Major League Ready

I guess it’s a matter of opinion but I don’t see this as a nit-pick. It’s a simple concept. The money is by no stretch of the imagination a sunk cost in reality but it is sunk in the minds of some fans because they would just prefer the Twins write it off and move on. This is the absolute opposite view point of those who are responsible for the decisions being made. It should be no surprise that those who have disregard for the financial health of the organization are at odds with the people the Pohlad’s made responsible for running their business. So, is it a nit-pick or is the very basis for the discontent displayed here on a regular basis.

The definition is not in the least bit abstract and it is really not complicated at all. Sunk cost are previous expenditures or in some cases payments yet to be made with no chance of being avoided. That is clearly not the case here. If Nolasco rebounds which is certainly plausible, Nolasco’s will be tradeable and therefore his future salary will not be recognized. The cost is not sunk. Please explain the baseball definition of sunk costs for me because it sounds to me like the baseball definition is when the fans would rather you just write it off because that option suits them better. It just boggles my mind that people can say just write off what is the equivalent to 400 years of income for the average individual.

I think you need to look up the definition of sunk costs. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs http://www.accountingtools.com/questions-and-answers/what-is-a-sunk-cost.html

Bingo, this is the heart of the problem. Until Nolasco is gone, there is one rotation spot for Duffey, Milone, and Berrios. They are not sending Hughes to the pen, at least not yet. We will see how serious Hughes is about his performance by what kind of shape he shows up in for spring training. If I were Ryan, I would tell him show up in shape or expect to be in the bullpen and May goes to the rotation. Was Nolasco’s poor performance in his age 31-32 seasons a product of decline or was injury? IDK but most posters here say something along the lines of just eat the $25M owed to Nolasco or that it is sunk cost. It’s not sunk because they could get a major portion of it back if Nolasco performs well the first couple months of the season. If Nolasco performs as he did the 4 years prior to coming to the Twins, not only would they be able to move him but get an asset back in trade. Fans expect their team to have utter disregard for money. They are a business for god sake. Suggest this theme to the business you work for and see how you are received. The persistent insistence that money should not matter is incredibly Naïve when applied so generally. We have 3 players who have starting jobs based on salary as opposed to performance. They are Nolasco, Hughes, and Mauer. They are going to get played the first 2-3 months of the season. My hope is that the start of this season is their last chance. Mauer gets a bench role if he does not improve. Put Park there and replace the DH role. Maybe we get lucky with Arcia. Hughes to the pen if he does not perform and Nolasco either to the pen or cut. Keep Milone or trade him, IDK. I would be inclined to trade him a reliever which should not be a problem. By the AS break, the rotation is probably Santana/Hughes/Gibson/Duffey/Berrios. It might be a good idea to keep Milone around unless you believe Rodgers and Meyer provide adequate depth or perhaps this is part of the reason Dean was put on the 40 man. The OF is Buxton/Rosario/Kepler. The IF is Mauer or Park/Dozier/Escobar/Sano. The DH is either Park, Arcia, or Vargas. By mid-season you add a couple of the power arms we have in the minors and that’s a team with great potential. I will also enjoy watching this come together more than watching the 83-85 win team that is the likely result of following any misguided plan where we sell the farm to compete this year. Plouffe is obviously traded in this scenario. This is all very plausible and the team is finally positioned to contend once these young players mature a bit. They also should have picked up additional assets for Plouffe and Nolasco if we are so fortunate as to have Ricky return to form. If you are wrapped up in being in from to contend opening day you are destined for disappointment. Berrios and Kepler are starting the year at AAA and Buxton will likely be there as well. If you want to get there over the course of the year we are in good shape.

I hope you are right and it sure seems like a better path than what is being floated.

It is also possible that over the course of the last couple years they have come to the conclusion that Sano not going to make it as a ML 3B or they think he is suspect so now might be the time to try this experiment. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Sano to the outfield but like always we just don't have all the information.

All very good questions. I would add ... what would of the detractors had said if the Twins would have done nothing until now and chosen Bethencourt? I am willing to bet that would have been deemed incredibly incompetent.

There is a critical assumption here that Shields is the 3 WAR starter from 2014 vs the 1 WAR starter from 2015. If not you given up Plouffe and a top 100 prospect and added $17M to payroll for a 1 WAR starter and a LHRP. When a 33y/o SPs performance drop it could just be an off year or it could be the inevitable decline. May is still in the pen and adding Berrios requires an injury. Put Nolasco in the bullpen. Start May. Trade Pluffe for value (you decide what that means). Keep Polanco at least for now. Put the $17M toward Upton, Cespedes, Gordon or Fowler and make Rosario your 4th OF or a trade chip once Kepler is established. The net is May or Berrios in the rotation are likely better than Shields over the next 3 years. Any of the OF options mentioned are better than Upton. We pick up assets for Plouffe and keep Polanco.

It also a little easier to send a 13M/yr guy to the bullpen as opposed to a 22M guy

I thought the Padres ran him through waivers last year but I could be mistaken. He certainly has value just not 3/65. I hesitate to guess what he would get as a FA. Lackey got 2/32 but he was much better than Shields last year.

You make a good argument. Maybe they cant get rid of Nolasco even eating half his contract. No doubt the best case scenario is he rebounds and we trade him at the 2016 deadline. He could be moved to middle relief when Berrios is ready if he does not bounce back. That's probably the best way to manage our assets.

There relievers are gone now but they were options when this thread started. I was assuming the same premise used here frequently that we can get any FA we want if we offer the money. Granted, this is fantasy baseball and was offered more in concept that reality. The premise is still valid. Why do I want to take on even more risk and assure that there is one rotation spot for May / Duffey / Berrios for the next 3 years. I think it makes more sense to have May pitch 180 innings instead of 60 innings. IMO, the team would be better over the course of the next 3 years with some combination of May/Duffey/Berrios (maybe Meyer) over the next 3 years and no James Shields or Ricky Nolasco than we would be with James Shields. Add an intelligent use of the $41/M over the next 3 years and I don’t think it is even close. The option without Shields also has less risk as it depends on 2 of Duffey/May & Berrios working out. As always you are looking at the immediate term. I guess we could trade Gibson. Should we trade a 27 y/o who was better than Shields last year and is also a guy coming into his best years as opposed to a guy who is probable to be in decline phase?

I think there is a much better alternative than to make our 2yr/25M problem a 3yr/63M problem. With the crazy money going to FA SPs, you have to believe there is a team that would take Nolasco if we paid 12 or the 25M owed him. So, instead of trading for Shields, I take the $41M saved a buy 3 very good relievers for 3 years. Then, I have room for 3 of Gibson, Duffey, Berrios, and May instead of only having room for two of them for the next 3 years. Every single one of them is likely better than Shields in 2017 & 2018. If you don’t like the bullpen angle, put the $41M toward signing Sano to an extension now.

This is a very simplistic view from a financial perspective. The absence of a cap is irrelevant unless you presume all teams have the same spending capacity regardless of revenue. Teams with similar or less revenue than the twins are trying to compete with organizations with literally twice the spending capacity. Production per dollar spent is extremely important when a team can spend twice as much per player on the roster. That’s why some of us value production per dollar spent. BTW … You also completely ignored the fact that he was under contract with his Korean team for two more years. They allowed him out of his contract to what I presume is a considerably more lucrative contract and his former team was compensated for losing his services. You are only look at one side of the equation.

Your argument makes sense if you ignore two very important considerations. Shields is about to turn 34 years old. Therefore, the likelihood of him repeating 2015 numbers or declining is greater than him performing like he did at his best. Who knows he could be better than 2015 but to bet he will perform to the number you posted in his age 35 and 36 seasons is unlikely. The last thing we need is another $20+M/yr contract for a mediocre or worst contract. $58M/yr between Mauer, Santana (age 34-35 seasons), and Shields in 2017 and 2018 is a VERY bad idea. The second is that you can’t buy low on a 34 y/o SP at $21M/yr. If he rebounds to his absolute best at age 34 you get what you paid for in that season. What are the odds he does that in his age 35 and 36 seasons? What you describe as buying low, I would describe as paying market price for the level he played at during his best years and hoping he will defy the odds associated with aging SPs. None of this is even the most salient point as to why you don’t non-tender Milone. He would have value to another team. Therefore, you tender and offer and trade him if you don’t feel we need to keep him for depth.

I have a hard time with some of the logic here. There were calls here to trade for Shields and take on 3/63M but we should none tender Milone at $7M. ERA+ / FIP Shields 93 / 4.45 Milone 106 / 4.30

Anyone have a reliable scouting report in terms of his defensive ability at 1B? I have heard he is terrible from some sources and good from others. I also heard awhile back that he has played some outfield.

Most of us didn't see Duffey as a serious prospect either. Count me amongst those who don't see it with Dean but I hope to be wrong again.

Mike, do you have a link or do you need to be an insider to see this chat session?

My bad, I completely missed the inclusion of Will Smith. This is a good trade for next year but likely a very bad trade long-term. It’s short sighted trading all of those assets. Trade one of Plouffe / Milone for Smith or an equivalent RP and the other for a corner OFer. Make Murphy the everyday catcher and let Pinto back him up. Trade Suzuki for a dozen balls. Use the savings to get Oday or Soria. The bullpen is waaaaay better, the OF problem addressed and you still have Kepler. IMO, that is a much better end result that will have much longer impact and potentially a huge impact if Kepler turns out as we hope. There also might be a chance to sign Austin Jackson to a 1 year deal with the savings if he feels he could rebuild his value. Now I retain even more assets and this could work out great if he has a good year. The Twins might get a compensation pick.

I would guess LuCroy is 1 WAR than Murphy and you want to give up Plouffe, Suzuki, Milone, and Kepler? HORRIBLE idea. Trade Plouffe for a corner OF or stud reliever and it would have equal or more impact than trading for LuCroy and you still have Milone and 6 years of Max Kepler. Then, spend the money saved on LuCroy for a stud reliever or corner OF depending on which one you get by trading Plouffe.

I would think Kepler still starts at AAA. This provides the Twins an opportunity to give Arcia one more shot! Don't get me wrong. He was been terrible last year but there is too much potential there to just flush him for nothing.

I would be very happy getting Norris for Plouffe but I would not touch Shields. The last thing we need is an even more expensive SP in decline phase.

You know better than to use that small of a sample size. Look at the last 5 years and you know it is no even remotely close to last year.

Of course someone gives up pick for the vast majority of FAs who get a QO. I thought that went without saying. I should have said don't like to give up and I bet the majority of the picks given up are later than 17.