USAFChief

I don't much care who is at AAA and who is at AA. I care who is on the big league team. And when you are constantly filling holes on the big league team with non roster spring invites, as Plan A no less, it's no wonder you've won one post season series in decades. One of Mastro/Benson is going to be on the Twins out of camp. At least one bullpen spot will go to one of the above names. Those are near locks, IMO. Not a fan of this approach.

Off the top of my head, just in the past two years, Norris, Cervelli, Montero, Wellington Castillo, Martin, and Grandal have changed teams. There may be more I'm forgetting. Sure it's difficult. It's not impossible, and it IS what is expected, no? Find good players?

Boyer made $750k last year. I doubt there are $$ factors. Promising relief pitchers may be waiting, that would not stop Ryan from bringing back Boyer. And finally, with every team in the majors looking to bolster their bullpen, if Boyer is still sitting there, unsigned and available after the priming relief pitchers fail, I don't see that as an endorsement of Boyer, or a good reason to bring him back. In any case, to bring this full circle, I don't see Boyer as a guy who "pitched well" in last year's pen, and I hope TR changes his methods and stops relying on these kinds of signings as plan A for bullpen help.

None of Benson, Mastro, or Arcia exist in my perfect world.

If Boyer "pitched well," shouldn't someone be campaigning to bring him back?

I disagree. I don't get thrilled by the Twins getting minimum-level competence from cheap FA signings. It's been a long time, so it might be tough for some to remember, but I get thrilled by watching them win a WS. IMO, Blaine Boyers and Sam Dedunos are part of the problem, not part of the solution, and should not be celebrated.

This is pretty much TR's standard method of adding to a bullpen...find "free" players, bring to camp, somewhere between 0 and 3 make the team opening day. lather, rinse, repeat.

I would speculate payroll (or "outgo") matters more than revenue. If you want to argue payroll is tied to revenue, there may be a point there, but not every team operates in the same manner. Some spend more than others, and vice versa, despite similar revenue streams. Is there some reason the Tigers should be outspending the Twins to the extent they do, other than their owner wants to win more than he cares about yearly profit? As to the Twins, there is no reason they couldn't be spending more. That is a choice they have made. They aren't even spending up to their self-imposed "50-55 percent" MLB payroll limit, and I would argue that self-imposed percentage should be higher than it was in the Metrodome. Outside expenses didn't go up by 50% when they moved. Earlier you argued for a "draft and build through the farm system" model for the Twins. This is sort of a canard. Nobody here is arguing the Twins shouldn't be pouring money and other resources into their farm system, and the truth is EVERY team has a farm system and tries to get as much talent out of it as possible. The Yankees, the Dodgers, the Red Sox. Every other team, large revenue or small. In fact, many here argue the Twins should be spending much MORE to bring talent into their system. But they scrimp there, too. To the best of my knowledge they have yet to spend a penny more than the draft allotment. They have chosen not to break the international FA CAP, while other teams have looked at the system and basically said "one large signing per year? Bullpucky...we're going to splurge every other year and bring several high profile FA prospects. We can still sign several smaller profile targets in the off years, but we double or triple the high profile guys that way." Revenue matters? Maybe. But talk to me when the Twins are spending till it hurts. Then maybe I'll listen to arguments about revenues.

Perhaps not, but I'm making an attempt at accuracy. Could I ask why you chose 2000 as a starting point? That doesn't seem a natural point...17 years ago. Not the start of the TR regime, not the start of the Target Field years. In fact, That seems rather conveniently chosen...right before an extended period of contention.

I hope so. We'll see.

Unless my math is wrong, per Baseball Ref, over the past 17 seasons, the Twins are not at .503. They are 1368-1383, .497. I would also need to see team revenues for all these teams, for the past 17 years, please. Actually, show me team revenues for all MLB teams over the past 17 years, so we can better judge if revenues are the major factor you are claiming.

you're not alone.

Why would Chapman be under contract in 2017?

I left Ichiro off my list, but upon further reflection you might be right.

If you want an example of why I have grown less and less patient with the Twins operating model, Murphy is exhibit A. I would prefer looking for guys with a ceiling of "damn good." Instead, we trade for a guy described as having a ceiling of "competent." This, to me, is sorta the position player equivalent to picking up minor league free agents to fill the bullpen. Looking for starters with very hittable stuff, but by gosh they don't walk many. "Settling for" instead of "pursuing." I don't see the ultimate reward as very likely with this approach.

I'm guessing it means he realizes he's going into 2016 with zero proven OF options. One if you count Rosario, which I think is stretching the definition of proven.

I think the most likely result is, Jones ends up back with the Twins. I still think he should've been protected over Dean, though.

It's going to be interesting to see how much wins are devalued in future HOF voting. Not just because W's have taken a beating from statheads, but also because the continuing decline in starter usage is making 300 W's harder and harder to achieve.

Concur. Neither get in based on current career. Kershaw, in particular, is obviously on pace though.

When I think of "who's a HOFer" among active players, I use "what if he quit playing today?" filter. Assuming current players will continue on pace with past results doesn't work for me. I go by what they've done to date. ARod clearly has the career, but I wouldn't vote for him, and I think he might struggle to get enough votes for obvious reasons. Pujols is in, Miquel Cabrera is in. I think Adrian Beltre probably gets in, same for David Ortiz. That's it for me. The rest need to finish out their career well.

They'll have a really big 36 ft deep swimming pool.

If "they don't want him, why would we" is valid, it's valid. But it's not valid. In either case,

Why would the Yankees be willing to trade Murphy?

If we make an ocean 36 ft deep we'll drown all the natives. Won't someone think of the (Martian ) children? ?!?

"The people who watch this guy pitch don't seem particularly enthralled by him." Actually, many people who watch this guy pitch listed him as a good Rule V candidate, and one team who watched him pitch opted to put him, temporarily at least, on their 25 man roster. Again...we can recognize there may be reasons Jones was left off in favor of Dean, but let's stop pretending Jones isn't intriguing or have "upside."