Major League Ready

What if the Twins are confident Sano will stick at 3rd. Looking at the history of the top international signings of all-time, most flamed out. Do you take the chance and make an enormous investment on a guy that you are going to have to find a position? If he flames out you have a seriously detriment in your ability to go get an Ace or that final piece when this core is ready to contend. The money could also be used for a Longoria type deal for Buxton or Sano. You better be really confident in this 19 y/o which is not standard thinking here on TD so why is anyone sure this is the right thing to do?

I am going to be praying Nolasco is great the first half of the season and we not only trade him before the deadline but get a good return. That would really change the future landscape. Assuming May or Milone make the trip north, Meyer gets brought up when Nolasco is traded. If May or Meyer don't make it, we have Berrios ready by 2016. If you are going to wish you may as well wish big.

IMO, the age of the current team does not dictate if the team SHOULD be rebuilding. Does the current team have the core to contend? Perhaps more importantly, is the farm system stocked with players that are the future of the team? These are some of the questions I would ask in determining if we should be rebuilding.

The FO did what was needed to get to respectability quickly without losing the prospects we hope will make us a contender. The short term effect is to get us close to a 500 team. The question for me is will it extend the period of mediocrity. In 2017-18 we will have over $50M tied up in Mauer, Nolasco, and Santana in their age 34 & 35 seasons. I don't know about you but I would sure like to have that $50 to spend on two front of the rotation starters or a SP and whatever hole we need to fill in 2017 and 2018. One could make a case that we are leveraging the future to get respectable now. Of course, if Nolasco and Santana perform and stay healthy, there is a chance the Twins could deal them at some point. That could aid in a run of several good years. However, history would suggest that best case scenario does not have good odds. We can say that prospects don't always work out but the reality is that the only way a team with revenues of 100-200M less than the top markets is going to contend for the WS is by success through their farm system and international signings. Therefore, the argument is mitigated if the goal is to contend. We are now betting on health and performance of 34-35 y/o SPs. It comes down to a choice between getting respectable now vs locking up payroll in starters well past their prime when we should have a very solid core of young players in 2017-18. I would have preferred we never signed Nolasco and signed Hammel or Volquez this year and taken a good look at May, Meyer, Milone, and Berrios this year. The FA class of SPs looks very good for next year. We could have been better positioned to understand our needs and also better positioned in terms of payroll and roster flexibility had we fully embraced rebuilding.

You are right, Mike. I was really just making a point in concept in terms of what is the most productive invest strategy for young international players. It would not be hard to model the productivity of international prospects in correlation with signing bonus. The actual numbers have inflated substantially but you could normalize the numbers and determine what level of prospects offer the best ROI. I think we all hope to see a very aggressive approach to international prospects. However, I think there are widely varying opinions on how that aggressiveness should be applied.

Moncada is a better bet because he is a little older than many of the previous top prospects. The link below is for the top 20 all-time international bonuses. Most of the players who are now old enough to evaluate in terms MLB performance or those who are now old enough for a good evaluation have flamed out completely or are not looking like the prospect that landed a huge signing bonus. Moncada might just be the guy that makes the big risk worth while but that is not the way I would suggest running a business or building a team. Most fans are enthralled by signing the biggest name international prospects but most of them are signed at 16 which just does not promote a high degree of accuracy in terms of predicting ML talent. History would suggest it would be more productive to sign 30 players @100K each as opposed to one guy for $3M. www.baseballamerica.com/international/top-20-all-time-international-bonuses-11342/

Jim Duquette (former GM) was talking on the MLB network about the misperception some fans have about being able to over pay to get free agents. The short version of what he said is that the better free agents have several options but in most cases a strong preference or two. The agents works the offer up to the breaking point and then the players picks between a team or two that they wanted to go with all along.

I don't think Baltimore has anyone that would be considered a true #1. It seems to me that a true #1 is not necessary to get to post season play but a big advantage once you are there. I guess as GM you have to address the public as if there is a plan to make the playoffs but the odds of this team going from 72 to whatever it takes to win the central is remote at best. If it happens, it would be more likely a product of Gibson dominant in most of his games instead of 1/3 of them. Hughes would have to be as good or better and Nolasco would have to perform at his career best. If all of that went right, a whole bunch of offensive players would have to perform to their ceilings. I get TR has to take this approach publically but this audience is above rationalizing decisions based on the 2014 Twins winning the central or even a wildcard.

It sure would be interesting to sit on the internal discussions for a few days. Who knows what the process has been. Maybe they are going to try to get a big return on Hughes by the ASB and bring up Meyer.They might feel they can do the same with Nolasco and/or Santana in the following years.Perhaps the FO does not agree with Vegas odds makers and think we can contend with this rotation.Maybe it is purely a business decision. They may feel they are forced to make decisions that are not optimal in terms of building a contender for the sake of protecting the Twins brand.It is also a reasonable position to assume there will be enough time via injury but I have a tough time with a line of thinking that suggests we will get to the prospects as a result of FAs failing in one form or another. If you are sure they will fail, skip the failure and give the prospects the ML experience they need to grow.Maybe they have a plan that Mike would like.

I think there is a very strong likelihood Meyer gets his chance this year. However, every response here in favor of buying a rotation is almost completely focused on THIS YEAR. That is not an adequate examination of the situation given Santana was signed for 4 years with the possibility of 5 years if I understand the option correctly. Nolasco has 3 more years and we can't ignore we also have $23M tied up in Mauer for 4 more years. This short term view is the difference between how GMs think vs alot of fans. Is the goal to build the best team possible this year or build a contender. They require a substantially different approach.

In 2015 it means We have a shot to be a 500 teamWe won't be relying on AAAA SPsOne spot available for May, Meyer, Milone or it means you are relying on an injury to make room for them. Sps are often injured but it is hard to feel good about relying on failure (injury) to make room. It just is not consistent with building a contender. Loss of a 2nd round pick. Not a big deal but a guy like Burdi is valuable for several years.Provides an opportunity to trade Milone, Pelfrey or both. Would the Giants trade Susac and two top SP prospects for Plouffe and Milone. (pelfrey too if they want him)For 2016 If position prospects advance as expected, we are likely above 500 but not likely to contendOne spot open for May, Meyer, Berrios, Milone, and others. This troubles me because I don't like any of the potential scenarios. The only way there is room for they guys we need to develop in order to contend is multiple injuries. For 2017-18 Hughes is likely goneMaybe Nolasco and Santana defy age regression and play a role in contentionMaybe they defy age regression and we trade them for prospectsMore likely, Age related regression is makes Nolasco and Santana league average or worse. They are not tradable and the money invested in them could have been used to get one legit front of the rotation starter or elite position player with money left over.So, these investments give us a decent team the next couple of years but not contender. If we are quite lucky in terms of them maintaining performance and health, Nolasco and Santana could supply veteran leadership and be part of bring the Twins into contention. If we are not lucky or if they regress normally and have the normal level of injuries for 33-35 y/o SPs, we tie up payroll that could have been better utilized. I guess the question is ... should we take this risk to improve to what is likely 500 at best this year and perhaps slightly better than 500 in 2016? Obviouly, this is wildly speculative. Anything could happen. These are just likely scenarios.

There was absolutely no intent to suggest that people should not readily supply and support their opinions. However, there are many people here who absolutely insist that the FO is incompetent because they don't do things as they would. Go ahead and give your opinions but many of those opinions supplied here are wildly over confident. It is incredibly optimistic for anyone here to believe they have a superior point of view and capability as compared to the Twins FO.

I am glad Mackey continues to write articles with the general theme that it is the fans that often don't understand. The skillset for managing the P&L and assets for a 9 figure business is a $300K plus job. Full P&L responsibility for that type of organization is a $500K plus position and does not happen without considerable credentials. Yet, fans seem to think they know better. If they had the skillset to know better, they would have the job. This is not meant to suggest that fans should not be enthusiastic about what they want to the team do. However, many take a very strong position often with little comparable experience and always with less information than the people making the decisions. I just don't think it is wise to take an emphatic position that assumes people with better credentials are incompetent, especially given they always have more information. Most fans are inclined to look at the immediate and that is an extremely poor way to run any organization. For example, the concept of "just go get the best players you can every year". That concept IMO is incredibly simplistic and a good way to assure mediocrity. Fans also tend to give far more weight to the best case scenario. History would suggest that the majority of the long-term deals do not turn out in the BCS. If FA performance worked out half the time, smaller market teams would have no chance at all. Swisher and Bourne are good parallel example to the Twins right now. What if the very real possibility of Nolasco Santana, and Mauer performing at league average or worse by 2016 & 2017 when the Twins should be in position to contend. We will have roughly $50M tied up in those players. Some make an argument that if you don't get over that fear you are relegated to never participating in free agency. This is another gross over simplification. The potential to end up with $50M in dead weight or more probably under performing assets also has to be considered. IMO, the benefit of Nolasco and Santana is we won't completely suck. The cost is that payroll could have been allocated to filling the final holes to build a contender.

Good point that Walker does likely make a ML roster given his RH power. I guess the intrigue is that if this guy's approach improves, he could be an all-star.

The good news is there are a lot of options that are legitimate candidates to break-out and be significant contributors to the ML club in the near future. My slightly different spin is that there are a few I watch closely because they could be boom or bust. Walker tops that list for me. He could be a beast or never make a ML roster. I would love to see Walker and Rosario break through and all of the sudden we have a very dynamic outfield in 2016. Gonsalves and Burdi seem like the most obvious pitching candidates but who knows. If we are going to wish, let's wish Stewart shows his ability to be a future ace. That way we have Berrios, Meyer, and May all on the immediate horizon and Stewart no too far behinds. That would mean we can start watching a quality product again soon.

Part A is It just comes down to the organizations confidence in Sano sticking at 3rd. Part B is how attractive is the offer. The less convinced of A, the better B has to be. It sure sucks Sano was hurt last year because his ability to play 3rd would be clearer. My recollection of interviews with Molitor and Ryan were that they were becoming confident in him sticking at 3rd. I am in very hopeful of him sticking at 3rd. We have lots of 1B options so they should give Sano a chance at 3B unless they are convinced he won't make it. If that's the case, move him to the OF now. If they believe Sano has a 50% chance or better of staying at 3rd and the offer is Susac + Crick or Beede or perhaps even Mejia, I make the deal. If Sano pans out at 3rd you just gave the team a significantly better chance of being a contender soon.

Just curious? Does anyone actually believe that hunter's politics had any impact on a team pursuing him or what they were willing to pay? Personally, I think it is pretty far fetched and therefore the question was disingenuous and the equivalent of internet trolling.

Deshields would not be as hard to stash as other position players in that he could be a late innings defensive replacement and pinch runner. However, getting very limited ABS can't help in development. Garcia's upside is pretty intriguing. I am just excited that we might actually get a pretty good player in the Rule V draft.

I was listening to Mackey & Judd on my way to a meeting and kind of expected them to back their peer. However, they thought the line of questioning was inappropriate. As a matter of fact, they echoed others here who suggested Berardino should have put in a request to the Twins for an interview on this specific topic and let Torii Hunter determine if he wanted to address those issues. They had Souhan on and he also thought it went down an inappropriate path, especially in that he did not let go after Torii gave a short answer. The whole thing is sad. Both parties acted very poorly. I do tend to side against the guy who acted with premeditation but I sure wish Torii would have just said that this was not the right forum for a political discussion and left it go.

Berardino had lots of time to construct the questions in a manner that made the question look less opportunistic. This is what reporters do to call attention to themselves and their media outlet.

I guess some people like to take every opportunity to dive in the muck and then this sort of ambush becomes desirable. I suppose part of it is if you believe a press conference is open game on any topic. My point of view is that the press conference was called to introduce Hunter as a new Twin. I don't agree with some of Hunter's positions but I also don't care if he is Gay, straight, republican, democrat, homophobic or anything else. This IMO was not the forum for such a discussion. If Berardino wanted to discuss politics, he should have asked Hunter for an interview on that topic, IMO. I think Seth hit this one on the head. Defensive metrics are a tough but fair question. The other questions were out of line and Hunter's response was equally distasteful.

I would have really liked to see Hunter answer respond with something like ... Well Mike, I will continue to be very open with Sports Reporters on any baseball related questions. For those reporters who elect to use an event like this to sensationalize old news or capitalize on my private life (marriage), I am going to avoid them on all matters, baseball or any other topic. Congratulations, you just made the top of the list in my first day back.

We are just way too far from April to make assumptions of who Hunter may or may not be mentoring. Maybe they finally decide it's time to accept we are rebuilding and they roll with Rosario out of spring training. More likely, they start with Schafer and Hicks as a platoon in CF and bring up Rosario by the AS break to replace one of them.

Why discard any assets until you are not forced to do so? Make a move later as the team's needs become better defined. This was a no brainer. What's the worst that could happen by keeping them under contract for now?

I don't understand why some disregard Milone so easily. I ran the stats for 2012-2013. There is very little difference in their numbers over that period between Nolasco, Masterson, Buehrle, and Milone. Of course, the others pitched more innings. He must at least have trade value but why would we let him go at this point. Give him a chance to establish some value at the same time we see what we have in May, Meyer, and eventually Berrios. You would have to believe we would be in pretty decent shape if he is our #5 starter.