Major League Ready

As with many of these discussions, we don't have enough information. They seem to have plenty of freedom to invest in minor league infrastructure so my thinks was that they might be able to do this within the terms of the CBA. I am sure you are right that the players would see it as a piece of their pie. Housing and meals make sense in terms of cost benefit. This type of facility could be tailored for this specific use at a reasonable cost per unit. However, I think the players are simply not at all worried about the guys making their way. The low pay or "opportunity cost" is only a bad deal for the guys that don't make it. The players are not worried about those guys.

I read all seven pages and this particular point seemed the most salient to me. Evidently, the guys who went through the system don’t find a need to subsidize minor leaguers. That’s what this really comes down to in the end. It would be a redistribution of wealth. The approximate $1.5-$2M/year we are talking about would be reallocated from MLB players to minor league players. That calculates as $60-80K per player on the 25-man roster and it would appear the players do see it as an ethical dilemma. What it probably comes down to is that anyone taken above round 7 or 8 is not economically challenged given the signing bonus compensation. The rest are such long shots that it basically comes down to them being interns for very little pay while they hope to develop the skills that the people above them have already demonstrated. Having said this, it would seem to me that the major league owners could agree to a model for housing and meal provision for players. They could establish a special task force to come up with a model and implementation plan. This would be quite cost effective and sustainable long-term. I would have to think through the financial implications but it would likely be detrimental to lower revenue teams given these funds represent a larger portion of their revenues.

I have not read all seven pages so someone may have already mentioned starting his service clock. That makes no sense he still could use further development in the minors based on last year. It also does not makes sense for a team that could use that spot this year to take a longer look at Parmelle or use it for Willingham until he can be moved. It would also mean he is accumulating service time while rehabbing.

Does his swing look a little like Tori Hunter?

I read (can't remember where) that his range is ridiculous. That would be fun to watch. His errors have been high. Does anyone know if that problem is trending in the right direction?

I was curious if Santana was playing into their decision mostly because I wondered how confident the F/O is in him defensively.

This is a really big year for our minor league IMO. Lot's of very young arms plus Meyer, May, and even Darnell. You could even look at Diamond and Worley in the same light as a prospect. Obviously, this is a really big year for the elite prospect position players. There are also quite a few guys that seem like they have a pretty darn high ceiling but also might be busts. Vargas is one of them. It is probably the optimist in me but I think there are a bunch of other guys that could really step forward this year. The guys like AB Walker that have not gained elite status but seem like they could elevate their stock this year. Santana, Polanco, Kepler, Goodrum, and Harrison are in a similar position. I will be pulling fo them.

I just hope there is a great prospect at 5 and I prefer that it be a SP or SS. When you think about the possibilities of Turner, Rosario, and Buxton at the top of the order that could be fun to watch. Mauer won't be here forever but the lineup may look like this one day. 1) Turner 2) Rosario 3) Buxton 4) Sano 5) Arcia 6) Harrison 7) Kepler 8) Pinto 9) Hicks Maybe AB Walker becomes the player we hope and they have a few huge 1B DH guys in the wings, including the latest International signing.

2014 being a lost cause is not at all the argument. As amatter of fact, the argument is that the logic is not singular. It is about draft pick or not, optional solutions, needed ABs for other players, flexibility, relative value and/or risk of any given transaction, and probably a couple other things that don't come to mind right now.

Of course they want to make the 2014 team better. There are however several other influences to consider that resulted in favor of this specific investment and the decline of others. The pitching was so bad that it was going to hurt both revenue and the Twins brand which has a long-term effect. They also did not even have any viable options to start the season with perhaps the exception of Gibson. It is debatable whether or not he would be “rushed” if brought up. Age has nothing to do with whether they are ready or not. Regardless of where any of us fall on the Gibson debate, the addition of Nolasco, Hughes, and Pelfrey provides assurance the Twins will finally field a major league pitching staff and end the parade of AAAA SPs. It also provides depth so that we don’t have the catastrophe we had in 2011. If we are going to speculate as to TRs conversations with Jim Pohlad, I would guess he also pointed out that these additions have the maximum impact on the team as compared to say Drew vs Florimon. They also provide good trading chips if we are so fortunate as to have all go well. And, they are not taking away ABs from the many players already on the roster that the Twins need to develop and assess this year. And, the final bonus is they did not require draft pick compensation.

I expect the average fan to fall back on the extremely parochial view that the problem is FA spending. I am rather surprised that a crowd as baseball savvy as this group continues to focus on FA spending, especially given we are in a rebuilding phase. IF, they spent another $40M on FA, and IF they produced as expected (as we hope) the result would be approximately an incremental 6 wins. We still would not break 500. Did the Cardinals do it through FA? How about the A’s or the Rays? How about any team not in the top 5 in revenue. The Twins has 66 wins last year. So, they need to pick up 27-30 wins to contend. Even if you could go get whomever you like, the cost via free agency would be in the neighborhood of an additional $200M. The argument for is not about building a winner. It is about the gratification of having a given player or player(s) on the team. If you want to build a winner, that requires building, not buying, especially when other team s can outspend you two-fold. I am far more concerned about the development of our prospects than what FA they sign this year.

The answer is it depends on the terms of the deal and how sure the Twins FO is that Buxton will live up to expectations. (Not the Willie Mays expectations but high expectations). I think you do it if the terms are reasonable but I don't think you do it the first two weeks he us up. Take a little time to evaluate a huge investment. What about Dozier? I see on MLB rumors he is open to an extension. With him you have a floor that looks to be pretty high. You still might end up trading him and putting Rosario at 2B but a reasonable contract helps facilitate such a transaction.

Maybe my perception is off but was'nt Perkins a failed starter?

You need to read the post again. The statement was made in the context of how people who are responsible for multi-million dollar decisions would assess this situation. This is my opinion of how (in general) people in the position to make these decisions would assess this situation. This opinion is formed from managing in such role and now working daily with this type of decision maker in a consulting role. I am quite certain it is a qualified opinion but the beauty of the internet is that our opinions and assessments all get equal weight.

I am not sure if you meant to phrase this as fact. It is an opinion. My observation in consulting with the largest companies in the US on a daily basis on strategy and risk management is that the people responsible for these types of decisions see this much differently than your position(s). My experience and observations suggest they see this from the following perspective. Marginal benefit in terms of wins Extremely weak against LHP Lesser player defensively at a key defensive position. $10M or more for multiple years on an asset that will not increase revenue Substantial risk due to underperformance and/or injury. Payroll that could be used for greater and/or longer term net gain. Draft choice loss – Obviously, any draft choice could be a complete bust and this is pick is low 40s overall. It could also produce Taijuan Walker who was taken #43. There are another 10-12 (depending on list) top 50 prospects that were chosen outside the first round. And, another 17-20 in the top 51-100.

I think it comes down to how much you value an extra win or perhaps two this season. In other words, would you give up to go from somewhere around 72 wins to 73 or 74. Drew is a bridge to a better player. Unfortunately, signing him could preempt an international signing or trade that would solidy this position long-term. I would hope our GM is focused on building a winner. Giving up a pick, even a high 2nd rounder for a stop gap player is not consistent with an emphasis on building a winner.

I think we should do whatever is best for Hick's development, whatever that might be. My preference would be to watch him play as I don't care for AP. However, he has been a slow starter so it might be best to start him in Rochester. IMO ... This whole season needs to be about team development and asset management. I could care less if we win 75 vs 72 games if the team progresses toward a much better team in 2015.

Absolutely, I would much rather watch Hick's develop than watch Presley. Let's see what we have in him. If he develops enough offensively to play a corner spot, great. If not, he should have plenty of offense as a CF. Trade him when he establishes himself at the ML level AND when the offer is right. Two years from now we will also know what we have in Arcia, Rosario, Kepler, Walker, and others. Who knows, ther right offer could come along for Dozier and Rosario ends up at 2B. Let's develop some assets and then move pieces when it becomes more obvious how to round this team into a contender.

I think a healthy Deduno gets claimed in a New York Minute. There is no way I can see them risking him. If he is healthy, Deduno is easily our 2nd best SP. I would like to see Gibson up but I would not sacrifice assets to do so. History suggests that opportunity will present itself soon enough. I look for Worley or Diamond or maybe even Deduno to be traded during spring training. They could also trade a current bull pen piece and move Worley or Diamond into the pen.

Put me in the "get him if he can stick at short camp". He is 23 and does not require a trade or draft pick compensation. Also, I agree with Mike, we can always use more assets.

Many of the most important measures of success for the Twins organization will have absolutely nothing to do with the Twins competing for a playoff spot. For that matter, they won’t be all that closely tied to their record. It will be a very successful season IMO if 1/4 of the things below happened. If one-third of them happen, the Twins are going to be great for several years. Sano tears up AAA / Debuts in July and lives up to his potential Buxton tears up AA / Promoted to AAA midseason and tears up AAA Buxton debuts at Target Field in September Kyle Gibson finds consistency at AAA / Promoted to Twins and has a sub 4 ERA. Correia is traded at the deadline for value and is replaced by Deduno who pitches well Alex Meyer makes the big club and shows the potential to be a true ace. Hughes surprises us and is much better away from the circus that is NY Deduno starts out on DL / Rehabs at AAA where he is awesome / rejoins the ML club Stewart AND Gonsalves emerge as elite pitching prospects Ryan Eades proves why some analysts believe he has a ceiling of a #2. Rosario kills AAA pitching after serving suspension / Promoted to Twins by 8/1. Berrios & Thorpe continue to add strength and continue to develop toward a 2/3. Danny Santana becomes more consistent on D an emerges as a top SS prospect Polanco / Kepler / Harrison / Turner / Walker firmly establish top prospect status Hicks adapts and becomes an above average starter. Pinto proves last September was no fluke Willingham starts out hot and is traded at the deadline for value Willingham is replaced by Hicks who is playing well at AAA / Plays well for Twins Plouffe starts out strong and is traded for value when replaced by Sano Twins 2014 pick shows great potential

I am sure you are right that neither Florimon or Escobar is the starting SS in 2016 but I am not as certain as you that it will be Santana. An international FA perhaps or a trade with one of the teams with depth at SS. Who knows, maybe it's Turner. I kind of like that idea because Buxton and Turner would be a lot of fun to watch on the base pads. Of course, Santana has good speed as well.

I don’t think it makes sense to assume they signed Guerrier instead of Villareal. Why would the signing of Guerrier in any way prohibit signing Villareal? I see these moves as a higher probability of creating assets as compared to someone like Villareal. As DTF suggests, Guerrier, Kubel, and Bartlett could bring a nice asset or two at the deadline and those assets are likely a higher ceiling prospect than Villareal IMO. So, how can the acquisition of someone like Guerrier be a bad move? Sometimes the path to building assets is not a straight line.

I don’t see Bailey signing an extension unless he gets an offer he believes is equivalent to what he gets next year and we all know the players and agents believe that number is higher than we believe or the GMs believe. The net of it is that if we wait a year we can Bailey or another front line starter for a pick. That pick might even be a second rounder. IMO, a Bailey type trade is something you do when you need the player immediately because you think he is the piece that puts you over the top as a contender. It just does make sense to me to give up Rosario, Hicks, and Correia. I would much rather sign Santana or Jimenez and trade Corriea. We get back something for Corriea which should make-up for the 2nd rounder we lose and we still have Hicks / Rosario for six years. I think the team is much better in the long run this way. We could also just wait until next year and do what it takes to get one of the top of the rotation starters that will be available. The beauty of signing Santana now to a 3 year deal is that Hughes and Santana’s contracts would terminate in 2017 and Nolasco in 2018. We should have a few very good SPs coming out of the minors at this time. The Nolasco, Santana, Hughes money should allow us to fill whatever holes we need to compete.

After 12 pages this might be the best point of all. Drew would not be likely to sign with the Twins unless we were willing to substantially overpay or nobody else wanted him. I think everyone is looking for the easy and immediate solution. The question IMO is not if Drew is better than Florimon. The question to me is if Drew is the best solution for this team. Johnny, I liked the trade scenarios you proposed much better than signing Drew. Of course, making these trades happen is difficult but the prospects you suggested do not seem to be the untouchable type at all given the circumstances of their respective teams. A younger international FA has also been mentioned. That seems preferable to me as well. I would not mind if they signed Drew but I would feel like they are constructing a team to put a marketable team on the field as opposed to building a contender.