bird

A fair question of course, mike. My thinking is this: You can only make so much incremental improvement using the "build from within for the most part" strategy. (You have argued persuasively about the demerits of this strategy, but it is what it is). So, because they're not ready to contend for two years, why not save your bullets? Give the fans a "competitive" team in 2013, but not a contending team, and suffer the temporary fallout. Be a seller for prospects, at the deadline and over the winter, this year and next, be patient, build your system. Then, when the time comes, you can strike like you did with Sano for example. I could be wrong. It's an unpopular stance on this site. I respect the arguments from those who think differently, although I get irritated by the demonizing of people by those brave souls on here who, when the table is turned and THEY are criticized, have a thin skin.

100% coincidence. I know it's hard not to believe there isn't a master plan in place to cut spending, because spending has gone down two years in a row now. As unpopular as it is on his site, I still believe that, when the circumstance warrant the spending to increase, it will. Two different points of view, both arrived at honestly. OK, let's have it, Chief. Accuse me of spinning the facts and sereptitiously working for the Twins.

Good questions for you to ask. World? In YOUR world, you can look at a handful of statistics like, say, Marcum and McCarthy versus Pelfry and Correia, and suddenly you KNOW everything we all need to know. You then villify Ryan, who couldn't possibly know more than you about evaluating talent, or have more information than you, or even be close to as smart as you. That's YOUR world. Sky? In the REAL world, the rest of us would look at the same statistics and GUESS that it might make more sense to sign the guys Ryan didn't sign. Unlike you, we just wouldn't KNOW for sure. Seems the sky's the limit for you though, what with all those statistics to help you predict the future, jokin. Let's see. Color? Marcum is shut down. McCarthy is at least as much of an injury risk as Pelfry, isn't he? So, while it APPEARS that signing Marcum and McCarthy instead of Pelfry and Correia would be better, we just don't know. Perhaps there's some color beyond a list of free agents that we didn't sign that even you aren't privy to. Reciting a bunch of statistics doesn't make you right and someone else wrong.

Thank you jokin. You helped make my point.

This is so logical and fair. I was dissappointed that they didn't sign, say, Marcum and McCarthy, instead of Pelfry and Correia. But even if they had, the rotation would be only slightly more serviceable and we still wouldn't contend. This commonly argued point that, if they just spent $20M more, things would be better ignores all the ramifications involved, most notably longer term contracts that serve as anchors down the line. Also, people complain about the lower payroll, but I rarely read a blueprint about how spending that on starters would have put them in a position to contend in 2013 (Greinke doesn't qualify).

Believe what you want to believe, Puck.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Twins never promised us they'd spend 50% of revenues each and every year without exception. The way I have heard it expressed is within the context of their self-proscribed financial guidelines and discipline. In that context I would expect that, over time, payroll will pretty much average out to that 50% figure, sometimes lower, and perhaps sometimes higher. I'd also guess, without much to back up my hunch, thatin a year where MLB payroll is below that threshhold, we couls expect some expenditures to increase in other parts of the operation, such as facilities improvements here and in the minor leagues.

I'm hoping for the scenario painted by Riverbrian: that Morneau is healthy and a 800 OPS+ player; and that Toronto or Texas values him more than we do, thereby relinquishing a B+ pitching prospect from A-ball. I'd hope the Twins would throw some money in to upgrade the prospect. I also believe that's unlikely, and the next best option would be to make the $13M offer gain something either way from Morneau's decision.

Interesting read, thrylos. Thanks. Obviously, whether it's based on math or based on your sense of the energy at spring training, it's conjecture. I'll place more faith in the observations you and others have made, and in the comments from staff and players than anything else. The distinction I make is between being competitive versus contending. I'm optimistic that, from game to game, we are much more competitive, and your math supports this optimism. But I'm very pessimistic about the chances of us contending. Still, this team should be watchable much more often this year than last. We'll just have to occupy ourselves with a second ntertainment option to fill the void on nights when Correia is on the mound, right?

Went to a Twins game and a St. Paul Saints game broke out.

No one quit.

As I clicked on the article, I said to myself, "I wonder how long it will take to find a comment declaring that Sammy is doing well because he escaped the harmful effects of Andy and Gardy." Bingo. Second comment.

Is it possible Wimmers was pitching hurt for a few stints there? Earlier, he was lights out for a while too. Calling him a "disaster" is maybe a bit harsh.

it was a good discussion, mike. no apologies required. I appreciate your civility.

mike, Ben Revere was a draft choice, right? He got good enough to have trade value, and fetched us Worley and May. So none of the guys in the rotation were drafted by the team. That's your story and you're sticking to it. Hendriks was signed by them, Gibson is next in line, Worley is a product of Revere. But just ignore that, and pretend the Twins just can't seem to develop their own talent. By the way it's been TWO, not three, horrible years, preceeded by quite a few decent years, but let's ignore this too.

Yes, The Rays and A's are pretty good at it too, but remember, they've both had extended cycles of subpar MLB results and benefitted hugely by having a favrable draft order. In this year's draft, the pundits say there are MAYBE a half-dozen blue chip prospects. The third-best pitcher is touted as a posible #2-3 starter in MLB. Last year was even worse. So, let's assume for a moment that the average draft contains 10 blue-chippers. A team that has had a top ten pick most years for a decade SHOULD be "pretty good at it", don't you think?

You're right, mike, we're going to reach different conclusions from different facts. The MI has been a hole for sure, but please don't ignore that Worley and Diamond were exchanged for draft choices, and Hendriks is theirs. Don't ignore that 2/3rds of last year's OF were draft choices. The 2013 startng lineup will include Hicks, Dozier, Mauer, Morneau, Parmelee,and Plouffe, all draft choices. So, I think this points to what I consider at worst a pretty average-looking performance from our draft and development people over the time period required to assemble these players. Does that work for you? Average over that time period? Now, more recently, and in part because of the post-Target Field revenues, the story gets much much much better. You know their system is ranked as high as #3 (Law). Just possibly, is this because they're better at it than most these days? You know of the high-profile international guys: Sano, Arcia, Kepler, Polanco. Do you give them enough credit for this part of their track record? But here's a more recent indicator: Sickels posted his top 150 prospects list. Now, if talent was evenly distributed, meaning all teams were almost equally adept (not factoring draft order), wouldn't each team have 5 prospects on the list? Why do the Twins have 9 prospects on it? Why does the rest of the AL Central have a total of 12 prospects, every one of them ranked lower than our top 3? And now, we signed the #7 and #22 ranked international prospects for this past year, Minier and Silva. So, you can say the Twins are bad at drafting and development, and point to the fact that they don't have a draftee playing at SS, 2B, 3B, at least that meets with your approval. I look at these facts, and others, and draw a different conclusion. They may have been too average in the past, but I think they'r pretty good now.

It's still too early to judge, but if Hicks becomes an outstanding player and Tomkin becomes a solid setup man, I'd call it a good draft I guess. I understand the argument that the Twins need to be good at drafting. My response is that they are, and their track record demonstrates this IF one bothers to make a COMPARATIVE judgment. I have a different recollection of the scouting reports on Guttierrez. I seem to remember hearing that his sharp sinking fastball, clocked at 92-94, was already MLB ready, and that he needed to refine a secondary offering. And that illustrates the difficulty of being better than everyone else at this drafting business. I bet the scouting reports on him were practically interchangeable from team to team. Something tells me that, to be better than the next organization, you have to out-work them, not out-think them or tip the laptop upside down to get some new statistics.

jokin, my dear brother, let'd review the difference between facts and your opinion, OK? In the bunk-filled comment I responded to, you set forth two facts: 1. The team is moving toward a roster of younger, cost-controlled players. 2. As a result of this, and perhaps other factors which are open for dispute, the payroll is lower this season, which means payroll has declined each of the last two years. What's clearly open for dispute is whether the Twins have some evil master plan that is behind these two facts. Your opinion is that they are evil and deceptive. This, jokin, is a FACT in your little world, but it is not commonly regarded as factual. You do NOT have overwhelming evidence of this, or of your other opinions that you consider to be facts, to-wit: 1. Smith was ousted because he misinterpreted things and thought he had an open checkbook? 2. Ryan was brought back in ostensibly to shed payroll and generate a positive cash flow? 3. Morneau will not be part of the future unless he accepts Ryan's "lowball offer"? You're entitled to your opinion, jokin, but you shouls expect to get called out when you present them as facts. Because in the opinion of others, this is bunk.

The Pope wishes HIS vote was this unanimous.

If Morneau gets through 2013 injury-free and is productive, then his 2014 injury risk is lessened, don't you think? This 2013 scenario appears to be quite possible, given his spring performance. So, if he doesn't fetch an overwhelming return at the trade deadline, it's nice that the Twins could make a QO and quite possibly enjoy yet another productive year from him in 2014. The greater risks would be a longer-term contract or a "forced" deadline trade for a poor return. If we trade him this summer, my hope is they buy a real prospect or two by taking on his salary for a cash-strapped club, of which there are many.

This is total bunk, but I'll give yoiu credit for your consistency, jokin.

Not sure what a trending imperative is, but if getting Eduardo Escobar and Pedro Hernandez in exchange for that frustrating headcase Liriano is a trending imperative, sign me up.

True, he could get a concussion without playing a single game after accepting a QO. I'd still be inclined to take the risk if he stayed healthy and productive throughout 2013. I mean, EVERY player poses a season-ending injury risk.

This. Thanks, jorgenswest. Reusse's point, I think, was that this group of prospects is so exceptional that they will deservedly be promoted quickly. While I agree that Reusse may be overly optimistic, I think this notion that he's writing a puff piece for the organization is one of the more preposterous ones I've heard for some time. The two other common notions I question are that the Twins move players along more slowly than they should, and that there is some premeditated promotion schedule tied to arbtration schedules. Do they factor the arb eligibilty into their decisions? Of course they do, and we want them to. But the opinion expressed, I think, was that there is some sort of plan in place to stagger arrivals, and I don't buy it. I don't see any evidence to suport this opinion.