Major League Ready

I am not sure it matters. Does the guy who allows the least number of runs on average give us the best opportunity to win the most games over the course of a year? You could make a case that Santana would be preferable in a critical playoff game or perhaps even a playoff series.

I think you are right. I am a big fan but I am still just a little concerned. You can see that the scouting reports are in and his average and extra base hits are going to continue to fall until he adapts.

There are some holes in this theory, IMO. One, I have the same take as Thryos. You are not swapping Shields and Nolasco. You are keeping down Berrios, Duffey, and perhaps Meyer. The second problem with this theory is that it is very short-term focused. This is a is win as many games as possible next year and don’t worry about anything else. I agree our goal should be to 95 wins + next year but not at the expense seriously jeopardizing the future. I don’t agree that it is “highly unlikely that Berrios, Duffey, or May gives us a better chance next season every 5th day than Shields.” There are mountains of data that suggest Shields or any SP his age will decline next year and the data suggests he will be fall off quite a bit by 2017 and 2018 which would make him a back of the rotation starter. I think it is quite possible that Duffey or Berrios could be just as effective as Shields next year. My money would be on Berrios for sure in 2017 and 2018 and probably Duffey as well. So, if I am the GM, we are not paying $60M to maybe be better in 2016 but quite likely worse in 2017 and 2018. Given the proposed trade included Stewart and Arcia this trade not only has the potential to be really bad over the next three years, it could have a detrimental impact for years into the future. I think I would invest that $60M in free agency. That might mean really good RPs or a DH or whatever but I can find something to do with that $60M that has a higher probability of making the team better not only next year but for several years.

I have no idea which team and I think how the free agent market works out in terms of who is interested. We don't have to give up a prospect. If our requirement in trade is an organizational filler, then Nolasco basically looks like a free agent to interested teams. Someone will take him but the question is what are they willing to pay? If his market value is $6M, then we are going to have to pay ½ his salary if we want to move him. If it’s $8M we will have to cover 1/3.

Do you mean what team?

I think it is reasonable to assume Sanatana, Hughes, and Gibson are locks. So if you trade Nolasco for Shields. You have one spot for Milone, Duffey and Berrios FOR THE NEXT 3 years. Other than Ks, It would not be hard to make a case that Milone has better stats this year. If you are going to pay FA price for an aging pitcher, why give up other assets in trade. There are better free agent options this year.

No. Someone would be willing to take him for a marginal prospect. The question will be what percentage of his salary will they be willing to assume. It’s a good business decision IMO if we can get two-thirds. I like the chances Duffey and/or Berrios will outperform him for a fraction of the cost. Therefore, we are money ahead and field a better team. Take whatever you save and put it in the pen.

That is a kind way to put it in my opinion. This is a horrible idea.

I was really hoping to see him at 3B too but the people who make that decision should have a good idea if he can play 3rd by now. Of course, there is always a chance they end up being wrong. It happens. I am inclined to go along with other posters who have suggested we need to give Sano that chance not even if it requires we sacrifice Plouffe in the process. It would become a no brainer for me if the trade yields a ML ready or near ML ready catcher but I would not restrict trading Plouffe to a getting a catcher as long as the return was solid.

I hope another team believes he will return to form next year and takes him off our hands this off-season. I don't care if we get a dozen balls in return. May needs to be in the rotation. If May gets the last spot in the rotation, Milone, Duffey, and Berrios contribute based on injury. Nobody seems to care about Milone but he let the least amount of runs cross the plate per 9 and that is a pretty important stat. One of Nolasco, Hughes, and Santana have to go. In that order for my liking.

I think it is a simplistic view to look at career stats. For starters, what happened 5 years before free agency does not matter as much as last year and/or the last 2-3 years. You also need to consider Sandoval’s body type (5-11/250) is more probable to experience early decline, especially defensively. Then there is also the fact that Plouffe has improved his play on the defensive side of the ball substantially the past couple years. Sandoval’s OPS the last 3 years before free agency was below his career average and it was on the decline for 3 yrs prior to free agency. He also went from 23 HRs in 2011 to 12/14 & 15 in 2012-2014. Therefore, the projected OPS for Sandoval going forward would have been similar to Plouffe and Plouffe is less of a candidate for decline than Sandoval based on body type. OPS HR 2011 .909 23 2012 .789 12 2013 .758 14 2014 .739 16

What about Sandoval? Same age and fairly similar stats. He got 5/95M

Count me onboard with this thinking. The ideal scenario is one of them gets traded once Kepler is up an establishes he can play at the ML level. That also gives us some time to see if Rosario can demonstrate some plate discipline. Scouts already have his MO and the pitchers are adjusting. If he continues with the current approach, nobody is going to throw him strikes. He has great hands but you can't do much when you are constantly 0-2 or 1-2 and fighting of breaking pitches off the plate of in the dirt. Hicks keeps getting better as a LH hitter and he is already darn good as a RH hitter. He has a high OBP and offers great flexibility in the lineup against LH pitching. However, Hicks has greater value as a CF and would bring a greater return. I think this one does not play out until the deadline of even the 2016 off-season unless Ryan gets an offer he can't refuse. I look forward to watching this play out.

This makes for an interesting discussion, Mike. I think the greatest influence on how people see this is that some fans absolutely reject the service clock consideration. Of course, general managers have a very different opinion on service clock. Let’s say any GM was looking at this scenario on July 1. I think the difference in position is that a GM is going to look at this scenario something like this …. 1. They start with what is the costs and benefits of minimizing JO Berrios in the event we need him for a stretch run or even the playoffs. 2. OK – The ultimate benefit is that we get to a playoff series. I don’t believe any GM is going to put much value in the wildcard game. A playoff series has much more value in terms of $$, team development, and building the fan base. 3. Hmmm, the odds of getting to a playoff series is about 5%. That might be all the GM needs to reject the thought of managing the prospect around this scenario. Let’s assume they go on. 4. Next, the GM probably consider the likelihood this prospect is going to add wins. a. In July,. It simply did not look like that was something that needed to be considered yet. b. Contributing at the ML level immediately is a big IF. The presumption so many made here that he was instantly one of our best pitchers is a real stretch. (ie. Alex Meyer) There was great insistence here last year that he was the best SP in the organization. There were similar opinions here with Nick Burdi. c. If the role is a bullpen role you are adding a whole new dimension. d. We already have great depth and he is probably behind even Duffey at this point so it is not likely he breaks into the rotation immediately. If you want to say, what about after he had a good month in AAA. Hughes was not hurt yet and there was no room. Plus, he was arguably still behind Duffey. I think the biggest disconnect here between how a fan sees this scenario and a GM is still service time. It is quite obvious that fans are anxious to see these prospects and formulate arguments supporting getting them here ASAP. Any GM looks at the scenario above and says no way in hell am I giving up a year of service time for this scenario. Most fans also don't think about how these things impact long-term roster management and/or perhaps off-season moves. If Berrios can be brought up as soon as the super 2 date is up, the FO has more flexibility to make some important off-season moves. They can deal Nolasco and take on something like $4m of annual salary and be 7.5M ahead if they have both Duffey and Berrios as options. They could set-up this scenario ... Santana / Hughes / May / Gibson / Milone or Duffey . They could even deal Gibson and have Sanatan / Hughes / May / Milone / Duffey with Berrios up next. Gibson, Plouffe and Polanco would give us some very good trade pieces to net us the catcher we need to fill our biggest hole. You add a better catcher to this team, pick-up a solid late inning guy in free agency and this team looks great in 2016. That’s how I would hope a GM was thinking as he contemplated how to manage Berrios.

Mike, The projections I saw back then gave us about a 10% chance of a wildcard spot. Of course, a wildcard spot is a 1 game playoff. Therefore, assuming a 50/50chance of winning that game, the Twins had a 5% chance of actually participating in a playoff series. Are you really suggesting they should have managed their pitching staff around this 5% chance? Personally, I would have managed the young players based on their development given the 5% chance of playing a playoff series.

For anyone that did not watch the game on Fox North, Jack Morris talked about the need for a young team to go through these situations and learn. Way too many people here think this team should respond like a team of veterans. That's just not how it works. It's also not exactly critical thinking when the answer for everything is that it is the GMs fault.

One possible scenario is that they want the option to bring him up next year as soon as the super 2 date passes. Hicks is more valuable as a CFer so the FO could very ell have determined the best way to maximize their assets would be to eventually trade Hicks. This plan would provide the opportunity to evaluate Kepler for a period of time prior to the deadline and then deal Hicks if they are satisfied with Kepler as his replacement. Hicks might even be traded in the off-season if the deal is right. What if they do have the chance to get the right catcher? Buxton, Rosario and Kepler could be our OF for the next several years. The point being, you don’t bring Kepler up to play 1st base or sit on the bench if you see the potential for one of these scenarios or some other similar scenario.

Mike, I don’t think this was a baseball decision, at least not purely a baseball decision. This was about “keeping” the fan Base. It looks to me like the FO said we can’t have another 90 loss season even if it could be detrimental to our future. I think the majority of what we saw here on TD after the signing. Most of the posters here were for it and said you can never have enough pitching or prospects don’t work out or simply put the best team on the field right now, etc. I did not care for the signing but the FO is responsible for running a business so I can’t fault them too much if their business intelligence suggested the business would suffer over an extended period if they did not improve substantially. Frankly, the move that perplexes me even more than signing Santana was extending Hughes after signing Santana. Why not wait until the end of this season, especially given we May and Meyer were at the point where we would have a much better idea on them a year later and we had several pitching prospects that had the potential to be ML SPs that another year would provide a clearer view. Had we not extended Hughes, he could have more easily been moved at the deadline or we could put him in the pen next year and put the guys in the rotation that belong there long-term, starting with May, Gibson, Berrios, and perhaps Duffey. Santana and those four would look pretty good next year. There might be hope. I would think another team would trade a C level prospect for Nolasco if we eat 3-4M/yr of his contract. He only has 2 years left so this translate to 2 yrs and 16-18M if he were a free agent given a C prospect has modest value. I could see that happening. If it does not happen in the off-season, w will have to hope he pitches well enough to be moved by the ASB. Some here will say the FO will not subsidize his contract but from a business perspective, the replacement for the Twins is Berrios or Duffey so they save big even if they eat 6-8M. If this happens, we actually look pretty good with Santana/May/Hughes/Gibson/Berrios/Milone/Duffey.

All things being equal, I agree. However, I would trade for the best return if there was a significant difference between the ML assets and the prospects. As someone stated earlier, limiting your potential trade partners reduces the ability to get a deal done and/or the return. That gives us more flexibility and assets that are perceived to be more value to fill holes. I would also be just fine if we thought the return was very good and the players were AA or AAA prospects that are close to ML ready. I would rather be really good for a very long time than a little better next year.

All things being equal, I agree. However, I would trade for the best return if there was a significant difference between the ML assets and the prospects. As someone stated earlier, limiting your potential trade partners reduces the ability to get a deal done and/or the return. That gives us more flexibility and assets that are perceived to be more value to fill holes. I would also be just fine if we thought the return was very good and the players were AA or AAA prospects that are close to ML ready. I would rather be really good for a very long time than a little better next year.

I would like to have seen Berrios too but I am taken back by the number of people that insist it was a no brainer, there are no legitimate reasons to keep him down and the FO must be incompetent. I can think of several but the major disconnect is that some posters see the prize as making the post season and therefore “do anything it takes”. Those with the skillset and experience with managing assets recognizes the wildcard now means a one game playoff to get into a playoff series. Therefore, the odds of getting to a playoff series is .5 X whatever your projected odds of getting to a wildcard spot at the point in time you make any decisions. 1. It is very legit to manage Berrios innings. Going to the bullpen has more wear and tear than it might seem given the number of times they warm up. 2. Managing service time is standard practice. Whining about this is ridiculous. For god sake the Cubs kept Chris Bryant down and there are countless other examples. 3. It is impossible to predict if he would shine or struggle at first. The best indication would be his personal history which would suggest he will struggle at first when moving up. Obviously, that would do more harm than good to the team’s chances. 4. He has never been in the bullpen and they have 2 other guys that have been lights out in this role in AAA. In terms of deadline moves, not giving up assets at the deadline was far from incompetent. As a matter of fact, when giving consideration to the odds of getting to a playoff series not just a wildcard game at that time, you could make a better case IMO that it would have been incompetent to give up any assets but as it turns out the Jepsen addition was really making a difference at a marginal cost. That bullpen was looking pretty good after the Jepsen addition until Perk start to slide but blaming the front office for that is ridiculous. They also are not going to be perfect. Posters here (including me) are wrong often yet when the FO gets something wrong they are incompetent morons. What is really ridiculous is the persistent presumption by many that they are better equipped for the job than those who have them. If you have the credentials to seriously be considered for the job than go ahead and insist you know how to do the job better. If not, you might want to consider the reason you don’t agree is that it is you that don’t understand.

It would be foolish to put Berrios in the starting rotation to begin the year. I would bet that any GM in ML baseball would keep him down until the super 2 date given our depth at SP. I hope you are wrong about May. He should be in the starting rotation and Ryan has been quite consistent that he wants him in the rotation next year. He has been great as a set-up man but we need to see how he performs as a starter. He can always go back and relief pitchers are much easier to sign acquire than front of the rotation SPs, especially those that are at league minimum. The real question is .... Can the Twins find anyone that will take Nolasco, Hughes or Santana. My preference would be they be dealt in that order. I don’t care if the get a dozen balls in return. I guess the real question is how much salary would the Twins have to take back to move any of them.

If you recall the discussion on this site during the offseason surrounding free agent SPs, Nolasco was considered a good acquisition most, Hughes was a bit controversial and off course he was great last year. Then, they added Santana. Some of us said that’s too many LT contract. Most said don’t worry about later. It won’t be a problem. Some even suggested we pursue other FAs. Garza for example. I would have never signed Santana. At least not after signing Nolasco and Hughes but here we are. Now many posters that were all over the FO to sign FAs expect the Twins to just punt 20 or 30 or 40M dollars because an exciting young SP is ready to come up. This is a business. As much as many of you absolutely completely ignore this fact, those in charge of hundreds of millions in assets don’t punt tens of millions. Frankly, the disconnect here is that fans expect the FO to do things that would be considered absolute incompetence from a business perspective.

On what basis to you suggest Sano and/or Buxton should have been up earlier. Buxton still is not ready and they called Sano up a couple months after returning from TJ surgery. The premise they were "punted" to save money is absolutely ridiculous.

This is one of the bests posts I have ever seen on TD or at least one of the most rationale. I love the Irony. Competent managers don't come to conclusions without as much information as possible yet there is no shortage of people here flying off the handle without knowing the decision process while at the same time calling TR incompetent. Berrios has not yet thrown a ML pitch, yet many here are absolutely dead certain he would be better than proven ML talent. That is not a competent conclusion especially given he struggled each time he was moved up. As you established, other teams have done the same. That should cause people great pause before going off on the stupidity of this move. Yet, it does not slow them down a bit. I would be asking myself what I don't know or don't understand. GMs manage service time. Why, because it is the smart thing to do in the long-term. It's that simple. Many here just won't accept that because they want the shiny new toy. The Cubs held Chris Bryant back for service time reasons for gods sake and people are complaining about Berrios. Let's also consider that the prize is a one game playoff. In other words, all of this complaining about making the playoffs when in this case it means a one game playoff to get to a real playoff series. So, the odds of the prize are .5 X whatever chance you give them if making the wildcard. That's probably 40% today so we will call it a 20% chance. Three weeks ago it was projected at a 15% chance they make the playoffs. So, for a 7.5% chance (.15 X .50) of making the playoffs, some suggest we should have burnt a years service time on Berrios to get him up earlier. That's ridiculous. It also amazes me that posters here can be wrong repeatedly yet presume they know better than the people with far more experience and far more information. We are not scouting them and we have not been seeing the scouting reports the FO sees on a consistent basis. I seem to recall the same statements here about Meyer. How about It would be a travesty if Buxton were not called up. Well, he was obviously not ready and has sucked offensively. Milone and Pelfrey did not belong in the rotation but where we be without them. Most were down on Jepsen. He has been great. Many here said the team would lose 90 games again because TR was not making the moves they thought he should. The fact is he transitioned a team from sucking to contention and did it without giving up the future. The worst thing he did was not ass long-term contracts which were mostly cheered here. We should all be very happy. I by no means suggest any of us should think everything has been done perfectly but the team is back in contention and the future looks very bright. Why exactly are people complaining and continuing to presume they would make better decisions than TR.