gunnarthor

By this logic, the Twins should trade everyone no matter the return. There was no market for Plouffe, just like there was no market for Dozier. And yes, I was ok with keeping Perkins. If he had stayed healthy in 2015 we probably make the playoffs. That's the risk with pitchers but it was the right risk. There is no reason for the Twins to tank 2017 or not to care about it. We might be a 75 win team, we might be a 81 win team. We won't be a playoff team. That doesn't mean you throw out everything that's not bolted down.

Without doing anything, the Twins will get at least a quarter of their starts next year from people that didn't to it this year. Nolasco, Meyer, Dean, Albers and Milone combined for 45 starts, 282ip a 5.56 era and -1.2 WAR. They are all gone. If Molitor was smart (a big if, I know), Duffey wouldn't get 26 starts (-1.7 WAR) and May would. Berrios shouldn't be -1.6 WAR bad. So a rotation of Santana, Gibson, Santiago, Berrios and May/Hughes/Mejia is already better even without doing anything else. And if the Twins wanted to add a back end starter, they don't need to trade Dozier, they could sign Hammel or Tyson Ross. Moving Dozier for De Leon (admittedly, I'm the low man on him) is a waste of a resource.

You've been ripping the team pretty good in the other thread. The offers for Dozier haven't been sufficient. It's that simple. Move on. If you don't get a good deal, you don't take the bad deal. (And imagine the pessimism around Berrios if he had missed two months last year with injuries, including shoulder soreness. We'd be measuring him for a coffin). How does taking a bad trade move the needle in the future? I cannot get my head around how many times you've asked variations of this question without seeing the obvious problem of it and ignoring everyone who has pointed it out. The Twins haven't gotten a good offer for Dozier. Taking a bad deal doesn't make sense. If you don't get good deals you don't make bad trades. How is that so difficult to follow? The Twins have two top 100 prospects entering the rotation this year. They have two more at AA. They have the #1 pick in a college pitching deep draft. And that ignores Thorpe, Stewart and Romero. The 2019 rotation is probably going to be pretty good without moving Dozier. Moving Dozier MIGHT help but it might not. And moving Dozier will almost certainly make the 2017 and 2018 teams worse unless the return is ML ready NOW.

OK, I guess that's one person who was ok with the proposed deal.

This debate is somewhat surprising to me. Everyone agrees that the Dodgers offer of De Leon was not enough for Dozier. Not a single person has said that they think the FO should have taken a De Leon for Dozier swap. No one has suggested that their was an offer out there that was sufficient for the Twins that has been credibly reported. And yet people are ripping the FO for not trading him.

Yeah. The part where Sickels wrote "Players who exceeded rookie qualifications are not included. The list does include 2016 draftees" I read as "Players who exceeded rookie qualifications are not included. The list does not include 2016 draftees."

Guess that makes sense, Sickels is the high guy on De Leon but that list also excluded draftees. But it's probably a fair guess that Sickels will have him in his top 10 when he gets around to his 2017 list.

Who has De Leon as a top five prospect?

Yeah, I don't disagree but WAR isn't an ideal stat in the first place so I'm not really overly concerned with going with 4 WAR (and the margin of error in WAR might make it moot). I'm a big hall guy so there's a lot of ways I would consider a season a "HOF season" but I just used WAR for Raines b/c his supporters tend to think very highly of that stat. My problem with Raines is that his high level of play basically ended in 1987 and after that he went from HOF caliber player to just solid player. I think he needs more HOF seasons. It is of course a moot point since he'll get elected this year but I think that's a victory for compiling over seasons.

A few points. First, Raines peak (83-87) was better than most of these guys but that becomes a question of what do you want in your HOF? If you just want a 5 year peak than guys like Raines, Mauer, Utley, Hernandez are HOFers. I think you should have more. I used 4 WAR because I think 4 WAR is a good shorthand for a HOF season (considering Rainers supporters like WAR). Torii Hunter was an excellent player. He played 17 seasons, has over 2400 hits, 9600 AB, 110 OPS+. Damn good career. In those 17 seasons he topped 3 WAR 12 times but only topped 4 WAR 4 times. So I think 4 WAR is a nice dividing line for a HOF season. Others may differ. But I don't like the compiler argument - Raines has X WAR so he's a HOFer. I think the argument should be a player had X number of HOF seasons. How to you count a HOF season? Lots of ways but 4 WAR is a good shorthand. Raines had 6 HOF seasons. Now, those six, by WAR, were very high level HOF seasons so if you want to give him extra credit, fine. Neither of us has a vote. But his peak isn't that unusual. Dawson and Raines peaks, by WAR were actually pretty close. Dawson has a lead over a 10 year period and they are tied for 12 year period (both got 57 WAR in 12 years). Raines was slightly better at the end, and didn't have the cliff that Dawson did. But considering the inaccuracies of WAR, the two are essentially tied after 10000 PA with Dawson having a slightly better peak and more HOF (4 WAR seasons) in fewer seasons. McGriff had 7 seasons, he was traded in 93 but I was wrong with Radke, he and Raines both had 6 seasons of 4+ WAR (although that accounts for 50% of Radke's career). At the end of the day, Raines is getting into the HOF because of his run from 83-87. After 87, he only had one more season where he finished in the top 10 in OBP. His offensive decline was hidden by playing in the offensive explosion of the 90s. For five years he played like an absolute HOFer but a lot of players have done that. (And, in fairness to him, the strike cost him a lot in 81 where he may have had another HOF season and I might be overly valuing his decline years and not recognizing the really strong years). I don't dislike Raines in the HOF - the 80s have been ignored a lot and not enough players from that era are in but I wouldn't vote for him.

I remember thinking he'd break out last year and we'd all be really excited about him but it was Blankenhorn who did while Cabbage struggled. Really hope he puts it together.

Raines has really had a heck of an internet push that others probably should have had. Raines argument is the old compiler argument but instead of wins we're using WAR without context of # of seasons it took to amass it. Andre Dawson, who people tried to keep out, had a better peak. Raines had fewer 4 WAR seasons (while playing in more seasons) than, among others Jack Morris, Dawson, McGriff, Brad Radke, Bernie Williams, Kenny Lofton, Ian Kinsler ...

As I see it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Twins biggest defensive problems last year were (in some order) Sano in RF, Grossman, Danny Santana and Suzuki. This year it looks like the Twins have one player who can be really good defensively and a bunch of players in the average to below average but no obvious disasters like last year. This year, our OF should be Rosario/Buxton/Kepler. Buxton probably grades out as a very good fielder and the other two might be average. Combined, that's probably a good outfield? In the IF, Sano is a liability at third but not nearly as bad as he was in RF while Polanco, Dozier and Mauer are all around average but none are really good or really bad? Castro is supposed to be an upgrade over Suzuki.

Why is everyone ready to jettison Grossman? Sure, his defense is crap but he can take a walk - something our team lacks. I trust his hitting ability a lot more than I trust Vargas and (sadly) Park right now. As a back-up DH/4th or 5th OF, he's not bad - esp if Molitor uses him in a platoon.

I don't think Hughes has a spot in the rotation unless he shows that he's throwing real fastballs again. Every year we argue about SP depth but it's needed. We aren't going to go with 5 starters and Berrios and Mejia will probably be up and down (although it would be great if they locked down a spot for the next decade). It's still a long shot to declare that Molitor will let May start.

I'm in the minority and don't think Raines should be in the HOF - not enough HOF seasons. I'd vote for (in no particular order) Pudge, Vlad, Moose, Martinez, Schilling, McGriff, Kent, Walker, Hoffman and Smith. I don't really like relievers in the HOF and Hoffman and Wagner are pretty similar but we're voting them in, so I guess he should get in. As for Smith, I never thought he should be in but I read a nice little bio of him on Joe Posnanski's site and thought, what the hell, my vote doesn't really count anyway.

Anyone holding a big bet in healthcare? A few years ago we sort of successfully bet on Obamacare and grabbed a nice bit of HCA before selling it. We haven't grabbed anything in that sector since. Not sure what the future holds there with Trump.

I sort of assumed the Twins wouldn't move Santana unless they got some pitching back from a Dozier trade first.

What is your idea?

It is kind of weird for a team to sit on a 103 loss team but there really aren't a lot of spots. The OF of Rosario/Buxton/Kepler makes sense - all are 24 or younger, all were former top 100 prospects, it's too early to give up on any of them. In the IF, if they don't trade Dozier, you have Sano/Polanco (two more under 24, former top 100 prospects) on the left side and Dozier/Mauer on the right. Dozier's obviously pretty good and Mauer is locked in under contract. Catcher is Castro, the wily vet. DH is either Vargas or Park or a place we could bring someone in. But really, there's not a lot of upgrades to be made unless we trade Dozier and want to upgrade short stop over Escobar (Profar is still my dream but I really have no idea if he's any good anymore). The rotation has Santana and Gibson as locks. They should switch Duffey and May but with Molitor, who knows. Mejia and Berrios are another two former top 100 prospects, under 24, who can be slipped into the rotation and it is too early to give up on either of them. And after those five you still have Hughes (who the team should know about in ST - it he's still throwing 88, he's cooked) and Santiago (who has been a solid back end type). I'd be happy if the Twins signed Tyson Ross and let him have 20+ starts but he's about the only FA starter who I'd look at. And if the Twins trade Dozier, they'd probably have another starter to add to this group. I think they should add a lot to the bullpen but I'm not sure who but outside of Pressly, I'm not in love with any of our bullpen arms (although Chargois could become something). I think Duffey would be a strong bullpen arm and should let May back into the rotation.

Ah, hell, I'll bite - what is an elite slugging percentage for a middle infielder? And where does 'very good' start and end?

You really don't because you're only taking it out on one person while making him compete against everyone else. That said, if we changed Dozier's 42 HR to 25 HR, he's second only to Cano and still has a double digit lead over everyone else.

Remember when Ryan was in charge and there was never any leaks and we all complained about how the FO wouldn't use the media? That was fun.

Capps performed as expected. Worley was much worse than I thought he'd be. I liked May, others thought he'd be a bullpen arm. I think he should be a starter. As a prospect, I think he was fine. Meyer didn't work out for whatever reason you want to make - injury, misuse by staff, demeanor etc.

Not sure I'd buy WWE. First, entertainment is pretty fickle and what interests someone today might not hold them tomorrow. I know WWE is trying to grow (my kids bought a Scooby Doo/WWE video) but it seems limited. They've missed earnings three out of the last four quarters and have been downgraded by several stock watchers. (Which could mean it's a good buy-low candidate). And their 200m bond might hurt current investors in the future, as well. Admittedly, I haven't looked into it much more than that. http://www.barrons.com/articles/why-wwe-shares-are-on-the-ropes-today-1481647034?mod=yahoobarrons&ru=yahoo&yptr=yahoo