Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Bourn a fit in Minnesota?

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 DonnyMagic

DonnyMagic

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

With the trade of revere what are the chances they are players in the michael bourn sweepstakes?

#2 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,798 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

With the trade of revere what are the chances they are players in the michael bourn sweepstakes?


Zero. That would be awful. Spend money on pitching and middle infielders. Arcia, Benson, Hicks, and Mastrioanni give the Twins some OF options at the league minimum.

#3 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,430 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:01 PM

No, the Revere deal allows the Twins to spend more on the top starter that they target. That's still priority #1, #2, and #3 this offseason.

#4 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,779 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:02 PM

Zilch.

#5 071063

071063

    Member

  • Members
  • 42 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:04 PM

None. Not a fit and not gonna happen.

#6 husker brian

husker brian

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:08 PM

Are there any vet CF out there who might be had for a 1 year deal? Seems like that would be a good option given Hicks wasn't exactly expected to start this early.

#7 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,430 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:14 PM

I've always liked Reed Johnson as righty platoon player. There really isn't any reason to have Hicks stay in the minors too long and it's really time for Benson to sink or swim so I expect one of them to be up opening day now. RJ would still be nice to have on the bench though.

#8 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,798 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:17 PM

I've always liked Reed Johnson as righty platoon player. There really isn't any reason to have Hicks stay in the minors too long and it's really time for Benson to sink or swim so I expect one of them to be up opening day now. RJ would still be nice to have on the bench though.


Maybe it's just me but I like The Italian Job as a fourth outfielder. He's almost perfect in that role.

#9 AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 399 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:19 PM

I've always liked Reed Johnson as righty platoon player. There really isn't any reason to have Hicks stay in the minors too long and it's really time for Benson to sink or swim so I expect one of them to be up opening day now. RJ would still be nice to have on the bench though.


Maybe it's just me but I like The Italian Job as a fourth outfielder. He's almost perfect in that role.


Right about that one Brock!

#10 J-Dog Dungan

J-Dog Dungan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 660 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:20 PM

I mean, with the outfield market for Bourn shrunk to nearly nothing, if the Twins put out a one-year offer that isn't worth too much but enough for him to consider it, would it be that bad if they signed him for one year until our outfield prospects are more major-league ready?

#11 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,430 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:21 PM

Doesn't mean you can't have a good hitter on the bench regardless of position although I guess that's impossible if the Twins are carrying a backup 3B along with a futility IF'er and futility catcher.

#12 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,875 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:21 PM

Are there any vet CF out there who might be had for a 1 year deal? Seems like that would be a good option given Hicks wasn't exactly expected to start this early.


Or even 2 years. Mastro is strictly 4th-outfielder material, and it's a risk to assume the minors will produce both the starters needed even in 2014. (Parmelee seems miscast in RF and will take over 1B in 2014 probably.) Aim for serious contention in 2015, with 2014 as the transition year.

#13 E. Andrew

E. Andrew

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

Also going with Zero. We shouldn't be spending on the infield, we definitely shouldn't on the outfield.

#14 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,875 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

No, the Revere deal allows the Twins to spend more on the top starter that they target. That's still priority #1, #2, and #3 this offseason.


Trading Revere frees up less than a million, to be replaced presumably by someone at half a million - how does this allow the Twins to spend what it takes to get a top starter?

#15 Dilligaf69

Dilligaf69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:25 PM

Less then ZERO!!!

#16 Dilligaf69

Dilligaf69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:27 PM

Still need another option at 3B(Hannahan likely) and SS....my guess is Dozier will get every opp at 2B cuz I think we all believe he will hit. Throw in 2 more starters and another BP arm and let's play.

#17 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,430 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:29 PM

No, the Revere deal allows the Twins to spend more on the top starter that they target. That's still priority #1, #2, and #3 this offseason.


Trading Revere frees up less than a million, to be replaced presumably by someone at half a million - how does this allow the Twins to spend what it takes to get a top starter?


They don't need to spend 5-8M/yr to get a #3/#4 starter now. that money can now be focused on the top starter with lesser needs elsewhere.

#18 greengoblinrulz

greengoblinrulz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

Zero......paying max type money on a guy who uses his legs exclusively is a high risk & teams are obviously nervous with him as he's still out there.

#19 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,134 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:36 PM

If we wanted to go after a high priced OF we would be better served trading Willingham away for Pitching/MI help and buying "low" on Josh Hamilton

Not that it would ever happen, but it would make infinitely more sense then going after Bourn.

#20 spideyo

spideyo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 603 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:43 PM

He's a Boras client. Never gonna happen

#21 Top Gun

Top Gun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:54 PM

Terry Ryan said Darin Mastroianni, Joe Benson and Aaron Hicks will all get chances to compete for #MNTwins' CF job.

#22 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,714 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:57 PM

He's a Boras client. Never gonna happen


Especially considering the Twins just screwed Boras and Bourn out of his two biggest suitors by flooding the market with cheaper options. Boras has been on a rampage ripping everyone lately, can't wait to hear what he says about this situation!

#23 James

James

    Sideburns Specialist

  • Members
  • 1,426 posts
  • LocationThe dive bars of NE Minneapolis

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:00 PM

No, the Revere deal allows the Twins to spend more on the top starter that they target. That's still priority #1, #2, and #3 this offseason.


Trading Revere frees up less than a million, to be replaced presumably by someone at half a million - how does this allow the Twins to spend what it takes to get a top starter?

Trading Revere actually doesn't free up any money. We still have to pay Worley, who actually made $2,500 more than Revere last year. So, it's basically a wash as far as payroll goes.

As for the Bourn question... not a chance.

You can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that.


#24 Craig in MN

Craig in MN

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 124 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:01 PM

Rick Ankiel could make sense, if no one else offers him a guaranteed a starting job. He could plausibly win a starting job, platoon with Mastroianni, or be a bench player/pinch hitter.

#25 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,988 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:38 PM

I think it could happen, if the Twins first thinned out remaining buyers by dealing Mastro, Willingham, and possibly Hicks.

NYY: want to stay under the cap by 2014 = no big multiyear deals to Bourn or Hamilton
TX: Full outfield if dealt Willingham.
LA: Full outfield
LAD: Full outfield

There were three or 4 teams in on Revere, according to Lavelle. The Phils have invested in Revere so they are out on Bourn. Of the remaining teams, possibly one could be sold on Mastroianni. After that, Willingham should be able to deal to TX, as they seem less than thrilled with the prospect of 4 more years of Josh Hamilton.

It would be risky. It would leave the Twins with no outfielders, but it would make them the big fish, in arguably the best spot to make offers to Bourn and/or Hamilton.

#26 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 9,523 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:48 PM

If it was my call... I'm not doing it... One thing has changed for me tho... Before... I wasn't very interested in Middle Infield. I'm now much more interested in middle infield...

Go overpay for Sanchez... Or Jackson or whoever you like Mr.Terry Ryan... Sign a cheap OF'er for a year if you want to delay Hicks a little and jump into the Middle Infield pool if you like. We got the money for all of that.

Umm... Not Escobar or Drew. I still don't want attitude problem guys no matter what they OPS.

#27 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:53 PM

One word, why?

#28 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,430 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:38 PM

Trading Revere actually doesn't free up any money. We still have to pay Worley, who actually made $2,500 more than Revere last year. So, it's basically a wash as far as payroll goes.

As for the Bourn question... not a chance.


You obviously didn't read my previous post and answer to his question. You are right that Revere for Worley is a wash but you neglect to consider that the Twins needed to add multiple starters this offseason. Now they don't need to spend 6-8M/yr on a Blanton type and that money can instead go towards a better starter.

#29 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:13 AM

No, the Revere deal allows the Twins to spend more on the top starter that they target. That's still priority #1, #2, and #3 this offseason.


Trading Revere frees up less than a million, to be replaced presumably by someone at half a million - how does this allow the Twins to spend what it takes to get a top starter?


Probably cause it allowed us to fill a spot in this year's rotation for almost nothing (difference between Revere's and Worley's contract) so now the available money doesn't have to be spread out so much, allowing the quality of pitchers to, hypothetically, go up

#30 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 9,523 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:30 AM

[quote name='ThePuck'][quote name='ashburyjohn'][quote name='kab21']No, the Revere deal allows the Twins to spend more on the top starter that they target. That's still priority #1, #2, and #3 this offseason.[/QUOTE]

Trading Revere frees up less than a million, to be replaced presumably by someone at half a million - how does this allow the Twins to spend what it takes to get a top starter?[/QUOTE]

Probably cause it allowed us to fill a spot in this year's rotation for almost nothing (difference between Revere's and Worley's contract) so now the available money doesn't have to be spread out so much, allowing the quality of pitchers to, hypothetically, go up[/QUOTE]

Exactly... We need one less now and that in itself... Frees up money.