibson's personal reliever in AAA, but that TR mentions him FIRST as a positive. It is literally the first name he mentions. Oh my god.

Shane Wahl
10-24-2013, 12:34 AM
Dear God. Pinto gets mentioned. And then . . . HE MENTIONS "Fryer" as a positive.

So, I have to wonder. Why is there this unabashed love for this "straight shooter" here? My God. To mention ERIC FRYER should be a fireable offense. I am SORRY for saying that. The status quo is acceptable to the old TwinsCentric crew, but I want to be given a further justification of that given a comment by Terry Ryan about . . . Eric Fryer. Are you kidding me. Is this handbook from The Onion?

Shane Wahl
10-24-2013, 12:37 AM
To clarify: I don't understand this TR interview as anything other than a satire. The rest of the handbook is spot on. I stopped working tonight to look it over.

Shane Wahl
10-24-2013, 12:40 AM
"Bell rung"?

That is still the term used to refer to BRAIN INJURIES?

Shane Wahl
10-24-2013, 12:47 AM
Apparently there are only 12 position players.

Shane Wahl
10-24-2013, 01:13 AM
Pedro Florimon's grade is a C? What? An average WAR between BR and FG as 1.7 and this poor guy gets a C??

What?

Seth Stohs
10-24-2013, 02:26 AM
So, Shane, what you are saying is that the Offseason Handbook is a great book for creating debate and discussion among family and friends. It could be printed out, bound together and set on the coffee table for family get-togethers and it could create a lot of discussion!!??

Ryan mentioned a lot of positives, and many of them were surprises. I think that was his point on Albers. As for Fryer, he was impressive in his very small sample with the Twins. He made a strong impression. I don't think he said any more than that about them. In fact, after some signings/trades, it's feasible, if not likely, that they will both be removed from the 40 man roster. But, when asked for positives, it's not hard to come up with several.

jokin
10-24-2013, 03:06 AM
Look, I like Andrew Albers. I advocated for him to be Kyle Gibson's personal reliever in AAA, but that TR mentions him FIRST as a positive. It is literally the first name he mentions. Oh my god.

Maybe he chose to begin alphabetically?

Shane Wahl
10-24-2013, 07:57 AM
So, Shane, what you are saying is that the Offseason Handbook is a great book for creating debate and discussion among family and friends. It could be printed out, bound together and set on the coffee table for family get-togethers and it could create a lot of discussion!!??


Ryan mentioned a lot of positives, and many of them were surprises. I think that was his point on Albers. As for Fryer, he was impressive in his very small sample with the Twins. He made a strong impression. I don't think he said any more than that about them. In fact, after some signings/trades, it's feasible, if not likely, that they will both be removed from the 40 man roster. But, when asked for positives, it's not hard to come up with several.

Yes it would create a lot of discussion. It's quite good.

Eric Fryer making a strong impression . . . . what on earth is happening here? There is NO defense for mentioning Eric Fryer. He had 13 at bats. And he is terrible as a major leaguer.

I like Albers. I think it is almost completely satirical, however, for a GM to mention Albers and especially Fryer.

Brock Beauchamp
10-24-2013, 08:05 AM
Yes it would create a lot of discussion. It's quite good.

Eric Fryer making a strong impression . . . . what on earth is happening here? There is NO defense for mentioning Eric Fryer. He had 13 at bats. And he is terrible as a major leaguer.

I like Albers. I think it is almost completely satirical, however, for a GM to mention Albers and especially Fryer.

Well, I think you're putting a bit too much stock in those comments... Ryan was firing through names. Should a couple of them not have been included on that list? Sure, but all of us know that when you're stating things off the cuff, you're sometimes going to forget a guy that should have been included and maybe throw on a guy who, if you spent time actually writing down names, shouldn't be on the list.

If you heard the tape, you could hear Ryan mentally spooling through the roster. Should he have passed over Fryer when running through names to list as positives? Sure. Is it a big deal? Nah, I don't think so.

As for Albers, I think Ryan was pretty clear that he was good for only a few starts later in the interview.

Shane Wahl
10-24-2013, 09:59 AM
One comment: where the hell is John's blueprint? Has Gleeman infected him with a fear of commitment to putting out any plan . . . . ?????

Brock Beauchamp
10-24-2013, 10:19 AM
One comment: where the hell is John's blueprint? Has Gleeman infected him with a fear of commitment to putting out any plan . . . . ?????

John has been tied up with other projects for the past month. He didn't have much time to dedicate to this year's handbook.

Shane Wahl
10-24-2013, 10:39 AM
John has been tied up with other projects for the past month. He didn't have much time to dedicate to this year's handbook.

Well we'll just have to pressure him to provide a blueprint. The other three should provide enough fodder for discussion. Let's just ship Eddie Rosario off . . . .

Anyway, am I the only one who has read this damn thing?

Shane Wahl
10-24-2013, 10:41 AM
By the way, it's early this year. It was always after the WS was over before.

I mean the WS is over, essentially, anyway.

Brock Beauchamp
10-24-2013, 11:00 AM
Anyway, am I the only one who has read this damn thing?

I haven't.

No, really, I haven't... Read about half of it while I was designing the book but haven't had a chance to sit down and read it in order.

ashburyjohn
10-24-2013, 01:14 PM
I mean the WS is over, essentially, anyway.

The Yankees won the WS in 2009 after losing game 1 by a 6-1 score. But this year the Cards lost 8-1. There's no coming back from something like that. :)

goulik
10-25-2013, 12:04 PM
I read it and found it thoroughly enjoyable to the point of starting a thread with my own blue print. I would love to see other blue prints as the ones I read I felt were weak (just my opinion but I think more can be done)

I hope eventually John gives us a blue print as well.

ChiTownTwinsFan
10-26-2013, 09:45 AM
Okay ... late to the party as usual ... just ordered and downloaded it ... didn't order it last year ... wow! Will enjoy reading this when work lets up! Tomorrow.

Wookiee of the Year
10-26-2013, 02:56 PM
I read it and thoroughly enjoyed it. Thought it was funny you listed the agent for the top tier Free Agents (don't remember that from last year)--but I imagine that means a lot to some people.

Definitely enjoyed Seth's breakdown of potential 40 Man roster additions (especially know it's the reason I'm posting this on Page 8 of the Comments section).

Very surprised Seth's blueprint included trading Eddie Rosario for Homer Bailey. Bailey's a great pitcher, don't get me wrong, but is one year of him (in 2014, no less) worth Rosario? I know you required negotiating an extension, but I guess my reaction is, why not just wait until next offseason to target him as a FA? He'll probably cost you similar dollars as the extension would, and you don't have to sacrifice a prospect.

I've put together my own blueprint I'll likely share at some point--don't know what the best venue for that is.

Shane Wahl
10-26-2013, 02:58 PM
Yeah I am going to work on a blueprint too. I want nothing to do with trading any legit top prospect this year. No way. I am really not interested in trading for a pitcher with one or more such prospect instead of just buying the same quality pitcher!

Seth Stohs
10-26-2013, 07:48 PM
Very surprised Seth's blueprint included trading Eddie Rosario for Homer Bailey. Bailey's a great pitcher, don't get me wrong, but is one year of him (in 2014, no less) worth Rosario? I know you required negotiating an extension, but I guess my reaction is, why not just wait until next offseason to target him as a FA? He'll probably cost you similar dollars as the extension would, and you don't have to sacrifice a prospect.

I've put together my own blueprint I'll likely share at some point--don't know what the best venue for that is.

I would absolutely not trade Rosario for one year of Bailey, or anyone. Hence the extension. You make a good point, but I think once he would become a free agent, he could get more years and dollars because he's so young for a free agent. If there's no extension, there'd be no deal, for sure.

I don't mind trading a Rosario type prospect for an ace. I'd love a second half rotation of Bailey, Gibson, Meyer, etc., etc. It'd be encouraging.

Thrylos
10-26-2013, 08:10 PM
I don't mind trading a Rosario type prospect for an ace. I'd love a second half rotation of Bailey, Gibson, Meyer, etc., etc. It'd be encouraging.

Yeah, but I think that this means that Dozier will be a better second baseman than Rosario. And I am not convinced of that yet, since I remember the year that Christian Guzman had in 2001. I'd rather trade Dozier high, if I had to...

On the other hand, there are several prospects (like Kepler and Harrison and a bunch of RPs ) who would be good trade bait.

Seth Stohs
10-26-2013, 08:20 PM
Yeah, but I think that this means that Dozier will be a better second baseman than Rosario. And I am not convinced of that yet, since I remember the year that Christian Guzman had in 2001. I'd rather trade Dozier high, if I had to...

On the other hand, there are several prospects (like Kepler and Harrison and a bunch of RPs ) who would be good trade bait.

You're not going to get a Homer Bailey type for Dozier (or Kepler, Harrison, RPs). Trading Rosario is a "to-get-something-you-have-to-give-up-something." It's not at all saying Dozier will be better than Rosario will be.

Thrylos
10-26-2013, 08:39 PM
You're not going to get a Homer Bailey type for Dozier (or Kepler, Harrison, RPs). Trading Rosario is a "to-get-something-you-have-to-give-up-something." It's not at all saying Dozier will be better than Rosario will be.

I was talking preference of trading Dozier before Rosario. And I suspect that Rosario will not be enough for Bailey as well...

Shane Wahl
10-27-2013, 07:36 AM
I like Homer Bailey and I am for exploring some sort of trade scenario, but I am not interested in trading that level of prospect for a pitcher who isn't a markedly better pitcher than several on the damn free agent market who can just be signed.

wagwan
10-28-2013, 06:30 AM
You won't take my money. Paypal won't let me use a lebanon based credit card..... can't I pay without Paypal?

Nick Nelson
10-28-2013, 08:36 AM
You won't take my money. Paypal won't let me use a lebanon based credit card..... can't I pay without Paypal?

Shoot us an email at [email protected] We'll get you taken care of.

Wookiee of the Year
10-28-2013, 08:52 AM
I like Homer Bailey and I am for exploring some sort of trade scenario, but I am not interested in trading that level of prospect for a pitcher who isn't a markedly better pitcher than several on the damn free agent market who can just be signed.
See, that's part of the issue, though--while I wouldn't want to trade Rosario for a year of Bailey + an extension, a team in Win Now Mode that needs pitching might be willing to. My guess is the Reds wouldn't accept much less than a Rosario-level prospect.