Boras, Morales interested in long term deal.

[jorgenswest]

The foundations of the two previous successful runs were set using young players. Those teams did poorly in the win/loss column but grew together into very good teams.

 

The Twins tried from 1993-1998 to patch with decline phase veterans winning as many as 78 games. They changed direction in 1999 and took a beating. They also began their 4 year climb towards 94 wins.

 

As the Twins make plans for the second half this year and the next few years, will those plans be built on the foundation of young players or the patchwork of decline phase veterans?

[jokin]

 

people are saying on this thread that you can't count on rookies to produce right away, but then also arguing to hold guys down until they are "ready". You can't be both ready, and not producing.

 

The MLB system is set up to ascertain readiness at the major league level- and the organization acknowledges that AAA is no substitute for the real thing.

 

Dozier and Gibson missed badly on their first attempts.... future Hall of Famer, David Ortiz, as well as Cuddyer, didn't stick until their third try. For every Aaron Hicks- who completely flops in 2 attempts- and of whom the Twins haven't used his options wisely, you're going to get some who succeed immediately, as in the case of Santana, others like Dozier and Gibson, and then a third group, like Pinto, who start with a modest promise of success and hopefully build on that success by using Rochester as a remedial school to fine tune their areas of deficiency.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

...

 

That a veteran in Morales, and frankly lots of others, expresses such adoration for the club suggests something about our culture (even in spite of winning). So Morales helps maintain that culture and pass it on; that he's Hispanic, I think, also matters.

 

Again, this is a fungible concept. I see it this way. 1) We have the cash. 2) We do not have enough ML hitters to fill DH (Vargas and others are yet unproven). 3) Any redundant assets can be dealt to help the club. 4) Depth isn't sexy, but it really does matter.

 

I agree with your four points except that I think depth is very sexy

 

But to your first point we will disagree. I'm suspicious of this team's culture. I've gotten really uncomfortable with all these guys like Pelfrey, Kubel, Morales, ("and frankly lots of others") etc, who seemingly are just dying to get in here, and never leave. If they are any good they should be marketing their talent to the highest bidder. Also consider that Correia and Willingham have also expressed interest in signing long term here!

[TheLeviathan]

Wow there are a lot of notions in here that are really misguided.

 

1. A "winning culture" being needed to help a rebuild is bunk. I can't think of a rebuild that happened successfully that didn't rely on game-changing talents to turn that corner. How "winning" their locker room culture is overblown. Pittsburgh didn't finally break their playoff drought because of a "winning culture" - it broke it because McCutchen is mighty good at baseball. Talent is what turns bad from good, not how delightful the cubhouse is. And I'm a firm believer that locker room culture is important, but it doesn't apply here. (Not to mention it doesn't have to cost you what the Twins are paying Morales right now to get some clubhouse guidance for young players)

 

2. I've said before that good teams minimize the number of bad players they have moreso than load up on great players. It's Brock's point but flipped a bit. The problem is a guy like Morales doesn't always give you that 2-3 WAR player for a price that makes sense. Great teams need a handful of guys making peanuts being those players and have to be careful that when they do fork over a lot of cash, that the player they gave it to earns it. Right now the Twins are getting hosed on Morales in terms of that value. I'd also suggest taht regardless of whether you are worried about Pinto or Arcia or Vargas is irrelevant - investing 8-10% of your payroll into a DH is generally not a wise decision unless you KNOW that guy is making an impact. We can safely say Morales is not that type of player.

 

3. Getting too comfy resigning players that aren't the best fit or use of resources because they "like it here" leads to stupid mistakes. See: Pelfrey.

 

4. Prospect blocking DOES happen. One of the things that made the 2000s Twins successful is that they generally made way for the young players that were better, be it Mauer, Morneau, eventually Bartlett, Cuddyer, etc. AAA players can't "force" themselves past an established, well paid veteran very easily. Good teams don't intentionally throw hurdles in front of those players. They might have good plan Bs or moderately priced place holders but they don't flop 10M down on someone and say "Guess that AAA guy is going to have to beat them out!" - now you've muddled economics with talent as well. So I really dislike it when that comment is flippantly thrown around. No team just sits an 8M dollar player because some guy in AAA is doing alright, not very easily at least.

 

5. Dman is right, most of this talk is based on a HIGHLY unlikely premise. Anyone really want him for 3-4 years? No? Then we really don't disagree that much about this.

 

Sorry to go all DocBauer on that post, , but just felt a bunch needed to be said.

[drjim]

Guys, signing Morales for a year or 2 at 7 or 8 mil a year isn't happening. He won't take it and can probably get more on the open market for a short term deal. The only realistic options are :

 

1. Sign him long term - at least 3 years, at least 9-10 mil a year and it may take more.

2. Trade him before July 31 ( he won't pass waivers for an August deal) for prospects, and probably not A or even B+ prospects, maybe B and and a C, because he's not hitting.

3. Keep for the rest of this year and hope to re-sign him if no good market develops for him or be resigned to letting him walk away.

 

Those are the choices. I prefer number 2 because of his limitations in the field and our crowded first base options (although I am intrigued with Mauer in left and Morales at first, with Parmalee backing up both positions). I'd be ok with number one because you always need professional hitters and we don't know if Vargas or Pinto will develop. Let's just not go for number 3. It's time to make a decision.

 

I don't think 30+ year old DHs get 3 year deals. If he was worth that, draft pick compensation would not have prevented him for getting that last offseason. Twins can certainly afford any yearly price, they would just balk at the years (as they should).

 

I would agree with your last part. Make a realistic offer and see if he will take it before the deadline. If not, you can trade him. That said, Morales isn't going to bring much back in return and is probably the type of guy that can get through waivers in August.

[LaBombo]

The foundations of the two previous successful runs were set using young players. Those teams did poorly in the win/loss column but grew together into very good teams.

 

The Twins tried from 1993-1998 to patch with decline phase veterans winning as many as 78 games. They changed direction in 1999 and took a beating. They also began their 4 year climb towards 94 wins.

 

As the Twins make plans for the second half this year and the next few years, will those plans be built on the foundation of young players or the patchwork of decline phase veterans?

 

Bill James said of an organization that its fear of a couple of 100-loss season with young players led to its losing 90 several times with old ones and getting no closer to rebuilding.

 

Just signing Morales as opposed to pocketing the money won't do much initially to harm the Twins, but eventually he'll probably be in the way of someone who needs AB's. And before his deal is over, a guy that slow already won't even be able to get out of his own way.

 

But worst than that, it would be a vote of no confidence in the farm system, and would give the impression of a franchise content to mumble about contention until July, sit on its hands at the deadline, and settle for a .500-ish club for the next several years.

 

The involvement of Boras is not a plus.

[tobi0040]

Wow there are a lot of notions in here that are really misguided.

 

1. A "winning culture" being needed to help a rebuild is bunk. I can't think of a rebuild that happened successfully that didn't rely on game-changing talents to turn that corner. How "winning" their locker room culture is overblown. Pittsburgh didn't finally break their playoff drought because of a "winning culture" - it broke it because McCutchen is mighty good at baseball. Talent is what turns bad from good, not how delightful the cubhouse is. And I'm a firm believer that locker room culture is important, but it doesn't apply here. (Not to mention it doesn't have to cost you what the Twins are paying Morales right now to get some clubhouse guidance for young players)

 

2. I've said before that good teams minimize the number of bad players they have moreso than load up on great players. It's Brock's point but flipped a bit. The problem is a guy like Morales doesn't always give you that 2-3 WAR player for a price that makes sense. Great teams need a handful of guys making peanuts being those players and have to be careful that when they do fork over a lot of cash, that the player they gave it to earns it. Right now the Twins are getting hosed on Morales in terms of that value. I'd also suggest taht regardless of whether you are worried about Pinto or Arcia or Vargas is irrelevant - investing 8-10% of your payroll into a DH is generally not a wise decision unless you KNOW that guy is making an impact. We can safely say Morales is not that type of player.

 

3. Getting too comfy resigning players that aren't the best fit or use of resources because they "like it here" leads to stupid mistakes. See: Pelfrey.

 

4. Prospect blocking DOES happen. One of the things that made the 2000s Twins successful is that they generally made way for the young players that were better, be it Mauer, Morneau, eventually Bartlett, Cuddyer, etc. AAA players can't "force" themselves past an established, well paid veteran very easily. Good teams don't intentionally throw hurdles in front of those players. They might have good plan Bs or moderately priced place holders but they don't flop 10M down on someone and say "Guess that AAA guy is going to have to beat them out!" - now you've muddled economics with talent as well. So I really dislike it when that comment is flippantly thrown around. No team just sits an 8M dollar player because some guy in AAA is doing alright, not very easily at least.

 

5. Dman is right, most of this talk is based on a HIGHLY unlikely premise. Anyone really want him for 3-4 years? No? Then we really don't disagree that much about this.

 

Sorry to go all DocBauer on that post, , but just felt a bunch needed to be said.

 

I completely agree with point #1. Baseball is 95% batter versus pitcher. It doesn't really matter if you heard a Herb Brooks like speech before walking up there.

 

To the second point, I think most that favor signing Morales are interested in a one or two year deal around $7M annually. Our interest is very conditional and likely not enough to sign the guy. $7M should not be anywhere near 8-10% of our payroll. If it is we have a bigger set of problems.

 

I agree we should not be signing guys because they are comfy here. But a big difference exists between 2-14 for Morales and the idiotic Pelfrey deal. This guy has been an all-star level player, he received MVP votes in 2009 and has hit 70+ HR over 3.5 seasons prior to this one. His career OPS is .800 and in my opinion, is simlpy rusty right now. This guy has upside and could help us win. As far as blocking goes, the truth is he is not blocking anyone on our major league roster or in AAA. Vargas has been mentioned but he wasn't a top 10 prospect prior to this year, regardless of how good he has been. He likely won't be up before June of next year best case. And the block in this case assumes he is healthy and contribution, Mauer is healthy and playing every day, Morales is healthy and contributing, nobody can be moved or traded for value, etc. Very hypothetical IMO.

[PseudoSABR]

If they are any good they should be marketing their talent to the highest bidder.

I think this is probably a bit unfair to the likes of Morales, Willingham; not everyone wishes to maximize they're pay through employment, it's pretty common for workplace conditions to factor in to any decision of whom to work for. That said, thanks for the willingness to go back-and-forth with humor and flexibility.:th_alc:Cheers.

[TheLeviathan]

To the second point, I think most that favor signing Morales are interested in a one or two year deal around $7M annually. Our interest is very conditional and likely not enough to sign the guy. $7M should not be anywhere near 8-10% of our payroll. If it is we have a bigger set of problems.

 

Frankly I think a one year deal is extremely unlikely. If he wants a "make good" deal...why on earth would he want to do that in Target Field? He'd be far better off doing what Cruz did and finding a place that has both a need and an ideal situation for him to regain value. I don't think that's here. It might be and he might sign a one year deal, but it's a dubious premise at best.

 

Here's the reality about a 2 year deal - it's just like Willingham. You won't be able to deal him until July of the second year. You are basically closing off the DH spot for 1.5 seasons. If that's something you're comfortable with for the other reasons you listed, fine. Personally I'd rather see Pinto/Arcia/Vargas get the bulk of those at-bats and sign a legitimate OF.

[twinsnorth49]

I think this is probably a bit unfair to the likes of Morales, Willingham; not everyone wishes to maximize they're pay through employment, it's pretty common for workplace conditions to factor in to any decision of whom to work for. That said, thanks for the willingness to go back-and-forth with humor and flexibility.

Cheers.

 

This is absolutely correct but I think it's a rarity in the sports world. There are a few examples where the hometown discount or finish the career in one place factor came in but they are few, very few. Professional athletes have short career spans, it's imperative to maximize dollars, plus there is a responsibility to one another to not devalue your worth at the risk of it bringing down the market for everyone.

[PseudoSABR]

1. A "winning culture" being needed to help a rebuild is bunk. I can't think of a rebuild that happened successfully that didn't rely on game-changing talents to turn that corner. How "winning" their locker room culture is overblown. Pittsburgh didn't finally break their playoff drought because of a "winning culture" - it broke it because McCutchen is mighty good at baseball. Talent is what turns bad from good, not how delightful the clubhouse is. And I'm a firm believer that locker room culture is important, but it doesn't apply here. (Not to mention it doesn't have to cost you what the Twins are paying Morales right now to get some clubhouse guidance for young players)

Let's make it clear, if the Twins win, it won't be because they relied on their clubhouse culture or because they signed a 30-year old 2-3WAR player for ten million bucks a year, it will be because Buxton and Sano (along with Berrios, Meyers, and Stewart) have emerged as stars.

 

The Pirates lost for 30 years, and McCutchen arrived in 2009. The Pirates last year filled there roster out on a few FA veterans they expected to rebound Liriano, Martin, Grilli; and they're payroll is still paltry and they probably won't make the playoffs this year. The Royals know well what it means to depend only on their prospects, though they overreached when trading Meyers for Shield. Do we really want to see 2015-2019 be like the Royals from 2008 to 2012?

 

I'm not sure how you can suggest that the culture doesn't impact the success of young players. Having veteran, productive players as mentors, when the team isn't cap stashed, seems smart.

[TheLeviathan]

The Pirates lost for 30 years, and McCutchen arrived in 2009. The Pirates last year filled there roster out on a few FA veterans they expected to rebound Liriano, Martin, Grilli; and they're payroll is still paltry and they probably won't make the playoffs this year.

 

Last year is the key. Those are supplemental signings - more akin to Hughes or Nolasco. (Moves I am 100% behind) Guys you know won't block anyone for quite some time that are meant to be part of the success. Morales is closer to Pelfrey - a short term patch. Signing him for a year or two is almost nothing like the Pirates adding Liriano and Martin.

 

What you have been suggesting is more akin to the idea that 2010 Octavio Dotel was the key to the team's turnaround in 2012. Or Lyle Overbay in 2011 was somehow intregral in that run because of some sort of cultural nonsense.

 

The key was giving at-bats/innings to Alvarez, McCutchen, Harrison, Walker, Marte, Morton, Jones, etc. prior to that season. Then they left room open for guys like Gerrit Cole to come up and be a factor. Then it came down to those young players succeeding.

[DocBauer]

Wow there are a lot of notions in here that are really misguided.

 

 

Sorry to go all DocBauer on that post, , but just felt a bunch needed to be said.

 

I am rolling laughing!

 

Leviathan and I don't always see eye to eye on everything, but we do on this. And I gotta pass out a high 5er!

[PseudoSABR]

Last year is the key. Those are supplemental signings - more akin to Hughes or Nolasco. (Moves I am 100% behind) Guys you know won't block anyone for quite some time that are meant to be part of the success. Morales is closer to Pelfrey - a short term patch. Signing him for a year or two is almost nothing like the Pirates adding Liriano and Martin.

Morales is like Pelfrey? Morales is like 2011 Overbay (who was 34 that year)? Why not bring up Rondell White? Morales has more consistent track record than either Liriano, Martin, or Pelfrey. The argument has jumped the shark, we'll just have to disagree on the value Morales would add to the club in the next two years.

[stringer bell]

I think contending teams need to have a mixture of ages. Having a veteran DH as somewhat of an elder statesman isn't a bad idea, especially given that Morales is Hispanic and it appears that there will be a number of Latino ballplayers becoming mainstays for the Twins.

 

The question is whether Morales is a great fit for the Twins. He is almost exclusively a DH, who can play some first. He is a base clogger of the first order. We haven't seen him hit enough to be an asset. Morales has a track record as a good hitter. If he can be had for a reasonable price, he might be a good fit. He needs to show that he hasn't hit the decline phase big time. I'd say wait and see.

[TheLeviathan]

Morales is like Pelfrey? Morales is like 2011 Overbay (who was 34 that year)? Why not bring up Rondell White? Morales has more consistent track record than either Liriano, Martin, or Pelfrey. The argument has jumped the shark, we'll just have to disagree on the value Morales would add to the club in the next two years.

 

Oh cmon Psuedo, nothing jumped the shark you just stopped following your own arguments. Morales would be a patch signing. Your Pitt examples were to supplement the core, Morales is not a supplement. He's a patch. Just like Pelfrey or Correia or Willingham. He's not Nolasco or Hughes - those are two different kinds of signings and you and others are muddling them as the same thing.

 

I'm a huge advocate (even when they fail so far like Nolasco has) in signings designed to supplement the team now and long-term. 100% behind them. Patch signings of old players for several years? No. No thank you. And these are not the same thing.

 

The Overbay comp was about the ridiculous notion that a winning clubhouse matters down the line.

[DocBauer]

Why not both? Why not pursue a make-good contract with Vargas in hopes of being a fringe contender in 2015?

 

If it doesn't work, trade him in July and call up Vargas. It's not as if Vargas is going to be ready on Opening Day of 2015 anyway. He could use some time at Rochester.

 

The Twins have money. Why not give yourself a chance to win in both 2015 and 2016-beyond?

 

This to me is a very key point, if I read Brock correctly when he states: "why not both?" In regard to rebuilding/retooling AND STILL TRYING to put a potentially winning ball club on the field. And I have to echo that sentiment. Honestly, why can't the Twins work at both at this point? I don't think it's unrealistic.

 

Now I get all DocBauer and Leviathan. Lol

 

Some obvious truths first: (and if not, then why are you a fan?)

 

*We want the Twins to be a consistently winning and contending ball club.

*The past 3 seasons have been disappointing and pretty rough on the team and it's fans. And frankly, we don't want that any longer.

*Everyone is impressed and excited for the development and rise to prominence of the Twins talented young prospects.

 

No matter all the other opinions stated, I think these are absolute truths we all share. And as someone stated at one point in this thread...sorry but I forget who said it...ultimately it is the Twins responsibility to have a winning caliber team, and not simply a showcase for youngsters. That may seem like a simplistic statement, but it's also very true.

 

I hear age brought up a lot in comments lately. And while I understand the general opposition to the "age" factor, obviously in regard to diminishing talent vs young prospects, I am a bit perplexed by the anti-30+ angst. Does being a quality player over 30, helping your team produce/win, mean you have no value? I am NOT SAYING the Twins compare to say, the Yankees, but, with little exception, they build their team around veteran players they sign or trade for, and in some cases, hold on to for a great length of time. But their fans don't factor age, they factor production and winning. Again, not comparing the Twins to them directly, just making an observation.

 

If next season, I could present you a DH, possibly Morales considering the original point of this thread, a veteran power hitting/productive LF and a solid option for CF on 2-year deals, to go along with the other "fixtures" in our lineup, along with a healthy Nolasco, Hughes, Gibson, May and Meyer in the rotation, and I could guarantee you an 80 win team who might contend for 85+ depending on the further health and development of Mauer, Dozier, Plouffe, Arcia, Escobar, Nunez, Santana and even Parmelee, you would say no???

 

And if you were to say no, then I can only assume your preference was to promote Sano, coming off injury, Buxton, missing significant time this year, Hicks, Pinto, Rosario and Vargas from AA, and possibly Polaco and Walker for high A and just run with them, lose another 90 games for a year or two until they get their feet under them. Yes, you learn on the job in baseball. But there is also a sound reason why there are multiple levels of development. No-one, myself or otherwise, has objected to promotions or "holding back" a prospect from the next level or challenge.

 

But as has also been pointed out earlier, some guys do well quickly, and some fail and flail the first time up. Some take two times. Some need a little more until things begging to click.

 

The reality is the Twins face a hole in LF next season, as well as potentially CF and DH. Now, based on what Santana has done this season, if he can maintain, he and say, Fuld, may hold down CF in 2015. And it's possible Parmelee and Colabello and Pinto, and others on off days, could rotate in and hold down the DH spot. Both of these are possible. But at the very least, aren't we still at least on spot/position short?

 

Even the pro Morales contingent, of which I am one, have never said anything more than a 2 year deal that is "fair", however that plays out. (Though for a 31 y.o. player with quality career production before this strange, late-starting seasons, I wouldn't be opposed to a club controlled 3rd year) Same with the LF situation. For payroll control, and future opportunities with our youngsters, I would not advocate a deal longer than 2 years for a FA signee. And I have yet to read where anyone has even remotely suggested a big or long term offer to Morales, or any other FA, unless they are young enough, "under 30" to provide long term contributions to the club.

 

Once again, why can't we have both? Supplement this years version of the Twins, a much better and more competitive team than the last 3 seasons, with a couple smart signings, while still giving the prospects another half-season/season/season plus to be ready?

[TheLeviathan]

Supplement this years version of the Twins, a much better and more competitive team than the last 3 seasons, with a couple smart signings, while still giving the prospects another half-season/season/season plus to be ready?

 

Just to be clear, since you're using a word I brought up as a way to distinguish two different kinds of signings - Morales on a 1-2 year deal isn't what I would call a "supplement". He's a buy-low patch at that point. Which has it's merits certainly, depending upon how you and the club feel about Pinto largely.

 

But Morales is not the same kind of signing as Hughes and Nolasco where you are signing for both the present and the contending future. He's just a patch that everyone knows is gone before serious contending happens. I'm not sure anyone has suggested he's anything but that, even those in favor of signing him again.

[stringer bell]

OK, I don't think Pinto is a candidate to be a regular DH. As a matter of fact, his offense would have to increase more than his defense would have to improve for Pinto to be a regular DH. Yes, he needs work receiving, but he has they tools to be an adequate catcher.

[Guest USAFChief]

Just to be clear, since you're using a word I brought up as a way to distinguish two different kinds of signings - Morales on a 1-2 year deal isn't what I would call a "supplement". He's a buy-low patch at that point. Which has it's merits certainly, depending upon how you and the club feel about Pinto largely.

 

But Morales is not the same kind of signing as Hughes and Nolasco where you are signing for both the present and the contending future. He's just a patch that everyone knows is gone before serious contending happens. I'm not sure anyone has suggested he's anything but that, even those in favor of signing him again.

Hughes is signed through 2016. A two year deal for Morales would have him here through 2016. I'm not seeing the huge difference. If anything, signing Morales for longer would seem to be for when "serious contending" hopefully happens.

[TheLeviathan]

OK, I don't think Pinto is a candidate to be a regular DH. As a matter of fact, his offense would have to increase more than his defense would have to improve for Pinto to be a regular DH. Yes, he needs work receiving, but he has they tools to be an adequate catcher.

 

He's a rookie, but his bat and raw power looked legit. Any negatives you might throw at him are kind of mitigated by the fact that his OPS this year is 150 points better than the guy people want to give a hefty pile of money to. Morales is a better hitter than this...but Pinto likely hasn't hit his ceiling either.

[TheLeviathan]

Hughes is signed through 2016. A two year deal for Morales would have him here through 2016. I'm not seeing the huge difference. If anything, signing Morales for longer would seem to be for when "serious contending" hopefully happens.

 

Hughes was signed when 2016 was still a legit target for contending, before Sano and Buxton's injuries. Signing Morales now, knowing 2017 is now a more likely target is exactly what I'm saying it is - a patch.

[Guest USAFChief]

Hughes was signed when 2016 was still a legit target for contending, before Sano and Buxton's injuries. Signing Morales now, knowing 2017 is now a more likely target is exactly what I'm saying it is - a patch.

I hope to see the Twins in contention before 2017. But I do agree if we're waiting for the minor leagues to get them there, 2016 isn't realistic.

[DocBauer]

Oh cmon Psuedo, nothing jumped the shark you just stopped following your own arguments. Morales would be a patch signing. Your Pitt examples were to supplement the core, Morales is not a supplement. He's a patch. Just like Pelfrey or Correia or Willingham. He's not Nolasco or Hughes - those are two different kinds of signings and you and others are muddling them as the same thing.

 

I'm a huge advocate (even when they fail so far like Nolasco has) in signings designed to supplement the team now and long-term. 100% behind them. Patch signings of old players for several years? No. No thank you. And these are not the same thing.

 

The Overbay comp was about the ridiculous notion that a winning clubhouse matters down the line.

 

Now this I do agree with. As I just stated in my last post, supplementing a roster with a couple quality veterans, productive players, is prudent, and even more so for 2015+, as it happens! Once again, Morales or otherwise, I don't know that anyone is advocating, necessarily, a veteran player for DH, LF, or CF, as a long term signing/patch. I know I'm not. But I also don't view a 2 year deal, or possibly a club controlled 3rd year, as anything long term.

 

One issue I would argue with you about is the value of a winning clubhouse mattering. I myself have used this reference before, and I still believe in it. However, I think it might be necessary to better explain this comment and philosophy. It's not so much about young prospects joining a team that is winning, but rather, joining a team that has a winning "attitude" of professionalism about it.

 

Kirby Puckett had this attitude when he played for the Twins, and did much for younger players, and this has been well documented, especially for Torii Hunter when he was an up and coming youngster. And Hunter, in turn, passed leadership to the teams he played on, especially to Span, who in turn, attempted to pass along the things he learned to Revere.

And along with a huge organizational mistake in losing Hunter, (which I brought up in a semi-to-real truth article article built on fun speculation), I think one of the biggest mistakes the Twins have made in past several years was not ponying up to keep Cuddyer. The guy was never a true star, but his production was real and his leadership and professionalism were very much tangible. And he has proven the last season and a half, before his shoulder injury, that he had real life yet. Now, it remains to see what will really happen, but the Rockies have spoken recently about wanting to re-sign Cuddy not only for what he brings to the field, but what he brings to the clubhouse, and as an influence to their younger players. Not my words, but theirs.

 

Personally, I'd love Cuddy back on a 1 or 2 year deal. But that's actually beside the point. I don't know Morales' personality or leadership skills. But if he can produce as he has most of his career in 2015, forgetting the actual contract parameters for the moment, and can be a positive influence on the Twins young Latin talent, I think that's a consideration. Same with any other fill-in player the Twins may sign for, let's say LF, to replace Willingham. Production and a quality influence may go hand in hand with a solid, fair 1 or 2 year deal with whomever they may sign. It's not only the productive bridge they may bring to the team, but the attitude and professionalism they might provide.

[TheLeviathan]

I hope to see the Twins in contention before 2017. But I do agree if we're waiting for the minor leagues to get them there, 2016 isn't realistic.

 

Sorry Chief, I agree with you that the team should always try to win, but the notion that this team is going to contend via anything other than the minor league studs is just misguided. They have too many holes and not enough money to fill them any other way.

 

And that's not unusual, that's what teams do to go from rebuilding to contending. They need their young, cheap, impact talent to come up and be....well....impactful. It won't happen without that.

[TheLeviathan]

One issue I would argue with you about is the value of a winning clubhouse mattering.

 

I think a positive clubhouse with good chemistry matters. I've yet to hear how anyone thinks Morales will do that. It's more that his mere presence next year will somehow manage to impact subsequent seasons.

 

If you want guys to be mentors, you don't have to pay them 8M for a couple years. You can find some on 1 year deals for that.

[DocBauer]

From what I have seen, I think Pinto has the potential, at least, to be a regular DH. I generally like approach at the plate, and his power is definite.

 

But watching him last season when he was pretty much the regular C, I really didn't think he looked bad behind the plate. I think ages get tossed around as if they are absolutes somehow. As if every prospect should be this and that by a certain age with no regard to position, culture, injury, etc. Pinto is still a young man and young player. There is still a lot of potential there.

 

Despite expected regression, very much expected regression, I'm still in the re-signing Suzuki camp because I think he really does handle a staff very well and provides great intangibles to the club. But I'm also big on Pinto's future, and even Herrmann's as a quality and versatile bench player. At least until some of the Twins talented lower level C's approach a higher level.

 

Im in favor of Suzuki back, but, and it's a very fine line, only if Pinto gets the work he should.

[Dr. Evil]

Kendrys is a bonified MLB masher. He will continue to hit better as the season rolls on. He is a bird in hand and only 30 or 31 I think. Didn't have any spring training. It's not like our payroll is through the roof. He would be a good sick to have in the mix for a few years until the young talent forces him to the curb IMHO. It's not as tough all of the sudden 5 rookies will be screaming ready to be starters all at once.

Teams are built through varying avenues, minor league development, free agency etc. You need a good starting 9 plus good pitching, no matter the means of attaining them. Kendra's is a top 9 on any team in the league. We have few others that you can say that about. Why wouldn't we keep him? This idea of blocking someone else is not realistic considering the state of this team and the lack of quality starting 9 players. We have maybe two starters to build around. Do we really think a half a dozen minor leaguers will be top 9 in the next 2-3 years.

[DocBauer]

Hughes was signed when 2016 was still a legit target for contending, before Sano and Buxton's injuries. Signing Morales now, knowing 2017 is now a more likely target is exactly what I'm saying it is - a patch.

 

Yes, as, it might be a patch. Might indeed be nothing more than that.

 

Not sure I agree with 2017 as a target date though. The majority of the players on this team will be intact through 2015 and 2016. Despite some painful setbacks this season in the minors, there is a very real possibility than 2015 will see May, Meyer, Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Vargas, and a return of Hicks, make their appearance at some point. This sets the table well for 2016 with possible appearances/contributions from Polanco, Berrios and Walker amongst others, including some talented relievers who will almost undoubtedly make their presence known.

 

So Morales may be a "patch" as may be a vet LF. But what is wrong with that? I know a patch in many things can be a good thing, including here. I mean, crazy analogy, but a patch in a hole in my tire can be a really good thing instead of just immediately replacing said tire. So a productive player "patch" for a couple seasons, possibly with trade value, until one of the talented youngsters is ready would be a bad thing? I guess I don't see the downside here.

[TheLeviathan]

Despite some painful setbacks this season in the minors, there is a very real possibility than 2015 will see May, Meyer, Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Vargas, and a return of Hicks, make their appearance at some point.

 

In my eyes - Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Berrios, and Polanco are unlikely to see significant time until 2016. Making 2017 a more realistic timetable. But boy do I hope I'm wrong and it goes more the way you suggest!

 

Either way - Morales and his dumpy hitting and athleticism that looks more like he's 41 than 31 just don't interest me.