drivlikejehu

Vielma still can't really hit, and glove-only guys are limited in value . . . John McDonald hung around forever as an inexpensive journeyman, for instance, but those guys aren't in high demand.

To be fair, the Rangers record substantially exceeds their BaseRuns record, so it's a little less odd than it appears. Just a little though.

There is another use for prospects, though - picking up younger prospects could give the Twins depth to trade from in the event they entered a stage of competitiveness. Since the only premise behind keeping Santana is that the Twins would be relevant, it seems to me like the same assumption supports trading him so long as the assets received are expected to have future trade value (which of course they would if the Twins wanted them).

Well, the Twins spent what, $12 million on Park? His experience was effectively AA level or so. And they wouldn't necessarily have to sign a FA replacement for Santana - there are basically no FA starters for 2017 anyway - which means it's only a question of how much money they would save, not how much they would be spending. The more I think about it, the more I think the Twins should trade him. His 2018 value is highly uncertain . . . he's a 2-3 win starter right now, but right now it doesn't matter, and it almost certainly won't in 2017 either.

My initial thinking was that interest in Santana would be modest, but in actually looking at the rotations of contenders . . . there is a substantial amount of need at the back end of those rotations, particularly if they want some coverage in the event of injury to an existing starter. I don't think teams will want to offer a top prospect, but I'd be happy with several mid-level prospects, particularly guys in the lower minors with good upside.

I wasn't doing a good job of accepting the thread's premise . . . with the right moves I do think 2018 can be interesting. The fact it wouldn't happen under current management is a separate issue. Still though, there are some problems . . . the 2017 free agent class is awful, and the Twins can't afford to trade away prospects, yet they have holes to fill.

I guess a better way of putting it is that the Twins don't appear to have enough talent within the same age cohort to cause a money problem. That's why I see it different from Brock - until a window exists, I don't think you can worry about how long it will last. Step one is to build up enough talent to contend, and I think that's a very tall order before 2019.

Unrequited love is still love, folks.

Post-Mauer, the Twins have no payroll obligations. I don't see money being a real factor at any conceivable time horizon.

Sano is destined for 1st base. By the way, I don't like Kepler. I love Kepler.

Tonkin has a career ERA of 3.61. Not a particularly rough start by Twins' standards.

I don't recall the trade mongering, but that clearly was not a reasonable suggestion. So far as re-assessing his likely ceiling, I think that was basically correct - not that he couldn't pitch in the Majors, but that he's not an ace. Fans are understandably disappointed when a #4 overall pick quickly turns into a guy who needs 5-6 years to maybe be a #3-4 starter.

The problem is that you can't take too much improvement for granted. Just because a pitcher is young doesn't automatically mean a ton of development will take place. Considering where Stewart was drafted, it was reasonable to hope he would get better results. Clubs hope to get a great player at #4, even though historically that's a minority outcome. Obviously, it's better to be Gavin Floyd (2001) than Jason Grilli (1997), and better Grilli than Jeff Austin (1998). That's something like the range where Stewart fits in as a prospect, which is OK, but disappointing when you consider Kerry Wood (1995), Alex Fernandez (1990), or Kevin Brown (1986).

The Twins aren't going to contend next year. Giving Santana away doesn't really accomplish anything since there is plenty of dead weight in the rotation as it is, but if they get a legit prospect it's a no-brainer.

I'm not super high on Jorge as a starter - he strikes me as a guy that is pitching to contact in a low-scoring run environment. But it's important to have mid-level prospect depth, since some of those guys boost their stuff and turn into higher-level prospects.

Veterans are hailed as "leaders" when the team is winning and blamed for the absence of leadership when it's losing. There's nothing Dozier can do about the Twins being poorly run. To the extent his intangibles are a factor, its a small factor that shouldn't play into what the front office does. There are some significant reasons to trade Dozier, but I wonder if there's a good match out there . . . a lot of teams have excellent 2B right now, and giving him away for a weak return doesn't make sense to me.

It was basically the same group that had been in place for many years, and the same group that is there now, with some deck chairs moved around. Bill Smith took a lot of heat, and rightly so, but the systemic nature of the problem was clear even back then.

Twins RC+ in 2015: 89 Twins RC+ in 2016: 88

I'd love to hear a justification for that position. I've never heard that before and can't imagine how it could be supported. When a party stands to lose more from following the contract than the amount of damages owed following a breach, you are saying the party is obligated to suffer more losses than is legally required? The CBA is obviously a contract, but the owners decided how to approach international signings internally before putting it in front of the players. The teams knew what they were doing. They never believed the caps were some kind of hard line, which is particularly evident from the structure of escalating 'penalties.' I don't know what you have read and what you haven't, but unless you've specifically delved into professional sports labor relations and anti-trust law, you probably do not have the perspective you need. You are confusing the relationship between the clubs with the relationship between the clubs and players. The clubs are not independent entities. The Red Sox can't really "breach" the CBA with respect to the Twins, because for the purposes of the CBA they are the same entity (MLB). They can only breach it against the players. The players don't even support caps as a general matter, since it is a slight nod in the direction of the salary cap notion that they abhor. They agree to them in the amateur realm as a relatively painless concession to gain ground in other areas. Arguing an unethical act here is like saying it is unethical to intentionally pay someone more than her contract provides for. I guess it's arguable to some extent, but realistically your point falls apart once understood in the proper context.

You are factually wrong about this. For one thing, it basically isn't possible for a team to "breach" one of these agreements, which aren't even contracts (presumably it's an addendum to their internal operating documents). In these situations, they are acting as a joint venture (MLB). The clubs follow the rules, and if not, any issues are settled by MLB without external legal action (e.g., the Red Sox signees declared to be free agents recently). Even putting that aside, it isn't a 'breach' to chose the penalty over the standard clause. Those clubs accepted the 'penalty' and continue to follow all of the rules. You are also incorrect about the ethical and moral implications of breaches of contract. It is absolutely false to say that breaching a contract is per se wrong, and zero law school ethics professors would take such a position. I can see how that is counter-intuitive for those who haven't studied the issues, but if you spent a year or so learning about them, I am confident your perspective would change.

There is no ethical or moral argument against doing it. Going over the "cap" is explicitly allowed by the rules. It could easily have been banned, but it was not. The penalties are not punishment for wrongdoing, rather, they represent a trade-off that teams can decide on. Contracts are structured that way thousands of times every day. Order under a certain number of units? You pay more per unit. etc., etc. I haven't criticized the Twins for sticking to the cap in the past, since there was a tactical reason for doing so, regardless of whether that was actually the Twins' motivation. This year is different, however, for reasons that have been widely reported on and discussed.

I didn't say otherwise. I just pointed out that management picks the players and manages their development. Player performance varies quite a bit from season to season and of course within seasons; this is true for the players in every organization. Every team has players who are under-performing their 2015 results. Whether they are to 'blame' is an exercise in semantics; every team knows that some players will do better and some will do worse. Yet, every other team has more wins than the Twins, some of whom have lower payrolls. After this season, the Twins will have lost 90+ games in 5 out of 6 years, with a wide range of players. Parsing out individual player performance is fine, but it doesn't really explain what is happening with the organization or why the team is losing so much this year. Trying to apportion responsibility in that context makes no sense - the only constant is ownership and management. You could go year-by-year, or month-by-month, or week-by-week, etc., and surely point out all kinds of player failings and 'bad luck.' But you are missing the forest from the trees. The negative outcomes so greatly outweigh the positive because management has failed to do its job in all phases of competition.

Management signed the players and is responsible for overseeing their development. 'Blaming' players is just an indirect way of blaming the actual culprits in the front office. Have the Twins been somewhat unlucky? Sure. Fangraphs projects them as 'only' the 6th worst MLB team the rest of the way. But when you enter the season with, say, Ricky Nolasco in the rotation, and Sano out of position, and so forth, you are not going to be resilient in the face of some bad luck. MLB is just too competitive to mishandle injuries, call ups, and other moves on a regular basis and expect to come out unscathed.

He's not much of a prospect, but it would be cool if he challenged the league home-run record (24 - Mitch Einertson in 2004).