ThejacKmp

It's too bad Palka also hits from the left side of the plate; he'd be fun to see as a 4th OF but as constructed, he doesn't make a ton of sense for this Twins MLB roster.

Mauer's .885 OPS versus right handed pitching (and .793 last season) is all the argument we need to say he isn't a bench player. He should be out there against righties any time he's healthy (and that's 70% of the at bats). He just should be rested against lefties almost as a rule. Give him days off so he's rested and les injury prone while you get Park some at bats he's likely to succeed in.

Yeah, this is going to sound insane because Vargas hasn't done that much but I think of the Park, Mauer and Vargas threesome, he's the one who should be playing every day. Against lefties he should play 1B while Park DHs (or vis versa) and against righties he should DH while Mauer plays 1B. Let's see if he can break out with a spot in the lineup every day. * Obviously if Park struggles, the Twins can sub in Grossman or Sano or someone for Park when Mauer sits.

Costs are not always in prospects. Ian Kinsler has indicated that he would want an extension to waive his no-trade clause. Ian Kinsler is a 34 year old middle infielder - the Dodgers' new regime may not want to sign an extension. The draw of a contender isn't as strong for Kinsler since he plays on a team that should be in the mix in the AL Central so it's hard to see him budging from that extension demand. Plus the Tigers are a team that wants to contend in 2017 so trading away their starting 2B is going to take a bigger haul than you might expect, especially since 31 year old Andrew Romine is next in line and he's no one's idea of a prospect. Same thing with Logan Forsythe. He's a nice piece but the Rays have no one behind him and they're not a team that is going to trade at a discount. Forsythe's ability to play multiple positions also makes him a guy who profiles to have way more value at the deadline than in the offseason. I think that last part about looking elsewhere and making moves later is illuminating. The Dodgers have the luxury to look around since no one else is sniffing at Dozier all that hard. I just think they're going to look around and come back to Dozier later in the winter. When the #1 option is Kinsler, #2 is Forsythe and #3 might be Jurickson Profar, Dozier is going to seem a lot nicer.

team = teams. Both should compromise, not just one. 1.) They agreed on the headliner of the deal and then struggled with guys later. It's not like the Twins were insistent on a headlining prospect the Dodgers declared off limits. I know there's a lot left to do but they aren't hitting their heads on a wall. A little give on both sides (the Dodgers agree to include secondary prospects, the Twins back off on the quality of these somewhat) and a deal seems doable. 2.) It just makes too much sense for both teams. The Dodgers need right handed pop and a 2B. Assuming Kinsler is going to be hard to get, there's no better solution than Dozier. The Twins need prospects and keeping Dozier creates PT issues for their young guys, mainly Polanco (but even if you move him to 3B then Sano moves to DH and guys like Vargas and Park are squeezed). Both teams are better off if Dozier becomes a Dodger.

100% agreed. People are way too down on Escobar and the free agent options are ugly. When Esco's been awful, he's been awful but he's also fully capable of Nunez-ing the first half and bringing back something fun at the deadline. And by then the Twins might have a younger, better version of an Aybar in Engelb Vielma. He's already had 90 games in AA (.663 OPS) and if he hits in AA/AAA to begin the season, he'll be a nice placeholder for Nick Gordon. That bat will likely never be a strength but his glove is the best in the system so he doesn't need to do much more than hit .240 in the bigs. No reason to bring in any free agent at short. It may not be a position of strength but the options you bring in aren't likely to be more exciting than the pieces the Twins already have. P.S. I love me some Engelb Vielma. Not just because the name is amazing but yeah, that name is amazing.

1.) Any blame to Molitor for writing Polanco in at short is misguided. The Twins season was over pretty quickly and the FO wanted to see Polanco play everyday. Since they weren't going to rest Dozier as he pursued a HR record (and built his trade value), that meant SS. Molitor was just following orders as best as he could. 2.) I think any assumption that Dozier will be with the Twins is way premature. Trades are all different and it still makes way too much sense for the Dodgers to trade for Dozier. They have a big hole and other options are not amazing: the free agents are lackluster options highlighted by Stephen Drew; Ian Kinsler is old and may have a similarly high cost since the Tigers are not rebuilding (plus he has a no trade clause); and other trade targets don't solve the Dodgers problems as neatly as Dozier (and again cost prospects as well). The Twins and Dodgers weren't miles apart and it makes too much sense for the team to compromise in March and find some middle ground.

Yeah, or at least be a solid late inning guy in the pen. $13 million would be a big overpay for anything short of "best ten relievers in baseball" but Hughes could be a really nice veteran piece in the 7th or 8th inning at the very least.

Yeah, I think that is a big deal. I haven't given up on the 2017 Twins yet and think that any chance of them competing in September likely hinges on Hughes being competent. Santana can give them a facsimile of a #1 starter and perhaps there's some solid potential in Berrios/Gibson/May but a Hughes who comes back to some approximation of 2014 is pretty essential.

Yeah, I guess I like the Hughes deal more because it had pretty low downside and pretty high upside. The Twins right now are having the worst of the Hughes downside (well, I guess you could create some crazy world where he's a serial killer murdering Twins prospects but outside of the Twilight Zone, this is the worst case scenario) and it's really not that bad. They've got $11 mill/year invested in a guy who may be injured much of the year or may just be a pen piece or #5 starter. That's a pretty palatable downside.

I don't know about regardless but I agree about the vets. I think Santana, Gibson and Berrios should be in almost no matter what. That leaves Santiago, May and Hughes going for the last two spots in spring training - and the tie should be going to May. But I don't want to hand it to May. Duffey and Hughes in the pen might really strengthen the back of the pen.

But such a minor gamble for those extra three years? $11 million a year is not anything crazy (it's cheap #4 starter money) and there was a ton of upside. If he did it another year you'd be paying market value. I get playing it conservative but it seems hypocritical for us to castigate the TR era for being conservative with money and signing retreads and then also blame them for the one forward-thinking "Let's see if we can jump the market on this guy" move.

1) I think if you look at it, it was the only extension possible - calling it early is disingenuous. They weren't going to get one after 2015 (one year from free agency) and if he made it to 2016 and was effective, they would be unlikely to offer the most money in a free agent situation. 2014 is the only opportunity for an extension.* Unnecessary is more fair but I think it was worth the gamble. 2.) To call it an "obvious bad move" is pretty extreme. I think the key is that they paid #4 starter money (in effect, $11 mill for five years) to a guy who had the potential to be a #1/#2 pitcher. That's a fine gamble because $11 million isn't going to break the bank. Phil Hughes floor sans injury was likely a #4 starter or a relatively effective bullpen option. That's a pretty safe (non-injury) floor. I want the Twins to do things like this every day. Injuries suck but there was no clear consensus that Hughes was super injury prone. * The thing we haven't talked about on this thread (but maybe alluded to?) is whether they should have traded him. I think hindsight gets even trickier when we talk about when the peak time is to trade a guy (see Dozier, Brian - is now the best time or does a hot first half make him the biggest guy at the trade deadline? only time will tell). That said, it would be interesting to see what the market might have been. I don't think teams would pony up elite prospects for a guy after one year (it's one thing to invest $11 million/year in a guy with one great season, it's another to trade prospects and invest $11 million/year in a guy with one great season) so I'm not sure how viable that would be. Certainly if I had a time machine specific to righting Twins wrongs I would have recommended it but I'm not sure you can say that he should have been traded since he was obviously at peak value.

And who were the in-house alternatives better than Hughes? They took a reasonable gamble that has turned out poorly but to say it was a terrible idea is pretty big Monday morning quarterbacking.

VERY misleading stats. Not sure where you got them - my guess is you counted either relievers or guys who didn't pitch enough innings to qualify for rate stats. He was #41 in ERA, #30 in K%, #20 in WHIP, #1 in BB%, #6 in FIP, #17 in xFIP, #17 in SIERA. Those are VERY different numbers.

I think that makes him a legit #1. He's not top of the list but 2014 Hughes was an acceptable playoff Game 1 starter.

Not terrible points but a pitcher is more than the sum of his parts. To quote someone else, "FanGraphs rated Hughes as the #5 pitcher in all of MLB for 2014." Hughes also finished #7 in the Cy Young voting (I get that Cy Young is an award and thus not super accurate but I think it shows how the industry thought of his performance that year - the guys he was behind were Kluber, King Felix, Sale, Lester, Scherzer and Price, not bad company). I think calling him top 10 to 15 is pretty defensible and accurate. He's not a top flight ace who carries you through the playoffs but he is a legitimate #1 starter for an MLB playoff team (for 2014).

We should do that more often. It's good to remember that hindsight is 20/20. I think the real criticism of TR and crew was that they were afraid to gamble and make financial investments earlier (Johan, Joe, Torii etc.), not that the one time they tried it the thing failed. TR's Twins loved to buy out years of arbitration (worked for Dozier, failed for Blackburn etc.) but they were pretty bad at using high points (e.g. Willingham) to either trade a guy or extend him. It's clearly a smart thing to do.

Definitely like bullpen more than buy out. He's had success before and it's not like the Twins have a ton of sure things in the pen. Wouldn't be surprising to see him claim a 7th inning or maybe even 8th inning role. That low BB rate might also be useful when coming on in the middle of an inning - he isn't going to walk in a run.

I'm going to have to disagree. I think this is an example of hating something after based on the result. The process was defendable. If you're the Twins in 2014, you have no other #1 starter and no one coming up who looks like a decent shot at a true #1 starter. Phil Hughes in 2014 was a #1 starter. He hadn't done it for multiple seasons but it wasn't like his BABIP or HR rate was hiding it - he was legitimately a top 10 to 15 pitcher. He also had the pedigree to back it up – he had the prospect history and some MLB bullpen success to back up the concept that he might be finally be putting things together. MLB history has many examples of top prospects who took a while to put it together. It would have been nice to wait a year and see him repeat it but that wasn’t really an option. You could say wait a year but if the Twins had and Hughes had a good year in 2015, he'd have no incentive to sign since he'd be a year from free agency and a huge pay day. Any extension after 2015 would likely be beyond the Twins ability to spend. So it was really “extend after 2014 or lose him after 2016” (if he keeps it up). And the money involved wasn’t disastrous – Phil Hughes contract hasn’t kept the Twins from being good the past few years. He got an extra $42 million for three extra years (basically $14 million per year). He’s been injured and not good for that whole time and that sucks but the amount of money they gambled for a chance at three extra seasons of a #1 type pitcher is pretty minor when you get down to what pitching costs in today’s market. The Twins had no real solid internal options for the top of the rotation at the time and they weren’t likely to be in the market for the Lesters and Grienkes of this world. I can't fault the Twins for signing him to an extension - it's a low risk, high reward gamble and when you're in the Twins spot it's not a bad choice. Something not working out doesn’t mean that it was a terrible call. You win some and you lose some and the Twins (thus far) have definitely lost this one. But I remember being excited about the Twins making a play to have a true #1 pitcher for a half decade and I’ll stick by that. I hope the new regime wouldn’t be afraid of the potential downside when it comes to making similar gambles (early contracts for guys like Buxton, Sano or Berrios leap to mind).

You wait two years and two things: 1.) In two years, these guys are way less likely to want to sign, even at a higher price. They can sniff free agency and the risk-reward equation for them changes. They can wait two years and get the huge payday and that's pretty tempting, especially since they can take out insurance policies to guard against injury 2) You don't get much of a deal. The Evan Longaria deal was amazing because The Devil Rays gambled and committed assets prior to him getting big. He got the guaranteed payday and they got a chance to have an amazing asset. If you want that amazing asset, you need to make that gamble. IMO, Buxton is a guy who is very much worth that. I'm not sure what the numbers would be but his floor (AKA he hits .225) is still decent CF because of his speed and defense - I'm not sure that anything you signed this offseason would be crippling. I can see arguments against Sano, Kepler and Berrios because that floor is much lower but to me the gamble is worth it. The Twins have budget room they're not likely to spend since they don't have needs easily fixed with free agents. That money should be used to try to hedge future costs if their young guns take off. I'm bad with current contract numbers so someone will likely need to tweak these who pays more attention to that but if you offered Buxton 7 years and $70-$80 million, he'd be a fool not to take it right? He could bust and still cash in. He'd still hit the market at age 29 (so he'd have a chance for another big contract). And for the Twins, it would buy out two years of his free agency and $10 millionish a year is not going to break the bank. If even two out of Buxton, Kepler, Berrios and Sano hit, you've killed it. Hopefully new management is more forward thinking.

OF isn't something I worry about in the future - Kepler, Rosario and Buxton should be a very dynamic OF. In the IF, Mauer seems fine at first and Polanco/Dozier should be fine at SS. The left side of the infield is the issue - can Sano be even just below average and can they find a stopgap at short until Vielma/Gordon are ready? I don't mind Escobar being that stopgap if the Twins think Vielma will hit - he'd go a long way to making up for Sano's deficiencies. I think in a few years, defense is going to be a strength for the Twins.

Time to start trying to ink Buxton and Sano and Kepler and Berrios to long-term deals. Agree with the author that there isn't really anywhere to spend a lot of money. I'm fine with that but let's use that money to try to get a deal on some of these guys before they explode and get too expensive.

I assume that this is to build fan pressure. In todays baseball, the fanbase can influence things. I don't see how this hurts the twins in this process or for their long-term reputation.

Anyone know why Vargas was given a 4th option year? Seems unfair to him on some levels.