Kwak

Or maybe slamming Ryan (and the Twins) for pursuing a policy of salary reduction at the expense of quality entertainment for the fans? You are correct than Correria should not be blamed--he did not wrong the Twins in any way--and Correria should not be flamed because he doesn't measure-up to the fan's expectations. Any "Correria bashing" should not take place until: the season has started and Correria has had an adequate number of games to assess his performance and his performance has been well below the level that he has previously performed. Ergo, Correria must be worse than his previous body of work. If Correria merely equals his previous level we may bash Ryan for signing him, but not Corriera because Ryan should have known what he was "buying from the used car lot."

I don't whether to laugh or cry.

I'm confident that there is a pitcher on the 40-man roster who can be removed to sign Saunders and not weaken the franchise.

I lived in Idaho for 6 years. Allegiances are often mixed among the locals. Some relocated from the West coast, and some from other intermountain West states. They generally prefered teams from their original region. So, it's fine to stay a Twins fan--you won't be exorcized! California is generally denounced as is anything deemed "the East".

Here we go again! Back to the "why should the Twins spend more money when they aren't going to win anyway?" This subject has been covered over and over. Extend your logic of spending/not-spending and the end result is a minor league team of "hoped-for future stars" at minimum salary most of the time or a collection of veterans at the peak of their career earnings who are expected to "win-it-all", maybe once every 15 years.

So much baloney about "rushed"/ "brought up too soon". Most players struggle at the MLB level early on, only to improve. The rest never succeed. It happens. This is just another part of "The Twins Way"--endless years in the minors. Read the artcles on top prospects by position and find out that most of these guys skipped levels along the way--and somehow succeed! Other teams routinely have MLers that were called up by age 22.

I seem to remember quite a lot of games where the Twins were basically KO'd by the 5th inning, and then slightly reduce the deficit making the final score not quite so lop-sided. My point is that a solid improvement in the rotation could occur but still lose as many games--though by one run instead of several. This would qualify as improving the rotation, the team, and yes to a degree fan entertainment ("...hey they're down only one, who knows?") but not materially affect the season's W-L record. That is my projection for 2013.

Do they ever project that a guy will regress?

Is Miguel Cabrera too big to play 3B? I remember this tome about Cal Ripken and SS, and more recently Mauer and C despite evidence to the contrary.

My take on the article is different--Gardenhire will be tendered another contract. Ryan is guiding the team under a management-approved plan and Gardenhire is Ryan's guy--and always was! Back in the days (2001) when Kelly was to replaced the "discussion" was between Gardenhire and Ryan. I believe Gardenhire pledged heart, mind, body, sole, and baseball philosophy to Ryan to get the job. Molitor didn't (plus he had the BB creds to "disagree" with Ryan)--so Buh-bye to Molitor. No one ever accused the Twins of ignoring loyalty to the boss as a praise-worthy quality. Some heads had to be "put-in-a-basket" after last season, so a contract extention was not practicable. But anything signifying improvement, or turnaround can (and will) be used to justify tendering another contract to Gardenhire. This statement by Ryan is termed "foreshadowing" and serves to refute any who might claim "Deux es Machina" when something "unexpected" occurs in the conclusion.

No where do we read specifics about planning or peformance. Even the dryest Annual Reports contain future projections and how they would be attained.

Joining-in late. No personal attacks either. Yes, I believe there is a long-term plan. Pattern the Twins after the Rays with a fallback position of the Marlins. Winning is not defined the same by everyone.Think of the Twins as if they are a common stock. Some have high-growth potential with high reward potential--but also with high risk. Some have modest growth potential, but have a niche that with tight control can consistently post consistent (but not stellar) positive results. I see much of the discussion based on the assumption that the FO is trying to win the WS, or at least always be in contention to win the AL Central. But that need not be the case. If the plan is to consistently operate with a $60-65MM payroll (assumes there will always be a Mauer-type on the team) and make a run whenever but generally to trade the veterans when their salary increases beyond a threshold (or total payroll beyond a threshold) that may well be defined as "winning" by management. Low-risk, consistent, but unspectactular results. Sadly (for fans who want to see a winner every year) that means disassembling the 2010 team piece by piece (except Mauer) and replacing them with low salary players. Expect losing seasons. Expect to hear some yay-rah-rah spin and the like, "...wait until so-and-so gets to the Twins...". Gallons of Kool-Aid will be poured--but several posters have stated that is "fine", they love the Twins whatever and "trust management to make it all right." Such a policy is valid for business--except that wasn't the pitch I heard when the Twins were asking (pretty much demanding) that the public make a very substantial contribution in construction, maintenance, upgrades costs, but also tax concessions. In my mind, they should be spending now to put a better team on the field in 2013 just as promised in their "request" for a new stadium.

The only reactionary move I saw was the Corriera contract, and he might have been on the target list all along (seems like he's a Twins-type pitcher). The trades of CFs for more pitching is indicative of a two-part plan--rebuild for the near future, but make some cosmetic improvements for 2013. You may argue that the trade of two MLers for one plus prospects is a degredation. But, I consider Revere to be replaceable from within as well as not part of the longer-term plan (or what I perceive Ryan's plan to be). No, I don't think Ryan has done enough, even within the team-imposed salary reduction (budget cut being part of the plan IMO). Trading Morneau? I wouldn't be surprised to find that was attempted, but Ryan was "displeased" with the results. There is also the part of the plan (IMO) of competitiveness in 2013. Clearly this roster is disappointing but to trade Morneau (a fan favorite) and not return results acceptable to the fan base would be a PR nightmare. I also believe the FO thinks they can make an acceptable trade of Morneau in mid-season. I don't think they can, but I wish them well. Blackburn's reincarnation? Disagreeable to be sure, but they are committed to pay him $5.5MM so I'm not surprised that they would give another shot to Blackburn. My take on the TD poster response to Corriera is that Blackburn might (before surgery issue) provide similar results, so try it. Blackburn would most likely have failed IMO. The signing of the "health questionable"?--consistent with the plan to significantly reduce budget yet make cosmetic improvement on 2012. I don't think any of them will make as much of a contribution on the field as they do now as a PR device. To sum up, yes I do believe Ryan has a plan, but I disagree with the salary reduction/diminished expectations part, and I believe he could have done better than he did, even using the team-imposed constraints.

"Endorsement opportunites". Yes I have seen some commercials for Mauer, for Jeter, and for some retired players (Hernandez and R. Johnson) but I really can't think of any others. Plus, all of these guys were from the "top-of-the-mountain" so to speak. Locally, Hrbek did one-or-two commercials, but that's it. When I think of "endorsements" I think of shoes, clothes, golf clubs, cars--deals that pay hundreds of thousands or millions per year, not standing next to Joe of Joe Schmo's Heating and Cooling. I really don't think baseball players cash-in on this stuff much--especially compared to the other sports.

Without a contract offer ensures said FA will not play here.

I'm in favor of aggressively pursuing Diaz, but developing him as a SS. Goodness knows teams don't need a defensive wizard at SS. As for Rosario--I would like the Twins to rush this guy through the system. 2015 is way too late if the information about him is close to correct. There is a huge hole at 2nd now, huge need for hitters, especially those that might provide HRs at positions that generally don't hit much. Stop worrying about a guy who struggles as a rookie, they aren't the problem. The problem is having a team of luke-warm spit this isn't quite bad enough to dump, but somehow convinces management he must be retained for several years because they fear if said "player" goes to another team that he will blossom into a star and be an embarrassment to said executive that "gave-up" on him.

Hmm, let's see, what's worse signing a marginal FA pitcher from the NL to a 1-year contract or nothing? What would happen to the "saved" $5MM or so?--do we fans recieve any benefit? Like maybe a $1 off a ticket if we sit in the designated b--tching section, or maybe a bag of peanuts to remind us of who we are and where we are sitting?

In the title of this thread is a claim that the Twins never made an offer to Marcum, and unless people start disputing said claim then we must conclude that "Ryan didn't want Marcum". My take on the discussion was the "why not?" The disclosed terms don't appear to be outside the acceptable parameters to the Twins. Marcum's statistics appear to be better than others who were signed--so why not? It would be way too glib to dismiss Marcum as "damaged goods" when the Twins have made offers to, and even signed, pitchers who fall into the "damaged goods" category. We can also reasonably conclude that the Twins didn't (and are aware of it) solve all of their pitching problems, so there must be another factor(s) that caused the Twins to "pass" on Marcum (yet sign Correria, Pelfrey, and the others).

Experience at AAA is overrated, all rookies will have to prove and verify at the MLB level anyway. It is also very true that delaying Hicks does "extend team control" and that there is financial gain--for the Twins (not we fans!). However, my slant is to have Mastroianni be the starting CF in hopes that he can produce a rather successful season--OBP, steals, runs scored, and defense--so he could be traded for the largesse received from the Span/Revere trades. Darin is likely a darn good guy and good ballplayer, but clearly he is not considered the long term solution at CF. 4th OF are easily found (often from within), and they garner little when traded. But, If Mastroianni could be "packaged" as a starting CF, quality, young, and with years of team control, I'm convinced that the Twins could really help themself. After all, it worked with Revere, why not Mastroianni?--and the "risk" is zero.

But Ryan believed he had the leverage and that Baker owed the Twins--he was wrong. That setback coupled with the non-acceptance of any other offer made (though we can't say for sure that there were any offers, only guess) a more aggressive offer was made to KC. I don't believe that any of the "top FA pitchers this year" were ever on his radar.

What cold weather? The games are played from April to October, with temperatures very much the same as any other city. True, there aren't very many truly "hot" and humid days, but that is normally considered a "good" thing. Winter? Players generally don't live in the same place year-round anyway--often seeking states that have low or zero state income taxes. This cold weather excuse just doesn't cut it for baseball.

Did I miss something?--Like "The Handbook of Values for Major League Baseball Players" that lists what salary (including incentive clauses) that each player is "worth". I read all these comments about "overpay" and I wonder "...hmm, how does [he] know what constitutes 'overpay' "? Though some sort of comparision to the salary of other players is inevitable there clearly needs to be adjustment for where/when said player played, changes in health, and "woe is me" adjustment factors for changing to a new team with a different competitive situation and location, etc. Or, are salaries determined by plain,old, supply and demand? and "overpay" is simply a term invented by unbidders (and non-bidders) to disparage the player and his new team and salary?

I guess we all need to wear tin-foil hats and believe that FA prices are set at GM meetings and that any team that "overpays" has to pay a penalty to MLB. The Twins have been conditioned to strictly adhere to this policy because the Pohlads refuse to return money to the "shared revenue kitty". The end result is that the Twins never offer more than "the price" to FAs and therefore are routinely refused by the "better" players because they refuse to play in East Dakota unless they are "overpaid". We know this because Ryan has stated the Twins won't "overpay" and that our location is deemed undesireable by MLB players (because we are Twins fans and are familar with the area). There! It's out in the open--a giant conspiracy that ensures that quality FAs won't sign with the Twins. [Though it doesn't explain why Twins players {not from here} sign lucrative contract extentions]--unless the conspiracy is even greater to include collusion with all FAs that make it unlikely that FAs (those of any quality) to sign with a new team! This policy does not apply to FAs assigned to "The Dumpster" or "The Leper Colony".

Or how about what is done in Soccer where there is a relegation league for those teams that didn't win enough? Every year a couple of teams change--bottom two from the premier and top two from relegation.

Most of the discussion in the threads has been about starting pitching. Those "prospects" that you refer at the AAA level are the guys we saw in 2012. I do wish those fellahs well, but have little optimism that they will form the core of a rotation to lead the Twins to playoff heaven. Yes, there are some position player prospects that are close to the major league level--but their progress is not impeded by the FA pitchers in the discussion. Spending money on potential #3s? Why do you contend that they won't be useful beyond the 2-3 year span?--even as a trade? It would be extremely optimistic to believe that the Twins already possess the pitchers in the minors who in 3 years will not only be the entire rotation but be fully successful at the major league level. Last, I (and most likely all of the posters on this thread) will not be spending any money for said #3-type-pitchers anyway, so I say "spend away" and improve this team--even if the season doesn't result in the Twins making the playoffs.