Brock Beauchamp

Heh. I hadn't looked into his peripherals too closely, only the ugliness that is his ERA.

But several of us were advocating the pursuit of Jackson, which makes us all look kinda stupid in retrospect. Still a lot of time on that contract to turn it around but hoooooo boy, he looks bad with the Cubbies. I backed off wanting him once the price was announced but still, that deal looks like a dud at almost any price.

Is there another situation in the history of Ryan's tenure where he traded a young pitcher before he even hit arbitration, much less a good young pitcher who hadn't hit arbitration? Terry Ryan has a pretty solid track record of valuing starting pitching above all else. He traded a position player for Rick Reed when the Twins offense was... lackluster, to put it nicely. He traded Eric Milton for more pitching when Milton was on the verge of FA. The only pitcher I remember him trading was Kyle Lohse, who was flat-out awful in his last season with the team and was also on the verge of FA. He refused to trade Radke when most of baseball was salivating to get their hands on the guy at the trade deadline. The Twins were on the cusp of losing their ace pitcher when they traded away their best young pitcher the same offseason. Given Ryan's record, I have a hard time believing he was the one who orchestrated that move. It doesn't make sense given the previous 6-7 seasons of how the guy managed the franchise, where he zealously held on to Twins starting pitching, sometimes to a fault (Joe Mays, anyone?). And the "Garza was too wild and uncoachable" line is more than a little ridiculous considering that the Twins traded him for Delmon-freaking-Young, a guy who spends his free time hitting people with bats and making anti-Semetic remarks. Matt Garza is the patron saint of friendliness compared to that dude.

It turns out that Ryan actually drafted moderately well during the mid-2000s, which didn't look to be the case just 12 months ago. Since that time, Perkins has turned completely dominant. Plouffe is turning into a pretty solid player. Parmelee might pan out as an everyday player. Ben Revere is... eh, well, he's Ben Revere. A decent stop-gap at the very least. Pitching wasn't great, for sure... But Ryan can't be blamed for that idiotic Garza trade. That didn't happen on his watch and considering how Ryan never trades pitching, it's doubtful that would have happened with him in the big chair. On the other hand, the Twins spent an entire decade picking in the bottom half of the draft and it looks like they've gotten something of quality from most of the drafts of the mid-2000s. That's no mean feat and while we'd all like to see better results, it's looking more and more as if JR didn't do all that bad during what was thought to be an absolutely atrocious streak of drafting players.

I'm basing it on the idea that I have some kind of emotional attachment to nearly every place I've lived in the past (and I've lived in five different states). Maybe he has no family here. Maybe he doesn't care. Those are absolutely possibilities. But at the very least, it's a starting point to talk to the guy to find out what he's thinking. As I pointed out earlier, right now the Twins have almost nothing going for them in the free agency market. They're not a winner. They're not a prime market so endorsements aren't going to pour in and supplement income. They're not an iconic franchise with a fantastic fanbase like the Cardinals. For many, Minnesota is nothing more than fly-over country. For some, it's about nothing other than money. For others, the decision might involve more than cash and if there is some sort of connection to the area with a player, that opportunity should be explored because it's not guaranteed that a Clayton Kershaw will come to Minnesota under any circumstances. The farther you go up the free agency food chain, the more suitors a player will have and let's be frank about it... Many of those markets are more appealing to an outsider than quiet, folksy, cold Minnesota.

Yeah, I'm bending the argument by saying that it's worth the Twins' time to talk to Johnson to see if he's willing to come back to the city where he was born and play for the Twins. I didn't say they would sign him. I didn't say that he'd listen. I merely said that the Twins have an "in" with Johnson that they don't have with most other players, some of which can't find Minnesota on a map even though they've pitched in Target Field. At the end of the day, money matters more than anything and the offer has to be competitive. But if you have a leg up on acquiring a guy for any reason, you pursue that avenue to see if it bears fruit.

Yeah, just go ahead and ignore the entire "he's from Minnesota" thing, which is probably more important than anything else. For all we know, Anibal Sanchez would have told the Twins to piss off if they offered him $25m a season. Unlikely, but it takes two to tango and Johnson would almost certainly come home to Minneapolis if the price is right (and may even take a slight discount to do it). We have no idea what kind of motivation drives these players. Sometimes, it's winning. Sometimes, it's market size. Sometimes, it's comfort level. And when it comes to the 2013 Twins, they have nothing going for them except with Johnson, who would almost certainly be comfortable playing 81 games in Minneapolis. Most players can be had by offering them the most money but that's not always the case and we can't assume that Player X is willing to go to Team X just because they throw money at him. So when a player comes along where you naturally have a leg up on the competition to attain said player, you have to dip your toe in the water and give it a shot.

Yep, he has quite a few injury concerns but damn, it's hard to pass up on a guy from Minneapolis. He won't require an extra $10m to come home and his upside is still really high.

I edited my post so you didn't have a chance to respond: Timetables absolutely accelerate and it appears that the Twins may be on an accelerated timeline at this point. Which is why I think it's wise to pursue Johnson this offseason. He's from the Twin Cities so the "no way in hell am I playing for the Twins" card almost certainly isn't a problem. He's not having a particularly good season so his price should be down a bit from where it was in previous seasons. He's not young but he's not old, either. He's not going to be an ace but that's okay. The extra, say, $100m it costs to get a real "ace" versus a solid #2 is tough to swallow and if the Twins are going to front a superstar ace pitcher, it's going to come from within.

You're strawman-ing my argument a bit, Levi. No starter is injury-proof or perfect; that's my entire point. They're all a pretty big risk. The only reasonable way to *slightly* mitigate that risk is to try to get a young-ish guy around the time you need him the most. There's no reason to think that Anibal Sanchez is particularly durable or a better risk than, say, Josh Johnson next season or the upcoming jewel of free agency, Clayton Kershaw. Hell, Sanchez is already injured. He has never pitched even 200 innings in a season (and he won't this season, either). It's not about the "perfect" free agent or perfect timing (though that would be nice), it's about getting as close as possible. Maybe you're a year off if you try to time it exactly but had the Twins signed Sanchez last season, they'd be at least one season off, probably more like two or three seasons off with their timing. You don't have to time it perfectly, you just have to try to get close. Good pitchers in the 27-30 year old range are always available if you're willing to spend the money. I don't see anything particularly special about Anibal Sanchez that warranted him spending a couple of prime seasons on a team that just isn't going to win the division. With that said, I'd love to see the Twins start courting Josh Johnson this offseason. Given the performances of Arcia, Hicks, and Gibson with Sano and Buxton looking more ready by the day, I think it's time to start exploring free agency a bit and given that Johnson is from Minneapolis, it might be easier to get him to come to the team than it would be a Sanchez or Jackson or whatever.

The 2011 Twins Franchise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 2007 Pirates Franchise The Pirates were awful in almost every way when Huffington took over. They didn't have a Sano or Arcia or Gibson, much less a Mauer on the MLB roster. They had Andrew McCutchen, who was more like Aaron Hicks of 2012. A good prospect coming off an abysmal year, putting his future in question.

It's hard to blame Huffington, a guy who took the helm of the Pirates in 2007, for the nearly two decades of rampant stupidity that plagued the franchise before that point.

The 28 year old FAs will be there. Every offseason has a few of them. Will JR spend the money? Unfortunately, I have little faith in that happening but hey, it's possible. Sigh.

I agree with all of this. Which is why the Twins should be pursuing better free agents, just not ones that require a five year commitment. If Ryan refuses to spend money when the Twins are on the cusp of contention and the payroll is $60m, I'll be first in line to call for his head.

Actually, I think the Pirates are a very good comparison. Huffington has done a lot right while the farm system darling child, Dayton Moore, has shown what impatience and forcing your hand can do to a franchise. Both teams had good-to-great farm systems 2-3 years ago. Both teams have had a long run of fielding really bad MLB teams. You don't think Huffington was under pressure to win in the last two seasons, especially when they were 16 games over .500 last July? He easily could have buckled last deadline and done what Moore did last winter, and that's to trade a prospect to WIN RIGHT NOW. He didn't. He stuck to his long game and quietly picked up a couple of smart acquisitions without looting the farm. Now the Pirates have one of the best records in baseball while the Royals are floundering and Wil Myers looks pretty damned good in a Rays uniform. It's really nice to win now and a guy like Anibal Sanchez would appease the "win now" crowd but I have a very hard time believing that it's in the best interest of the long game of the franchise. Stick to the plan. Build a farm first, then go buy some free agents.

I don't think it will doom the franchise but I think it will hinder their ability to pick up a 28 year old free agent in, say, two seasons. And that's my only quibble. I'm all for spending the money. I'm for spending money on 1-3 year contracts starting last offseason and I'm for spending big money on free agents in 1-2 years. My point is that a 28 year old Anibal Sanchez is probably going to be healthier and better than a 31 year old Anibal Sanchez. May as well try your best to get that production when the team is actually good and (hopefully) competitive.

Well, I don't think the arguments line up quite so cleanly. I'm all for spending money and I hollered about last offseason. My point is that I don't think this is the time for the Twins to dabble in the upper tier of free agency; that doesn't stop them from pursuing the shorter-term Ryan Dempster-types of the world. Spend that money, absolutely. Not spending ANY money is a mistake. My argument lies in that they shouldn't be locking up guys for five years... yet.

Twins: Brian Dozier 2B Joe Mauer C Ryan Doumit DH Justin Morneau 1B Trevor Plouffe 3B Oswaldo Arcia LF Chris Parmelee RF Aaron Hicks CF Pedro Florimon SS (Kyle Gibson P) Rays: Desmond Jennings CF Luke Scott DH Ben Zobrist 2B Evan Longoria 3B James Loney 1B Matt Joyce RF Kelly Johnson LF Jose Lobaton C Yunel Escobar SS (Chris Archer P)

Supply doesn't change. It drifts up and down a little each year but players are always available. Inflation, meh. That is more than countered by player decline with age. Salaries don't skyrocket over the course of 2-3 years.

I'm not even debating the argument of "should the Twins sign a free agent" at this point. I responded to that original post merely to say that it was completely devoid of logic. I will respond to something completely insane like "signing a free agent now is less risky than not signing one" because it's the type of offhand remark that sounds good but makes absolutely zero sense when put under any kind of scrutiny. You can make all the arguments about signing Sanchez that you'd like. I'll disagree but hey, people have different ideas for building a team. I think the Twins should be playing in the shallower end of the pool for the time being with the intent of making a bigger splash as we find out more about Buxton, Sano, Meyer, et al because when it comes to free agency, I believe that the smart play is to go with the numbers, and those numbers say that younger players are healthier and more productive. Make use of that age while the team is *hopefully* competitive.

You field a crappy team but you do it without spending a dime. Or you could sign a guy for $100m and he could blow his shoulder out in February. Both situations end with a bad team but one has money and the other does not. Now explain to me how the broke-ass team played the "less risky" hand. Please. Someone. Anyone.

This argument isn't about Terry Ryan's job, it's about free agency and that somehow the Twins would have mitigated risk by signing a player last offseason instead of this offseason or next offseason. It's utter nonsense and completely without basis. The premise is built on the notion that somehow last offseason's free agents were more risk averse than other years. My only argument here is that EVERY free agent is risky. No one is more risky than anyone else (well, all things being equal) and the ONLY advantage is to try to utilize age to get the most out of a player when you need it the most. The one thing we know is that younger players tend to be healthier and more productive than older players. Therefore, it makes sense to not bet against the house and try to sign a guy in the hopes that he'll still be good in four years.

For the fifth time, that is not risk. One cannot be riskier by playing it conservatively and close to the vest. Risk is exposing yourself to avoidable loss. Do not spend the money, expose yourself to little risk. You may expose yourself to fielding a crappy team but that IS NOT RISK.

Dude, you're killing me. Free agents are perhaps the riskiest thing in baseball and generally bring back a low return per dollar spent. But somehow it's less risky to throw a ton of money at a guy (a pitcher, no less) than to not throw money at him? This makes no sense. And every dollar you spend now impacts dollars you spend later. That's how finite resource management works. You may have enough money to do multiple things but the two events still have bearing on one another. They do not exist in a vacuum.

No, the argument was that it was more risky to not sign the expensive player. I'm not one to get into semantic arguments most of the time but come on, that's ludicrous.