ashbury

This man agrees: http://golistyourself.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/This-Random-Guy-Paid-Us-to-A-Lot-to-Write-About-How-Sexy-He-Is-360x240.jpg / he's what comes up first when I do a Google image search today for "random guy"

I'm going to stick my neck out and say we get him back via Rule 5's methods, before next off-season. The Reds also took a Yankees catcher in the first round, and probably they are thinking they will try to keep one or the other but not both. Since more than half of Rule 5 picks get offered back anyway, or a trade is worked out satisfactory to both teams, and Turner was apparently the Reds' second choice, I'll be surprised if he sticks. Particularly since he managed only a .646 OPS in AA last year. His bat's just not ready, and has low upside at best, so it'll be hard to keep a glove-only catcher all year.

Mr Pohlad could afford that. We should keep this possible acquisition of talent in mind.

I can be on board with including Kohl, if it is to help get a guy like Urias who we hoped Kohl someday became, when we drafted him. Not "just to trade him".

Dozier is coming to the meetings? That would be significant.

Minus Bellinger/Urias/DeLeon I don't see why Twins management's interest would be "piqued", so I am assuming one of these has been dangled. I'm going to be optimistic. Dozier plus KStewart for Urias would be cool, plus or minus a couple of lesser prospects on either side to blur things up a little. A deal for De Leon would need to include someone highly regarded like Alvarez plus another good prospect, as has been stated elsewhere, and again a KStewart level prospect could be added in order to make it work if need be. For a couple of reasons I'm not too enthused about Alex Wood as any kind of centerpiece. And while I personally could see "helping" the Dodgers by trading for Puig if they are really trying to shed payroll, I doubt the Twins see a fit.

Lux was a 2016 draft pick so they'd have to wait until next June to swap him, don't they? I don't know how long a PTBNL can remain pending after a trade.

Google works for me.

Shall we grant that the headlines nationally and probably in both cities would read "Dozier for Puig plus prospects" in the scenario that this outfielder is even part of a deal?

Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, in case you didn't find out elsewhere. Just across the Potomac, first exit off of eastbound 495. Can't miss it.

I think Christy Mathewson or Abner Doubleday or someone like that complained that the young players coming up were only in it for the money.

Santiago is the only hard choice to tender. If you had a 25-man roster of players getting what Kintzler will get, for instance, your total payroll would be down in Rays/Marlins/A's territory. A team of Kyle Gibsons would still be below $100M in pay. A team full of Santiagos, by contrast, would be up in the Large Market world. Not that that's how to evaluate payrolls, merely a back-of-the-envelope way of looking at it. It depends on whether the front office can find a better use for that $8+ million. My suspicion is that they can, but I don't have a specific recommendation myself. (I'd probably combine it with other savings such as Plouffe, and use it to pay for the salary of a better starting pitcher I'd go after in trade. But maybe the front office bean counters already feel they combined Plouffe and Suzuki money to sign Castro.) I'm probably most bothered that this kind of money gets us a guy who can succeed only when he nibbles. It looked like Neil Allen talked him into throwing strikes after he came over to the Twins, and Hector got pounded. When he went back to walking guys, he did somewhat better. That's not an asset I would pay a lot to have. I'm also not encouraged that Allen's first attempt at tinkering backfired on this pitcher - is there any reason to think Allen will find the key to unlocking hidden riches on his second try? But the team is not strapped for cash, as the payroll limit they seem to have set for themselves is pretty arbitrary. Paying Santiago should not really bar them from any moves they would like to make. So I won't get mad if that's what happens. But, he won't be much of a mid-season trade chip; at that salary he will be overpriced (unless he steps up his game, in which case the Twins won't want to trade him), and his next team will face the same off-season decision, so no one will give much to get him. He's not fungible. If the Twins tender him, they are stuck with him.

Should close baseball games be decided on Style Points? But joking aside, I am opposed to actions that an umpire can not be expected to police fairly on the field (steroids, gambling leading to throwing of games), and perfectly fine with what goes on between the lines that the umpires can judge within the rules of the game. Play on!

I believe we don't know that yet.

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

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.