diehardtwinsfan

Terry Ryan mentioned a few years ago that top shelf SP once it his AA is pretty much unattainable. I think that is probably a high return to ask. Same with C. You're going to sacrifice on upside if that's what you want. I'm not against that, but the return might not be quite as much as people want. If you want upside, you take on more risk (think Alex Meyer for Denard Span type of risk). The player won't be close. I'm not against that, but if this team is honestly assessing that they won't be in it for 2 1/2 years, then I take the upside, even if it is a few years away.

If the answer to my first question (will we be competitive in 2 1/2 years) is no, then I'm moving him. All I want to do is maximize the value at that point. If the answer is yes, it's a bit of a different story, and I'd be a bit more of a stickler to what I want out of him. That said, at a .725 OPS with good defense, BD is already an above average 2B. He's shown the ability for extended periods of time to hit well above .800 in the OPS scale, which is a really really really good 2B. I'd say that I'd want a top 100 prospect and one or two more lottery tickets for BD. That's what I want to get, but I'd sell much lower if I don't think Dozier is part of the team's resurgance

This times a million. My apologies to Nick, but I don't think it's fair to say that Arcia got a far shot. Yeah, he didn't earn it so to speak, but getting consistent PT is something he never got. My main reason for wanting to get rid of Gardy centered around this issue. Now 1 1/2 years of Molitor, we are seeing the exact same thing. It is maddeningly frustrating.

So... here's the question. Dozier is under contract for 2 or 3 more years. Will the Twins be competitive during that time frame? Can Polanco replicate his numbers or at the very least be an above average 2B? Too me at least, those are the questions I ask before putting him on the block. If the answer to the first one is no, then he's traded. The second is a bit more complicated. If it's close or better, I probably trade BD... but that requires talent evaluation, not just being honest about the situation this team is in, not to mention risk. Not necessarily against trading him, as I think long term Polanco is good enough.

I'll say this, if Dozier heats up a bit, his price tag would be quite a bit higher than Plouffe.

The reason he was extended in the first place was (at least in my opinion) b/c of the possibility of the contract being a coveted asset. The problem as I see it is that the team doesn't know what it has in Polanco. The other problem is whether or not this team can turn things around in the next year or two, because if they can, the question remains as to whether or not BD should be a part of that. Escobar hasn't exactly run with his shot at being SS. He was hot out of the gate, but since his injury, he hasn't been himself. At some point, I think they need to give Polanco and extended look for no other reason than to see if he can replace Dozier if they were to trade him.

Can they pull Arcia off of waivers?

How many of us had money on that statement at the beginning of the year?

yeah, there's a shot there, but I'm not holding my breath. Those same teams could have had Milone for free a month ago. If they wouldn't DFA/60 day DL someone then to make room on their 25 man for a guy they could have had for no prospect, I don't see them doing that now. If they would trade for him, it won't be much. Not even certain you'd see a lottery ticket, most likely org filler or a utility guy ceiling.

even if we traded for Clayton Kershaw and he played out the rest of his career at a high level in MN, that wouldn't make this cluster you know what of the Twins a whole lot better. I don't have a problem getting an ace, but right now I don't think the Twins should be going after expensive FAs that will most likely cause other clutter issues on the roster. They need to get these kids a chance. Once they see what they have, then get the ace. But now? That's just another 100M type commitment that won't do much more than to shrink the gap between us and the WS by a few games.

I tend to think that peace is the better solution as well.

well, he's going to be spending a lot of time with his family this year at least. Unfortunately for Glen (and I like him), I think he's done. He will try and come back at some point next year. He's under contract and he will honor it, that's how he is... But that prognosis doesn't look good. Best of luck to him. Oh, and question for the OP. Is there a difference in success level with starters vs. relievers? Kind of curious there.

Interestingly enough, we have opposite conclusions for the same reasons. I wanted HS guys b/c we need talent in the low minors and because I suspect that the org is going to be overhauled pretty significantly this offseason. I'd rather have higher ceiling HS guys in place for a new org that will be better focused on developing them. The Twins did precisely what you're being critical about. They took a bunch of higher ceiling players. If they had taken the college guys, then they would been taking lower ceiling players. I can see your point on non-premium positions, but as others noted, there really weren't good options there (with the exception of pitching). Getting back to the org issue, I'm not even sure that their problem is with the development staff in the minors (most of it at least). I think they could use some fresh coaching blood in the higher minors, but I really think their problem is rushing hitters through the high minors, not bringing pitchers up through them fast enough, and never really giving the kid a shot once he hits the majors, regardless of position. I can see that if you're in contention, but not when you're one of the worst teams in the league. There certainly may be a few coaching changes in the minors that could help the development out, but they seem to have no problems with talent performing in the high minors, but once they hit the majors... well that's a problem, and it's one with too many data points at this point to ignore. Either way, I don't think there will be a lot of coaching hold overs come 2017. Pohlad will clean house at the top this offseason, and plenty of dominoes will fall after that. Get the ceilings and let whomever handles this next work with them. They did that.

I've had a bit more time to digest this today. I'm still pretty upset about the Arcia DFA. It was the wrong decision. I don't know if he'll be the next Ortiz, or if he'll be the next Nelson Cruz, Joe Benson, or Chris Parmalee, but in general, there's something to be said about not giving up on young kids, especially ones that show the ability to be much better than their much older peers or those who have shown they can hold their own for an extended time at a young age. Arcia may have had issues with his attitude. He may have been more interested in the pay check then honing his craft. He may have just been immature. I don't know. I still don't like it. Bottom line, a team like the Twins has to give those guys a chance to grow up and improve. Not everyone matures at the same rate, and at 25, there's plenty of immaturity to go around. I suspect most of us at TD, if we were honest would admit that we had (or have) some maturity issues at that age. My bigger problem is that lack of a plan thing that a few people have mentioned. I'm really not sure what they are trying to accomplish in the FO right now. This team is bad, one of the two worst in the league and it's not really close. We do have a lot of talent in the high minors, and while I wouldn't be putting all of them in MLB at the moment, I certainly wouldn't be giving away ones that might be useful pieces. I get that Arcia would have likely gotten the squeeze at some point, but we don't know if Kepler or Buxton will develop, and like it or not, Arcia has more success in the majors than either of them at this point. I don't mind keeping Grossman around, as he might be that diamond in the rough (even if the odds are low), and I don't even mind Santana. But Maestro? How it is that Arcia didn't get consistent PT over the last month with all the injuries is mind boggling. Heck, Park has been struggling, and spending time in AAA might do him good, even though he does look like he could be an impact major leaguer. There were ways to solve this problem that didn't involve getting rid of potentially good pieces. Simply put, right now this team needs to be removing anyone that isn't long term piece who is in the way of someone that could be. I don't have a problem with guys like Maestro when guys like Buxton aren't ready, but I do have a problem with them when you're keeping them over guys like Arcia who has nothing to prove in the minors and is out of options. Who cares if the OF defense is bad this year? Play Arcia in center for all I care, but play him. I don't care if they trade the ML blocking pieces for scraps or DFA them, but the one thing we all wanted to see Arcia get this year was some consistent PT, and it is the one thing he hasn't gotten. They should be nuking non-core pieces where there's young talent that needs to play and playing for #1 overall right now, not kicking 25 year old potential power bats aside for a 5th OF that is a decent CF if Buxton likely falters again. If Molitor cannot accept that, he should be gone. If Ryan cannot step in and tell him as much, he should be gone.

There's ceiling and there's likelihood to make it there (something that I suspect Kirilloff has over any of the pitchers). All of that factors in. There's also the whole slot thing which clearly the Twins were thinking about. I personally would have went with one of the pitchers here, but I also wanted them to play the slot game. It's quite possible the pitchers wouldn't play it (haven't looked up the other signings). It's also quite possible that they saw the talent they had at P in the low minors and don't think it matches up well to the talent they have at hitting in the low minors and so they wanted to round that out a bit more. I wanted to see a strategy that went out and got a bunch of HS talent. They did that, which makes me very happy about this draft. I'm not going to get too upset when they ended up with a HS OF at #1 whose ceiling is an above average RF (which isn't a bad ceiling) when I was hoping for a pitcher. In that type of thing, I will trust the scouts. Finding talent doesn't seem to be an issue in Minnesota. Developing talent is a different story, and I suspect we will see some pretty significant changes in that area very soon.

Assuming I understand how the 11th round signing works, we are about 200k over slot numbers. Kirilloff won't need to go that far under slot to even things out. What's the most we can go over without penalty?

If there's a lesson to be learned here, putting someone on the 40 man before they are ready for the show is a good one. Arcia was an early add (and let's face it, we all wanted to see him), but he wasn't ready. He burned up all his options which is the big reason why he's DFAd now. Not really defending the DFA, but I do think there's a lesson here about rushing prospects.

I get the document wasn't perfect. I don't pretend it is (and you make a good example as to why it wasn't ), and let's not build a straw man here either. I'm not saying that slavery was ever a good thing, of course, we tend to ignore that every western country could end slavery without a civil war that killed 1 million of its people. Why couldn't we? I'll give you a hint, there were items the South was willing to give up slavery for, and it comes back down to money. What it did have was a great mechanism to prevent abuse, and like it or not, the people that wrote it down got far more right than they did wrong. It also had a mechanism to allow for change, but that apparently is too difficult for people, as using dialog to convince others as to what is right or wrong is not nearly as easy as bypassing it to achieve whatever agenda we desire. Let's not pretend that the constitution is upheld in any capacity today. It's not. Both sides parties it. That's why said gun law was there in the first place. It was a check against tyranny. There's a downside to that, and we are seeing it today, but we are willing to accept tyranny in the face of a law that won't do jack to keep us safe. Sorry, I won't back that. By all means, if you think guns are bad, put a fund together to buy up all those guns. I'm sure plenty will fund it, and those looking to sell on the secondary market will be more than happy to sell to someone like you. If you can stay away from the human desire to make money off of them, it might actually work... but you don't need the government for that (and I guarantee you that the humans running the government won't stay away from said desires). You can do that without forcing your ideals on someone else. Is it that hard to do?

I've been over this Levi, I have. The problem with starting the clock is that the guns will eventually end up in the wrong hands, which will be solely the government (bad as I don't trust them) or criminals (just as bad). The problem isn't guns. If someone wants to drive 100 MPH in a school zone, it's because their intent is to kill... plain and simple. Most of us will slow down, b/c while it's obnoxious, we don't want to run over a kid. If you want to win the culture war against guns, you have to fix the problem that is people. There's a reason someone grabs a gun and walks into a night club and goes crazy, and it isn't related to the fact that guns are easy to access. Those people will still get their guns. If the can't (and I don't think a lack of legal access to guns will fix it) they will find plenty of creative ways to kill people (heck, the internet has plenty of ways a person can device using household items that will do just as much damage). Guns are easy, but if you get rid of them, they will find another way, whether that be an a bomb or simply finding said gun illegally. It won't solve the problem. That is what we want, right? To solve this problem... at the core you have a very real problem with man's depravity. You can abate the violence by solving their fundamental needs (give them food, housing, clothes, etc.). It won't eliminate it, but it puts enough risk on it that most will walk away. The problem isn't guns. It's people. Solve the people problem and guns are the least of your concerns. If you look at what drives people, it's greed. Plain and simple. The Bible (whether you believe it or not) isn't wrong when it says the love of money is the root of all evil, and putting aside all the other issues that you likely don't agree with, it's a statement that rings true. Solve the economic issue, and a lot of these problems just go away. Solve the foreign policy issue (and let's face it, greed has a place there too) and over time they go away. Take away guns, and the problem remains. You don't fix why it is that someone is willing to massacre a bunch of kids or young adults in a night club. People that do those types of things rarely have something to lose. You're looking in the wrong place.

I think you need to fix the economic problem in this country and quit meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations to start. Islam, like it or not, loses a lot of that fire when the average Muslim has little reason to hate us, but when we bomb them, torture them, kill hundreds of thousands of their people in regime changes (and create 10 times that in refugees), occupy them, torture them, and in general destabilize their region, all in the name of giving them freedom; then don't act surprised when they decide to take up arms and kill the infidel, especially I might add when it doesn't take a high amount of intelligence to see through the lies used to justify it. Islam is convenient. These people are angry. They are all angry for different reasons, but where Islam succeeds is that it can unify and direct their anger. It's not that much different on the economic side. Our government is in the pockets of the elite, and there's a system in place that is slowly destroying the wealth of the middle class, while simultaneously seeking to limit their freedoms. Criminals at the highest level get away with their crimes and true reform. This has created a huge underclass, where poverty is now one of those most pressing problems in the US. 1 in 5 US children are born in it now, and those numbers aren't shrinking. Poverty can be as destabilizing as regime change, and it's contribution to this mess cannot be ignored. The land of opportunity is no longer a land of opportunity, and what was once hope has now been replaced with despair. People recognize this, they don't recognize why, especially at a micro level when they see their problems in context, and if they have a preconceived hate of someone for whatever reason (which just about everyone does at some level), they start blaming them for the problems they don't understand. People are angry for many reasons, the problem though is that our system in place plays on that anger. That's how Hitler motivated Germany to kill 6 million Jews. He unified them behind their anger, demonized his opponents, and riled up his base to slaughter htem. It's the same formula that Republicans use against Democrats, Democrats against Republicans, Islam against the west, and so on and so forth. The problem is that it only yields more anger, more despair, and when the powers that be are not actually fixing the issues, people take matters into their own hands.

If the government wants to go out and have a voluntary buy back of guns to get them off the street, then by all means go do so. I have an issue though with the government that is far more concerned about limiting freedoms than protecting them and using a crisis as a guise to implement laws that the end of the day won't work. Australia bought back 1 million guns... Just how many would the US government have to buy back for that to work? Again, there's 192 million guns in this country (and that's an estimate)... oh, yeah, and we're broke too. There's that minor little difficulty. I'll say what I said before, as it still stands. Gun control isn't going to fix that problem. It will take guns out of the hands of citizens who are law abiding and put them in the hands of those who could care less about the law. Yes, there's more risk for those who might want to acquire a legal fire arm (to Levi's point), but it won't stop them. You're looking for this solution in all the wrong places, and you're quite willing to sign away your (and my) freedoms for the allusion of security. It's rather sad really. I'd suggest we get back that piece of paper that supposedly governs this land as just about every problem that our country faces today can be traced back to where they deviated from that document's original intent when it was convenient to them.

I'm advocating for reforms that actually solve problems, not create more. If that's denying reality, then I think it's time we all had a reality adjustment.

I would think batting Arcia cleanup against a righty would make a ton of sense... oh wait.

Doing something and doing it wrong compounds issues. That's what gun control does. It creates an allusion, not unlike our beloved TSA, but it doesn't fix issues. You need to look at human nature here. Gun deaths have a lot more to do with poverty and a complete societal break down. Add some mental health issues in there and you have a really bad concoction of factors. No one wants to touch that one, and sadly the government has more responsibility for those than any of us would like to admit, whether that be not taking care of our veterans to an economic system that is slowly siphoning money out of the hands of the poor and middle classes and into the hands of the wealthy. But take away guns... all that will do is increase the frequency of these types of events along with their casualties.

Not every libertarian is a full deregulation fan. I think most of us just recognize that most regulations don't accomplish what they should and that they are better left off in state or local areas, something that Republicans used to stand for. 2008 could have been prevented by not repealing the Glass-Steagle act, which I might add falls under that whole inter-state commerce thing that the federal government is granted authority. It could also have been prevented if the government would actually go after people who commit financial crimes instead of bailing them out, but this something that died long before 2008, and it's why the elite continue to do the same things that caused 2008, and its why another 2008 is not far away. As a whole, there have been more laws, not less.