bird

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.

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.

I can see how you think this. Someone penned an article yesterday, asking rhetorically if Neil Huntington and Dayton Moore suddenly got smarter. And I agree that Moore was probably very concerned about his job at the time of the trade. But I strongly disagree that there were any people in positions of influence in KC that thought they were making the Shields trade in a desperate attempt to get to .500. Not even Dayton. They are a very competent organization now, from a scouting and drafting perspective. Moore is the GM, and KC has surrounded him with some very competent people in their scouting and development system. My hunch is that every move being made requires other signatures from within the organization, especially something like the Shields trade. I also doubt Moore's imprint on their Rule 4 draft success is significant. And if we read carefully, we're witnessing Moore giving out effusive praise and credit, as he should, to these people. I haven't heard him talk about it as " my process", but rather more as "our rebuild strategy".

I respectfully disagree with your first conclusion, mike. I believe KC knew exactly where they were in the rebuild process when they made the Shields trade. But you're right, TR will probably never trade a truly impact prospect for a MLB player. Why? Because his third most-valuable prospect, Alex Meyer, nets him a non-impact player like, say, Span. He has two prospects or so that fit the Will Myers profile, would you agree? Maybe he thinks Rosario will be better than Span by mid-year, just like maybe he thought Santana would be better than Stephen Drew, we don't know. But why trade a top prospect whose value is yet to be realized for a player who isn't a game-changer for you?

KC is a great example in support of this. Butler, Moustakis, and Hosmer were all much more highly regarded as top 10 draft choices than Arcia, Santana, and Vargas, and look how they have struggled early in their careers. The light at the end of the tunnel is that most of these supremely talented players eventually figures it out to at least some extent, although very few hit their heads on their hometown fans' envisioned ceiling it seems.

In assessing how KC became WS capable, it's important to note that those players you're referring to were acquired by trading drafted assets such as Greinke and Will Myers. KC put themselves over the top with a good trade as the final step in their rebuild, and I expect the Twins will attempt to do the same thing at the same point in time. But I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that, when KC finally settled on their strategy (15 years or so into the "rebuild") and began to execute it, it was through the draft, period. They stopped with the Betancourt/Guillen stopgap stuff, took their lumps, and held on to their young big leaguers (Greinke excepted) AND their prospects UNTIL they got to a point where they finally had some surplus of talent to use in trades. Note the absence of free agency as a key piece of their rebuild. This spring, Dayton Moore was still being called an idiot and a dinosaur. KC's strategy was still often ridiculed despite the evidence of the 2013 season. What's interesting to me is the similarities among a number of teams regarding rebuilding. I recall reading an article by Mark Gonzalez of the Chicago Tribune from last March, I think. He convinced me that the strategy of the Royals, Cubs, Twins, and the Cards even, for that matter, were almost identical. The differences were simply due to the stage in the cycle for each team, and execution. And the most important elements in the strategy? Use free agency only as a last resort, focus resources on the draft and international markets, and trade from surplus to supplement.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make with your last two responses to me, my friend, but it really doesn't appear to pertain to any point being made by me. I have no interest in arguing in circles or picking a fight, OK?

Well, the Sox had few minor league players to rely on. Remember, you and I had the conversation in the spring about Eric Anderson, Matt Davison (acquired for one of their very top prospects, Addison Reed), and Micah Johnson. Johnson and Davidson really disappointed big time, and Micah Johnson is probably not a true impact player, and was certainly not enough. The Sox wisely went the trade route and "overbid" for Abreu. The Twins, OTH, expected to have Sano and Buxton until late in the offseason, but they also had other options, as we saw play out with May, Vargas, Santana, and a few others. So they took the same route of using FA to get Nolasco and Hughes, but Ryan decided against trades to further improve 2014, for better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint.

I'd go with this except keep Santana in CF and Escobar at SS until Buxton is ready. No need to use trade chips or cash for a short-term fix in CF when Santana can be adequate.

You could be about a half-year early with some of these guys, but yeah, let's deal a couple of the old group at the trade deadline if these guys are ready, even if the Fiens and Thielbars are doing well. Sell from surplus.

Yes, because they were rather low on other options to dramatically improve in 2014. They outbid everyone for Abreu because they needed to react to their rather gloomy situation. And remember, the Sox had a scandal with their international scouts awhile back, which hurt their credibility internationally. So they needed a big score, and to their credit, they got one. As for the question about teams "buying international FA over the past 3 years? Not sure what you'd be driving at, but I'd guess ALL teams are participating in international markets, and dong so does not constitute the kind of reactive move winning the Abreu bidding war suggests.

I apologize. I missed it then every time.

And I'm sorry, my friend, but you have ignored the possible impact of the draft order VERY consistently throughout all our friendly conversations over the years, not once acknowledging it when I brought it up. But at least you're finally acknowledging that you have to go back a few year to find a draft year that busted, so that's progress. Now, if we can temper things a bit from "they stink at developing players" to something more in line with reality and fairness...

Elaborating on how much better the Sox, among most other teams, are so much better than the Twins, who by your account stink at developing players despite having a high draft order: After Rodon, of the next half-dozen top Sox prospects, NONE were ranked among Sickle's updated top 75 prospects. I think SIX Twins were. The highest grade given any of them was B- and two were C/C+. The lowest ranking for the Twin's half-dozen top prospects, excluding Buxton, was a B+, with Sano ranked as A. Their Tim Anderson (B-) is our Gordon, ranked #42 Their Montas is our Meyer, ranked #31 Their Micah Johnson is our Polanco Their Hawkins, our Sano Their Spencer Adams, our Berrios Their Tyler Danish, our Kohl Stewart And our next six probably grade out ahead of all, or at least most, of the Sox #'s 2-7: May, Burdi, Thorpe, Rosario, ABWIII, Rogers. Give the Sox credit for Abreau and some good trades to shore up a declining team, and for a good draft in 2014. But please, don't insinuate that they're somehow upstaging the Twins right now.

Well, we were discussing Abreu, because last year it WAS just about FA for the Sox, as their farm system had zero to offer for 2014. But yes, it appears the Whitie's farm system, which was ranked #28 by at least one source last year, is improving rapidly. And as you of all people know, mike, this is because they don't stink at developing players, unlike the Twins. It has absolutely nothing to do with the draft order.

Nah, mike, not EVERYONE, just you. To shorten it, just leave off several off your standard negatives.

Uh, I didn't see anything in the Hughes/Suzuki sentence that connoted "good", but good, we agree, as I thought we might, about good moves like hughes and Suzuki versus bad ones like Bartlett and Kubel. This is a good topic for another thread, but you are seeing the Abreu move as mutually exclusive of their farm development, and a modest risk. I see it as 100% a reaction to their farm system, but I also saw it as a huge but understandable risk for them to take. Fortunately for them, they hit the jackpot, so give them credit. Now they just need to take the same type of gamble 2-3 more times, and voila, they're in the hunt for a wild card slot. I'll take my chances on Sano and Buxton getting us there faster, for a lot less, with a better chance to stay there.

Absolutely, spy cake. Criticize the results. Lay off the disingenuous meme. That way, we can argue instead about how bad the Hughes and Suzuki moves were. Or about the importance of leapfrogging someone in the standings to capture fourth place and whether even remaining in fourth place is very likely for the Whities, let alone taking the next several steps with a pathetically bare farm system. And maybe, when discussing the dismal results to-date, we can also mention other very positive things (May, several new RP candidates, Santana, Vargas), or the fact that we now have a loaded farm system with a number of impact players on the cusp (Meyer, Burdi, Buxton, Rosario, Tonkin, Sano, Berrios, Polanco). That way, no one gets called out for lacking integrity, the criticism is more balanced, and anyone who is either happy or unhappy with the pace of change is welcome to that point of view

Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize you were discussing a PR and marketing strategy that was carried out two years ago by the Twins to specifically persuade the public that they'd be competitive in September. I don't recall the campaign. I guess I just assumed, in a thread about Ryan's statements, that you meant Ryan and not the whole St. Peter-led PR juggernaut.

I'm calling mike out, mostly to rib him a bit, for criticizing something as innocuous as the words TR used, and then to suggest TR might be a liar, although I'm confident it was a rhetorical device on mike's part. I bet we could go back and find a quote from 70% of all GM's in that same time frame about their team playing meaningful games in September. Over 50% of them would be wrong like Ryan, in an innocuous sort of way that makes it a weak target for criticism.

Whenever the subject of payroll comes up, we get mired in the same stuff: the 50% stuff, the relative payroll stuff, the tax subsidy stuff. Because of the unbalanced way this stuff is often presented, it IS essentially a "spend money to spend money" argument. If you want to retire what you think of as a straw man on spending, I have a suggestion: let's begin every conversation about payroll spending with specifics and dispense with the same old same old. I'll start, mike. " Via trade or FA, Mr. Ryan, find me a two-way corner OF that is better than today's version of Hicks or Schaefer. Overspend for Melky if you have to, or spend less if you can, but give us results, sir. Second, pull off another Phil Hughes this off-season, via either FA or trade. Maybe a Leake or a Latos, I don't know, but you said you might have to overspend to do something. If you don't have to overspend, fine, but we need results, sir. And if you want to exceed our expectations, find us a young cost-controlled catcher with a higher ceiling than Suzuki. We're not asking you to outbid for Lester for 7 years. We get it, Mr. Ryan. But stop talking in generalized statements, especially ones that scare up more vitriol, and go fill a couple of the remaining holes." Now, someone will always come back with the "buy us an ace" demand, and that's fine, because then the discussion can stay on more solid footing about the wisdom of that sort of spending, and we avoid the temptation to attack Ryan, Pohlad, and each other.