JB_Iowa

I don't know what the rumblings might be but I found this blog by Berardino interesting: http://blogs.twincities.com/twins/2014/03/12/twinsights-brian-duensings-immediate-future-could-be-in-question/ I didn't realize how the money situation worked on arbitration eligible players -- but obviously it could have some impact here.

I don't think anybody necessarily missed anything. Although it may not have been communicated entirely in the media, it does sound like the Twins, Sano and his doctors believed it to be a partial tear. Please keep in mind: 1. It is Sano's body and I believe he gets the ultimate decision on what is done to it (regardless of his contract with the Twins). Phil Mackey ‏@PhilMackey 32m Rob Plummer, agent for Miguel Sano, says his client was 100% opposed to surgery, which is the main reason why it didn't happen in November. 2. The following information from Heezy1323 posted in the "Ligaments are Stupid" thread: Many times it is not necessarily that it takes so long to make a diagnosis of UCL injury- it is deciding how long to try to treat it non operatively before resorting to surgery. Most guys that have UCL reconstruction don't have a completely torn ligament on MRI. The vast majority (probably 80% or more) have a partial tear. Some can play with a partial tear... some can't. Many variables in play including mechanics, degree of partial tear, condition of shoulder/elbow musculature, etc. Many lay people (as well as many baseball people) assume the success rate of UCL reconstruction is 100%. Not true. It is a highly successful operation, but most literature puts success rate around 85-90%. So that means one out of ten is unable to return to the same level of play. This is the main reason for trying conservative treatment (rest, rehab, PRP) prior to proceeding with surgery. It is true some position players can play without an intact UCL, but these are usually not players at positions requiring hard throws (3B, RF). As far as the W and inverted W position, that is one of probably a dozen or more current theories about predisposition to UCL injury. The issue is far from understood. http://www.twinsdaily.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ChiTownTwinsFan http://www.twinsdaily.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png This is interesting info. Are you a doctor? Or did you just spend some time and do some proper research? Heezy1323: I'm an orthopedist yes. I trained with Dr. Andrews recently so I have a fairly decent understanding of some of the thought processes in play for these guys. I certainly don't have all the answers but am happy to put my two cents in here and there if it helps. Was born and raised in MN and a lifelong twins fan so kind of a bummer to hear about Sano. Sure hoping things go well with his surgery and recovery. Can we please put all of the speculation to rest now about how Sano's injury was handled?

Thanks for the backstory on so many of the players, Seth. To be honest, last season was such a drudge, sometimes its hard to remember who even got the ABs even though they may have been some of the most memorable times of the player's life.

Please pass the bottle. nothing wrong with some optimism in ST.

Collabello is just such a great human interest story -- both for what happened last year and for turning down more money in Asia to pursue his mlb dream. It's still awhile before final roster spots are awarded for the start of the season but so far I haven't seen a reason that he shouldn't be on the 25-man.

I'm actually thinking that may be a "Yes" (which is actually a No, hitting may not make him the regular catcher): Mike Berardino ‏@MikeBerardino 2h #mntwins are "very pleased" with Kurt Suzuki, Antony said. "he's going to be our starting catcher, i would think." That may change later, of course.

Colabello HR. I can't help it, I really want him to make the team.

Ugh. Gettin' ugly with 2 outs in the 3rd. Pit 4-1.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/03/offseason-in-review-minnesota-twins.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Overall assessment seems pretty fair. I am looking forward to Mauer proving the doubters wrong and putting the "catcher unable to transition" garbage to rest.

These game threads are gonna be hit and miss during the pre-season So are the games. Thanks, RB.

I think he came to HAVE to accept the reality of his market position as we got into March but early on, he was very unrealistic. According to Ken Rosenthal, he wanted more than $100 million/5 years. At the same time, Nolasco supposedly wanted $80 million/5 years. The difference was that Nolasco and his team got realistic very quickly and signed his deal with the Twins before much dust had settled. Santana was seemingly waiting for the Tanaka situation to be resolved -- possibly hoping to cash in on the shirt tails. And when that seemingly didn't work in his favor and time went on, he fired his agent. I have to think that there is a lot of unhappiness on the Santana's part (and that's why he went with the one-year deal). Unhappiness over the impact that the compensatory pick has (lots of lessons learned from Lohse last year, Santana and others). Unhappiness over a player, unproven in mlb, receiving $155 m/7 years. (Tanaka may very well prove to be worth $22m/year but there still has to be unhappiness among some veterans over the price paid for him compared to what #2/upper #3 tier, proven mlb regulars are getting). Unhappiness with his agents and the way they read the market. If Santana is injured or has a bad season, this may all blow up in his face. But I have to admire him for betting on himself. He did what could be done to salvage the situation -- going to the NL -- to a team with a reputation for good pitching and with prospects for a good season. I wish him well.

There doesn't appear to have been anything more on this front since the rumors were first posted -- all seemingly based on a Cardafo post in the Boston Globe rather than on something coming out of the Twins camp or the White Sox camp a little more directly. But I was struck by Phil Miller's column today in the Strib about none of the leading CF candidates separating himself yet: http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/249677321.html Jermaine Mitchell has separated himself (and has been fun to see on the few occasions I've caught a glimpse on TV) but seems pretty unlikely. And it is confusing why Aaron Hicks isn't in the line-up today since he says his elbow feels good and there was a general expectation that he'd play today (and maybe he will play later in the game). So maybe there is still something going on behind the scenes with the Twins/De Aza. Or maybe we're down to Mastro and Presley. There's still a ways to go in ST but I'm getting more depressed about the offense on a daily basis.

I don't recall seeing anyone campaign for Santana to the Twins on a one-year deal. It wouldn't have made sense for this club -- to suggest that many (if any) were pushing for Santana on a one-year deal is an unfair characterization of the discussion that did take place. The discussion centered around whether Santana would take a 1-year deal vs. a 3 year deal and on how much the Twins should offer/would need to offer to sign Santana to a 3-year deal. I'm okay with what happened because I wasn't convinced they should sign Santana anyway but I still believe that if the Twins really wanted Santana (rather than just trying to steal a bargain), their offer should have been more in the $39m/3 year range.

If you want info on the New Britain welcome event, contact Andrew Walter (Twins Fan from Afar) -- here's his blog: http://twinsfanfromafar.blogspot.com/ but he posts here, too. He's been to several of these (I think) and has posted photos, etc. in the past. Always sounds like he had a great time.

To go along with what JC said and to sum up today's rumors: Indeed, as MLBTR's Steve Adams noted earlier this morning, if Santana signs a one-year pact and throws well enough to earn another qualifying offer, he would stand to make nearly as much in two years as he could on the three-year offers he has reportedly received in the low-$30MM range. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/03/ervin-santana-rumors-tuesday.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The market for Ervin Santana has become "interesting," per Duquette, who alluded to the fact that other teams are beginning to show interest due to various injuries in camp. Most notably, the Braves have begun to show interest in Santana after an MRI showed ligament damage in Kris Medlen's right elbow. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/03/orioles-notes-machado-extensions-santana-schoop.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Well, 3/$33m is Kyle Lohse money -- with the same rejection of a QO as last year. But Lohse was 3 years older. I'll leave you to compare the stats but would you rather have Santana at 31 or Lohse at 34? It's hard for me to see Santana committing to 3/$33m but if it gets in the range of 3/$39-$40m, it would be a lot harder for him to turn down. If the Twins really want him, would that extra $2/million a year hamstring them? No. I'm still not convinced they that they should do this but if they really want him and aren't just shopping for a bargain, it would seem like they will need to up their offer.

Question: Can the FA and the team agree in the contract that the team will not make a Qualifying Offer to the FA at the end of the year? That would be a way to avoid the compensatory draft pick problem.

Dave, what would you offer on a 3 year contract? Do you think $40 million would lure him to Minnesota? Less? More? Just curious.

Thanks for another great interview, Seth. I found Turner intriguing when I read this piece by Berardino: http://blogs.twincities.com/twins/2014/03/07/twinsights-catching-prospect-stuart-turner-learns-from-terry-steinbach/ When you say he's smart, that is apparently true in a number of ways: academically (a 4.0) but also in understanding his baseball skills and in being well-grounded. Can't help but root for him.

I don't know if the Twins' offer is still on the table (Antony apparently didn't totally disavow it) but I just don't think it matters. There hasn't been much come out today except the possibility of a one-year deal with Atlanta given the injury status of Medlen and Beachy. I don't think the comp pick is an issue next year if he signs a one-year deal this year but that is just from memory. I still don't think that 3/$33m is really in the ballpark. Heyman (who seems to be pretty on top of this story) seems to think that Santana is still looking for 4 years at around $50 million. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24475143/twins-enter-fray-but-jays-and-orioles-may-still-lead-the-ervin-derby If the 4th year is an important part of the equation to him (and I read somewhere else that it was), I don't see the Twins going that far based on Antony's comments tonight. It still looks to me like this is primarily among Santana's one-year suitors. The question is which one -- and now it looks like Toronto, Baltimore and Atlanta might be interested.

I'm sure it is about mixing up his pitches. This was a pretty good little piece from Berardino: http://blogs.twincities.com/twins/2014/03/09/twinsights-byron-buxton-alex-meyer-lead-first-round-of-cuts/ “Big leaguers hit fastballs,” Gardenhire said. “They’re going to hit it. You’ve got to use everything. You’ve got to be able to change speeds, slow it down a little bit and use that breaking ball to get them off the fastball.” It was more of a personal hope from me about getting to see him a little longer in big league camp. But I do recognize that they are trying to weed through a lot of pitchers and he wasn't going to break camp with them so why not send him down.

There's one more thing that they could have done. Publicly announce that the 50% "rule" has gone by the wayside. I don't have as much problem with them failing to spend more this year as Mike does but I want some public acknowledgment that down the road when they may be in a contending position, they are going to be willing to go significantly beyond that 50% if that's what it takes to try to put the final pieces in place.

Retweeted by MLB Trade Rumors Derrick Goold ‏@dgoold 3m Initial estimates off. #Cardinals get Diaz for four-year, $8 million contract. If this is right, it looks a bit like pocket change.

I think he very well may have gotten that type of deal if that is where his (and his negotiating team's) sights were set at the beginning of the off-season. But his team had their sights in the clouds -- apparently thinking about $100 million over 5 years according to Rosenthal (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/07/rosenthal-ervin-santana-wants-more-than-100-million/). Nolasco was reportedly looking at $80 million over the same time frame. (Even though we all know that agents blow smoke at the beginning of the off-season, $100 million is a long way from $52 million). But Nolasco got realistic quickly and got ahead of the market. It is pretty apparent that Santana's team misjudged the market by waiting for the Tanaka dust to settle and perhaps by failing to consider the real impact of draft pick compensation. While it is easy to say that his negotiating team screwed up, there is still the player's ego involved and perceiving himself as "as good as" or better than Nolasco so asking him to take 3/$33m now would be a really bitter pill to swallow. He's being asked to take significantly less than Nolasco and to take something that was probably not even in the realm of his possiiblities when the off-season started. Given that, I still believe that he will sign a one-year deal unless the 3 year money gets more in the range of $39-40 million. Less than that is asking him to take a paycut from his 2013 numbers. I'm not saying the Twins should do this -- I'm not even totally convinced that they should do it at 3/$33m but I think that's what it is going to take (if not more).