Major League Ready

Really? Your interpretation of what this means is to use an example of a trade that did not return equal value. If I used the Did AJ Pierzynski return as my expected return would you tell me that is ridiculous given the Twins came out far better than expected? I bet you would and you would be able to come up with a reasonable interpretation of what is meant by equal value. This is really simple stuff for anyone that has participated in these types of decisions. Equal is not a complicated word. When clubs trade, in that moment, each side believes they are getting equal value for the assets they are giving up or they would not do the deal. In a theoretical discussion like this one, you can’t assume you lose or win the trade. So, the point is that there is a projected return, a floor, and a ceiling for all the players involved. This or any other trade decisions is based on the most probable return. The logical end of your premise is that you should never trade for prospects because they might not work out. Yet, when all of the failures in free agency are mentioned you cite the exact opposite logic.

It’s only an unfair or flawed representation if the $200,000 is a best case scenario. My firm generally constructs a best case, worse case and most likely scenario when substantial variability exists but it is extremely flawed decision process to assign no value because returns are in a later date and/or uncertain. Best practices here would entail whatever methodology the Twins use to project their prospects and then an appropriate adjustment for risk but there is an inherent adjustment for risk already built into a mean projection. Of course, I used dollars but we are really talking about wins and player projections are a common part of the sport. There are countless business decisions made every day based on projections with great variability in potential outcomes. The personnel decision here should be made on a reasonable (mean) projected value.

Mike, If we are going to have a discussion of this nature, you have to assume that the trade is perceived to be assets of equal value. If you don't make that assumption, there is absolutely no point in having a discussion of this nature. There are people here who will argue about the timing of the return but that argument assumes the assets can't be traded for assets that perform sooner. The "only do it if the players contribute in 2016" assumes a win in 2016 is more important than the same number of wins for multiple years. I don't know about you but if you offer me $200,000 in 2016 or nothing in 2016 but $200,000/yr for the five years after 2016, I will take the later.

Let’s get a second thing straight. You completely ignored the value of whatever we get in trade. Let’s assume we get fair or equal value back and you have ignored a very significant if not the most significant part of the equation. I presume you are failing to recognize this because you are only considered the immediate or short term. This is a flawed approach to managing assets and applying it limits the team long-term success. There is going to be a season after 2015 and another after 2016 and so on. I would rather be better for many years to come than a little better next year. The difference defensively between Plouffe is an important variable here and our individual assumption obviously skews how we perceive the impact on the team. We are all guessing but from what I have seen, my guess is that he would be a fair amount worse in 2016 and the gap would likely be gone by the end of 2017. I think a premium bat would more than make up for that difference, especially batting behind Sano. Parra was not a good example although he had an 838 OPS with Milwaukee. I view him as a worst case scenario but someone we could probably get.

I agree completely. IMO, most fans, especially the ones here are too short term focused. It's all about the now. That's not a good way to build a consistent winner. For me, the decision to trade Plouffe starts with Free Agency. If we can get Davis or even Parra, we are better off in both the short-term and long-term by trading Plouffe. The roster construction is better. We need a big bat behind Sano. The only problem is that it will be difficult to give Vargas a shot if we sign a DH but that’s a nice problem to have. There is also a case to be made that Vargas would be as good offensively as Plouffe in 2016 and probably better than Plouffe long-term. If in fact you believe Vargas could equal Plouffe offensively in 2016, it’s a no brainer. Vargas appears from his stats to have improved his plate discipline considerably. His OBP is excellent. If Vargas can just equal Plouffe, we gain in 3 ways. 1) We have 5 years of control on Vargas vs 3 with Plouffe 2) Vargas will be far less expensive for 2 of those years. We can use the $ in free agency. He will also be cheaper in his arbitration years as a DH vs a 3B unless he is much more productive which would be even better news. 3) We gain assets that will provide production later or can be used as trade assets.

What if we sign Chris Davis to protect Sano? We get quite a bit better offensively and improve our roster construction. Of course, we also gain other assets to improve the team long-term. Gerardo Parra would also be decent as a DH and back-up outfielder. Seems like a lot better plan that just hanging on to Plouffe.

Agreed. I would add a couple points. 1) Mauer's $23M/yr is not going away so it is pointless to justify the retention of Plouffe because he makes considerably less that Mauer. 2) The argument that Plouffe and Mauer can split time at 1B/DH make sense to me. His 740 OPS can be replaced for less at either position. 3) I don't think I would bet on Plouffe having a better year than Mauer offensively next year. Certainly not enough better that I would forgo the return Plouffe provides. 4) I would trade him for the best package I can get regardless of position but a Catcher would be great if that worked out. Invest the $saved in signing Gerardo Parra as a DH/back-up outfielder. The team just improved by 100 pts OPS and is also improved in the future by whatever assets are acquired by trading him.

Gents, I don’t think the two scenarios are not even remotely close. As a matter of fact, I think Houston’s transactions are an example of a bridge strategy that results in a winner. Our bridge strategy satisfies the larger fan base and is probably a reasonable business decision. I would have like to seen a strategy more capable of doing both. I n fairness to the Twins FO, 1500 had someone close to the Houston Organization on a call today and he said the path Houston took lost their fan base and they are just starting to come back. It is a business. Rasmus 1 yr $4.68M Neshek 2 yrs 12M Lowrie 3 yrs 21M Feldman 3 yrs 30M through age 33. Qualls 2 yrs 6M Total expenditure 73.68M Santana 4/55M Hughes 5/58M Nolasco 4/49M Perkins 4/22,175 Hunter 1/10M Twins free agents cost a collective 194,175 or 2.63 times the Astros expenditures. Perhaps more importantly, the Twins FA contracts are 4-5 years with the exception of Hunter where Houston did not go beyond 3 years.

I think some people are getting carried away with the talk of Berrios being our best pitcher when he has never thrown a ML pitch. I seem to remember very similar threads about Meyer and Burdi. I love the kid and think he will be great but lets not get ahead of ourselves

Sorry, I thought you meant Houston's GM. My discontent with the FO is different than most here. The contracts and extensions I listed were a band aid. They make no sense for a rebuilding team. I understand why. It was a business decision. When you lose a fan base it take a pretty long time to get them back. I think there were SPs available on 2 year deals that would have sufficed as a bridge strategy. Why they extended Hughes and Perkins is absolutely beyond me. I fully support not giving away the farm to support a playoff run this year and I also would not screw up service time in the case of important assets. I think the thing that gets lost in this discussion is that the wildcard is not the same as when the Rays brought up Price. It's a one game playoff now. How much of the future should a GM mortgage on one game. Even if they get a wildcard, they have a 50/50 chance of the wildcard having any meaningful playoff implications. At the deadline, their chances of winning a wildcard were projected at 10% or less so they had a 10% chance of getting a 50/50 opportunity at a playoff series that was greater than one game. Even if they were projected at a 30% likelihood back then, they would have had a 15% chance of participating in a series greater than one game.

I am not sure how you got this out of my post. If anything, I was suggesting exactly the opposite.

Chief, There are two fundamental differences between how fans think and how GMs think. These fundamental differences are often the source of discontent among fans, especially the more hard core type fans here on TD. The first one is how fans view any of the decisions surrounding financial management. The second is short-term vs long-term management. Much of the financial related discussion I see here is not even remotely similar to how the people who make these decisions think. The same is true of balancing short-term vs long-term performance. It is the responsibility of leadership to provide the direction that assures success long-term. Line level managers are responsible for short-term or more tactical decisions. Houston is a great example. I thought they did a terrific job but I bet their hard core fans were cursing them when they had a payroll which as I recall dipped below $30M. They moved all of their proven players for future assets while riding the team of financial obligations that might encumber them when they got into contention. They look like they will be great for a decade. The moves our team made to satisfy the short-term or immediate need (Nolasco / Hughes / Santana and extending Perkins) are going to restrict this team’s ability to fill crucial holes as we now enter contention. There are many here who absolutely reject the concept of timing investment. For those posters, I ask how nice would it be to have the $44M that will be paid for those four players through 2019-20 to invest in a free agent front of the rotation starter and a catcher of SS. FA / Berrios / May / Gibson / Duffey / Meyer and eventually Gonsalves plus an additional $20M to spend filing holes looks a lot better than what we are going to have unless they can somehow unload these guys.

That's easy. Record it and watch it later. You will just have to avoid looking at the internet until after you watch the game.

It is a LONG way from a coin toss for me. One guy has the best hitting stats in the southern league and is a superior athlete with excellent plate discipline and a very high OBP. The other is batting 200 at AAA with below average defensive skill. He strikes out a ton and looks to be a head case. How is this a coin flip. Kepler could be the #3 hitter we lack. If not he would make a great 2 hole hitter and Dozier hits 3rd or if Mauer bounces back, we have Buxton, Mauer, and Kepler with Dozier or perhaps Vargas protecting Sano. If Vargas reached his potential, by the end of 2016 we have ... CF ... Buxton or Buxton LF .... Kepler 2B .... Dozier 3B .... Sano DH ... Vargas RF ... Rosario 1B ... Mauer C ..... Trade or FA acquisition SS ... Trade or FA acquisition W e trade Plouffe and Hicks for a catcher, SS and/or pitching. If Polanco pans out in 2016 we could potentially keep Hicks but if he continues to play at this current level or improve he is going to be more valuable as a trade asset that would return a great C or SS or perhaps the front of the rotation SP we need to be a serious post season contender. It will take most or al of 2016 for this to play out. Of course, we don't trade Hicks and/or Plouffe without getting considerable upgrades at SS and catcher which makes this a very strong lineup with excellent defensive capability. If Mauer bounces back a bit, all the better. If he gets worse, he is a bench player.

This will play out next year. Buxton will be up and if Kepler comes up and plays well, Hicks will be traded. His value as a CFer is higher than as a corner OFer.

The team making the playoffs, especially the wild card has very little to do with how I would measure success for this season. After four consecutive 90 loss seasons, success in my opinion is measured in the development of players capable of producing a winner. If Sano had gotten a chance and demonstrated he can play 3B. I would say he would be the most important “success” this year. Hicks and Rosario are items 2 & 3 making this season a success even if Hicks is traded for a SS or C. His improvement will have netted that important asset. I would add Trevor May to the success list at the ML level. Gibson also looks to be part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem. I also see this year as a success because some important assets have performed well in the minors. At the top of that list is Kepler, Berrios, and perhaps Polanco. We need top of the rotation guys in the worst way and Berrios has made progress toward being a top of the rotation SP. Kepler’s athleticism and plate discipline make me inclined to believe he can be an elite player at the ML level. This will be even more important if Hicks is moved for a C or SS. Regardless, the advancement of these four young players is very important to the team’s future and Dozier's continued good play has to be considered part of the success of this season. Things that fall into the category of not contributing to building a contender were the acquisition of Ervin Santana and the extension of Phil Hughes. Ricky Nolasco and his contract is a bigger problem than the other two unless he amazes us and comes back to perform like a mid-rotation SP. I would sure like to have that 38M/yr to invest in a front of the rotation SP in 2017 which is the first season I think they are legit contenders. Take what’s left over and the $10M to Hunter and invest that in a SS or Catcher. I sure hope they can dump at least one of Nolasco, Santana, or Hughes. Nolasco would be my first choice to go. At least then you have room for May, Berrios and Gibson. There are also a number of prospects that had poor seasons. At the top of that list is Arcia and the bullpen arms that were looking like set-up men and closers of the future. Those bullpen guys were looking like a major strength going forward. Now, not so much. Let’s hope a couple of them bounce back in 2016.

You have to find the right trade partner but you have to believe he is more valuable as a CFer. I think the OF situation will require most of next year to sort itself out. We need to get Buxton and Kepler up here and then let it play out. Kepler is starting to hit home runs and he has always produced a lot of XBHs. He probably profiles better as a corner OFer. Buxton, Kepler and Rosario would make a great defensive OF and they can all hit. That could be our OF for several years. Rosario needs to learn how to take a walk but that generally develops a little later. Form a position player standpoint, This team would be looking very good if Hicks could eventually be traded for the catcher we need. How nice would it be if we would have drafted Trea Turner? The team of the future would look like this .... SS Turner ---- CF Buxton ---- LF Kepler ---- That would be some serious speed 1-3. We would lead the league in triples. 3B Sano 2B Dozier 1B Mauer RF Rosario / AB Walker C Player from Hicks trade DH Arcia / Walker / Vargas or other Plouffe traded for pitching Escobar / Santana - utility players Polanco ?

Your bolded text is the primary reason we differ in opinion. This team is not even close to contention and I want the FO to act accordingly. Does this pitching staff look even remotely like the staff of a contender? Offensively, our team reminds me of the Royals from 4-5 years ago. They need to mature. That’s not likely to come together to the point of contention in 2016 either. BTW, by contend I mean make a deep run in the playoffs. 2017 will be the first year of contention if we are lucky and that will require Santana and Hughes to be better than I think they will be and Berrios to reach his ceiling VERY quickly not to mention our hitters maturing like the Royals position players have. You and all of the other fans who REALLY REALLY want the Twins FO to act like a contender are going to be disappointed if the Twins FO does their job and acts like a team that is still rebuilding because that’s where we are at. They built a pretender. That might be a decent business move but this team is just not ready or positioned to contend soon. How are we going to get the SP if we don’t trade away ML talent or Buxton/Sano? Free agency is always a poor mechanism for a mid-market team and this team already has $60M tied up in Mauer, Santana, Hughes and Nolasco. None of them are tradeable at this point, especially without taking most of their salary back so we can’t get rid of this payroll until 2018-19. Starting right now, I would like us to quit being a pretender and start building a contender. May needs to be in the rotation. Although, the bullpen experience probably has some value. Next year he needs to be in the rotation and Berrios needs to be here by the Super 2 date at the latest. Trade Nolasco and one of Sanatana or Hughes for a bag of balls if you can and go get a legit #1. I would not care if they traded all 3 actually. May, Berrios, Gibson, Milone, and a legit #1 sounds pretty good. We have some other back of the rotation guys in waiting that provide depth and maybe one day Meyer figures it out.

And the Twins would be far better off today had they waited and lost him to Boston. They could take that $23M and invest it in the front of the rotation SP which for the foreseeable future is a significant barrier to contention. Sometimes the best moves are the ones you don't make.

It is pretty common for teams to trade established players when they have prospects that they have a lot of confidence in ready to take their place. Partly because its a business and those 1st 3 years are inexpensive but it also frees up payroll for other acquisitions. It can also be a great way to fill another hole. I have no problem with trading Plouffe for a ML ready C or SS with a high ceiling if Sano can play 3rd. Dozier is a little different story. It would have to be a great return and I would first like to see if Polanco can stick at SS. Sano is more valuable if he is at 1B vs DH and far more valuable if capable of playing an average 3B vs DH. I would think Kepler would be more valuable in the OF vs 1B so the question is not Kepler vs Plouffe. If it were, I still would not have a problem with it because Kepler looks like he is going to be a better than Plouffe. I would give Mauer until the Super 2 date or a little later to rebound. If he does not, I play the best players. That's probably Sano, Plouffe, and either Arcia of Vargas. At some point next year I would hope the OF duties to be shared by Buxton, Hicks, Rosario, Kepler, and either Arcia or a 5th outfielder type and let that situation sort itself out. We trade Hicks if Kepler proves himself at the ML level and Rosario maintains or improves his current play. Buxton, Kepler, and Rosario is a very nice outfield.

Well Mike, this is a distinct possibility. However, I have interviewed literally thousands of employees in a consulting capacity and I have a pretty good sense of when a guy is regurgitating the company line. I have heard Smalley and others several times on this topic and I am inclined to believe Smalley's comments are genuine. I also listen to Grant Paulson's show and he commented that Buxton was called up prematurely. He is a Buxton fan and relatively neutral party. The fact that Smalley was called up quickly only strengthens the validity of his comments if they were in fact genuine. Personally, I have been hoping Arcia gets his act together a little so that they could start next year with Hicks, Rosario and Arcia. Buxton and Kepler to AAA. At some point Kepler gets his shot. Buxton takes over in CF and Hicks and Arcia make great platoon / 4th outfielder. If Kepler meets expectations you trade one of Hicks, Arcia or Rosario. I would love to see it pan out with Buxton in CF, Kepler in LF and Arcia in RF. That allows you to get a great return on Hicks if he does not regress because his value is higher as a CF. Both Kepler and Rosario could play CF if Buxton is injured or gets a day off. Lots of flexibility in this plan. Maybe you keep all five if Sano can handle 3rd and Plouffe is traded. Arcia gets lots of ABs at DH and you have lots of flexibility in the OF. Plus, with a little luck, we would have surplus ML talent to be traded for a ML ready catcher. Still have to figure out a plan at SS. Let's hope Polanco can handle it. That would give us one heck of a lineup. Get Berrios up here at some point next year and we have a good chance of watching a contending team for 10 years.

Mike, do you really think Buxton is better than Hicks right now? Buxton is not ready for ML pitching right now. So, the first priority should be his development which is probably best served at AAA for now. It could be argued he had not really mastered AA. Smalley was on 1500 talking the need for young players to master each level before moving up. I am inclined to listen to the guys that have been there and done that. In addition, this is a business. So, to say service clock should not matter is not very realistic. A big part of the constant complaining here is that many fans just refuse to acknowledge and/or accept this is a business.

No way on May. Get Nolasco healthy and deal him next year at the deadline even if you have to eat half of his salary. Then, bring up Berrios and go with Santana, Gibson, May, Hughes, Berrios. That's ice starting rotation. Mlone is there for depth or trade bait. If Meyer gets it together, then you have a nice problem and ammo to get a catcher if that problem has not been solved. Not now on Hicks. Let's see where next year. Is value is appreciating every day. This is better addressed during the off-season or next year at the deadline. Polanco all depends on if he can play SS. If so, he should be the last prospect we deal. If not, he is an ideal candidate to be part of a trade for an established Catcher or high ceiling prospect.

By taking the20M we would have paid him an investing it plus a little more to get a top of the rotation FA. So, we would have this FA pitcher plus all of the guys we would give up to get Tulo. Short term, Tulo would no doubt improve the team but even with him this team is not ready to contend for real. I would bet the cumulative war of the players we give up would be considerable higher than Tulo alone in 2018-2021. So its short term thinking. Fans want instant gratification but the odds are this is a bad trade for the final half of the assumed contract. Of course, that right when the Twins core has matured and ready to win (like KC). It is also the point in time where Mauer, Santana, and Nolasco will be off the books leaving room to lock down Sano and Buxton and probably add a premier FA to fill whatever happens to be our greatest need at that time if we don't screw up the management of payroll.

Mike, I think you hit on the key here. Is Polanco a SS or 2B? They might be keeping him at SS to promote a higher trade value. If the FO thinks he is best suited at 2B then they should try to trade him for a catching prospect. Another possibility and I am sure some will strongly disagree but I would not be opposed to selling high on Dozier if someone was willing to pay big, including a catcher. Then, bring up Polanco. Send Santana down and let Escobar play SS. That way you see if you can fix Santana while seeing if Escobar can perform like he did last year with regular playing time. Either way you hopefully fix catcher long-term.