Otto von Ballpark

Hey, Fryer is my new favorite Twin! That said, if Doumit doesn't want to catch (or shouldn't be catching, take your pick), Fryer is just the not-unreasonable third catcher on the 40-man. Colabello or Mastro could have been better drops. Ibarra too (if possible, I know he was a recent add). A deal for Doumit or Duensing might not be bad either. Hope they still make a move in the Rule 5 -- we've got the perfect roster to audition such players, even if the odds of success are low.

Another way to look at it: Using Sickels rankings, the Cubs traded their preseason 3, 4, and 6 prospects (plus Matt Murton, 26 y.o. ~100 OPS+ corner OF) midseason 2008 for Harden. All grade B (equivalent to Rosario or Berrios now).

Hendriks still has one option year remaining, according to Berardino: http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_24665580/minnesota-twins-liam-hendriks-designated

Also hitting well with some pop in that same winter league? Lew Ford.

Did Mauer set a bad precedent? Maybe Doumit's just trying to bow out gracefully from the position before being officially forced out? I mean, the writing was definitely on the wall, from being phased out of the position a bit in 2013, to the pursuit of FA catchers, to endorsements of Pinto when traditionally, Doumit would have been the logical option to assume the job after Mauer.

Interesting comp in Rich Harden. Both Anderson and Harden were up with Oakland at age 21, had early success and signed contracts through age 27. But through age 25 both had only pitched around 450 MLB innings due to repeated injuries, and neither pitched much from ages 23-25. (Harden had not yet had major surgery, however, and was the better pitcher through age 25: career ERA+ 124 to Anderson's 108). Oakland got 13 good starts out of Harden at age 26 before flipping him to the Cubs for: - their previous years sandwich pick (22 y.o. decent hitting college catcher in A-ball) - a 22 y.o. starter with 10 good starts already to begin his career (7.5 K/9 and 103 ERA+, #82 preseason prospect) - a 26 y.o. corner OF with an average MLB bat over almost 1000 PAs, wasting in AAA? - a 25 y.o. MLB ready 2B with decent all-around minor league numbers but very little MLB experience to date Think the Twins can match that? (FWIW, only the catcher amounted to much in MLB, the late blossoming Josh Donaldson)

Good point on Mauer's contract. Sometimes it's easy to forget that his contract will someday end, despite being a "Twin for life." Still, our starting budget and commitments were so low, we have room for another incremental signing this offseason within our budget, and we'll get back more "wiggle room" next offseason with a few expiring contracts too. Another Nolasco type contract or even something a little bigger won't slow us down in the least. Think of it this way: we've barely made any significant contractual commitments since 2010. Take 3 years off any incremental process, and the next increment can (and perhaps should) be larger.

Hendriks is a real lesson for those projecting pitching prospects right now. Young guy, relatively quick ascent, solid numbers in the minors through age 22 (comparable to Baker), then... nothing, really. No apparent injury, just couldn't succeed in MLB (or much lasting success at AAA, for that matter). Not a huge deal, although I almost certainly would have sacrificed someone else before him (Colabello?). He turns 25 in February, still has an option remaining. Baker didn't really show much hope in MLB until age 25, same for Swarzak (the latter after a shift to the pen). And not to make excuses, but 2002-2010 Twins prospects arguably didn't have to deal with quite the same negative environment as Hendriks the past few years -- a revolving door of catchers (Hendriks was at his worst pitching to Doumit and Butera, by far), questionable defense, etc. FWIW, despite his poor results thus far, Hendriks has been pretty much replacement level in MLB according to xFIP and by extension fWAR.

To be fair, Kennedy started 12 games for NYY at ages 22-23, then basically missed his entire age 24 season with injury, and was then traded. He really didn't have much of a performance to turn around, frankly. It will be interesting to see what Hughes and Chamberlain do this season, that's for sure.

I guess I have no idea why you'd bring up $125+ mil contracts then. No one's denying there's risk involved in a free agent contract, and that risk increases as the money increases. However, the Twins are actually in an interesting position in regards to such risk (money only, not trading prospects). Assuming they can afford $100 mil in player salaries, they are still ~$20 million under that budget for 2014, and ~$40+ million under for 2015-2018. Now, I certainly understand the argument that the 2014 Twins don't need another pitcher, as such a pitcher could be "wasted" on two non-competitive seasons. Waiting to add that pitcher in 2016 could mean he's joining an instantly competitive team, and could effectively delay the "decline phase" of that investment by a couple seasons. But, a 5/75 contract signed now will expire before any of our young players see significant salary increases. If we wait 2 years to sign that pitcher, he might participate in more legitimately competitive seasons, but the last few years of his deal -- when he will be in decline phase and all that -- will overlap with years when Sano, Buxton, etc. could be due significant raises. We've got the payroll the next 5 years; beyond that, I'm not so sure. That, to me, seems more significant than the risk of a FA pitcher's "decline phase" not syncing perfectly with our prospect's breakout years. It's also sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. By avoiding that 5/75 pitcher now because we're not competitive, we are helping ensure that we won't be competitive. I don't like the idea that 4-5 years is the minimum length of a rebuild, not when a team has strong revenue and a lack of contractual commitments like the Twins do. To sum up, I don't mean to imply that we HAVE to add such a pitcher now, but we should definitely be checking them out, and if we find a guy we like, bid competitively. Don't rest on the laurels or mild rotation upgrades like Nolasco and Hughes, or shy away because you're chasing some success cycle perfection.

Just FYI, Kendrys Morales was made a qualifying offer by the Mariners, so signing him would cost the Twins a draft pick.

Actually, you'd only be getting Anderson's age 26-27 seasons -- he's only under team control through 2015. Best case scenario, he pitches well, but to keep him he'd need a Garza-like deal, albeit at a younger age but also one that will extend further into our impending "Buxton/Sano return to glory" (assuming we care about budgeting for that, extending Anderson would affect it more than a Garza deal now). Also, Anderson has pitched 450 innings in the majors. His 147 ERA+ season lasted all of 112 innings. Just looking at last year's game logs, Garza had a 99 inning stretch with a roughly 144 ERA+. I'm not sure how you can reliably conclude he's a better pitcher than Garza, even when healthy. If you want to take a risk adding this caliber of pitcher now, risking money might be the better play, particularly if Oakland isn't so keen on accepting a "buy low" return.

Ace is definitely subjective, and I like your 20 estimate. But here's Radke's rWAR ranks among pitchers, for the 5 season period beginning in 1997: 17, 13, 5, 5, 18 Prefer fWAR? 10, 14, 17, 8, 11 Looks top 20 to me. And consistently so -- filter out the Joe Mays 2001 types from the above lists and Radke could be even higher. I'll grant that a healthy Garza may be better characterized as a very consistent #2 rather than a borderline ace -- his performance, while very good, has never spiked that high. That consistency might actually be more valuable then some borderline aces, though, who may have a spike "ace" type season but much lower lows (i.e. Jimenez, E. Santana).

Brett Anderson, career ERA+: 108 Matt Garza, career ERA+: 108 Not advocating one or the other, just thought that was interesting.

I think Radke was just about a legit ace. In his prime, he averaged 226 IP with a 118 ERA+ for 6 seasons. He obviously wasn't ever the best MLB starter, but for 5 of those 6 years, he ranked in the top 29 for ERA+ and in the top 15 for IP. Not his fault he was stuck on some awful teams. In the lowest year of his peak, Radke dipped to a still very respectable #33 for IP and #39 for ERA+. I'd say that one season was borderline ace, and pretty much 2008-2011 Garza ranks.

"Easily"? If everything breaks right for the Twins and their prospects, we won't have room for Garza... 4 seasons from now? Do you realize how crazy that sounds? You're assuming that three 18 year olds who haven't pitched above rookie league ball yet will all be healthy and capable MLB starters by age 22. You're also comfortably predicting that our ace will be a guy who has yet to pitch above AA, missed about half of last season with shoulder problems, and was only ranked #59 by BA before those shoulder problems surfaced. I am excited about Meyer and the younger guys as much as anyone, but if it was this easy to develop and project starting pitchers, the Twins would not be in their current situation. Again, there are plenty of fine arguments against signing Garza -- that there's just no room for him on our 2017 depth chart can't possibly be one of them.

Garza's career ERA+ is 108, and he's basically been right around that mark every season of his career. That 108 would rank around #40 among all MLB qualified starters in recent seasons. Last year, Bailey, Lester, Burnett, and Hamels were just a few of the notable guys right around that figure. I think that's definitely #2 starter quality. Now, if you simply meant Garza has "seldom pitched" at all (hasn't qualified last two seasons), I'd agree that's definitely a strike against him. (Although with durability, a consistent 108 ERA+ could be borderline ace material, as evidenced by the names listed above, and Garza himself a couple years ago.)

The Twins weren't going to compete for Tanaka in the old system either. And they can still sign guys like Nishioka (hopefully better!) with no posting fee or a minimal one. Not sure what the problem is?

I hope I'm not nitpicking, but can we please stop using vague, generic thread titles? Unless the thread is intended to vague and generic, I suppose. Otherwise, moderators have my blessing to rename threads to their specific topics. "Well, this sucks" could refer to any number of Twins-related topics right now.

The players you listed signed for $125 mil - $275 mil. I think you're safely in the consensus here by opposing those deals for the 2014 Twins. More likely, folks here have been advocating one additional 4/60 or 5/75 type deal. A $15 mil AAV would have ranked somewhere around #53 in MLB for 2013. I don't think having two of those on the Twins (Mauer + the new acquisition) would bankrupt or handcuff us, given our paucity of other payroll commitments for the next 5 years. As always, there are plenty of other arguments against such a contract, but this ain't one of them.

Not to make this a tax discussion, but actually pro athletes pay income tax based on where the games are played. So only half his salary (home games) would have been subject to Minnesota tax, and the rest on the various states where our road games are played.

Sales tax? He could come here and just do his shopping online.

Hanigan is off the board, to the Rays: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/12/rays-to-acquire-ryan-hanigan.html Although if Jose Lobaton isn't included in the deal, I guess he would be on the block now.

Tried that livestream, was very spotty on my wifi apparently, only heard one full sentence among various tiny snippets: "Free agency isn't the answer"

I think you underestimate familiarity. Not saying that's the only reason TR got him, of course, but I think it's quite possible TR knew his desperate rotation needed one guy from that FA group, and the agent connection is what allowed TR to get it done with Nolasco quickly. I think the consensus opinion is that the Twins significant FA offseason is over, right? At least for pitchers? If TR wants to prove me wrong again, I'd more than welcome it.