PseudoSABR

Darren Wolfson, on his podcast, asserted that Rob Antony will not get the job (right around 2:30 mark); in the same podcast he presented an interview Antony (this might be the same TV interview). He also said the Cherington is very, very much in the mix...

But I'm the prettiest. And clearly, I won't be going with you. Pfft.

I wouldn't frame Paul Molitor quite that way. He's not Joe Vavra. I specifically mentioned loyalty as problem, but the hiring of the next coach is far more complex than that.

Who knows what you inferred. Do you think it's problem of poor decision making or an organizational flaw? And what is that flaw, do you think it's risk aversion (as I said) or do you think it's problem with scouting. And if it's poor decision making was it TR's alone or others too? And how does an organization safe guard against that? Just stop acting like there is no nuance to the job the next GM inherits. The actual, systemic issues are NOT obvious; they are embedded and take effort to root out.

MAKE SURE TO CHECK HIS MEMBERSHIP CARD. Come on. That doesn't give much if any guidance, beyond devaluing loyalty.

Yup, I didn't just identify the problem, I attempted to assess why those problems occur. There's a meaningful difference between the two lists, as I've explained. Signing mid-rotation starters to long term contracts did happen three times in two years, but the systemic problem is that which underlies such decisions, which far harder to root out and assess than merely point them out...

I'll also add that I think hiring a Consulting Firm might do more than simply help in getting the next GM. I hope, and I imagine, that there's an internal audit, where they are doing gap-assessment analysis (i.e. figuring out organizationally where the gaps are in what they should be doing/what their competitors are doing). It's easy identify the problem, it's far more complicated to assess why that problem occurred...was it the result of organizational and procedural flaws, or was it the result of poor decision-making, and what kinds of protocol can be put in place to safeguard such risk to poor decision-making...

Is that even the GMs call? And I was taking the list as a whole; simply telling the next GM to fire the coach without adding what you hope to accomplish other than devaluing loyalty isn't useful at all. FIRE THE BAD PEOPLE! is no advice at all.

You don't understand the difference between anecdotal and systemic problems? He wasn't looking for examples--WE ALL KNOW THE EXAMPLES. He's looking for specific suggestions about changes in approaches, operations, and philosophy. Suggesting that we do what the Giants/Cards are doing is like saying; JUST GET BETTER. Suggesting that they shouldn't sign number 5 starters long term is like saying: JUST DON'T BE STUPID. The point is to offer forward-looking advice, not hind-sight criticism. I'll offer a few. * The organization was too risk-adverse. We needed to take more risks on bigger contracts, even if they didn't pan out, rather than playing it safe with mid-rotation starters (who may only hurt slightly less if they don't work out). * Cut bait, loyalty only goes so far. This is why trading Meyers perhaps shows a change in philosophy. * Sell high on players on short term contracts. This is why trading Nunez can be seen as an asset. * Bring in outside organizational people, no matter who is the GM. * Figure out what happened at Spring Training this year, where the team wasn't ready to play. If that means gutting the minor league coaches, and some major league one's so be it. (And just to be clear, I'm a proponent of hiring someone from outside; but I'm not going to ignore what Anthony has done that's different from TR has done.)

These are mostly criticism of TR, and anecdotal rather than systemic problems that can be said to be the result of organizational flaws. I certainly hope Jack doesn't respond to something so heavy-handed.

Do we really need to do the whole Arcia-watch thing again? Ugh.

This isn't totally unreasonable, but Nolasco isn't just bad for his contract, he's just plain bad. Arguably he has negative value. There's a few too many ifs for me in your last full paragraph (on Meyer): we can't really set Busenitz aside as he arguably has the same value as Meyer's, though with a lower ceiling; nor can we assume that Meyer's health will turn out to be clean. I mean, if we don't consider the other prospect in the trade, and assume the prospect we traded away was healthy, there might be five million in value that the Twins gave up. It seems like you're playing out best-case scenarios for the Angels/worst-case for the Twins; conversely, I think the best-case-scenario for the Twins/worst-case scenario for the Angels is simply far more likely to occur.

Well, right. Santiago has been (a lot) more valuable than Nolasco over that trend, no? Putting the Angels aside, do you think other teams really think Santiago and Nolasco+4mil have similar values? I just don't, at all. Santiago is a legitimate back of the rotation piece, Nolasco is the worst qualifying pitcher in the league over the past several years (I recall reading that somewhere) or short of that below replacement level.

If the trend lines continue, Santiago will fetch far more than Nolasco. I just don't think there's a lot of controversy in that assertion, and obviously its contingent on Santiago far-out performing his peripherals and Nolasco far under performing them. I still can't believe Nolasco was traded at all; I think you're obscuring just how much of negative-value asset Nolasco really has been, regardless of how mediocre Santiago is or ends up being. Let me put it this way, the deal at best, and in my opinion, was a coup, at worst, its a net-win. I get that you wouldn't put it that way, but the basis for that seems semantical rather than factual. My using net-win in my previous post is to demonstrate that we're really on the same page, and it's not worth parsing out why we necessarily shouldn't be that optimistic. I apologize for the mocking tone, it's a defense against what seemed like fastidious and pernickety argument, which--not trying to lump you in--occurs often around here.

The Twins deserve credit for putting themselves in a better situation; whether Santiago will clearly get more value than Nolasco+4million isn't the point, it's that the Twins have the options of 1) moving on from Santiago (say if they value him as lowly as Nolasco or he implodes) by non-tendering him, 2) getting Santiago's production over Nolasco in 2017, which at this point is likely to be (much) better, and letting him walk without any vesting-player options to worry about, or 3) trade him over the winter or during next season at values equal to Santiago's production. That's flexibility and it's worth a lot given how little you had in Nolasco. Similar situation with Busenitz in that they can choose to add him to the 40-man or risk exposing him during the Rule 5 draft as opposed to the inflexibility offered by Meyer in that he's already on the 40-man and he's out of options next year. Of course, no one is advocating a binary-or-death analysis here. But there's nuance and then there's cynically construing the facts. We can hypothesize how this trade ends up a loss for the Twins in the future, but given the current value of the players involved and the added flexibility the Twins get, is it really worth rebutting that this is a net-win for the Twins? It seems a bit belabored to point out that Santiago isn't guaranteed to fetch better value in the future (no one debates this lack of guarantee) or that we only gain one 40-man spot in added flexibility.

That the Angel's believed he had value or was worth Santiago (and acquiring Nolasco) doesn't really mean he generally had much value, right? Shoulder injuries, age, and lack of recent, sustained success point towards nominal value. In any case, according to one writer at Fangraphs Meyer has as much future value as Busenitz. And are you really suggesting that the Twins could get more for Nolasco than Santiago at next year's deadline? Really? That's what you're going with? You could have just said this instead of picking nits.

No offense, but there seems to be a bit of confirmation bias going on throughout your post. You start with the assumption that the Twins are trading with the purpose of being competitive next year, and your analysis and conclusions lean heavily in that favor without really considering the evidence that points to the contrary view. Mejia, Light, and Busenitz are all under team control for six years; that they might be useful in 2017 isn't indicative of the view that the Twins are hellbent on competing next year; rather it's an indication that there's less variance in such players as they are closer to the majors. Low A guys are more sexy I suppose, but AAA/AA prospects have far better opportunity to contribute in the near and LONG term future. Turning two relatively no-value-or-NEGATIVE-value assets into Santiago (and Besenitz) is a coup. Santiago is an asset, Nolasco was not. Santiago at worse can be non-tendered this year. If he produces next year and the team struggles, he can be traded as a rental at the deadline, likely to fetch far more value than Nolasco would in his place. And whether we want to acknowledge it or not, we still need starting pitchers to bridge the gap to the talent that has only briefly appeared in AA. There's simply nothing short sighted about flipping Nolasco for Santiago, because you flipped a negative-asset for a potentially low-risk positive asset. The sad truth of this deadline is that the Twins really didn't have that many valuable assets to trade, if you were expecting better deals than the one's we got, I think you overvalued Nunez, Nolasco, Meyer, and Abad. I agree, I was also disappointed to see Suzuki not get traded, but I don't agree on Santana.

Lucroy is holding up the catching market; Norris hasn't gone any where (right?); McCann is said to be available as well. If Suzuki doesn't get traded it's probably because other teams are engaged with other options, not because of Twins FO ineptitude. That said, Suzuki could probably be traded in August either to the claiming team or if he passes all the way through. Still it will be disappointing not to finally trade Suzuki, now that he has some kind of value...

Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeyman 19s19 seconds ago Jersey City, NJ jays have been trying to land ervin santana. twins like him very much, tho. may keep.

I think that's a fake-Olney account (according to the replies). Incarcerated Bob has it though...(for what ever he is worth): Incarcerated Bob IBN ‏@incarceratedbob 6m6 minutes ago **BREAKING MLB NEWS** Blue Jays on verge of getting some SP help Ervin Santana from Twins

Lucroy wanted to nix the option for next year, which of course the Indians would not do, as part of the price they paid is that option. Odd turn of events.

I'm increasingly resigning myself to the fact that nothing much will happen at the deadline. The Twins should be sellers. However, the actual tradeable assets/players suffer in value due to the length of their contracts, their potential value to the Twins next year (or the following years), and their third-tier status on the market (or worse). You figure Suzuki, Nunez, Kintzler, and Abad all are at their premium value or on expiring/near-expiring contracts. If they do get traded, I think it will be near the deadline deals. (I hope some team panics and overpays for Santana...) If we're lucky we may get some August deals for lottery tickets and AAAA filler.

Is being embarrassed for a poster/administrator/content-provider the new formulation of an (unwarranted) personal attack that floats under the TOS? I don't mean to run-around the mods. But that's the second time that formulation emerged. We can disagree without....this.

I wonder if the Twins HOF induction had more to do with the timing than the trade deadline. If Pohlad had made the decision to fire TR sometime prior to yesterday, he may have been advised to wait until after the Twins HOF induction ceremony, as to avoid the inevitable distraction, gloomy cloud it would have cast over the ceremony had TR been fired not long beforehand.

I wonder if a GM search has been going on for some time, and as the process necessarily needs to go through more public avenues, the time to dismiss TR was now. If that's the case, perhaps we could see a new GM sooner rather than later; certainly an incoming GM would rather have control of the organization prior to the trade deadline. In any case, really glad to see the Twins made this move sooner rather than later; I was worried they would be too gun shy to pull the trigger at all. This also probably suggests that Molitor might not be safe, as the new GM I bet will want the authority to make the final decision on a manager.