Otto von Ballpark

Maybe he was just being classy and professional with Bartlett on his way out the door, regardless of his personal opinions about the guy? Part of what makes the Twins such a respected organization? I still think Gardy gained a lot of power after TR left. Dealing Garza and Bartlett both in the same trade? What made those two expendable on a team that lacked infielders and was already set to deal their best starter (Santana)? If that isn't obvious enough for you, how about trading youngster Ramos for proven closer Capps? JJ Hardy dumped for nothing because he didn't have speed? Even if Gardy wasn't directly involved in these decisions, Bill Smith was thinking a little too much like Gardy in approaching these transactions, I suspect. Say what you will about TR, but the man doesn't do his manager too many favors. Now, what brings Bartlett back? Maybe the issues weren't that big of a deal, or didn't faze Bartlett too much. And if a SS is looking for an opportunity to prolong his career, there's probably no better place to come than Minnesota right now, especially if he indeed has family connections to our AAA town Rochester. Remember the Jacque Jones farewell tour?

In this vein, I think detailing the process would be fascinating. Is free agent bidding somewhat open among teams, or is it more "blind"? How often are teams offered a chance to top an offer? Do teams share/confirm info, or can they only really get it from the player/agent? (For example, how did TR know that Correia "left money on the table"? Did Correia or his agent tell him that, or did TR get that from another GM?) Just stepping through a "typical" signing would be really interesting. I suspect many fans think of the bidding as more "open" than it actually is, probably because it is rather open in other sports, with restricted/unrestricted free agents, matching offers, salary caps, etc. But I really don't know.

And I hope I didn't come across as overly critical of Parker's work here -- this is an interesting read, and certainly the kind of content that makes Twins Daily special. I have no doubt that the Twins brass is respected -- they've basically been at the helm of the franchise for 20+ years. You don't get to that point without some success and some respect from your peers. I wonder where the Twins front office staff ranks, in terms of tenure with the same organization. If you count from his original hire date, TR is the longest tenured GM, and I would imagine a few of his staff would hold similar distinctions among their peers.

Well, if one is concerned that the Twins are overly conservative with money, the fact that they've been outbid even on the players they got doesn't help. If these reports are to be believed, TR has basically never outbid anyone, anywhere. It worked in building a winner before, but it took awhile.

And for multiple reasons, we should be skeptical of such claims. Especially when one team makes the claim about their biggest signings each of the past two offseasons....

Boston had an option on Lester, and already exercised it. Volquez seems to have to lowest potential here. Hasn't been above-average (or even just average and healthy for a full season) since 2008. Could be cheap, but probably just wants a one-year, make-good contract anyway. I'd be tempted to put him in the Johan/Halladay longshot flyer division -- not a bad pickup for the Twins, but not necessarily a priority. I think if the Twins can get a guy or two from your list (excluding Pelfrey and Volquez), I wouldn't mind if they then pursued a decent guy or two not in the list (i.e. Bronson Arroyo) and one of the longshot flyers (Johan/Halladay/Volquez/etc).

Why are we using $75 million as the benchmark? The Twins aren't just conservative on those -- in fact, I doubt they've ever even considered or made such an offer. They've never topped $21 million total / $7 mil AAV for an outside free agent ($10 million total / $5 mil AAV for pitchers). I'd be delighted if they simply topped those numbers and got some quality assets for it this offseason. If you include Asian/Cuban free agent signings, only two franchises (Pittsburgh and San Diego) have historically given less to their biggest outside free agent signing, although Pittsburgh's actually had a higher AAV (Russell Martin). Pittsburgh also traded for Wandy Rodriguez and picked up a higher AAV on his remaining deal than the Twins ever have, and San Diego extended Carlos Quentin to a deal even greater than Willingham's (both total and AAV) months after trading for him. The Astros and Marlins are cheaper at the moment, but historically, overall, the Twins are probably the most conservative at handing out ANY outside free agent money, much less $75 million.

It's valuable because "leaving money on the table" can mean lots of different things -- AAV vs total dollars, for one difference. Option years for another. Thanks for clarifying in regards to Willingham. Don't know if you know the exact numbers (boy, you guys are quite the "insiders" now! ) but I'd bet it fits my theory (less than 10% difference) in which case, moving back to his home time zone from the coast makes sense. TR was once quoted that Correia also "left money on the table" -- has it ever been confirmed what that meant? Was he really offered more than $10 million guaranteed? Why is it that the Twins two biggest outside free agent signings ever (Willingham and Correia) apparently both "left money on the table" to come here (despite being in a class of "budget" FAs to begin with)? Has TR ever been the high bidder for anyone?

Also, my working theory is that TR and the Twins don't like to work with "outsiders" -- this means players, coaches, and staff from other organizations, but also agents in general. By making few offers, and only targeting low-salary low-interest players, they pretty much minimize the role of the agent (no competitive bidding, lower dollar differences, player preferences more important, etc). Bill Smith seemed to work out of that comfort zone internationally at least (Sano and Kepler were both his), and TR has to deal with agents less now due to draft and international spending caps, but I suspect it still holds true in the domestic (and Cuban and Asian) free agent markets. Would love to see if they could work out of that comfort zone finally to make the team better faster than drafting/developing alone. I wonder if the Twins have worked more with some agents rather than others? I know a lot of agency info is out there, it would be cool to see a breakdown of it.

Agreed that it's probably mostly a puff piece. He has multiple clients here now and he represents multiple free agent pitchers this offseason. I know it's always fun to talk to these "inside baseball" types, but I would have been shocked if he had said anything other than this. Did you ask him about specifics in the Willingham and Kepler deals? Not teams obviously, but dollar amounts? That would be valuable information. Exactly how much more were the other offers? In the case of Willingham, was it more per year, for fewer years, or did it involve options, incentives, etc.? I am sure that players sometime sign with teams that don't offer the highest total contract value or highest AAV, but I would be shocked if the true money difference ever exceeded ~10% max. Just like bang-bang calls at first, it can go either way but you still have to run and make it close. I suspect the Twins often don't even make an offer to free agents, or when they're forced to, they make a lowball one (remember when Torii Hunter first hit free agency?).

Not only that, but as it stands now, of the young potential contributors to the next winning Twins team, Dozier has the most service time, and he won't be a FA until after 2018 (the same time Mauer's deal expires). Heck, Dozier won't even see a significant raise (2nd arb award) until 2017. The guys right behind him -- Arcia, Gibson, Hicks, Pinto -- are a year beyond that (no significant raises until 2018), and the "big guns" (Sano, Meyer, Rosario, Buxton, etc) probably won't see a notable MLB paycheck until 2019. Basically, the argument against spending big now (assuming 4-5 year deals) is that it might prevent us from spending big again in 2-3 years. But in 2-3 years, the argument against spending big will be that we have to be able to afford to retain our own players. I'm actually sympathetic to the latter argument. The former? Not so much. It sounds like more of a stalling or delay tactic to save the ownership some money in likely losing seasons of a stubbornly too-long rebuild process.

FWIW, MLB Trade Rumors predicts Kazmir goes 2/16 to the Twins -- I would take that in a heartbeat, I think. They also are linking the Twins with Bronson Arroyo, who they previously pegged at 2/24. I don't think I'd mind that one either as a secondary move. Also linked us to Jason Vargas, and predicted his deal would be 3/28.5. I think I'd prefer to stay away from him, if we can land one of the other guys.

I generally like the plan, but I don't see Hughes signing a multi-year deal when his value is so low. MLB Trade Rumors predicts a 1 year, $8 million contract for him. If Hughes doesn't want a longer term than that, do you go after anyone else this offseason? I guess any rotation additions are good right now, but it would be nice to add one beyond one or two years. I like the Billingsley idea. I have no clue what the Dodgers are doing, but I think I'd be willing to eat the whole salary too, if we're not giving up anything more than a marginal prospect or two. Billy Smith might have made that trade. Elvis Andrus? I want no part of that contract. And while flipping Arcia for young pitchers sounds like a decent play, I'd rather hang on to him and take more risks on free agent pitchers. Trading a cheap young guy instead of paying older guys would fall under "shortcuts" for me.

The last Twins "phenom" Joe Mauer made it to the big leagues after 2 full seasons in the minors. However, he was advanced a bit slower than Buxton so far -- Mauer spent his whole first season in low-A, then split his second full season between A+ and AA. Buxton was also 4 months older than Mauer when drafted. Additionally, Mauer was somewhat "blocked" at the MLB level by Pierzynski, and the Twins were contenders so breaking him in during a pennant race was probably less than ideal. So, expecting Buxton in MLB sometime next season seems pretty reasonable. Unlike Seth, though, I think I would be shocked if he was up BEFORE July -- remember, this guy still hasn't played above high-A, he's starting in a pitcher's league, and there's that Super-2 cutoff date to think about (not that I think it makes a big deal, but when the guy is a potential superstar and he's beginning the season in AA, it doesn't hurt to wait). So I say, July at the earliest.

Huh. So best case scenario, we're done rebuilding in year 5 or 6? And that's assuming most of our top prospects today actually pan out? Is that really the best plan? And what if there are no top line FA starters available in 2016 or 2017? What if the best available then is a Barry Zito type? With as barren as we are for starting pitching, basically above rookie- and A-level ball, I'd rather be on the hunt now -- not forcing a signing, but definitely looking, identifying our best bets to produce over the contract, and bidding competitively within the ample budget room we have over the next 5 years.

What's interesting is that free agency really isn't a "shortcut" at all (unless you forfeit a draft pick). If the Twins started trading prospects to eke out a few more wins next year, that would be a shortcut. But nobody's advocating that.

Jeremy, where were you in our extended 40-man/Rule 5 Kepler debates? The extra option year pretty much settles that.

I guess they were going to non-tender him, but they wanted the 40-man roster spot a few days before the nontender deadline, so they simply released him (which required he pass through release waivers first).

Kazmir at 2/16 sounds pretty good. I'd still like an additional guy on a longer term, but even Kazmir would be a step up from most of TR's past FA starter acquisitions. Not sure I want any part of Loney -- Tampa has the 1B magic lately, I am pretty sure he'd come down a bit here. Tampa is a great destination for Morneau, though.

Not really waiting for anything, just noting another thing it would be interesting to discuss with TR. I think I know what you are getting at, though: this isn't an organization with many regrets, as long as they do things "their way."

Google easily yields yearly MLB nontender lists back to 2003 (the year after Ortiz's). I just looked through them and couldn't really find a player/situation similar to Ortiz 2002. Most of the guys were relief pitchers. Very few were everyday hitters, and I couldn't find any that were as young as Ortiz (entering age-27 season), as good as Ortiz (120 OPS+), and as healthy as Ortiz in the previous season (125 games). There were a few decent players, but most were coming off career-worst years, injuries, and/or were due a lot more money (third time arb). The closest guy to Ortiz was Edwin Encarnacion, who wasn't as good a hitter as Ortiz at age 26, was a third-time arb player (at least 3 times more expensive), and even he wound up signing back with the same team for his age 27 season at a discount over the previous season. Did teams learn from TR's Ortiz mistake? Possibly, but I haven't seen any evidence that guys with Ortiz's combination of age, record, and modest salary were non-tendered before 2002 either. TR may not have been alone in under-valuing Ortiz at the time, but if no other GM has made this particular mistake before or since, it's hard to give TR much sympathy in that regard. It would be interesting to hear some candid thoughts from TR on the subject -- I'm pretty sure it wasn't any one thing, but it would be interesting to hear what the prime factors in the decision were (and what the team has done since to learn from and correct those mistakes): - undervaluing OBP+SLG skills - undervaluing age - overvaluing fielding / unwillingness to embrace a young full-time DH - overvaluing/misdiagnosing health - manager's doghouse penalty - overvaluing ~$2 million salary relief - overvaluing LeCroy

He uses a riding mower, though. Just another member of the "privileged class"

Basically, any one-year deal would be fine for Johnson, and probably Hughes too. That's all they will be looking for this offseason, and with that short of a term, the dollars really don't matter. Still would be nice to get a longer-term guy for the rotation too -- maybe Johnson or Hughes if they have success could be extended reasonably, or we could splurge on an Ervin Santana type.

So a .795 OPS in "down" months is the mark of a bad player? That alone would have ranked 5th on the team in OPS. LeCroy was almost exactly the same age as Ortiz. He was only a better-ranked prospect when he was still a minor league catcher which was already 3 years prior. Ortiz had almost as many MLB PA through age 22 as LeCroy through age 26, and they were much better PA. And LeCroy was the short side of a platoon. In a business where even the small-market Twins were doling out $55 million per year in player salaries, yes, finding an extra $1.5 million is not that big of a deal. If Terry Ryan thought that David Ortiz wouldn't be worth $1.5 million in 2003, he was wrong, and if the Twins budget was so inflexible that Ryan couldn't add $1.5 million for a player he thought was worth it, well that's such a terrible business model in this sport I don't know where to begin.

Because if there is one thing we all know, it's that TR always spends his entire payroll budget! Even if the $55m cap was somehow inviolable, why would you have to lose two? Every one of the guys you listed made $1.75m or more in 2003. Reed, Hawkins, and Eddie were all on expiring contracts too, with Koskie, Guzman, Dougie, and Milton gone after 2004 too. There weren't too many long-term commitments on that club. And if the Joe Mays contract forced TR to release David Ortiz prematurely, I'm not sure why TR should get a pass for that.