Oxtung

Oh I agree Santana was a better pitcher and would have been a good comp but for a couple things. First he pitched at a time when a good offense, and therefore a good slugger like Bonds, was more important to a team than an ace. That isn't true today because people aren't getting on base at as high a clip a sluggers HRs aren't as valuable as they were even 5 years ago. If you want to be a World Series contender the first thing you need to start with is a rotation and that is lead by an ace. Second, as you mentioned earlier, the twins didn't do a particularly good job with that trade. That is why I think it isn't relevant. He was certainly good enough. If , despite that, the consensus is that people think the Johan comp is valid then we should determine comparable a from the Twins farm system currently. I'm at work and can't look right now but if anyone wants to take a shot at the Johan trade or the shields trade ill look when I get home tonight.

Certainly Kill has been billed as a program builder and a man that "coaches players up" but year 3 is where he has made the big jump at SIU and NIU. It certainly isn't going to happen here in year 3. Another problem, for me, is when I look at his roster I can't point to players and say, man this kid is going to be a beast in a couple of years! Vereen and Wells both seem to have taken steps backwards this season. The DE's are no where to be found. Hageman is a senior (and hasn't played as well as I'd expected), the WR are a mess, though Wolitarsky has looked ok the last 2 weeks. Maxx-Williams certainly looks good, Rodrick Williams has been hot/cold, and it is still too early to say much about Leidner. He appears to be a more elusive runner than he should be. Can't say much about how he will throw the football at this point. The offensive line is always tough to evaluate individually but as a group they have been hit and miss as well. Perhaps more will emerge at some point but right now that isn't a very encouraging list. BTW, X's and O's can certainly win football games. If they didn't there wouldn't be a slew of different offensive and defensive schemes all trying to find some niche/advantage. If you need a specific example, Mason's offense (too bad his defense was bad usually) and Urban Meyer at Utah.

I'm don't think I agree with you on Price vs. Greinke. Greinke certainly had that phenomenal season and it was better than anything Price has put up. However, when comparing their statistics, up to this season for Price and to the point Greinke was traded, Price is equal or better across the board. Price had a very good year this season. He was bad to start with then sat out a couple games, presumably an injury, then was phenomenal over his last 18 starts. Greinke on the other hand was the definition of average (ERA+ 100) the season before he was traded and there was nothing to point to where a GM could say, "oh clearly there was something wrong, it got fixed, and Price is now back to his ace-like ways." Another way to look at it, though I'm not sure how much weight it should carry, is that Greinke had that phenomenal year but other than that one year he didn't even receive votes for any other major award. Price on the other hand is a 3 time All-Star (Greinke 1), won the Cy Young award (like Greinke) and finished runner up a second time (unlike Greinke). Anyways, moving on because we've likely hashed that to death, I'm not sure you're correct about the difference between Sano and, let's say, Addison Russell who will likely end up around 12 when the rankings come out. Sano certainly has his share of pluses but he has holes in his game just like almost every other prospect. There are plenty of top #5 "can't miss" prospects that do in fact miss. I would agree with your statement about a clear cut #1 prospect like Buxton, Trout or Mauer who appear to have no real holes in their game but that isn't Sano. Still, in trying to reach a consensus, what do you think a comparable set of current Twins prospects are to those in the Greinke trade? I'm trying to come up with a set for the Greinke and Sheilds trade so that we can have a better idea of what it might actually cost the Twins if they were to trade for Price.

Odorizzi was a part of that Greinke trade too and had a very nice 2010 season just before the trade. Pre-2011 he was ranked #69 by BA. So they basically gave up one very highly rated player (Escobar) and a second top-100 prospect plus 2 sweeteners. David Price is a better pitcher than Greinke was though and he doesn't have the mental questions (rightly or wrongly applied to Greinke). I think the Santana trade was too long ago to draw many conclusions from as well. The way star pitchers (and pitchers in general) are valued has changed, IMO. Perhaps a Sano, Rosario, May, Hicks package as a comp for the Greinke haul? If you don't like Hicks maybe Danny Santana? Sano is probably a little more highly regarded than Escobar was, Rosario and Odorizzi are close to a wash, May and Jeffress seem in the ball park, and Hicks/Santana are close to ready but question marks surround both like Lorenzo Cain. I think Price is a better pitcher than Greinke though, with less questions too, so perhaps upgrade May to Berrios? Or perhaps Sano's value is enough to carry the difference between Price and Greinke. Thoughts?

Not nessecarily that much interest. I was merely speculating. Though, aces are hard to come by and if you're in "win now" mode there really are only two ways to acquire one. Sign one in FA, which there aren't any this off season, or trade for one. Other potential trade targets include Cliff Lee, though he is 35 and is owed $25MM in both '14 and '15 with an achievable vesting option of $27.5MM in 2016 when he'll be 37, perhaps CC Sabathia if you think he'll bounce back and the Yankees want to get out from underneath his contract and your team can afford it, 38 year old RA Dickey if you think he'll bounce back to his 2012 form (he's signed through 2015 as well at which point he'll be 40 years old, he's cheap though), Matt Cain if the Giants are looking to rebuild and you think he'll return to pre-2013 form, and lastly perhaps Lester or Lackey from Boston if they believe one of their young arms is ready to step up and replace them (though that seems unlikely to me, also I'm not sure they qualify as "aces"). As you can see the market is quite slim and each one has big question marks. Price, by far is the best available (assuming the Rays want to move him). The Rangers, IMO, are the only team likely to make a deal for Price this off season. They have the prospects and the need.

2) I'm not sure what Montgomery's 2013 stats have to do with his value during the 2012 off season. He certainly had a tough year before he was traded but he was considered a top prospect, #23 by BA and #31 by mlb.com, going into the 2012 season. So while he had a tough year he still had value. Clearly the Rays were hoping for a bounce back year, just like the Twins were with Trevor May. Odorizzi was not considered a #5 type starter at the time of the trade (I haven't been following him closely but I doubt he is considered that now even.) He averaged 9 k/9 for his minor league career including at AAA. He was a dominant pitcher at almost every step along the way. I would guess he was considered a potential #2 starter but likely #3. For reference at the time of the trade Odorizzi was ranked #92 by BA (down from 68 the year before) and #45 by mlb.com. 3) Rosario will end up somewhere between 40 and 70 probably. Depends on how people view his second half. Berrios however will not be in any top 100's (just like he wasn't last season) because he hit a wall in the second half. He has talent but he has yet to put together a full season justifying a high ranking. Kepler is a rule 5 eligible OF/1B with big questions and has only played half a season at low A ball. He most definitely is a sweetner. He has a chance to be a MLB player some day if he can put things together but he isn't what this trade hinges on, not when you're talking about the best prospect and a top 10 pitcher in baseball headling the trade. Harrison is not even at Kepler's level. Again, I'm not saying these guys don't have a chance to play at the major league level, but at this point they aren't what this trade hinges on. They are just two of a potential ten-ish guys that could be used to even the deal out to both sides satisfaction. 4) I'm not arguing if Perkins is better than Rodney, although Rodney's 2012 season is one of the two greatest seasons for a reliever ever, only rivaled by Eckersley's 1990 season, I'm saying that the Rays don't highly value the closer position. Here is a list of their closers for the last 8 years: 36yo Al Reyes who was coming off of TJ surgery, 38 & 39yo Troy Percival, 30yo Rafael Soriano whom they traded a bag of beans for, 35yo Kyle Farnsworth, 35 & 36yo Fernando Rodney who hadn't had an ERA below 4.20 in five seasons before signing with the Rays. Other than Soriano each of those players are old guys past their prime that hadn't been "closers" for at least a year (and in a couple cases had never been) before they signed cheaply with the Rays. The Rays have an uncanny ability to take an old has been and squeeze 1 or 2 good years of closing duty out at a cheap price. 5) You could end up being right about how teams view David Price's value. We won't know until a trade actually happens. Garza is a pretty poor comp though, so don't put any stock into his trade return (although you're underrating the return here, especially Olt who had vision problems this season but was a top 25 prospect to begin the season). Again, you're overrating the Twins prospects here, this time by quite a bit. The Rays don't value closers as I showed above so Perkins won't move the needle like you think, Berrios is a 100-200 prospect (where he sits depends on how you view his second half difficulties), and Kepler is no where near the top 100 after this season. In the end you're left with a closer they don't want, a second baseman that is a poor defender (good bat though will make up for it hopefully), a potential middle to back of the rotation starting pitcher at low a-ball and a lottery ticket that has all kinds of questions that I mentioned earlier. I just don't see that package getting it done.

Perhaps. Do you know of any other recent comps for this potential David Price trade and sign? Sanchez last year, but he was a trade deadline move and doesn't comp particularly well.

1) you're absolutely correct. I saw that last night and wanted to see who would catch it. As for the rest I'm at work so can't write much now but will try to get back to it later. I'll just say that you're overvaluing the Twins prospects a bit and undervaluing other teams.

I did a little bit of digging. Cleveland could offer a comparable package fronted by either or both of Lindor and Kipnis plus Trevor Bauer and sweetners. The Red Sox certainly have the talent in their minor league system to match our offer. Some combination of Bogaerts, Jackie Bradley, Webster, Owens, Barnes plus sweeteners. I don't think they will though because they look pretty set at pitcher for the foreseeable future. The Mariners probably could put a package together between Zunino, Walker, Paxton, Hultzen, Montero and Franklin. Again though I don't think they would because they have quite a few pitching prospects lined up to go with Hernandez and Iwakuma. The Rangers are intriguing though. They have Darvish and Holland and ... ? They could build a package fronted by Profar and some combination of Sardinas, Odor, Alfaro and Gallo plus sweetners. The Cubs absolutely could, they are stocked with young talent, and they are in need of pitching. My question is if the timing is right for them to make this move (just like the Twins). The Reds might be able to depending on how you view Billy Hamilton but I don't think they would. They have quite a bit of pitching talent at the major league level right now. The Pirates could muster up the prospects but it seems unlikely they'd be able to afford Price any more than the Rays can. The Cardinals could probably make a similar offer with Taveras and Wong but they too have quite a few nice young pitching prospects so they won't be interested. The Dodgers are interesting. They don't necessarily need Price but they are definitely in win now mode, so if they wanted an absolutely dominant rotation he would be interesting. They don't have any top end talent but they do have quite a bit of middle end talent they could perhaps package four 50-100 type prospects together. So the Rangers, Dodgers, Cleveland and Cubs in that order of likelihood IMO. Toss the Twins in where you feel appropriate.

Hunter was 26 and signed for $32MM over 4 seasons. Joe Mauer was 23 when he signed a 4 year $33MM contract. Santana was 25 when he signed a 4 year $40MM contract. Brad Radke was 28 when he signed a 4 year $36MM contract. Each of those players had come up through the Twins system and were fan favorites. The medical history was known. The players attitude was known. How they fit in the locker room, how they handled the press. Other than Radke they all signed contracts that ran only through their "prime" years. Each contract was only 4 years and $10MM/yr or less. On the other hand David Price will be 28 or 29 and will receive a 6 or 7 year contract for $170MM-$200MM. He will be 35 or 36 when his contract expires. His peripherals (makeup, attitude, etc...) will all be relatively unknown at the time the trade happens. He is also going to cost the Twins 3 or 4 very significant prospects. Oh yeah, and he might decide he wants to test out free agency anyways. Ryan has never brokered any deal even remotely similar to this and all of his quotes in the paper indicate he despises these kinds of deals. Sano, Rosario, May and Kepler/Harrison isn't even what the Rays got in return for Shields. They got a pitcher instead of Rosario and $8MM in salary relief. Take that plus the fact that Price is younger and a better pitcher and I think it would cost the Twins more. Sano/Buxton, Meyer/Stewart (depending on when the deal is made), May/Berrios, plus one or two sweetners like Kepler and Harrison. So no, I wouldn't do that deal. I might do the Sano, Rosario, May and Kepler deal. I think Sano's K-rate is going to hurt him, not that he won't turn into a fine player but I don't think he's the second coming of Cabrera or even Beltre, and I think May ends up as a backend starter or in the bullpen. Frankly, if the Twins wanted a front of the rotation starter, the solution was to throw big money at Greinke or Sanchez last off season. That way they didn't have to give up any prospects. I think this is all a mirage though because I don't think Ryan will have the courage to sign Price to a long term big money contract and he isn't going to make the deal for just the two years remaining on Price's contract with where the Twins currently are at.

Whoa...who is that?

First, Price is younger, has 3 years of control not 2, a better pitcher than James Shields and as such will cost more. Second, Davis was a salary dump. You also forgot to include Odorizzi, a top 100 pitcher and Mike Montgomery who was a top 50 prospect in 2011. So in essence the Rays got $8MM in salary relief, top 5 and 100 prospects, and a potential bounce back flier with very high upside. That is considerably more that "just Myers." Third, the Rays don't value closers. They prefer to sign old veterans on the cheap so Perkins isn't the chip you are implying. So, you're offering Perkins, a player they don't value, Rosario (top 100 prospect), Berrios (top 150), and 2 fliers. There is just no way they take that for one of the best pitchers in the game and in his prime. If you're looking to build a package for Price you have to start with Sano or Buxton. Then include another top 100 prospect (Rosario or Meyer) and either Berrios or Trevor May. Toss in some fliers like Harrison or Kepler to make the deal even out. That is essentially what Shields cost so the Rays might want more. That is too much since we aren't currently competitive, don't know that Ryan would do what it would take to sign Price long term and we aren't sure that Price would be interested in signing for a team that is likely to be bad during the negotiations, IMO.

I don't think we could possibly know this. In fact I think the evidence suggests that Ryan wanted a player(s) that was MLB ready. There is even a quote from Gardenhire somewhere about it. When you start looking for MLB ready players their talent level drops quickly versus an A-ball level player.

Meyer and Gibson have never pitched out of the pen before (except for Gibson during his rehab) and are expected to be starters for the team in the future. The rotation is going to have some pretty bad pitchers in it. If Meyer and Gibson are good enough to pitch at the major league level (regardless if it's out of ST or at some point during the season) why would you put them in the bullpen? How is that "natural"? The Twins did that with a few pitchers during the 2000's but they were also in a pennant race and already had 5 pitchers they thought would be good starters.

Not to take away from your larger point that the Twins can change, but other than Pelfrey who have the Twins signed or drafted that throws a split finger?

Their debt was 17% of their value ($578MM) which, at a glance, appears to on the lower end of the spectrum. A couple teams are >50%

You seem to be making a rather general point that has no foundation in the real world and that nobody is arguing against. Of course the Twins can't have salaries that average close to the Yankees. Of course the Twins can't go out and sign big contracts in perpetuity. Of course the market price of the top salaries is going to be driven by what the big spenders are willing to pay. But none of that has any bearing on whether or not the Twins can, should or will sign a big free agent this off season. In reality the Twins have a lot of money available this off season. That money is not "ear-marked" for anything until perhaps 2018-2020 when significant arbitration increases or long term contracts are going to be signed. That also happens to be the time at which Mauer's $23MM comes off the books. So, there is a bunch of money available for the forseeable future. What should the Twins do with it? That is the question, IMO.

No, I'm not willing to put that much time and effort into it. I do know the Cubs are going to have a ton of money available this off season. The Yankees, if they truly want to get under the luxury cap, will have quite a bit of money (~$70MM) but they also have to replace/re-sign 6 starting position players, 3 starting pitchers and Mariano Rivera. Assuming they approach the luxury cap, the Red Sox will have ~$50MM to spend but they also have to replace 4-5 starting position players. The White Sox could have a lot to spend but like the Twins it is doubtful they will invest heavily during their rebuild. Who knows about the Dodgers? The Giants could spend $40-50MM but they have to replace 3 starting pitchers in Lincecum, Zito and Vogelsong and they have to replace Hunter Pence in RF. With that many pieces to find and coming off a 76-86 season are they going to dive in to FA heavy? Now all of those above numbers have a few caveats. I only included guaranteed dollars and 2/3 of their arbitration eligible dollars, assuming some will get non-tendered, as their "committed payroll". I also only listed starting pitchers and position players above so each of those teams probably have to also replace some bullpen pieces and backups. Then they also have to fill out the remainder of their roster with pre-arbitration players from within their organization. So, for instance the Giants might have $50MM but they ultimately have to fill the 4 starting spots listed above, a relief pitcher, a swing man, a backup OF and 6-10 spots with pre-arbitration players (depending on how they fill the previously listed positions). I only listed the starting pitchers and position players above because presumably that is where they will spend most of their money in FA. Just remember that a chunk of their available money has to go to fill out their roster after their big signings. So in the end the Giants probably only have $30-40MM to spend on their 4 starters.

That doesn't seem to be true anymore Seth. Here is a list of the contracts signed by #1, #2 and #3 starters this last offseason. [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] Player $MM/yr years total $ #1 starters1 ~25 5-7 140-175 Wainwright2 20 5 100 Anibal Sanchez 17 5 85 CJ Wilson3 15.5 5 77.5 Edwin Jackson 13 4 52 Matt Harrison 11 5 55 [/TABLE] 1This includes Verlander, Hernandez, Hamels and Greinke. 2He was a #1 previously but sat out 2011 with an injury and had a "disappointing" 2012 before signing. 3Signed in spring 2012. Salaries went up again during '12-'13 offseason. As we can see, clear cut #1's received about $25MM per year for 5-7 years. Sanchez, Wilson (with inflation) and Wainwright got paid for about #2 starter prices, $17-$20MM per year for 5 seasons. Jackson and Harrison got paid #3 starter rates. Assuming salaries inflate again this offseason, which seems likely given the extra money being given out by MLB, a #2 starter will probably make ~$100MM over a 5 year contract. That seems to be right in line with what is being discussed here for Tanaka. Now, you could potentially sign two #3 starters this off season for a similar amount of money. Of course the advantage that Tanaka brings is that he will only count for maybe $10MM/year towards the yearly salary with the balance going towards his one time posting fee. In essence he will be getting paid like a #3/#4 starter.

They wouldn't. Look at the package Shields commanded. However, even if they did, why would Price agree to an extension with the Twins? Why wouldn't he just wait it out the two years until free agency arrived? On a related topic, do we know that Ryan would be comfortable committing the dollars and years that would be necessary to locking up a player like Price? He was either unable or unwilling to shell out for Hunter, Santana, Mauer and Morneau. Those were "home grown" players too. It's not at all clear to me that Ryan would be comfortable enough to even make a prospect for superstar trade that would then require a significant financial commitment to keep said star.

What does "incremental revenue", as you put it, have to do with anything? It isn't how much more money the top 10 teams generate above the Twins. That is ~$2.6 billion per season. It isn't how much more those teams actually spent on payroll in 2013. That would be ~$1.4 billion. It certainly doesn't represent how much more money those teams have to spend during the 2014 free agency period above and beyond the Twins. That last number seems to be what you're aiming for but missing. That number is much much smaller than what you're suggesting. Take for instance the Phillies. According to Forbes they generated $279MM in revenue. That is $65MM more than the Twins did. They spent $140MM on payroll in 2013. They have $120MM in guaranteed contracts on the books for 2014 plus roughly $20MM in arbitration increases. Now some of those players might be non-tendered but that still only leaves perhaps $10MM in payroll flexibility for free agents in 2014. The Twins on the other hand brought in $214MM in revenue. They claim they are willing to spend 52% of that on player salaries, or ~$111MM. Their guaranteed commitments for 2014 amount to $46MM with another $8MM tied into arbitration increases. That means the Twins have $57MM to spend on free agents for 2014. So, while the Phillies looked like they could spend $65MM more than the Twins, in reality they Twins can spend ~$47MM more than the Phillies this offseason on free agents (barring trades of course). Many teams have these large payroll commitments that limit their FA spending. When it is all said and done the Twins should have more to spend on FA's than probably 2 or 3 teams. Now, I doubt they will, but they could.

Why would you (or the Twins) put Gibson or Meyer in the bullpen? That seems very unlikely given the current state of the rotation. If they are good enough to pitch at the major league level out of ST they'll find their home in the rotation.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your link shows the Twins had a revenue of $214MM. The Yankees and Red Sox obviously had significantly greater revenue but they also have significantly greater payroll commitments for next season as well. On top of that the Yankees are trying to get under the luxury tax. After that the Phillies, Giants and Cubs had $48MM-$65MM more in revenue than the Twins. Again, both the Giants and Phillies have some significant payroll obligations in 2014. The Cubs do have significant payroll flexibility. Other than those 5 teams everybody else is within a stones throw of the Twins when it comes to revenue. IMO the Twins should be able to spend as much as anyone outside of 2 or 3 teams this off season. The idea that the Twins can't sign good players because we're at some serious $$$ disadvantage is unfounded.

He might have been talking about Randy Rosario who pitched very well for Elizabethton this season. Though if he was then he probably should also have tossed Yorman Landa and Felix Jorge onto his list as well. Perhaps Lewis Thorpe too. Gonsalves was not going to be a top 100 prospect because he wasn't a 1st round draft pick. It is still entirely possible he could end up there in future seasons.

You and I went round and round last offseason about Worley's weight comments. I have no desire to rehash that argument but want to reiterate that I still disagree with your interpretation. As for his arm and level of production going forward, I guess we'll have to wait and see. I won't rip you for your opinion. It has as much validity as my own. I sure hope I'm correct though!