Otto von Ballpark

Molitor was the 3rd overall draft pick in 1977. He may not have been Rickey Henderson in terms of physical gifts, but who is? He was plenty gifted.

Not free agency, but waivers. Like when the Twins wanted to remove Liam Hendriks from the 40-man last winter, they had to waive him, even though he had a minor league option remaining. The claiming team was able to then option him to AAA. Had he not been added to the 40-man, Kepler would not have been eligible for minor league free agency until after 2016, I think. Correct. So a team could very easily claim Kepler on waivers and stash him in the minors until opening day 2018, for only the cost of the 40-man roster spot. The decision point was last offseason -- the Twins could in theory have waited until as late as after the 2016 season to add him to the 40-man, assuming nobody claimed him in the intervening Rule 5 drafts. But all that would have gained them would be option years in 2018+, at ages 25+. If he's not a clear MLBer by that point, option years don't really matter (see Parmelee, Chris, spring 2014).

Hold up -- I think the Kepler discussion started with the suggestion that he could be in the mix for our 2015 outfield (which is pretty crazy, IMHO -- would love him to take steps forward, but Kepler really shouldn't enter into our offseason planning at the MLB level). I don't think there is any pressing need to remove him from the 40-man at this point, is there?

What is the evidence of this, I wonder? We all know he was a great player, and I guess he's expressed some interests in shifts, etc., but "brilliant baseball mind"? (Not that "brilliant baseball mind" is necessarily a requirement for manager, but I think this may be a tad bit hyperbolic to apply to Molitor at this point, in this context, anyway.) Outside of Seattle 2004, has Molitor ever pursued, or been pursued for, a job in another organization? Not that it couldn't happen in the future, but he just hasn't appeared terribly ambitious (or sought after) in that regard. Otherwise, great analysis, very thorough, thanks!

Dude was on an 80 pitch limit for much of the season (and the entire middle part of the season, when he should have been loose but not yet tired), and sometimes less if he got into trouble early. It's hard to throw much more than 6 innings max under those circumstances unless you're a control freak like Hughes 2014. Meyer is a little on the wild side, granted, but at this point, the data suggests his wildness is comfortably within the acceptable range for successful starters. If Meyer had notably better control, he'd probaly be a top 10 prospect in all of MLB (if not already succeeding in MLB), which would be a fantastic outcome, of course, but it's not a fair standard to hold him to when deciding promotions/roles, or something to worry about him not achieving. He can still be incredibly valuable to the Twins just like he is.

Berrios is 20 years old, has 9 starts above single-A, and a 6.4 K/9 in those starts. Based on what we know right now, he is almost certainly ticketed for AA to begin 2015, and his absolute earliest MLB debut would be September 2015 (like Francisco Liriano circa 2005). And given his age and experience, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, or even a 2016 debut, frankly.

Perhaps I wasn't clear -- I have no illusions or desire that Gibson and Nolasco be denied 2015 rotation spots, and one or both may even succeed. But at this point, neither is the kind of pitcher you want to give a spot without a backup plan. Same for Milone, same for the prospects... basically every SP the Twins have except Hughes. If we could add another starter like Hughes near the top of the depth chart, and push out the Pelfreys and Darnells at the bottom (or at least relegate them to other roles), I can't see that as anything but a positive for the Twins, in 2015 and beyond. That doesn't mean it's a burning priority, that we have to dramatically overpay or sell the farm for, but if it could be done, it would be a great move forward from 2012-2014. Same for the outfield -- right now, Arcia is really the only internal option we can trust out there without a safety net (although even he might benefit from using an actual net in the outfield ). An outfield addition that pushes Parmelee or Schafer off the depth chart (or at least firmly into non-starting roles) and prevents us from rushing Rosario, Ortiz, and Hicks (again) should be welcomed. Now, if you don't trust management to add another veteran starter and still leave a spot to be shared by Meyer/May (i.e. pegging Pelfrey and Milone a lot higher on the depth chart than most outside observers)... well, that's a lot deeper issue. (The outfield isn't so bad in this regard; as I've stated, there are no promising outfielders knocking on the door of MLB like May and Meyer are.)

Gibson's coming off an 88 ERA+ season, Nolasco 73 -- and you want to guarantee them each a rotation spot PLUS keep two more spots wide open? I guarantee you, of all the Twins problems in 2015, opportunities for starting pitchers (and outfielders) should not be among them.

Hey, Pelfrey is younger than both of them, with less mileage on his arm too! Pardon my snark, but on a micro level of comparing two players, 12 months of age is more or less meaningless, and generic "arm mileage" is almost certainly less significant than recent injury history (on which count, Nolasco would clearly lose).

You think it's appropriate to project Nolasco based on 9 starts and 55 IP? Even if we fully believe that he was actually hurt prior to that, how well did projecting Pelfrey based on a small subset of his starts work in 2014? Injuries, especially ones that go undetected/unreported for a long time, can linger, re-occur, and sometimes get even worse. And somehow, because some of his peripherals over these 55 IP were close to Shields' last 96 IP, we're supposed to expect similar run prevention marks from them going forward? Despite the differences in career run prevention and Nolasco's established FIP underperformance? These guys aren't some kind of unknowns, they've each got 9 MLB seasons under their belt, and 1500-2000 MLB IP, and they're only 12 months apart in age. You can be down on Shields' career trends (although they certainly haven't shown up in run prevention measures yet) and think he's a bad value on a big contract going forward, but for them to prevent runs at a roughly equal rate in 2015 would require a sudden massive collapse from Shields and/or a sudden massive improvement from Nolasco. Either would by definition be very surprising. Career 94 ERA+ pitchers coming off a 73 ERA+ season generally don't outperform career 110 ERA+ pitchers coming off a 124.

A couple notes: A 4.30 ERA in Target Field 2014 would have been like a 92 ERA+, still below league average for a starter. Entering 2014, Nolasco's career ERA underperformed his FIP by 0.61. His ERA matched or beat his FIP only once (2008).

My post wasn't advocating for Shields or making any sort of value claims about him -- I was just responding to a specific claim that Hughes is "more of an ace right now (and likely to be next year) than Shields." It took what is (thus far) a career year with a fluky historic low walk rate from Hughes just to match Shields' career run prevention mark (and still fell short of Shields' 2013-2014 run prevention marks).

Morales ultimately didn't block Vargas. Santana came up even though we had another starter at SS anyway. Also, we have multiple open outfield spots -- even if we sign Cabrera, there is still a wide-open spot for a prospect who pushes the envelope, or even the decent performing stopgap du jour. Pitching-wise, I don't think Nolasco was a "prized FA" and I agree I would prefer not signing another like him. If we can't/won't snag an ace, a higher upside project like Masterson would be a good investment, though. Could the Twins be late/stubborn in replacing a vet with a prospect, or move a guy out of position (i.e. Santana), and cause some frustration? Almost certainly. But I'd rather take a chance at adding a positive asset rather than rely fully on stopgaps and rushed prospects.

Uh, nobody is suggesting going "all-in" for 2015, dealing multiple top prospects for veteran rentals. Pretty sure most proposed acquisitions this winter can help us in 2016 too, just like Hughes will probably help the 2016 team, like Willingham helped in 2014. If a prospect starts knocking at the door, the veteran can help as a trade asset too. The idea that handing Eddie Rosario an opening day job in 2015 will help the 2016 team more than just signing someone like Melky Cabrera just boggles my mind. None of these guys (outside of Meyer and perhaps May) are even knocking on the door of MLB right now -- odds are if you don't acquire veteran reinforcements this winter, you're going to waste a lot of playing time on guys like Parmelee and Pelfrey next year (again). And when 2016 rolls around, you're going to have no path to contention other than all of your prospects excelling.

Even with a couple acquisitions, this roster would still has enough holes and question marks that room can quickly be found/made if any of these guys deserve it. (When has it ever been a good idea to "leave room" for a bunch of guys who have yet to play in AAA (Meyer excepted), especially guys coming off seasons lost to injury/suspension/ineffectiveness?)

To me, that's less of a rebuild, and more just waiting. Furthermore, improving the team in 2015 does not necessarily hinder anything for 2016. Our reliable outfielder list right now is basically Arcia; our rotation, Hughes. Adding a piece in both places doesn't block anyone unless the Twins front office or field manager is dumb about it. I won't quibble here too much, except to say that given his track record, calling Hughes at #2-#3 starter at this point is perfectly acceptable. Shields' career low in IP is basically equal to Hughes' career best, and his career ERA+ (over 1900 IP) is basically the same as Hughes' single season best (in 209 IP). And Shields isn't exactly old or on any kind of noticeable downslope yet.

Not to mention better judge MLB readiness prior to handing out significant MLB playing time.

At the time of the trade, the Royals didn't have a loaded outfield. Actually, they were starting Jeff Francoeur in RF, which is a separate but related problem. If I was the Royals then (or if I were the Twins now), and I was looking to jump-start my franchise, I'd hold onto my assets and just get really aggressive with cash for the top talents in the free agent market (and not settle for wasting cash on lesser talents either). It's not necessarily a "value" play but it is unquestionably adding talent and not subtracting it. That said, if you are really down on a player or prospect, I kinda like the aggressiveness of making a move with them, provided the reasoning is sound (i.e. if you think you are trading from depth, you actually have depth, or if you think you are satisfying a need, you actually are satisfying that need, or if you think you can contend, you actually do contend). The Royals appear to have some sound reasons here (they actually got a good pitcher, and had a good team overall). Bill Smith was aggressive too but generally didn't have sound reasoning behind his most high-profile deals. TR has generally resisted these kind of moves altogether.

Minor nit: did anyone ever see Myers as a legit CF? I guess he played it some in the minors but I don't recall anyone thought he'd play it regularly in MLB.

This is what I was trying to say, just much more clear and succinct. "Too many viable MLB OFers" and "too many viable MLB SP" would both be fantastic problems to have, would represent real progress over 2011-2014, and put the franchise in a better position in 2016 and beyond. (And neither problem is particularly likely for 2015, in my opinion, even with an offseason addition at both spots.)

The odds of Hughes repeating, Nolasco rebounding, Gibson improving, AND May and Meyer sticking in MLB from day 1 is quite low (peformance-wise if not health-wise too). There is plenty of room for another starter. If May or Meyer has to open the season in the pen or AAA until someone is injured or falters, that represents real depth and will be a good problem to have. Logan Darnell is not real depth. (Milone might be, but given what we saw of him, I wouldn't want to count on him either.) "Survival" and "not being the end of the world" are incredibly low thresholds for success and shouldn't really enter into offseason planning. That kind of thinking has helped create the disasters of the past 4 seasons. The fact that BOTH LF and CF are wide open (assuming Santana back to SS) means the Twins have plenty of room to accommodate both a new acquisition as well as any internal option that cares to step forward. But none of the internal guys, as of today, deserve to be handed a starting MLB gig when the position next to them is just as barren. Otherwise, I like your plan in the bullpen and infield. Although I wouldn't count on the bullpen being a completely internal rebuild either -- some kind of external reclamation project would probably be advisable there too. (I would have liked to see more of the internal options auditioned in 2014, but there's probably a reason most of them weren't. Counting on them in 2015 with a TJ guy and a couple 2014 draftees as backup is probably stretching things a little thin.)

Actually, once he passed thru waivers, maybe he had a smidgen of value -- prior to that point, he required a 25 man roster spot, but once he cleared, he was basically a free nonroster AAA player for the season. (Like Vance Worley was for the Pirates.) Almost certainly not enough value to bring back a useful piece, of course, though (like Worley again). I certainly won't complain about not trading him -- my bigger complaint was how this mostly non-prospect on the easier side of the defensive spectrum was given so many chances over the last 3 years.

I know the Twins OF defense could use improvement, definitely, but I think this WAY overstates it. Primarily, the distribution of talent on the Twins starting staff was not as even as that of the Royals. Hughes was a huge outlier in low walk rate, and he and Gibson in HR rate. Meanwhile, basically all of the Royals starters were much closer to their team average rates (HR/9, K/9, BB/9). Not to mention health and experience advantages. Plus, while xFIP is useful, it's also important to remember it almost always undershoots lousy pitching, sort of defaulting to "it can't be that bad." Although the 2012-2013 Twins attest, it CAN be that bad.

I'm not sure what point I am making anymore either, so at least we're in agreement on that. You just seemed to be very dismissive of improving one's roster using money, like it is a mark of failure, or some kind of unnatural act. That's kind of the vibe I've always gotten from TR and the Twins too...

"Expected to have" Sano and Buxton, the former having never appeared in AAA, the latter never in AA? Hughes/Nolasco do not equal Abreu, either. The money is similar, but the upside was much larger with Abreu (and the possible benefit, as he's signed for 6 years).