bird

You're absolutely right about their pre-2007 international ineptitude. By then, they had acknowledged this mistake and were taking very aggressive steps behind the scenes to correct this huge deficiency, knowing they were going to remain behind the eight ball for some years to come. They expanded their international budget several-fold and began building the infrastructure. Billy Smith was put in charge of establishing the Venezuelen Academy and the Dominican operation, and Ryan put the people in place. The past is in the past. Presently, they have a well-above average international budget and a larger international staff than most teams in baseball and than every other team in the AL Central I'm guessing based on activity and results. Although KC and Cleveland re definitely very competent internationally. Chicago moved aggressively on Abreu probably in large part because they've been behind the eight ball about as much as the Twins were in 2007. Only the Sox' ineptitude extends to the entire pipeline, not jut the foreign talent.

You know what would be an interesting exercise? Pick a date out in the future, maybe 7 years to cover all of Rusney's new contract. Then compile the total WAR for him, Puig, Abreu, Cespedes, and. Tomas over the time period. Now, cherry-pick the Five Twins drafted or signed in the same rough timeframe with the best production and compile their cumulative WAR. The list might be Sano, Buxton, Arcia, Vargas, and Rosario, who knows. The Cuban group should have the higher cumulative WA R, right? After all, not even mike wants wins expects them to sign more than four of these guys. Now add up the cost for each group. Be respectful and pretend it's OK for even rich people to make wise financial decisions and then ask yourself which route made more sense? I'm not defending the Twins for pulling out of the hunt for these guys or any future guys. To the contrary, I fault them for not being more aggressive based on the evidence that they were not reported as players for these guys past the early stages if at all. But signing these Cubans is being portrayed as the only, or at least the best way to skin the cat. I get the timetable piece. But can you see the possible wisdom of taking much more palatable risks in search of the same albeit slightly delayed outcome?

But we're finally in a position where we don't heve to settle for bad outfield play at 2-3 OF positions. And since it appears that the rotation is going to be the last piece to get fixed, we simply HAVE to have better outfield play in CF and LF, and if Arcia isn't an absolute beast offensively, he's an inadequate solution for RF, IMO. We gotta go outside the system and forget trying to jam all these round pegs into square holes. It's time.

crappy crappy crappy crappy crappy

For the sake of this discussion, I'm making the quantum assumption that Sano works out at 3B and is ready to roll in June. I'm also assuming Polanco and Rosario progress and are at the doorstep by mid 2015, earmarked as utility guys, with Santana edging out Escobar at SS. Again big assumptions. So here's my plan: Plouffie gets shopped at the trade deadline. I 'll accept nothing less than an overpay. My preference is to package him with other surplus for a 2-3 starter, as I'll simultaneously be shopping a few of my billion-plus 4-5-6-7 starters. but I'll take an overpay in prospects too. if that fails, he becomes a super utility guy, spelling Sano, but primarily spelling Arcia and Mauer against tough lefties or when General Soreness gets a bilateral weakness of some sort. This might block Rosario during the season, but Plouffie projects as the better right-handed bat off the bench, at least in 2015. Plouffie gets shopped like the dickens over the winter of 2015-6. He ain't comin' back for 2016 to grouse on the bench, and I'll have better options by then because I' m such a brilliant GM.

Yeah, I buy that for sure. Still hoping for an overpay for Pinto this winter.

The thread is about the offense and about the future, so we should probably pull you out of the past and into the present long enough to start a different thread to cover all this fresh material you've introduced about the past. But I'm with you on the idea deeply embedded in your first sentence. Starting this winter, there are no bold moves that could happen too early. This will be the first time since the start of the rebuild three years ago (and well before) that the Twins have trade surplus to work with. So now, they can skin the cat using free agency and the trade market without seriously jeopardizing the strategy of building a sustainably superior ball club.

We don't "know" this. Well, maybe you do. I'm betting a crisp $100 bill that they acquire a front-line starter over the winter, a player who is a consensus #1-2 or at least and more likely a #2-3 starter. Wanna take the other side?

This is all well and good for 2016 and beyond, Mr. Johnsonville. But there are things that can be done over the winter of 2014-5 to bolster the offense. AND to slightly improve a putrid defense too.

From some of the quotes we're seeing from Ryan, I think he's on board with this, I really do. I guess I'd be really surprised if we didn't see an outside addition of the type of OF you've described. It wouldn't shock me at all if he found us a front-line starter, and a better catcher too. Ryan has said the offense needs to improve, and in the last comment I read, his first mention was rotation depth.

You're absolutely right, they are risk-averse. It's a sound business practice.

Other than Arcia, and possibly Hicks, none of the others in the lousy category are going to factor into things in 2015. That said, I hope they bring in a defensively sound corner OF and a young catcher from outside. But way more importantly defensively, they need to bring in a top of the rotation starter!

I don't know, Winston, but my gut tells me we've just established mediocrity or much worse at three positions, which seems like the perfect recipe for another year of [bad] baseball. Edited by glunn to replace "c" word with "bad".

We may not know, but I think the Twins certainly know he can't play an adequate 1B over the course of a season. And they can fairly easily go outside the organization for a better overall solution than Mauer for a corner OF. Hell, maybe they could find a cheap Cuban.

I'd find a young catcher from outside the organization who is better defensively than Suzuki and who projects to have as good or better offensive output than Suzuki's career numbers. I'd most likely take the trade route to accomplish this. Think Travis D'Arnaud of the Mets. I'd quietly put Pinto on the market this winter and look for an overpay, likely in prospects, but not accept anything less than an overpay. If I failed to trade him, I'd plan on starting the 2015 season with Suzuki and my new guy and put Suzuki out there at the trade deadline in 2015 and again look for a slight overpay. I'm assuming Suzuki has only a minor regression, and that Pinto improves just a little behind the plate, enough so that I can tolerate him as my backup at least for half a season. Longer-term, I've concluded that Pinto is not part of a future contender here. By this time, the geniuses at TD are calling for my scalp, and the consensus view is that Ryan would be the perfect replacement for me, partly because at least he would not be constantly shooing Jack Goin out of his office.

100% in agreement with this.

Not a grudging admission at all. You see I admitted to being incapable of having an informed decision about whether it would have been a good deal from the start. I have to rely on you and others who are in the know about such things. I gotta hand it to you, jokin. You will be unable to find a single statement from anyone associated with the Twins that the new stadium would immediately translate into them being competitive "year in and year out". That's someone else's propaganda. What they DID say is that they needed to solve the economic disadvantage so they could compete. Of course it's reasonable to think that, as part of competing, signing players to large FA contracts would be something that takes place. You won't catch me begrudging you your frustration about this, or about your wish for a faster timetable to competitiveness. I don't have an opinion about Rusney. I'm not qualified. I do wonder though, what Arcia would fetch were he a Cuban in Rusney's position right now. I can't fault the Twins for going that cheaper route, and I guess, for fun, I'd put a grand on the line against you, and we'll take a look at the Rusney and Arcia WAR in five years, and one of us can pony up. You game, jokin?

Well duh, Chief. It's more palatable because it's overdone, not burnt leather. You're OK with it if I eat my overdone steak I hope, because it's no skin off my hide if the next person is chewing on burnt leather. Just don't tell me what I'm eating, OK?

Guess my message machine got a garbled message.

I'm sorry, but for the gazillionth time, the myth gets perpetuated that Bill Smith was free to spend money on a transactional basis on his own. Smith didn't set the budget. Others in the organization set the budget, and Smith had nominal influence on it! Smith didn't act alone in signing Sano, or Kepler, or anyone else. As a matter of actual fact, Smith did not enter the discussions with a single player until late in the negotiation process. Even then, he had zero authority to pull the actual trigger. Others were part of the consensus, and Smith had less influence than some of them. If you continue to insist otherwise, help me understand how you come to understand this to be true? And, for the bazillionth time, where does anyone come up with this nonsense that Pohlad promised to spend that 52% each and every year without fail? I realize the access media has done a miserable job of getting clarification on this subject, but there are a number of public statements from Jim Pohlad that make it very clear that he doesn't discuss this in terms of a promise. He's used the words "guideline", and other words, that make it at least a little clearer that the 52% thing is part of a larger and more general explanation of their financial disciplines, something almost all sophisticated organizations establish as part of their business policies. I once heard Pohlad speak briefly on the topic in person, and what I took home is that they'll look at average revenues over perhaps a few seasons, and they have as a general goal to invest (the word used) an average of 50-55%, and that this will of course vary, since the timing of these things dictates that approach. The 52% number, as I rather vaguely recall and am not completely sure of, was thrown out there as an industry benchmark for payroll spending. Based on that, I can't agree that the Twins will never spend 50% plus, possibly a great deal more, if the situation as viewed from an investment perspective, appears attractive to them. The GM will have limited influence on this, regardless of who that GM is. But I'm 100% sympathetic, and frustrated myself, that we're not in the hunt for some of these foreign players and suspect that the Twins have a way too conservative opinion as to what guys like Rusney might be worth. The Abreu case has increased my skepticism in particular, as he's looking like a relative value, at least right now.

Wow. I'm smiling as I write this: 1. The original claim was that a lot of us are confused. That when we see and point out positive things, especially moments of good baseball or improvement, we have jumped into a delusional realm and are seeing good baseball where very very obviously mostly bad baseball and a smattering of mediocre baseball is being played. This is a false claim, and frankly, it's a bit insulting to our fellow members who the claimants contend fit in this category. I reject the condescending implication of this description. Levi, you went so far as to describe me as having my head in the sand. I didn't take great offense at that, but certainly wouldn't return the insult. 2. You're putting generalized claims in my mouth, you big meany! I NEVER have directly opposed an argument that "this" isn't good baseball! I NEVER claimed that good baseball is being played. I pointed out how obvious the bad baseball meme is, and how tiring it is to hear it ad infinitum. And wasn't it me that suggested that certain players don't fit the overall trend of bad baseball? One of the differences between us is that you can readily describe players fitting the trend of bad baseball as such, but the players who fit the concept of good baseball are only "beacons of hope". Stats are stats, and everything else is just hope? Give me credit for what I said rather than painting a disparaging portrait with what I didn't say, OK? ") 3. You still insist that statistics are objective. Stats are no more objective than they are gluttonous or lazy or charitable. Giving stats this lofty human status of objectivity serves the purpose, intentional or not, of establishing superiority to an argument. It denigrates equally valuable and credible qualitative information, intentionally or not. As I said, it's my pet peeve at TD. 4. Where one person sees burnt leather, another sees an overdone steak. Why is it that, in your mind, the guy who sees burnt leather is calling a spade a spade and those of us who see an overdone steak are disingenuous? That's condescending and insulting, my friend. And why aren't you cooking your own damn steak? And diehard, Levi and I are still being respectful, even if he wouldn't come to my birthday party.

When your top five minor league clubs all have positive W-L records, it affirms the opinions of the experts that the system is deep in above-average prospects. However, since only a small percentage of these prospects will succeed at every future level, it's a bit dangerous to conclude that getting into the playoffs and the depth it suggests will translate into future meaningful impact for the big club. I think we still have to look at the best couple dozen prospects to predict the magnitude of that anticipated future improvement. But it's fun to see the team success of these affiliates, and it's good for the overall health of the system. This year more than almost any I can remember in years, there are so many great individual stories. I'd recommend going out on MILB and pulling up the individual stats, affiliate by affiliate. You'll find dozens (dozens!) of impressive prospects who haven't (yet) made it onto anyone's Top 50 organizational prospects list. Very encouraging stuff. And yes, I'm fully aware of the fact that Drew Butera was once one of these type of prospects.

Stats are just stats, my friend. They can be accurate, but they cannot take on human qualities like objectivity. Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people cite statistical facts and then claim a superior entitlement to objectivity and support for their position. It's the conclusions drawn from them that count, and some of the conclusions we witness being drawn from them are nothing short of idiotic. And people constantly use statistics in rather devious ways to bolster an already-drawn conclusion of theirs. Another pet peeve is the notion that qualitative information is inferior and therefore contributors are not credible if they draw conclusions based on non-statistical information. Levi, I respect your judgment and find you to be more intellectually honest than a lot of our other pals here on TD. Thanks for the stimulating exchange, and here's to less bad baseball and a shorter journey to the good stuff. And diehard, we're not bickering, OK?

For a top of the rotation cost-controlled starter and an intriguing B+ low-level prospect?

Can't wait. Nunez, Schaefer, Fryer, Pino...hahahahahahahahahaha!