jokin

Yeah, and that team is the Chicago Cubs.

I wouldn't argue your points... Revere has weaknesses and so does Span... And they both have strengths. I think we can all agree that I'm a Revere supporter. Keep in mind that I'm also a Span supporter and I think worrying about whose better between Span and Revere is crazy and doesn't really matter. Revere is as good as they come in the outfield when it comes to going and getting it. Span is as good as they come when it comes to plate discipline. Niether has a decent arm. One Guy hits more doubles. One Guy Steals More bases. One guy is more experienced and one guy is less expensive. If I had to pick between them to win right now with a gun to my head... I'd choose Span but not by a bunch. If I had to pick a player to win later.. I'd pick Revere but not by a bunch. These are my opinions and I understand that they don't reflect everybody. For 2012... I really liked them both in the OF together. For 2013, 2014, 2015... I really want pitching... I would have traded Span and I'd move Revere as well if the right offer came along. I like em both... I will miss Span and the full weight of my support is behind Revere and I don't worry about him in CF at all. I'm going to enjoy him while he has a starting job because he's good baseball. Quick quiz: Player A: 624 AB, .274 BA, 96 R, 9 HR, 57 RBI, 42 SB .739 OPS Player B: 511 AB, .294 BA, 70 R, 0 HR, 32 RBI, 40 SB .675 OPS How much more will CFer, Player A make than CFer, Player B in 2013? The answer: Player A will likely make as much as $17MM more than Player B, even though when combining the defensive metric, runs taken away, with the runs-produced, numbers aren't all that far apart. I'm sure you can easily figure out which is which, who is who, and which one is the new Twins CFer (who happens to be 6 years younger and theoretically is that many years away from his own peak numbers)

How do you know that no one offered for Revere instead of Span? Maybe they did, but the Twins didn't bite because (a) they think Revere is as good as Span/better than Span/good enough to bridge the gap to Hicks, and ( Revere costs literally millions of dollars less. Also, your claim that others' claims about Revere viz. Span are "rubbish" is conclusory. At least offer some evidence instead of dismissing other peoples' points of view out of hand. If all your argument consists of is the fact that it was Span and not Revere traded, then you're working off a whole mess of assumptions that you can't back up. Skimming through the Span/Revere debate, it's positively glaring how ignored this simple fact is maintained and disregarded by the pro-Denard camp. Getting a replacement CF for 10% on the Span dollars yields you far more than just 10% of Span's value to the Twins. Most all Twins fans on both sides of the argument will miss Denard, but this is something that had to happen, and it makes the most business sense besides. When do I get my check? Is payroll a pressing problem? Will this "saving" be used for anything for the fans? Don't bother to answer I already know. When do I get my check? If you're a Twins shareholder, the check is in the mail Is payroll a pressing problem? The Twins have stated that it is throughout the Pohlad era, so I guess the answer is "yes". Will this "saving" be used for anything for the fans? Directly, no. Hopefully the braintrust has admitted that they're shooting for a huge run in 2015 and are going to devote all their financial resources towards that end; the only question that remains is: Do Twins fans have the Delayed Need Gratification traits that early 80s and late 90s fans were forced to embrace waiting for the turn.

How do you know that no one offered for Revere instead of Span? Maybe they did, but the Twins didn't bite because (a) they think Revere is as good as Span/better than Span/good enough to bridge the gap to Hicks, and ( Revere costs literally millions of dollars less. Also, your claim that others' claims about Revere viz. Span are "rubbish" is conclusory. At least offer some evidence instead of dismissing other peoples' points of view out of hand. If all your argument consists of is the fact that it was Span and not Revere traded, then you're working off a whole mess of assumptions that you can't back up. Skimming through the Span/Revere debate, it's positively glaring how ignored this simple fact is maintained and disregarded by the pro-Denard camp. Getting a replacement CF for 10% on the Span dollars yields you far more than just 10% of Span's value to the Twins. Most all Twins fans on both sides of the argument will miss Denard, but this is something that had to happen, and it makes the most business sense besides.

Yes they would have. Based on what they complain about they appear to have expected as sure thing front end starter for Span. After being teased in the media about going after guys like Shields and Cingrani, can you see why expectations had to be adjusted? Media claims are about as close to reality as Thyrloss's last scoop. If Shields is traded it is going to net Tampa more than anything the Twins would offer. I am not sure what to make of the Reds talk. Shortstops seem harder to find than outfielders so it would have taken more than Span to swing that. Are you thinking of Gregorious? Cingrani is the lights-out AA LHP who is for now at least, temporaily blocked from the majors by Chapman moving over from closer to the rotation.

It could mean Marcum and Sanchez. That would be aggressive. Yes, that would be agressive and would definitely float a lot of boats in Twinsland, unfortunately St Antony threw in that quaint qualifier, 'a little more'

Yes they would have. Based on what they complain about they appear to have expected as sure thing front end starter for Span. After being teased in the media about going after guys like Shields and Cingrani, can you see why expectations had to be adjusted? Media claims are about as close to reality as Thyrloss's last scoop. If Shields is traded it is going to net Tampa more than anything the Twins would offer. I am not sure what to make of the Reds talk. Shortstops seem harder to find than outfielders so it would have taken more than Span to swing that. I wasn't in denial that it would have taken a package deal to get it done. As Twins fans all we have are the games of chicken and poker during the Hot Stove season, expectations, bluffs and ultimate realities have to get recalibrated here, that's all.

I like where you're headed here. Earlier I proposed a deal that would include Lester and Bogaerts(SS). This would make your proposed lineup even more fun!

Salvo #2 hot off the wires at MLBTradeRumors: In an interview with 1500 ESPN Twin Cities radio (via Phil Mackey of 1500 ESPN), Twins assistant GM Rob Antony said his team will likely pursue free agents over trades at the Winter Meetings. "We probably don't have a lot of pieces that we do have to trade for starting pitching [with Denard Span now gone]," Antony said. "We'll probably be a little more aggressive and spend our time at the winter meetings talking to agents rather than clubs." This could get interesting............................or it could mean Joe Saunders and that other Myers guy is their definition of "a little more agressive".

Yes they would have. Based on what they complain about they appear to have expected as sure thing front end starter for Span. After being teased in the media about going after guys like Shields and Cingrani, can you see why expectations had to be adjusted?

Excellent first post. Hopefully first of many. I concur in going for gold over tin. But I still wish they could have poked around to get a better deal from favorable trading parteners like Cincy, Tampa or Texas. The Twins got fleeced once by the Nats already and they are primed to essentially "stand pat" and tinker with their roster as they prepare for a likely World Series run in 2013. It seems like the Twins might have been able to coax another piece or two currently blocked at the Major League level.

This is an agressive move that helps the team move forward. It officially acknowledges that the Twins are in rebuilding mode, as they should be. They made an attempt at going for, at best, a future #1-2 starter, or at worst, a closer/set-up guy. It does cut payroll in the short run, to set the team up better as the next wave emerges in 2014-15-16. Span was the #1 logical trading chip to acquiring a front-end SP and still maintain the semblance of a strong positional lineup to have a chance to make a run in 2013. If anyone can show evidence that the Twins are going to go all-in on signing Greinke and another top #2 FA pitcher, it's time to present the evidence or admit the truth. Any move coming up at the Winter Meetings or later can only serve to weaken the positional lineup and/or to further cut payroll in the short run (trading of one or more of the Big 3), to set up a stronger push in 2014 or 15. I can't speak for other posters, but I was certainly hoping a move like this was multi-player to better address the multi-needs. It's unfortunate and disappointing that Span (with or without a package) couldn't have garnered more than just one pitcher currently at A level and with mechanical issues in a tall pitcher that in the past have appeared to be beyond the Twins level of expertise in fixing.

Sickels has Meyer at #74, midseason.

Benson would not land you anything close to Meyer, his value is about as low as it could be currently. Sure the Twins could have maybe traded Hicks for Meyer, but it would have been a mistake. As nice as 3 years of Span would be, 6+ years of Hicks (for even cheaper overall) is the superior choice to keep for a rebuilding team like the Twins. It should be noted that Hicks has a greater upside then Span had/has as he is a better fielder, has more speed on the basepaths, has more power, has a better arm and a better eye at the plate. The main question with Hicks at this point is will he be able to continue to hit for averag and continue to increase his power. Vodkadave... You should also mention that the Nationals would rather have Span right now because Span will be of more use in 2013. I mean that is probably true, but I'm not sure the Nats would have told the Twins "we have no interest in Hicks". There is a decent to good chance that Hicks can contribute in 2013 and even though the Nats are set up very nicely for 2013, they are set up even more nicely for 2014-2015.I I guess what I am saying is it wouldn't have killed the Nats to bring in Hicks and keep Harper in CF for another half season. I'm just personally glad the Twins traded Span rather then Hicks. The point is moot as the Nats already have their own Hicks in Brian Goodwin. Span has just become his placeholder. Goodwin is a nice prospect, but lets not say he is "their Hicks" he has exactly 100 games in his professional career and struggled quite a bit in AA. Hicks is a easily a superior prospect to Goodwin at this time, ntm Goodwin still might be a corner OF instead of a CF anyways. Let's go to the "source", the guy we all agree has it right on Meyer, John Sickels: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/7/2/3130761/top-120-prospect-list-for-2012-midseason-revision-update John Sickels Top 120 Prospects (2012 Mid-season Updated Edition) #12 Miguel Sano (MN Twins) #45 Eddie Rosario (Mn Twins) #64. Oswaldo Arcia (MN Twins) #65 Brian Goodwin (Wa Nats) #74 Alex Meyer (Mn Twins) #120----------- Players under consideration who didn't make the top 120 Aaron Hicks (MN Twins)

Benson would not land you anything close to Meyer, his value is about as low as it could be currently. Sure the Twins could have maybe traded Hicks for Meyer, but it would have been a mistake. As nice as 3 years of Span would be, 6+ years of Hicks (for even cheaper overall) is the superior choice to keep for a rebuilding team like the Twins. It should be noted that Hicks has a greater upside then Span had/has as he is a better fielder, has more speed on the basepaths, has more power, has a better arm and a better eye at the plate. The main question with Hicks at this point is will he be able to continue to hit for averag and continue to increase his power. Vodkadave... You should also mention that the Nationals would rather have Span right now because Span will be of more use in 2013. I mean that is probably true, but I'm not sure the Nats would have told the Twins "we have no interest in Hicks". There is a decent to good chance that Hicks can contribute in 2013 and even though the Nats are set up very nicely for 2013, they are set up even more nicely for 2014-2015.I I guess what I am saying is it wouldn't have killed the Nats to bring in Hicks and keep Harper in CF for another half season. I'm just personally glad the Twins traded Span rather then Hicks. The point is moot as the Nats already have their own Hicks in Brian Goodwin. Span has just become his placeholder.

I had to read that twice, because I wasn't sure if you were referring to Gonzalez or Millone as the MLB ready #2 (You're referring to Gonzalez, right?) edit: because, at the time, they were both MLB ready no. 2's, even if BA didn't include Millone in their rankings. Gonzalez had a great year. Bill James thinks he will regress back into that no. 2. So, Peacock, Cole, Norris - they were all just gravy, along with the 3 extra years of team control on their new no. 2 starter. This may be splitting hairs but I didn't hear anyone calling Millone a sure thing major league ready #2, Gonzalez was and continues to remain the much better pitcher. There is a reason why Millone wasn't cracking the top 100 lists everywhere... Peacock was the centerpiece of that trade, no? The comparison is still moot as Gonzalez is a top flight pitcher and Span is an above average CF. Which one of those are harder to find on the FA market/trade market? I'd say Billy Beane has hairsplitting down to an art/science. The Twins actually should be in a greater position of strength in conducting trades than the A's (the 2nd team in a market to the all-powerful Giants), who surely must have taken Hell in even considering dealing away Gonzalez.

I had to read that twice, because I wasn't sure if you were referring to Gonzalez or Millone as the MLB ready #2 (You're referring to Gonzalez, right?) edit: because, at the time, they were both MLB ready no. 2's, even if BA didn't include Millone in their rankings. Gonzalez had a great year. Bill James thinks he will regress back into that no. 2. So, Peacock, Cole, Norris - they were all just gravy for the A's, along with the 3 extra years of team control on their new no. 2 starter. edit 2: again i don't have an angle. I'm not trying to grill JR or anything, I just can't get over how some of these deals come to pass and others don't. Beane>Rizzo>Ryan

I like your thinking and the 25-man payroll for 2015 in this configuration is only slightly north of $50M- which gives the club enormous wiggle room for tweaking and signing more top draft picks, international players and especially, FAs in areas of need. Too many on this board are wrapped up in what happens in 2013 when this scenario should be the priority.

Duly noted.

How about a little of both. The Twins have both current and future needs. The Braves gave up two pitching prospects, one very good, for a career #4-5 starter and a journeyman OF. It would have been nice to sweeten the pot and addressed a 2013 need through a multiple player deal.

Where are people getting this 3 years from? Sickels himself says he could be ready come next season. People understand the difference between college starters and HS starters right? There is no reason why Meyer shouldn't spend the majority of this season in AA with a shot at AAA towards the end. If he keeps doing what he has been doing he will be with the Twins come June 2014. I hope this is the outcome. Setting a goal for competitiveness in 2014 over 2013 makes the most sense. I hope the negative reviews that Meyers has received are completely wrong and that Ryan knows more about Meyer than Rizzo does. Legitimate question: Who has the most bankable track record on prospects? Is it Sickels, or someone else? Probably Terry Ryan. So it it's Ryan, given his track record on minor league progression rates, Sickels predicting a Meyers call-up in 2013 is a non-starter, right? Given these facts, the most optimistic scenario appears to be June 2014, and the cautious, go-slow Twins could easily hold that off to Sep. '14 or sometime in 2015. The other concern I have is the Twins track record of pitchers breaking down and Meyers mechanics issues. Recipe for disaster if not handled better than past history of tall Twins power pitchers who ended up on serious DL time.

:roll: Please attempt to add substance to the forum I'm digging the irony. Ironic that you refuse to debate, but instead attack. That's usually indicative of a losing argument.

Where are people getting this 3 years from? Sickels himself says he could be ready come next season. People understand the difference between college starters and HS starters right? There is no reason why Meyer shouldn't spend the majority of this season in AA with a shot at AAA towards the end. If he keeps doing what he has been doing he will be with the Twins come June 2014. I hope this is the outcome. Setting a goal for competitiveness in 2014 over 2013 makes the most sense. I hope the negative reviews that Meyers has received are completely wrong and that Ryan knows more about Meyer than Rizzo does. Legitimate question: Who has the most bankable track record on prospects? Is it Sickels, or someone else?

:roll: Again with the personal attack? Please attempt to add substance to the forum and break down what part of my posts in question aren't fact-based opinion.

Yeah, that simply isn't true nor will you provide one shred of evidence stating such. There is no need to provide any more shreds of evidence, it's already ubiquitously abundant, from the Twins own mouths and actions. Trying not to violate policy here. One trade of a player does not make for a salary dump. No FA signings when there have not yet been any significant FA signings does not mean the Twins are not going to spend any money. So what kind of thought process leads to jokin's statement? Its not even worth responding to him. I got reprimanded earlier for pointing out his "shenanigans" (After he went and cried to the site owners lol) Clearly the Twins dumping an effective player who was scheduled to make $5 million is "salary dumping" plain and simple meanwhile they hold onto Willingham, Mauer and Morneau who are scheduled to make about 50 million in 2013. Is there an ignore feature on this site? Serious question. "Cried to the site owners"? Again with the personal attacks, pointing out that you are blatantly violating site policy and adding nothing to the debate, Seriously? "Shenanigans" for making no editorial comment on a post except "here come the inevitable negative reviews" about the trade and merely quoting said national scribe? Regarding the salary issue, the Twins traded a $5M entity that progresses to $9M in 2015 for someone who won't make the major league minimum for at least 1 or 2 years and puts not one, not two, but now 3 OF out of 4 all virtually making the MLB minimum. The Twins have hinted that they may cut payroll again in 2013. What is so controversial about considering them at their word. Would it really be so surprising to you if 2 out of the three 3 high dollar guys you mention are moved now or in-season? It can be argued that this is actually a good business strategy. It certainly doesn't call for your all-out frontal assault on fact-based opinion.