Otto von Ballpark

I doubt any of the guys you listed above this comment are 90% likely by themselves to be MLB contributors by mid-2017, much less multiple guys. I think you are under-estimating the volatility of prospects, especially ones with iffy records so far like virtually all of the relievers in this group, or ones with zero experience in the role like Rogers. Given the quantity of guys you named, it's probably 90% likely that at least one of the group contributes by mid-2017, but another important factor is how you define "contribute." Fien, Pressly, Boyer, Abad, etc. have certainly "contributed" in MLB, but rarely at a high level and trusted in high leverage situations. The Fien/Pressly/Boyer/Abad level is not really the bar that the Twins need these prospects to clear. 2015 clearly demonstrated a need above that, for another guy or two to dominate near the top of the pen, and by 2017 that need might be even greater if Jepsen departs, May is needed to start, and/or Perkins fades further. Bastardo, or earlier in the offseason Mark Lowe, or any other FA reliever isn't guaranteed to perform at a certain level either, but each has some very recent high-level MLB work under their belt. A 2-3 year commitment to one or two of those guys is a perfectly rational and affordable hedge against all that internal uncertainty.

"In other news, the Twins are certainly monitoring the Upton and Cespedes situations, and would be interested in either free agent on a one year deal."

Yes, he had to be added the previous winter, so when he was assigned to the minors in spring 2013 he was technically optioned.

Quite possibly. Upton would effectively be on a 2 year, $6.9 mil total contract when you subtract Nolasco's deal, and you would also free up a 40-man roster spot which has some utility. With SS and utility infield covered, Santana's only immediate usefulness to the Twins is as a stopgap CF or 4th OF, and Upton is likely better in that role anyway. Right now, trading Santana would obviously be selling low, but I don't see him having much of a chance to rebuild his trade value here -- he's not going to do it on the bench, and he's out of options, so he can't do it in AAA anymore either.

Yup. Actually on the 25-man roster too. At that point, you can get him off the roster by releasing him, but there's no realistic way to send him to the minors or avoid paying him the balance of his contract (barring a trade, of course, which also seems unrealistic at this point ).

That's a bit of a reach based on a game 162 lineup. Santana hadn't played an inning at second base in two years, covering the entirety of his MLB and AAA experience to date. While the game was meaningless in the standings, it was hardly the time or place to begin a position conversion (especially one with a decent risk of collision). The only way to get Santana in the same lineup as Escobar and Buxton was to put him at short, with Escobar at second. Also, while Escobar was in the game with mostly reserves (although Sano was in there too, and Buxton and Kepler aren't viewed as future reserves), they simply didn't have any other infielders on the roster other than Dozier and Plouffe (Polanco and Bernier were not recalled in September). It might tell us that Escobar ranks behind Dozier and Plouffe in seniority, but I'm not sure we can read too much into it about Escobar's future role.

No. Nolasco can refuse a minor league assignment, but he doesn't have to elect free agency. He could elect to just stay on the roster until we trade or release him, and he would keep his full contract. Think it through logically: if what you are suggesting was true, there would be a ton of highly-paid underperforming veterans in AAA, because such players would essentially have no choice but to accept the assignment to get paid. Obviously it doesn't work like that, the money is guaranteed and teams have very little leverage to get out from under it. Players in this position invariably get released or traded in a salary dump, but they always collect their full check regardless of their willingness to go to the minors.

Being bullish about our relief prospects isn't mutually exclusive from wanting another arm -- it's just being practical, offering some insurance for those guys not to be ready on opening day (and for likely needing replacements for Jepsen and Fien in 2017). Additionally, I know the FA reliever idea often gets shot down with the justification that reliever performance is too volatile. Well, wouldn't that volatility also apply to whatever internal options we develop? Obviously they cost less than a FA, but if your goal is to build a good bullpen it should still be a concern. The Twins could be very fortunate and produce 2-3 strong relievers internally over the next 2 years, but not every one of those guys is going to be healthy and producing at a high level every season, and even when they do, by that point they may simply be offsetting the loss of Jepsen, Perkins, or May. Counting on just a couple guys at the top, while filling the rest of the staff with guys like Boyer, Abad, etc. is how you wind up with desperate situations like 2015 when one of those top guys is injured or ineffective (or is needed in the rotation, like May) -- you may even have some sleeper success with a fill in guy like Boyer but when you are loath to trust him, it doesn't help all that much at the top. If you want to contend and field a good bullpen, you should really aim to have 4-5 guys you trust around the top of that pen, because not all of them with be healthy and performing at all times. For all their potential, none of our prospects are at that point yet. The Twins have Perkins, Jepsen, and May -- that's a start, but a good lefty like Bastardo and perhaps one more righty (like Mark Lowe would have been) would have put us in a really good position entering 2016.

Huh, I could have sworn that even with Jepsen, May, and Cotts, are bullpen was still suspect at the end of the 2015 season, with the likes of O'Rourke vs RHB and Graham blowing close games, and TR even flagged the pen as an area of need. I had no idea that complete inactivity (maybe even subtraction so far, given Abad's struggles vs LHB as compared to Cotts) would render our bullpen "fine" just a few offseason months later...

And the Twins bullpen, with Perkins and Jepsen (and May) was still somewhat deficient at the end of 2015. And Jepsen will become one of these FA relievers in a year if not extended, Perkins has some lingering question marks, and May might be needed or better deployed in the rotation. There is ample room to add another arm to the top of the bullpen mix, without blocking any arms on the farm (none of which, by the way, are likely ready to contribute out of the pen from day 1 in 2016).

Why are the most expensive relievers always trotted out in this argument? Mark Lowe signed for 2/11, with an AL Central team that finished behind us in the standings, no less. There was no indication that the Twins pursued him. He's not as sure of a bet as O'Day, but he's got some recent demonstrated MLB upside and was easily a worthwhile gamble around that price.

First of all, one more Jepsen-type reliever is a stop-gap player? That player might simply be Jepsen's replacement come 2017. Second of all, while I am not necessarily making both of the points as stated here, they are also not necessarily contradictory. One could argue that the expense of the starters, and the limit of the 5-man rotation, is still a vastly greater commitment than adding a 3/18 type FA reliever right now would be. One could also argue that signing those starters, while making a logjam on paper, made it more likely we'd ultimately field a competent top 5, and that approach should be applied to the bullpen.

Guerrier was claimed on waivers over 10 years ago. Why not mention Tony Fiore too? The Twins bullpen has been pretty terrible since TR took over again, and his biggest successes (Burton and Fien) were both acquired over 4 years ago. Boyer had such a good season, we didn't even trust him when we were desperate for relief help down the stretch. I think it's fair to question that approach, especially when the bullpen was such a big weakness and we're hoping to continue contending this year.

The relief contracts proposed here are all shorter and significantly cheaper than Nolasco's deal. And Nolasco's deal itself didn't clog any pipeline -- it was the combination of that deal plus the two similarly expensive deals/extensions we handed out a year later that have put a bit of a squeeze on our younger/cheaper starters. No one here is suggesting signing three multi-year FA relievers, just one to give us a better chance to be strong on opening day 2016, and insurance for all the question marks in our pen (Perkins health, Jepsen FA, Fien nontender, prospects stagnating, etc.). If that FA reliever has a down year, we still have a ton of flexibility to put them in a low-leverage role if we want to.

Sipp didn't entirely "suck for years" -- he actually was pretty effective for a few years early with Cleveland, then rebounded with Houston in 2014. And his 2015 salary wasn't set by the open market -- with less than 6 years service time, he was still under Houston's control. I don't think anyone is arguing that these 6m guys are sure things, but they are almost certainly better bets than the Twins have been taking in their bullpen constructions the past 5 years. If the Twins had a track record of identifying and turning around guys like Sipp, I'd understand, but we don't.

Guerrier's delayed arrival was partly due to recent surgery. I wouldn't restrict yourself to looking at pitchers either -- the point is, the Twins have a history of signing MLB veterans to minor league deals that are de facto MLB deals, but give them some roster flexibility through spring training. Burton, Sean Burroughs, Kubel, Bartlett, Guerrier, maybe even Boyer... all signs point to Abad being in that group as well. Most observers were surprised he "settled" for a minor league deal, which suggests it's probably a de facto MLB deal too.

I assume you meant "adequate defensive player" here instead? John Hicks posted a 68 wRC+ in AAA last season.

Agreed 100%. I will add that this excuse is especially ridiculous given our current bullpen, since zero of our "internal pipeline" relief prospects look ready to contribute in MLB on opening day, and there are so few long-term commitments in our current MLB pen -- Jepsen is a FA after one more year, Perkins two (plus a team option), and Fien is a potential non-tender next winter. And arguably our best reliever (May) could well be needed in the rotation. This pen might be short on present-day MLB talent, but it absolutely is not short on the kind of flexibility that can handle a 3/18 type FA addition.

Recent Twins history suggests Abad is all but guaranteed a spot at this point, no? And the minor league deal just gives them 40-man flexibility until opening day?

All of these stats are collected in one page at MLB.com too: http://mlb.mlb.com/milb/stats/org.jsp?id=min

I think that will be close, but it might be hard to send Duffey to AAA. Also, although Tonkin is out of options, I don't think his spot is guaranteed.

Not only is the sample small, he was basically a rookie -- you'd expect he would perform better in the second half.

A triple pitching change! Best of both worlds!

Not to that degree: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=p&lg=AL&year=2015#times Although that is a small sample, and there is still plenty of time for May to improve upon it too (maybe rookies do worse in this split?).

There is virtually no technically correct usage of the term for baseball player contracts then, unless the player dies while under contract. Wow, it appears I'm not even in the top two nitpickers on this site anymore! Not sure whether I should be relieved or worried...