drjim

It will be. Payrolls go down during rebuilds but will go up if some of the prospects reach their potential and need to get paid after they complete their arb years. Twins might not spend a whole lot in free agency but they have proven that they are willing to sign their own players as they approach free agency and this will be especially true with Target Field. One of the reasons the payroll is sluggish right now is that they haven't developed a good player that they needed to extend in several years. Hopefully with this wave coming that will change.

Completely reasonable top ten and none of his rankings had prospects jumping tiers. 1 and 2 are clearly Sano and Buxton. 3-5 could go any order depending on preferences, same with 6-9. Kepler should be 10.

I still think this is final year of rebuild - 2014 is transition year - 2015 is first year of real contention. This is assuming things go pretty well and a high percentage of prospects perform close to expected. If not it could be much longer.

Finessing service time for super 2 is all about money. An extra year of control is a different matter. It will be interesting to see how they handle Gibson. If he is good in spring training no reason not to start in the big league rotation. Worry about shutting him down later if he makes it that far. Pretty sure this won't end up as significant as Stasburg or Medlen. He only has so many innings -in might as well use them in the bigs instead of AAA.

I won't argue with ranks but I have to think the performance was greatly impacted by how historically bad the rotation was. There is some talent at the back end and if the starters can get a couple more outs a start that will limit some of the exposure of the guys in the middle and long relievers. This should lead to better performance overall. The flip side is that if the Twins are truly rebuilding (which they should be) then Perkins and Burton are among their best tfade options at the deadline.

By being unafraid to draft short pitchers in high rounds the Twins once again prove they are at the cutting edge of statistical analysis!

I agree with this other than the fact I wouldn't go over two years on a pitcher this year unless it was a really good value signing - which wasn't happening this offseason. I much preferred McCarthy over Correia for the reasons that you suggested. I had hoped in this rebuilding season they would take a little bit more risk in the pitcher that they acquired for more upside. I was just making general comments about the pitchers that signed one or two year deals - that despite all the whining I don't find Correia all that much (if any) worse than any of the other pitchers that signed deals of that length other than McCarthy, and McCarthy had a much higher injury history/risk. Despite the injury risk I would have rolled with the upside of McCarthy over the guaranteed mediocrity of Correia.

I went May here. He obviously takes a hit from his performance from last year but it was at AA. He had a solid K rate and though his BB rate was way it wasn't crippling. If he tightens up his control a little he could still be a mid-rotation starter and he is relatively close to the bigs. I like Berrios a lot but it was at a low level I have read concerns about his ultimate ceiling. Rosario obviously has the question of whether he can stay at 2B. I would think this year answers that question.

Sure. If that is the best player available. Early lists have 3 of the top 4 prospects as pitchers so right now it looks like a pitcher but obviously a lot can change.

I don't necessarily think Correia or Pelfrey are good but they were signed to be in the starting rotation. The Twins are not going to sign another litcher and bump them to the bullpen (barring injury) for at least a couple of months. That is the reality of the situation. I also am not implying that Hendriks or Dozier are the answer but I would rather see them get the chance then another backend stiff or Kelly Johnson. At least for this season.

I'm never against adding pitching depth but the cost is keeping Hendriks in the minors to begin the season and additionally to burn Gibson's innings in the minors. Over the course of the season it makes sense but does have consequences at the start of the year. I never liked the Correia signing but I would still asserte the difference between him and the other pitchers that signed one and two year deals is pretty minimal - certainly not worth the outrage thag has been spilled on this site. McCarthy is better but is much hiher injury risk. The rest are really meh.

If you voted write in you should probably comment on who it is so they can be included in the next runoff poll.

Is there much more to this thread than a call for the Twins to have signed someone better than Correia and (to a lesser extent) Pelfrey? As of right now the starting rotation has Diamond, Worley and Correia as locks. Pelfrey will also be there if he can answer the bell at the start of the season. It is laughable when people suggest the Twins should sign another starter and push one of these four out of the rotation - it isn't happening. Now, it has been suggested the Twins sign someone like Marcum for the last spot. I could get behind this, but that would pretty much guarantee that Gibson and Hendriks start in the minors. Is this a desirable outcome for a team in the Twins position of rebuilding? Would the Twins be better off filling the spot with someone like Marcum instead of seeing what GIbson or Hendriks have? I'm not sure I agree with that. There is also the slight possibility that Harden and Blackburn make a triumphant returns. There is still depth with the jokers from last year - only they are now the 7-9 starters instead of 2-4 starters. For relievers, it would be silly to sign a guy for more than one year. I still wouldn't be surprised if they add one more arm but they do have a workable back of the bullpen and enough arms to sort through in between that this doesn't strike me as a huge need at the moment. For everyday players the main holes for opening day are middle infield and potentially center field. With the current prospects there is no way the Twins should sign a CF for multiple years. They might sign a one year stopgap or a 4th OF type but that won't be very much money. For middle infielders there just aren't many guys left that would be much an upgrade over the slop the Twins have to offer. I have heard Kelly Johnson, but there are three issues - 1) he's just not that good, 2) it is debatable if he is much of a defensive 2B, and 3) that is where the Twins are planning on starting Dozier. At this point would it make sense to sign Johnson to block Dozier? So by all means spend more money, but there should be a logical plan of who it is spent on and where they fit on the roster both this year and in the future. I don't really see moves that make a ton of sense for the Twins to do. When a team is rebuilding they will fill their roster with younger players that make the minimum and which ultimately lead to a smaller payroll overall. I don't want the Twins to do anything that blocks Hendriks, Dozier, Parmelee, and Plouffe initially, and Hicks, Arcia and Gibson by mid-season. I'm not saying they are the answer, but I would suggest this is the season to find out.

I'm very high on Arcia. I think he is underrated a little bit nationally. I predict he becomes a better Kubel and gets there pretty quickly. I just prefer the entire Hicks package but I certainly would not argue with anyone who prefers the other two here.

I agree that Arica will hit. I see Hicks having baseline skills - speed, defense, plate discipline - that are superior to Arcia while also playing an up the middle position. Arcia would have to really outhit him to be the superior player. And he very easily could.

I disagree completely with this and every baseball team does as well. Even the progressive, stat-heavy organizations invest heavily in scouting. There are things that can be observed that are not captured by this cameras or through statistics. The best use is as a supplement to scouting and to cross-check what has been observed. I think there is room for intuition with scouting and that could very well be the separator. There is great value in experience and seeing things over multiple decades. I would suggest that this is one of the hidden strengths that Terry Ryan brings to the Twins - that he is extremely talented at gathering large amounts of data from scouts and more objective statistical measures and making evaluations on talent, especially on the minor league level.

Does anyone listen to the ESPN Baseball Today Podcast and hear the interview with Keith Law and Nate Silver this week? I thought they made some really interesting points about some of the potential new uses of statistical analysis. Basically Silver suggested using regression analysis to cross check scouts using similar analysis that he used to evaluate polling. Keep a database to find out how scouts consistently rate players (ie are they tough graders or more optimistic) and then use that to better hone in on a true analysis of a player. This is an example of a way that I would like to see the Twins be more progressive with statistical analysis. I still think a lot of the criticism of Twins being behind in using statistical analysis to analyze players is vastly overrated but there are more cutting edge ways to incorporate analysis that is not being used by the Twins (and probably 25 other teams). If I ever find the time I may expand these thoughts on a blog post.

I think a great case can be made for all three but I am going with Hicks. I'll take the plate discipline, speed and potential elite up the middle defense with a still developing stick. I also think Arcia is going to be a really good hitter and Meyer has the potential to be an ace. This is a very solid 3-5.

OK, if you go 3/30 on Marcum and he gets hurt, you don't think $10 mil+ of dead money in '15 could cause a problem? This is of course speculation as we have no idea what kind of contract he is looking for or has been offered or even what his medicals actually look like. I wouldn't have a problem with signing him to this type of deal, but I also don't have a problem with not signing him and seeing what you actually have with Diamond/Worley/Hendriks/Gibson and eventually May/Meyer with the other fillers currently on the roster. I personally don't care what the payroll is I just want the team to be as a good as possible with an appropriate balance of current success and future considerations. I never had big plans for this year so I would be hesitant to take a risk that might allow the team to scratch out a few extra wins this season at the cost of bigger downside in the future. I don't think a guy like Marcum is so great that they need to lock him up this year. There will be a guy or two like him next offseason they can go after if the team is in a better position to contend.

I'm late to this thread, but I have a couple of observations. 1. I thought the Twins handled the pitching about right. Before the season I thought they would sign an established guy, trade for a starter, sign a guy coming off of injury, and take a flyer on a fourth guy, while planning on having Diamond and Hendriks ready to start the season along with Gibson, depending on how they would space his innings. I thought they executed parts 2-4 fine. Worley is a fine trade addition, I preferred Baker but can live with Pelfrey, and thought Harden was a fine flyer (and wouldn't be surprised if there is another minor league signing or two). Like everyone I'm not a fan of the Correia signing, but I didn't want the Twins, in their current situation, going more than 2 years or giving up a draft pick. So, in reality the competition was McCarthy, Blanton, Lannan, Myers, and possibly Saunders or Marcum. I say possibly because we still don't know what those contracts will end up being (I have read they are holding out for 3 years, which I absolutely would not do). McCarthy is clearly better, but I'm indifferent about Correia vs. Blanton/Lannan/Myers. So overall, I can live with how it played out based on contracts and availability. 2. Twins are not small market, but they are not large market. Realistically they fall into the same category as teams like Atlanta, St. Louis, Seattle and should be judged to that standard. Twins are not going to get the huge TV deal other teams have signed, just don't have the subscriptions to compete. I don't understand the whining about payroll. Ideally, as the Twins are rebuilding and moving towards younger players which will bring down the overall salary. I have already said I wouldn't want them to sign a pitcher for more than two years and it would be counterproductive to sign a position player that would block young player or prospect. There were no impact 3B/SS/2B and it wouldn't make sense to go multiple years for an OF. Who is there to sign? Should they spend money for the sake of spending money? I appreciate the frustration but what was the realistic alternative scenario? The issue right now is not an unwillingness to spend money or an inability to evaluate major league free agents. The problem has been bad trades, drafts that haven't worked out, and young players that never developed. The is minimal young talent on the roster and no core to build around. That has started to be remedied and hopefully they will move towards that during this year on both the major and minor league levels. There is no quick fixes - I think best case scenario is they have progress in the rebuild this year with some young players starting to establish themselves and/or have consolidation years in the minors, 2014 as the transition year where wins start to jump, and start competing in 2015.

I would also add that this is now the third WBC. There should be enough of a history to build up a protocol on how to prepare properly with this schedule compared to a normal schedule. I also am in the camp that I am much less concerned about a relief pitcher than I am a starter.

Thanks for doing this, this poll was always my favorite thing at BYTO. First two votes should be boring, but should be fun to have some debates starting at #3.

Another problem I have are those that remain voters long after they stop covering baseball. How can this institution allow the likes of Dan Barrerio, Steve Aschburner and Sid Hartman to keep their ballots? Getting back to those that cover baseball would be a good first step to reforming the process.

This is a well thought out and valid position to take and it would be hard for me to disagree more. I fail to see how keeping some of the best players ever out of the hall of fame does anything to clean up the steroid mess and I definitely don't want the BBWAA to be the ones in charge of doing so. Their reasoning is so full of logical inconsistencies and hypocrisy that it is laughable. I am actually quite sympathetic to Bonds even if he is a jerk. Think of the timeline. He is the best player in the mid 90s (while most likely clean) and then the juiced up Sosa and McGwire emerge and every writer can't stop slurping during their home run binge. Bonds is probably thinking to himself (rightly) that this is a travesty and decides to show them what's what and does things no baseball player, juicing or otherwise, should be able to do. Now the same writers who couldn't stop slurping Sosa and McGwire are the morality police for Bonds. He was following the lead of other superstars, the media, fans, and everyone else seemed to want. It's not his fault he was awesome.

Is Hardy all that much better than Peralta? Hardy clearly has a better glove, but also a sub .300 OBP and I have a feeling he would drop in HRs moving from Baltimore to Detroit.