Major League Ready

Simple. Because it is very likely a couple players will be traded in the next ten days and that will open spots for them. I don't think much of Ramirez but he might be needed for awhile if Kinzler or Abad or both are traded. Chargois moves up to the ML club and Hildenberger goes to AAA. If Abad and Kinzler get traded, Chargois and one of the others mentioned get moved up. It just does not make sense to debut guys right now when the landscape will be considerably more clear in 10 days. Plus ... Ramirez was just sent to AAA and replaced by Boshers. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/minnesota-twins

What information are you using to come to the conclusion on who is calling whom? Do you have some inside knowledge or are you drawing conclusion from bits and pieces of trade rumors?

I have said all along (look back) that the question right now is not if the team has a problem with making a big deal but should the team be making a big deal. These deals have either happened or have been proposed here. Is it not relevant to ask if they would have been positive long-term deals for this organization. The whole point is that there is a lot of complaining here about something the Twins wont do when if fact they should not being doing that type of deal right now. What's the problem? Fans want it right now and many are obviously willing to throw away the future for instant gratification. Complain If they don't do anything when they get into contention but to complain now is ridiculous. Yes, they have not made this type of deal in the past but they also did not sign $180M extensions in the past either. There is a good chance Ryan won't even be here when they are in contention. So, why all the belly aching now? Maybe the problem is my expectation of fans being reasonable when the term fan is derived from fanatic.

The Twins have gotten equivalent production from the SS position without taking on the $22M in salary and therefore don't have what will likely be another contract like Mauer's on the books until 2021. That money instead can be used for a productive FA once the team is once again contending or to keep our key players long-term. Think Royals with the ability to go out an add another key piece through FA. I am not sure what's difficult to understand about that.

What about Lucroy? Would that have been a good idea? What trade that actually happened would have been a good move for the Twins? We would all like to trade for a great player without trading great prospects. That is the fallacy that always exists in these discussions.

How is this relevant? We are not discussing if Toronto should have made this trade. The two teams are in very different positions.

The entire content was relevant to why the Twins should not have done any of these deals last year or now. Let’s not talk about ignoring elements of a post when … You ignored the part about explaining how the Twins could have gotten Tulo without giving up a top prospect given Colorado got a top 50 and two other pitching prospects. You ignored the fact that Reyes had $48M remaining and Tulo had $109M. You might not think this is relevant but anyone I have ever worked with that has every managed at $100M plus P&L would consider that omission a significant lapse in judgment. You also ignored there is also a risk in acquiring a good player like Miller. You also refused to acknowledge that the Twins were not ready and giving up top prospects at this time would have been a bad idea, especially for Lucroy who would have been a FA after next year. You ignored that the Twins would have very likely ended up with a couple years of a very bad contract with Greinke or Tulo and that those contracts would be bad when the Twins are much more likely to be contending. Most importantly, you ignored the potential for these deals to kill a franchise for several years. Perhaps you can explain how none of this was germane to your post.

First, tell me how they would have traded for Tulo without giving up a top prospect. The Jays gave up a top 50 pitching prospect plus two other pitching prospects. Casto is already pitching at the ML level already and Hoffman is #46 on MLB.com. Second, they have gotten equivalent product from current players at $20M less per year. Third, do you think the back-end of Tulo’s contract is likely to be “Mauer like” in terms of value? The high profile players that are part of these trades don’t always pan out either. The Dbacks deal for Shelby Miller is a very is a good example because the scenario is so similar. They are a team that had been very bad but had pieces in place. They made the big deal you and others are so enamored with believing it will make the team a contender. How is that one working out? Miller was just sent to AAA. That’s how bad he has been and the Dbacks are under 500. And, they would not be in contention even if Miller had performed at his career norm. They were not ready which is what I keep saying about the Twins and you keep insisting they should go for it anyway. The dbacks are going to have Grienke’s contract until he is just short of 38 years old. That big deal will probably hurt this franchise for several years to come. Just like Tulo’s contract is likely be an anchor for Toronto in the final couple years. These deals can kill a franchise. That's the disconnect between fans and the people responsible for the long-term health of an organization. Why would you risk this now when the Twins when they are positioned to put a great product on the field for a decade or more? To answer your question. Yes, there is a time. The Twins are just absolutely not in that time. You make these kind of deals when you are in a window of contention. Posters here were ready to trade Kepler plus whatever else for Lucroy during the off-season. He would have been gone after next year and the Twins will have Kepler who will likely be a better player for an additional five years. We would have gained (arguably) nothing by trading for Tulo. We would have picked up $20M in salary on an aging SS. Gordon will be almost 26 years old when Tulo’s contract is up. How is that not going to end up being a problem? Plus, once we are finally out from under Mauer’s contract, we would have another boat anchor and you and others would be complaining that we can’t sign big name free agents or perhaps even keep our own players. It all sounds wonderful if you ignore the almost certain long-term cost.

No doubt that it happens to every team but it does seem like more than our fair share have done well elsewhere. I don't think one can deny we have also not developed front of the rotation starters. This is where I find fault with the organization. To be fair, it does look like we have some guys in the system right now that could or even should be legit.

Are you suggesting it would have been a good idea to go all-in last year. Obviously, that would have required they give up several of their best prospects. Berrios and Kepler would be history and so would have a couple others. Keep in mind that there was no way they were winning the division. The benefit of paying the all-in price, if successful, would have been a wild card. In other words, a 50/50 shot at a series. BTW ... The 2015 Mets and 2015 Twins were not even remotely similar cases. Please compare those two teams starting with starting pitching. I would argue that following the 2015 Mets model would have been grossly incompetent.

OR ... It could be they did not do any of those deals because non contending team don't do this type of deal. Teams like Philly and the Twins sell off these assets. Giving up top prospects for aging players when you are as down as the Twins or Philly or Atlanta is absolutely incompetent. It is true, the Twins acted like a small market team in the past. Maybe because they were. Now that they have a little more revenue ... we will see. How many $180M contracts have teams of with equivalent revenue given out and they also broke out the check book in free agency. Regardless, lack of desire did not prevent them for doing these deals. The fact they would have been very ill-advised drove that decision before any desire or lack thereof to make a big deal had any chance to influence the decision.

You need to look back. I like a few others here thought they were overachieving. I remember one thread in particular where I wrote something about them having a unsustainable average w/RISP. You may also recall I listed the math associated with the risk they were taking. Which was basically the odds that odds makers gave them and then multiply by .5 because a wild card is a one game playoff. In other words, even if they got the wildcard they only had a 50/50 shot of making the playoffs. I opposed all of the maneuvers that were basically a product that were were about to contend. I thought the Tulo idea was absolutely a horrible idea as well as the idea of trading away top prospects for Lucroy who would be gone after next year. My support for the front office was that I was in the form of defending them not doing these things.

The question you have to answer before asking why they did not attempt such a trade is should they have been in the Price/Hamels market? When you say “they Thompson is a top 50 SP prospect. Williams is #58 and Alfaro is a catcher ranked #86 prospect. It would have taken Berrios, Kepler, and one other top 100 ranked plus a couple lower ranked guys like Chin-Wei Hu to equate to what the Rangers gave in trade. Are you really saying the team should have considered such a move when it is obvious they were not anywhere near the point of maintaining contention? Should they have given up the very players that likely get them to contention to be a little better for 3 years if he does not regress as he will be 35 at the end of the contract. I would prefer 6 years of Kepler + 6 years or Berrios + 6 years of Gordon or Jay or whoever else it would have taken for 6 years, plus the $67.5M over 3 years that could be spent on a very good FA SP. I just don’t understand why so many posters here want us to give away our future for a player that makes us a little better than the terrible team we are now. It’s a very good way to stay bad or mediocre. I really don’t think there is not a GM in baseball that would consider this trade for 30 seconds given the Twins status.

Carpenter and Altuve by a considerable margin but your point is still valid and Carpenter is playing 3B now but could play 2B. Regardless, I have not seen anyone suggest Polanco is clearly a better option. However, provided the right return, trading Dozier could be an important part of building contender. Trading a very good players was instrumental to the rebuilding process for the Royals, Cubs, Mets, Pirates, Orioles, Astros, and probably a could others I cant think of right now. I would prefer to trade Nunez and use Polanco in his role but the return wont be an impact player unless we get very lucky.

or a nomination for President of the United States

I would be happy with a good return on 2 veterans and elated if we made trades with a reasonable return on 3 veterans, specially if the return included a good AA or AAA catching prospect and or a high upside SP.

How about Ortiz & Sadzeck for Santana with the Twins picking up $2M of the remainder of 2016, $3M in 2017 and $4M in 2018? Over optimistic?

You both have good points. It always comes down to what is the return, right. I also don't know that I want to risk the decline that is probable with Santana. I think I take a decent offer and run. Different deal with Dozier... It needs to be a very good return. Sanchez, for example, would be a good starting point.

Apparently, the Target Field revenue has influenced a new view of paying down contracts. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/minnesota-twins It sure would be nice to get a good return on Santana. Between paying down on his contract, the poor FA market next year, and it being a sellers market in general, that seems quite possible.

A man can dream can't he? You are right, I was just being a typical fan hoping for an unrealistic return.

What if it was a prospect with front of the rotation stuff at AA. Sign me up!

It sure does seem to be a seller's market. Let's hope that means a very good return. I would love to see them eat half the contract and get a top 50 type prospect. I am not too woried about us still needing some pitching to get through this year and perhaps next year even if it means Nolasco at the back of the rotation. Pitch him until Gonsolves or someone else is ready and then DFA Nolasco or put him in a mop role if he has no trade value when Gonsalves is ready.

Pretty impressive SP staff at Chattanooga!

I would not bet on us eating salary but we had different economic circumstances for most of our history. It’s not like Arizona getting a huge TV contract but we do have more financial resources than we did throughout our history. It would be nice to see that additional revenue used to get a good prospect in this situation.

It would sure be nice if something went right and Nolasco and/or Santana are great this month and one of them is traded by the deadline. For that matter, it would be just fine if they both got traded. Berrios would be here to stay. As long as I am wishing, let's hope they get a nice return on Nunez and Polanco gets a chance.