tobi0040

Burdi is going to be sick. He will be with the Twins next year. If you remove his first outing when he did not record an out and had 4 ER and 4 BB. He has 20.1 IP, 2 ER, 38 K, 13 H, and 6 BB. That is not fair.

I still have Meyer ahead of Berrios, but I have a strong bias for upside when it comes to prospects. Therefore, I can respect those that put Berrios ahead of Meyer. That case can be made. It is within a realm of possibility that they could both start next year in AAA and Meyer is 4.5 years older.

I believe that organizations with better pitching either drafted better or signed players and that plays a role moreso than our development. Wainwright signed a 5 year, $97M deal. It is not clear to me that the Twins would have given that out. Matt Cain received a 6 year, $127M dollar deal. No way would have the Twins have given Lincedum a 2 year $37M dollar deal after he struggled for two years. Regarding the young prospects, Gibson had TJ. Meyer had shoulder issues. Garza was up pretty young. Liriano was up at 21. Santana was a late bloomer. I do think that other organizations would not sign #5 starters and stick with them at the rate the Twins do (Peflrey for example). That likely stalls when a guy like May or Meyer come up by a few months....but by and lare that is not the issue between the difference in skill between the Twins and other organizations.

I think this is a case where causation and correlation get a little gray. Do the Nats have a good pitching system because of the way they handled their promotions? I think you can look at each separately and conclude otherwise. They had the #1 pick in a draft in which the best pitching prospect in 10 years came out (many scouts opinions). He was going to be up 1-2 years from the draft when healthy. Fister has a 2.66 ERA and was traded for after he was an established starter. Gio has a 3.89 ERA and was also trade for after he was established. This Roark guy did not see the big leagues until he was 26. He has a 2.91 ERA Jordan Zimmerman came up a few days before he was 23. So at best this promoting early concept impacted 20% of the rotation and 23 is not super young. I think it says more about organizational philosophy. The Twins could trade right now for pitchers of the Gio and Fister caliber but we don't want to give up our prospects and/or turn around and pay a guy like Gio.

I think September will say a lot about the future of Santana and Pinto. I don't believe the Twins view Santana as a SS or Pinto as a catcher. If they don't see significant reps with the extended rosters, that will confirm my thoughts.

I don't dispute that he would be cheaper, but Shields is better in my opinion. The age difference is just one year. Shields has a career ERA of 3.76. Ervin is at 4.14.

That all makes sense. A year from now we will know how close we are. I would think a core rotation of Meyer, Hughes, Gibson, and Nolasco could be one of the better rotations in the AL with the addition of an ace pitcher (assuming Nolasco's year this year was injury induced and he is better than that and Meyer will be good as I believe). Then it would require Buxton and Sano to come up and show promise.

Shields will make more than $15M. It may not be 7 years like the younger guys but it will be more than $15.

Here is a sports metaphor. The best players cost the most money. The best players help win games. Therefore, spending money can assist in winning games.

That sounds overly negative to me. That one player will have a WAR of 25 and get us to where we need to be.

I agree with the what will happen, 100%. But I don't buy the we can't afford it game. We could sign either one and have a payroll still less than it was in 2010. We all would likely agree that Terry will never feel like he got a deal by signing a #1 in free agency and it will be a risk level he is uncomfortable with. Good summary.

The flip side is you never put your chips in the middle, therefore you never win a hand.

I don't buy the 7 year issue. Mauer is done in what, 3 years? So a deal for Lester or Scherzer would basically replace that one, maybe a few million more. Meyer, Buxton and Sano would be under control for 5-6 years, starting in 0-1 year (hopefully they will be extended but it likely won't be much more than arbitration/rookie money) . Dozier is not going to get a $15M dollar deal. At that point we would have younger guys making less, like hopefully Berrios, Thorpe, Kohl, Gordon, etc. And we are not even factoring in revenues will go up in the next 7 years. I am not saying we will do it. I have watched this team too long to get my hopes up. But we could if we wanted to. If the Tigers can go up to $170M or whatever, we should be able to go up to $100M

This graph shows them at 16th out of 30th in 2013. I am guessing the top 15 provide revenue for the bottom 15. But that is pretty close to middle in my book. Not to mention the capital appreciation of the franchise pre and post staduim. From a ROI perspective I am guessing we are top 2-3 over the last 5-6 years. We are close to $700M now and we were just over $200M pre-stadium if I recall. 350% return. http://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

If ever a time existed where the Twins could go out and get an elite starter, it would be right now. Revenues are still high from the stadium and I think they will stay high with new talent coming up, which will hopefully propel more wins and interest. More importantly, we are going to have a ton of rookie contracts, and a few arbitration contracts sprinkled into about $55-60M in veteran contracts (Mauer, Suzuki, Nolasco, Hughes, Pelfrey, and Perkins). I am not holding my breathe though. I am really not sure that would be the best move anyway. Teams like New York would be able to get through a blow of doling out a contact like that and having it blow up in their face. If we go back 10-15 years, I can think of several terrible long and expensive pitching contracts. Mike Hampton, Al Leiter, Barry Zito, and others. CC, Verlander, and Tanaka don't look good from here. My big worry after we paid Nolasco was that he would get hurt and that would somehow validate our hesitation towards them.....I think that deal will make us more cautious. To the point of the article, the Twins only have one place to upgrade and counterpoint that we may lose 88 games so how could that possibly be? I think while it sounds odd, the Twins do only have a few spots to upgrade via free agency because we have to hold CF, 3B, and an SP spot for prospects 1-3 who are not part of the 88 loss problem this year. I do think SS is a spot we could upgrade, as I think Santana at SS = Pinto at catcher in the Twins eyes.

I think it just needs to be qualified, fans want an MLB ready upgrade at SP or LF, without giving up Buxton, Sano, Meyer, Kohl, etc. That is likely not happening unless it is a salary dump or something like that.

Good news is you can save your $1,200

Agree, the Parmelee expiriment has run its course. He does not deserve more chances.

I am guessing you thought I meant Nunez/Parmelee in the OF as a future plan. That was my rest of the year plan so we can get Santana reps at SS (where he has a shot at being a fixture). My point was, we were told Santana had to play CF because he is basically the only guy that can play there. That is not the case anymore, therefore we don't have a dire situation in CF any longer for the rest of the is year. So we should be able to take a step back, take a deep breathe, and re-evaluate why Santana is not getting reps at short stop.

I think SS is a place that needs more attention than it appears. I think you have a risk of the Twins viewing Santana's defense at SS like Pinto catching. They don't really come out and say it, but actions speak louder than anything else. The excuse was that we needed a CF and we had no options. Schafer has been here 19 games and Santana has played SS in two of those, giving him a total of 19 starts on the year at short. They could roll with Schafter in CF, Arcia and some combo of Nunez/Parmelee in the OF. The situation is not dire anymore, especially on a team that is 15 games out. Then you have the fact that both Santana and Escobar are playing way above their minor numbers.

I agree completely. Maybe he is closer to the 8-13 range....but he has a ton of value and we could justify the $3-4M. We definitely should have that laying around. I would argue the Red Sox had guys like that on their bench/platooning last year. Nava had a .831 OPS but didn't get a majority of reps on the OF. Mike Carp was a utility guy and ended with an .885 OPS. The Rays have done this for a few years. They had five guys on their bench last year with over a .700 OPS. Plouffe's .740 could turn to .790 by sitting him against righties here and there.

I agree he has improved and a year from now we could have two CF types in the OF with him. Buxton could shade towards him with Rosario/Hicks in the other corner. You probably can't rule out Santana being in that mix too.

My actual quote: "That sounds like a decent plan if Sano sticks. For those who want to move Plouffe now, I just don't know what the rush is with Plouffe, when the downside risk is we need to go out and find a 3B." It was implied the the downside risk if Sano can't stick at 3B. I have not read a single scouting report that is confident he can play 3B defensively. I am hoping for a future without stop gaps (Nunez and Escobar)

That sounds like a decent plan if Sano sticks. For those who want to move Plouffe now, I just don't know what the rush is with Plouffe, when the downside risk is we need to go out and find a 3B. We have none internally. Most of the good ones in the league are locked up on long term deals. Teams that have good 3B prospects are not willing to move them. I don't see a huge difference between Plouffe's trade value now and a year from now. He will have one fewer year of control, but he is not going to command a ton of money when he hits free agency. We have had a revolving door there since Koskie and I just don't think Eduardo Escobar is a capable fill-in on a team that will win a division. By all accounts, Plouffe is improving on offense and defense. Most scouting reports seem really sketchy regarding Sano sticking at 3B, so it seems like a bad risk-reward to me.

I think the issue is scarcity at the position. If you go to MLB.com, he is 12th in OPS, 1st in 2B, and 19th in HR at the position. This tends to exclude players that have only played a litte. But we could do worse than him at 3B. So I don't think the FO is enamored with him at all, I just think he is the best we have unless Sano knocks him off 3B. Or they move Mauer there which nobody has really talked about. http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp#sectionType=sp&sortColumn=ops&season=2014&league_code='MLB'&statType=hitting&game_type='R'&elem=%5Bobject+Object%5D&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&season_type=ANY&page=1&ts=1409064529763&sortOrder='desc'&extended=0&position='5'