Twins Inactive. Should Ryan be Making Moves?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Broxton, Sipp, Cishek, Clippard, Rodney, Abad. I mean take your pick. The link on mlbtr had a bunch of guys. Relief pitchers are pretty combustible but there really isn't that much difference between the majority of them.  Some guy like Fein or Burton or Guierrier can carve out some pretty solid seasons after being found in the garbage bin. Who are you worried we missed out on?  O'Day for 4/31?  3/25 for Soria?  Did you want the Twins to lock up Ryan Madson for his age 35-37 seasons?  2/7 for Oliver Perez? 

Guerrier was claimed off waivers at age 25, Burton has a career minor league K/9 of 8.7 with a full MLB season of 8.9 who had missed some time due to injury, and Fien too had a career minor league K/9 of 8.9 but hadn't gotten an extended look in the majors.  Good signings all -- but that's 3 guys in 12 years.  What are the odds the Twins add one for 2016?  Have the Twins signed any guys with that kind of potential this winter?  I've seen Dan Runzler's name mentioned a lot, although probably out of proportion with his chance, as he's almost 31, even older than Burton was when we signed him, and has never even thrown a pitch in MLB (or arguably many good pitches at AAA -- career 5.78 runs and 6.1 walks allowed per 9 innings there).

 

I'm not so worried about missing specific names, but I will say the group of relievers that has already signed or been traded looks a lot better than the group of guys remaining.  I'm much less confident in our chances of achieving a significant offseason bullpen makeover than I was a month ago.

[gunnarthor]

 

Guerrier was claimed off waivers at age 25, Burton has a career minor league K/9 of 8.7 with a full MLB season of 8.9 who had missed some time due to injury, and Fien too had a career minor league K/9 of 8.9 but hadn't gotten an extended look in the majors.  Good signings all -- but that's 3 guys in 12 years.  What are the odds the Twins add one for 2016?  Have the Twins signed any guys with that kind of potential this winter?  I've seen Dan Runzler's name mentioned a lot, although probably out of proportion with his chance, as he's almost 31, even older than Burton was when we signed him, and has never even thrown a pitch in MLB (or arguably many good pitches at AAA -- career 5.78 runs and 6.1 walks allowed per 9 innings there).

 

I'm not so worried about missing specific names, but I will say the group of relievers that has already signed or been traded looks a lot better than the group of guys remaining.  I'm much less confident in our chances of achieving a significant offseason bullpen makeover than I was a month ago.

I wasn't trying to make a complete list of good cheap FA relief pitchers over the years but I agree with your second point - the names aren't as important as the end result.  If we have a good bullpen next year it might very well be because Perkins, Jepsen, May, Meyer and Burdi are big parts of it as opposed to guys like Broxton or Sipp.  I don't care how, I just want a better bullpen. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think relief pitchers, as opposed to closers who usually only pitch the ninth with the lead, are pretty unpredictable.  Sipp, who everyone seems to want, had ERA+ of 89, 81, 115, 203 the last four years.  In those four years he maxed out at 1.7 WAR (1.0 fWAR) and had negative WAR seasons. I do agree there are some relief pitchers with very good track records - O'Day was the guy I wanted but not on a four year deal.  Ryan Madson didn't pitch in the majors since 2011 and had a great year this year and turned it into a three year deal.  Good for him.

Actually, closers in total are probably similarly "unpredictable."  Sure, there are guys like prime Nathan, Chapman, Rivera, etc., and setup guys who are that good tend to get promoted to closer pretty quickly, but there are also plenty like Matt Capps or worse around the league at any given time.

 

A guy like Sipp may not be entirely predictable, but that's already reflected in his likely modest 3/18 cost.  He's still got better trends, chances of success, and upside than most other guys.  Saying "eh, they're all unpredictable" and waiting for guys to fall into your lap cheaply is how you wind up with bullpens like the 2011-2015 Twins.  I've been looking for a signal change that we're going to finally take a different approach with the pen, and unfortunately I haven't seen it yet this winter, despite a seemingly pretty good crop of FA relievers.

 

Also, before his injuries, Ryan Madson had a 4-year run of 143 ERA+ as a setup man (plus an even better year once promoted to closer).  2015 alone didn't get him that contract, it just gave teams confidence that his health was back and that he had learned how to achieve similar effectiveness despite perhaps diminished/restricted abilities.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I wasn't trying to make a complete list of good cheap FA relief pitchers over the years but I agree with your second point - the names aren't as important as the end result.  If we have a good bullpen next year it might very well be because Perkins, Jepsen, May, Meyer and Burdi are big parts of it as opposed to guys like Broxton or Sipp.  I don't care how, I just want a better bullpen. 

Obviously we all want a better bullpen in the end, but we're here to discuss the process, no?  At the moment, "Perkins, Jepsen, May, Meyer and Burdi" or some variation is basically our only path to a good bullpen in 2016, and it's a path that was largely employed and failed to produce a good bullpen in 2015.  (Even at the end of the season, with Jepsen in tow, we struggled with May's availability and Perkins' effectiveness. Meyer wasn't even called up as a September option, and Burdi took a whole season apparently just to figure out AA. It might work out in 2016, but probably not from Day 1, and 3/18 or whatever is a pretty cheap way to give us additional potential paths to a good pen.)

[Shane Wahl]

 

Per LENIII, yesterday:

 

"Was told by two people that Tony Sipp and Antonio Bastardo are NOT on Twins radar. A trade might be the best route to add a LHP."

 

This is why I asked about lefty trade options. I am WAY more excited about trade options for a lefty reliever than I am about signing FAs. And that is rare for me. Plouffe for a real lefty reliever and one top 200 prospect would make me happy.

[amjgt]

I keep seeing people talk about the Twins "needs" and how few they are and how if we don't fill those needs in the Winter Meetings, there's still plenty of time in the offseason.

I agree there is still time in the offseason, but I think we've lowered our expectations for "need".

 

The Twins need an anchor for the rotation, whether that's an ace or just a plain old #1, or a really good #2. The Twins are NEVER mentioned as being in the running for that type of pitcher.

 

All these teams making big moves and improving their team.... They didn't NEED those players. They saw an opportunity to improve their team and they took it. In their minds, actually, they DID need those players, because those are the type of players that take your team to the next level. Treading water for teams like that is tantamount to failure.

 

[nicksaviking]

OK so Berardino says Ryan wants a lefty who can go multiple innings and isn't a LOOGY:

 

https://twitter.com/MikeBerardino/status/674746319647428608

 

And Bollinger says that the Twins are looking for a lefty who can strike out guys:

 

http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/159186212/twins-zero-in-on-relief-at-winter-meetings

 

Aren't lefties who can go more than one inning and miss bats pretty exclusively starters? And good ones at that?

 

Either way, whoever this guy is, he sounds expensive and I'd rather pay Sipp or Bastardo than give up what sounds like would be costly prospects considering we're talking about a reliever.

[dbminn]

I would've liked the Twins to have made a play for Soria. Otherwise, I'm with Shane - trade for a LHRP. It doesn't have to happen this week.

 

In general, the Twins have two options moving forward:

1. Win this year. Sacrifice future payroll by signing FA or future depth by trading prospects. This could include a multiplayer trade.
2. Try to build for beyond 2016, with a roster primarily from within (at least for now).

Seems to me, the Twins have opted for Door #2. This doesn't mean they will "stand pat" for the next five years. They will probably proceed as announced this year, picking up an extra OF and RP. Next year should involve bigger moves after they see what the prospects bring to the table.

 

I've been a supporter of building from within. Lately, I've wanted to see a blockbuster trade. Probably just getting bored with the off-season

[DaveW]

 

OK so Berardino says Ryan wants a lefty who can go multiple innings and isn't a LOOGY:

 

https://twitter.com/MikeBerardino/status/674746319647428608

 

And Bollinger says that the Twins are looking for a lefty who can strike out guys:

 

http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/159186212/twins-zero-in-on-relief-at-winter-meetings

 

Aren't lefties who can go more than one inning and miss bats pretty exclusively starters? And good ones at that?

 

Either way, whoever this guy is, he sounds expensive and I'd rather pay Sipp or Bastardo than give up what sounds like would be costly prospects considering we're talking about a reliever.

I will give Terry Ryan this: he is really, really good at wanting good players. Where he fails is actually signing good players or trading for good players.

[DaveW]

 

 

I would've liked the Twins to have made a play for Soria. Otherwise, I'm with Shane - trade for a LHRP. It doesn't have to happen this week.

 

In general, the Twins have two options moving forward:

1. Win this year. Sacrifice future payroll by signing FA or future depth by trading prospects. This could include a multiplayer trade.
2. Try to build for beyond 2016, with a roster primarily from within (at least for now).

Seems to me, the Twins have opted for Door #2. This doesn't mean they will "stand pat" for the next five years. They will probably proceed as announced this year, picking up an extra OF and RP. Next year should involve bigger moves after they see what the prospects bring to the table.

 

I've been a supporter of building from within. Lately, I've wanted to see a blockbuster trade. Probably just getting bored with the off-season

You can actually do both 1 and 2 at the same time. The Twins have a very deep and very talented farm system, trading a few guys from it can help you immediately while not hurting your future chances in the least.

[rico7961]

Will Smith and Jake McGee are probably the best 2 left-handed relief pitchers avaiable in trade. Good luck trying to acquire, either. As it would take some pretty good prospects to do so. And the Twins seem unwilling to trade ANY of their higher level prospects.

[Linus]

If I recall correctly San Diego and the White Sox "won" the winter last year. Both were huge disappointments when it came time to playing the games.

[Mike Sixel]

 

If I recall correctly San Diego and the White Sox "won" the winter last year. Both were huge disappointments when it came time to playing the games.

 

such a terrible meme.....no one here is saying the Twins have "win the offseason", are they? And, I can go back and find teams that made moves in the offseason that worked out for them. How did it work out for teams that "lost" the offseason last year?

 

Also, I'm not sure everyone would agree that SD won the offseason last year. Lots of people hated their moves, I'd bet most people hated their moves.

 

the point is, this team is not a WS team as constructed right now, and every day that passes eliminates options. At some point, they'll do something. At that point, they will have acted when less options are on the table. Now, it might work out. But, it also might not.

[gunnarthor]

 

such a terrible meme.....no one here is saying the Twins have "win the offseason", are they? And, I can go back and find teams that made moves in the offseason that worked out for them. How did it work out for teams that "lost" the offseason last year?

 

Also, I'm not sure everyone would agree that SD won the offseason last year. Lots of people hated their moves, I'd bet most people hated their moves.

 

the point is, this team is not a WS team as constructed right now, and every day that passes eliminates options. At some point, they'll do something. At that point, they will have acted when less options are on the table. Now, it might work out. But, it also might not.

I believe you and many others had the Twins as big losers at this time last year - their big additions were Torii Hunter and Ervin Santana (although he was a later signee, IIRC).  

 

I think this team is a WS constructed team although it needs some experience.  But there isn't a guy out there in FA that's going to put us over the top.  How fast it takes the young players to play at this level is the only question.  I think they'll be a playoff team this year.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

I believe you and many others had the Twins as big losers at this time last year - their big additions were Torii Hunter and Ervin Santana (although he was a later signee, IIRC).  

 

I think this team is a WS constructed team although it needs some experience.  But there isn't a guy out there in FA that's going to put us over the top.  How fast it takes the young players to play at this level is the only question.  I think they'll be a playoff team this year.  

 

Not sure you got my point at all......I was commenting that saying that SD won the offseason last year "PROVES" that winning the offseason is bad.....is terrible logic. I also pointed out that most people said SD made bad moves.

 

No place did I comment on whether or not the Twins were doing the right thing or not. I said it might work, or it might not work. 

 

And, the Twins didn't win anything last year either. I doubt I said they lost the off season, I can't even imagine that's a phrase I would use.

 

I do agree, the KEY to the season next year is the young (or new, as in Park) players. That doesn't mean that adding more good players is a bad idea, or that failing to add more good players is a good idea.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

And, the Twins didn't win anything last year either. I doubt I said they lost the off season, I can't even imagine that's a phrase I would use.

 

I do agree, the KEY to the season next year is the young (or new, as in Park) players. That doesn't mean that adding more good players is a bad idea, or that failing to add more good players is a good idea.

I'm sure you didn't use that phrase but you were certainly among those who agreed with that sentiment.  You and I had a lot of discussions around this time last year where I said the Twins were on the right track, I liked the Hunter signing etc and you wondered when we could expect to see results.  I said this was already a .500ish team. You disagreed.  yada, yada, yada.

 

Anyhow, we both agree on the young/new players.  I think the Twins will sign some bullpen arm that won't excite you (and will lead Dave to create a new thread about the Twins settling for mediocrity) but I don't think we'll agree on what a "good player" is.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Plouffe for a real lefty reliever and one top 200 prospect would make me happy.

Problem is, what team needs Plouffe (has a big hole to cover at 3B to contend in 2016-2017), but also has a "real lefty reliever" to spare?  Might they also want to keep that "real lefty reliever" for their own contending team, especially if the FA market for such players is dry enough to force the Twins to trade?

[Major League Ready]

 

I keep seeing people talk about the Twins "needs" and how few they are and how if we don't fill those needs in the Winter Meetings, there's still plenty of time in the offseason.

I agree there is still time in the offseason, but I think we've lowered our expectations for "need".

 

The Twins need an anchor for the rotation, whether that's an ace or just a plain old #1, or a really good #2. The Twins are NEVER mentioned as being in the running for that type of pitcher.

 

All these teams making big moves and improving their team.... They didn't NEED those players. They saw an opportunity to improve their team and they took it. In their minds, actually, they DID need those players, because those are the type of players that take your team to the next level. Treading water for teams like that is tantamount to failure.

 

 

I keep seeing people talk about the Twins "needs" and how few they are and how if we don't fill those needs in the Winter Meetings, there's still plenty of time in the offseason.

I agree there is still time in the offseason, but I think we've lowered our expectations for "need".

 

The Twins need an anchor for the rotation, whether that's an ace or just a plain old #1, or a really good #2. The Twins are NEVER mentioned as being in the running for that type of pitcher.

 

 

Prior to this year, since 2000, eleven free agents starting pitchers have signed contracts of six or more years with seven different teams participating in contracts of this length.  Of course, that means 23 different teams have not signed a 6+ year contract since 2000.  

 

If we reduce the requirement to 5 years, an addition 9 players have signed such contract.  However, it should be noted that two of the contracts were $20M or less and two more resigned with their original team.  Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that 5 additional contracts involving three additional teams have been involved if we reduce the length of contract to five years.  This brings the total of teams participating in 5+ year contracts to 10 and the number of teams that have not participated since 2000 to 20.

 

Of course this information does not mean much in terms the relative revenue ranking of the club at the time they signed the player.  I used Forbes back to 2007 but could not find rankings older than 2007 so from 2000-2006 I used the information in the link below that shows average revenue rank 2000-2009.  

• 11 players have signed 6+ year free agent contracts since 2000 (16 years)

• 7 different teams were involved in the six+ year contracts
o Yankees   3) Sabathia, Tanaka & Mussina
o Dodgers   2) Greinke & Ryu
o Cubs         1) Lester
o Nationals 1) Scherzer
o Giants      (1-Zito
o Rockies    (1)-Hampton
o Braves     (1)-Smoltz
o Rangers   (1)-Darvish

• 9 players have signed 5 year contracts  (2 for less than $20M & 2 resigned)

• 6 Team signed 5 year deals / 4 that did not sign 6 year deals
o Angels   2) Lackey & Wilson
o Tigers    1) Sanchez
o Phillies   1) Lee
o Yankees 1) Burnett
o Rangers 1) Park
o Royals    1) Meche

 

 Exactly one 6+ year contract (Hampton) and one 5 year contract (Meche) have been signed by teams outside the top 10 in revenue since 2000.  Complaining about this is like complaining that someone with an average income it driving a 7 series BMW

[Major League Ready]

http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp141/BergBros/MISC%20Photos/Free%20Agent%20SPs_zpspntptzw5.jpg

[laloesch]

 

It is possible to be VERY active, work VERY hard and tire yourself out, but not accomplish anything.
I have explained this to my wife many times after a Saturday of Honey-do's where nothing significant was completed.
So Ryan may have been VERY active, worked VERY hard and tired himself out, but not accomplished  anything.
Like pushing on a Redwood tree that won't move.
In physics, zero work is accomplished, which is a normal day for most of my physic professors.

 

LOL.  I couldn't help but comment on how true this statement is, especially the Saturday Honey-do's where nothing significant is accomplished.  

[DaveW]

 

Prior to this year, since 2000, eleven free agents starting pitchers have signed contracts of six or more years with seven different teams participating in contracts of this length.  Of course, that means 23 different teams have not signed a 6+ year contract since 2000.  

 

If we reduce the requirement to 5 years, an addition 9 players have signed such contract.  However, it should be noted that two of the contracts were $20M or less and two more resigned with their original team.  Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that 5 additional contracts involving three additional teams have been involved if we reduce the length of contract to five years.  This brings the total of teams participating in 5+ year contracts to 10 and the number of teams that have not participated since 2000 to 20.

 

Of course this information does not mean much in terms the relative revenue ranking of the club at the time they signed the player.  I used Forbes back to 2007 but could not find rankings older than 2007 so from 2000-2006 I used the information in the link below that shows average revenue rank 2000-2009.  

• 11 players have signed 6+ year free agent contracts since 2000 (16 years)

• 7 different teams were involved in the six+ year contracts
o Yankees   3) Sabathia, Tanaka & Mussina
o Dodgers   2) Greinke & Ryu
o Cubs         1) Lester
o Nationals 1) Scherzer
o Giants      (1-Zito
o Rockies    (1)-Hampton
o Braves     (1)-Smoltz
o Rangers   (1)-Darvish

• 9 players have signed 5 year contracts  (2 for less than $20M & 2 resigned)

• 6 Team signed 5 year deals / 4 that did not sign 6 year deals
o Angels   2) Lackey & Wilson
o Tigers    1) Sanchez
o Phillies   1) Lee
o Yankees 1) Burnett
o Rangers 1) Park
o Royals    1) Meche

 

 Exactly one 6+ year contract (Hampton) and one 5 year contract (Meche) have been signed by teams outside the top 10 in revenue since 2000.  Complaining about this is like complaining that someone with an average income it driving a 7 series BMW

You can get #2 type pitchers for less than 6 or 5 years. Iwakuma just signed for 3 years for instance.

 

Also you can TRADE for an ace as well.

 

Also, the Twins have the money to afford pretty much any player they want with the exception of the David Prices and Greinkes. They actively choose not to spend it.

[Linus]

Not sure you got my point at all......I was commenting that saying that SD won the offseason last year "PROVES" that winning the offseason is bad.....is terrible logic. I also pointed out that most people said SD made bad moves.

 

No place did I comment on whether or not the Twins were doing the right thing or not. I said it might work, or it might not work.

 

And, the Twins didn't win anything last year either. I doubt I said they lost the off season, I can't even imagine that's a phrase I would use.

 

I do agree, the KEY to the season next year is the young (or new, as in Park) players. That doesn't mean that adding more good players is a bad idea, or that failing to add more good players is a good idea.

Mike if you read my post you will see that it didn't refer to proving anything. It was an observation about last off season. Point being that you don't know how any of this will work out.

[jimmer]

I think this team is far from being a WS constructed team. Regardless of the experience level, The talent level isn't there.

[amjgt]

 

Prior to this year, since 2000, eleven free agents starting pitchers have signed contracts of six or more years with seven different teams participating in contracts of this length.  Of course, that means 23 different teams have not signed a 6+ year contract since 2000.  

 

If we reduce the requirement to 5 years, an addition 9 players have signed such contract.  However, it should be noted that two of the contracts were $20M or less and two more resigned with their original team.  Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that 5 additional contracts involving three additional teams have been involved if we reduce the length of contract to five years.  This brings the total of teams participating in 5+ year contracts to 10 and the number of teams that have not participated since 2000 to 20.

 

Of course this information does not mean much in terms the relative revenue ranking of the club at the time they signed the player.  I used Forbes back to 2007 but could not find rankings older than 2007 so from 2000-2006 I used the information in the link below that shows average revenue rank 2000-2009.  

• 11 players have signed 6+ year free agent contracts since 2000 (16 years)

• 7 different teams were involved in the six+ year contracts
o Yankees   3) Sabathia, Tanaka & Mussina
o Dodgers   2) Greinke & Ryu
o Cubs         1) Lester
o Nationals 1) Scherzer
o Giants      (1-Zito
o Rockies    (1)-Hampton
o Braves     (1)-Smoltz
o Rangers   (1)-Darvish

• 9 players have signed 5 year contracts  (2 for less than $20M & 2 resigned)

• 6 Team signed 5 year deals / 4 that did not sign 6 year deals
o Angels   2) Lackey & Wilson
o Tigers    1) Sanchez
o Phillies   1) Lee
o Yankees 1) Burnett
o Rangers 1) Park
o Royals    1) Meche

 

 Exactly one 6+ year contract (Hampton) and one 5 year contract (Meche) have been signed by teams outside the top 10 in revenue since 2000.  Complaining about this is like complaining that someone with an average income it driving a 7 series BMW

 

 

Not sure if this is your research or not, but regardless of who's it is, it's nice work, and they are points worth making.

 

My reaction to this is very much in line with DaveW's response.

 

In my opinion there are about 5 general ways organizations are run in MLB.

 

1) Acquire talent by spending huge money - Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, etc

2) Acquire talent by spending some money and trading prospects - Detroit, St Louis, Seattle, Toronto, Cubs, etc

3) Acquire talent via the draft - Houston, KC, etc

4) Movers and shakers with no fear - Tampa, Oakland, Atlanta, Miami, etc

5) The rest.

 

Depending on the year, some teams go about thing slightly differently, but the teams I've listed have been fairly consistent with their approaches.

 

The Twins are firmly in group 5. 

 

Group 5 is boring. Group 5 is frustrating. Which isn't to say that it can't work, but given the results from the last 15 years... good sometimes, bad sometimes, never great, it feels like maybe it's time to mix it up a little.

 

I feel like in the last few offseasons they've maybe tried to mix it up. Hughes, Nolasco, Santana were all brought in on free agent contracts that, at the time, were the largest we've handed out. It helped improve an atrocious rotation. But results have been I'd say average.

 

They've traded players, who were either still under team control or had very team friendly contracts (Span, Revere, Hicks). I wasn't a fan of the Hicks trade, but the jury is still out. The others I think we'd say have been relatively poor.

 

At the end of the day, we've been in group 5 for so long that management just isn't that good at dipping its toe in the other groups. 

 

Terry Ryan is used to Group 5.

Group 5 is safe.

Group 5 doesn't get people fired.

Terry Ryan is actually not bad at Group 5.

 

But is Group 5 going to get us where we all want to be?

[dbminn]

 

At the end of the day, we've been in group 5 for so long that management just isn't that good at dipping its toe in the other groups. 

 

Terry Ryan is used to Group 5.

Group 5 is safe.

Group 5 doesn't get people fired.

Terry Ryan is actually not bad at Group 5.

 

But is Group 5 going to get us where we all want to be?

 

I sympathize but Ryan (and his staff during the Smith era) has been in Group 3. Here's a recent article at Hardball Times that looks at BA Top-100 prospects and their correlation with winning percentage. The last two times the Twins had playoff runs fits nicely with this theory (see figure). Basically, the author shows that having an average of five prospects per year for three years leads to a good five-year run. That's where the Twins are at right now. Other teams are the Red Sox, Rangers, Cubs and Pirates. D-Backs have had 14 prospects in the last three years.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/a-visual-history-of-baseball-americas-top-100-prospect-lists/

 

I agree that Ryan hasn't been able to take the last step when they arrive at the playoffs: sign a key free agent. It's my biggest concern.

 

PS - I wouldn't call the Revere trade a failure just yet.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I sympathize but Ryan (and his staff during the Smith era) has been in Group 3.

Yeah, I'd say Group 5 and Group 3 look largely the same to me.

[Loosey]

I haven't read past the 1st page of this thread so don't scold me if I am repeating some takes:

 

But to me the worst thing that happened to the Twins in 2015 was they were competitive and in the playoff hunt until the last week of the season.  Now instead of continuing to build this team it feels like TR is trying to piecemeal parts together to get them over a hump that is likely much larger than it appears.

 

They currently have 4 DH's. FOUR!  I still don't consider Sano and outfielder and I don't think they are moving Plouffe.

 

The starting pitching is middle of the road with many pitchers essentially being clones of each other that could/should be moved for areas of need such as the Bullpen.

 

I think Tommy Milone could easily be moved to a team (especially an NL team) for a young powerful bullpen arm.  It might even be someone still in the minors.  But I think it could be done.

 

TR is selling the fans on the fact that he went and got catcher help.  Well upgrading over Hermann or Fryer isn't doing much for me, but trading Hicks for him makes me scratch my head.

 

I never have thought TR was great at putting together final pieces needed to make the jump like in mid 2000's and now he is trying to do it again even though he should be looking at building still.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm not sure TR is trying to make the jump, the things you cite all seem to be a continuation of the last few years...

[Loosey]

The more I think about it, I realized that TR is VERY GOOD at taking bad teams and building them back up to respectability and competitive.  From that point on, he is not so good.  So taking page from where he failed in the mid 2000's maybe he will realize this and find his next and final reclamation project and let the Twins get someone in here who can finished building this team and then make them a WS caliber one.

[DaveW]

 

I haven't read past the 1st page of this thread so don't scold me if I am repeating some takes:

 

But to me the worst thing that happened to the Twins in 2015 was they were competitive and in the playoff hunt until the last week of the season.  Now instead of continuing to build this team it feels like TR is trying to piecemeal parts together to get them over a hump that is likely much larger than it appears.

 

They currently have 4 DH's. FOUR!  I still don't consider Sano and outfielder and I don't think they are moving Plouffe.

 

The starting pitching is middle of the road with many pitchers essentially being clones of each other that could/should be moved for areas of need such as the Bullpen.

 

I think Tommy Milone could easily be moved to a team (especially an NL team) for a young powerful bullpen arm.  It might even be someone still in the minors.  But I think it could be done.

 

TR is selling the fans on the fact that he went and got catcher help.  Well upgrading over Hermann or Fryer isn't doing much for me, but trading Hicks for him makes me scratch my head.

 

I never have thought TR was great at putting together final pieces needed to make the jump like in mid 2000's and now he is trying to do it again even though he should be looking at building still.

Yeah, the problem is that he seems to think that this team automatically will win at least 83 games again, (At that point you need to find just 5-6 more wins, which is feasible if Buxton, Sano, Berrios all contribute) the problem is though by nearly every advanced metric (and even the non ones) the Twins were much closer to a 73-75 win team last year, which means they need to add about 13-15 wins to be a playoff team. You can't do that relying on a couple rookies and a couple "meh" signings or trades.