ThejacKmp

Well you missed some solid gold! Never said he was Arrieta, just saying that they were in the same boat. Arrieta was a good prospect who consistently flamed out. Another team took a flier on him and it worked out. Not a crazy comparison - just a point that you sometimes find an ace in the rubbish bin. See Han Joleo above . . . he phrased it well!

Yeah. Issue with waiting til 1 year left is you'd pay a TON more if he had repeated it. It was a gamble and it hasn't paid off. It's a hard situation. If you move him to the pen, he's unlikely to get back to starting this year since he won't have a chance to push himself for it. That said, maybe next spring is the best time for him. I personally think that he should hit the DL for two weeks sometime soon. After two weeks, give him a start or two to see if it helped and then it's time to think about the pen for this year.

I agree it's a trend but I don't think it's a trend of him not wanting to finish games or not being a guy who wants the ball. It's a trend of him not being healthy and trying to work through it unsuccessfully. He's a guy who has been around for a while and has seen guys hurt themselves and the team by pushing themselves when something feels off. I've never seen Hughes pull himself from a game. He never demanded the Twins pull him last night either - he just was honest about where his body was. As to the last part, I'm sure it played a small role for the Twins (who doesn't want a character guy like that?) but I can't think it's why Hughes made the decision. It's such a small thing it doesn't tip the balance - he's just a class act who wanted to earn what he got. I think it gives him a little leeway here.

Who cares if he was in the bigs for 8 years or 3? He was 28, an age when baseball players frequently hit their prime. If there’s ever a good time to sign a pitcher to a five year deal, that’s it. You don't make an awful point about the larger picture but you're losing the context because you're all hindsight-focused. Phil Hughes was an elite prospect who had trouble putting it all together (much like Jake Arrieta). He had flashes of dominance as a starter and reliever but finally put it together. It wasn’t smoke and mirrors either – his FIP was lower at 2.65 and he’d made fundamental changes to how he pitched that spoke to a pitcher on the rise. You can make a good argument that they should have just played out the two years on his deal but sometimes you have to take a gamble. The reward (a potential ace or very good #2 pitcher for #4 starter money) was worth the risk. It’s easy to forget because we’re looking at the worst-case scenario of any free agent signing (injuries which are bad enough to make a guy suck but not so bad that he just doesn’t pitch) but the floor for Phil Hughes seemed pretty good. He seemed like at worst a #4 pitcher, just what you’d be paying him. And by all reports he’s a good character guy, someone your young pitchers could learn from. He also had extra value because he has experience pitching out of the pen in a high leverage role if you need to shift him later in the contract. But the biggest reason it wasn’t a bad deal was that if you're the Twins, chances to lock down a potential ace for an extra two years don't come around every day. They don't sign the Lesters and Hamels of this world. The Twins found a prospect who was putting it together and made a reasonable double down with low risk and high reward. Just because it didn’t work out (no one could predict that he would lose velocity at age 29 and start to not even seem like a starter) doesn’t make it a bad decision. It’s easy to say in hindsight that the extension was terrible but we need to remember the context it was signed it. It was a reasonable gamble and the contract isn’t going to cripple the Twins going forward. It sucks it hasn’t worked out but Hughes was not a terrible decision.

I dunno. He got paid mid-rotation money when he was coming off a season where he was a legitimate ace. He was young and was a good prospect finally finding his legs and pitching like scouts long though he could. If he was a #1/#2 starter for the contract it was a great deal but he only had to be a #3/#4 starter for it to make sense. I remember the reaction from press and on TD being, "Huh, that's a pretty fair deal for both sides. I hope it works out." Hindsight is 20-20 and it's easy to call this a terrible decision now but I think that's misguided. Sometimes a move doesn't work out and it's tempting to reflexively call it bad but we need to be wise enough to look back at the context in which it was made.

Opens up opportunities for some young starters too. And if it works out long term, that gives you another rotation spot for the Gonsalves/Jorge/Stewart/Jay/Thorpe generation that should be sniffing the majors by the middle of next year. Yeah $12 million is a lot to spend on a bullpen arm but if he can be an okay setup guy we can live with that - especially with cheap young pitching. That control should be nice out of the pen in tight mid-inning situations. Rotation end of next year: Santana Berrios Duffey Gibson? Meyer? Gonsalves/Jorge/Stewart/Jay/Thorpe? I can live with that. Hughes going to the pen due to injury might turn out a good thing in the long run.

What is this history? I have no concept of what you're talking about. I think it's actually pretty admirable that he didn't do the typical tough guy act and stay in a game as he became ineffective. He communicated his health with the team and that may help him in the long run. We've seen too many guys pitch badly through pain and hurt the team. Phil Hughes was a class act not to pitch the extra 1/3 of an inning in 2014 and he's a class act to put the team ahead of himself here.

I mean, the article above literally laid out why the deal made sense at the time. Just because something doesn't work out doesn't make it a bad decision.

I did not know that two guys could get a blown save together while giving up just one run. I guess it kind of makes sense but I had never heard that before. You learn something new every day.

A brief aside: Mauer is a totally different. We were all very excited when the Twins kept Mauer. Just because a move doesn't work out doesn't mean that it wasn't a good move. Moving into a new stadium, the Twins had to keep Mauer. He's a hometown boy and the best Twin in most of our lifetimes. It's not crazy to say that Target Field was built so the Twins would be able to keep guys like Mauer (and eventually Sano, Buxton, Berrios). It's sad we're even talking about him in the same breath as a Nolasco or a Fien. Not the same thing. ----- Overall I think you're confusing the Twins not getting rid of someone and an inability to get rid of someone. Just because the Twins don't choose to get rid of someone now doesn't mean that they couldn't. Unlike most people on TD, the Twins haven't given up on this season and don't think that some of these guys won't be part of the Twins next season. You can't just sell off everyone in the first week of May - you have to give the team a chance to rebound and sell off parts starting in late June. If nothing else than so young players have faith in the team. The Twins aren't just going to dump Santana on someone right now - they believe he'll be a good starting pitcher for them and (right or wrong) they're not going to let a year and a month change that concept. You're not wrong in saying guys like Nolasco have little to no value but when you can't see Santana's value, you're blinded by your pessimism. Fien and Milone are not the same as Santana or Nolasco either. Both of those guys were signed on cheap contracts to provide depth and were easily moved on from. The Twins didn't not sign someone else because of Fien and Milone - those guys were a bridge to younger players. Not the same as a Nolasco contract. Nolasco was a bad contract in the vein of Kevin Correia (though KC's contract worked out so who can judge?) Santana was a decent contact where the Twins paid market value for a veteran starter. Nothing wrong with Hughes, Plouffe, Perkins, Dozier, Fien, Milone, Mauer, Park or Jepsen deals. Some didn't work out but that's the way life works. Of these deals, only the Nolasco deal is a really bad deal. ----- A final aside: I'm very frustrated with Monday morning quarterbacks who are quick to criticize moves with the benefit of hindsight.

PEDs don't really matter. It hasn't stopped Melky Cabrera from getting interest. Teams have little to lose - if the guy gets suspended they don't have to pay him. It's a no-lose situation. The point about the FA market is fine for the offseason but right now, there aren't a ton of options. If you're the White Sox looking for a replacement for John Danks or the Angels for Garret Richards, you don't have good internal options and there aren't a ton of pitchers available. The Twins would give you Nolasco for free and Santana for very little. Nolasco is crap and we agree no one will want him but Santana is a pretty decent starter. You might not resign the length of his deal today (though you might, he was lights out end of last year) but you will see it as a slight overpay to fix an in-season problem. It's the basic tenet behind why the Twins kept Plouffe and why the Phillies waited to trade Hamels til midseason last year - teams will pay more in-season than off-season because they have fewer options and more pressure to fill a hole and compete. You're crazy if you think Dozier doesn't have value. Decent contract, young guy with power at a non-power position. I see nothing about him having an injury, I don't know where that is coming from. His value isn't based on a hot streak, he's just a guy it makes sense to wait to see if he can build value. He would get you a nice piece right now but he might get you something much nicer down the road. With the others, I think we're confusing "has good trade value" with "someone would pick this guy up on waivers and take on the contract." If put on waivers Park, Plouffe, Dozier, Perkins, Jepsen and likely Santana would be grabbed by someone. As far as having actual trade value, I think the first four definitely have it and the last two likely get you a pretty bad prospect. Remember that Chris Hermann, Sam Fuld and Drew Butera all fetched back something pretty decent. I know they were really cheap but they got actual prospects. You can give away salary easily.

This is fun but I think you’re too pessimistic on this. I agree that few of these guys have a ton of value but I think many of these contracts would be assumed by another team (and that’s really what we’re talking about here – is this contract so bad that if a guy was waived, no one would claim him and the Twins would eat the salary?) With Milone and Fien we will get to see this today since they are going through waivers right now –the very definition of “would someone take on this contract.” (For the record I think Milone will maybe be taken and Fien will certainly not be). As for the rest, teams won’t give up tons/any of value but I think that many more of the contracts would be taken and some you’d get something for them. Let’s rank them from most to least tradable (I did the full contract because that matters – I didn’t include buyouts because it’s complicated and I don’t think they materially affect any of these): ----------------- Park 4 years/$12 million: The Twins could clearly get a lot for Park since right handed power is solid, he’s on a fantastic contract and he’s played a decent 1B so isn’t just a DH. They won’t do it but maybe they should? VERDICT: A nice shiny trade chip. Dozier 3 years/$18 million: Dozier would certainly be tradable, you’re underselling him based on some slumping. He hasn't played very well in the first month but he's four months removed from the all-star game and is a 2B who plays decent D and has pop on a pretty team-friendly contract. You would get something interesting for him for sure (not elite prospects but someone you could realistically project playing in the majors some day). VERDICT: You can certainly get something for him but you’d be selling low. Wait til the deadline – a streaking Dozier could be one of the more interesting guys on the market. Perkins 2 years/$12.8 million: This may be off because I’m treating it as if he comes back healthy. This is tough because he's injured and no one trades for an injured pitcher. But before the season he would certainly be tradable and if he came back and had two good outings he would be as well. He's another guy with a team-friendly contract. He may not close for other teams but a healthy Perkins is an asset many teams would take. Hopefully he can be healthy for the deadline because I’d love to see the Twins get something for him and set the path for younger guys. VERDICT: Incomplete. As is now, some team would take the contract because if he comes back, he can be a back-end bullpen piece. With a short demonstration of health, almost every team would grab him on waivers. If he has a good month, he’s a very nice trade piece. Plouffe 1 year/$7.2 million + arb: Plouffe's contract would also certainly be taken on by some other team. He's a league average player at a position where many teams have issues. Plus his contract this year is decent and you can let him be a free agent next year if you don’t want him so he carries no long-term risk. The Twins haven't moved him yet because they're hoping his value will go up, not because he has no value. I’d almost move him ahead of Perkins – only reason not to is that relievers can be fit into almost any team while a team would have to have a need at 3B/1B to want Plouffe. VERDICT: You can get something for him but it might not be much. Jepsen 1 year/$5.3 million: He hasn’t been amazing of course but he’s a reliever with a history of success and someone would easily take on this contract. Like Plouffe, you can walk away end of the season so there’s no long term commitment for a guy who has been a legitimate bullpen weapon. His contract would be taken off the Twins hands. VERDICT: Contract would be picked up, you might get a long-shot prospect? Probably not. Santana 3 years/$40.5 million: Santana is a tougher call just because of how much time he has left on the deal. He’s a veteran starter signed at a reasonable rate for a 3rd/4th starter for only two more years after this one – you’d think some wealthy team with pitching needs (the Angels? The White Sox?) would be willing to take him off the Twins hands. I don’t think you’d get much/anything for him but someone would take the contract. VERDICT: Contract would be picked off waivers and you might be able to trade him for something small but no one is giving you anything amazing for him. Suzuki 1 year/$6 million: Suzuki is an interesting case. The salary isn't prohibitively large but there isn't a team that wants him as their #1 (including the Twins, who just had no other better options and are hamstrung by JRM's struggles) and most teams either have a veteran #2 or have a young developing #2. That said, I imagine a team that had a starting catcher get injured would gladly take on Suzuki as their new backup (he’s better than the Juan Centeno/Chris Hermann types). Third catcher is a pretty low bar to clear and while the salary isn't cheap, Suzuki is a vet a team would feel comfortable with in a pinch and there’s no long term commitment. But agreed that it would be hard to get anything for him and you'd need someone to have a need. VERDICT: Need the right injury situation but you could get at least three bags of balls for him. Nolasco 2 years/$24 million: This is where I think we move over to pretty untradeable guys. It’s strange to put Ricky ahead of Hughes but he’s only got one more year after this on the deadline. I think it would be very tough to get someone to take this contract but if he had another month of relative success, some pitching-needy team might be willing to take him on as a back of the rotation starter they only have one more year to commit to. That’s pretty tough though, $12 million next year is killer. VERDICT: Not very likely and there’s no way you’re getting anything for him. Hughes 4 years/$48.8 mill: Hard to see someone taking Hughes. Four years is a long time and he’s already 30 and has over a year of struggling and diminishing velocity. He could be moved to the pen but he’d have to be elite to justify spending that money and there’s no indication he would be. Pretty untradeable. VERDICT: Not a chance, best path might be demonstrating some value as a reliever in the future. Mauer 3 years/$69 million: Crazy that perhaps the best player on this list is the least tradable guy but as a 1B with little power, he’d be a tough sell. If he had one year left, there’s a decent chance some super rich team would value his OBP and bring him aboard to cover an injury but with three years left, this contract is the Twins. Which I’m glad about. #joemauerforlife VERDICT: Nope. Thoughts on these? Not a ringing endorsement of the Twins free agent moves but you could just shed the salary easier on these than we might think.

Yeah, they just need someone who will take that contract. Where are the Dodgers when you need them?

I don't hope TR makes any big moves. He shouldn't sell out any of the young guys to put a bandaid on this season. Last season got expectations high for this year but this was always going to be a growing process. The Twins should be keeping and playing prospects. Getting Lucroy now isn't going to save this season and JRM is young and we're talking a small sample here. Let's give it some time.

Suzuki isn't going to vest even if he is the clear #1 catcher (131 games last year = 479 plate appearances; hard to see him catching that much this year. You can't put Mauer back at catcher for human and baseball reasons. The human one trumps all which is that doctors recommend he not be back there as it could easily harm his long term health. And even if you get heartless, he hasn't played in two plus years and would be super rusty. Plus why mess with something that is working? Mauer is hitting like old Joe and no one should mess with that. Not a huge "trade for Lucroy" fan. He had a very good stretch from 2012 to 2014 but tailed off last year. He's 30 years old and bound to decline in the near future - you're buying high if you get him now. I'd still like him as a player in a vacuum but he's going to cost a ton (he's going to be one of the best two or three position players available at the deadline). Definitely not worth it. Patience with JRM. As Seth said, he's hit at every stage of his career. He's in a slump now but it's worth remembering that it's only 35 at bats and that it isn't like he's striking out a ton. In a few months, he'll likely be hitting much better (and getting much more consisted PT). As for behind the plate, it's not like Suzuki has been amazing. With the exception of JRM's terrible play Washington, they've been the same catcher.

Really little to no chance of this happened. Suzuki needs 485 plate appearances this year to vest that option. He played 131 games last year and still only got 479 plate appearances. It's hard to see the Twins playing Fryer/Hermann more than JRM, even if he is not playing well. And Suzuki is bound to have some nagging injury that keeps him out for a week at some point. If the Twins let him over 485 it will be because he has an amazing year and they can't sit him and/or want him back again. That seems unlikely to happen but would be a nice problem to have.

Thoughts now that Meyer is replacing Milone, who is not injured? Clearly the Twins have a quick trigger and perhaps the reason Meyer wasn't pitching much was they suspected he might be starting soon. I think this is my main take away from the roster confusion of the last week - we need to have faith that the front office generally knows how to do things. Yeah it made no sense on Tuesday afternoon but heart surgery looks like murder halfway through. They preserved flexibility with some health stuff and got the right guys into the right spots pitching-wise. It's easy to be pessimistic and call people incompetent but there's method to the madness. In the course of a week the Twins put 40% of their rotation on the DL while also replacing another starter. That's not going to be super clean and I think it came out pretty well, all things considered. Very excited to see Berrios, Duffy and Meyer in the rotation for at least the next two weeks. At least one of them is likely to stick in the rotation long term and it seems possible there could be two (like if Nolasco is traded or turns back into a pumpkin).

I don't think they were wrong to give Milone $5 million. He hasn't been sharp but $5 million is a modest investment in a back of the rotation starter (see Pelfrey, Mike). Teams can always use pitching depth and Milone is a very nice guy to have in that role. If the Twins placed him on waivers, some team would grab him and say, "Thank you very much for your pitching depth." Where they'd be wrong is to not allow upside to trump Milone. He's at his best a #4 starter and more likely a decent #5 starter. They have young guys who have way more upside. And for what it's worth, I think he's a bad start away from moving into the pen (likely for Meyer). To me, that's the reason Meyer isn't pitching up here - they're going to use him as a long reliever for a few days and give Milone one more start before turning it over. I for one am very impressed with how quickly TR and Molitor have turned to young starters. Yeah some injuries were involved and yeah we might have wanted it to happen a few days earlier but they've not shied away from bringing up young guys. That's refreshing. Hopefully Berrios can pull a Duffey and rebound from a tough first start.

Agreed. Especially since it's not like the Twins are a team that should go out and sign big free agent arms. If they want to deal Polanco/Rosario types, I'm fine with that. But don't touch any of the high-upside starters (Gonsalves, Thorpe, Stewart etc.)

I would have liked to have seen him get Meyer's cup of coffee so that Meyer could keep working as a starter and build some confidence.

I don't disagree with what you're saying overall (though I think that Tommy Milone is sharkbait with one or maybe two more starts so I think we should show a small bit of patience before we start throwing the lifeboats overboard) but this made me laugh. That is an opinion, not a fact. And I'm not sure that you'd be able to even defend it as true. There are undoubtedly many other front offices that make terrible decisions as well, the Twins are not unique in making decisions that the casual fan doesn't understand. (The Phillies? The Marlins? The Padres?) Enjoyable hyperbole but worth noting what is and is not a fact.

They believe in Gibson long-term. Barring some injury to him, I think Tommy Milone is the guy out for Berrios by mid-May.

That's a lot of hindsight too though, which has the benefit of being 20/20. To varying degrees those are all justifiable. In order of justifiableness: (1) Milone was cheap and is a decent back of the rotation starter. The Twins weren’t going to use that money for anything else (they were not going to sign a 3 year reliever for other reasons – right or wrong – and there’s nowhere else you would see them obviously spending that money) so it’s not a waste of money. The Twins have a lot of pitching now but that wasn’t a given – Duffey and Berrios were young, the Twins wanted May in the pen and Nolasco is Rick Freaking Nolasco. It wasn’t crazy to spend so little to bring back another option. The mistake will come if the Twins aren’t ready to move on from Milone in the next few weeks if he continues to not be the best option. And there’s where Milone makes the most sense: as a lefty starter he is easily traded for a low level prospect whenever you want out or he could fit in as a lefty long reliever (especially nice for a team with all right handed starters). (2) I also don’t think we should judge the Twins too harshly (yet) on Plouffe and Sano. The Twins had so many unknowns coming into this year: was Park a major leaguer? was Arcia the 2014 version or the 2015 version? was Rosario’s 2015 a mirage? would Buxton be unplayable a the ML level? was Kepler ready for the bigs? would Mauer force himself out of the lineup? For that reason, Plouffe represented some decent foresight actually. He was stability in case several of those questions went the wrong way – especially because there wasn’t a good offseason trade offer for him. Weirdly, though the Twins season has been disappointing thus far, all of those questions above have more-or-less worked out positively. Park, Buxton and Rosario all seem like major leaguers (if not prospering ones in all cases), Arcia has put himself back on the map, Joe has found the Fountain of Youth and even Kepler looks good. I think you can get mad at the Twins if they haven’t figured out the log jam by the deadline but I think getting upset about Plouffe/Sano and the logjam is the benefit of hindsight – it wasn’t a given that things would work out so well and Plouffe could get a much better haul at the deadline. (3) Jepsen has not been as good this year but he was a fine addition at the deadline last year - they didn't give up an insane amount to get him and they had another year of control. The fair criticism might be not getting another reliever last year for the pennant run or not signing a 3 year reliever this year. Though on that last part, I think we need to give it some time. If Chargois and some of the other younger guys come up and are great, we’re going to be glad there was an extra spot for them. So I get this one but I don’t think it qualifies as awful foresight. (4) Sano and Arcia in the OF. They have looked not good but I think the Twins never expected to be playing the two of them together quite as much as they have. Buxton’s injury and Rosario’s results not demanding everyday playing time have contributed to this happening. It’s not ideal but I also don’t think it’s a long term solution and certainly wasn’t something the Twins were planning on relying on so much. (5) Most defendable foresight criticism is Perkins. I’ve been wishing they'd traded Perkins for years now but I get why they haven’t. He's a hometown guy and was a big draw when the Twins were terrible. It's easy (and likely correct?) to think that decisions should be made purely with business in mind but in reality, Perk is a hometown guy loved by fans and it's hard to trade him. The same thing will be true of Dozier if Polanco looks good, for better or for worse. So I agree on the lack of foresight but I think it’s worthwhile to understand the human aspect of things here. And to start hoping the Twins learn their lesson if Polanco keeps hitting.

Quoting myself. Bored at work. All right. This was the reason I loved his first contract so much. He signed for an amount where he would be an acceptable luxury in the pen even if he didn't pan out as a starter. It seemed like such a good move for a team with payroll to spend because of young players. Second contract not so good though I think it's pretty defensible, just didn't work out very well. Hughes for closer!

I was kind of assuming that he'd pitch again - just maybe not well and then there would be surgery? Kills me they didn't trade him two to three years ago when they were awful and he was very good. I know everyone can look back but I feel like "Bad Team Trades Good Closer at Deadline" is so commonplace and obvious that we can do some "I knew this would happen" complaining.