ashbury

Moderator's suggestion: take this tangent to the About MinnCentric forum if it needs to be explored further.

I am convinced the next life is going to be one crazy trip, based on the kinds of things we are being programmed to memorize in this life in preparation for it. Norm Cash batting .361 in 1961, Chico Fernandez hitting .248 that same year... Princess Bride and Monty Python zingers and now I find out I have to study up on Blaze and the Monster Machine too... it's gonna be weird, I'm telling you.

I feel your pain. I missed basically the entire first run of Seinfeld; while my childless friends were chortling about being masters of their domain, I wasn't even master of my domicile.

Volquez's option has a $3M buyout, so I think that means they are arguing over $7M. He had a bad year, but can they find someone better for $7M? I doubt it.

Forbes estimates of team revenues for 2016, and rank within MLB: KC $273M 11th DET $268M 14th MIN $240M 20th CWS $240M 21st CLE $220M 27th http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#header:revenue_sortreverse:true KC and the Tigers have the wherewithal to retain one big-time star more than the Twins and Sox do, who in turn can do one more than Cleveland. Or they can divide up the difference in other ways - whatever. They all operate at a disadvantage to the $300M+ teams, but at least aren't in the same boat as the sub-$200M Florida teams. The question in my mind, which you raise in Cleveland's case but IMO applies to all five, is whether sustained success is possible, or periodic times of famine are unavoidable. I tend to think the former is possible, but that comes from playing too many simulated OOTP seasons and preying on idiot rival GMs. The view I think is more realistic is as described in the article here, and a window might be opening up.

I don't think that quite conforms to how guaranteed contracts work, and he'd be a fool to take free agency. Basically, you have to carry a guaranteed contract on your 40-man. Barring a trade, you can get rid of the contract in a couple of ways - DFA him and if some other team takes him then your problem is solved, otherwise back onto the 40-man he goes - or, you simply cut him and eat the salary, if the roster spot is that important to you. In the latter case, a team that then signs him is on the hook only for a (pro-rated, if mid-season) major league minimum salary, and the cutting team continues to pay the rest. There would be no reason for the player to void the guaranteed contract and elect free agency unless he felt he could get more money, which clearly would not be the case for Hughes, or I suppose if he felt so strongly about what team he wanted to play for that he would sacrifice the money. Bottom line for the Twins, though, is that no roster shenanigans are going to save them from having to commit a 40-man spot to him.

He came to mind too, but the point being made concerned the good teams where another player might have put them over the top.

The difference between Polanco and DSan, making one not a very good comp for the other, is that Polanco was playing full-time at single-A at age 19, and acquitting himself very well at the plate. His progression up the minor league chain was consistent. Santana hit less well, at one year older, at single-A, and his progression was likewise consistent. At young ages, such differences are huge, unless you disbelieve their birth certificates. Of course you have to have a Plan B on the 40-man roster to cover for Polanco, if you decide to trade Dozier. All kind of surprises can occur. That doesn't mean taking the most pessimistic view on him.

Let's not turn this big-picture tangent into the focus of this thread about shortstops, but have a look at b-r.com which offers tools to answer questions like this, and then start a fresh thread if you feel the need. http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?overall_pick=5&draft_type=junreg& My quick estimate is that about one-third of #5 picks turn into something, but those that do are often substantial players.

I guess that's one way of defining the risk the Twins were willing to take on. Maybe they were uniquely positioned to do so.

I agree it's a reasonable risk on an 11th-rounder. But it's still a risk, in the sense of "there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns." This guy has a known known, the injury, and a known unknown, namely whether he will bounce back from his surgery. Not all pitchers do. Even the attitude that "well, every pitcher gets surgery eventually, so get it out of the way" is to me questionable. A second TJ surgery has less to work with than the first, as I understand it. (I'd better go and re-read Jeff Passan's The Arm now. ) That makes for a bigger risk later on in his career. Again, our consensus seems to be it's completely acceptable in the 11th round. But, by definition, it means that no other team saw it as the right decision in the 10th round. That makes it a debatable topic.

Interesting gamble by the team. Joc Pederson was an 11th rounder for the Dodgers a few years ago - maybe we'll have the same kind of return. In any case, good luck to Tyler and his rehab.

Moderator's note: All right. That's enough* of the personal sniping, on all sides. Not to mention, the sub-thread about draft strategies has gone pretty far afield from the question of ranking our prospects. Stick to the topic, please; start another thread if you want to revisit the past. * Too much, actually. But you know what I mean.

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/D9hvmI-kk08/mqdefault.jpg

An ignorant answer from another non-athlete: arm strength has been the knock on Polanco for as long as I remember, including comments from Twins personnel, so I would presume he's worked with whatever experts there are, already. The lack of zip on his throws when he guides it to first, or the scattershot results if he really tries to bring it, is not a sudden revelation.

Having both Dozier and Polanco on the same team is a sub-optimal use of their talents, as they belong both at 2B and putting one at SS or 3B diminishes his contribution. The question for me is whether trading either one brings back enough to exceed the suboptimal combination. (SydneyTwinsFan among others also expressed this point of view.) Therefore, before making any other decisions, I would shop both Dozier and Polanco hard. I want to know concretely the return either player would bring. Tactically, I think letting it be known both are being shopped will slightly increase the offers for the one who other GMs want more, probably Dozier - "I don't especially want Polanco, but if I lowball on Dozier, the Twins might accept an offer on Polanco from someone else, and then Dozier won't be traded". Dozier is at an age that he'd be the natural one to trade, if your business model is to exploit your minor league talent pipeline. We may look back and realize 2016 was his career year. On the other hand, if he's achieved a new level of performance, it's enough above average that he's the kind of player you want to retain. There is also the public relations problem with trading your best player, something that can not be ignored. So I want a lot in return for him, if I trade him - high upside starting pitching, to start with. The point of putting together a contending team is to fill all your positions with above MLB-average players. Those don't grow on trees. We finally have one. Polanco, as has been stated by others already, is less likely to bring back much in trade right now. If that assumption proves wrong, he's the one I probably deal. He projects as an above average 2B eventually, so I don't let him go for scraps in return. If neither trade option works out, I would roll with Polanco at SS for 2017.* I have been a harsh critic of Polanco's arm for a couple of years now, and I remain very skeptical he can ever become even an average shortstop overall. But his bat looks like it's good enough to make up for it, during a transition season; and unlike some players, being in over his head on defense didn't seem to harm his offensive production. Keep the channels open for a trade during 2017, and re-evaluate a year from now if I still have both players. * An option I haven't seen discussed: move Dozier to SS instead of Polanco. Both players are about average at 2B; if Dozier might provide marginally better defense at SS then that change has to be considered. The old regime seemed to give undue preference to veterans in their choice of positions; maybe under Falvey that changes. I think Dozier sees himself as enough of a team player to accept the challenge of being a mediocre SS for the good of the team. It's something Molitor wouldn't have asked of Dozier mid-season, but perhaps now he would.

I'm hoping the new front office does a bit of culling among the glut of corner/DH types we have, preferably via trade rather than simply non-tender them. Minus a couple of those players, Vargas's role will become clear. He's either with some other team, or is part of the Twins lineup as a platoon bat at minimum. Plouffe gone, Vargas for a prospect in single-A, or Park for a prospect in single-A - I'm not sure I care which two of these happens.

This football star has a movie now? http://67.media.tumblr.com/f4ccd60df683d68c1657ac1f52fc8839/tumblr_n6ab8yu0Sx1td5zevo1_1280.png

Terrible. Terrific. What's a few letters, among friends?

He was a 20 year old, at high-A. To me, those numbers project just fine. If he can stick at SS, even more so.

Going only by the web page for the show, it looks like they have a regular white guy with them, to make sure they don't try to marry each other or nothin'.

I'm sticking with the reality shows that MSNBC runs in prime-time. Scary and hilarious at the same time!

A little poetic license.

Satire just doesn't play well on this site. Had I just straightforwardly said his pedigree compares interestingly and favorably with Jed Hoyer's, that pedigree would all of a sudden seem like a small plus, no?