well, everyone except those who defend everything the Twins management does or doesn't do.  Those guys won't be complaining.

 

Neither will unicorns and other mythical creatures.

Okay, enough with the strawmen arguments about theoretical posters, people. Taking veiled cheapshots at other posters by using generalizations and obscuring your target (but not really obscuring it because we all know who you're talking about) is not okay.

 

This applies to both sides of the debate. Keep it on topic or shut your trap.

 

Neither will unicorns and other mythical creatures.

are those like the same mythical creatures you sighted when you said everyone will complain no matter and that will be fun?  

 

Indians are playing way under their abilities, Tigers are sliding for sure, and I expected some sliding this year, but I'm not counting them out for the next couple year.  I figured the White Sox would stink and they do.  I don't think our window for next year is huge at all because we have lots of concerns ourselves.  We can't assume everything goes right for us and everyone else drops off.  KCs window is going to last at least a couple more seasons and our rebuild is still a bit aways (and that's before all the adjustment times happen, like most players need).

 

Indians play under their abilities almost every year. Maybe we need a new metric of what actually represents a teams abilities.

 

But I do agree with you the window is not huge at the moment, mostly because the Twins aren't clearly that good. The opportunity is there and the Twins are probably the team best positioned in the division to take advantage of it.

 

are those like the same mythical creatures you sighted when you said everyone will complain no matter and that will be fun?  

 

Nope, that was hyperbole meant as a joke in response to the fact there really is no consensus to what the Twins should do.

 

I don't think Ryan can win.

Edited July 27, 201511 yr by drjim

 

Indians play under their abilities almost every year. Maybe we need a new metric of what actually represents a teams abilities.

 

But I do agree with you the window is not huge at the moment, mostly because the Twins aren't clearly that good. The opportunity is there and the Twins are probably the team best positioned in the division to take advantage of it.

I'm not sure what they've done historically really applies to now, considering how much rosters change over 30 years, but they won 92 games in 2013 and 85 in 2014, so pretty recently their talent was winning games. Not much roster change between last year and this and their young rotation got more experience.  Pretty confident in saying they are underperforming.

 

Nope, that was hyperbole meant as a joke in response to the fact there really is no consensus to what the Twins should do.

 

I don't think Ryan can win.

He can win by the team actually showing signs they can consistently be a true playoff contender (which having one great month doesn't do), but besides that, maybe not for some.  I'd rather discuss how he does move to move (or not move as the case may be).

 

 Are you implying the Twins fail because they haven't outbid the absolute top teams for free agents. Unrealistic.

Agree. Keep in mind that free agency is the anti-draft. The player chooses the team, not the other way around. While the size of the offer is certainly a factor I think every top-tier free agent looks first at the team's likelihood of strong contention in the upcoming 1-2 seasons. That's why the Twins never bothered trying to pursue Scherzer. He wouldn't have come here for double what the Nats offered him. And that's why I think things will be different for us during the next few off-seasons. Most baseball people see us as a team on the rise, possibly one of the top three teams in that sense, along with Houston and the Cubs. Couple that with the changes in revenue sharing compared with years past and I think we'll have a much better, more realistic, shot at free agents during the next five years than we've ever had.

 

 Top 3-4 starter available last offseason.

 

Are you implying the Twins fail because they haven't outbid the absolute top teams for free agents. Unrealistic.

I don't define "elite" as what the market offers in any given offseason (or trade deadline).  That's how you get "elite" signings like Barry Zito.

 

I am implying the Twins fail in that they don't bid at all for top free agents, ever.  That's an avenue of improvement that should not be closed to the Twins, not due to lack of baseball smarts, and not due to lack of revenue.  Same with international amateurs, pre-2009, or drafts pre-slotting.

 

That's why the Twins never bothered trying to pursue Scherzer. He wouldn't have come here for double what the Nats offered him.

I know it is hyperbole, but yes, he would have come here for double, if we had made that offer.  I think 10-20% more would do it, in most cases.

 

How about Cliff Lee as a FA after 2010?  We were allegedly willing to rent him for Hicks + Ramos a few months earlier, but not willing to bid straight cash on him?  We had a winning team at the time.

Edited July 27, 201511 yr by spycake

 

While the size of the offer is certainly a factor I think every top-tier free agent looks first at the team's likelihood of strong contention in the upcoming 1-2 seasons.

I also think this is a bit of a chicken-and-egg statement.  Contenders are often the only ones who bid seriously, due to the conservative approaches of the Twins and others.  Those are often the only real options for a player.

 

I don't define "elite" as what the market offers in any given offseason (or trade deadline).  That's how you get "elite" signings like Barry Zito.

 

I am implying the Twins fail in that they don't bid at all for top free agents, ever.  That's an avenue of improvement that should not be closed to the Twins, not due to lack of baseball smarts, and not due to lack of revenue.  Same with international amateurs, pre-2009, or drafts pre-slotting.

 

One of those price points is not in the same stratosphere as the others.

 

I also think this is a bit of a chicken-and-egg statement.  Contenders are often the only ones who bid seriously, due to the conservative approaches of the Twins and others.  Those are often the only real options for a player.

 

And according to most interviews, the Twins (and many other clubs) often don't even make an "offer" but instead have "dialogue" regarding players.  It would seem actual offers only happen at the last moment once a deal is close to certain.

 

One of those price points is not in the same stratosphere as the others.

No doubt.  But look at how long it took the Twins to come around on paying international amateurs and draft picks (and a lot of it by coercion, with caps and slotting).

 

That suggests to me that their risk evaluation is sub-optimal.

 

No doubt.  But look at how long it took the Twins to come around on paying international amateurs and draft picks (and a lot of it by coercion, with caps and slotting).

 

That suggests to me that their risk evaluation is sub-optimal.

 

Like many things, they started paying more as soon as Target Field was on the horizon.

 

No doubt.  But look at how long it took the Twins to come around on paying international amateurs and draft picks (and a lot of it by coercion, with caps and slotting).

 

That suggests to me that their risk evaluation is sub-optimal.

With Cubans and the Asian markets, I'd agree. The Twins have not performed as well as they need to in those regards.

 

But with the traditional international market, I don't think they've had the wrong approach. They go big when they think it fits (Sano, now Javier) and routinely go for quantity over expensive quality (Kepler, Polanco, etc etc... the list is as long as my arm) when that suits their purposes.

 

No matter whether you agree with their strategy or not, it's a strategy and "cheap" doesn't seem to be the prevailing aspect of it... They target players they like and pursue them. Sometimes those players are really expensive but most of the time, the Twins have opted for multiple $500k-$1.5m guys over the big splash of a $3m+ guy... Though they're not averse to that in the right situation, either.

 

When you're rebuilding a depleted farm system, I'm not sure that isn't the best approach, money be damned. If you need players and lots of 'em, it makes all the sense in the world to pursue five $750k guys over one $3.5m guy, knowing that it's going to be 5+ years until any of them make the majors.

Not true, Brock. I did an analysis. They sign one top guy, then a bunch for less than 350K. It is somewhere on another thread. Since Ryan took over, it is one big guy, several cheap guys.

Edited July 27, 201511 yr by mike wants wins

 

Not true, Brock. I did an analysis. They sign one top guy, then a bunch for less than 350K. It is somewhere on another thread. Since Ryan took over, it is one big guy, several cheap guys.

Interesting. Did you happen to compile a list? I'd be interested in taking a look at it.

With International FAs I wouldn't mind busting the budget over 3 years, but I also accept spending the cap each year. I don't mind a mix of strategies from year to year depending on how they value players, but the key is they should spend the cap. I don't know if anyone has the exact figure, but they more or less do that, don't they?

With International FAs I wouldn't mind busting the budget over 3 years, but I also accept spending the cap each year. I don't mind a mix of strategies from year to year depending on how they value players, but the key is they should spend the cap. I don't know if anyone has the exact figure, but they more or less do that, don't they?

I seem to recall they are close to or at the cap most seasons. It's hard to remember because the signing period is so damned long.

 

Interesting. Did you happen to compile a list? I'd be interested in taking a look at it.

 

I'll see if I can find it when I'm not at work

 

They are right up against the cap most years, that's not an issue.

Like many things, they started paying more as soon as Target Field was on the horizon.

They didn't spend anything internationally until Target Field was almost open, four years after it was approved. And I am not sure they ever broke slot on a draft pick, until the spending caps.

With Cubans and the Asian markets, I'd agree. The Twins have not performed as well as they need to in those regards.

 

But with the traditional international market, I don't think they've had the wrong approach. They go big when they think it fits (Sano, now Javier) and routinely go for quantity over expensive quality (Kepler, Polanco, etc etc... the list is as long as my arm) when that suits their purposes.

 

No matter whether you agree with their strategy or not, it's a strategy and "cheap" doesn't seem to be the prevailing aspect of it... They target players they like and pursue them. Sometimes those players are really expensive but most of the time, the Twins have opted for multiple $500k-$1.5m guys over the big splash of a $3m+ guy... Though they're not averse to that in the right situation, either.

 

When you're rebuilding a depleted farm system, I'm not sure that isn't the best approach, money be damned. If you need players and lots of 'em, it makes all the sense in the world to pursue five $750k guys over one $3.5m guy, knowing that it's going to be 5+ years until any of them make the majors.

I meant international pre-2009. But yeah, add Cuba and Asia to markets where the Twins likely had/have an erroneous assessment of risk. (Even after Target Field opened)

 

I don't recall anyone saying we should be aggressive at the deadline the past 4 seasons.  At least, not aggressive buyers.

 

No aggressive the other way.  How much was said last year about the Twins holding on to Suzuki and Perkins?  Willingham and Doumit the year before?

 

routinely go for quantity over expensive quality (Kepler, Polanco, etc etc... the list is as long as my arm) when that suits their purposes.

 

.

Why choose just one though? With the loophole you can have both quality and quantity.

 

When people say, "We should be conservative at the deadline this year because we're not that good", it bothers me because we've heard before (and will probably hear again) from the team that "we are being conservative because we're already good enough."

 

Basically, the way this front office has operated, there is always a justification for conservatism.  There's never going to be a "right" time to them to be aggressive at the deadline, or bid on an elite FA.

+1

 

Concur.

I would add that I have never agreed with the philosophy of "we have too many holes to fill any of them. "

If you have three holes, and fill one, now you have two. That's better than three.

 

I agree that if you have three holes to fill, try and fill them and if you fill one that is good.  But I would weigh everything between odds of contention with one hole filled vs. what you are giving up.  If we had a more realistic shot at winning the division, which would also put us in a good WC spot than I would be more inclined to make a trade.  Right now I think we have very long odds in the division.  We are behind a team that has out-classed us and just got better.

 

Now if we can get guys that have deals into 2016 and beyond let's do it.  Beniot is a guy I like a lot.  $8M next year with a good ERA since 2010, with roughly 9 K per 9.

 

2010   1.34 ERA

2011   2.95 ERA

2012    3.68 ERA

2013    2.01 ERA

2014   1.49 ERA

2015    2.27 ERA

 

I would mix him and Perkins in the 8th and 9th depending on matchups.  Benoit has a career OPS against of .447 against righties (.590 against lefties is still good).  So when Alex Rodriguez comes up in a game where he has already hit 2 HR....for example.