bird

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.

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.

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.

I can envision these particular facts supporting different conclusions based on different assumptions. My underlying assumption is that, in 2016, BOTH teams have to rely on their #7,8,9 guys for closer to 20ish starts, as the Twins had to in 2015 when we factor in Ervin the Cheater. This is not incredibly unlikely to happen at all. It might actually be quite likely, I don't know. As you point out, Chicago had to hand off 9 starts to a #7 or so guy in 2015. I'm sure someone can come to the rescue and tell us more about average rotation attrition beyond #6. And still, while I understand the other side of the case, I would personally take Berrios as my #6 and Nolasco, May, and say, Dean/Darnell (Meyer and Jay out of the equation) as my #7,8,9 guys over Fulmer, Beck, and Carroll or whomever. Remember, unless I miscounted, Latos, Johnson, and Danks are slotted as the # 4,5,6 guys. It is this more pronounced injury scenario I would dread more as a Sox fan than I do as a Twins fan, and of course especially dread were one of my front-end guys to lose 16 starts. In an environment where we talk about moves that cost the Twins 2 wins on paper and therefore a playoff spot all the time, I think quality rotation depth might be crucial and it favors the Twins over both Chicago and Detroit. I personally have conceded the top spots in the division to Cleveland and KC.

I really like Fulmer's prospects. The point I'm emphasizing when looking at the two team's starting pitching options has to do with my personal "hunch" that each team will need about 9 starters over the course of the season. Which probably means the Sox would be forced to rely on him. Assuming that, and assuming that Tyler Jay and perhaps Fulmer won't quite be ready to make a positive MLB contribution in 2016, the Twins hold a depth advantage. Whereas Fulmer might be the Sox' #7 option, Tyler Jay would probably be about the Twin's 10th option. Because of my "hunch", I view that extra depth as having more importance.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't drawing a comparison, but merely attempting to counter your statement that if Latos were a Twin, there would be people on TD acting as if he were the second coming of Cy Young, and that people on TD are currently characterizing Latos as , in your words, expendable garbage. I just don't buy that, and would hate to think you were taking a veiled poke at anyone. I think the comparisons between the Sox and Twins rotations has been pretty reasonable and fair, regardless of which rotation the argument favors.

He's about the same height and weight as Adam Brett Walker. Gee, if those two could just put on about 20-30 pounds, we'd have a decent right fielder to replace that overweight plodder Sano.

Yeah, good thing he strung all those years together to mask how inaccurate the system was year to year. The system lacks integrity, and so do some of its defenders.

I don't think that's true at all. With that reasoning, why haven't we been hearing accolades about expendable trash like Nolasco? I've not heard Cy Young and Hughes mentioned in the same sentence either.

Latos, Danks, Johnson, and Fulmer....they'll likely need all four of them during the season. As long as the top 3 guys stay healthy. And wouldn't counting on Fulmer be fairly equivalent to the Twins counting on Tyler Jay?

Cleveland was a darling pick last year, but not mine. This year, they are. Even though serious hitting help from their system is still a year away.

It may not be a huge difference, but my hunch is that it will be. Latos, Danks, and Johnson as #'s 4,5,6, and chances are good that they go at 1 for 3 with them to start the year in terms of performance. I'd much prefer my options after my top 3 to be Duffey, Milone, Berrios, May, and Nolasco, knowing I still have Dean, Darnell, and Rogers in deep reserve. But yes, if the Sox can keep the top 3 healthy, that's a huge advantage for them. I just think the chances are good that one of them hits the DL for much of the season. If we want to pick on Sano and Abreau, I'd contend the Sox would suffer a worse falloff. But, I'm aware that you see this as an over-emphasis on the importance of depth, and maybe you're right.

Back in the days of Correia, look at who the "depth" was. No one was talking about depth as a strength back then, and it's just not an apt comparison to 2016's 7-8 deep group, every one of whom are measurably better than Correia was I 'm guessing. Her'e why I don't think it's a wash and favor the Twins over the Sox: 1. Rotation injuries are almost inevitable, and they take down top guys as readily as more replaceable guys. Teams need an extra 3-4 starters over the course of a year. I like the Twin's chances of withstanding this inevitable challenge. Chicago has DeVries-type quality at best past starter #5 or #6, and their 4 and 5 guys are pretty suspect to start with. 2. They traded away 3 guys who among their top 5 or so prospects (Micah Johnson, Trayce Thompson, and another guy). They have very poor replacement depth in both the outfield and infield, whereas the Twins have some very viable replacement candidates. There will be injuries. 3. People are skeptical about the quality of our BP options, but the numbers game overwhelmingly favors the Twins and works against the Sox. 4. I personally believe my many of my pals here on TD are under-estimating several of the new guys on the Twin's 40-man roster, starting with Buxton. The Twins may end up being an improved last-place team with a worse record than last year. If that happens, I believe it will be because the Tigers and Sox avoided the injury bug to their rotations and lineups.

This might be huge. Neither Chicago or Detroit can easily withstand two injuries of major consequence, such as a top end starter or middle-of-the-order bat.

That may be crystal clear to you, but for Mauer, the lines are blurred.

I agree that the draft and these top prospect lists have pretty similar success rates. And I think a closer examination would show that both have had better hit rates in the last 10 years, especially for first-round draft picks and prospects listed in the first quadrant of this type of list. It's also arguable that more prospects fall off the map due to injury or illness than because scouts mis-assess a prospect's physical tools and skills. Probably more often than we know, a prospect's performance disappoints as a result of addiction, mental illness, and other factors in his life and not because we discover his tools were a mirage. You might be able to say that this was the case for Van Poppel, Taylor, and Delmon Young. In the draft, once you're picking the 40th available prospect, you're usually hoping to get a player capable of overcoming some pretty glaring deficiencies in skills and even talent. We don't see a huge number of those guys in a top 100 list like this. For example, every one of our guys on BA's list was a 1st rounder or high-bonus international signing. I love these lists, and admire the effort that goes into them. The most fun part is when a guy like Kepler has the light bulb go on and suddenly shoots up the list.

OK Spy. You're the manager in February 2015. You have to work with what is presented to you when pitchers and catchers report. You can cut anyone you want, completely or off the 40-man to make room for someone else in the system, but you can't trade for anyone new. Tell me who you're going to bring north with the club. If you find a bunch of young players you want to argue were ready to rock and roll, who are they? Be prepared for some criticism regarding your judgment however. I just don't think you can make a blanket statement about there being a veteran's preference. Aren't the decisions much more a function of who is ready to contribute? Isn't it likely that every prospect's fate is determined individually on merit? Don't you think that Allen and Paulie were really hoping for Pressly, Meyer, May, Graham, Tonkin, and the other youngsters in camp to show them something? You don't generally acquire youth via free agency, or even through trades really. I'd submit to you that characterizing the Twins as having a vetoeran's presence is inaccurate despite the fact that they've installed a lot of veterans in the myriad of holes on the roster during the lean years. It just happened because they lacked young talent that was ready to contribute. And if they had a jones for veterans, how do we explain Arcia, Santana, Buxton, Rosario, and others?