bird

It's OK to dream into the future about Meyer, but I think you're making a huge and inaccurate assumption to say that Meyer would have buckled knees and missed bats. Maybe he would have simply missed the plate and been pulled after three innings, five walks, and 70 pitches. No one on this site has ever argued that Meyer's ceiling is lower than a single one of these guys. Pino was likely regarded from the start as a one-year guy, and he was a terrific addition, giving us some nice starts up until he was injured. They didn't cut him because of his performance per se.

We're all rooting for Meyer and were frustrated that we didn't see him, but let's remember that Pino, May, and Johnson all performed better than he did if you don't allow yourself to be mesmerized by his K's while ignoring his BB's. In addition, Darnell and Gilmartin for that matter turned in comparable performances to Meyer's. Still, his injury concerns probably overshadowed all of this in the decision that Meyer was indeed NOT a better option than Pino or Darnell at the particular point in time that those decisions were made.

The idea of "rolling with what we have" for 2015 almost nauseates me. The thought that seems to permeate this whole argument is to "survive" 2015. But survive WHAT? And why avoid making a couple of very doable moves when those moves might radically alter things in 2015 with zero negative consequences into the future? I get the optimism about Reed, Jones, Burdi, Polanco, and Rosario, let alone Meyer, May, Sano, and Buxton. But we can't view their contributions, if any, to any success we have in 2015 as foregone conclusions. And the very mention of the word "adequate" in the same sentence as Milone, Pelfrey, Parmelee, Hicks, Schaefer, Darnell, and Danny Ortiz should be illegal. Why would we go with the choices we currently have in the outfield if instead we can sign a better player than any of those guys has proven to be with the only cost being some cash? No blocking of Buxton, or anyone else for that matter. And let's be entirely realistic about the starting rotation please. Fine, Hughes is a #2-3 starter. Great. Now, for 2015, if everything goes our way, we have Gibson, a #3-4, Nolasco, at BEST a #3-4 and at worst a repeat of his #5-6 performance, Meyer and May, probably #3-4 performance as rookies at best. Now, I DO love the depth, and history proves you need 10 pitchers, not 5, capable of making some semblance of a start for you. And we have lots of possibilities with Pelfrey, Milone, Johnson, Rogers, Duffy, Gilmartin, Wheeler, Darnell, Berrios, etc. I'm OK rolling with what we have for options on the infield and in the pen, but we should be pulling for Ryan to find another Hughes-like gem and a 2-way corner OF. At the very least.

Are you suggesting it's valid to compare Finnegan to Reed? Finnegan was the 18th player taken. He's living up to his glowing scouting reports, even exceeding all expectations. People watching Reed in the AFL, despite his nice showing, are still seeing some command issues. It's entirely unfair to criticize the Twins on their advancement of Reed, who was selected about 100 players after Finnegan.

Go for the donuts, you fool!

If you read the comments carefully, Kwak, I think you'll find that virtually every commenter so far has been careful not to infer a whole lot from it. You're probably the first to infer anything dramatic. I'm on this site every day and have been for years. I honestly cannot recall a single commenter who has alleged that Smith completely destroyed the franchise, for one. Second, most criticisms of Smith have rightly been about his trades, not the draft. And third, Smith had very very little to do with and by his own admission, practically no real input on the selection of one player over another in Rule 4 drafts. College players do not progress more slowly in the Twins system than in other systems. I think you're perpetuating a longstanding myth here that is not substantiated by a close look at the record.

No conclusions to be drawn, but interesting that, aside from Trout, I'm not sure there's another one of the ten drafted after Gibson that you'd trade for him. And maybe an equal number drafted ahead of him you'd refuse in a trade for Gibson.

This may have some merit in theory at least, because I think what we're seeing is a shift in strategy by a lot of teams to one that more closely emulates the current strategy of teams like the Cards, Twins, Cubs, and Royals, who concentrate their energies on developing players. Even the Yanks and Red Sox appear to be going in this direction, so if more teams place a higher value on their own prospects, they may be willing to pay a higher price for someone else's too.

The Rays, in my view, are the best example of how having one of the very top selections in the draft for a decade really bumps up the IQ. Their fans are starting to grouse about how they stink at drafting and development now...

Yeah, a B- might be slightly charitable even given the fact that no consideration is being given to the draft order. But a C- is a bit harsh. Gibson and Dozier are nothing to sneeze at. And giving them a lower grade might mean that you'd give lower grades all around. It doesn't make a lot of sense to look at draft results for any team in a vacuum. Looking at a single draft year of course doesn't prove or disprove anyone's notion about whether the Twins are any good at scouting and drafting. As someone who strongly believes they're not bad at it, I'm happy with any evidence that suggests they are, which this grade does.

It's important to note that these grades do not adjust for draft order. So, it should be reasonable to expect less than a B grade for a team like the Sox (D grade), who drafted #23, and it should be expected that a team drafting #9, like the Tigers (D grade), would fare better. Cleveland drafted #15 and was graded as C, so I'd suggest their fans should not complain (but of course they will). KC drafted #12 an got a B like the Twins, who drafted #22.

Going back to the comparison you were trying to make then. You mentioned you can see the Twins ultimately ending up with similar results to KC in terms of Rule 4 production (correct me if I'm wrong). You used Butler, Hosmer, Moose and Gordon as your examples, which is understandable but also paints a very incomplete picture of the contribution they gotten from Rule 4. Let's HOPE we get even more contribution from our Rule 4 guys, and faster. What I find most instructive is that KC's success is 90% the result of combination of international signings and Rule 4 selections, both of which are part of rebuilding via your own farm system.

Yes, I agree completely that his value has been nominal for a long time, and maybe I'm being unfair using him as an example. I also recognize guys are going to have to be cut simply because the timing doesn't allow for a transaction to be pursued. Still, I just wonder if a deal couldn't be pursued more often by the Twins for guys like him. Maybe last year when he had marginally more value, off to a team with a more acute shortage of MLB OF options for their version of a Kanzler or Tanner English- a low level prospect like that.

I sure hope you're right about Hicks, Paul! And I think, like with Dozier and others, the hope is justified. But I keep circling back to this Plan B in my little head, and I get nervous thinking that Santana and Schaefer represent Plan B if Hicks falters. That's not good enough IMO, even for 2015, even with Rosario laying in the weeds. That would be like counting on Scott Baker coming off injury as your #3 starter, and what GM in their right mind would do THAT? So then, I think about what kind of conversation a GM has with, say, Colby Rasmus. "Colby, we want you to sign this one-year contract, start the year in CF until Buxton shoves you out of the way, maybe as soon as mid-year. And then, unless Hicks is stinking up the joint in LF, you'll be picking splinters out of your pants for the rest of the year." If I'm the GM, I'm finding an everyday LF for 2015 and letting my manager decide among Santana, Hicks, and Schaefer for CF until Buxton comes along.

....based on this...

So Ash, what would you do this off-season regarding Plan B for LF and CF?

I really really hope the new manager grills Joe Mauer on this question.

Hicks should be fine now that they've got rid of Rick Anderson.

Nah, go get the popcorn, jay, 'cause I'm about to rain all over mike's parade by telling him about Baseball America's letter grades, just released, for the 2009 draft. (It's the most recent draft they're comfortable weighing in on. Ahem, did you catch that mike? . They gave the lousy stinking Twins a B. KC got a B too, but they rated #12, not #22. Chicago (#23) got a D. Cleveland (#15) got a C. The Tigers, who drafted #9, got a D. Alright, gotta run. About to get a timeout for thread jacking.

Had one once about his wife. Went to confession shortly thereafter.

Yeah, I'd be surprised too, which is why I labeled it a surprise trade. I'm in the minority I'd guess, but I actually like the idea of keeping Santana in CF and Escobar at SS to start 2015. My reasons: 1) it provides immediate adequate solutions, both offensively and defensively, at two positions at no new cost, until the real solution, Buxton, is ready; 2) it's an adequate solution for a .500 baseball team, which is what I'd project as their upside range in 2015; 3) I'm very skeptical that Santana's development as the future SS would be retarded by having him play CF for another half-year. And in fact, I'm not even convinced he's our next SS -it might be Polanco. I picked Hicks as the surprise trade candidate based on my hope for an outside solution at corner OF. It's speculation on my part that Hick's acceptance of a 4th OF role may be a challenge for him, and that a change of scenery trade might be best for both sides, especially if it appears that Schaefer would beat him out of the 4th OF spot anyway. Again, I don't expect it.

Parmelee might end up being a good example of my biggest criticism of TR. There's perhaps hardly a team in baseball on which he'd represent an improvement, and guys like him are a commodity item, so he has almost no meaningful value. Not sure if he ever had a lot more value, but still, we may have another case of a guy being DFA'd for no return at all.

Hope not, Brandon. I'm ready for everyone calling for a different guy's head.

No surprise trades at all, mike, or just not Hicks? Maybe Pinto?

Nice synopsis, Mr. Buhr. I'm guessing that the Twin's will have a slightly less ambitious and less expansive to-do list when it comes to filling holes via trade or FA. 1. TR might shop for a Hughes-like #2-3 starter. I doubt he has an appetite for a #1-2 starter. 2. I wonder if they won't conclude they have all the viable RP candidates they already need in-house, and the decision will be about who to trade away versus who to keep, with only a fringe acquisition or two being in the cards. 3. I'm hoping real bad that they get us a 2-way corner OF and make do in CF with in-house guys until Buxton is set to go. 4. My guess is that they don't see a need to fill the CF spot. 5. My guess is we have a surprise or two on the trade front. Hicks is my candidate.