Major League Ready

For some reason I cant quote. How well this "rebuild strategy worked or if the Twins tried to add another starting is absolutely irrelevant to Buehrle's relative value to rebuilding. It would not matter if it were Clayton Kershaw. The Twins are a ways away from contending and any player on a one year contract has very little value to rebuilding. Add to this that Buehle will absolutely for certain take innings away from prospects who are ready to be at the ML level and that detracts from rebuilding. Giving away further prospects may or may not detract but Toronto is certainly going to want value so in all probability that further detracts from building. The more I think about it the worse it looks.

Keeping one spot open for 3 good SP prospects (who are all ready) to take on a 35 y/o SP on a one year deal is not a rebuilding strategy. If that alone does not stop the Twins giving up the level of prospect Toronto will want in turn should because that also is not a rebuilding strategy. There are also better alternatives to spend $19M. You can't think one year at a time when the team is in a position that requires a long-term strategy/approach.

First, wow do you guys speculate. I realize this is the nature of this type of site but to get this bent about what "a source" says is a bit much. How about if we wait and see what is really going on. Who really knows what is going on. The agent, The Twins FO and maybe Maddon. Also, Maddon has an agent. What does it say about Maddon's interest in managing this team if his agent does not bother to call the only team with a managerial opening. That knife cuts both ways.

Three things come to mind after reading this thread. 1. All of the debate to this point seems to assume Buehrle will continue to pitch to his career numbers. Maybe he will but at age 35 that would be defying the odds. 2. If those career numbers hold, we are talking less than 2 WAR given Buehrle's increased WAR is a product of pitching more games. For $19M, we can find more productivity and we don't have to give up anything to do it. 3. The presence of a $19M assures less innings for one of May, Meyer or Milone. There is a lot of complaining here about the Twins refusal to acknowledge the need to rebuild. Taking away this opportunity to play our top prospects and giving up prospects in trade for a 1 year deal on a 35 y/o player is not a rebuilding tactic. Instead of spending and additional $20M for a win or two, offer Tomas $30M for 2 years with an option for 5 more years at $10M-11M/yr. At least that gamble has the opportunity to be part of the future.

It is hard to understand how the FO gets absolutely flogged for acquiring soft tossers and now a guy who throws 85 is getting supported here. Actually, I like Buehrle and I really like the pace at which he pitches. I am just confused about the call for power arms and then the support for Buehrle. Most years it seems you need 7-8 SPs so would May, Meyer, and/or Gibson be blocked? Maybe and maybe not. If Millone is on the staff, two of these three projects will be blocked unless two of Buehrle, Hughes, Nolasco, and Gibson are injured. So, you could look at as the odds of 50% of our starting staff getting hurts. However, if it is Buehrle that goes down, the deal is obviously a bust so we are really talking about 2 of Hughes, Nolasco, and Gibson need to go down in the context of the deal making sense. So, what is the likelihood of two-thirds of those SPs being out for an extended period. And, even then, one of the prospects will be blocked.

It seems like they were on the right track building a consortium with the Wolves, Wild, etc. It is hard to say without all of the facts and figures but perhaps they should revisit this approach. Hopefully, they learned from their previous attempt and could also learn form successful implementations like the Yankees put together. I would probably start to renegotiate a new deal relatively soon that would extend the contract with Fox sports. That way you get a glimpse of what that future contract holds while you have plenty of time to develop an alternative plan and compare revenue streams. Starting soon would also help the others who would participate in the consortium make plans and manage contracts accordingly.

Is there any wonder why fans and management disagree. Anyone who has kids knows that they don't consider a budget or what is financially feasible in what they desire. Same is true of fans. Many have absolute disregard for expenditures, risk or profit. The Minnesota Twins area business. It is incredibly naive to believe the won't or should not act accordingly. I have on several occasions during the economic downturn provided consultation to state governments (including the state of Minnesota) and large cities when declining tax revenues forced them to become better at capital investment and expense control. I regret to inform all of you that the prevailing thought that our tax dollars are squandered is quite accurate. When profit and risk mitigation are not focal points, the core principals that govern management decision process go out the window. Fans are short-sighted and definitely do not give risk adequate weight. Fans think they can back seat drive because somehow they think they possess all of the skill necessary to manage the assets, personnel, operations, and P&L of an organization generating hundreds of millions of dollars. The frustration is a product of not having the requisite skill set and/or experience to understand why things are done the way they are. Fans also assume things based on a fraction of the information. I assess organizations for a living and I would never begin to think I could evaluate the MN Twins or the relative or specific abilities of the individuals running the organization without a much closer look and all of the relevant inputs. Just one mans opinion but I think many here would be far less frustrated if they considered the possibility that they might have a different opinion if they had actual experience running a $250M business and all of the relevant information.

I don't like the idea of Santana spending another year in CF. His highest potential value is at SS. Of course, CF is also very though/expensive to fill through free agency. There are not many options in LF but there are a couple that seem feasible. Then, a platoon of Hicks/Schaefer would be workable because they also serve as 4th outfielders/pinch runners and defensive replacements. I wish I knew more about Tomas. He could be part of the rebuild which has much more merit than an aging place holder. Yes, the Twins have not done this in the past. However, we need to keep in mind that the Twins were among the lower tier of teams from a revenue perspective until very recently (historically speaking). Now, they are still middle of the pack in terms of revenue but this type of acquisition is much more realistic with the incremental revenue produced by moving to Target field. Tomas in left with a Hicks/Schafer platoon in CF and Santana to SS seems like the best rebuilding plan to me. Hopefully, Rosario keeps raking and we see him in the mix. I would probably roll with Nolasco / Hughes / Gibson with May, Meyer and Milone competing for the 4th and 5th starter. Milone was pretty darn good and it is time to test May & Meyer. It is time to fully embrace we are rebuilding. However, I would not object to Masterson on a 1 year deal.

Time to start the new wave.

I am torn on signing another SP. If you sign another SP you have that player, Nolasco, Hughes, and Gibson. Therefore, you have 1 spot available for May, Meyer, Malone, and Barrios. I realize Sps get hurt but that arrangement would not have provided much opportunity for prospects this year. Many people here say the Twins need to embrace rebuilding. Signing FA SPs on the wrong side of 30 is not a sound strategy in rebuilding, especially the ones that require a contract where they are very likely no longer performing in the final couple years. I also think while no one says FAs always work out. Those same advocates do not put much weight on the impact over the course of the contract and they likely deterioration in production from these older FAs. If we sign a "Lester tye" for $20M or more and they end up like CC or Lincecum or any one of many other examples, the Twins are going to have $60M tied up in Mauer, Nolasco, and this mythical FA in 2016 & 2017 when there is a real chance they could be contending. Some will respond they will have plenty of cheap talent so they could afford. That is a very parochial view. What could they be if they had the $60M to spend to fill the holes necessary to be a dominant team?

If the Twins were to approach this type of trade, Buxton is the closest comp. We can't trade Meyers because he is not under contract with the MN Twins. Therefore, Buxton and Meyers are equal in this scenario. The Royals did not improve by 15 games because of this trade. They improved by 15 games because a whole host of other players, some that were still prospects when this trade was made, improved the team. The Royals we also very fortunate in terms of injury of lack thereof. Most fans think quite differently than GMs or for that matter leaders of most organizations. Fans think much shorter term - We still don't know if Will Meyers is going to be the star he projected to be as Roy or the significantly less effective injured player from last year. However, from a management decision perspective. The projected cost was 4-6 WAR per year for 4 years after this year. I am not a fan of WAR but it illustrates this case clearly. 4-6 games could very well keep them out of the playoffs more than once over the next 4 yrs.

How many here would trade Buxton, a SP prospect equivalent to Odorizzi, and a couple other prospects for a one game playoff? It just so happens that KC got very hot and it has worked out but would you make the trade knowing it was for a one game playoff?

We should trade him if another teams believes in that prediction enough give a return appropriate for the player Sickels predicts he will become. If not, we should stay patient. I really don't see his value dropping and Sickels prediction might just come true.

A couple interesting points regarding the 2006 Tigers. They finished second in the division to the Twins managed by RGThey did not have the ace many insist we must have. They had 4 solid starters with an ERA between 3.63 and 4.08Their free agent acquisition that put them over the top was Kenny Rogers who was 41 y/o on a 2 year contract. He gave them 195 innins and went 17-8.The other most significant addition to the team was a rookie named Verlander.Bonderman who had been poor in his first 3 seasons gave them 214 innings at 4.08. In other words, that improvement came from within.Robertson gave them 208 innings at 3.85. He was pretty bad in 2005 and went 7-16 with a 4.48 ERA. HisThe 2006 Tigers are a very poor example in terms of proving what many suggest we must do. They did it by acquiring a mid level FA for 2 years, a rookie performing well, and the two Sps that remained from 2005 improving substantially.

Mike, The only prediction I have seen is 7 years and $80M. Are others prediction something north of $100M? I actually see this as much more probable than one of the aging front of the rotation guys for a few reasons. 1) Risk - People who manage assets for a living evaluate future state scenarios. What if we got ourselves into a Zito or Sabatia situation. In 2017 we would have nearly $60M tied-up between Mauer / Nolasco and a 2014 FA SP. That would be a huge detriment to building a contender. 2) Any of these aging SPs are very likely going to get paid a lot of money for more than one season where they are no longer a front of the rotation talent. We would not have to pay for the declining years with someone like Tomas. Those declining players also limit flexibility because their contracts often make them untradeable. 3) If you add another SP for the next 5 years, there is the potential to block our young pitchers. If two of Hughes / Nolasco and Gibson stay healthy, you have two spots for Meyer, May, Barrios and anyone else who might emerge over the next two years. Obviously, If the new acquisition misses a number of games in the 1st two years it is a bad acquisition. I guess you could trade Gibson but that is a lot of risk to take on when the team is still not ready to contend. 4) Profit and Loss - Acquiring Lester of Shields won't make us a contender and therefore would be a poor business decision. As much as many people would like that not to be part of the decision it is incredibly unrealistic to think the Polads should spend it because they have it.

Anyone know about Yasmani Tomas in terms of defense? Being just 24 he could fit right in with our young core and be a part of building a team that could contend for several years. He is built a bit like a linebacker so I wonder about his mobility.

I like Dozier a lot. He is a great example to our young players on how to play the game. He has great focus on D, plate discipline, and has also shown the value of good base running. Having said this, I would still entertain trading him for the right return. We don't look so good in terms of OF prospects. AB Walker might turn into something but what if we could get a Joc Pederson type OFer in return. We have enough middle infield prospects that I am confident we could replace Dozier. I don't think that is true in terms of corner OFers. By 2016 we could have this team ... C - Pinto 1-Santana 1B - Mauer 2-Buxton 2B - Polanco 3-Mauer 3B - Sano 4-Sano SS - Santana 5-Vargas CF - Buxton 6-Arcia or new OFer OF - "Pederson type" 7-Arcia or new OFer OF - Arcia 8-Pinto DH - Vargas 9-Polanco That looks like a line-up with incredible potential. Meyer Barrios Nolasco Hughes May And a bullpen with a bunch of power arms. You also have Stewart, Gordon, a very high pick this year and a whole lot of other depth waiting in the wings.

I have to agree that Santana should be starting 80% of the games in September at short with Schafer or Hicks in CF. I guess this is a product of putting the best team on the field because contending teams should face our best. I would argue the team with these suggested changes is no worse than what has been put out there lately. We need to acquire a LF via free agency and platoon Schafer and Hicks in CF. If one of them earns the everyday job, great. Plus, that makes one of them available as a late inning defensive replacement or pitch runner or both. That team would be quite different than the one we started with in 2014.

I think it is safe to say that elite FA SPs are not a new idea to teams outside the top whatever number you want to use in terms of revenue. If we go back over the top FA SPs for the past 10 years we will find they all landed with 7 or 8 teams. We can safely conclude that all of those other teams were aware of their availability but NONE of them EVER made such an acquisition. Are they all incompetent? Do the fans who promote this approach know more about manage a MLB franchise? It is not a matter of if the they can come up with the budget. The Astros had a $12M payroll last year. Did they make any such transaction? The cubs had the payroll room and so have other clubs in this position over the course of the last decade or two. The strategy looks pretty good if viewed in the context of the first year or two. What about in 2016 and 2017 when we could actually be in contention. Mauer, Nolasco and XX Elite SP would constitute 50% of the entire payroll budget. (if the Twins set new revenue records) That is a scary thought. Mauer and Nolasco are likely to way underperform by then. So now we should take on another huge contract of someone who is very likely going to also underperform in the final couple years of their contract. And we would do this so we could be mediocre the next couple years and then have a bunch of dead weight on the books about the time we start getting good. You don't have to look very hard to see the ONLY successful model for mid-market or small-market teams is to draft and develop. Of course smart trades help too.

Can you name an elite starter signed in FA by a team outside the top 10 in revenue that was not a retention or extension?

How many legit "Aces" have been signed in free agency by teams outside the top 10 in revenue? Let's say in the last 20 years. If this is a good idea for the Twins, shouldn't the Astros and Cubs, White Sox, and Diamond Backs also be pursuing the elite FA starters?

Escobar has been a pleasant surprise and we would be just fine if he remains are SS. However, Santana has more offensive and defensive upside than Escobar. What better time to test Santana at SS than right now? Let's see what the young an can do there the rest of the season. Plouffe has been pretty decent this year and he is a god placeholder until Sano arrives. Now, if TR can get a good return that still probably makes sense in the long-run because he was quite poor defensively in the OF and his bat does not profile well as a COF. Moving him is part of the building process but there is no need unless the return warrants doing it sooner than later. Not sure what to think about Hicks. The better option right now IMO is to audition Schafer in CF. It sure would be nice to be on the right side of a turnaround story.

You are probably right but who is going to take Kemps contract. He is signed through 2018 or maybe even 2019. I guess LA could pay a big chunk but that contract is a big problem. Then, does it make sense for a contender to trade away Either. No doubt this is a long-shot. I was looking for ways to position the team long-term as opposed to taking on another long-term contract destined to be a problem when this team is finally ready to contend.

Don't ask me how but I would like to get Joc Pederson from the Dodgers. He is batting 300 (AAA), has 32 bombs and just stole his 30th base of the season. Normally, no way would a guy like this be available but he is blocked big-time in LA.

I was thing the same. When you have sucked as bad as Arcia you should be seeking advice, not giving it. It causes me some concern about Arcia for the future. Apparently, getting his a$$ handed to him by ML pitching on a regular basis is not a learning experience for him. We all know the definition of insanity. In this case it is the definition of stupidity.