mazeville

Another name on the list: Royals Assistant GM J.J. Picollo, per Jon Heyman. No, I haven't heard of him, either. http://www.todaysknuckleball.com/inside-baseball-with-jon-heyman/heyman-royals-picollo-candidate-twins-front-office/

Most of the examples he provided are not quite comparable. Either the players play a different position (Donaldson, Frazier) or they're in different parts of their careers. The best comparable he lists is the Kinsler-for-Fielder trade. That trade looks terrible in hindsight. But Fielder had played in all 162 games for three straight years and was a stud, middle-of-the-order bat. It was a good return for Kinsler at the time. That is not, however, the type of deal you'd expect any new POBO to make. In the Donaldson trade, the A's didn't have a third baseman in waiting and got Lowrie in return, which probably reduced the return the team received. The Frazier trade was just bad from the Reds end, even considering the allegedly low price third basemen receive. FWIW. Andrelton Simmons had one really good year and a bunch of meh years and only once has had an OPS of over .700. Ben Zoborist is older than Dozier. Martin Prado has never had a Dozier-like year. I get the comparisons. I understand the need to analyze what type of return Dozier might fetch on the open market. But you always analyze the market. The Twins have a guy who could slot in as a very solid second baseman next year in Jorge Polanco. The team is unlikely to contend in the two years before Dozier hits free agency. They have little else that would appeal to a potential trade partner. You MUST look at trading Dozier in the offseason. If you don't get a good return, you can always keep him and see if you can't set yourself up for a run in 2018.

I find this immensely frustrating. OBVIOUSLY you look to trade a guy and see what you get. If you don't get what you feel is good value, you don't trade the guy. It's that simple. This idea that the Twins somehow can't trade Dozier because previous trades didn't work out well is a silly idea. Few of those prior examples are quite on the same level of Dozier because of his contract and his position. Ian Kinsler fetched Prince Fielder, by the way, who at the time was a major, middle-of-the-order bat. So I'm not sure why that's even an example. The Twins would be stupid not to explore a Dozier trade this offseason. If they don't get good value, they should not do it. End of story.

I remain convinced that this is untrue. The bigger problem was Terry Ryan, who was not aggressive and thus didn't target top free agents or make trades for top talent (like Alfonso Soriano when the team was contending and needed some power). I'm not saying ownership here is not at fault for the team's problems. It absolutely is. But I still don't think spending is the issue. It is quality of oversight. Poor drafts, not making trades when players are at top value, not aggressively bidding for international free agents, weirdly holding onto players, not adapting to changing times, etc. Those have been the team's problems. And I believe a good POBO could fix this and get the ability to make moves necessary to improve the team's record without being "hamstrung" by ownership. I believe this job could be highly attractive. I get why Alex Anthopoulos wouldn't take this gig -- he just moved to LA, after all. But this team is loyal. It has a new stadium, a good base of young talent, and some big contracts coming off the books in the next couple of years. And the media market is far easier on teams here than, say, New York or Boston or LA or Chicago. This team should be able to attract a good POBO. Period.

Fully agree with that. Bad teams should sign low risk, high reward guys to short-term deals. I just don't think you can depend on free agency to rebuild.

The comment I was responding to said you sign a free agent and then built around that FA. That's backwards. You build a team and then sign a FA. You want to devote as much roster space to young, inexpensive players when you're not good to see whether some of those guys can work out and to ensure you get better draft positions to get good players. Spending a lot of money on a single player for a bad team can give that team a couple of wins that won't help it make the playoffs while hurting draft position and reducing the budget teams get for international free agents. And it blocks those young players. Joe Mauer has not gotten the Twins into the playoffs in the past six years. His contract is not hurting the team necessarily. But he is taking up a first base slot that could have been used for Kennys Vargas or Miguel Sano. (I'm a big Mauer fan, by the way and have no problem with the contract he signed given his performance in 2009 and the team's position; this is just an example.) Mauer had 5.3 WAR in 2013. Had he been placed with a 2 WAR player the Twins would have drafted 3rd in 2014 instead of 5th and could have had Carlos Rodon or Kyle Schwarber instead of Nick Gordon. No guarantee the team drafts them, but draft position MATTERS. And going into 2013, the Twins were going to be terrible. More to the point, free agents are typically older, meaning that in the time it takes that aforementioned bad team to start gelling, said FA might well be past his prime and not as effective. It's inefficient spending. So building "around" those free agents is just backwards. You get the team to the point where the free agents can take it to the next level. That's what the Cubs did. So yes, it does hurt teams to sign big free agents when they're bad.

Absolutely not. Name one team that successfully did that and I will name 10 that did the exact opposite. So I guess here I go: The Chicago Cubs this year; the 1990s Yankees; early 2000s Twins; Kansas City Royals; current Cleveland Indians; current Boston Red Sox; current Houston Astros; 1990s Cleveland Indians; 2011 St. Louis Cardinals; 2012 San Francisco Giants. In each of those cases they developed their own players and made key trades and, in some but not all cases, signed free agents to supplement their rosters. That is, by far, the best way to build a team. You don't just go out, throw $200 million at a pitcher, and expect to contend next year. You need a LOT of players to build a successful team.

Agree, which is why big free agent deals should be reserved for when you KNOW you'll be in contention. But there's a big difference between the $55 million Santana got and the $200 million for those guys.

I agree Greinke probably comes back. But I don't like either his or Scherzer's contract. Those are $200 million deals for 30-something pitchers. No way those deals are worth it at the end ...

He hasn't had those plate appearances at the top of the order for some time. He needs more at-bats. The team has had him at the bottom of the order -- for good reason, as he hasn't earned top-of-the-order status -- all season. I'd put him at the top to see how things go this time, assuming improvement. And then I'd leave him alone.

They overpaid badly for two pitchers. They sent too many prospects to Atlanta for Shelby Miller and signed Greinke to a contract that was far too big for a 32-year-old pitcher. Worse, the team could have traded Miller for prospects at the deadline and didn't to save face, and could have traded Greinke back to the Dodgers. They didn't. Not saying they deserve this. But they sort of deserve this.

Frankly, I want people like Plouffe and Mauer playing less and guys like Polanco, Vargas and Beresford playing more. This team is going to lose 100 games. Buxton CF Polanco SS Mauer 1B Dozier 2B Sano 3B Vargas DH Kepler RF Rosario LF Murphy C

It's time to quit babying him. Put him at the top spot in the order for a few games and see what you've got.

I think Dozier's second half is proof positive why one single player cannot a great team make. Dozier is having one of the best seasons any second baseman has ever had, and yet the Twins are on pace to lose 100 games. This team NEEDS pitchers badly. The good thing is Dozier is at peak value and should command a pretty hefty package in a trade. As much as I'd hate seeing him go, I think you trade him for pitching.

Agree with the others. The Twins are not contending next year. The new POBO will have to deal with that reality. And that means trading people like Brian Dozier and Ervin Santana. Dozier is likely the only player who could fetch a decent haul. Santana less so, but he's still at peak value. Well, he was at peak value at the trade deadline. Heck, I'm not entirely sure there's anybody on that team I wouldn't consider trading at this point. A 100-loss team after a lengthy run of poor seasons should not get too picky.

Mike Berardino mentioned 40-man roster constraints in explaining why Garver won't be a Sept. callup. This is a big problem for the Twins, I think. He deserves at least some consideration.

Yeah, I get that. I'm tired of the losing. I really wanted a winning team this year. But I also believe the Twins should have tanked more; waited to sign free agents instead of the half-hearted approach they made a couple of years ago; and been more aggressive in signing younger players and draft picks. So, while losing bad sucks and I would much rather they win games, even now, at least we can hang our hat on the idea that they'll get a player who can help for several years. Or at least I can hope.

The Twins have been ugly all season. And while I'd much rather see them win, at least we'll end up with the top draft pick. Or No. 2, along with plenty of money to spend on picks. The hope is that the new POBO will use those picks, and that money, wisely.

But we're now talking about five years that "just aren't" the Twins' in six years. This is going to be a 100-loss season. That's not bad luck. That's bad everything. Phil Hughes got hurt this year. But he wasn't good last year. Moving Sano to the outfield was a bad idea all around. Signing Park wasn't that bad of a move. But signing Park when you have a logjam of players who would be better off playing DH was an unnecessary expenditure for a team that desperately needed more pitching, more catching and more defense. Trading Hicks and not Trevor Plouffe when Buxton was a giant question mark heading into the season was a bad decision. I'll buy it that bad luck had something to do with the team's run of bad seasons. But this team has also made some really questionable decisions.

You're not reading the same site I am. I've read plenty of criticism here about Sano's work ethic. Regardless, five 90-loss seasons in six years is not simply due to players. It suggests the team is failing to draft well, develop well or manage well, or likely some ugly combination of the three. It also suggests a systematic problem. That BEGS for criticism of the front office and those decisions. This team has not remotely earned the benefit of the doubt. The vast majority -- not just most -- of this team's moves in recent years have totally backfired. * The decision to keep Plouffe: Fail. * Signing Ervin Santana: Fine * Signing Phil Hughes to a three-year deal: Fine * Signing Phil Hughes to an extension: Disaster * Signing Kurt Suzuki to an extension: Fail * Signing Ricky Nolasco: Fail * Signing Byung Ho Park: Fail * Signing Mike Pelfrey: Fail * Signing Kevin Correia: Fail * Putting Sano in the outfield: Fail * Development of Max Kepler: Good * Development of Byron Buxton: Fail * Development of Jose Berrios: Fail I could go on. How on Earth you expect people on this site to somehow give the front office a free pass and simply blame the players is beyond me. It's the GM's job to collect these players. If the vast majority of those players are not doing their jobs, then the problem goes directly to the front office.

Yeah, but that's Boston. BOSTON. That comparison doesn't count ...

Wait. You're complaining about a post complaining about moves made by a team that is well on its way to its fifth 90-loss season in six years -- and quite possibly a 100-loss season? Should people on this site just cheerlead every move they make? Really? In my view, bloggers on this site -- and too many fans -- have been TOO patient with this team. The perfect example of this was Terry Ryan. Many writers on this site gave him a pass when it came to constructing this team, even though he made several questionable free agent signings at a time when the team should have focused on development. They gave him all the credit for building the farm system even as other teams that were big losers at the time the Twins made their freefall have surged into contention behind the emergence of young players. Don't like all the negativity? Root for a winning team.

I can't agree with this post enough. This team doesn't appear to have an identity and the FO doesn't appear to have a plan, or at least a good one. Too many question markets. Too many weird decisions. Too many holes. I'm really hopeful that the new president of baseball operations will fix things. But I've got a sneaking suspicion it will take some time.

No it isn't. The overall point remains valid. It remains to be seen that the Twins' draft picks from 2012 through 2015 will generate the same type of performance as the Cubs' picks from that particular era. I included 2011 because, well, why the hell not. But I'd gladly disregard that year if it would make you happy. And the Twins' 2011 draft was awful, even for their draft position. Most of their drafts from previous years were also awful, even when factoring in their draft position those years. The entire point: The team's run of awfulness is now in its sixth year -- five of six years if you factor out last year's false positive. And NONE of the team's draft picks from those years have have any impact on this year's team, unless it's been a bad impact. Houston, Chicago, Baltimore and others have all at least had some positive impact from kids drafted during their mediocre years. And neither Stewart nor Gordon have exactly blown away the competition in the minors ...

That's a real low bar you're setting there. The Twins have been bad for several years now. When they get these high draft picks, they have to hit on them. Only two players in the team's draft from those four straight 90-loss seasons, Buxton and Berrios, have made the majors. Neither has done particularly well. Meanwhile, EACH of the Chicago Cubs' top draft picks from 2011 through 2014 are currently in the majors, contributing strongly to the big league club. Want to know the difference between the Twins and the Cubs? It's not how much money the teams are spending. Its their respective abilities to hit on draft picks and young players. I understand it's way too early to call either Berrios or Buxton a bust. And I'm certainly not writing off Tyler Jay. But this team cannot afford to have mediocre draft results when it has high draft choices. That is not going to fly. You have to hit on those guys. Period.