ThejacKmp

People also forget that Plouffe has played 30 MLB games in right and left. That's not a ton but if Sano really can't hack it in the OF, he could make the transition out there. Cuddy moved from 3B to the OF so it's not impossible, especially with a nice arm. Not pretty but perhaps enough until Kepler is up and the Twins can trade him at the deadline or next offseason (if all goes well)?

Dislike. Don't even think this. I'm throwing salt over my shoulder while crossing my fingers and toes and knocking on wood. You should be ashamed of yourself.

This is not wrong but I take some umbrage with your assertion that Buxton needs to start the year in AAA. This is far from proven and I'll take it a step farther and say that unless the Twins keep Plouffe and Rosario and really put Sano in Right, Buxton will make opening day. He just needs every day reps at the MLB level, he has nothing left to prove in the minors. Regardless, if Hicks was dealt (and agreed that the Lucroy trade is ludicrous - Plouffe would likely not be enough but it isn't Hicks too) Buxton would start in CF to start the year.

Agreed, he's basically saying "I know the same thing you probably know - we don't need to move Plouffe." I'm very glad he isn't make a knee jerk decision to trade Plouffe. Rosario, Hicks and Plouffe all could be moved to clear up the log jam. He should get fair value. If he doesn't, wait til the deadline. It only takes one injury for depth to matter.

Agreed on the outfielders but there are still two complicating factors. First of all, even if none of your six outfielders (and I’m not sure that there are six, this Sano to the OF business could be to help drive the market on Plouffe, but the point still remains with five) is proven, you can’t try them all out at the same time. You’re going to have to make some decisions at some point next year, even if you can delay it awhile by keeping Kepler and Buxton in the minors (I don’t know what Buxton has to prove in the minors, he has hit it and just needs everyday playing time to adjust to the majors). It would be better to use this surplus to fix other areas of need (top end starting pitching prospects, catcher) by making some smart choices about your outfielders before you see who bottoms out and they end up with no value. Prospects’ stock is high when they’re young and unproven and the Twins need to identify who they like long-term. Yeah there’s a risk of picking the wrong guy but you don’t win if you don’t play the game. Secondly, Rosario’s track record indicates that there is a strong chance that last season’s efforts may represent a high point. He had a high BABIP, struck out a lot and chased pitches out of the zone at alarming rates. He may be another Ben Revere – a player who does some things incredibly well but who has some warts that keep him from being a complete player. The Twins sold high on him and even if Meyer never works out, that was a great trade. I don’t think they should give Rosario away, I’m just saying that of their outfielders, Rosario is most likely to get a strong return while also being a good sell high guy. The deal needs to be right but it should be aggressively pursued. As for the Twins outfield, I agree that it’s got nobody proven but that doesn’t worry me. Both Hicks and Buxton are capable of playing good enough CF D to make them above replacement players, even if they don’t hit. With both of them (or Kepler a few months in if one really bottoms out or gets hurt) you’ll have two ++ outfielders. It would not be too disastrous to pair those two with the abomination that is Arcia’s OF defense or Sano’s lack of range/experience. And if Kepler, Arcia and Hicks all play well, that is a scary good D. Agree you don’t have to trade Rosario but some decisions need to be made at some point this season so if we find the right deal to sell high on Eddie, we should take it.

This makes some sense but if those players don't take the step, they lose the trade value. A good franchise needs to be able to sell high on guys (e.g trading Revere - for the opposite, how they handled Willingham) and make good calls on who will develop. I agree with the original author that Hicks has very little trade value now so you should keep him. Buxton and Kepler (and Sano of course) have so much potential it would be hard to get enough back to feel comfortable about trading a potential star. So hold them. To me it comes down to Plouffe and Rosario.* You have to shop both of those guys and see what the market holds for them, targeting young starting pitching prospects and a long-term solution at catcher. You can keep both but it gets awfully crowded. Shopping both means you'll get real offers since teams know that the Twins aren't in a "We have to get rid of Plouffe" position. * Arcia can be thrown into the Plouffe-Rosario group but I see no issue in the Twins holding him into the season as a 4th OF. You'd be selling low if you trade him now - unless some team really likes him, there's almost no downside to seeing if he can get back on track. If you don't have a place for him and he rebounds, he'll be more valuable at the deadline than he is now.

I love me some Rosario but he's the guy to trade. He reminds me of Ben Revere in that they do a few things really well but there are some gaping holes in their game which limit their future. (Caveat: Rosario is ridiculously young and could very well improve, though changing some of those things at the ML level would be tough). If the Twins could get an elite arm or a long-term solution at catcher, I'm down to make Rosario part of the package.

I really doubt that Sano moves to the OF for real. It behooves the Twins to be able to tell Plouffe trade partners that they're fine with Sano in the OF so they're not dealing from a position of weakness but its hard to see how they could make it work. Sano is so big for the OF, has no experience there and already had issues staying healthy at 3B. If they do keep Plouffe, Mauer in left makes more sense than anything else. But no way they can keep Plouffe. Sano or Mauer to the OF blocks Buxton/Kepler/Rosario/Hicks by the end of next season, which is already one too many guys for OF spots. Nice problem to have. Hopefully we can flip Plouffe for something good!

I guess this means that Plouffe is gone. Hopefully TR had something already lined up on that front - otherwise might be hard to have leverage in trade talks since teams know Twins almost have to move Plouffe.

When will people stop the madness? Dozier did not have "second half struggles in each of the past two years." I've posted this before and will continue to post it until people stop saying that the world is flat: ----------- What is interesting about this is not that Dozier had a bad second half of 2015 but that everyone thinks he had a bad one the year before. His splits before and after the break in 2014: .242/.340/.436/.776 .244/.352.387/.739 There's a slight fall off in slugging but an increase in OBP. Overall this is not much of a drop off. The narrative is almost entirely driven by the differences in his home runs, which we focus on too much. Dozier had 18 HR in the first half of 2014 vs. 5 HR in the second half but also had 16 doubles and no triples vs 17 doubles and one triple. As the first half has 100 more at bats than the second half, the real story is a little less pop with some home runs turning into doubles. This myth of Dozier falling apart in the second half of 2014 colors the way we look at Dozier as a player. He slumped late in 2015 but we certainly shouldn’t be building patterns out of one season and the mistaken impression of another season. He played everyday through injury - the issue is the Twins not giving him a day off, not some failure to finish seasons. Please, the next time you see someone on Twins Daily or IRL talk about how Dozier always fades in the second half, introduce them to this funny thing called statistics. We can do better than rehashing the tired plotlines of the FSN broadcast.

Proven player means they’ve shown that they can play the position at the major league level. So last year, Sano, Buxton, Rosario and Duffey were all not proven players – they were just prospects who may or may not work out. By your arguments, the Twins should not have relied on them. My point is that “proven” is the same language people use when they sign the Shane Robinsons and Tony Batistas we’ve suffered through. Yeah proven doesn’t mean washed up vet and I’m sorry if my hyperbole insinuated that but you’re talking the language that people use to defend misguided veteran signings. You can argue that Polanco isn’t ready based on minor league track record or a lack of defense (and I agree with you for the most part, I love me some Dozier) but to say that he shouldn’t be relied upon because he isn’t “proven” is dangerous ground my friend. Now as for Mr. Cordova . . . Marty Cordova is a terrible example of the point you’re making. Marty Cordova’s slash from his freshman to his sophomore campaigns: .277/.352/.486/.839 .309/.371/.478/.849 So he improved into his second year, not some cataclysmic drop off. And his career slashes are: .274/.344/.448/.792 Not far off his rookie campaign, which now seems pretty representative of his career. Cordova is perhaps seen as a failure because he never progressed from his rookie year into some star? That may be true but he had a legitimate career and the rookie year was not some outlier. Of the 7 full seasons he played, 5 of them were reasonable facsimiles of his rookie year, including two years that were significantly better. In fact, if you take Marty Cordova’s career average and make him 30ish today, he has better numbers than Chase Headley, who signed a 4 year $52 million extension last offseason at that age. He would be a hot commodity on the free agent market. Marty Cordova did not in any way “fall off the map” after his rookie season. He made a career of putting up pretty similar numbers – in fact, it’s hard to see why he was out of baseball - though he was injury prone, he was an above average player who could easily be a bench bat, and likely deserved a starting job. P.S. Who is this David Ortiz? Some kind of a celebrity chef?

Woah, chill Reider. This comes way too intense, much like the post I made the mistake of replying to. People who have taken a basic level logic class are the worst because they have a bit of the official language to use but not enough self-control to not use it like a hammer. It's absolutely okay for me to take your argument (which I didn't disagree with BTW) and add in a caveat that if you could trade uncertainty at catcher for uncertainty at 2B (again, I also said that this is not the only or best option - I agreed with you) it would be a net gain. That's a true statement and the point of the original poster. Once again, I don't necessarily agree with it, just thought you went overboard attacking him/her/it. I was just trying to help the other person whose perfectly acceptable opinion you were savaging. P.S. It's called an analogy and its fun and can be quite informative - or just fun. Calling it a red herring is ridiculous. Chill with the regurgitation of logic class dude. P.P.S. I enjoy much of what you post on TD (anyone who defends the ridiculous overreaction to Dozier’s few and often-overstated flaws is a friend of mine) so don’t read this as an attack. I work with college kids and am likely channeling some aggression towards the ones who took a logic class freshman year.

A better argument against it would be "dozier is a top 5 second baseman, Sanchez will not be a top 5 catcher anytime soon. You weaken one position while not doing enough to upgrade the other, especially since there are other options out there." To extend my stupid lawn care analogy, your leaf blower is brand spanking new and awesome and the lawnmower is a pretty cheap blah mower. You can find a different mower somewhere else and keep your sweet leaf blower.

It's a bit disingenuous to insist on a proven major league player, you sound like Gardy loving some vets! I Don't agree with the concept of trading dozier because this isn't the only way the twins could get a catcher and I like some of the other ways better. That said, your logic is false. The twins have a gaping hole in their organizational depth chart at catcher. No one looks ready for next year and it's really doubtful anyone will be ready even the year after. Second base is not the same - the twins don't have some washed up vet who is "proven" there but in polanco/Santana and even Nunez they have some intriguing options that could fill in while solving their catching woes once and for all. They also could easily sign a second baseman for far less than a catcher demands (and catchers don't hit the market very often). Catcher is more important than 2b so your argument about opening another hole is flawed. Its like if I'm doing yard work and I have a great leaf blower but no lawn mower. Yeah if I trade my blower for a mower raking becomes harder but the lawn mower is so much more valuable that the trade might be worth it.

I think we often assume that a manager is a CEO when in fact, they're really just the sales manager. Gardy wasn't good with stats but that's at least in part because the organization itself was not into stats. I would definitely interview Gardy because he has some obvious strengths when it comes to daily management of a team and then would feel out if he'd fit within the framework I've constructed. People can change, particularly if it involves an entirely new system. How many players have a resurgence when they get a new environment? Why couldn't the same be true for managers?

Agreed. I would not be devastated if they did because Wieters could be fun but I can't say I think it would be a great move. The issue with the other contenders is that Suzuki doesn't have much of a split advantage that lends itself to a platoon - almost shockingly so. He's the same hitter from either side of the plate. I guess that means you can platoon him with anyone but it doesn't really give you a huge advantage. Unless the Twins can get someone like Lucroy for a reasonable package, I'm a tepid fan of bringing in Pierzynski or Avila on a 2 year deal (hopefully they're the backup year 2) and hoping that either (1) you can pry loose some catcher in the next 18 months or (2) Garver/Turner/Navaretto take a jump this year and look ready to take over. I don't have a ton of faith in those guys though so that's hard to bet on. It really feels like catcher is about to become the new version of the Twins middle infield woes of the last decade. The free agent market looks shaky at best (as many pointed out Wieters has some warts and is by far the best option) and internal candidates are not too promising.

The cost of the Cole Hamels deal was pretty crazy. I would not have wanted the Twins to make that deal. This is what the Phillies got: ·SP Matt Harrison ($28.4 million guaranteed left on his contract) ·C Jorge Alfaro (Top-3 prospect within the Rangers organization, consensus top-50 prospect overall) ·SP Jake Thompson (Top-5 prospect within the Rangers, top-100 prospect overall in most publications) ·OF Nick Williams (71st best prospect in baseball, according to Baseball Prospectus) ·SP Alec Asher ·SP Jerad Eickhoff We can quibble about it but if you translate it to Twins terms: - Nolasco (ineffective pitcher signed to long term deal) - Kepler (top 3 prospect, should be somewhere around top 50 but not a catcher so perhaps I'm thinking too much of Kepler) - Gonsalves (and this might be selling short since I'm not sure Gonsalves will be a top 100 prospect this year or even a Top 5 Twins prospect) - Rosario (this is hard because Williams is a minor leaguer, Rosario had some issues and wasn't a top 100 prospect but I think the fact he's been to the majors makes up for some of the difference in pedigree) - Taylor Rogers and Tyler Duffey (This is hard because Duffey was so good after being called up but at midseason pre-Twins call up, this is probably apt since Asher and Eickhoff are both better prospects than Rogers but not as good as Duffey. Plus I sold high on Gonsalves so hopefully I have some wiggle room adding in Duffey?) So an equivalent (perhaps not perfect but a good ballpark estimate since like most Twins fans I likely think more of Twins prospects than real life does) is Nolasco (yay!), Kepler, Gonsalves, Rosario, Rogers and Duffey for Hamels and Jake Diekman, a mediocre reliever. That's way too much, even for a nice four year deal on an ace. I'd rather the Twins sign the crazy Grienke contract than give up that level of material for an ace. And I hate those crazy contracts because the opportunity cost down the road is less ability to signing the young guys. The best bet for a Twins ace is from within. Gonsalves, Thorpe, Jorge, Berrios all have potential to be an ace. If not, the Twins might just have to hit and occasionally make the rental deal for an ace like Price or Cueto. Those prices are high for a rental but carry less risk so that might have to be Plan B.

I don't see too much to gain by putting Buxton in the minors so assuming he is up, I love a Hicks/Arcia platoon. Hicks will still get at bats against righties when he comes in as a defensive replacement so if he shows improvement there, you can wean him into an everyday role.

He was certainly one of the 30 best pitchers in the majors that year and a true #1 starter in every sense of the word. He finished 7th on the AL Cy Young ballots, had the 6th best FIP (better than Price and Lester) and had historic BB/9 and K to BB ratios. He may have been a flash in the pan but to not call him worthy of being a #1 starter is a disservice to a fine campaign. Agreed on the lack of a #1 starter for the Twins. I doubt that Hughes will be a long-term #1 starter (we'd all settle for him being a #2/#3 type after this year frankly) and Gibson, Duffey, Santana are all #2s at best (and likely lower). So you're depending on either (A.) Berrios or Gonsalves or Thorpe to become a #1 starter or (B.) the more likely scenario where the Twins are like a poor man's version of this year's Cardinals team, which lacks that elite frontline presence but is a deep set of very good starters. I can't see the wisdom in the Twins singing the long-term deal aces get - maybe they could get a guy like Price who is a rental?

Hamels contract doesn't cripple the Twins since it's only three years, what they would pay in prospects would. If Hamels were a free agent, he would get a 6-7 year deal which would be irresponsible of the Twins to sign. I would love to have Hamels, I just contend that as a trade target they'd be giving up too much and as a free agent the contract would be too long. Both of those are reasonable contentions.

All of the peripheral stats at the time disagree with you as well. So you will have to agree to disagree with them as well.

I don't think the concussion is a strawman argument because it speaks to depth. The Twins without Suzuki would have had frightening depth at catcher. You'd be one Pinto injury away from Hermann and Fryer as your catchers. That's a bit scary. Suzuki's contract and temperament didn't mean he had to start - he just gave the Twins options with Pinto. And they did shop Suzuki - no one needed him. There were no team at the deadline last year with pressing needs at catcher. Suzuki would've been a backup on those playoff squads and thus didn't garner anything worth taking. And minor quibble but it's "lo and behold". No biggie, just one of my pet peeves.

If the Twins had come into this season with Pinto and Hermann as catchers, you would've been terrified and would have been on here saying the Twins needed a good backup because Pinto was unproven. If he fails, you're stuck with Hermann. Ugh. Especially since there were bound to be a bunch of young Twins pitchers who could use someone who at least belongs in the majors. And that's where you should see above about the free agent catchers post I made. Unless the Twins were going to outbid everyone for Russell Martin, there were no free agent catchers available. You could trade for one but they didn't know what they had in Pinto. Suzuki was a fine signing since he can move into a backup role when the Twins have their next catcher (unlikely to be Pinto or Garver, who didn't take that big step forward he would have needed to to be in the Twins plans for next year. Hopefully they can use some of the excess talent they have in the OF and corner infield positions to solve that.) If Pinto had been ready or played well enough in AAA, he could've moved up and they'd slot Suzuki as backup. Sadly that didn't happen. It's not about just throwing things at a wall. Players have to be put in a position to succeed. Pinto wasn't ready for the majors and Suzuki allowed the Twins to keep him in the minors to learn the trade. It didn't work out but that doesn't mean that the process wasn't reasonable and sound.

But other team would take on that contract - and likely give the Twins something.* If the Twins had better pitchers they could unload that contract. So that's not something they can't get rid of without giving things away (see Nolasco, Ricky). * Note that I am not advocating that the Twins trade Hughes. Let him bounce back next year and then think about dealing him if the young guys are crowding him out. He may not be a Cy Young candidate every again but there's no reason to think he won't be a solid starting pitcher for a few years.

Wow. That's a lot of hate for a guy a season off of finishing 7th in the Cy Young. I'm not saying that he's going to get back to that level but teams would give up some prospects to find out.