Otto von Ballpark

This was a choice? The Twins couldn't have given May's 2014 starts to Pelfrey if they had wanted to, ditto for Milone. (They COULD have given Pelfrey's starts to May, however.) The Twins "invested" 49 starts in 2014 -- 30% of their season! -- in pitchers who were no longer with the club by December and returned zero value upon their exit (except nominal cash and a waiver fee).

Also, I know TR got his "Trader Terry" rep back in the 1990's, but even then, he didn't sign many guys and trade them a few months later. I think Hollins and Morgan were the only notables to be flipped like that. A few more guys spent multiple seasons as Twins before getting dealt: Carrasco, Swindell, Kelly, Myers. And he signed a bunch of other veterans that he never traded: Steinbach, Molitor, Tewksbury, Nixon... And given his guaranteed starting role and history here, the Hunter signing is almost certainly in the Steinbach/Molitor mold rather than the Hollins/Morgan one. (Which is why some are speculating Torii might be in Minnesota for multiple years now, as Steinbach and Molitor each finished their careers with 3 years here, Molitor until age 42).

Hendriks is obviously no great shakes now, so it is easy to say "they evaluated him correctly" but look who else we started in those losing seasons. It would have been akin to demoting Hicks and Dozier as they struggled a month or so into each of their first two seasons, in favor of Mastroianni and Casilla or something.

I think you're on to something. They haven't had a whole of comparable pitchers, but Liam Hendriks seemed to have a much shorter leash than, say, Dozier and Hicks. Both Dozier and Hicks started for 3-4 months straight as rookies, posted an awful ~65 OPS+, and were demoted to AAA in August. Then both returned to the MLB lineup to open their second seasons and struggled for 2+ months without losing their jobs. Meanwhile, Hendriks got 4 starts to close 2011, but only lasted a month (4 starts) into 2012 despite an obvious SP shortage, and only lasted 2 starts into 2013 (and only due to Diamond's injury) despite an even more obvious SP shortage. It took 2+ seasons for Hendriks to accumulate the same MLB time as Dozier and Hicks did in just over 1 season each. The whole time, his ERA+ was in the same ballpark as Dozier/Hicks OPS+, and his Sickels prospect grades were comparable too.

Calling up a consensus top prospect might overshadow any Torii transaction, certainly. But I wouldn't say "no PR hit". Their PR in that scenario would be best if Buxton was recalled and Hunter stayed (think of the mentorship!). And at this point, Buxton's timeline is so up in the air, I doubt it was a consideration when signing Torii. I stand by my statement that Torii was not signed to be traded. I doubt the team has any hopes/plans to do so, regardless of their hopes/plans for Buxton.

It was Kwak's general point. I was just refuting the "Gibson beat 3 veterans last spring" example. We've definitely lacked pitching talent recently, although I'd say Hendriks should top your list of recent inexperienced guys who had a short leash.

I think it's a fair observation. Last spring, all of the guys legitimately in the mix for the rotation had started games within the first 13 days of spring training, with the exception of Deduno who didn't start a game all spring (and I don't think was ever a serious rotation candidate, barring injury). That includes Gibson. This year, we will reach that point tomorrow (Wednesday March 18) and the only official starters at that point (assuming the next two days probables are correct) will be the six returning veterans (Gibson, Hughes, Santana, Nolasco, Milone, and Pelfrey). (Actually, last year, Gibson got his first official start at the same time Pelfrey is now scheduled to get his first this year.) We're pretty near the decision time with May and Meyer. I think it is already pretty clear they're not cracking the rotation without an injury or trade, but if they don't start a game by the end of the week, it will be all but official.

Another point: those three "vets" that Gibson beat were all making the league minimum salary, just like Gibson. At this point, barring trade or injury, Milone or Pelfrey is getting the 5th starter spot.

Two of those "vets" had already failed and been demoted the year prior. The third "vet" had never pitched a full MLB season before. (Actually neither Diamond nor Deduno had a full MLB season under their belt. Only Worley did in that group, and it was one injury-shortened season.) If you think that is a great example of the team trusting an inexperienced talent over an established vet, I believe you are mistaken.

You don't have to have your TV turned on to notice a trade. And I wasn't speculating on ticket sales or TV ratings. Just simply stating that trading Hunter would probably be another PR hit for very little (if any) on-field gain. The people that posted excitedly to Facebook when they signed Hunter would post again, asking "Why?" Same for the people who lined up to see him at TwinsFest. His presence was sold as improving the team; dumping him for a marginal minor leaguer would confuse that message and frustrate a lot of commentators/fans. Imagine if the Wolves flipped Garnett for a D-leaguer.

I was responding to Brock's "I (mostly) like what Molitor is doing this spring" which seemed odd to me, since Molitor hasn't really done anything yet that is substantially different than what Gardy was doing or would have done. It's obviously early, but I think people are still wish-casting a bit with Molitor. (that we can notice at this point, anyway -- roster, lineup, positions, all that looks to be essentially the same at the present moment).

Interesting, while Santana has exclusively played shortstop this spring, so has Escobar. Unfortunately, that means Nunez is getting all the "utility" action right now and has to be the current projected guy for that role on the opening day roster. Two key dates are coming up for him, however: March 18: Last day to place a player on unconditional release waivers and pay 30 days termination pay instead of 45 days April 1: Last day to request unconditional release waivers on a player without having to pay his full 2014 salary Source: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/important-mlb-dates-112613 If Santana is the SS, I would love to see Nunez cleared out this spring. He just isn't an interesting option at any position. He should be viewed as <$200k injury insurance.

Not sure if Molitor has done a whole lot yet this spring. From his most recent comments, he's leaning toward putting forth our exact regular September 2014 defensive lineup and batting order, with Santana to short, Hunter to the outfield, and Escobar to the bench. The rest of the bench and pitching staff is shaping up pretty much the same too, with Ervin in for May and a Rule 5'er plus a vet in place of Burton/Swarzak in the pen. Not that these are bad moves, but outside of press conference approach, I am not yet seeing much on-field differences from what Gardy was doing late last year, or what I would have expected Gardy to do this spring.

Before Sunday, Gibson's "Opponent Quality" score at B-Ref was 8.2, just a hair above AAA level (8), and the lowest of our 5 starters so far this spring. And it probably didn't go up Sunday -- only two guys from the top of St Louis' depth charts were in that lineup, one of them their worst hitting returning regular of 2014 (Wong). And two more guys who were MLBers for all/most of 2014 but were weak hitting bench players (Bourjos and Cruz), arguably inflating Gibson's opponent quality score. So yeah, spring training caveats in full effect!

I don't know about that. The Twins took a lot of public relations heat for losing Torii once, and gained a ton of good PR when they signed him back. I doubt they are planning to deal him off again a few months later for what would almost certainly be a modest return (probably a Jason Adam / Sean Gilmartin level player?).

Basically, yes. A player on the 40-man roster who gets injured cannot be optioned to the minors. I don't know how much they can enforce it in spring training, though (there isn't even an MLB disabled list until 9 days before opening day). I see minor league guys appear in spring training games all the time, even up to the very end, so is there anything preventing the Twins from optioning Sano on paper but getting him more MLB ST game action? If that's the case, then it is reasonably wise to option 40-man guys early if you know you are going to option them at some point anyway.

Probably a better comparable would be Jim Edmonds 2010. But even if Hunter was willing, I don't think it would be worth it from the Twins perspective. Hunter has a much lower offensive ceiling than either Thome or Edmonds, and he also doesn't bat from the left side, meaning he is much less valuable in a PH or bat off the bench role. Also, unlike Edmonds, presumably Hunter isn't a good option to cover CF anymore. So you'd still need another backup outfielder too. And we should have plenty of guys by 2016 who can use the DH at-bats (Vargas hopefully, plus Mauer, Sano, Arcia, Pinto, etc.). All of them pretty much at Hunter's current offensive levels or better.

You mean Pelfrey? Milone is not most folks' #1 preference, but I don't think people will be apoplectic over him getting the nod if he has a good spring. Especially if they make a decisive move with Pelfrey at the same time (cut or bullpen). Now, if Milone gets the job with a mediocre spring...

Also, as far as struggles, Sano posted a wRC+ of 145 in his time in AA. Rosario about 93 (and only 104 in his "good" year at that level in 2013). If Rosario can be deemed "ready" for AAA based on that, plus 24 AFL games and 2015 spring training, I see no reason why Sano can't likewise be deemed "ready" based on his previous performance level and 2015 spring training. Not that I would be upset about Sano to AA, but barring injury, it should be brief (like Morneau in 2003, who was promoted to AAA on April 30). He's not that far behind Rosario, if at all.

I think point #2, while true in some respects, is often over-stated. Most prospects still spend plenty of time in AAA. Even Twins prospects. It can be used however an organization wants. All of our top pitching prospects seem ticketed to spend significant time at that level -- so why wouldn't it be a good place for top hitters? Don't you want them facing other team's equivalents May, Meyer, Berrios, etc. on the cusp of the majors themselves? I think the Twins recent "AA to MLB jump" for some position player prospects is more a function of need than strategy. Actually, only Vargas and Hicks so far have tried the jump completely -- Santana and Dozier at least had brief stops at AAA along the way. But all of them were called upon to fill a gaping MLB hole, just like Mauer in 2004, and a ton of pitchers in 2001, etc.

I think by 2006 and probably earlier, you can't simply add Prior to the Twins real-life playoff results and conclude he wouldn't have helped. The composition of the team would have likely been quite different, for better or worse. Rick Reed and Mark Redman (plus Matt Lawton) could have been affected within two months, not to mention the Joe Mays contract extension, Kenny Rogers in 2003, the Eric Milton trade which netted us Silva and Punto, and certainly the AJ trade which netted us Liriano and Nathan (and Boof). And those are just the players and moves directly affected by Prior -- more certainly would have been affected indirectly. For example, maybe without Nathan, we hang on to Guardado or Hawkins a few more years? If you can look ahead a little further, maybe without Liriano, we aren't so eager to trade Matt Garza (or even Johan Santana) after 2007? Really, 2002-2004 are probably the only years where we can safely make guesses. And in 2002, swapping Mays or Reed for Prior likely wins us the ALDS in one fewer game, and if it was Reed who was out, perhaps extends the ALCS back to the Metrodome for Game 6... In 2003, Prior takes the Game 1 assignment from Santana and pushes Lohse out of the playoff rotation, and perhaps delays Santana's injury that October? Or at least allows him more time to recover. Similarly, with Prior in 2004, pushing Silva out of the playoff rotation and letting Santana work on full rest could change things quite a bit too. While SP wasn't always our top weakness those years/series, we certainly could have benefitted with another top level starter! (Who wouldn't?) I wouldn't, however, posit that Prior would have stayed significantly more healthy with the Twins. The frequency and severity of his injuries almost certainly would not have been avoided with a few lower pitch count games. Not a knock on Mauer at all, but it certainly would have been interesting to see Prior on the 2001-2004 teams. Perhaps even more interesting would have been the 2001 signal that the Twins were willing to spend some money to be the best. Maybe they go over-slot for future draft picks, or pony up for FA Jim Thome or international amateurs, etc. Maybe they even avoid the contraction mess, hire Molitor to manage instead of Gardy, get their new stadium a couple years earlier, etc. Lots of implications! Of course, in this bizarro universe, there is almost certainly a 2015 article asking "What if the Twins drafted Mauer instead of Prior?" Which likely concludes that the 2005-2014 teams would have been better off had they done so.

On the other hand, we don't get to fleece the Giants in the AJ trade. Could change the timing/parameters of the Milton deal too.

The Twins promoted Adam Johnson on a similar timeline as the Cubs did Prior. Also note that the author suggest with Prior we don't sign Kenny Rogers. That alone suggests Santana's rotation move would not have been affected much by the addition of Prior. (And I made a similar suggestion about Rick Reed.)

Prior draft in 2001 also suggests that maybe we don't trade for Rick Reed shortly thereafter.

You need an era adjustment, my friend. Viola was notably above league K/9 in 1987, versus Slowey who was generally average or below (slightly above average in his abbreviated 2009). Plus peak Kevin Slowey might have been useful in the playoffs had he ever been healthy for them. Probably more effective than, say, low-K Carlos Silva.