Major League Ready

I like it. You would think Texas would be willing to deal him given their depth at SS. He is Florimon but with a better hit tool. I don't know what it would take but he would be a nice addition to our farm system.

How does Diaz project? Can he play SS at the MLB level? I like to idea of an international FA in concept, at least in comparison to Drew. Theoretically, a "Diaz type" would be a long-term asset as opposed to a stop gap. I don't like the odds that Drew is healthy and productive in 2016 which I think is the earliest this team contends, especially if Sano is delayed by injury.

Any of the remaining options except Tanaka are stop gaps. I think there are better opportunity in the wings. There is a long list of Cuban players expected to become FAs before spring training. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/clubs-interested-in-cuban-shortstop-prospect-aledmys-diaz?ymd=20131209&content_id=64509354 I look at 2014 as a year to put a better product on the field at the same time settle once in for all the question marks around several players. I would take this opportunity to try Swarzak as a starter. If he succeeds, we just increased the value of one of our assets considerably. Put Worley in Swarzak’s spot and let him prove himself. If he makes a comeback, he too will go from little value to considerable value. I would also sell high on Correia right now if at all possible. Hopefully, we finally have some guys step up and are able to sell high. Worley, Diamond, Gibson, Swarzak, Arcia, and Hicks are players who could appreciate substantially in value if these assets are managed wisely. They could all fail to but we have to put them in a position to become valuable as opposed to just selling low. Plouffe, Florimon, and Parmelee, are not likely but it would be a nice bonus if one of them were to break out. We go into 2015 with Willingham and Correia off the books. Hopefully, they are traded for value by the trade deadline. We would be in great position for Cuban and other international players over the next 15 months and front of the rotation starters that should be available via FA next year. Plus, we will have a much clearer picture on position players. I might be dead wrong but I believe there is great opportunity to become a contender if we don’t try to do it all at once.

Yes, good point. It occured to me they had Bogaerts right after I hit send but I had a meeting and did not have time to edit the post. Bogaerts aside, it would appear the GMs with SS needs are not sold on Drew. Heck, I am not even saying it is a bad move. It just is not a move that clearly needs to be made.

I prefaced the statement with they two scenarios were not the same but the general premise of get better next year or build a contender is still present. I also said I was on the fence but for a variety of reasons this is not a no brainer. If it was, Boston would not have let him go in the first place. And, If it is was just Boston that was stupid someone would have picked him up by now. I think it boils down to that Drew is the best solution right NOW and some of you want an immediate solution. There are likely better solutions on the horizon. I would much rather see them pony up for a good international FA who can help long term. That does not happen if they sign Drew. Dozier to short and Rosario to 2nd is still a possibility. A viable trade may present itself in the next year. Perhaps Dozier or Rosario as part of a trade for a SS. If they draft Turner, he would likely be at the ML level by 2016.

No, I don't know with CERTAINTY but I can assess the PROBABILITY. Have you looked at Detroit's roster? What kind of odds will Vegas give the Twins of winning the division? Let's say the Tigers are riddled with injuries. They likely don't beat KC or Cleveland. And, if that somehow happened, what kind of Odds would we have against the A's, or Rangers or several other teams for the wildcard. You missed the entire point with the KC scenario which was managing assets beyond a 1 or even two year window.

You make a valid point that without Swisher and Bourne they don't make the playoffs. The point many are missing here is that the Twins are simply not in that position. They are not going to contend with the addition of Drew. Therefore, selling low on Florimon and giving up a draft pick is a questionable. I am not saying we absolutely should not sign drew but we should recognize it is not the best strategy if the goal is to build a contender. We can't talk about all these statistics and then ignore that drew has virtually 0% chance of being part of a contending Twins team. We might get a complete bust with that pick but we could get Taijuan Walker. Berrios and Eades have ceiling of a #3 or according to some even a #2 starter. Six years of control for such a player is a valuable asset to give up when the benefit is winning 81 games in stead on 78 or 79. This is a somewhat similar situation to when KC traded Meyers. Npt specifically, but in concept. Had they made their decision based on longer term criteria, they would have been much better off. They could have kept Meyers and traded Gordon. Gordon is a great player but they could have gotten back a couple of near major league ready parts including a very good young pitcher. They could have then used the money saved from Gordon and Shields to sign Garza and had money left over to cover the raise necessary for Santana. Garza is not quite Shields but they would have had him for 4 years. Meyers will be Gordon's equivalent and they would have whatever they got in the Gordon trade which would have been substantial plus Jake Odorizzi and the other two assets they gave up for Shields. And, they have two top 40 SPs in Zimmer and Ventura close. They are still going to be a contender soon but having Will Meyers, Odorizzi and whatever they got for Gordon for 6 years would have made them a considerably better team for several years.

I am on the fence on this one but it should be pointed out that while you make Berrios sound like a much steeper price than the pick we would give up, Berrios was drafted with a pick pretty close to this pick. TaiJuan Walker was drafted with the 43rd pick. And, while the odds are not great for picks in the low 40s, the odds of Drew contributing to a contender are zero for the 1st two years. IF he is still health and playing at a high level he could contribute in 2016 but those odds are not high either. I guess it comes down to if you want to play the odds to favor building a contender later or a 500 team now?

I think Cleveland’s improvement could be interpreted differently. Masterson went from an ERA of 4.93 in 2012 to 3.45 in 2013. Jimenez improved from an ERA of 5.40 to 3.30. They added Kazmir who pitched to a 4.04 ERA and was really good the 2nd half. Kluber went from 5.14 to 3.85. McAlister improved from 4.24 to 3.75. I realize this is a bit farfetched but it’s the rough equivalent to getting rid of a rather poor staff and replacing it with 3 of Nolasco and 2 of Garza at his very best. Swisher was middle of the pack for 1B. Bourne was near the bottom. He had SO 23%, had an ISO of .097 and an OPS of 676. I would attribute their improvement to massive improvement in their two primary starters, and two young guys panning out nicely (McAlister / Kluber) as well as a FA pick-up frequently characterized as dumpster diving here. (Kazmir)

No system is perfect. The draft pick compensation rules that just went into place removed draft pick compensation for all but the highest paid players. I don't think we should be shedding any tears for the guys making north of $14M/yr. To remove them completely would give the largest market teams an even bigger advantage. The TV contracts are creating an even larger separation in revenue so it is going to get even harder for small and mid market teams to retain their best players. Is this really good for the game? The Dodgers new deal is $250M+. I think the Angles deal is around $140 and the Mariners just executed a deal for $115/yr. The Mets have a deal that increases every year and the Phillies just signed a $100M/yr deal. The Twins get $29M. If anything, the draft pick compensation should be more agressive IMO. The revenue differential used to be just with the Yankees and Boston. That has changed substantially. That means alot more dollars out there to take away top players from teams outside the top 10 in revenue.

It is hard to argue that Florimon is part of a problem we have of several players posting an OPS of a #9 hitter. However another way to look at this problem is that Florimon's position is probably the hardest position to improve offensively. I don't think it makes sense to force a solutiuon right now. Not just because he is good defensively but because it is far easier to make offensive improvement within the other positions where we have players producing a low OPS. Last year we produced a very modest OPS at 1st base, DH, and the outfield positions which are typical positions with high OPS players. It makes more sense to prioritize offensive improvements elsewhere. This is not to say we should ignore SS but there is probably some wisdom in waiting until a better solution presents itself.

I did not realize he was already 27. That does shine a different light on this topic. I was thinking in terms on ML ABs. He is only six months older than Dozier so let's hope he can have a year like Dozier did last year. He very likely is not the answer long-term but neither is Drew, not by a longshot. So, I just don't see replacing him right now, given the vailable options, as worthy of much concern. Frankly, I would prefer to watch Florimon do his thing defensively for now as opposed to bringing in a player that likely provides very little improvement in wins & losses. I find more entertainment value in watching Florimon in the field even though he is often brutal at the plate. There is no way I would give up a draft pick for the meager competitive benefit provided by drew.

It is true that Florimon's MiLB career would suggest he is never going to be much of a hitter but it is reasonable to expect based on those same numbers that he will improve from the right side. That would help a little. He also will probably never have good plate discipline but if Cuddyer can finally learn after 10 years how to lay-off a breaking ball that is 16 inches outside, it's not too late to hope Florimon can learn to lay-off balls at his feet.

I think what this tells us is that it is reasonable to expect improvement in his overall numbers because he SHOULD have better numbers from the right side. Plus, it would sure help if the man could learn to lay of the stuff thrown at his feet when batting LH. The optimist in me hopes he improves his plate discipline and gets it together RH. Is it unreasonable to think he can make these improvements? If so, would he be roughly league average offensively?

I am pretty sure Garza does not require draft pick compensation. Oops. JP3700 beat me to the draw.

Garza on a 3 year deal would be great. Excess SP is a very easy problem to resolve. I don't understand why anyone is worried about it at this point. Would it be safe to say the worst case scenario is we run Correia through waivers? Best case scenario would seem to be we get a c+ prospect. Anyone care to speculate on what we could get for Correia?

Does Trea Turner profile about the same offensively?

There are very good reasons and they have all been given many times. Drew and Morales have little or nothing to do with rebuilding. They very likely would not be here when this team is ready to contend. The picks they give up yield prospects like Berrios, Eades, Turner, Gonsalves, etc. Taijuan Walker was selected with the 43rd pick. So, while it is true that a pick in the low 40s is far from a sure thing, that pick has far better odds of contributing to the future than Stephen Drew for example. Morales has even less value. In addition, signing some free agents (like drew) likely leads to selling low on a player who could become a much more valuable asset. (like Florimon) Then, we have the money. It is easy to ignore the cost when it is not your money. I can see expecting them to keep Mauer or others in the future. I can see expecting them to spend on FAs when the core has been developed and the FA in question is a piece we know is key to contending. However, the premise that the organization should spend $20M+/yr for 1-2 wins (and give up draftpicks) because they can or because the stadium was subsidized is unrealistic and unfair. If the team was given to the posters at TD (for free) and we voted on such expenditures, it would become an entirely different story if it were our money even if it were given to us. What we should expect is for them to remember the good profit years and spend aggressively when the team is contending. I don’t think that is nearly as farfetched as some might think.

Pelfrey and even Hughes are bridge strategies. Not giving up draft picks helps with rebuilding. Giving someone like Garza 5 years has a sigificant probability of impeding rebuilding. Why, because they are far more likely to perform the first 2-3 years and underperform in the final years when the team should be contending. Rebuilding teams do not do this because the benfit is a couple wins and maybe reaching 500 in this case. The cost is unknown but potentially very high in that they prohibit bringing in help when it would actually help the team contend. It would make far more sense at this point to wait at least until next year when there is a better crop of true front of the rotation starters and the team is closer to contention. In addition there is no way Gibson is going to blocked if he has what it takes. I already listed options to assure that does not happen. And, you have made the point in the past this would be a good problem when it fit your narative. You continue to change positions as needed to fit your ideal of what the team should do. When you wanted Ellsbury you told us all how terrible the offense is. Then, a week later, you wrote a piece detailing why the team should break out when you wanted to trade for a front of the rotation starter the team was ready to break out. Rebuilding teams don't do what you suggest. Show me examples without claiming something as ridiculous as Boston being a parallel situation. Surely, there are numerous examples if the strategies you have suggested have merit. Let's see them!

How in the world do you get "punting the season" out of my comments. Just because I am not a proponent of doing something as stupid as signing Ellsbury to a 7 year deal when this team is three years away from contending in no way whatsover suggests punting the season. Giving away draft picks as well as selling low on players for the sake of signing players that might get us to 500 (Drew / Morales) is also not punting the season. It is managing assets.

From what I have observed, many fans elect to ignore the strategies of rebuilding because as fans they are desperate for Cano, Tanaka, Ellsbury, Garza, E. Sanatana, or even Jimenez type signings. They ignore the demonstrated practices/principles teams follow when rebuilding, especially mid-market or smaller. They don’t give up draft picks. They don’t trade prospects for established players until their core is established and they believe a trade makes them a contender. And, they don’t sign guys to 5+ year deals. I have asked on two or 3 occasions for the posters who believe the problem is just that the Twins are cheap to post examples of teams in similar positions signing elite FA starting pitchers requiring 5+ year deals. The rarity or perhaps none existence ( I can’t think of one) demonstrates what GM’s think of this strategy. In addition, once again, we do not have all of the information. Is Garza really willing to come back? Of course, he is going to say he is open to returning publically but the Twins FO obviously has a much better take on his willingness to return. Do they believe they can move Correia if they do land Garza or even Tanaka. Do they expect Deduno to start the season on the DL? I give them credit for moving very aggressively to assure they had major league pitching this year. They could have waited around for Tanaka / Garza and Santana to shake out and lost out on Nolasco and Hughes. The Yankess, Dodgers or Mariners are going to probably going to make insane bids for Tanaka. Seattle’s new TV deal pays them $115M/yr + the national TV revenue adds up to about $100M additional annual revenue for Seattle. And, they proved their desperation with the ridiculous contract they gave Cano. Someone is likely to give Garza more years than makes sense for a rebuilding team. Santana and Jimenez are high risk and require draft pick compensation. People get negative on the Pelfrey signing but that signing presents no problems that can’t be easily resolved. They can trade Correia if they actually have excess. They could also trade Schwarzak and use Worley or Diamond in LR.

Are you really saying that the amount they are spending on non-free agent players is the measure by which to determine if they spent money on free agents?

No argument here. If he plays well enough to have good trade value, hallelujah. I figured I was already pushing it asking for Willingham and Correia to bring trade value. I would trade Perkins for the right offer too.

Ideally, Willingham has a good first half and is traded for value. Sano takes his roster spot and Plouffe becomes a utility player. As long as I am wishing, Correia is traded for value around the same time and Gibson takes his roster spot.