James

*slow clap*

I can't agree more. I think Hicks will start on the big league team. Hicks' OBP does look good, but it just seems like that can't be sustainable unless we starts learning how to hit. He has been slow to get going at every level he has been at, and I can see why the adjustment period would be the slowest at the MLB level. Maybe between working with Carew and getting some mentorship from Hunter, he will finally put things together. My guess is he hits a little better to start the season, but the OBP comes down. He ends up hitting about .230 or so in April and part of May before he gets the ax. I hope I'm wrong and he figures it out and breaks out this year, but odds are kind of against it.

That's what I remember. What I was wondering was if other teams that drafted in similarly high positions (and got more eventual WAR from their draftees) were also spending close to the signing bonus recommendations, or did some regularly spend more allowing them to sign players that other teams had passed on due to "signability" issues. I don't think that would completely explain why it looks like the Twins did not do as well in the draft. I'm just wondering if that was contributing factor. I mean, even high priced prospects end up being busts, right?

This was a very good article. It was an interesting analysis, and made some very good points. I'd be curious to see how this changes post 2012 bonus pool limits. I have a feeling that some teams probably didn't select a player because they wanted more money than their recommended slot bonus, which may have left the door open for a higher revenue team to spend more at a later draft position. Hence, some team may have gotten a 10 5 or 10 talent much later in the draft because they could outspend smaller market teams on bonuses. I haven't looked at all the signing bonus data, so I don't know if this is the case or not though. I think I remember the Twins not liking to go over the slot recommendations during that time though. Jut another possible factor to mention.

I had a great time last year, and this year's lineup of guests sounds great. Unfortunately, I have to go a friend's wedding. I know, it's very selfish of him to get married the same day as the winter meltdown, but not everyone is as selfless as I am. Is there a plan to have another summer meetup like the one before the Home Run Derby?

I think you're pretty much on point with what I am expecting. I don't think I could have said it better myself. I don't think that they'll bring up Buxton just for ticket sales though. I think they know ticket sales are going to be bad unless they win games. I don't think they would mess with Buxton's development for a improved ticket sales for a few games. I think Sano will be drawing a big enough crowd for the Twins not to worry about this anyway.

I can't agree more with this. Game threads are really fun, but sometimes a little random. It's a great way to goof around, talk a little baseball and crack some jokes. It's definitely a great way to keep in touch with the TD community and make a long season more interesting. All these dates make sense to me. I'm pretty sure my productivity was at a low point on those days as I was posting, reading, refreshing TD all day. This was cool to see. It'll be interesting to see if some of the busiest dates are similar in 2015.

I don't think anyone should be too concerned over this move. Stauffer seems to have some decent numbers. I haven't seen him pitch, so I can't tell anyone how good or bad he is. If the young guys are really ready to the big league club, they'll show it in spring training or shortly after. I guarantee that someone in the bullpen will be struggling at that time and there will be a spot open. Personally, I don't think Stauffer will make it past the first half of the season. I see one of two things happening: 1. Stauffer has a really good first half and proves he's a back end reliever. He is traded to a contending team and replaced with a AAA guy that is dominant. 2. Stauffer has an ok or bad season, and he is released or outrighted and claimed and replaced with a AAA guy that is dominant. Basically, $2.2M isn't a whole lot of money for this team. So, they're not going to be too upset if he doesn't work out and they have to eat half of that. It's also not a lot of money for any other team either, so he would end up being a fairly attractive trade candidate if he's pitching really well. I just don't see a lot of downside to this signing. Sure, not the highest upside either, but you never know. No one thought much of Burton or Fien when they were first signed to minor league deals and Fien worked out and Burton actually had a good first season with the Twins. It's just hard for me to get to hung up on a one year deal, especially when some of the names people are throwing out there as alternatives have hardly pitched above AA, and the others have little to no experience in the big leagues.

I would imagine that they are probably working on a Dozier extension right now actually. It would reward him by giving him more than league minimum this year and buy out his arb years. I could also see both Dozier and the Twins waiting until next year to work out an extension when he finally hits arbitration. Plouffe is harder to figure out. It certainly seems like he might be without a position here shortly. Tough to say what exactly will happen with him. As far as Hughes goes, I like this deal a lot. I'm really excited to watch him be in the rotation for the next few years. I know that we can't expect the same results as last year, but I think he's going to be a solid pitcher for the next few years. Definitely think he'll be worth the amount of money he's going to be paid over that time.

This is a pretty interesting article. The data shows players getting called up from 2005 - 2009, so it is already 5 years old. There is something to be said about the prospects of that era as well. For comparison, from 2002 to 2009, the Twins never drafted earlier than 20th overall. In comparison, Tampa, which was much more aggressive in promoting, drafted in the top 5 in all but two of those years (and one year was 2005 where they drafted 8th). That also includes 3 #1 overall picks. So, someone could make the claim that the better talent they were receiving in the draft allowed them to promote players more aggressively. I'd really like to see this data from 2010 - 2014. I would expect that the Twins have moved further down the list and will be for a few more years.

I admit, I was reluctant to go after Santana, but it's articles like this that are making me already come around on him, and he hasn't even pitched a game for the Twins yet. Great work, as usual, Parker.

I'm quite bullish about both of those guys. I think May made some strides at the end of last season. Don't get me wrong, the first few were ugly. Ugly is an understatement. But the last few were much better and showed promise. I was hoping to see some Kyle Gibson-esque strides from him this year (as in a similar improvement from year one to year two). I'm also hoping to see Meyer. I don't know where they'll fit them both in, but I'm sure that will work itself out somehow. As for Santana, I can say I wasn't looking forward to it, but it's already growing on me.

My point about the Twins adding payroll was meant for those complaining that they hadn't added payroll had gotten what they wanted. That is all. The Twins could have,in theory,traded for a pitcher that makes league minimum and improved the team and winning more games without increasing they payroll. What if,the 2015 Twins lose 90 games again? Does that mean they didn't add enough payroll, or that does that mean it payroll isn't as highly correlated to wins as you are claiming? As a Twins fan, I don't care what the payroll is, I just want the team to win. I agree with you that it is all about adding assets (talent), but assets are added in many ways in baseball. Not just spending money on free agents.

But not adding payroll doesn't necessarily lose you games either. That's what I'm trying to say. It might in some cases, but payroll overall isn't a good predictor of wins/losses. Moot point as the Twins just bumped up the payroll. Hopefully it's more tolerable and a better product.

Gilmartin wasn't on the 40-man roster, which is why the Mets were able to claim him. Graham will be on the 40-man roster, and will have to be on the 25-man MLB roster all season for him to be controlled by the Twins. If he doesn't stay on the MLB roster the entire season, Graham has to be offered back to the Braves for $25K (The Twins had to pay $50K to grab him in this draft). If for some reason the Braves don't want to pay the money, he now under control of the Twins and they are free to option him to the minors.

You're right, it doesn't mean must. I generally don't speak in absolutes like that. Confidence intervals are usually my thing. What I was basically trying to get at was that wins aren't strongly correlated to dollars spent. Is there some correlation? Probably. To do this topic just would take some statistics that could be done, I just don't have the time at the moment. My argument is more that since the correlation isn't a strong correlation, payroll isn't a very good predictor or wins or losses. Most of the payroll arguments that I read are trying to connect the Twins lower payroll with the cause of the Twins losing. I'm trying to say it's more a by-product of the Twins losing (and replacing players with younger, cheaper player) rather than the cause.

I think the problem is that they payroll hasn't gone up while the team has been bad. I don't think people would really be complaining about the payroll at all if the Twins were still winning games. I agree with you Mike, it probably wouldn't have crippled the team to add contracts 3-5 years ago (besides Willingham). I actually think that 3-5 year deals tend to be about perfect lengths for contracts. The problem with arguments about payroll is that they end up trying to correlate losses with lack of payroll, which logic would follow that higher payroll must mean more wins. But we all know that this isn't true either. Which must mean that there is some other independent reason that is causing them to lose. And all this ranting as the Twins add to the payroll by agreeing to a deal with Ervin Santana that fits in that 3-5 year range.

Vodka Dave is right. The fans aren't shareholders. They're customers. Pocketing money from customers is exactly what businesses do. My point was payroll isn't the biggest reason for the Twins losing in recent years. I also agree that the Twins management shouldn't be avoiding free agents just because payroll doesn't win games.

Remember, Gilmartin has to stick with the team for the entire year or be returned, and most Rule V guys don't stick with their selected team. I'm betting that Gilmartin will be back in the Twins organization before the end of the year. Most likely, before the end of spring training.

Ahh. A good payroll conversation again, huh? There are arguments for both sides, spend or don't spend. I agree that I would like the Twins to me a bit more open and honest about contracts, but there are some things they can't say in public, because they still do need to maintain a relationship with other GMs, so I can see why they tend not to say much about other deals. The argument that I hate to hear is, "The Twins don't spend money and that's why they're losing". We all know this isn't the reason they are losing, because if all it took was to spend money, we would have seen a Dodgers vs Yankees world series last year, and the Phillies wouldn't have spent almost $100 million dollars more than the Twins to win 3 more games. I'm not saying that I agree with the way that the Twins have been spending their money, I'm saying that they payroll isn't the main cause of the Twins problems. The one argument that is not valid at all is people complaining that "The Pohlads are operating the Twins as a business." I really hate to break this to those people, but the Twins are, in fact, a business. In fact, all 30 MLB teams are, in fact, businesses. If you expect the owners to run their teams as anything other than a business, then your setting yourself up to be disappointed.

News today that the Twins are on Bruce's limited no trade clause. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/11/details-on-jay-bruces-no-trade-clause.html I had other issues with this idea, but they are kind of a moot point now that this came out.

Good job with this one. I enjoyed the shorter format. It really moved.

I need to see some pictures of these before I come to a conclusion. As long as they aren't the "Turn Ahead the Clock" Jerseys, I think we'll be fine. http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzLDBQyPhT9ZapmYx5Kmh9xIUb88xSNWmkQzT5Mu0JC0Ewj-TxeA

What are the odds that they bring Bruno back as a hitting coach? (I know it depends on who the manager will be). Are you two going to watching the world series while you're doing the chat tonight? I mean, come on guys! It's a big deal! Why aren't you watching it? With the Twins pulling Sano out of the winter leagues, do you see this as: Sano having some sort of setback? not progressing as fast as they had hoped? the Twins not wanting to give up control of the rehab of one of their top prospects? Please provide some wild speculation.

The important question is, did you take him up on his offer?