Major League Ready

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.

Fair enough. I just don't like to use a half-season to assess a player. BTW ... I agree, He's nothing special but he is in his prime and it would not be surprising if the next couple years were his best. Plus, it's not like we have several better options right now. Let's see how he does the rest of the year. I would be OK with me if he came out next year pitching his very best and we got a haul for him at the deadline. I am just not so sure Gonsalves and/or Stewart will be ready by then.

Gibson's ERA 2015-now is 4.16. You are suggesting "most" games he is pitching to roughly a 6.5 ERA. I am not sure by what you mean by "most games" in terms of percentage of games but he would have to pitch a shutout in every other game that make up the rest of his games and even then you would have to use a very liberal definition of most.

That article produced more questions than answers. Thanks alot, Mike! I just wanna be a homer when it comes to Kepler.

Kepler has a great eye at the plate. This came up quite a bit even when he was in the minors. That attribute really helps sustain performance. He also is about to see a change in pitching approach. It will be intere4sting to see how he handles it. I was a big believer and very excited to see him at the big league level based on the reports last year. He has been a breath of fresh air. Max could be the 3 hole hitter we have lacked ever since Mauer started to fade. That's really good news.

I think Thros makes a very good point that a 100 loss team is not a Catcher and a SP away from contention. However, this is also not the same team that started the season so poorly. That team could not score runs. Dozier was horrible. It is obvious that Bruno/Dozier have made the right adjustments and this is a different Dozier. He is hitting the ball to the opposite field with authority. Kepler is a net new add. He is a big plus offensively and defensively. Even Mauer has improved. He is no longer a one trick pony to left field Grossman’s OBP is a plus Santiago will be a plus in the rotation. Vargas looks like a different player. His approach is much better. Taylor Rogers is looking like part of the solution IT’s not the same team that was on a 100 loss projection. They have been playing over 500 for a while now. Having said this, I still think your point is completely valid. The team has some development to do before we fill needs through major FA signings.

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.

How recent? He may have cleaned this up but I don't know I want to take a chance on the impact of Sano/Berrios/Rosario/Polanco/Chargois or any other player. This team is still a ways from contention and he has two years of control left. Just long enough to create a real problem here before he is gone. The more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea.

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.

We keep talking about the competence of this FO. How would it be competent to bring in a young guy who is a known problem in the clubhouse when you have a plethora a young talent and more on the way? Right now, despite being terrible for the first three months, this team has a good attitude, plays hard, and had a pretty darn good month in June. He would have to be really good to take on that problem, not a guy who might regain his form from 2014. Adding him to a team that was primarily veterans would be a different situation. I guess just how bad an idea it would be here is a product of the other factors involved with Puig. What can we project? His 2015 OPS/wRC+ os 758/111 2016 OPS/wRC+ is 706/95. Yes, he was good once but its been a year and a half since he performed well. Did the league simply figure him out? Is there an appreciable difference is his defense vs Rosario? Could we use the extra $13M more wisely elsewhere? Will be take playing time away form other players we could develop for the long-term like Rosario/Grossman and Palka next year? Between his attitude and the fact he won’t be here when this team starts contend, I would not give this more than about 2 minutes thought. Granted, we might be in contention by 2018 but he still is not part of our long-term future, so why take on a problem? That is not competent management in my estimation. The biggest problem with this team is the refusal to look be beyond the present and do the thing necessary to build a contender. Case in point, look how the Padres have handled their roster this year. They cleared the decks, good the best return they could on the players that are not part of their future. Puig would be a short-term upgrade IF, and it’s a BIG if, he returns to his 2014 form.

Of course not. I was just cover the potential scenarios. As a matter of fact, if paying part of Santana’s salary made the difference of getting a top 100 prospect I would suggest to Jim Pohlad the trade be made because it’s the best business decision and the best baseball decision. • Having Santana on the team is not going to generate anything near $28M in revenue. They could eat part of it and still be money ahead. • There is always risk with a prospect but if the prospect meets projection that cost controlled asset is worth much more than Santana from a pure financial perspective. • In terms of measuring risk, Santana declining is almost as risky as a prospect not working out so the risk is somewhat balanced between the two scenarios. • The top 100 pick has a much better chance of contributing to a contender than Santana.

What is the difference who makes the trade if they net a solid top 100 prospect? This is one of those times when the result is more important than the process.

Very easy to agree with the importance of a Blyleven or Morris. Santana is neither. In addition, I think the problem with that thinking is problematic in that it’s the same unwillingness to accept we are not on the verge of contending, at least not in any meaningful way. What did the Astro, Cubs, Met’s Pirates, and Royals do when they were in this position? They traded the assets that would bring them pieces that would help when they were ready to contend. There is no point in giving Santana away. I am not anxious to make this team worse. However, if he can net a SP that projects as a 3 with maybe an upside to be a 2 or a decent catching prospect, we need those assets to become a serious contender.

I have not read all the posts so I apologize if this has been covered. There are several SP prospects among the potential trade partners for Santana that grade out at 50 or 55 on MLB.com. The 55s are top 100 ranked. For me, any of them would be a no brainer. The 50s is where I start to wonder if we jsut waiting until next year when his remaining contract is not as much of an issue. Of course, he could start to show some decline next year and then we are not get much. Where do you draw the line in terms of player profile you would take for Santana?

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.

Just a guess but I think he does not get as much love because he does not throw very hard. My memory from the one game I watched was that he cant break 90. That's a distant memory so take it for what its worth. (not much)

I was about to answer with pretty much the exact same response and of course the next posts was your post. I have stated here a few times it was crazy to hang on to Perkins and the extend him was one of the things this FO did for which I cant find any form of justification. Hughes and Willingham no way bring a meaningful prospect according to everything reported. Plus, I suspect most people here would have come unglued had the traded Hughes after the 2013 season. Like Perkins, the Hughes extension was incredibly ill-advised and the timing was downright dumb. Why not wait until he had a year remaining and make that decision with better information. We would not be paying him the next two years for in likelihood very little contribution. Many baseball fans expect their team can trade mediocre players for front of the rotation prospects. No wonder they are disappointed and think management just does not get it. Gibson would have to have been traded mid-season last year to garner good value. He came down to earth the 2nd half. Posters here would have come unglued had they traded Gibson last year while in contention after sucking for multiple years in a row. To suggest they should have traded him last year is a bit disingenuous or unreasonable at best.

Chief, you and I always disagree when it comes to management issues. If you think the possibillty of change in most organizations is the same as impending change at the deadline, especially specific to this deadline and this team, we will just have to disagree. We definitely got our MBAs from different schools.

I agree with you but you have to have assets to trade that people want. We4 had no pitching whatsoever that would have netted top prospects. Our best two players were lost to concussions followed by Mauer's value dropping to nothing when he moved to first. We could not got much in return for Cuddy so the FO took the compensation pick and got Berrios. Who else could we have traded for top prospects? This is when Mike's strategy of landing free agents and flipping them can help but that has not worked as of yet. Fingers crossed someone ponies up for Santana.