Mike Sixel

Good luck. My experience over the last four months would indicate that you will have plateaus and times when it seems nothing is happening. But it is. Just keep at it. Therapy works.

And, I'm not sure either of those numbers is enough, alas.

Phew, tough question, Jack. Not having the info you all do..... 1. I don't see a lot of money that needs to go to current players. I am hoping for a good FA starter....I would also unload Doumit for whatever you can get, to free up money. I'd consider the same for Willingham, if the money goes to Choo or Ellsbury. That would leave 30-40MM to spend to get to 90MM, which I feel is reasonable, especially with the new tv money. IMO, these two players are the most sure free agents on the market, and while expensive, are more likely to return value than any SP. I also don't think "having too many" OFers is an issue. If it works, and the young guys all work, deal someone. 2. Choo should be cheaper than Ellsbury. I'd probably go $13-15MM per for Choo, for 4-6 years. I see Choo as the LFer with Buxton in CF in 1.5-2.5 years. He would also help whoever plays CF defensively this year (Hicks or Pressley). Arcia is either your future RF or DH/4th OFer, imo. Yes, you risk a declining player at the end of the contract, but that is true of any FA. Also, a decling MLB is more likely to be good than a random prospect just by the nature of the fact they have already succeeded in the majors. 3. While some point to Ellsbury's "injury history", it isn't all that real imo. He also shows zero sign of slowing down. I would put him in CF until Buxton is up, then move him to LF. He instantly upgrades your OF defense from below average to above average. With him and Buxton, your range is dramatically increased. I think he's going to be outrageously expensive. It is hard to even type these numbers.....$18-20MM per for 6 years. I don't think anyone gets him for less than that. 4. I don't know how the team counts its dollars.....but if they were really under budget this year, perhaps you can front load the salaries. As a finance guy, I understand why companies do not generally do this. But given inflation the last few years, and what is likely coming the next few, the argument loses some luster. So, if you could front load some of it for this year, that would likely increase your odds of signing the player. thanks for asking....that's about 1/2 of what I would type if I wasn't in a boring meeting at work.....

Why is Sano not up this year?

And here I thought this would be a humorous thread.....every team passed on Ortiz when he was cut, until Boston had injury issues. I just don't think it was clear cut Ortiz was a good player. I would have kept him, but it isn't the worst decision they ever made.* *assuming you judge decisions on information known at the time, not a decade later

Excellent use of "et. al.", btw. Overall, I'd like one more FA signed.

I just want to say, again, thanks for stopping by Jack. Appreciated.

I guess I'd ask, why was that their target? Getting through the year?

thrylos raises a good point, and my fear is that Ryan agrees. Deduno, Worley, Gibson, KC....leaving room for 1 new guy. Does anyone think changing one piece of the worst starting staff in baseball is a good idea? Do "we" really think they'll just improve on their own that much?

I would endorse adding 1-2 good players at a time, not 5....which is why I think they should have added one last year. I also don't "need" a playoff run next year, but not losing 90 games would be good, trying to not lose 90 would be good.

Brock: I don't see anyone arguing for them to spend up to 120MM this year, or more. Straw man. I think you and I agree on the path. gunnarthor: I just don't think, if they sign one good pitcher, and choo or ellsbury, and Sano is good, and Buxton is good, that they are 4+ years away. I think Ellsbury or Choo are still effective then. And, yes, if you are EVER going to sign a FA, you take a risk on decline. I'd rather take that risk, than never signing a good FA because you are afraid.

Well, I'd say if insurance covered large financial risk (like, you know, the entire purpose for insurance), we'd be better off.....but most financial risk is not emergency either. That does not mean you can ignore the non-risk parts of the system, though, and leave all of that up to individuals. The incentive device inside our minds does not fully work correctly for the best decisions (for individuals and society) to work for long term things like health. It just doesn't. And, most insurance companies now have cost estimators their members can use. If your's doesn't, something is wrong probably. all of these opinions are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect any opinion of my employer.....

Pretty much what TheLeviathan says.....from where fans sit, it looks like the same outcomes / decisions and same processes.

I guess not, but which prospects are coming up this year? And, what is more likely, those prospects come up and win 85, without spending ANY money on pitching, or that bringing in MLB pitchers and hitters will win more games? What's more likely?

I agree with Shane. Use the money elsewhere.

Thanks to Jack for coming on here. I know he can't answer specifcs, and don't expect it. Brock, I didn't like the KC signing, but mostly because it was THE signing (and the 2nd year, frankly). And, only 18 qualified pitchers had a worse ERA-....so I'm not sure he was league average. As your 4th or 5th best pitcher, fine. But that's not what he was. Jack, I won't speak for all "stats lovers, Ryan doubters", but here is where I come from, if anyone cares...... 1. On the field, very little is done that looks modern, or driven by statistical analysis. No shifts, horrible pinch running decisions, lots of things that look like they don't make sense mathematically. Sure, going with your gut matters, but playing the odds is playing the odds for a reason. 2. I don't expect you all to tell us your secrets. But, Gardy mocks "cybermetrics" every chance he gets. The appearance Ryan gives is that he trusts scouts more than math and science. I'm not sure how you expect fans to react to that, frankly. Add in how the on field decisions are done.... 3. The outcomes delivered by your organization have been awful for three years now, and don't look a ton better next year (without spending money, since there are no pitchers that look ready to come up day one, other than maybe Meyer, maybe, and you have no 1B or CF and your LF can't field and your DH situation is terrible). How would you expect fans to react, other than wanting to see evidence that your leadership is changing how they work? Why should anyone believe any outcome is going to change, if on the surface it appears the processes are not changing? Why should we pay money for baseball tickets, given what appears to be the near future, and given that it appears this leadership is more interested in cutting payroll than adding legit MLB talent? There are plenty of resources to use, choosing not to use them might be a good decision, but it says to us that you have decided to save money, instead of rolling the dice on being good. In other words, you could be making good decisions not to sign a pitcher, but not signing riskier players or more expensive players just about guarantees you get mediocrity in return. And that tells the fans, imo, that it is about money, not about winning (even if the odds are long). 4. I love that you came here. I love that Ryan is granting TD an interview. It shows how hard you are all trying to relate to the fans and involve them in the Twins. thanks.

What is more likely? Signing legit MLB players, and having them be good, or having this same exact roster win 85 games?

I do, yes. That is part of the plan. I sincerely believe that.

I think that's a fair timeline, though I'd say 3-5 years, since he should be able to coach up other guys, and have his guys in leadership roles by then. But I agree, it is too early to say one way or the other, that's my point. We don't know yet.

McPhail never had trouble signing guys to huge deals, some of the biggest in the majors at the tnme, and he operated under the same constraints. And, we totally disagree that FA "would not help" the last three years. 100% disagree. Also, judging decisions after the fact is not really a good way to judge decisions. If you drive drunk, and live, was it a good idea to drive drunk? Should you do it again? I tire of this "debate". No one on the stats side is saying it is the only way. that's a straw man. No one on the FA side is saying it is the one true way, and they should not still draft and develop players. It is a straw man. No one is saying they don't use stats at all. That is a straw man. I hope I'm strong enough to just stop answering these kinds of posts someday. What we are asking for, is to use every available means to get better.

They had a great game against Nebraska. And I want them to succeed. But let's not pretend we know with any certainty that this regime is good at their job or not. They clearly messed up some strategy in earlier games......

Lots of people think he's a fine manager, good manager, great manager. Even "stats guys".

That list of arms is why I think dealing successful bullpen arms (when your team is bad) is a good idea. There are plenty of guys that could be good in the bullpen in the future, imo, if they move them to the pen sooner. As a player, it really makes sense if you are a marginal starter to move sooner, rather than later, to make some real money someday.

Rob Antony was interviewed, and admitted he did not know what it was. I don't just make stuff up. Here is Rob Neyer's thoughts on the subject from back then. Looks like I was off by a year or so....: Twins thrive without sabermetrics - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN

Agree with Brock. He was gone, and the rolled the dice. It did not come up with the results they wanted, but they tried. I'd rather they tried, then just let him walk for no chance at something.