Otto von Ballpark

Thanks Seth. Those are good names, although it should be noted that all three of these guys were signed after the MLB adopted international spending caps, dramatically reducing the player's negotiating leverage. Not that they can't turn out to be good signs (although all of them are very far from MLB), but it's basically mandated spending, like the Buxton bonus. What were the Twins top international bonuses prior to 2012, besides Sano? Kepler (another 2009 Smith guy)? Smit? I'm having trouble thinking of any major pre-2012 Dominican/Venezuelan Twins signings... Arcia signed for $80k, I can't even find Pinto's bonus amount anywhere...

The article's contention seemed to be the Twins were making significant investments in international free agents, which Sano was an example of. But I can't really think of any major international signings besides Sano. (That's not to say the Twins haven't gotten some solid prospects in the international market, but they haven't invested that much in them, nor have they gotten any stars out of it yet either.) Which actually brings up an interesting point: has the Twins efforts in the international market produced results, compared to other MLB clubs? Just scanning the division for original international signings: Detroit: Omar Infante, Avisail Garcia, Bruce Rondon Cleveland: Danny Salazar (plus Victor Martinez & Jhonny Peralta, now with Detroit) KC: Salvador Perez CHW: Ramirez, Viciedo The Twins now have Arcia & Pinto, but those are the first notable international free agents the Twins signed that reached MLB in awhile, correct? Scanning Twins rosters all the way back to 1987, here's what I found: Jose Mijares Juan Rincon Luis Rivas ... Mark Portugal? They have acquired some international guys by trade etc. (Johan, Guzman, etc) but that seems like a pretty thin record. Since they also don't sign significant free agents, it's kind of a wonder they won anything -- they were pretty much 100% dependent on drafts and trades. Sano (and Arcia/Pinto) notwithstanding, they still have been, until the present day. Hopefully Arcia, Pinto, and Sano start a new wave for us, but I suspect the bigger effect will be the new international spending caps (like how the draft spending caps likely netted us Buxton).

I too distinctly remember Moses pitching, probably my earliest Twins radio memory in 1990 (probably the July game that year).

I want my house to be nice too, but I'm still pretty cheap about the place.

I would be on board with this curse, except our series win over Oakland was pretty flukey anyway. To wit: Since the modern divisional format was adopted in 1994, the Twins only playoff series win was over Oakland (2002), and Oakland's only playoff series win was over the Twins (2006). This despite the two teams making 12 combined playoff appearances (6 each) in that time. So the series wins kind of offset, and both franchises are essentially at zero. It's like the 1995 World Series, the Braves over the Indians -- when two "cursed" franchises meet, one of them has to win. Or if the Red Sox had played the Cubs in the 2003 World Series -- the winner isn't really a winner at all. Yeah, I'm mostly joking, but I have a hard time pinpointing the Hocking moment as a turning point.

True, although the Sano signing was already 4 years ago, under the previous GM. Did they go big internationally, before or since? And the Buxton signing didn't happen until MLB implemented hard draft slots, severely limiting the negotiating leverage of draftees -- hopefully that change nets us more talent like him, but it's hard to give the Twins too much credit for just going along. That would be like crediting NBA teams for spending restraint just for following the max contract guidelines. Again, previous GM (although to be fair, they haven't had any players worth re-signing in awhile). And some of those investments were questionable -- Morneau was a 1B, Nathan was a closer, and they inexplicably waited pretty late to extend obvious Twin for life Mauer. Correia is mid-range? "Mid-seven digit levels annually"? You realize the AVERAGE MLB salary is around $3.5 million, and that includes all of the pre-arbitration players working for peanuts? If Correia is a mid-range free agent, what the heck is a low-range free agent? You can't really sign a starting player to a guaranteed deal any lower than Correia's annual salary. Outside of Willingham, there isn't even a trend. They went just above average MLB salary for Ramon Ortiz and Livan Hernandez too, although I guess they didn't tack on the second year (although I believe TR has said he resisted giving the second year to Correia).

The Twins have never signed any free agent (from outside the organization) to more than a 3 year contract. And I think Willingham is the only one higher than 2 years (unless you count Nishioka). And off the top of my head, I think Correia was the first guaranteed two-year deal in awhile -- Doumit was one year and then resigned, so was Molitor, even Tewksbury was one year with an option. So saying they are willing to sign a guy to a 3-year deal is kinda like Al Newman saying he was willing to hit home runs. At some point, you kinda have to do it (more than once) for people to believe you. And you have to cut out the excuses -- the "team sucks" excuse of the 1990s morphed into the "stadium sucks" excuse of the 2000s and we're back to the "team sucks" for the 2010s.

Ah, that makes more sense. Even Nolasco's durable but middling pre-2013 would have looked good in a Twins uniform, even at $11.5 mil. I'm guessing that salary figure did not appeal to the Twins, though. I also wonder if the Marlins were holding on to him to boost his value a bit (although it evidently wasn't boosted much). Or if the Twins even had the quantity of minor league arms to send to Miami in return -- the cupboard here is pretty bare.

The new CBA says you can't make a qualifying offer to a guy you traded for mid-season. (Or at least that you can't get compensation after making such an offer.) So unlike deadline deals of the past, there is literally no way for Nolasco, Morneau, etc. to bring back anything to their new teams after the 2013 season.

Just catching up on this thread now, just wanted to comment on this: Remember that last offseason, TR apparently figured he only "needed" 3 new guys for the rotation, and we still wound up using Pedro Hernandez, PJ Walters, and other assorted flotsam before the end of May. I'd be really careful with saying they "only need" X number of guys, or they need to leave X spots open for guys to compete for. This team, like the 2012 team before it, is dangerously close to having zero reliable average MLB starters. They need all the help they can get.

Neither can be a Super 2 after 2015. The poster was referring to Mastro, Escobar, etc.

Collusion? That would have had to be after the 1986 season. So in theory the Twins could still have signed him after 1990, but who knows.

And for all of Mauer's "injury history" that has precipitated this proposed move, the dude had played in 113 of 123 games (a 149 game pace) and was sporting a 142 OPS+ this year, basically equal to any of his previous best batting champ seasons (save that crazy, crazy 2009). And this after a 139 OPS+ in 147 games in 2012. He's had a reduced catching load (74 games caught last year, was on a ~100 game pace this year) but outside of his monster 2009, this has been as good of a two-year stretch as any other in his career. So outside of the concussion , he's been on the field ~150 games a year lately and still hitting like a stud, without a position switch. Unless the concussion is worse than reported, I think he's warranted more time behind the dish. Even if Pinto rakes, they should probably keep splitting time back there -- no reason to give up that flexibility.

You make very good points, Brock. I remember Dozier looking so bad earlier, it's hard to believe he's really this solid of a player. Obviously I'm all for guaranteeing his job through 2014 at least, hoping he can keep it up.

Don't know if I'd go that far. Seems like when a guy suddenly "fixes" something at age 26, even if it's "real", it's not quite as permanent as a guy who establishes that level earlier. Dozier is almost certainly a risk to get untracked like Plouffe did. It is still vitally important to see if he can carry this through 2014 -- basically, what Plouffe has failed to do this year.

It's pretty bad that even our most encouraging MLB starter performance from 2013 (Deduno) posted 3.4 BB/9 and only 5.6 K/9. And our next most encouraging is Mike Pelfrey, who's had a strong second half to boost his ERA+ to 84. I'm sure now that he's fully recovered, we will see that figure continue climbing all the way up to his career mark of... 91.

Yup, the leading AL WAR catcher in 2013 is only starting at catcher again in 2014 for selfish and superficial reasons. Got it. Otherwise, he would obviously be moved off the position immediately due to the exceptional circumstances of being one of 4 Twins (and one of 2 Twins catchers, and one of 9 catchers in MLB) diagnosed with a concussion this season.

What's so weird about swapping your best player out of the most physically demanding position when you're well out of the race? And keeping the ability to swap him back into the same position when you are in the race (or hope to be) offers a huge advantage. Maybe to clarify: do you (or others here) recommend a permanent move, or just a reduced load? I could get behind the latter, especially if Pinto hits -- it's actually what I was hoping for in 2010 before the Ramos trade.

Well, your numbers said he's averaged less than 120 games per season. Last 9 years, he's been the 130s or 140s six times, twice fell just short of 120 games (arguably could have attained it in both 2007 and 2013 but arguably got extra rest in August and September after the Twins were out of the race), and once played just half a season (2011). That's not a bad record of durability for any player, really. Unless there are specific circumstances from the latest injury (or if Pinto tears the cover off the ball), I see no need to rush a change now.

Not that I disagree with your general point, Mauer may have a disproportionate number of games at 1B and DH when he's already banged up from catching. Those numbers don't mean much without that context.

A lot of that is 2004, with the fairly freak knee injury on the Dome turf. Take that year out, and he's at 127 games played and 550 PA per year, and a lot of that is held down by 2011 and 2013, two years he has likely been held out longer than necessary because they were lost seasons for the whole ballclub. Fact is, after his rookie year surgery, he played 131 games and 550 PA in his next season (not unreasonable given the injury), and since then, he's played at least 137 games and 584 PA in every season the Twins were even remotely competitive, save for 2007, when he was again held out a lot in August and September after the Twins were out of the race. I know you're going to dismiss this as a bunch of qualifiers, but Joe Mauer has actually been pretty durable over his career. Last 9 seasons, 6 full (130+ games), 2 partial (~110 games), 1 half (82 games). I know a lot of players at "easier" positions that have worse track records than that. Unless he's really rattled by the latest injury, I see no reason to make a permanent move now. Keep him from being behind the plate too much in rebuilding years and I think he will be just fine.

As Mike observes, the next big free agent signing TR makes will be his first. And I think you sign the big free agent when one that you really like is available, NOT when you feel like you should. Not every FA or FA class is equal. Waiting to make big signings based primarily on your timeline is a recipe for coming up empty-handed at best, and overpaying at worst (i.e. signing an older or worse guy than you would prefer, or getting into an unexpected bidding war).

But don't you think it is safe to assume Welker is on that list? That should give us an idea of the type of PTBNL to expect -- a list is not going to include Welker and, say, a top 10 prospect.

If the debate is "give a prospect a realistic chance" vs "sign an aging vet" then you won't get much disagreement. When the definition of "prospect" is expanded to include Clete Thomas, Wilkin Ramirez, Chris Colabello, Sam Deduno, PJ Walters, Andrew Albers... spanning multiple seasons... and "aging vets" can include under-30 guys signing 5 year deals... I start to think that smart front office with winning as a true top priority maybe shouldn't categorically refuse to sign FA for more than 5 mil, 1 year deals. Especially with money in the bank and adequate revenue streams and as another poster noted, no quality youngsters due significant raises for at least 4 years.

Note that I said free agents you like (meaning, that the team likes). Targeted acquisitions. If you identify some of those you think are the best bets, and you are realistic in your bidding, chances are you will snag a quality player every once and a while at near market rates. It won't break any non-Metrodome team's back, and you will get a good player and asset. Evidence clearly shows that not every FA is wildly overpaid or a guaranteed pumpkin within 2 years. Free agency isn't the best way to assemble a whole roster, but it is pretty clear that it can be effective in filling one out. And most FA deals are in the 3-5 year range -- there is no way a well-run modern MLB org should expect complete rebuilding mode like the 2013 Astros to last more than a year or two at its greatest depths.