diehardtwinsfan

I'll be the naysayer here in that I think he needs to go to Rochester. I like Santana, and to be clear I think he's earned a spot, but his long term value is at SS and from what I understand, he's not ready there. Add to it that I think his numbers say he's going to be in for a rude awakening in 2015. I like the idea of him spending time in AAA working on his game at SS and letting Escobar swim as the starter in 2015. If they both work, you trade Escobar and let the high upside guy have the job. that being said, I want a real CF in the OF, even if on a one year contract.

I think there are a lot of culprits: mechanics, getting rid of long toss, usage, and in the case of 12, I'd say SSS/bad luck. That said, I also think there's a reason that the Twins were far more cautious with their pitchers this year than what I remember from the past. This could be it.

I see a lot of turnover in the pen this offseason, but I think it's more internal than external. There are guys in the high minors getting the job done, and they are being chanced by guys like Reed, Burdi, and Jones. While I don't expect any of these 3 to make the pen in 2015 (at least to start), I do think that they are going to jettison guys like Swarzak, Deunsing, and Burton in favor of giving extended looks to Tonkin, Oliveros, Pressley, etc. With what's coming up, I don't think they have a choice but to start turning over the pen, and I think that there's a lot of reason to be excited about that.

yes, and I'd argue that ace is still his upside. #2 is probably more realistic. I'd simply say this is one guy's opinion on Meyer. If people thought he would be a top shelf reliever, I highly doubt he'd still be in the top of half of the top 50. I get the climbing walk rate, and the Twins are going to have to focus on that with him in 2015, but that's all a part of the development thing. I think long term, Meyer will be fine. He was quite good even with the high walks in AAA last season, and I think if he can do what May did to that rate, he's going to be up very quick.

I get that Hicks might be a minor upgrade to Schaffer or something like that, but I think it suites his long term interests (and the team's) best if he is expected to start in AAA this season and earn a call up. Opportunities will arise, so this isn't a permanent thing, I just think he needs to earn it. Given how the league average OPS has dropped, I'd be OK shifting him to the corner at some point (especially given the poor OF defense) if he can keep that OPS around .750. That makes him a pretty solid player at that point, but I think the Twins should be done handing him an opportunity... Make him earn it.

I see cable going away personally, and I'm waiting for content on demand, though I see a lot of people fighting this. I was cable free for a good 4 years up until about 6 months ago, when the cost of switching to Uverse essentially allowed me to dump my really sucky ISP and get Uverse and a basic cable package for the same price as I was paying for internet. That said, I never watch it and when the contract is up, I'll dial it back to just internet. I have over the air TV and Netflix. I really don't need cable. I think pay for content is coming, but it won't come without a fight.

I understand that. The problem is that they had holes all over and even with the added revenue, they didn't have enough cash to fill them. Add to it that these are multi-year deals that you don't just get to dump if they fail, the need for two willing parties, dealing with shortages/surplusses at positions of need, and the fact that many FA aquisitions are just as bad if not worse than the guys they are replacing. Given this, you have a recipie that might turn into something nice, but it's far more likely to turn into extended mediocrity. There are examples of this all over MLB. It's one thing to go out and spend money on that one or two needed pieces. It's a whole different thing to try to fill an entire roster that way. It doesn't work.

You lose. Plain and simple. Supplementing a losing team only extends that timeframe as you cannot typically fill a roster from FA.

I thought being argumentative was a pre-requisite to a law career.

I think it forces other managers to have to handle their lineups a bit differently. I don't think having a lefty is a requirement at least at the expense of a more capable righty, but I do agree with TR in his assessment of the org when he said we need to get stronger with LH pitching, and in an ideal world, I'd have one or two in the rotation.

I think I take issue with the idea that Ryan hasn't made trades that have panned out. He had quite the reputation in his first run at GM as he aquired guys like Bartlett, Santana, Liriano, and Nathan. He picked up guys like Bonser and Casilla who had small runs, and he failed on Zach Ward and Justin Jones. In his second run as GM, I'd hardly say he hasn't made any good ones. He hasn't hit any homeruns, but he's already gotten value, especially considering what he was giving up. Liriano for Escobar/Hernandez is already a win even though Hernandez is done. I think you can say the Butera for Nunez (via Sulbaran) is also a win (even though that one isn't a swing for the fences type win). Even if Gilmartin never sniffs the majors, the Gilmartin for Doumit trade was a win. Doumit had a grand total of 157 PAs this season in Atlanta with an OPS well under .600. The Morneau trade might be the closest thing to a loss, but he wasn't lights out for Pittsburg or for MN that year and we still have Johnson in our system as a capable spot starter. The Meyer and May trades are the high profile ones, but they are still TBD, though given the careers of Span and Revere, it won't take a lot of WAR out of either of them for it to be a wash, but I have to think that the odds are in our favor there, even if these guys never reach their ceiling. Likewise, picking up potential good relievers in Adams/Pryor for marginal pieces isn't going to hurt the team either. The big difference between this run and his first run is that he really hasn't fleeced anyone except maybe the WhiteSox.

I still think Rosario has more value in CF or 2B than in LF, in my opinion. I agree there's room if he steps up, but given that he hasn't hit well yet in AA, I don't see him spending any time in the majors until mid-summer at the earliest.

I think this is shortsighted on baseball's part. Yes, the check is a bit bigger, but the long term health of the game would be improved if it was on over the air.

I think he gets a long term deal this offseason. He's got 4 more years of team control, so I'd expect a 5 or 6 year deal. I think he's traded if Polanco or Rosario force the issue.

I'm going to set aside the genetic engineering part b/c I'm not so certain it will work, nor do I agree with the overall premise. That said, I'd like to address this a bit more. The idea of 'protecting' I think is very vague and can have different connotations to different people. You listed 3 groups. Of the three, sex slaves did not choose their profession, and in that I wholeheartedly agree that society should be doing what it can to liberate these inviduals from their predicaments. The other two groups chose their professions for various reasons. Some turn there b/c there's no where else to go (which involves a separate economic discussion), and some do it b/c they can make insane amounts of money. Not all of them live difficult lives, and some live quite nicely. Over my life, I've met people in both or these groups, and I'd argue that they are just as guilty of taking advantage of vulnerable people. If you've ever been to a strip club, you know what I'm talking about. Yes, there's the occasional bachelor party where a group of guys are having fun at the expense of a soon to be married groom, or various other reasons why someone may go, but these clubs are littered with sex-addicts who will shell out every dollar in their pocket if the object of their lust is just flirty enough with them to make them think there's something there. Prostitutes, I'd imagine are the same in that respect. Women (or even the men who choose these prfessions) who can do this well, will make lots of money. I get concerned when we talk about protecting these people. They chose their careers, and many don't want to be protected. I get it from an economic standpoint, if there happens to be no other alternative, but that discussion is an economic one and can be easier solved by fixing the world's economic woes than protection or addressing cultural sexism. Likewise, I'd argue that there are many men who fall victim here too. Sex addition is a very real thing. And I do believe that men are wired to be more prone to this than women (not saying that there aren't female sex addicts out there, just that there's far more male ones). As to your second point, this is wiring. We can debate if this is evolution vs. creation or a human fallen sin nature vs. natural selection, but yes, there is a positive reaction in men towards these actions. Your brain releases dopamine in these circumstances which stimulates the reward/pleasure centers in the brain. For whatever reason, in men, those parts of the brain are easier to activate (or men just do a better job of accessing them, who knows). In the case of an addict, the brain will literally start to re-wire it self over time, requiring better 'fixes' as the addiction progresses. This is true whether it's sex, drugs, or any other addictive stimuli I might add. I'd argue that the people society really needs to address is the addicts, not the people feeding the addiction. To be clear, I don't think there's a 'government' based solution here. But if society really wants to put an end to this, it needs to find a way to treat the individuals who truely do struggle with control. This isn't as simple as cutting off their supply, as there's always a way to fry your brain.

Not sure Hunter is the right answer, but I liked everything else you posted. I think Hunter may try to get on more bigger deal. He can still hit. Not sure I want him playing defense anywhere at this point given the team's need for defense.

There's risk. There's also upside (as 2012 showed us). I don't think anyone would argue that. But you are also looking at younger talent that's more likely to improve (as he did this year) than to get worse. He was already one of the better 3B in the league last season, and while I think he has value, a second season doing that would make him very valuable and allow the Twins time to see if Sano forces the issue. I'd much rather roll the dice with Plouffe who has demonstrated that he can play 3B above average at the MLB level then on Sano who may need time to knock off the rust and hasn't exactly played much in the high minors. This is a decision that should be punted to next season in my opinion.

To be clear, I'm not sold on Tomas, but I think there's some context here worth considering. The Twins OF defense was bad... so bad that every pitcher was signficantly worse than their FIP, including Hughes I might add. If Tomas can be an above average defender while giving an average or slightly better bat in LF, I don't see this as a bad expenditure. It would solve part of the pitching problem at least. Only Arcia is going to be guaranteed a spot in the OF, and while his defense is a work in progress, improving defense in LF and CF would go a long way in reducing some of those runs.

Like Nolasco? I'm being a bit facetious here, but Ricky is a good example why this is tricky business. Once you get beyond Scherzer (and I'm not a fan of Lester at all), I don't see much worth going all in after. I'd be fine dumping Millone for Scherzer, but I don't see the Twins doing this, and I'm not sure Max will want to come here, even though I really do think that the Twins could be competitive with a guy like Max and upgrade in LF and CF (along with normal improvement from the young guys).

Would there be room in the budget to add someone like Matt Kemp to LF? I realize he's overpaid, but he's still an above average ball player and would solve the team's LF problems for the forseable future, especially since he could be had for practically nothing. Given the success of guys like Puig and Abreau, do you see the Twins being a bit more agreesive in the Cuban market to target guys that fit positions of long term need for the organization?

Can I interview for the open manager job?

That one was on Robert E. Lee. Pickett's claim to fame was being the only general involved in Pickett's charge to survive the assault.

There isn't a person in any minor league system that didn't dominate in High School. Just to get you an idea, the best ball player in my high school who was one of the best in our conference never made it out of A after spending a few years in college absolutely dominating that competition as well. The same can be said for college. Even Drew Butera posted a .915 OPS his junior year of college. This is pretty normal for all prospects to do well in HS/College. There's a reason Walker was drafted in the 3rd round. To be clear, I like the guy as a prospect, and if he can get beyond those contact issues, I think he will be a star in MLB. I think he can (at his ceiling) be a Vlad Gurerro type guy, who Ks a lot, but still posts overall good numbers... that assumes he can develop a bit more patience and start laying off pitches that he cannot hit. As a prospect, that makes him a pretty good one, and like someone else said, a few years back, he'd be a top 5 prospect in the system. I'd also note that he'd be in the top 10 for most baseball teams if he were in their systems. He's not at the moment in large part b/c of the depth that exists in the Twins' system. There's nothing wrong with that.

Mike, you may have not been using that word, but your conclusions regarding Meyer and May imply just that. As Ben said, there is a ton of risk when you take on a prospect, especially pitching prospects as there's very little in terms of sure things with them. That's especially true with K guys. There's a reason the Metrodome Twins drafted a ton of soft tossers. They provided less risk, and for a team that couldn't afford to whiff on their first round pick, this was something they could do to minimize that risk. We all have said we wanted to see less of those type of picks, and to the Twin's credit, they've gone out and done it... but let's not turn around and castigate them for doing what we wanted them to do and then expect them to perfectly navigate the risk each time. That's unrealistic.

well said doc. One thing I'd draw from those numbers is that while payroll was high, they put some pretty bad teams on the field in 2011 and 2012. That's going to lead to declining attendance and I woudln't be shocked at all if they were well over the 52% number as fans lost interest and stopped going to games, buying overpriced concessions, and overprised merchandizing. Based on picking up that draft pick, I wouldn't be terribly shocked if they are closer to 50% revenue than they are 30% as some have speculated. I think the Twins will generally strive to keep payrol around the 95M mark when they are winning with a couple of seasons going all in if they are close. That's my 2 cents at least.