Mike Sixel

From today's chat, sort of related: Comment From The Dude Schwarber for Kluber: who hangs up first? Dave Cameron Indians. Kluber is worth more than that.

A great example of why, IMO, prospects are prospects, and if you can get legit MLB players for them, you should be willing more than teams are. And no, I have real doubts about him now.

Maybe it's just me, but I think he's better than Rosario or Hicks, and probably Mauer within 2 years. The longer it takes to get him here, the later the transition takes place in terms of comfort level. But then, I have an irrational man crush on him. Sorry for the overly positive post....

Interesting idea, really. Generally, hitters are safer and more valuable than pitchers. But, Ace type pitchers have extreme value. The goodness of this trade depends on how you view their two futures, can Schwarber stay at C, and will Berrios be one of the 20 best SP in baseball? I don't know, but it's an interesting topic. I bet most here say no, since we tend to over value our prospects.

From today's chat on FG: Dave Cameron Teams like the Twins should be making exactly these kinds of upside plays. Joe Mauer isn't good enough to be blocking anyone at this point.

I mostly agree, but it could be 64 if they win it all.....but I think he has 2-3 more years in him. If it all falls right, he should be handing off a nice nucleus of players.

I have no idea, really, how much the scouts have or have not changed (or the rest of the FO) since Ryan came back. I don't. In reading hundreds and hundreds of posts on the interwebs, it is clear that the GM doesn't really make the picks. When reading comments from former FO people and GMs on line, they say you can really only judge a GM on wins and losses, and trades and FAs, not the draft. I tend to trust them over random people here, but again, YMMV. As for last year, I think I predicted 75-78 wins. I have never used the phrase "kool aid drinkers" to describe anyone (not in the last 2 years, I don't think.....I may have earlier, and for that I have previously apologized). As for my negativity.....I think more could have been done differently to speed up the process. You don't agree. I don't dislike you for that.....nor do I post about your posts being wrong/bad/evil. It really doesn't bother me that you feel the need to do that to me, however, if that makes you happy. The entire site is a collection of second guessing and offering our thoughts on what we would do. I tend to post a lot here, but if someone bothered to count the positive posts vs negative ones, the positives would way outnumber the negative. Not even close. When I do disagree strongly, I probably post too often, but then, I view this site as a bunch of people sitting around talking about sports, not some deep think tank of seriousness..... I have been quite harsh on Ryan. I don't think he did a good job the first couple years back. He himself, when retiring, said he didn't want the job anymore, and that that game had changed, and it wasn't for him anymore. I took him at his word. That said, I've admitted many times that he has changed some....not enough for me yet, but maybe I'm just impatient. We'll find out in the next 2-3 years how much he goes for it or not.

I endorse trading AAA/AAAA guys you don't want for younger players.

Other than trading Span and Revere...and helping them lose lots of games so they pick earlier, how has the GM re-stocked the farm? Sano, Kepler, Polanco, Rosario, Gibson, Hicks, all were in the system before he came back, right?

Miguel Cabrera played OF for WS champion, I think, after playing a handful of games in the minors. I'm not saying it is a good idea or not, I'm saying it is not impossible to happen, and it has happened.

You can't live in fear of making bad choices. Keeping them on the roster, and them all being bad, and then getting nothing is bad. Leaders have their positions to make hard choices......not sit back and see what happens.

Based on the fact other teams have never done this (hint, they have)? He might get 1-3 chances a game at 3B....practicing in the OF in practice is going to give him dozens more reps, dozens.

annoying us with examples and facts.....

It's not that much money compared to Cubans, or Japanese. It's nothing compared to what you'd be saying about 18 year old draftees if they were FAs. The only part that makes me wonder is the age.....in terms of the price.

A bit early for me to care about polls at this point..... and look an article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-year-out-ignore-general-election-polls/

Waiting to see who is bad, and then trading them.....that's not a good way to get much for them.

so you figured this out, but GMs can't?

Welcome to the boards. I am not the biggest TR guy on the planet*, but I don't think he's the worst GM in MLB. I think we need to wait a few months to understand his plan, but I think I see that he's going for it in the next year or two. I endorse that, if he thinks they are ready. He has not done that in the past, and doing that is, imo, what he should do. *understatement......

100% certain someone claims Arcia in my mind. 100%.

Is the sophomore slump real? I doubt it.....

Wait, everyone here is "smart" enough to know this is a bluff, but GMs are not? Really, people think that? I think one of Hicks or Rosario is traded this offseason. Not sure which. But they are both more valuable in CF than in the corners. But then, maybe not. I really don't know. There is little evidence over the years that the Twins value defense in the OF....so I have no idea.

I love bat flips, but we've had that conversation..... When he hits the ball, it can go what looks like a very long way.

We tried voting for three parties, that was what you suggested would fix things. It didn't. If we want change, we need several things: 1. Change the rules of Congress, so that power doesn't accumulate in parties and 3-5 people. 2. Allow for instant run off voting in all contests. 3. Term limits for congress, but I know people have already had that conversation here. 4. Shrink the size of the House. We need this much coverage in the pre-information era. Or, triple the size. One or the other would substantially change the conversation. 5. True transparency in all political donations, even ones that "aren't politics" supposedly. Bah, the list is too long.....

Less than 35%. So, I'd not bet a lot either way, frankly.

I was also wondering this.