TheLeviathan

Pitching WAR and hitting WAR are composed of entirely different measures of performance. If you want to use WAR in this case, the only way you should do that is by saying something to the effect of "Kepler is much better by WAR relative to other rookie hitters compared to how much better Fulmer is by WAR relative to other pitchers" Otherwise you completely derailed in your use of the stat. And most of you are completely misusing it because you're comparing something barely better than saying 3.23 ERA < .350 OBP. Barely.

I could seriously care less about using WAR to judge pitcher vs. hitter. That to me, again, is misusing the statistic.

Yeah, I don't know how anyone can argue anything other than Fulmer right now. Kepler might be the best rookie hitter though.

I don't mind Sano playing third either, but the point is - you can better utilize your talents if a guy whose only skill appears to be taking walks isn't playing 1B for you.

Absolutely, I wanted us to spend money. I've also never been shy to share what I would do, sometimes it's been horribly wrong. Last offseason I was pretty much batting 1.000, but that's rare. Either way, I'm not paid to get these decisions right. Ryan is. And he's been getting them wrong for awhile now. You, under the guise of optimism, were setting unfair expectations for our prospects. You can search my posts, you'll never find me advocating rushing prospects or predicting MVP awards for second year players, or any of that. I preach patience because that's usually most fair. But there need be no Light Side/Dark Side. I'd prefer just being fair - that means when it's time to criticize, you do. When it's time to be reasonable/understanding - you do.

If Sano had been moved to 1B we may be watching Polanco play third or short. His OBP is nice, but not nice enough for a 1B.

No more or less than before is my response to the question. Surprise me again Twins, that's all I can hope for.

Personally, I like Mauer. I just wish he'd retire. (And not because of the money...)

You were among those most vocal about the "next year" stuff for quite some time. At some point, you have to accept how things are likely to play out and this team would have to improve by 10-15 games next year just to be .500, much less a playoff team. This team, at best, should be hoping to go back to being a .500 team on the rise next year. And all those unmovable contracts are Ryan's fault. Would it surprise anyone if he refused to concede that they were mistakes and the team was further away than he thought? It'd match his rhetoric all year long and he's never been one to admit/reverse a mistake until it's well past the point of harming the team. Hopefully we will be dumping some of these guys, this 25 man roster needs serious turnover, regardless of who oversees it happening.

Wow...we're sure the source isn't The Onion right? Wow.

My first thought was "If that's Sano they score a run and have a guy on third". Little things that don't always show up when you just play good defense.

Seller's market, don't let a week of playing the Rangers influence your decisions. Pick up the damn phone and see what's out there Terry!

Count me glad that, in that specific case, we didn't listen to Twins Daily. We need to remember, being a "big" move doesn't mean the same as being a "good" move. Put me in the camp of wanting more smart moves, whatever those may be. Jepsen? Not smart. Tulo? Not smart. "Insert stupid extension given here"? Not smart. We've been way too far on the "not smart" side of things for too long.

Great article Nick. The real problem here is that Ryan bristles at the notion of spending 15M on the open market but he's willing to deal a solid prospect (and money! What did we end up giving Jepsen for 1.5 seasons? 7-8 million? It's not like Jepsen didn't end up costing money too) to get a reliever. Is there anyone here that wouldn't give up 6 million dollars for Hu? No? Because that's exactly what we did, we decided we'd rather give up Hu to save a handful of millions. That's just so fundamentally flawed as a strategy.

It's been fun playing Texas, I'd like to see the positives continue a bit longer before we buy in too much, but it's been a nice small sample. Grossman, Rosario, Buxton, and Kepler is a nice foursome but we really need Buxton to take the next step. Vargas has looked legit since coming back, his approach at the plate has been wonderful to see. He looks like a totally different guy up there. (Other than, along with Sano, looking more like a WWE tag team than baseball players) I'd really like to see Polanco get some playing time the rest of the season. Fit him in somehow.

I think it all boils down to the offers. With or without them going forward isn't that important, shop them and maximize their value. Whatever that is.

We all agree - don't move Dozier and Santana for anything less than good value. The problem is why you make that decision. Max Kepler looking like a stud should have absolutely no bearing on your trade talks about Santana. If you're shopping him, you're doing it to add value to the team in a trade. Ditto Dozier. Whether the Twins go .500 or .300 or .700 the rest of the way shouldn't impact the vision going forward. These guys are good players with the potential to contribute value to this team in a trade. They shouldn't be dealt unless the return matches that. Just letting your W/L record dictate your decisions is a large part of what I think happened last offseason. We have to keep perspective.

Guess it depends if the Twins see Polanco as a SS. It's hard to say with how Nunez has played this year and with Dozier coming back to life. They need to decide on Polanco, trade him, or make a spot for him. Ideally soon.

Here's what doesn't make sense: if you're just going to advocate dealing them in November anyway, the argument "don't write off 2017" doesn't really make sense. If you don't intend to retain them, then the only argument is about trade value not what you expect the season next year to bring. So, yeah, no one is arguing give them away. We all agree to get value, but our plans for 2017 are pretty irrelevant if that's the argument. And yes, things could go crazy and go right, but is that how you'd recommend we operate running the team for sustained success? Reaching for low-odds statistical anomalies as a basis for action? This season woke us up to some serious issues with the 25 and 40 man roster. We're further away than we thought and that's ok. It happens. But it's going to take time for that to get cleaned up. We also have young players we need to ease into the big leagues without expecting them to be MVPs or all-stars. We need next year for them to establish themselves without any other pressure than to refine their game. That isn't "writing off" the season, but we have to keep perspective.

Sorry, but if you're going to call me out for cutting off part of your post, I'm going to call that part of your post what it is. That isn't uncivil, you tried to paint my response unfairly. I took your central theme and argued that, some irrelevant disclaimer doesn't matter to me and shouldn't matter in your response.

Yes, I wrote off your disclaimer because I took the central point you were making "don't write off 2017 contention" and addressed that and not some bogus small print, cover-your-butt junk at the end. Is anyone arguing we give them away like some sort of gift basket? If not, then let's get rid of that. Strawman defeated, moving on. Trading them in the offseason, versus July 31st, doesn't seem any more or less "writing off 2017". They are basically the same act. The only differences I can see are 1) Opening up playing time the rest of 2016 and 2) possible trade market differences, but that, at best, is speculative. If the Twins went .500 the rest of the way they'd match the 2012 Red Sox who went on to have the most historic one year turn around in baseball history in 2013. (69-93 to 97-63) Meaning, you are deciding not to "write off" 2017 for the odds of something happening that is the statistical outlier (by FAR) in MLB history. Yes, we need to write off any serious thoughts of contention in 2017 and right the roster around the kids. We need to make sure they have all the playing time they need to establish themselves and build around that with pieces that will be here for 3-4 years from now or only temporarily as trade fodder. So, no, don't "give away" Santana or Dozier but if you get a competitive offer - take it. Look forward clearly and not with delusion about the shape this roster is in. Some better play in the second half doesn't fix everything, 2017 is still going to be about getting things in the right direction. Not being turned there and ready to go.

This should really change nothing. Those players playing well shouldn't impact our decisions on other guys. If some of these assets - Dozier, Santana, Abad, whomever - are peaking in value now, trade them. Don't give them away, but take value where you can get it. The fact that the core is playing well sets us up eventually, but we're still talking about a team with a lot of holes that would stand to benefit from 2017 being a year guys continue to audition and establish themselves. The kind of thinking you posted is exactly what lead to the first half disaster this year. You're losing the forest for the trees.

Maybe I missed this upthread, apologies if so, but where do you think Blake Swihart's stock is at in Boston? They need pitching and perhaps they've soured on him enough? I know he needs work on his defensive game, but might be an interesting target.

Well, I hope that's a possibility. He's got legit power, it'd be nice if he could be a contributor.

Target a catcher, but I'm with Willihammer - this could be a seller's market, be active. Nothing has to be forced, but all options on the table.