ashbury

Worley should be better than Esmerling. But that's it.

When do we get a feature article on Houston Jimenez?

Yes, he came in under inauspicious circumstances and managed to make matters worse. I just refreshed my memory and his OPS+ of 89 after the trade is a fair shorthand for a well-below par season from a player counted on for much more; to add insult to injury, Bruno put in a typical good season for the Cardinals; and then Herr added further insult to the insult to the injury by bouncing back to have a nice season for Philly in 1989. It's a very hazily defined concept of what "worst" player is, as Cody acknowledged - but for negative value delivered compared to what was needed, Herr holds a special place above many many less-talented players who were in less-pivotal roles. Do I really think Tommy Herr is the worst Twins player ever? No. I just like having his name in the discussion, since he brought so much angst to the fans.

Lenny Faedo and Terry Felton get some votes from this corner. If you want to expand to big letdowns, which is mainly what Huskey was, add Tommy Herr as well.

You have the right attitude for a road trip through the midwest. Enjoy all the off-the-beaten-path sights to see. I have a long and not very interesting story to tell regarding an ice storm and a cafe in LaSalle.

Team payrolls were about half of what they are now, so no, it was somewhat of a bargain-basement signing. Didn't work out, but it's hard to hate the guy.

Hey, Bobby, your mailbox here is full. Drop me a line sometime.

Capitalization.

I think I wrote unclearly. Very few if any FA would fit both. All transactions (not just FA) this off-season should be viewed in terms of the criteria, each individually satisfying one or the other, and not making one or the other uncorrectably worse. A few, such as a trade for Holland, have a potential to help both. Transactions will complement each other, more so than usual. No, I don't view a target date like 2015 as like turning on some light switch. If kids are ready to give it a try in the big show in 2014, they should be brought up, which hopefully makes them even more ready for 2015. If they are not ready, they should not be force-fed, as it just burns a year of arbitration eligibility. As in any other season, you make a plan for a few years down the road, and when the inevitable bumps in the road show up (TJ surgery, prospect plateauing at single-A) you adjust. I'm saying that 2015 for the Twins looks like when a real turning point could start in terms of competitiveness, and you should load up for then and beyond, while making short-term moves to get you through the coming two years without it being a revenue-killing drought and without mortgaging that more-promising future. I think it can be done, piece by piece.

They should not accept a 110-loss team for 2013-14. All transactions must be viewed in both of two positive lights: a) it helps a contending team in 2015, it helps bridge to 2015 by having a decent team in 2013-14. A 3-year contract to Dempster satisfies but violates a) assuming he is bad by then. A trade for Holland probably satisfies both. The trade of Span for a stud SP prospect satisfies a) and frees some salary for . Taking on salary for 2013-14 in a way that brings prospects, such as a large trade involving Alfonso Soriano, could accomplish both. Et cetera, et cetera.

Minnesota = State Twin Cities = Town, more or less I actually do remember the difference from when I lived there.

Slama's 28 years old, right? Not wasting a year on the 40-man thus prevents his prematurely reaching the free-agent market when he's, what, 32, 33, 34? I'm never sure.

As with election years ("all politics is local"), each team-attendance situation is likely keyed to on-field performance for some given years, and each market will react differently to the perceived success of the team. I'd be afraid to use too much statistical inference in the case of so relatively few datapoints, and be more inclined to eyeball it. If a team in a new park keeps its winning percentage up, it seems as if the honeymoon can go on and on, i.e. higher attendance levels than in previous periods of team success in the old park. The Giants have been in their new park since 2000 and the honeymoon is still going strong; attendance dipped modestly during a period of poor on-field results but never to a level of the old park, and has since bounced back. By contrast, if the team on the field stinks, the honeymoon can be short. The White Sox lost their attendance mojo very quickly after the winning stopped, and attendance was back down to something like where it was in the old park after just 4 years. The decline in the Twins attendance in 2012 looks like on a similar trajectory to the Sox. Another losing season in '13 may have per-game numbers under 30K like before the move. It could be something to do with what a market is receptive to; I have the sense that going to a Giants game (ditto Fenway, Wrigley) is more like an "event" while in a lot of other cases a team has to market competitiveness on the field, which in a zero-sum game has to run out of luck for some teams each year. But Minnesota is kind of a front-runner's town and there's probably not much the front office can do to market it differently.

Originally posted in reply to thread These Call-Ups Are a Downer The Twins' 40-man roster is apparently at 39 right now, and the desire for waiver-wire flexibility is a reason given not to bring up one or two other players for September, such as Anthony Slama. How can a last-place team have any issues at all managing their 40-man roster? Just sooooo many talented players, the other teams will scoop an All-Star-in-the-making right up, if the Twins aren't careful? Indecisiveness, maybe that's the reason. Morneau, will he or won't he return to previous levels? Span, can we squeeze just a bit more out of a trade? Middle infielders, so many flashy-glove no-stick players to choose from, better hang onto a bunch and see if one steps forward. Meanwhile, at least, the scouts and front-office can make up their minds about Slama not being able to translate AAA success to the majors. So I guess indecision can't be the culprit after all. Without going through the 40-man, spot by spot, doesn't it break down roughly like this? your 25 best guys for the major league roster 5 AAAA guys to cover the inevitable injuries 5 young guys who are too old to be left off but on whom the jury is still out (a little indecisiveness is necessary and good) 5 contingency spots because what I just laid out here is too simple What additional needs and purposes are clogging up the Twins' 40-man roster? With 21 pitchers and 18 position players currently listed, I guess the area of concern is clear. I'm not in the mood to discuss spots #39, #38, ... . A forty-man roster is intended to be a bit of a headache for the "have" teams. Not the have-nots.

Originally posted in reply to thread These Call-Ups Are a Downer The Twins' 40-man roster is apparently at 39 right now, and the desire for waiver-wire flexibility is a reason given not to bring up one or two other players for September, such as Anthony Slama. How can a last-place team have any issues at all managing their 40-man roster? Just sooooo many talented players, the other teams will scoop an All-Star-in-the-making right up, if the Twins aren't careful? Indecisiveness, maybe that's the reason. Morneau, will he or won't he return to previous levels? Span, can we squeeze just a bit more out of a trade? Middle infielders, so many flashy-glove no-stick players to choose from, better hang onto a bunch and see if one steps forward. Meanwhile, at least, the scouts and front-office can make up their minds about Slama not being able to translate AAA success to the majors. So I guess indecision can't be the culprit after all. Without going through the 40-man, spot by spot, doesn't it break down roughly like this? your 25 best guys for the major league roster 5 AAAA guys to cover the inevitable injuries 5 young guys who are too old to be left off but on whom the jury is still out (a little indecisiveness is necessary and good) 5 contingency spots because what I just laid out here is too simple What additional needs and purposes are clogging up the Twins' 40-man roster? With 21 pitchers and 18 position players currently listed, I guess the area of concern is clear. I'm not in the mood to discuss spots #39, #38, ... . A forty-man roster is intended to be a bit of a headache for the "have" teams. Not the have-nots.

tl;dnr

Reading your post, I caught a whiff of stale tutti-frutti gum. I know gum doesn't come with card packs anymore. Just strange how the memory works.

Sign me up for Deal #1 too. Second choice is to keep Frankie.

The transactions of the last few days boil down to Blackburn being replaced by Deduno, and Parmelee being replaced by... Fien? So, we're back to a roster of 13 pitchers and 3 catchers. Very little scope for pinch-hitting and pinch-running. I guess this has been hashed to death, but it still seems weird to me. Wasn't so long ago that 11 pitchers were enough for a staff. And I think it detracts from the enjoyment of the tactical game - instead of managers having to anticipate opposing moves and countering them, it's just a matter of running wave after wave of fresh arms out there to throw heat for an inning.

The transactions of the last few days boil down to Blackburn being replaced by Deduno, and Parmelee being replaced by... Fien? So, we're back to a roster of 13 pitchers and 3 catchers. Very little scope for pinch-hitting and pinch-running. I guess this has been hashed to death, but it still seems weird to me. Wasn't so long ago that 11 pitchers were enough for a staff. And I think it detracts from the enjoyment of the tactical game - instead of managers having to anticipate opposing moves and countering them, it's just a matter of running wave after wave of fresh arms out there to throw heat for an inning.

Isn't compensation now granted only when the qualifying offer is quite high, an average of top players or something, in the range of $11M per year?

Your analysis looks sound, and happens to coincide with my snap judgement which is, "no effin' way with this guy."

At this point I think I keep Span. I'd really like to know the ages of all these players, as a 25 year old SP in AA doesn't interest me but a 22 year old might. Given the framework explained for option 3, if the addition of Doumit pries loose the third prospect, then I would like to explore keeping Span and just making it Doumit for that one pitcher (if he's not 25!!!), throwing in a spare-part single-A prospect if necessary to MAKE THIS DEAL! I know this goes against the rules of the game you've set up, but I'm guilty of getting back to reality, I'm afraid, and sometimes trades arise out of a completely different discussion. By the way, good job on making these trade packages realistic - apparently you matched the past trades very well to what Span brings to the table. Most of these trades sound like pieces that don't fit in very well with their current team - which is kind of how Delmon Young found his way onto the Twins. As the old saying goes, the best trades are the ones you don't make - almost always the other GM knows what he's got and is trading it away for a reason.

For contrast, you could rate Darin Mastroianni's beard: http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/43/437017m.jpg

It's only a start to what would be a more solid analysis (say, looking a little harder for trades of lesser magnitude that still brought 2 or more legitimate prospects), but points in the direction that I think is a true conclusion, namely that we're looking at a summer of one-for-one trades of any significant talent that may have various spare parts included for any of a number of reasons. Shoot! I forgot a trade candidate, even though he stares me right in the face in the first list of trades: Matt Capps Age: 28 Jun 12 WAR: 0.6 Prev WAR: 0.8 Career WAR: 6.2 These numbers don't stack up any better to the list of big-time trading chips than the rest of the Twins' candidates (and it's not as if WAR is systematically prejudiced against closers, since Nathan regularly had seasonal WAR in the 2-3 range and Rivera goes even higher). What we need is a trading partner who'll do a swap similar to the Ramos deal; can we get Bill Smith planted as a mole in some team's organization?