Jham

Yeah Roger's been sneaky good. He's looked great against lefties and held his own against righties from what I've seen. Hope he's more of a Duensing than a Thielbar.

That being said, 1st base would be the single easiest and cheapest spot to upgrade on the entire roster. The league has many guys who can hit, but can't field, but can pick a little 1st base. You can get those guys cheap and possibly even just fill from within for pennies. There are many ways to construct a roster. You can have a high OBP guy at first and have a slugger at short. Again, slugging first basemen are cheap slugging short stops or catchers are like Mauer expensive. Regardless of the contract, the team improves if we put a slugger at first since we don't have to find a slugger to play up the middle (hard to find, super expensive vs. easy to find and relatively cheap) in order to balance the line up. Basically, the argument should not be whether or not Mauer has value. It should be whether or not we can improve at that position. That should be the review for everyone on the team.

Ok, baseball players play for a living, like that's their job. I don't think a single owner in sports owns their team as their primary stream of income. Few players are set up for lucrative careers once they retire. Most owners are independently wealthy. Put it this way, if you have enough money to own a team, you can live super easily off draws from your investments without your investments even losing money. In fact, you will pay 14% capital gains on the stocks that increased in value. Compare that to the 40% players will pay in income tax. So yeah there's a pretty big difference from that standpoint.

Who said he had a good off season? I responded to a simple post bashing the Park signing, the Hughes extension, the Plouffe arbitration and the Pelfrey re-sign. I said I agreed on Hughes, thought Plouffe was a no-brainer if he couldn't be traded for value, disagreed that Pelfrey was a bad re-sign, and said it was too early on Park. Why are you inventing things? You've got your wish, Ryan is gone. I think my defending Ryan by asking posters to at least be fair says less about me than your bashing the guy after he just got fired says about you. Let it go buddy! For the record, I don't think I've been defending Ryan. I'm about the only one questioning the Ryan premise that Buxton, Kep, Sano, and JO are immovable pillars. I more challenge the posters who bash Ryan yet defend this core that Ryan has also decided to build around. How can you agree so whole-heartedly on the core, but deplore every single other action a guy makes? If your main difference of opinion with TR was Park, then he probably didn't deserve to be fired. There's a whole lot of moves that didn't work out, some that did, some opportunities missed, and some bullets dodged. Same as any GM. Is the core solid? Is the premise broken? Is it just a matter of waiting a year or two, or are the players we built around not as good as we thought? To me, I'm skeptical that the core is good enough. I'd consider a full rebuild while the super-prospects have value. If they are that good, did Ryan do that poor of a job or was he just shuffling the deck while waiting for his aces? I'm skeptical, but i'd have still waited a year before giving up on the core. There's plenty reason enough to let Ryan go based on the teams' records over the past 5 years alone. If you believe the core is still solid, that's an argument for him staying. That's it. Is that so unreasonable?

I guess we can ignore that Park was pretty good for much of that stretch. So if by playing well he forced a line up shuffle... You can believe that Sano would be winning a gold glove at 3rd while leading the team to the playoffs and winning a triple crown if you'd like (see I can be sarcastic and exaggerate too), or you can keep arguing for no reason. Park is in AAA after what 1/3 of 1 year part of which was promising? Are you giving up on Park? Can we see him in September first? Out of all the things that have led to this dismal year I would think singling out Park is ill-conceived. We'll just disagree. I don't think I called Park a kid, I think I said he's in his prime... A little adjustment to the league, he could still have some $6 mil/yr usefulness. If not, I won't fault the team for being aggressive. Even if we consider Park an egregious error and not a gamble, I don't think it's fair to judge anyone based solely on their mistakes. Ryan showed restraint at least year's deadline, which probably served us well. He made some splashy signings in order to avoid years of Deduno and Albers.

I'm not sure we expected to win the posting fee. But once it's won it's won. I'm willing to see more than half of 1 season (half of which was pretty good) before I call it a firable error. And people need to stop making excuses for Sano. Tons of young players are moved around and continue to mash. Cab, Thome, Braun, Albert, etc. Sorry if I'm not willing to put 1 unproven player's ego ahead of the entire team. I don't think that's good precedent, and if he's that fragile, that a move clearly made to try to help the team win that was abandoned when it didn't work out only to see him play a pretty shakey 3rd... Play that game. We did that with Mauer, and a lot of good that did us. To be clear, I'm not against special treatment for special talents, but I think the Sano hype has to stop. It's hurting him. There's posters who refuse to question his eating, his workouts, his attitude, and his surrounding crew despite numerous expressed concerns. In short, is $25 mil a lot for 4 years of a player with 30-40 HR potential in his prime? Not really. I never said it was a cheap risk anyway, although I'm not sure it's that expensive. Things you pay for in the open market: Power arms (Ks) and power bats (OPS). There's no shortcut on those, you take your shots when you get them, which is why many still defend Denarded for Meyer even though it officially didn't work out. Were we depending on Park for anything? Not a thing. He's in AAA, we don't miss him. So yeah, I'd call that low risk. Banking the entire future of the franchise on a player who has given indications that he may not hit .250 most years and another who's swing probably won't be fixed until his main attribute has declined seems more high risk than signing a kid with 100 HR in 2 years on a flyer. Anyway, I'm not mad at that signing like I was about Hughes.

I get firing for all the losses and differences in opinion on the future of the organization. I'm not mad about the signings. Hughes was the most puzzling, and hardest to defend. I won't try. Pelfrey pitched decently enough last year for an insurance policy. Plouffe was arb eligible and WASN'T extended. Park is a low risk flyer. I'm not giving up on that, and won't call it a large mistake if he never plays. 4 years of Park lottery for the cost of 1 year of Hughes or Lasco. He also perhaps got a decent return for Hermann, whoever he traded for Nunez, Esco for a month Liriano (who should have arguably been extended instead of traded), and signed both Perkins and Dozier to team friendly deals that don't hamstring the organization if they got hurt and never played again. Thome and Willingham were nice signings. Abad and Kintzler would look a lot better if Jepsen, May and Perk pitched close to last year. My biggest criticism is the lack of authoritative movement with prospects. Figure out if they're untouchable, and if they're not, they're expendable. If they run out of options and they're not a utility guy, they probably should have been traded while they had value. See Arcia, Santana, Vargas, and Polanco most of which could have brought a decent return if paired or bundled with a useful veteran without hurting the organization's current strength at all.

I'd consider trading for a haul including a potential ace and prospects closer to the Majors. If we have no potential aces other than slim possibility of Jay, and we're not realistically signing one, I don't know how we acquire one without having to give up an arm and a leg later.

It's a tough puzzle. Trading off pieces for prospects makes sense long term. I'm just not sure where we see our window being. If we trade for high upside arms, we're probably talking A ball unless we part with a Sano or Kepler. If the plan for C is a bigger name FA, keeping Zuke around makes some sense until that day comes. I just have trouble wrapping my head around a plan centered on current Twins winning 3 or more years from now. If that's the case, we shouldn't be wasting the next few years on auditions and development. If said prospects aren't good enough to contend in the next couple years, then why make them the center of the plan and take them off the board while their value is still high and salary still low? We've got a window with Sano and Kep and Bux and JO, and I'm struggling with how to get enough additional talent around them in the next couple years, particularly on the mound. And if we can't, I'm not sure it's a great idea to hold them for 3 more tear down years while we await the arrival of younger prospects who might not be better in 3 years than Ervin Santana is next year. I also have this sneaking suspicion that Sano, Kep, Bux and JO may never be the players we were expecting/hoping. Cleveland sort of followed your model and traded for some upside pitching prospects, and they struck gold. So maybe that is a workable model. They also retained Santana and Kipnis while slogging through the rebuild. So did Cleveland get lucky or is that a repeatable model? Hard for me to say. I do think if we're serious about putting the timeframe out 3 years, we should really commit to it and trade at least 1 of those top 4 prospects.

Interesting point. Perhaps it could be a separate thread, but take price and prospect rankings out of the picture, and which positions would be easiest to upgrade? Upgrading the rotation seems obvious, but the effect of an upgrade only pays dividends once every 5 games (pitchers don't win MVP's argument). So I would say the areas where we could plug in one player and improve the most, on average, would be center field and first base by far. This is an odd juxtaposition since both of those positions seem absolutely entrenched for the next couple seasons meaning that they either have to improve greatly, or the team will have to work harder to improve in other areas to win despite them. It's a horrible position to be in as a GM or manager, because the best you can do is really just run them out there and hope for the best. So then where do we upgrade? I'm hesitant to sign any veteran pitchers that would be considered an upgrade given the market. And again, our return may be diminished by a 5th... (of course a hitter only takes 1/9th of the at bats and maybe a 15% of plays in the field for a short stop?) Sano is putting up Plouffe/Valencia type numbers. We could probably upgrade pretty easily from Rosario/Grossman for not a ton of money, but both are young and have shown bursts. I would argue that Erv and Doz, and Zuke is playing himself into that position, are perhaps our 3 most difficult players to replace, but are also maybe the 3 likeliest to be traded. Otherwise we're just hoping that everybody just starts playing better (a lot better), or in Nunez case, keeps playing well. From a trade standpoint, Sano's return value compared to the ease of replacing or upgrading would probably make by far the most sense based on his current level of production. Do we continue to hope for better play or tear the whole thing down?

Supposedly Ryan asked for dismissal if he was just going to be fired at the end of the season. I do not think this was planned.

The usual methods I'd think. Many of the pieces may be on the team. Several might be added through trades and free agency. A couple maybe from the farm. A couple from FA, probably a little from the DL... How has May not had shot? He's been with the team steadily for 2 years. He's made a roll for himself and stuck. Sure I'd like to see him get another shot at the rotation, but that's not up to Ryan, and I strongly suspect he'd end up in the same spot. Remember the original premise is that the plan is Buxton and Sano (with Berrios and Kepler probably). If they're All-Stars or gold glove winners next season, we've made enormous upgrades. The rotation may still need some help, but a full year of Duffey (if he keeps learning), and Berrios makes the whole rotation look a lot better. I'm not saying that we will contend next season. I said I'm not convinced we won't, and unless we've lost faith in the plan (Bux and Sano) then we might as well see if it actually works before blowing everything up.

So that I get. I mean if it's more of a body of work thing and not a "fire him because his team did worse than expected this year" thing. To me, it just seems that a lot of posters wanting change at the top would just basically follow the plan Ryan is following anyway. I don't think firing Ryan based on his overall record and failure this season would be unwarranted. I just think it would be an odd move if we plan on still following the current diagram. Basically, I'm not convinced the plan won't work, if you're upset that it could take a year or half a year longer than hoped to get results, I can't blame you. To me, I'm fine being a little patient, and feel we have little reason to change until we see what Ryan does at the deadline, through waivers, and off-season. If you say the plan took too long and it's Ryan's fault, then fire him. If you think his plan was awful anyway, then fire him. I tend to think he was holding the team together with staples and duct tape, it all came undone this season, but if Hughes, Santana, Perk and Jepsen could have kept it together for one more season, or if certain youngsters would have stepped up, then perhaps we would have had a nice bridge into next season rather than just having to endure.

So hold up here. You can have a plan (build around Buxton and Sano, duct tape until then) and still alter the timeline along the way as might happen if you break a wrist or tear a UCL. When you have a delay you get place holders. Why would he surround Buxton and Sano with MLB ready talent now? They're not ready. Which is why I said let's see what happens this year, and expect to compete next year. How exactly has extending Hughes hurt the team? His injury perhaps. He's out for the year and his innings are going to Tommy Milone because May is just average, Meyer is broken, Berrios isn't up yet, etc. We've given May and Berrios the opportunity to stick. Neither ran with it. Other players have, like Rosario, Kepler, etc. and we've fixed them in the roster and moved vets aside, like Hunter at the end of last year. I'm just saying if you're still agreeing with the general plan and not calling for a build from scratch moment... I mean, aren't you curious to see if the team can turn things around and build off the decent end to the first half?

I would really disagree with this. Ryan is decent at low risk/medium reward type of deals. He is not good at long term planning. Example: long term deals with pitchers I'm not sure that's exactly correct. I could see how it looks that way, but even halfway decent FA pitchers require long-term deals. So you can either develop them (ideal), trade for them (expensive), or extend ones you already have (cheaper than FA). If you don't have ready arms developed, you still have to put arms out there. Unless you want a bunch of Independent Leauger's out there, you have to sign some bad FA contracts, extend some guys for a discount, or sign Mike Pelfrey to one year deals. I know people get frustrated putting the same guys out all the time with poor results, but it's not like it's worth straining the farm system and stunting development by moving guys up a level before they're ready/ earned it.

To me, yes, next season is the put up or shut up year on several levels. Even this second half has to give us reason to try to contend next year. If next year isn't much better, then the plan carried a flawed premise regarding building around an unrealistic time frame or unrealistic evaluation of our players. Literally, I think we just need to see if this wave of prospects is good enough. Not every player has immediate success but Sano was a pro since 16, and Buxton since 18. If they don't produce next season, then they shouldn't have been planned around, they shouldn't be planned around, and drastic changes need to be made. If Sano hits 40 bombs, Buxton hits .300 with 12 hr, and Rosario and Kepler catch everything else... Dozier and Nunez/ Esco play as they have the last couple years... That's a more talented roster than we had last season. Berrios, Gibson, Duffey and only 2 of Milone, Nolasco, May, Hughes need to be .500 pitchers assuming we trade Santana, would give a fairly balanced rotation. At that point, we can evaluate whether TR put enough talent around or can add enough talent during the season. In fact, if we don't play it like we're going to be good next season, then TR would be seemingly abandoning his plan, and for that I'd let him go. Big 2nd half coming up.

Ok fair enough. I did use a qualifier of "that much different", but I can't be all that specific since TD has a fairly diverse set of amateur general managers. But if we can agree that the trade "X punching bag" for "whatever we can get" would probably not yield a serviceable piece, but rather offer nothing but playing time for a young player who probably isn't ready, a AAAA lifetime achievement award winner, an even worse veteran waiver claim, or salary relief for a billionaire owner, we're mostly left with those few extremists who think we should have either pushed all in last year or before this year, or start a new rebuild now and waste 3 years of Buxton, Sano, Kep, and Berrios. So, simple questions: WAS the idea to build around Buxton, Sano, (probably was also Meyer, May, Gibson, and Berrios)? WAS this a terrible idea for which TR should be fired? IS this still the best course of action? If the answer is yes on all of these questions, the manner in which got from point A (horridness) to B (relevance) is less important than actually getting to B. If B is still the destination, then what was so wrong with TR's plan? If B is no longer the plan, then TR needs to go, but so probably do Buxton, Sano, and any other trade-able asset that can bring a slew of prospects. Basically, if we're not giving up on the plan, why give up on the planner?

Except I haven't seen that much evidence that Terry's plan is that different from most of the Twins Daily posters with the exception of playing time which he doesn't control. His plan is starting to look like several years of hardcore rebuild starting when he retook his office, disguised by signing of mediocre vets who hopefully don't have to be relied upon when they go in decline but maybe buy us some time and trade value. Hopefully this will produce enough wins and attendance to placate the masses and TD until the future arrives (a few months or a year too late). Then when things went wrong (prospects took longer, vets lost trade value) the plan B is what would have happened anyway. We just sit and wait for prospects to be MLB ready. Item 5 or 6 on TR's strategic rebuild 4 years ago may have been: "No. 5 - weather the s*storm on Twins Daily if prospects fail to push out vets on schedule". But without that, it's like 6 straight years of horrible baseball with AAAA guys having to play, no one the average fan has heard of, no promise to our current team that we're trying, and no message to the fans that we're trying or that the Pohlads are anything but cheap. They spent on teams that were likely to lose. Last year was a bonus. This year shows that we're probably a year behind schedule. It might (hopefully!) only be half a year. This year has been horrible. Some see the FA signings as typical TR moves to block prospects. I saw them as necessary signings to make the team watchable while we wait for guys to grow up. Now, if the rest of this year and next year shows that the results aren't based on late blooming prospects, but rather a poor plan or poor execution, then that's a TR issue. If his plan was to hold the ship together with duct tape (and fans in the seats) until the Buxton, Sano, Berrios Coastguard arrived, then I think Ryan deserves a chance to see that through to the point where such a notion would appear fool-hardy. Granted, I'm skeptical the plan can work, but I haven't given up on it completely. And if the team finishes strong and has a 2017 like a Cubs 2015 that would be who's success again?

Is Kohl Stewart's upside still ace/ 2 or is the stuff never going to translate to k's? Is his upside realistically Blackburn/silva? Or could Scott Erickson still emerge?

I've been on the record as saying the Twins biggest problems involve over-valuation of potential results. Simple truth: you can't keep everybody. Anyone could post a list of failed prospects who did not suddenly improve nearing 30. It would be 40 pages long. I'm starting to believe our problem is scouting. Poor scouting explains our decision to sign Nishioka, trade for Delmon Young, trade for Alex Meyer, draft Alex Wimmers, and depend on DanSan, Rosario, and numerous other prospects to play a prominent roles before they were ready. Even David Ortiz, a top 100 prospect was eschewed for right handed bat Matthew Lecroy, a top 50 prospect. In that case, we agreed with national scouts, but we should have an internal advantage over national scouts. We're seemingly usually worse somehow.

Prospects are only currency if you are willing to trade them. I'm trying to make sure my criticisms of the organization aren't actually just criticisms of the results. I have been very frustrated by the teams hoarding of prospects and seeming inability to project them. They have watched their currency lose value and done nothing. Last season was probably a surprise contending year. We may have looked at our current stock, saw that many of prospects weren't as close as we thought, and therefore the team wasn't as close as we thought. So last year may have been our closest thing to a contender in the near future, certainly in the recent pass, but not quite worth going all-in over. So make some non-splashy moves, and trade a prospect you're not convinced on while the stock is high at a position of depth for a position of immediate need. I doubt we'll miss Hu. And if we're not competing this year, and possibly not even next year, by the time we'd get around to trading Hu, he might not be worth a Jepsen any more. It seems as likely as not that he's a fringe 4-5 and I'm willing to bet on that. If that's the case, he's probably not fitting in with our team in 2 years based on current roster projection, and his value may be less, and he may be coming up on options, and may be losing trade value. Better to trade a AA guy with 2 upside then a major leaguer with 4.

Criticism doesn't end with catcher. But I'm not going to let past mistakes influence making present necessary decisions.

He deserves some criticism for the timing of some of the extensions after career years only if he was counting on that sort of production going forward. We could argue as to whether or not it's smart to pay rewards or "bonuses" for past performance, and whether that is sign of encouragement to players looking for contracts. But looking at the contracts at the time, I do not know if they really hurt the team much. In general, I don't have a problem with the signings referenced for a few reasons: 1) Zuke has been a somewhat solid hitting catcher for much of his time with the Twins. We really have few other options. He was likely extended as a place holder. Hughes was probably expected to contribute more than he has, and hopefully still can. 2) It's pretty evident that prospects we have depended on weren't ready. Pelfrey and Hunter were low risk and performed decently last season. Someone has to pitch until the minor league arms are ready. A playoff race changed the succession plan slightly, that's not a bad problem. 3) It's not my money. Regarding Jepson/Hu, I doubt we'll ever miss Hu. Could be wrong, but I doubt he's more than a Slowey or Hendricks. Jepson was fantastic last year, and with the arms we were projecting, Hu was expendable. The team took a (hopefully) calculated risk and made a decision about which prospects were expendable. The team needs more of that.

Perhaps if you changed the header to "Twins Flukiest All Stars". Less negative connotation, and more about having 1 great year, or a year with no other deserving talent. Nunez at this point would be a fluke All-Star, but he's certainly deserving! Suzuki's lone All-Star game seems somewhat flukey, and I think Eddie Guardado made a team or two...

Didn't we have to add Polanco from A-ball because of a freak set of injuries? Not that he shouldn't have been up last year and this year...