PseudoSABR

So he only started half the games as a supposed bench player? He didn't get an extended look, but he had an opportunity. Arcia might prove to be big league player, but the Twins have lots of poor fielding corner outfielders who might be able to hit. On the dude's third option year, it shouldn't be surprise. There's lots of nails in the FO's coffin, but this probably isn't one of them.

Sad to see Arcia go, b/c his potential was salivating. But I can't blame the Twins plenty of bone-headed plays and missed opportunities lead to this. He could have cemented his job early on this year, but he blew it. Remember how he got hot in April for a week or two; he couldn't sustain it and couldn't adjust. That said, he could still be part of the organization; though I think some other team will take a flyer on him.

Park won't learn to adjust to ML pitching in AAA. He needs exposure at the ML level in this lost season. So do Kepler and Buxton at this point in the season. In the end, Santana's versatility wins the day.

My first thought was: I hope KC panicked and traded for the guy. No offense to Plouffe.

If the shares can't be sold in a secondary market, it's pretty worthless -- the whole thing is a cynical investment, which makes betting on such players, well, prohibitive.

I guess what isn't clear is what you make of that determination - that the Twins are deprioritizing putting Meyer in the best position. (I don't necessarily agree with that determination, as I think it's more complex, even though I do agree it's less than ideal). The implication/inference of that determination would seem to be that the Twins are making a mistake. And for some posters, maybe not you, this mistake is illustrative of a general incompetence by the FO in regard to the development of prospects, and hence the piling on (before Meyer even makes his first ML start, no less).

I'm not sure what you're alleging then. There's awful lot of implication and inference, combined with the disclaimer "well that's not what I'm saying". (For my part, it's pretty clear what's being alleged even if put in negative terms and not overtly suggested). The complexity of the situation, as I think I've indicated, would seem to cut-against making much of the Twins' disparate choices over the span of two years (or two weeks) with regards to Meyer. (Things have probably changed since last season, such as Meyer's actual AAA success as a starter.)

Although Meyer and Kepler lingering on the bench isn't ideal, the harm of a loss of two week's worth of at bats or starts isn't so great, and the benefit of limited MLB exposure (even bearing witness on the bench) may chill the initial anxieties that plague prospects in the early going. My point is that the Twins aren't doing the least they could in regard to development for Meyer. There's a human complexity to actual success at the highest levels that goes beyond the number of at bats and innings pitched -- I think that's something pretty easy to discount when we talk about what's best for a given player. Although, sitting on the bench for two weeks may not have been ideal for Meyer, it may have done him some good in managing his inevitable debut as starter. At the very least, the premise shouldn't be discounted out of hand. The Twins' plans may not have been ideal, but nor have their plans been enacted with total disregard to what best for the player's development either; it's complex, and a balance between what's best for the team and what's best for the player, without disregarding either.

This thread just goes back to the prospect paradox: the team deserves criticism either because: 1) the team is unwilling to promote prospects b/c it is risk adverse and allows useful talent to waste away in the minor leagues, or 2) the team too readily promotes prospects and puts them in the position to fail. We have these same arguments about every prospect when they initially struggle, yet too many fans--rather than accepting that even the best-developed prospects still fail when first exposed--will impugn the intentions and the integrity of the front office. It's a rather insufferable attitude.

I don't know what other point you could be making other than to suggest that Molitor (secretly or strategically) wants Meyer to fail in order to get him in the bullpen and free a spot up for Santana/Gibson. I think that's pretty unreasonable to suggest.

Nice at bat, even though Park did look fooled an a couple swings. He can tag the ball when he makes contact.

That's the best feeling I've had so far this year. Hope there are many moments like this. Congrats, Park.

I don't get the flexibility argument. If we had cut Tonkin and Nolasco we'd have less flexibility by not having them available at all. Sure we could replace them with more flexible options, but the well with which we could draw from would be two-pitchers short. In any case, if veterans prove ineffective the Twins will utilize the DL or even cut bait. IMO, there's more flexibility with Tonkin and Nolasco starting on the roster, then the other way around. (Though the argument of entrenched mediocrity argument does make some sense, there's too many other variables for that really to become a problem. If Nolasco is league average this year, and no other starters get hurt, isn't that a very good problem to have?)

I hate to quibble, but if it has nothing to do with smoking pot, why would you say that the other person lacks integrity? I'm not sure why we need to judge this other person at all, we'll never know what exactly happened, or how much culpability each person acted with. These were high school kids -- that Gonsalves was ever put the in the position of attesting to another adolescent's actions is what gets my goat.

Are we really advocating cutting people out of your life for smoking pot? Gonsalves probably thought about that, and in his estimation, believed his punishment would be less severe than to his friend or more likely refused on principal to speak up. It's for him decide, not you. I seriously doubt Gonsalves is some victim of this crazy pothead highschool athlete imposing his pot-smoking on those around him. I say good on Gonsalves; it shows self-belief and integrity.

Unless those are the players who end up injured. The Twins are in a far better position to deal with injuries than the Whitesox because their success isn't buttressed by star power (outside Sano).

Something that's been overlooked and will play out significantly is the Twins have way better depth both in the rotation and on the field to deal with injury, failure, and regression.

I don't either. But there are passionate people at the fringe of consensus that commit something close to doublespeak in regard to free agent spending and prospect promotion. Not that you or Chief are among those people. But like I suggested in my post, there's refrain of compliant here.

There is a point where the supposed difference-maker is cost prohibitive given his likelihood of difference-making. Are O'Day or Soria difference-makers vis-a-vis their costs? Is a set-up guy really ever a difference-maker? I understand the notion that cost prohibitive shouldn't be in a revenue-making team's vocabulary, but I think the Twins can still get value in regard to the reliever market. The Twins actually do have Perkins and Jepsen; they aren't looking to makeover the bullpen, they need to fill it out (and only *perhaps* until arms in the farm arrive). While the Yankees address the back of their bullpen and ignore everything else, I'm still glad the Twins aren't in the bull's market on relievers. There could be a time where they should be, but given so many unknowns going into the season (with all the hope there is), the Twins should be reserved in spending on what looks like part-time players--that third-best reliever, or that center-fielder who eventually must get displaced by Buxton.

* On the hand you have: "Berrios should start in the rotation, the Twins were foolish to give out long term deals to Hughes, Nolasco and Santana" * On the other hand you have: "The Twins shouldn't let future prospects stop them from signing what could be stop-gap players to long term contracts" * (These are old refrains; substitute positions and players/prospects to fit other past and future scenarios). * I think many of the same people are professing both these contradictory beliefs. I, for one, am glad the Twins aren't interested in handing out long term contracts to relievers (or another OFer for that matter), especially after the market for relievers blew-up this winter.

Kepler? Buxton? The minor league depth has flaws to begin the season for sure. The Twins need to buy themselves a couple months until one or both could be ready. But they shouldn't overpay for it. The outfield defense will go from being a net negative to a net positive with Buxton in center, which is an eventuality. The problem is real on opening day, but ultimately ephemeral.

I know that this post wasn't addressed to me, but I have a different take here. Not only did the Twins not give Sano any games in the OF for last September, they also (supposedly) forbade him from playing the outfield in the Winter League during games, but (supposedly) he practiced the outfield. My reading is that the Twins want to ease Sano into outfield without the risk and the pressure of live-games. There's also been talk (I think from the Twins themselves) of Sano shedding some weight in preparation for Spring Training--after a year of DHing, he might not have been in the best shape to avoid injury given the responsibility of so much ground to cover. On Plouffe, I think the Twins overlooked the guy becoming a plus defender at the hot corner, which has a lot of value, especially with Escobar's limited range (even if he's generally steady).

I just want to make a couple of points. 1) Upside isn't a fixed phenomenon. It is fluid. Hicks' present upside is probably not considered the same as his upside pre-2013; similar point on Bentacourt. Once players became exposed, the rosiness of their supposed upside certainly waned. The reverse point for Murphy, a guy switching position to catcher, who had infrequent playing time at young age - as it became clear that he could be an above average defender and that he wouldn't be a hole with the bat, his upside is probably greater than when he was minor leaguer. 2) Upside is ethereal, while a player's floor is concrete. While betting on a player's floor isn't as sexy as betting on their ceiling; it's certainly risk adverse. Sometimes it's better to have a known quantity, even if a middle of the road option than it is to bet on former prospect's upsides and end up with no value. (In my opinion, the Twins sold high on Hicks' one month of glory. He was unlikely to get much more playing time to further improve (or diminish) his stock.) 3) Making deals early in the offseason always invites a hindsight analysis based on what other teams end up doing. Because we are Twins fans, I think we often refuse to acknowledge just how many other teams fail to address their own needs by waiting the market out. In terms of catchers this offseason, very few options existed right at the outset, and the Yankees catching excess would surely have been sought after if not by us. The Twins could easily be without any young catcher at all. The reality of previous Twins' offseason's would have netted us the likes Tyler Flowers.

The low annual salary makes Park an excellent trade chip in the future (even if Park turns out to be an average player), as the posting fee will have been paid. If it becomes clear that Sano can't play the field, or other prospects emerge, Park's contract won't be a hindrance in any deal.

Aberration is the new mean.