South Dakota Tom

You can leave off the long-term minor league guys (who we'll either sign for depth at the upper levels or not), but I can't begin to do this exercise without knowing who needs to be added or lost. Looking at the existing 40-man sitting at 38, I assume that Castro and Pineda will be added (and while one thing doesn't equal the other, I'll say those two fill us up to 40 on the roster). So we drop Belisle, Wilson, Astudillo, Forsythe, Morrison, Grossman, and Granite, opening up 7 spots. Santana is a question mark (and if he doesn't get back to 92-93 by the end of the season, I certainly decline the option and then it is a crap shoot whether he will still be here), though I'm not sure the Twins want to roll with Berrios, Gibson, Romero, Odorizzi, and Pineda, or the depth of Gonsalves, Littell, May, Slegers, Mejia and potential of Stewart, Thorpe and Graterol and some other guys who could push from AA or above in a half-season isn't a completely bare cupboard. Seems to me that still gives us plenty of space to add free agents or guys we might actually lose if we don't add.

Last year, Dodgers chose Forsythe over Dozier; while I think there are luxury tax issues, there are also issues relating to the Dodgers having to remove someone from the 25- and 40-man roster, which they don't have now. I believe a lot more of these trades come down to "I need someone NOT on the 40-man, a lottery ticket 3 years away, and someone who is on the 25-man roster because we don't have any high-minors position players who can hit their way out of a wet bag." (not saying Forsythe is much better, but at least he can fill a role while we see what Adrianza has).

4+ games, no runs scored on minor league Twins pitchers today. Can't remember ever seeing that.

Peripherally, BD has been the person loudest about the deadline moves made by the F.O., both last year and this. He needn't look farther than his own performance as a legitimate reason why the players and friends have been traded, though the vagaries of baseball don't mean that it is any more his fault than Miguel's or Jorge's or Byron's. My sense, however, from a leverage standpoint is that it would be better for the Twins to deal him for a couple of mid-teens prospects (or worse), to reflect on the entire league's estimation of his value. So rather than sign him for a Q.O. (which he doesn't deserve based on performance, and is very unlikely to receive on an AAV basis, in any set of circumstances, especially with draft compensation connected), they could desire to sign him to the short-term deal, but with reduced expectations on his part. I personally (despite the digs) believe that B.D. would be a solid member of the team for the next couple of years - especially after following Rochester's offense all year on this site. You trade him - what is your Plan B? Is there a better candidate to rebound at a reasonable cost than him?

“Victor Tademo out on a sacrifice bunt, left fielder Jacob Brown to third baseman Jared Gates. Alberoni Nunez scores. Charles Mack to 3rd. Victor Tademo out at 3rd. Victor Tademo out at 3rd, left fielder Jacob Brown to third baseman Jared Gates.” So my baseball/can't sleep mind just read this and wondered exactly what happened. This is the best I could come up with (with no peeking at box scores or other accounts): men on 1st (Mack) and 2nd (Nunez); Tademo tries to push a sac bunt past and to the 3B side of the pitcher (figuring if 3B has to handle the ball, the sac will be successful) and actually pushes it through the wickets of 3B (sac bunt, otherwise it would have been called a bunt base hit if 3B overran it or the bunt was pushed past him); guy on 2nd scores, guy on 1st makes it to 3rd as ball rolls into the back of the infield dirt; Tademo keeps motoring and ends up getting caught between 2nd and 3rd, thinking Charles Mack was going to try to score, and is out in a single throw from LF to 3B. Wheel play was on - 3B was supposed to play slightly in and down the line but not charge until ball got past P, so he could cover 3B if P got the bunt; SS was covering 2nd for potential 1-6-4 dp; 2B was covering 1st; 1B was charging and P went careening into foul ground on the 3B side and then to back up the C after he realized he wasn't going to field the ball off the bat. I mean, what else could it be?

I love that it is Tyler day today in A ball. These write-ups are great - pick whoever you want as P.O.D.

As someone mentioned on another thread, it seems pretty clear that Gordon and Gonsalves are slated for Chattanooga to play in warmer weather the first month. In case of an emergency need, they could well be first starter and first position player up and are most in need of consistent playing time to ensure their readiness (as opposed to Granite, for instance, who is ready, or Kennys). I don't know how that argument fits with Romero at AAA.

I don't disagree that a .650 OPS versus left-handers will improve Kepler's overall numbers. However, I think a .650 OPS still makes him a candidate for a platoon. The only reason that would seem palatable is that we would have very little with which to improve those numbers from our current reserves (yes, Grossman's numbers should be better than that, but having him on the roster doesn't energize me). I really like Zack Granite as a 4th OF, but I think the big picture answer is to continue to seek out a RH-hitting corner who can DH and play defense, making Grossman, Granite, and Vargas into one amalgamated player.

I think the message is clear (and with precedent): we have one spot. We have opened up one spot on our roster, and we'd like you (___________) to be that person. But we exposed a very good player to show you that we are willing to open up this one roster spot to you. It is open. We are making this offer to more than one person. We'd like it to be you. press send....

...of a minor leaguer not on the 40 man for an instant addition to the roster?

Let's see - two locks, one 99%, then 75, 50 - Ted,you've only come up with 4.61 pitchers for 5 spots. Are we filling the other 39% chance of one rotation spot with either "someone we haven't heard of yet" or "4 man rotation?" Maybe I just like math too much....

One of the things I love most about baseball is its correlation to life: some days you win, some days you lose, you try another day with maximum effort and hope. I do not want to see a hard cap on salaries, and most folks agree with that. I love the fact that smaller market teams beat bigger market teams and nothing in the world is more fun as a fan than to watch somebody (anybody) beat the Yankees. That is life. It is also life that plenty of people are more talented, richer, prettier, and smarter than I am, but I will continue to try, as I've been on sports teams that were less pretty, smart, and talented, but still managed to win (and somehow those victories are more precious than the expected results). But there is a logical way to avoid the tanking and revenue-sharing and luxury tax avoiding, and it is simply by requiring a floor in salaries. A team doesn't have to exceed that floor, but they must spend at least X% of their revenues on major league player salaries. That way, we all win. When MLB revenues increase, so do player salaries. A team is required to spend proportionate to their income, including shared revenues. That boosts the speculative contracts on controllable younger players; that increases the primary and secondary market for free agents (and I think both need some tweaking as well, especially as it relates to the onset of free agency, as younger players are becoming more valued in the current analytic environment). So instead of a pre-arb 1, 2, 3 and 3 years of arbitration, we'd have a pre-arb 1 and 2 and an arbitration 1 and 2 but we wouldn't start counting the years until a player had been signed or reached 18, whichever occurred later (to avoid the situation where a "not ready for prime time" player has to be added to the 40-man). Or, 1,2,3 for high school grads and 1,2 for college drafted players, to encourage education and an alternative to pro baseball.... There is a way to share revenues, avoid a hard salary cap, start free agency sooner, and reward players who bring revenue to the sport. It takes some negotiation, but wouldn't this off-season be more fun if we knew, for a fact, that teams 1-17 still needed to spend a certain number of dollars in order to avoid forfeiting that revenue-sharing? I hate tanking in sports, even while I acknowledge the intelligence of it when the facts support that decision.

I think Aaron Slegers is the one that just slid into the lineup. Considering we are still awash in question marks between Hughes, May, Jorge, Gonsalves, Romero, Enns. Littel (not to mention Mejia and Gibson), I would expect to see a free agent signing as well.

Which is sufficient "insurance" it strikes me, given the overall needs of the team and lack of 25-man and 40-man room (especially when you add the names of Hughes and May). An acquisition like Belisle becomes the equivalent of another Rule 5 pick because you can't move him out of the 25-man (I know, you can release him, but I'm guessing he'd cost enough that we'd be reluctant to do that). So roll with what you have plus the above, and my sense is that there will be a relief pitcher available from another team facing this exact same scenario, if things go badly. And that always makes a wonderful mid-season human interest story.

I don't see a great fit with the Rays. Not only is there the "once bitten, twice shy" syndrome but they are seeming to want to be blown away for any non-FA, which is not where we need to go in dealing for the future. Would Archer look good for four years? Sure, but would you trade Berrios right now for a couple-three minor-leaguers, even A-list guys? Darvish for money. Cole for prospects, or Cole/McCutcheon for more prospects (Kiriloff, Gonsalves, Thorpe and Gordon) plus one existing outfielder not named Buxton. One FA reliever (best available in February after the dust settles and panic sets in).

The very reason everyone is salivating over landing immediate help is the same reason the Twins have often been slow to do so. This is often a time that large contracts get signed, and the players who remain become a much better bargain, either in terms of contracts or trading of prospects. While we may not love the idea of waiting, and plenty of criticism will be heaped upon the front office if they don't sign someone of substance in the next few days, the price for a player who is not snatched up this week could drop. If that means the Rays start to panic a little, or Pirates, because the front line free agents and trades are made for starting pitching, maybe it saves us a prospect or two when we talk to them a week from now.

And pitch more than 20 innings in that stretch...

Gives me a real appreciation for the four-year run Ted Kluszewski had in the mid-50s; that list is a real who's who.....

Isn't the Supreme Court about to decide if you can do just that, without going to Vegas (different thread, different time...)?

Turning the corner, what do people think the $3M is worth to a team trying to lure Ohtani? Do we stand a substantially better chance of landing him with our bonus versus teams with $1M? Is it crazy of me to wish that we sell our bonus pool money for a nice return, and then sign Darvish, and land Ohtani for the lesser money we have (his being long-term goals of winning and branding rather than immediate guarantees? And does anyone think no one is talking to him about the "second" contact?)? So my wish tonight is that we sell the signing bonus money to a team for a top-10 team prospect because they think it matters; then we sign the 6-year $150M Darvish deal, and then snag Ohtani anyway. And sorry for Mr. Marte - but wanted to include all three subjects in this reply....

In the world of Falvey and Levine, can you imagine how qualified Mr. Alston must be? I'm excited to learn more about him, and one has the sense that there is a philosophy (throw strikes) and a method (no one method) that he excels at imparting, both from a statistical and psychological perspective. (noted: all but the sabermetric portion of that is true of every pitching coach ever hired)

This is, and always was going to be, a collaborative decision. I know that there are economic considerations, but I also trust the basic philosophy of the organization at this point. I would like very much to trust the people who constantly observe and interact with the players involved. I'm on board that they are either playing their best players or trying to maximize their assets with a sure and certain goal in mind.

I'm not parsing words here. The thrust of the article is that now that we didn't trade Dozier that the entire direction of the team should be altered. I understand your position that we might as well try to compete, but I don't agree that this one (failed) move should modify the long-term goal of gathering a team to compete down the road and giving younger players more playing time in an effort to develop. Adding a pitcher and a bat to the current lineup almost guarantees a level of mediocrity that prevents the rebuild, development of young players, and long-term goals. I disagree that this team should be led in that direction. You either compete or rebuild and you commit to one or the other. I don't think the failed Dozier trade in any way takes us from rebuilders to competitors, or from sellers to buyers.

Can't agree with this. Because Dozier didn't go to the Dodgers, the Twins now have an obligation to support him up and down the lineup? They abandon all plans to rebuild for the future because they couldn't pull off one trade for their best player? There is way too much gap between "rebuild" and "support your best player in the lineup with a solid lineup 1-9" for that to be an either/or proposition.

My greater sense, and it is explored here, is that the Dozier deal is holding up everything else. If Dozier is dealt (assuming for JDL +), then - and only then - do you reassess your needs. It is a domino - Polanco slides over to 2B, Escobar is penciled in at SS, and you decide if you have a 4th IF anywhere on your roster in 2017 (D San - no; Vielma - probably no; Beresford - possibly). So then that starting SS or 4th IF becomes a higher priority. I'm not saying we're getting a SS or RP or 4th OF back for Dozier, but you pretty much gotta wait and see. Any position that we fill now (outside of the emergency need at C) to some extent ties our hands on a potential return for Dozier. That's why the front office wanted final offers for him. If he is staying, we got holes to fill. If he is traded, we need to figure out where those holes remain. I agree with most here that Bellinger is probably not coming back in the Dozier deal, or the SS they like, but there is time to find those positions still before spring. Would be nice if something happened (my lips to God's ears) just to break the bleak monotony of this cold, windy winter, but I don't see our off-season shopping list as anything in crisis - least not from a timing standpoint.