Wookiee of the Year

Good list. If Presley and Mastroianni are competing for a fourth outfielder spot, who will be the starting center fielder? I can't imagine the Twins handing the job to Hicks again until he at least shows he can hold his own at AAA. I also can't imagine them signing an impact center fielder in the offseason, with Hicks a strong showing at AAA away from the majors--and with Buxton likely starting the season in AA. Shouldn't that mean the starting center field job is open for either Presley, Matroianni, or Clete Thomas to claim, at least to open the season?

I'm actually pretty on board with this. The team that did it right this last off-season is the Cubs, with signings like Scott Baker and Scott Feldman: target low budget, high-upside guys looking for a one-year "prove it" deal and if they're any good, flip them at the deadline for future pieces. If they're not, well, there's no such thing as a bad one-year deal. I'd have no problem with Terry Ryan going after guys like Johan Santana, Dan Haren, Josh Johnson, and Scott Baker. No need to make a splash with a big multi-year deal on the pitcher Free Agent market when we're still a couple years out of contention anyway, when a pitcher's value can change a lot in a couple years.

Thanks for writing this article, Seth. On the Kernels' "Star Wars Night" back over Memorial Day weekend, I bid for and won Gary Lucas's game-worn jersey. It's great to read an article like this and get to know the man better.

Where do you get the $20 million figure? I'm under the impression payroll dropped about $15 million from last year while most people were expecting it to drop around $5 million--I don't think I ever heard anyone seriously speculate that payroll would be higher this year than last. So I'm suggesting Ryan had up to $8-10 million in payroll flexibility left, offered the bulk of it to Saunders, and when Saunders declined, decided he'd rather just stand pat with the rest of it. Maybe it depends on what you think "much higher payroll" means. As far as I'm concerned, that could be PR speak for as little as $5 million more, though again, based on last year's payroll, offseason expectations, and the likelihood we did have money we offered Saunders but he did decline, I think $8-10 million left over is most likely.

Maybe my memory fails me, but I recall strong evidence the Twins made an offer to Joe Saunders in January/February 2013, after all their other acquisitions. My guess is it was roughly the size of that offer that marks the difference between the payroll room Ryan had and the money he spent. I'll admit, I don't have a strong recollection of the free agent situation after Saunders went to Seattle, but my guess is Ryan took a look around, shrugged, and said, "Well, I guess I won't be hitting the cap this year." This isn't to excuse his behavior--I think he should've been much more aggressive this offseason, and I think he signed Correia at exactly the wrong time (right when he thought FA contracts were going to blow up this offseason, but right before they actually mellowed out), but the idea that the Pohlads gave him extra payroll room he didn't end up using squares with my memories of the late winter.

Worth underscoring is that as recently as this spring, we still had questions about whether Rosario would stick at 2B. His promotion seems to eliminate those concerns, as I assume the Twins would have held him at high A if they felt he had clear defensive issues to work out.

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering--how does Pelfrey's breakdown compare to other pitchers? It's fairly meaningless to me in a vacuum. Does it mean Gardy should be quicker with the hook once Pelfrey allows a few baserunners, or surrenders a run? Is it par for the course with a pitch-to-contact pitcher?

This was fun! To be clear, you've ranked these based on the prices sellers listed them at and not on prices sellers have sold them at, correct? Because that makes it even better.

I actually voted college pitcher, and I would go with Shipley. I like that he's already developed a deceptive change-up; I hear that's usually harder to do than developing a breaking ball, so I'm hopeful that will come. Some here are downplaying "closer to the majors" by saying they'll take whoever has more upside, even if they have to wait. To me, the advantage to "closer to the majors" isn't that it comes sooner; it's that by virtue of the fact that it's closer to major league-ready talent, it's more proven and has less room for things to go wrong in development. Closer to the majors = less risk. All of that said, if the Twins take Stewart at #4, I trust they made the right decision. If they pass on Stewart at #4, I also trust they made the right decision. I see HS pitching as risky, but I'm no scout; I'm not close enough to Stewart to know if he's worth the risk and/or less risky than it might appear. With the outside knowledge I have, I'd take Shipley, but on whether Stewart is worth the risk of taking a HS pitcher #4, I trust the insiders.

These are bizarre and wonderful. I missed them the first time around; my favorites between both lists are: Pedro Florimon: Implode For Ron Darin Mastroianni: Indiana Rainstorm Pedro Hernandez: End Red Porn Haze

You used math wrong. His OBP is 3.07 times higher than his average, so in actuality, if he ever hits .300, his OBP will be .921. Something to look forward to.

This is a thing you do every week? I just figured out a way I'm going to be spending a little time every week.

I took the under, and it looks like my reasoning is just about opposite Jim Crikket's. I expect some downward regression from Dunn, Rios, and Peavy, and some further damage due to the losses of Pierzynski and Youkillis. Given an expected record of 88, though, that's probably not going to be more than enough to push them into 80-83 territory. So what really seals the deal for me is that I'm expecting a stronger AL Central this year. The Tigers, Indians, and Royals all look like they should be better than last year (at least marginally); the Twins can't really get much worse. That modestly-improved division plus the above-mentioned regression is enough for me to think the White Sox will be at 80 or less.

Thanks for the reply. Re-reading my post, I sound a bit too certain that managerial changes have only incremental impacts. But I do struggle to imagine it can make that much difference--2 or 3 wins feels like the upper bound to me. Otherwise, you really would expect to see managers signing Greinke-like contracts instead of Chad Durbin-sized ones. You're right, managers matter a lot in every other field, but here's my theory: There aren't Albert Pujols-level baseball managers out there who are singularly head-and-shoulders above the competition, though there are elites. Let's not forget every other field has a lot more than 30 managerial positions available. My hunch is that there are, say, 150 elite-level managerial talents out there in the baseball world, so when only 30 jobs are available, you're near certain to get a manager who can maximize his team's performance. If you compared MLB managers, minor league managers, college managers, and high school managers across the country, you'd have drastic differences in ability. It's the difference between managers and replacement-level managers--which I'd define as those not managing MLB teams who'd be interested in the job--where I imagine the difference can't be more than a couple games. Unlike baseball player talent, at the very top, I imagine there's something of a diminishing returns curve without much variation in ability--or we'd see it in the contracts.

Except, of course, when Bill Smith was fired a little over a year ago. That's one piece I felt was missing--how does Bill Smith's firing change the conversation? It might make Gardy more likely to lose his job, because it shows the Pohlads are pushing for personnel changes in response to losses. Or it might make Gardy more likely to keep his job, because the Pohlads and/or front office can point to Smith's dismissal and say, "See, we've made the change we needed to. It just might take a few years for the effects to be felt." Either way, I was hoping it would be a part of the discussion. Regarding how much value a manager adds, I think you're right that it's tough to read from the outside. But I'd say the best way to tell how much a front office values managers generally is to look where they make their valuation most clear: in the manager's salary. I fully admit looking at any one manager's salary likely isn't a perfect indicator of that manager's value (which probably takes us away from what you were actually talking about--although you would think a manager's value-added would be more predictable and consistent than a player's when signing a multi-year contract), but a league-wide average is likely a general indicator of what the position adds. The median managerial salary appears to be around $1 million per season--which, if I'm not mistaken, is a little below the leauge average Cost per Win. Like I said, I don't believe any individual manager's contract tells you his managerial value--but the fact that managers aren't signing Joe Mauer-sized contracts means something. And the idea that an average manager adds a little under a win per season (over a replacement-level manager, of course) feels about right. Managerial changes really are a matter of small increments.

That's my thought, too. It seems to me like Marcum's worth more than $4 million for 1 year, but 28 GMs side with Terry Ryan, not me.

I agree with the comments that you did well with Mr. St. Peter and got some useful information out of him, but this was my favorite of example of St. Peter's Falling Back on Talking Points: On signing guys like Nishioka because they might increase revenue even if they're not the right player on the field: "That doesn't come into the decision-making with the Twins. It does with a lot of franchises in all sports. I've seen it, you see it time and time again. That hasn't happened here, and you know, sometimes maybe fans might get frustrated with that, but we're trying to build this for the long term. The buck's gotta stop somewhere in a baseball organization, there's no doubt the buck stops with Terry Ryan." That has to be St. Peter's go-to This is How We Run Our Organization Speech, because no one is frustrated that the Twins put a good team before revenue-raising decisions in picking players.

Piggy-backing somewhat off of Cap'n Piranha's comment, Parker, I wonder why we saw such large drops from year-to-year by the Cardinals and Indians. Is it because prospects flamed out or shot up in their projected abilities and rankings, indicating the list is subjective and not a great guide? Or is it because those prospects became major leaguers or were traded away, draining the farm system to stock the major league roster?

Best line of the podcast goes to Parker Hageman at 1:04:55, concerning Joe Mauer: "He was fueled by all the booze that happened." I guess I missed the Twins Daily headline in May, "Mauer's Booze-Fueled Return to Greatness." Amazingly, my wife has a long tradition of asking people, "Who are you voting for to win the Superbowl?" If memory serves, it was a slip of the tongue years ago, and now it's just an inside joke that she's in on, too. (No, her name's not Traci.) I'll also mention that I'd previously heard of Parker's interview with Rob Antony but never actually read it before, so I went ahead and hunted it down. It's fascinating reading almost 3 years later, including interesting discussions of assessing players for multi-year contracts (with a specific discussion of Nick Blackburn) as well as Pitch F/X (in light of Parker's recent Goin interview), but the piece that jumped out to me most was this one from Antony, on what the Twins look for in a shortstop: "[Hardy] may not have the range he did when he was 24 at 27 now. He makes all the plays, he has enough arm and gets the ball. Our theory has always been: Make the routine plays – don’t beat yourself - and if you don’t get to a ball or two that is offset when you make all the plays. There are guys that may have 15-20 errors, a lot of them are routine errors. We’d rather have the guy that when there is a groundball to short, that’s an out. That type of thing. We scout that way, we look at it that way and we make our decisions that way." Is that not a description of the anti-Florimon?

It's really strange... I can't describe it... I'm pumped about two decent arms coming to us... And floored at.the reality of the loss of my favorite Twin. If you liked Revere, there's this Hicks kid in the pipeline who does all the same stuff, plus a throwing arm, plus the ability to draw walks, plus some pop. Yeah, but how's his smile? I'm with you, Riverbrian--sad to see my favorite Twin go, but impressed by the return he brought and know it looks likes the right move.

Wow. I'm going to miss Revere, and was sad to see the announcement he was traded. But there's no way to be disappointed in this trade--TR brought back a haul. We might struggle in 2013, but the Twin's future looks bright.

Good stuff. Nice trade analysis, nice discussion of prospects, nice job filling off-season time by talking about things like caps. I actually mean that; there's space to fill in the off-season and that was good topic to roll out at some point. I also enjoyed your discussion of Hall of Fame balloting, though I take some issue with it. I just don't see the Barry Bonds/steroids issue as quite so clear cut (although ultimately, I might come down on the same side as you). On one side, you have the idea that the Hall of Fame is where you go to see the greatest of the great and so of course players like Bonds and McGwire should be there. On the other hand, there's the idea that the Hall of Fame is where you go to celebrate baseball, and you shouldn't have to stare at its blemishes and think about the cheaters and rule-breakers; it should be about a sentimental look at baseball in its purest form. I read Eight Men Out earlier this year and was similarly torn over whether players like Shoeless Joe Jackson should be admitted. On the one hand, fixing games had a major hold on baseball at that time and I'm sure there's someone in the Hall who took some gambling money at some point. On the other, baseball fans across the nation felt so betrayed to learn the World Series had been fixed. I see steroids in a similar light. I'll be surprised if Bonds makes the cut this year. In six ballots, McGwire's never received more than 23.7% of the vote--a far cry from the 75% needed to make it in. A quote to leave you with: The greatest hitter and pitcher of the past 50 years were cheaters and our all-time hits leader bet against his own team. Ladies and gentleman, America's pastime! Is it time to remake Field of Dreams and include a scene where Shoeless Joe sells $3,000 of HGH to Moonlight Graham? --Bill Simmons

If we have to wait till 2014, 2015 (two, three seasons) and he's only a #4 pitcher, we got straight up robbed. You really think there's any chance he debuts in 2013? Especially given the Twins' M.O. of slowly advancing prospects? I think 2014's a pretty good bet but 2015 strikes me as more likely than 2013. Will I be disappointed if Meyer ends up only a #4? Absolutely. But I don't think two years of Span, even with his team-friendly contract, was going to draw a return much larger than that in an MLB-ready player, anyway.

I wonder how TR felt after the offseason going into spring training last year? Did he feel like he'd done his job, or like he'd come up short? I ask because just because "we've heard it before" doesn't mean it'll be the same this year. I'm hoping TR himself learned from last year that you can't just "be in the mix" for a handful of guys and hope one or two shake out; you really do have to go after a few of them. Probably too optimistic on my part, but I'd hope the difference between last year and this year is that last year just happened and taught a few lessons.

Good find with those quotes. I wonder what level of pitcher Span would've brought in a trade for an established major league SP. I have to think at maximum value, not much better than a #4 with maybe #3 upside. And given the Twins likely won't be much good until Meyer hits the majors, anyway, there's no reason not to delay talent. That's probably the standard I'll hold Meyer to now--as long as he turns out to be at least a #4, I'll say we got full value for Span. I like Terry Ryan's approach of preferring upside over established mediocre guys, and I'd say early signs point to Span bringing a solid return.