Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

SI: Twins Winter Report Card is a B-

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 John Bonnes

John Bonnes

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 5,201 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:54 AM

Sports Illustrated gives the Twins a B- for their offseason moves. It likes the trades, dislikes the pitching signings and wonders why the middle infield is still a mess. I'd be interested in others thoughts on the grade for the Twins this year.

My initial reaction was D, just because the rotation seems so botched, but I am happy with the trades and where they position the Twins for 2014. I guess I'd go with a "C" but not for the usual reason. Usually a C implies average - they did about what I'd have expected them to do. Instead, they did far less in some areas and far more in others. A "C" seems to be where they balance out to.

#2 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,835 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:59 AM

Transaction-wise, I'm good with the B-. I've liked the moves with the exception of Correia.

2013-wise, D might be kind.

2014 and beyond - A-

#3 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:11 AM

Sports Illustrated gives the Twins a B- for their offseason moves. It likes the trades, dislikes the pitching signings and wonders why the middle infield is still a mess. I'd be interested in others thoughts on the grade for the Twins this year.

My initial reaction was D, just because the rotation seems so botched, but I am happy with the trades and where they position the Twins for 2014. I guess I'd go with a "C" but not for the usual reason. Usually a C implies average - they did about what I'd have expected them to do. Instead, they did far less in some areas and far more in others. A "C" seems to be where they balance out to.


Moves for 2014 would include two moves that affect us for 2013, Worley and Correia, and then Meyer and May. Are you expecting Meyer and May to be up with us the start of 2014?

#4 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:11 AM

Transaction-wise, I'm good with the B-. I've liked the moves with the exception of Correia.

2013-wise, D might be kind.

2014 and beyond - A-


Moves for 2014 would include two moves that affect us for 2013, Worley and Correia, and then Meyer and May. Are you expecting Meyer and May to be up with us the start of 2014? If so, why? Additionally, are you expecting them to both be very good right out the gate to give an A- starting in 2014?

Edited by ThePuck, 17 January 2013 - 11:15 AM.


#5 Top Gun

Top Gun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:11 AM

D- They haven't improve there team at all.

#6 Big City

Big City

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:24 AM

I'd give the Twins a C as it stands or a C+ if they sign Saunders (I really like Saunders), but, for all we know it could be an A+. Would it be TR's fault if ownership gave him a budget of $70 million to work with for 2013? This offseason has neither felt like the Twins were fully committed to rebuilding for the future or going for it in 2013 and I think that's where the confussion sets in. Maybe the flurry of trades and mediocre signings were enough to appease the average fan but for the more knowledgable ones (in these blogs), he can't pull the wool over our eyes. When compared to other teams in our division, every other club spent and did more to improve for 2013 then the Twins. Unless Gardy can pull a rabbit out of his hat, we should be major players at the trade deadline to send Willingham, Morneau, and Carroll packing.

#7 Boom Boom

Boom Boom

    Hydraulic Choppers

  • Members
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:26 AM

I hope TR's previous comments about having enough options in the middle infield are comparable to the "we're comfortable with a Buscher/Harris platoon" comments before signing Joe Crede.

#8 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 9,497 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:29 AM

I think it is the opposite...casual fans will like the off-season less than informed fans. I agree with John.

#9 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:32 AM

I'd give the Twins a C as it stands or a C+ if they sign Saunders (I really like Saunders), but, for all we know it could be an A+. Would it be TR's fault if ownership gave him a budget of $70 million to work with for 2013? This offseason has neither felt like the Twins were fully committed to rebuilding for the future or going for it in 2013 and I think that's where the confussion sets in. Maybe the flurry of trades and mediocre signings were enough to appease the average fan but for the more knowledgable ones (in these blogs), he can't pull the wool over our eyes. When compared to other teams in our division, every other club spent and did more to improve for 2013 then the Twins. Unless Gardy can pull a rabbit out of his hat, we should be major players at the trade deadline to send Willingham, Morneau, and Carroll packing.


You lost me at A+...

#10 CDog

CDog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 856 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:32 AM

First and foremost, it sort of bugs me that this is a topic when the offseason isn't over yet.

Having said that, given how things stand right now, I don't see how going higher than the C-range is possible given how poorly the free-agent portion of the offseason has gone. I don't have enough insight to really hone in on how good or bad the two big trades were since the return is all projection and so subjective. From what I can tell, I doubt they're good enough to finish higher than C-. And just to re-emphasize...as of now.

#11 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:34 AM

First and foremost, it sort of bugs me that this is a topic when the offseason isn't over yet.

Having said that, given how things stand right now, I don't see how going higher than the C-range is possible given how poorly the free-agent portion of the offseason has gone. I don't have enough insight to really hone in on how good or bad the two big trades were since the return is all projection and so subjective. From what I can tell, I doubt they're good enough to finish higher than C-. And just to re-emphasize...as of now.


Yeah, I don't know how one can project moves this year making 2014 any variation of an A grade.

#12 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,835 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:39 AM

Moves for 2014 would include two moves that affect us for 2013, Worley and Correia, and then Meyer and May. Are you expecting Meyer and May to be up with us the start of 2014? If so, why? Additionally, are you expecting them to both be very good right out the gate to give an A- starting in 2014?


I don't expect May or Meyer to be up at the beginning of 2014. But I expect that they, and other internal players, will start coming up in late 2013 and throughout 2014... I added the word "beyond" because I don't think they compete until 2015 and by then, I expect some of those early jitters and lessons learned start getting cleaned up on the younger players. And yeah, I like Worley. He's a solid, middle-of-the-rotation guy with controlled pricing for four years. Correia still being around is what keeps it at an A- instead of an A.

#13 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:40 AM

Not sure how to grade them . This off season was sadly different then from last years,where Terry had an idea of what he wanted and went out and got the players he targeted.This off season it seemed more like he waited till after Christmas for a blue light special in the bargin bins of K-Mart
. As for the trades, to me we need to wait an see how Worley recovers and if May is a starter or reliever.

C/C+

#14 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:50 AM

At the end of the season, we had one starter. Now we have three, with two possibles, and a bunch of prospects.

At the end of the season, we had Willingham/Span/Revere in the outfield. Now we have Willingham, which isn't a plus. Parmlee looking for playing time. A 4th outfielder excited for a chance. And prospects.

Ar the end of the season we had a seasoned utility infielder and questions at 2B/SS/3B. We still have the same.

DH is Doumit and a combination of Morneau and Mauer when necessary.

We have more bullpen choices than ever.

We locked up Drew Butera for 2013! That alone is an A+ move.

We went from 1-3 starters, with no sure #1 or #2. We still have a weak infield defense. We have no proven centerfielder. We have no #1 or #2 hitter. Lots of questions.
Joel Thingvall
www.thingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com

#15 Big City

Big City

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:55 AM

You lost me at A+...


My point was that these offseason grades assume all things are equal but in reality, they're not. The Twins are operating on a different budget then the Dodgers, Red Sox, Angels, Cubs, etc. If it was ownership's directive for the Twins to have a payroll of $65 million, then shouldn't these moves be considered an A since we've been able to fill our rotation with serviceable talent and add a couple of top of the rotation prospects for the future?

P.S. Do you ever have anything substantial to add to the conversation other than snide half-sentences?

#16 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:56 AM

I don't expect May or Meyer to be up at the beginning of 2014. But I expect that they, and other internal players, will start coming up in late 2013 and throughout 2014... I added the word "beyond" because I don't think they compete until 2015 and by then, I expect some of those early jitters and lessons learned start getting cleaned up on the younger players. And yeah, I like Worley. He's a solid, middle-of-the-rotation guy with controlled pricing for four years. Correia still being around is what keeps it at an A- instead of an A.


Okay but you said the moves made this offseason, you'd grade out and A- starting in 2014. Sure some internal players come up in 2013/2014, but that doesn't have much to do with the moves made this year to boost us up to an A- in 2014...just May and Meyer (if they come up). Even if Span and Revere had stayed, Hicks was gonna come up anyway, Arcia likely was too.

What other things do you see happening as a result from the moves made this offseason in the form of trades and FA pick ups that would grade 2014 so high? Worley and Correia are here now...which you give a low grade for...so what bumps it up to an A- for 2014 that had to do with trades and FA signings?

I guess my question is this: Pelrey, Correia, Worley, Harden rate a D, but Worley, Correia along with MAYBE May and Meyer, some time in 2014, rate an A for 2014? I'm trying to understand...not being sarcastic. Trying to understand how moves so far this year could rate 2014 an A..

And although I like the optimism, I don't see how we're really competing in 2015. I'd be interested in your views as to why you think we would.

Edited by ThePuck, 17 January 2013 - 12:09 PM.


#17 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 9,497 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:58 AM

No, the Twins brass saying the budget should be 65 and reaching that would make it an F for the fans.

#18 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:58 AM

My point was that these offseason grades assume all things are equal but in reality, they're not. The Twins are operating on a different budget then the Dodgers, Red Sox, Angels, Cubs, etc. If it was ownership's directive for the Twins to have a payroll of $65 million, then shouldn't these moves be considered an A since we've been able to fill our rotation with serviceable talent and add a couple of top of the rotation prospects for the future?

P.S. Do you ever have anything substantial to add to the conversation other than snide half-sentences?


I believe I do...on this thread in fact. Do they all look like snide half sentences? Most of my posts are just conversations back and forth. How many have you read, or are you just saying this cause you are ticked off about my response to you saying this offseason could potentially grade out at an A+?

#19 Big City

Big City

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:08 PM

I believe I do...on this thread in fact. Do they all look like snide half sentences? Most of my posts are just conversations back and forth. How many have you read, or are you just saying this cause you are ticked off about my response to you saying this offseason could potentially grade out at an A+?


Yes, I read the entire thread and not once did you give your own grade to the offseason moves (which was kind of the point of the thread). I like how you criticize everyone else's grades on the offseason but you haven't sacked up and posted your own evaluation. Also, you didn't answer my other question, "If it was ownership's directive for the Twins to have a payroll of $65 million, then shouldn't these moves be considered an A...?"

Edited by Big City, 17 January 2013 - 12:11 PM.


#20 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:13 PM

Yes, I ready the entire thread and not once did you give your own grade to the offseason moves (which was kind of the point of the thread). I like how you criticize everyone else's grades on the offseason but you haven't sacked up and posted your own evaluation. Also, you didn't answer my other question, "If it was ownership's directive for the Twins to have a payroll of $65 million, then shouldn't these moves be considered an A...?"


There's been no evidence to suggest that payroll has been directed at where it is, especially not 65M since payroll sits an 80M now. I'm also not criticizing everyone's opinion, I'm asking why they gave the grades they did. I value Seth and John's opinions, so I'm asking them why they graded they way they did. Asking what I am missing? In other words, just talking. I'm not saying they are wrong, asking WHY they are grading the way they are isn't criticizing.