Major League Ready

126 games at AA with a .729 OPS and 347 OBP AA hardly screams that the guy should be here right now. Plus, he is not a good replacement for Grossman given he is a LHH. Grossman may suck defensively but that bat should be in the linepup vs LHP. He is really a better replacement for Rosario. IMO Rosario has a higher ceiling than Granite. If Rosario can develop his approach, he could be a very good MLB player. Personally, I am not too optimistic but why would you take ABs away from Rosario next year for a guy who is not ready to play at the ML level? At a minimum, give Rosario / Grossman the 1st half of the season with Granite, Palka and Walker at AAA. Hope that you end up with several OFers that can play at the ML level and trade from that position of strength.

Well Chief, you do have a point. In the first paragraph I was simply trying to point out this premise is unreasonable in that it assumes we can just outbid every other team for premier agents and that they all want to come here. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs do not take the extreme example of the first paragraph literally. Free agency is a tool this team should use. They just need to be very smart and timing is part of the equation. The answer is there is no way the twins could afford 3 premier free agents. However, I do think they could afford a front of the rotation starter plus whatever other hole needs the most attention. They can do this and still extend a couple of their key young players if they are patient and let this core come together. That includes all of the SP prospects (Berrios / Gonsalves / Jay / Romeo / Stewart / Meija and perhaps their pick nexct June. Of course, the reason for this is that would have a large portion of their 25 man roster in their cost controlled years. I say this recognizing that there are only two instances of teams this century with equal or less revenue than the Twins that have landed this type of SP. The Rookies in 2002 (Hampton) and Grienke last year. I am not sure we can count Grient given Arizona had just received a billion dollar TV deal. Plus, while some here advocated for going after Grienke, most posters here would agree that contract was a very bad idea for Arizona. I would also concede the over pay is indicative of the difficulty of landing these players for a team that is not in a major market.

If you are talking about the NY, LA or Bos, this is a good point. It's ridiculous if you are talking about the twins. You are suggesting that a team at a revenue disadvantage of $150-250M/yr as compared to those teams should be able to outbid them for the best free agents three years in a row. There are 30 teams but we should get the best FAs. You and others also advocate just do it now. You have asked me several times how long should we wait as if after a certain number of years this must be done. It should be done when the core has matured and the final pieces are needed. How many years we have sucked is not relevant to when a team should pursue a premier FA. Did the Mets, Royals or Pirates go out and spend on FAs during their extended period of losing? The reality of the strategy you advocate is that those players are very likely good for about half of the contract. This team would be better for sure but certainly not a contender. Then, when our young core grows up, we have $80-90M/yr in players well below their prime that could have been invested in productive players. In other words, you have opted to add these FAs when we suck instead of when we have the team around them to contend.

I would agree there were no advocates here of exactly what Arizona did last year. However, on a more conceptual level, many people here wanted a win now approach. There was support for trading Buxton, Kepler, and Berrios for players with 2-3 years remaining. Shelby Miller was not seen as an ace here but he was seen as a very good pitcher and rightfully so. Many people would have done back-flips for Grienke. I recall a few people complaining because they knew the FO would not consider Grienke or Price. I would not go so far as to say they should never consider a free agent top of the rotation guy but last year was certainly not the time and I said the exact same thing then. Grienke and Price are under contract for 5 and 6 years respectively for $30M+ and they are already showing regression, especially Grienke. What a disaster it would have been to bring them in. Lucroy received a lot of support. He would have been here through next year and there were those who supported Kepler + others for LuCroy. That would have been a disaster! Several people had a fit because they would not sign RPs to as long-term deal. I recall very specifically, that this move and these players was not consistent with a contender. No kidding, there was no way we were contending and nearly every national media source predicted a last source place finish. Yet, there were many here who were furious because they were not making moves that were consistent with a win now or all in mentality. So, while Nick’s article may not have been exactly what anyone here had in mind, the win now and spend big on FAs was definitely promoted here.

You know you are in trouble when Santana is your most trusted SP. Heck, he is the only proven SP we have unless you count Hughes and he might be the most questionable of all of the SPs now. Can we say we know what to expect from Gibson?

I see your point in terms of Dozier plus another asset for the right player(s) in return but we would be selling very low on Buxton right now. I am not sure who would be the addition but Buxton does not make sense to me.

I have to agree but our rotation is so wide open I would give it a shot. We have Santana, Gibson, and Berrios that I would say have to be in the rotation. It does not seem like a stretch that Rogers could be as good or better than Gibson. May is certainly more deserving of a shot but that still leaves the 5th spot open. Hughes seems doubtful. We could put Meija in that spot but would it hurt to start Meija at AAA or even in the pen and give Rogers a shot? Here is a question for everyone. I know we have a very small sample size with Meija but how would you compare Rogers and Meija?

May and Rogers in the rotation next year. Start the season with Santana / Berrios / Gibson / May / Rogers. Duffey & Hughes start in the BP. Hopefully, they earn a rotation spot and replace whoever falters or is injured. Gonsalves up in June. It would be great if the rotation was doing so well we can’t find a spot for him. Stewart might be ready by the middle of 2017 as well. Gibson is a placeholder unless he somehow gets it together. Hopefully, the rest of our staff performs well enough that Santana and Gibson become deadline trades. Meija / Gonsalves / Stewart are candidates to take their places. Hughes and/or Duffey certainly could round back into form and also be potential mid-season additions to the rotation. Hughes might be a candidate to start the season if he is in impressive form during spring training. Jay, Romero, and Thorpe in the wings. That’s a lot of pitching but there are question marks with everyone, even Santana given his history. Next year is going to be a bumpy but interesting ride. It will be worth it if the exit 2017 with 5 or 6 good starters. . I am hoping it ends up Berrios / Gonsalves / May / Rogers / Meija with Stewart and Jay pressing for a spot. It would be a nice bonus if the picked up some assets trading Santana and Gibson. That leaves a decent mix of RH options in the pen. Pressly / Kinzler / Chargois / Tonkin / Light. LHRP is up for grabs. Perkins may or may not be back. Miija could start next year in the pen. They should get Wheeler up an audition him for a spot in the BP next year. Add on quality LHRP in the off-season should be adequate if Perkins is back. He probably won’t be a closer but hopefully he can be a set-up guy. If one of Hughes/Perkins rounds back into form it would be a big plus. If we could add a top SP prospect to this mix by trading Dozier and also add a top college arm next June, we might just build a contender here.

These deals for an "ace" are usually a situation where the player has no more than 2 years of control. Even Kershaw would not make this team good enough to win the division. The team needs to grow up so this type of trade right now would relieve us of the very players who will hopefully make this team a contender. This might make sense in a couple years but it makes no sense right now.

Has it worked out? No, but when you say worked out, I think you mean did it make them competitors. I don’t know the logic of those moves but anyone in that FO who believed Nolasco, Santana, and Hughes was going to makes them competitors should be tested for banned substances. Personally, I think those moves were designed to not suck. They had absolutely no pitching and those moves were designed to put a respectable product on the field during a rebuild regardless of if they admitted it was a rebuild. Granted, had they gone out and signed Scherzer or Lester and they would have been more fun to watch 1 out of 5 games but they would have had just as bad a record and maybe worse. They also would have had huge commitments to a SP well past their prime about the time this club will be ready to compete. Scherzer is under contract through his age 36 season and Lester through his age 37 season. Maybe they hold up but if they are likely very expensive boat anchors about the time this team will be ready to contend. It’s also very easy to say they should have gotten a top SP but who specifically? In 2014 when they really needed to do something, the only Ace type free agent SPs was Tanaka. Were we going to outbid the Yankees? The year before in 2013 it was Grienke and Sanchez. Grienke signed through his age 38 season. Would that have been wise? Were we going to outbid the Dodgers? Sanchez had a career year in 2013, a very good year in 2014, was bad in 2015 and terrible in 2016. Would that have “worked out”. It’s a lot easier to say they should have just signed a legit Ace than it is to actually get it done. Who specifically should they have signed in 2013,14, or 15? We can go all the way back to 2012. CJ Wilson and Mark Buehrle were the top free agent SPs in 2012. Would they have made this terrible team good?

Mike, I really liked Turner, partially just because I sway toward the great athletes. I thought he was less risk too and of course he was going to get to the majors earlier. I wanted them to take him but if we are fair, every mock draft had Gordon several spots ahead of Turner. The other point you made was basically the very old argument …. Why don’t the Twins just sign an ace? If you want to be correct here, the appropriate context is why is this type of signing almost non-existent among teams in the same revenue class or lower? To put this particular act of omission on the Twins is absolute bulls%!%. There has been two such signings by teams with equal or less revenue than the Twins in the past 20 years. Hampton by Colorado which was around 2002 and Grienke last year. It a BIG stretch to include the Grienke signing because they just signed a billion dollar TV contract. Having said this, I think they actually good manage their payroll to make it feasible to sign an Ace or “near Ace” once Mauer is gone given the number of young players on the roster. I think it is feasible but to call out the Twins for not doing it requires that one ignore how rare this is among small or mid-market teams.

I am not sure what Dozier would bring back in prospects. I have been of the opinion that we should not trade him unless the return is big. The standard for “big return” is changing for me because Dozier will be gone by the time we are legit contenders. Do we want Dozier for the next two years when we will be decent or do we want the assets we can get for him for 6+ years during a period we should be contending? Dozier does not need to bring an ace for the trade to be impactful. If he netted us a 2 or a strong 3, I would think that would be a good trade. There is a possibility we get even more than a SP if the trade works out. Big IF for sure but we wont anything to show for Dozier when we are actually contending. I guess we might be able to make a qualifying offer and get a pick. I was actually hoping for a nice surprise at the deadline with Dozier bringing a nice haul that included a strong SP prospect. Perhaps that could still happen next year.

I would be very happy with Polanco being almost as good as Dozier if trading Dozier could net us a front of the rotation starter. Obviously, there is some risk to this type of move because that front of the rotation arm is likely a high A or AA SP. However, the Twins are not likely to be serious contenders until they get some legit $1 and #2 types. I am not sure there is a legit ceiling of a #1 starter among Gonsalves, Jay or Stewart. To be fair KC, Boston, and Baltimore have proven in the past few years that you can contend with solid but unspectacular SP. I just think we need more legit front of the rotation SP prospects. Maybe they can get a college arm next June but I think they will end up picking a little too low to get a front of the rotation prospect out of college if they are picking 8 or 9. I also don't know how valuable Dozier is as a leader. I am not in that clubhouse and this should not be dismissed. It's all pretty unlikely with Dozier. Plouffe on the other hand is possible. Try him first on revocable waiver and see if someone will give us something/anything. If he does not get traded, pass him through again and hope someone takes him off our hands. I would take one more shot with E. Santana too. I just don't see us contending next year so trade him if the return is right.

Agree. This all hinges on Sano being able to stick at 3B but that's something IMO that should be given time. He is too valuable at 3B to give up on without giving him a long look. Its time to part ways with Plouffe regardless. If Vargas continues to hit, I fail to see how that's a problem. Park will have to play in AAA. If Park tears it up at AAA, that's hardly a problem either. He is then the back-up plan to Vargas or could be traded. His contract is $3M/yr. which should help make him tradeable. If he sits in AAA for awhile, he likely works out a deal to go back to Korea.

As I said, I am inclined to believe that I am in full agreement with h2oface. We will just have to agree to disagree on the nature of this debate. After 16 pages of discussion, there are two potential conclusions, IMO. There is either more to it than two bad SPs being swapped or there is the usual complaining going on that once again the Twins did not get a good player in return for a bad one.

Polish this pig anyway you like. The 16 pages of discussion suggested it was not nearly so clear as "two bad pitchers being traded. Just for the record, I agree completely that it was too bad pitchers being traded and "there was nothing to see here". This medium has its challenges. h2oface and I might be thinking exactly the same thing and its the 16 pages of discussion that I am questioning in terms of expectations.

OK. Educate me. How is that not what should have been expected in return for Nolasco? If it's what should have been expected, what are you complaining about?

What did you expect to get in return for Nolasco? No kidding, they did not get an Ace.

I understand where you are coming from but there is a limited amount of man power working a lot of deals in a very short period of time. Do you really want to waste time working on a deal that returns nothing or focus as much attention as possible to the deals that have a return associated with them? We also have Berrios joining the rotation and hopefully Chargois will be up soon as well. I think there is value in having a veteran catcher to help them get started at this level. It comes down to he is not blocking anyone so what is the point of moving him for nothing in return? These deadline deals are kind of like playing chicken. You have to be willing to hold your ground until the very end. Sometimes the other side is not going to give in and the deal does not get done. I guess the point of all of this is I don’t understand why anyone would complain about the FO for not giving away Kurt Suzuki.

Can you explain how it is inexcusable that they did not trade him when your evaluation of him is that he is "terrible"? What exactly were they supposed to get for a terrible player? Given your general assessment of Suzuki, why would you think he should have been easy to trade?

Things are looking up .... Twins had a pretty decent month in July and the offensive potential is apparent.Nolasco gone. Thank God!Berrios up and hopefully for goodPolanco up and hopefully for goodSome decent talent added to the farm systemSantiago will improve our staff for next year.Santiago and Santana are potential deadline assets next year if our young core is not able to get us in contention next year.

I hope you are right. That would increase both the likelihood or Suzuki getting traded and the return.

I looked yesterday when Toronto was mention and I just don't know why we would trade with them unless Reid-Foley was part of the deal. The deal for Nunez was the same way. If you looked at their prospects, Meija stood out as the target.

That kind of ceiling and 6 years of control for Abad ... That's a pretty solid trade! Sure, a lot of these guys flame out but we just need a couple of the several we have to work out and we will have a great bullpen for several years.

I think you guys are getting too hung up on "trade value". I am in the camp that you don't trade Santana for whatever you can get. If they can get a piece that will make a significant contribution going forward (however you want to quantify significant) I think you trade him. To only trade him if you get blown away does not make sense to me either. History or the odds if you prefer suggest the final couple years are decline years and then you got nothing and have 14M/yr wrapped up in a non-contributor that could have been spent on a contributor. This is all just another way of saying it depends on the return and let's flip the guy likely to be in decline when we are finally contending again.