bird

God I miss Spiro.

Source?

And moreover, a nattering nabob. The worst kind of nabob.

Apparently, it does to someone.

Well, they DIDN'T back in the 30's when you and I went to college. That's why I enrolled at Inver Grove Community College instead.

no disagreement here

The care and the try dials have absolutely nothing to do with it. Go to the operational philosophy buttons, the business disciplines buttons, the corporate culture buttons...

It's insulting to the ones accused, Mike. Leave me out of it please. Had you used the language you chose in this reply, fine. Although I take minor issue with it as well. But you said the Twins have a profound lack of ambition in virtually everything they do. Think about the meaning of this phrase for a second. It's insulting language, and not a fair description of their state of mind. You've been on TD enough to have read comments in the past that were equally unfair and insulting. I think this comment fits in snugly with all the "don't care don't try greedy deceitful" rhetoric we occasionally endure here. I do take issue with your description above and would need some examples to be swayed. But first, I share a common belief with many here that the organization is too conservative and too risk-averse, but for me only moderately so. I believe that Terry Ryan does have certain bad tendencies. He has been stubbornly resistant to change in some areas, because he has a naturally high conviction level. I'd change how much he seems to detest the possibility of getting into a bidding war, because my sense is it closes him off to opportunities. I'd like him to show less patience. I'd like him to demonstrate less loyalty to the "good guys" like Duensing and Pelfrey. I think what's frustrating you is their operating philosophy. I don't believe it has anything at all to do with comfort level. I'm glad no one feels "desperation", which is a state of mind most likely to cause irrational acts and mistakes that can and have set franchises back for years. The organization thinks long term, practices fiscal discipline, and values stability. A profound lack of ambition? Nonsense. There are "counterexamples" of ambitious and admirable risk-taking and innovative strategies adopted by the organization. Just as there are examples of the damage caused by risky decisions throughout baseball, including this organization. While I think they could occasionally take more risk, they take more than gets acknowledged. They just signed Wander Javier for $4M, risking their entire pool for the year. They rather ambitiously pursued Sano. They were early in Europe, early in Australia. They outbid teams for Park this winter. My point is that we can take issue with how much risk they're taking, or how much urgency they're signaling without questioning something as fundamentally important as their level of ambition or calling them complacent.

Why are we so sure the decision indicates a belief on the part of the Twins that Sano can't play 3B? Is it not possible that they decided they want both Sano's and Plouffe's bats in the middle of the order while simultaneously concluding that Sano would be better served by playing two ways rather than sitting? Maybe it's not an "accommodation" move at all. Why the retroactive angst about past position changes, i.e. Plouffe to 3B and Dozier to 2B? Haven't they worked out pretty well?

Okay, Mike, but count these people one finger at a time, and you'll have lots of digits left over....

The Twins have a profound lack of ambition in virtually everything they do? Really Mike? You know that's profoundly untrue. And insulting to boot. Overly conservative? Sure. Too risk-averse? Very possibly true. They see the baseball side of the business differently than you and I see it. Period. Let's not promote any of these common false negatives, like that they don't care, or don't try, or they lie, or they lack ambition.

Crap. She has two husbands.

I get this. I've now had a lot of practice with all of these points. I think some of what you say is not entirely accurate, is maybe slightly overstated, or oversimplified here. For example, the motivation to transition Sano, at least temporarily, isn't about "accommodating Plouffe" per se. It's just part of it. Also, Plouffe is better than "average" in the minds of many. Molitor appears to like Plouffe, although getting a fair return may have entered into retaining him, or not, who knows? Murphy's capabilities are understated intentionally by you by using the label "backup catcher". Hicks has liabilities that arguably offset whatever defensive value he has, and no one living in the real world believes Buxton will be a drop off. Using Fangraphs data is utterly laughable for Sano's defense at 3B, so it's a good thing you cited scouting reports, although you ignored the most credible and relevant opinion, which is that of the Twins. And the Twins have the most credible and relevant opinion on the Sano move to the OF. There's a long history of athletic players making a rather seamless transition to OF. The Twins haven't promised it to be seamless BTW, just doable for him. And Park is a complete unknown. To you. But not to the Twins. You may be right, and you may be wrong, about a bunch of these things, Dave. Your conviction level about it certainly shatters the conviction meter. I doubt that any of the many people on the Twins field staff who weighed in on the Sano decision have nearly as high of a conviction level about it. Let's see how it plays out, it should be entertaining!

You're now talking about what his future value might be, which supports my belief that holding on to him this off-season was debatably a good decision, given the circumstantial evidence (the Frazier return, Freeze still unsigned, etc.) I think the Twins will get a better return for him at some point in the future than they would have gotten this winter. And he's not preventing Sano from adding his value. You're also seemingly quite confident that Sano would not be a liability at 3B, but will undoubtedly be a liability in the OF, no?

Haha. Thinking the first question Sid will ask Park: "Are you and the other guy, Nitchysomething, close personal friends?"

Why does it matter? Plouffe is much more valuable to the Twins right now than he is to any other team. He's pretty productive. Specifically, what did you expect the hypothetical return to be had Plouffe been traded? Again, the answer to your honest question is that the return would have had less value to the Twins than Plouffe does.

Yeah, good point. Sure would be sweet if they made a public commitment to have such an account, and I'd suggest it would be a helluva brilliant PR move. Therefore, because this org is allergic to good PR, it'll never happen.

I'm thinking an important variable affecting the timetable for a "rebuild" is the asset value in place. What are you getting in return for the players being sold off? Is it Kubel, Nathan, and Pavano, or is it Cespedes, Soria, and Price?

Wow. I have to say this has been perhaps the most impressive exchange on the subject of "payroll" I've observed on TD. Great and insightful (as opposed to inciteful) contributions by a large group, so thank you markos, Brock, drjim, spycake, Mike, et al. The debate reinforces a few things for me. One, there is more than one "reasonable" or "right" way to skin the cat. Second, it's not an easy job to claw your way out of a hole. Markos, your plan is so well thought out and reasonable, but even so, we have to concede that in real time, some of the moves may have been undoable, and perhaps the alternative move would not have been as fortuitous as, say, Sanchez. GM's aren't going to bat 100% and they have zero benefit of hindsight. A third thing that gets reinforced for me, is that the relationship between some incremental spending and the two presumed benefits are really nebulous and sketchy. One presumed benefit is a few extra wins. The second presumed benefit would potentially be a higher level of fan satisfaction based on those few extra wins. I'm not convinced much of the discussion on these TD threads would have changed a great deal if Markos's plan had been Terry Ryan's plan. (The Bill Smith mistakes are another matter entirely). One of the things I find impressive about the Markos Plan is the low level of dead money that would reduce flexibility in 2017 and beyond, This particular subject alone, I believe, is at the heart of things when we find ourselves in an irreconcilable argument about spending. When one argument accepts the notion that some budget number should be recognized as acceptable and another person wants to ignore the concept or rant about the Pohlads, we usually have a pissing match on our hands. Thanks for the great thread gentlemen.

No fair, tobi. You have to start in 2010. Hell, maybe you screwed up and your payroll is at $122M with four contract obligations for guys not playing that run out through 2018. But, despite how easy it is to poke massive holes in your plan for 2016, I like it, especially the Lowe signing for a premium over what he got to convince him to come here. And the DH does not outhit Park.

me too

This might be the best description I've seen of the 2012-14 FA strategy. My own theory about some of the meh choices is that they were fixated on how terribly depleted the pipeline had gotten. This explains the choice of say, Correia over the choice of say, Brett Anderson or that guy I can't help Brock remember.

I've been a good pal of yours throughout the lean times, Mike. Even though a lot of people never fault the elected officials and instead place all the blame on the Pohlads for the stadium deal and for their own resulting personal tax burden, I have attempted to frame any discussion I personally engage in pertaining to "payroll" within a hypothetical context that one would hope could take that supercharged aspect out of the discussion. I'll offer the same hypothetical I have on other occasions in the past. Indulge me, and set the annual payroll number at $125M. Now, start in the off-season between 2010 and 2011 and tell me what you would have done in free agency each year to produce a division winner. Be honest about it. If you would have signed Pujols or Cliff Lee or Hamilton, admit it. So far, there has never been a time around here when people didn't say spend Pohlad's money, they're cheap, we deserve it... And yet, I can honestly say I cannot recall a halfway pragmatic proposal, in any past year, that I believe would have produced a divisional champion in that year, even including 2015. People often portray any resistance to spend by the Pohlads in brutally unfair ways. In reality, the relationship between spending and wins is complex, and most of us on TD are pretty good about not going off the rails one way or the other, because we recognize this. I think the goalposts have been in the same place all the time, for almost all of those of us who have endorsed the strategy that's finally about to pay off (hopefully). No one connected with the Twins can be accused of moving the goalpost either, unless people want to disingenuously label past "we'll be competitive" talk as a promise of a division title or something. The prevailing argument that you've been hearing in past years about why limiting spending made sense given the long-term strategy to build a sustainable level of excellence primarily via the farm system could not have been articulated much more clearly and consistently by a number of intelligent, thoughtful members of TD. Likewise, there have been a number of very well-articulated arguments by equally thoughtful and intelligent people about why spending a lot more would have been warranted. I personally have some of these positions memorized. In fact, my own view has changed as a result of some of those spending arguments. However, I always come back to the need for a governor or two to be in place in order for the discussion to be something other than a sloppy mess, and those two governors are avoiding the whole "we deserve more" stuff, and a hypothetical agreement about reasonable spending ($125M?), what it buys you and what it saddles you with. So there you go. $125M. YOU tell US if the Twins are contenders in 2016.

Yeah, and the same idiots liked Hughes, Jepsen, May, Sano, Puckett, and your fave Hunter...so what's your point? That they could just possibly be wrong about Murphy? Well of course they could.

First, I can imagine that Molitor is paying homage to the fact that Suzuki has been a bit of a warrior, a good clubhouse guy and good leader, deficiencies notwithstanding. Just a respect thing, and probably a good call by Molitor. Behind the scenes, I'd be surprised if Suzuki and Molitor haven't had an honest discussion about things. And I assume they think Murphy is better right now than Suzuki because, like to you and me and the six-year old next door, it became pretty obvious to the Twins that they needed to upgrade the starting catching position, both offensively and maybe even more importantly defensively. Think about what you're suggesting. Why would anyone in their right mind give up anything at all if their goal was an upgrade over Herrmann or Fryer? What they say or don't say about an open competition is hardly a significant indicator of anything.