ashbury

Never? You had said the following, less than 30 minutes earlier: If the team has a functioning offense that can put up similar numbers to last year, Correia will put the team in a postion to win a very similar percentage of games Sanchez will for the Tigers, at much less cost. Similar wins for less cost. How is this *not* saying Sanchez *wouldn't* have been better?

I halfway agree: Diamond is not a de facto ace, because there is no such thing. Someone will by definition start the first game of the season; if the team is so lucky as to reach the playoffs then someone will start Game One - doesn't make him an ace. Some teams just lack one, pure and simple. Abe Lincoln's old chestnut about not calling a dog's tail a leg applies here. As for the actual topic, I had been penciling Diamond in for a much higher ERA, but I re-reviewed his career numbers, and I think I'm going to go out on a limb and say "better", not "worse". He's pretty close to his ceiling, so it will be splitting hairs to call him better if he achieves 32 starts instead of 27 with the same general results per game, but I'm going with that. I have forgotten the answer to why the Braves didn't protect him from the rule-5 draft, or the legalities of why he was exposed to that draft after only 3 years of pro ball. I know the Braves had a deep system, but why even sign an undrafted college player if you're not going to see things through in the event he actually succeeds, to the point of pretty good success in a short stint at the AAA level in his age-23 season? If you don't have roster room to protect promising youngsters, seems like the time to package up some prospects in a blockbuster trade for a star.

The GM has more than a little say in setting the tone for the draft, and the scouts have a lot of input on any trade. Internal "scouting" of our own players has a role too. It's all about talent evaluation, and everyone involved needs to contribute no matter what their official title says. While this speaks to accountability, I'm not inclined to draw lines quite like that.

Maybe some people have learned from experience that saying something once here has no impact whatsoever. Everybody posts; nobody reads.

In addition to just DFAing one of these guys, you can also try to make a low-level trade. Maybe Swarzak plus someone equals a single-A shortstop who isn't already 24.

I don't understand the signing of Tim Wood, and if his contract permits DFA'ing him I'd consider doing that in favor of Saunders. I don't see what is in Wood's resume that should have him stand in the way of anybody else. Seems like the Twins scouts got fascinated by what they saw on the Indianapolis roster when Rochester played them, as I see Brandon Boggs, Jeff Clement and Eric Fryer also signed (not 40-man) this offseason. Perhaps Shairon Martis, whom they acquired mid-season, brought valuable information with him from his time in Naptown; I can hope it's a sign they next can get Gerrit Cole, who also pitched a game there in 2012.

You were supposed to laugh, otherwise I did my job wrong.

I may be misunderstanding your point, but optioning a guy does not mean removing him from the 40-man roster, indeed it's the opposite motivation, to put him in the minors for a year without exposing him to the waiver process.

When do we get a feature article on Houston Jimenez?

Certain situations such as being behind when the fifth inning rolls around, sir? Oops, we're supposed to stop with the snark. Sorry.

I'm not so sure. Considering how some of these guys were acquired by the Twins when someone else waived them, the odds would seem high that they would be snapped up by the same process. Can't take the risk - pass on Saunders.

I counted 22 pitchers on the 40-man, to cover 12 likely openings on the major league staff. That leaves 18 position players to cover the other 13 roster spots. To add a Saunders, I don't see dropping a hitter, even if (like you) I'm willing to joke about the concept of having the name "Butera" mentioned in the same paragraph with "hitter".

I should have picked a better word than "but" to preface my observation. No, I wasn't building a HOF case for Hrbek; he needed to play someplace other than 1B for his hitting skills to rise to quite that level.

I see what you there.

I'm with you about not going 3, but nothing I have read suggests that that would be necessary. Since I don't believe 2014 is a year of genuine contention for a World Series title, it's fine with me to commit to a Joe Saunders through that year, to get us to 2015 when the kids can have a go at it. You can't let attendance plummet with 90-loss teams two more years.

Sorry, I thought saying "future Hall-of-Famers" would make clear my actual view. The Twins seem to be in a funny position with their 40-man, full of players much much much too valuable to expose to a waiver claim, yet not valuable enough to flip for a decent A-ball prospect of some kind if you wanted to make room for a free agent signing.

I may be wrong, but the fact he ended the season hurt leads me to think his offseason value became low and it won't rebound until he gets a month under his belt proving there are no recurring issues. And anyway his value to the Twins may be more as a player who helps bridge to the next generation in 2015 by making 2013-14 tolerable than in a medium quality prospect at best that he might bring in trade.

I agree. But in his prime, he was the guy in the lineup, not Puckett or anyone else, that the opposing team would plan around and decide "in a tight situation we'll walk him but we won't let him beat us".

My favorite Hrbek memory is watching him taking grounders at shortstop during BP and having a great time doing it.

Yeah, the quoted article doesn't quite make sense to say "if Saunders is limited to a one-year contract" and then go on to mention a two-year $15M deal is in the palm of his hand. At his age, he'd almost surely take the sure $15M, than gamble with (say) a one-year $10M deal if one were offered. Unless it's a team he just won't go to. Maybe he doesn't want the pressure of New York. The Twins' 40-man is full. I was for signing Saunders until I realized they would have to expose one of these future Hall-of-Famers to a waiver claim. Can't take that chance.

That goes into my quotes file. Too bad I have to attribute it to an anonymized login.

In my baseball career I could have lacked opposable thumbs and it wouldn't have made any difference.

Maybe some argue that, but I don't think that's how Ryan is approaching it. I'm more or less repeating myself from past posts. Say the window for contending opens in 2015, with 2014 as a "transition year", and in 2015 the current salary commitments are essentially Mauer plus rookies and a few contracts like Perkins. I'll concentrate on starting pitching. So you have a lot of flexibility for 2015 and forward, until some of the youngsters start to earn the arbitration dough. Do you commit some of that flexibility now, because some free agent is so desirable that only a 3-year or higher commitment will land him (and you want him for that long or longer because he's so good)? Doing that, you accept the risk that he blows out his arm in 2013 or 2014. If instead you wait until the next off-season, other valuable free agents will come along, and then you are only risking 2014 in the hope of getting a good pitcher for 2015 and onward. And, if you wait another offseason, now you can sign someone good, to a 3-year contract that covers years of actual contention, and without assuming any degree of risk for the dead years of 2013-14. Of course, the risk is always there for as long as a pitcher is under contract, but it's the question of potential reward in exchange for that risk: making 2013 marginally better toward a .500 club, or pushing the 2015-16 team over the top. So, the way I was hoping Ryan would do it is try to make 2013 marginally better through 1- and 2-year signings. Correia is the right length of contract in this view, I just don't think he was the right guy. It's not like a signing now might downright cripple the 2015 team. But a signing later on may prove to be more able to address the needs at that time.

That's my reaction too. And it probably leaves Ryan's hands a bit tied, on how much he can say about why he didn't go after one free agent or another. Even though Marcum is signed, you can't go disparaging him, like "we thought his arm wouldn't hold up." If Marcum has a successful season, it won't be second guessing to criticize Ryan; but we have to wait a while before we know.

Bring back Kent Hrbek. As shortstop.