Mitchsull52

Ok, I think a good rule of using sarcasm in print is to not switch back and forth between writing facetiously and seriously. Or, at least, not do so in the same section. Beyond that I don't really see the over all point to any of what you wrote, other then general gripping. "Reserve player" and "regular" are not terms with set parameters. They are not set positions on the field. Jamey carrol makes the twins better and is a cost effective way of doing so. There is an huge range of issues beyond just him. issues that are far more complicated and to be honest much more important. I was trying to have a nuisances discussion and I don't think you added anything directly relevant to it. In fact I think you went off on a tangent that gets really boring hearing about constantly. What's the point of having these blogs to begin with if it always has to devolve in to the same old basic, lowest common denominator, irrational, collective sob? I thought the whole point of this site was essentially very very in depth and detailed variations of the question "so what?"

totally agree with everything u just said, except I take issue with just using ops+ over a two year span to prove your point. But I suppose it's a quick and dirty way to roughly establish that the twins can or rather could have (drastically) improved their middle infield. That's not what I was critizing. Your initial writing, to me, seemed to focus on 1) intelligent 2) prudent allocation of dollars and years or as I put it "frugality". Carrol is the primordial utility player, but does using him as such really increase the bang for your buck? Short answer, no. Terry Ryan is one of if not the most savvy GM's in baseball when it comes to these periphery marginal players. Pound for pound paying carrol part time money and using him as a starter is probably one of the most frugal and proper allocation of "dollars and years" when it comes to free agency. In a vacuum yes you are right those other players u listed are almost just as good if not better value but add them to the team this year and you essentially squander carrol value (if you are simply playing carrol less to avoid paying 2 million more in 2014). I believe we have similar ideas for what the twins should have done but ultimately I think you failed to see the forest through the trees. That being said this is one of the more intriguing writings on this website I've read and I hope we get more of them.

So to be clear the argument being made is- the twins should have spent roughly 3.5 to 4.5 million to have two marginally useful middle infielders. Between the two of which they would get, lets say, at most 700 abs. That scenario would be preferable to 4 million for a single marginally useful player over two years and getting so where in the range of 800-100 abs. You see where you went astray on the frugality point? Now throw on top of the real world scenario your critiquing that there is a risk averting vesting option and it seems pretty clear that what your advocating for is wrong.