TheLeviathan

At this point, I think I'd be shocked if they dealt anyone. I think we're going to fall right back into Ryan's pattern that he just does not shop players aggressively at the deadline.

You are right that he is very tough on lefties, that's the key. Overall his last five years, especially the last three haven't been good overall. Pretty "meh" which speaks to the need for a better defined role.

Let me just say, Duensing is better but you can't cite "the last five years" as proof if you don't accept the bad with the good either.

Even if he takes his left foot off...the throw is considerably left of the plate...he would have had to step that way anyway

So the catcher shouldve let it go the the backup and risk Arcia advancing to third? That seems really odd.

Kab nailed it. I believe if the Twins had wanted to move Willingham and aggressively shopped ala Span and Revere we could have gotten more than garbage offers. The true simplest explanation is that the TWins never wanted to sell on him last year.

I agree Psuedo...but can you really make that case when the lead police investigator says, on the stand, that he seemed honest and his story was credible with the evidence collected? I guess having watched that cross examination.....I thought the case ended right there for second degree murder.

No, but by that standard I can't explain somewhere around 70% of the trades that happen in MLB. I understand your perspective, I just tend to believe we held too high of value on him. I think he could've fetched a B level spec, but I don't think Ryan would've taken that deal. Obviously, neither of us know for sure, but I'd err on the side of dealing him last year simply so we didn't have him blocking anyone now or next year. As annoying as it's been to see Parms on the bench lately, imagine how we'll feel next year doing the same thing again. It feels like spinning our wheels when we should be moving forward.

I ask because typically when there is a known injury a player is battling, the announcers don't skimp on using it to explain slumps. But I don't recall that happening with Willingham. Plus, out of sight and out of mind, I thought we were talking about separate issues. Still, we've made mistakes like this many times the last few years. Very frustrating.

John, why did it take so long to hear about this? I guess I missed that he's been battling this for two months. I don't want to start a hornets nest, but why wasn't he sat down then to rest?

And yet teams take chances on oft-injured, soon to be free agents like Victorino. Or Dempster. Or any number of other past examples. I never suggested they were offered the moon. I'm suggesting the Twins shouldn't have been holding out for that. IMO, we were offered deals that the vast majority of us would've considered sufficient to move him for EXACTLY the reasons you listed above. I'm suggesting Ryan had an irrationally high bar for sufficiency. You realize that this just isn't true right? I mean, how many hundreds of "valuable" trade packages would you like me to cite. It's not the issue and it's a vast over simplification - which is really what your entire argument is premised on. I'm not being overly simple here, I think it may well be true that we got crap offers. But I know, with about 99.9% certainty, that Willingham's peak trade value was last July. I think, given all the reasons you listed, we were offered a sufficient package to move him. In part because the line of sufficiency shouldn't have been that high (B level prospect IMO) and in part because of Ryan's historic tendencies.

I don't think your conclusion follows because you've cherry picked the information. Occam's Razor only tells us that we weren't offered "enough". The problem is, we don't know what the standard for "enough" was. Here's what we do know: 1. MLBTR is largely reliant upon organizational sources, who aren't going to say "our GM passed on a really good deal!" We know there were multiple teams interested, which generally drives up value. 2. We know that Ryan is a historically reluctant deadline dealer. He prefers the offseason in part because he believes he gets better value. (And he's right most of the time) 3. Willingham's chances of being more valuable as a trade commodity are essentially zero. Where he was at in July of last year was incredible. His final numbers don't even show it because he had a subpar August/Sept (by comparison to the rest of his 2012 season). He was on-fire in the month of July to boot. 4. We know several outfielders moved last year and there was interest in adding power bats. I don't deny that offers on Willingham might have came in low. They might have, there are plenty of good reasons why they would. But point number three is the most salient to me. Regardless of what was offered - it was the best the Twins could have ever hoped to get. His trade value will never be at that point again. Now, as expected, he became a block for playing time for young players and has tailed off in production. In the offseason, loyalties seem to die. If you're asking me to explain Ryan's bizarre penchant to clutch on to players at the deadline like a second grader with his oreos at lunchtime....I can't. I think loyalty, in part, drove the deadline decision. Team's expecting to see the real Willingham in 2013 drove the lack of a trade this offseason. I also think, in part, that they felt they could replace what Span/Revere can do with Hicks. I think they worry that they can't replace what Willingham can do. Which is true, but should be irrelevant during a rebuild.

I don't understand why we automatically assume he wasn't offered much. Our best source for that kind of info is an organization that is loyal to a fault. I fully expect a similar version to pop up about Correia this year. It might be true, but I don't see why that's just blindly accepted.

This. Plus, he was going to have to cutoff Doumit either way to get to the throw which was up the line. Doumit slides and its a non-issue. one of the things I really dislike about most of these unwritten rules is they seem largely like excuses for stupidity or bad fundamentals.

Frankly, I don't think that would be relevant or necessary. As nick pointed out, we know how Carl made his money, this shows the mentality hasn't changed much. (Contraction supports that too) Personally, I think the conversation would happen less if there was less resistance to what seems plainly obvious about our ownership.

Special effects in your average syfy movie > playing the yanks

I'm just going to suggest that a reasonable conclusion like "made a boatload of money earlier" may not apply to players. Do you have an example of restructuring? I can't recall this happening. It certainly doesn't happen with much frequency. As for your last question....no. At least not one that I think would actually happen. Hell, I'd praise Ryan's name and build him an altar if I thought he'd take even a percentage of the unspent payroll the next 3 years and apply it to the future. To me, that's the best situation, but even that just isn't going to happen.

24 hour Honey Boo Boo Marathon > watching the Twins playing the yankees

I would argue we're not talking about "proper accounting standards" but "deliberate manipulation of a bad system for profit" Which, in light of publicly funded stadiums and use of team revenues, I see a connection. But everything else you say is perfectly reasonable.

MLB players have guaranteed contracts unlike NFL players, it's why you don't see restructuring. It's also why they don't hold out, it would shake the apple cart too much when they already have a gigantic advantage in the CBA. Money is always more valuable now - 13M is worth more now than it is in 7 years. Jim's point works both ways. The difference is, I don't think MLB players even entertain the idea. Though I believe, if they were wise, they should.

Ah damn, broke it tonight. Would've liked to see him get to 30, but Kershaw is a tough test.

It's a very clear reflection of how our ownership does business. Cheap. We have some people that will defend that notion pretty staunchly, plus it was the source of quite a bit of conversation on sports radio today for that very reason. Payroll is a reflection of the commitment of ownership to on-field product. So it shouldn't be shocking with evidence like this that the commitment is more to frugality and profit than it is to on-field success.

Let's hope he builds some trade value. Only a few more starts to endure if we're lucky.

I'm sure Pohlad was trying to contract us out of mercy then. I'm sure it had nothing to do with not making enough money. In any case, if you don't like this thread, you aren't being held hostage to reply sir.

My "Pick up Yankees the week before they play the Twins" fantasy strategy = success.