Oxtung

Out of curiosity, can they afford him in the long term? You have to think he'll get a Greinke/Verlander/Hernandez like deal.

I kept growing until my low 20's. Left High School at 6'0. Ended at 6'4".

Dozier: .234 Avg. 17% k-rate Gomez: .258 Avg. 23% k-rate. Played elite defense right off the bat. Hunter: .255 Avg. 17% k-rate. Cuddyer: .252 Avg. 20% k-rate. Hicks: .192 Avg. 27% k-rate. There are their rookie year stats. Hicks had a historically bad year putting the ball in play. There is a big difference between sub-.200 and .250 batting averages. At .250 that means you had a month or two where you managed to hit .270. That isn't true with a sub-.200 average. BTW, Denard Span hit .294 his rookie year with a strike out rate of only 15%.

Of course last spring training he hit .370 with 6 doubles, a triple and four home runs. Spring training is the definition of SSS.

I think we're agreeing here for the most part. I would just amend what you said slightly to, "His value is dependent upon the needs of the team." In the circumstance you describe, he has value as a fifth starter trying to push the team into the playoffs. A year of Marginal Pitcher A throwing 130 innings of 5+ ERA could lead to an October staying home. On the other hand, to a team like the Twins who aren't going to the playoffs either way, his innings aren't particularly valuable because they aren't enough to push the team to contention and he won't be here when the Twins are ready to contend. He is merely a place filler. Which is fine, unless he starts to block players, like Gibson or Meyer (I'm not saying he is at the moment), who actually will be here when the Twins are looking to contend again. How it turns out remains to be seen. As I've stated I highly doubt the Twins are going to trade him after spending so much money trying to bring in veteran pitchers and were still in the market for additional arms as little as a week ago.

He always had value. People hated it last year because he has such a limited ceiling, which is what he showed last season. You can find those guys every off season so why guarantee someone 2 years? As far as I can tell most people still think that was a bad signing. People aren't trying to trade him because they think he'll bring back anything significant but rather because he's guaranteed a rotation spot that could instead be used for [insert pitcher here]. Last year people hated the second year and it looks to me like many still do.

I think he needs to go back to AAA. There were clearly things he couldn't handle last season and working on them in a lower stress environment surrounded by players working on similar issues and with coaches whose sole job is to teach those fundamentals would benefit Hicks best. You don't teach a kid to swim by repeatedly throwing them in the deep end and shouting "Swim darn it!" If anybody would like see my reasoning on it here is my complete view on the situation.

Teams looking for a reliever at the deadline want players at the end of their contract. The teams can fill that need in the off season without giving up major prospects. This extension actually hurts the Twins chances of trading Perkins. Time will tell but many people here are making the huge assumption that Perk will be a good closer for the next 4 years. If we look back to 2010 the "elite closers" that year were Brian Wilson, Heath Bell, Rafael Soriano, Joakim Soria, and Rivera. That's 3 guys that got injured and missed full seasons and 2 that just fell apart. 2009 elite were: Nathan, Rivera, Francisco Cordero, Jonathan Papelbon, Ryan Franklin,, Trevor Hoffman, Jonathan Broxton, and Andrew Bailey. That's 3 guys with significant injuries and 3 guys that fell apart. I won't look back any further but those aren't promising results.

By only looking at OPS you're obscuring his problems. Even after his "adjustment that carried through" he hit .219 with an OBP of .270. His strikeout rate was 25% while his walk rate was only 5.7%. If Sano had come up this season and posted those numbers they might be hopeful. After all he is a slugger that is going to have swing and miss problems with big power but that isn't what Hicks' game is about. Hicks is about getting on base and using his speed to be disruptive. You can't do that when you're striking out 25% and walking less than 6% of the time. If he is going to be a successful player he needs to decrease his strikeout rate by >7% and increase his walk rate by >4%.

Looking forward to your thoughts on him.

I think you misread/misunderstood my post. My premise was that if Meyer isn't that #1 pitcher that we hope he becomes we have some big rotation problems that won't be fixed until Kohl Stewart arrives. That is a lot of pressure on just those 2 guys. Assuming they'll turn out as their "best case scenario" seems foolish to me. As things stand right now this is how our prospects not in A-ball are thought to fit into the rotation: Meyer 1/2, Gibson 3, anyone else 4/5. It's possible somebody else steps forward, like Trevor May, but at this point that is only hopeful wishing. In 2013 Nolasco would have been a #4 starter on nine out of the ten playoff teams. That means we need to bring in 3 pitchers better than him and 2 need to be significantly better. The Twins could sign a #1/2 starter in FA or trade for one, but that would be the first time in history that has happened. They could hope that everybody has a career year but that isn't really a plan. After that we're waiting for the young guys at A-ball who are years away. I don't really understand the rest of your post. Of course Perkins can't be traded for an established mlb ace. I never said he could be. He could however be traded for one headed to AA this year potentially. That would give the Twins a little breathing room in case Meyer doesn't pan out quite how we want him to.

No, he is not contractually guaranteed but for all intents and purposes he is a Twin for the next 2 or 3 years now. 2014- Perkins is 31. Twins not competitive. 2015- 32, not competitive 2016- 33, perhaps be competitive but not a complete team 2017- 34, This is the first year that I could see the Twins being a strong contender. To me acquiring a piece of the future that will be here for perhaps 6 years is more valuable than the one year that Perkins will make a difference to this team (assuming he's still a dominant pitcher 4 years from now which is unlikely). I understand others have different time frames for competitiveness and as such YMMV.

Seth, what have you seen/heard about Eades? He seems to be the guy that is getting left out of the discussion at this point. As you know he was a 2/3 upside kind of guy that struggled a bit in his limited time last season. Any new information about him, at all?

I want to add that I can see the human side of this argument. Minnesota guy, loyal, etc... From what I can tell Perkins is a great guy, I think he even brought a round of drinks for some of the TD guys from the bullpen late last season, but I don't see how that helps the Twins get to the World Series. To me, as a fan, that is the point of this game so if a move doesn't further that agenda I don't agree with it.

If you can find some counter evidence or articles I'd be happy to read it. As I said that is the only research I've read on the subject. BTW, I think using saves to judge pitchers is a pretty poor analytic. Saves don't actually tell you about a players pitching but rather about the effect of that pitching. It is a secondary measurement. You can rack up saves and be a poor pitcher and vis-versa.

I think the time to "dump all the assets" was when the FO decided not to spend in 2012. At that point it was clear this was going to be a multi-multi year rebuild and that our assets would just be aging with no hope of winning. I even advocated trading Mauer to the Red Sox that offseason (and still think it could have been the right move). At this point though I don't think "trade everybody" works. We have the payroll to have some pieces in place when our young guns come up and I think it will be beneficial to do so. It will help turn things around quicker, there is always a chance Buxton, Sano, Meyer put up big numbers right off the bat and I'd hate to waste those years because we didn't have a supporting cast. There is potentially a benefit (though not necessarily true or needed) to having veterans around the club house. In today's game if you want to go to the playoffs you have to be a top 10 team in starting pitching. If you want to advance you have to be top 5 (I've actually done the research but have never bothered to write it up into a blog...I should get around to that someday). That said, I think we are short a premier pitcher. If Meyer turns out to be a 2/3 we're sunk. The Twins won't pay the asking price for an ace. IMO the Twins need another pitcher that could develop into that front of the rotation player because counting on Meyer for that is just too risky. Before anyone says Kohl Stewart, he won't be with the Twins until 2017 at the earliest and even that would be counting on him coming in and being an Ace from day 1. It's more likely he'd take a season or 2 until he's in form. So you're looking at 2018-2019 before the Twins are truly competitive if Meyer doesn't turn into the stud we need.

There are several contracts that have done this actually. David Wright, Ryan Braun, Scott Feldman, Dustin Pedroia all have this off season. Probably more I just don't remember them.

IMO, not a great move. He and Willingham are the only players that could conceivably bring back a top tier pitching prospect that the Twins desperately need. Sure we have a lot of pitching talent in A-ball and below but above that.... In addition, as others have said, there was really little reason to do this, and it isn't a particularly "Home town friendly" deal. This was also another opportunity to front load the contract come and gone (no worries about >20% paycut as you can see from David Wright's contract). The other problem I have with this is, contrary to the previously espoused views, the only research I could find on the subject shows that elite relievers don't stay elite for long. Also, long term deals to relievers aren't a great idea in general. Sorry if this was a little rambling/confusing. It's 2am and I'm really tired but wanted to hammer this post out before signing off.

The Twins just spent $83 million bringing in pitching upgrades this season. Even though they had a rotation consisting of Nolasco, Hughes, Correia, Pelfrey and several options for a fifth starter they were still actively pursing many additional pitchers. Clearly they think the pitching isn't ideal even at this point. Why do you think, after all the effort they have gone through to acquire starting pitching, that the Twins would give up Correia before the season starts? I get that as fans we would like that but from the Twins perspective, and their actions, it seems to make little sense.

There are a lot of interesting starting pitchers in the Twins low minors. Felix Jorge Yorman Landa Randy Rosario Hein Robb Josh Burris Kuo Hua Lo Ryan Eades Luke Bard Kohl Stewart Stephen Gonsalves Any relievers they want to stretch out to try starting (Slegers, Bixler?) At some point it just becomes a numbers game. There is also a question of how many innings they want him to pitch this season. Starting in EST might be the best option then send him to CR if there is room and he is ready or he could head to Elizabethton when they open their season.

This late in the process there is a chance. Decent FA SP's are a rare commodity at this point so the Braves might have look at a trade. That said, I can't envision the Twins FO trading him. They have gone to such great lengths to bring in pitchers this off season it seems unlikely they'd let one go at this point.

Thanks for posting. I like that he is engaging with his fans and, at least in that video, well spoken.

One thing I'm really excited to learn with the new defensive analysis tools coming out (hopefully publicly) is just how much OF arm strength matters.

Damn, I seem to have missed the fun! My schizophrenic side needs to let it out: Personality A: "What a good bargain." Personality B: "But 52%" Personality A: "Pfft, future flexibility." Personality B: "Millions of dollars available, Billionaires." Personality A: "Not your company." Personality C: *facepalm* "Again?" "Mods!!!" Great, now I have a Mexican Standoff in my head and I'm afraid I'm going to lose.

I think your "blocking" argument has some legs. Obviously it is subjective so people will fall on both sides. I was just responding to the idea that money should be any part of this conversation. If this was 1999, you have some points. But it's not and the Twins are awash with unspent cash.