Article: On The Twins' Cheapness And Showing Your Work

[mickeymental]

 

Most commenters seem to think that assembling a roster is kind of like going to the grocery store. Just grab a cart and check your list then head for the shelves.

plus, not only are other shoppers eyeing that lone bottle of heinz ketchup on the shelf -- but also, it often doesn't matter how much you're willing to pay. you don't just grab the bottle and head to checkout. that bottle, for whatever reason, must want to jump into YOUR cart.

[REPETE]

I also agree with the crux of this article.  Twins had a great run in a bad division through the 2000's.  The bottom dropped out 2011, and was completely unexpected, mainly due to a rash of injuries.  Everyone figured 2011 was an aberration for a good team, and they'd bounce back in 2012.  Alas, they sucked again, and everyone blamed the FO for not spending $$.  Money wasn't the problem, the good times just ran their course.   

At that point, I agreed, there was no reason for the team to throw good money after bad.  It wouldn't have made a difference.  Should they have spent $$ this offseason?  I'm good with "no", as we have young talent to hopefully fit the bill, if not this year, then next.    

The REAL question of how much should we love or hate the Pohlads is what happens over the next five years.  If they're in contention this year, do they make a mid-season move?  Maybe not, as the following years are our window.  I'm good with that (depending on the circumstances, obviously).    

What the Pohlads do next offseason is the real question.  Will they get us a front-line starter to anchor what should be a decent starting staff.  Do they spend money and fill a glaring hole in the lineup?  

How soon, and for how long do they pay Sano & Buxton?  Or do they say they can't afford long expensive contracts (see J Mauer) and trade them for prospects?  Or do they say "we can't afford free agents today because Sano & Buxton paydays are coming?  

I'm ok with not spending money over 90+ loss seasons with nothing in the cupboard, but if you're going to allow those seasons to happen, they'd better SPEND the money when the team has a legitimate shot at a ring. 

 

 

[tobi0040]

 

And the Twins seemed to be drawing a hard line well south of that this winter, without a rumored offer or strong rumored interest in any reliever beyond a $4 mil total commitment.

 

And even that interest was a complete joke.  They "were interested" in a one year, $3-4 million dollar contract for a guy the market paid 2-12.  

 

They were interested in paying 33% of one guys market value.

[Bill Parker]

 

My point is you never know when things are going to click/you get a bit lucky. Is it impossible to imagine that Nishi/Nolasco/whoever played better than they did and instead of them costing us games they won us ones and the Twins found themselves having a chance? I think it's silly to assume you have no chance and therefore avoid making moves that can help you because you suspect it won't help you enough when you're sitting on all that money. So I don't think it's any more cheating than looking back on the bad seasons to say "See, you never know. This is why you spend that money."

Which gets back to my other point, which is that spending that money on a chance that you might be better than you think NOW almost always has consequences for the future. You can't typically JUST spend the money you're sitting on this year, you're also committing to paying that player (usually the same or a larger amount) in future years, when he won't be as good and/or as good a fit.

 

To cherrypick a couple of yjjj54's cherrypicked examples above, you could've signed one of Brian McCann or Russell Martin, two catchers who signed at or over 30 to five-plus year deals that, by the end of them, will be paying them $17 and $20 million a year, respectively, and who have already shown signs of decline. And as it turned out, he might have been enough of an improvement over Suzuki to help get you to the postseason in 2015. But he'll still be around in 2018, and at $17 or $20 million, he'll probably still be your starting catcher in 2018, even though there's no reason to believe he'll be any better then than Suzuki is now. So you've stuck yourself with what will probably be a bad catcher at best or a total $20 million loss at worst, at a time when you expect to have Buxton, Sano, Berrios et al. at or near their peak. There are times in the competitive cycle when that kind of tradeoff makes a lot of sense--I think Martin was a great move for the Blue Jays, given where they were at the time--but the Twins coming into 2015 just weren't at that level. It would've been a dumb gamble that happened to pay off, for now. 

 

Again, that's not to say there aren't moves that *would* have been a good idea, I just think the combination of sandbun's and yjjj54's recent comments provide a really good illustration of how "you never know--that's why you spend that money" is, generally speaking, a disastrous attitude in baseball.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

What I'm arguing is that coming into 2015, it looked a bit better, but not all that much different than it did coming into 2012-14. What actually happened was very unexpected, and probably a bit lucky. So yeah, it's cheating to look at the 2015 results and try to retroactively make decisions for them, when no one could reasonably have expected those results.

With the Santana, Hunter, and Suzuki contracts, plus the $42 mil "bonus" for Phil Hughes after his first season in Minnesota, it doesn't take a whole lot of hindsight to see expectations for 2015 were quite a bit different than 2012-2014.

 

I don't have any real quibble with total payroll or big FA pursuits, although I think the team is picking some odd spots to selectively stay tight-budget-minded even as they return to relevance (i.e. the bullpen).

[Bill Parker]

 

How are those contracts similar?  All for 4 years, but Nolasco is $4.5 mil AAV ahead of O'Day's deal, and Santana is a full $6 mil AAV ahead.  If $9 mil is large enough to block an addition to a hypothetical 2018 star-studded team, isn't a $4.5-$6 mil AAV contract difference pretty important?

Absolutely true, that was a lazy comparison on my part. Literally very lazy, as in I didn't bother to look up the Nolasco and Santana deals. $9 million is still plenty, though, as the rest of your other comment illustrates.

[drjim]

 

I have two complaints about their spending during the past few seasons. To the best of my knowledge, the Twins have neither:
1) Paid the salary (either in full or just part) of a veteran player that they were trading away to potentially get a better return. Maybe they could have gotten back two prospects for Span instead of just one if they had agreed to pay half his salary. Maybe they could have received a better return (or at least had more teams interested) for Willingham, Morneau or Liriano if they would have covered their salary for the rest of the season.
2) Taken on a bad contract from another team in an attempt to acquire young talent. Both the Braves and the Brewers have used this strategy to get some good young players.

 

I also have smaller complaints about their apparent disinterest in going over their bonus pools in international signings and domestic drafts.

 

My other complaint, in addition to these three, is I think they could have been more aggressive in signing the one year flyers with risk that are mentioned in the article - they would burn a significant amount of money doing this, but they would also potentially grab someone who performs that they could flip for prospects.

 

I would have especially done this with relievers and backend starters. They weren't exactly floating in arms from 12-14.

[Brock Beauchamp]

BTW, this article is fantastic and points out bad tendencies fans tout in losing seasons. When the Twins were really bad, I was also (mostly) fine with their spending. The only thing that was going to drag the team out of its sinkhole was prospects and lots of 'em.

 

On the other hand, I hated the Correia signing. If your team is going to be bad, take risks. Instead of going after Correia - a known commodity whose ceiling is "I just threw up in my mouth a little" - go for someone like Brett Anderson (yes, the timeline doesn't match up, just fill in another player's name if you don't like the Anderson reference). An injured player with real upside. Worst case scenario, he stinks or doesn't play. Who cares? You're expected to suck anyway. Best case scenario, wow, he's really good! Keep him or trade him at that point, whatever. Finding a warm body is rarely the best solution in my eyes. Not only is a "warm body" unlikely to change the team's fortunes at all, it sucks to watch from a fan perspective. I'm not going to buy tickets to watch Kevin Correia pitch because he's Kevin ****ing Correia.

 

Now to the present: I'm completely fine with the Twins avoiding elite relievers but that's due to years, not dollars. But for crying out loud, pick up somebody.

 

I'm not a tough sell. Make it look like you're trying. Even if I disagree with any particular move - the Murphy trade and Park acquisitions are decent examples of this - I'll show some excitement that something happened and will look forward to the upcoming season.

 

But it's really hard to rally behind nothing.

[Bill Parker]

 

Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? We won't be good, so let's not try to be good, see, we couldn't be good!.........

 

There has never been a time I've come here, when people didn't say "there are all these reasons not to spend money, and the Twins are right not to, and they aren't cheap, even though we just paid millions to increase their revenue for them through taxes"......when do we read "the Twins are contenders, and they should be spending money on legit, big time, players to fill holes"? 

Not at all. This, the first paragraph of it, is just a basic misunderstanding of how baseball works. Spending money on the free agent market to try to be good this year, with a few exceptions (among them what they've tried to do with the Santana, Hughes and Nolasco contracts), HURTS your chances to be competitive in the following years. See, again, the 1999-2001 Devil Rays. You need the young, cheap players in place before spending makes any sense. It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's a matter of setting realistic expectations.

 

On your second paragraph, this site has existed since 2012, so there's never been a time when you could have come here when it would have made sense for anyone to say anything different. I think if Buxton and perhaps Meyer had shown more last year, this could have been the offseason when you'd finally hear that. As it is, strong possibility for 2017?

[sandbun]

 

Which gets back to my other point, which is that spending that money on a chance that you might be better than you think NOW almost always has consequences for the future. You can't typically JUST spend the money you're sitting on this year, you're also committing to paying that player (usually the same or a larger amount) in future years, when he won't be as good and/or as good a fit.

 

I'm not talking about blowing up our farm system or signing a bunch of guys to 10 year deals. I just think, like you suggested, that there were probably some moves (maybe heavily front loaded) that would've made sense, and I don't get sitting on that money because "Well it probably won't matter. No reason to try." And if they do spend that money and the moves don't work, well that tells us something about our front office, which isn't a terrible thing to know either.

[drjim]

 

BTW, this article is fantastic and points out bad tendencies fans tout in losing seasons. When the Twins were really bad, I was also (mostly) fine with their spending. The only thing that was going to drag the team out of its sinkhole was prospects and lots of 'em.

 

On the other hand, I hated the Correia signing. If your team is going to be bad, take risks. Instead of going after Correia - a known commodity whose ceiling is "I just threw up in my mouth a little" - go for someone like Brett Anderson (yes, the timeline doesn't match up, just fill in another player's name if you don't like the Anderson reference). An injured player with real upside. Worst case scenario, he stinks or doesn't play. Who cares? You're expected to suck anyway. Best case scenario, wow, he's really good! Keep him or trade him at that point, whatever. Finding a warm body is rarely the best solution in my eyes. Not only is a "warm body" unlikely to change the team's fortunes at all, it sucks to watch from a fan perspective. I'm not going to buy tickets to watch Kevin Correia pitch. He's boring.

 

Now to the present: I'm completely fine with the Twins avoiding elite relievers but that's due to years, not dollars. But for crying out loud, pick up somebody.

 

I'm not a tough sell. Make it look like you're trying. Even if I disagree with any particular move - the Murphy trade and Park acquisitions are decent examples of this - I'll show some excitement that something happened and will look forward to the upcoming season.

 

But it's really hard to rally behind nothing.

 

A key point that year was that it was the worst pitching fa class of the last decade or so, so it is not as easy as just saying insert player x there.

 

I would like to have seen more aggression on one hand, but on the other, that was a bad year to do it for reasons outside the Twins control.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

To cherrypick a couple of yjjj54's cherrypicked examples above, you could've signed one of Brian McCann or Russell Martin, two catchers who signed at or over 30 to five-plus year deals that, by the end of them, will be paying them $17 and $20 million a year, respectively, and who have already shown signs of decline. And as it turned out, he might have been enough of an improvement over Suzuki to help get you to the postseason in 2015. But he'll still be around in 2018, and at $17 or $20 million, he'll probably still be your starting catcher in 2018, even though there's no reason to believe he'll be any better then than Suzuki is now.

FYI, Martin just posted arguably the second-best hitting season of his career.  A relative decline from his  outlier career year of 2014 but not really a "sign of decline" as you apply the term.  McCann too has been about as good/valuable in his first two years with NY as he was in his last 2 years with Atlanta -- again, a relative decline from his long-ago Braves peak but not really any kind of strong recent decline you could accurately project into 2016.

 

And there is plenty of reason to believe they will both be better in 2018 than 67 OPS+ replacement level performers like Suzuki in 2015.  Their 2015 performances at the plate were both better than Suzuki's peak.  I doubt you'd see a long-term projection that would be that pessimistic about their outlook for 2018.  (I know PECOTA used to offer long-term projections, but I'm not a BP subscriber so I can't tell.)

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

A key point that year was that it was the worst pitching fa class of the last decade or so, so it is not as easy as just saying insert player x there.

 

I would like to have seen more aggression on one hand, but on the other, that was a bad year to do it for reasons outside the Twins control.

There was a slight upside guy available that year (who bombed spectacularly, IIRC), I simply can't recall his name. Someone out there probably remembers who it was.

 

Those guys are always available and the Twins pursued none of them. If you want to pick up Correia and a flyer, that's okay, too... But going with non-upside guy when the team is expected to win 60-something games is a bad strategy because fans don't care if a team wins 61 or 68 games.

 

If you're gonna be bad no matter what, roll the dice a few times. It's not like there's much to lose in that situation.

 

edit: it's not who I was thinking of but Kazmir was available that offseason, I believe.

[USAFChief]

 

Which gets back to my other point, which is that spending that money on a chance that you might be better than you think NOW almost always has consequences for the future. You can't typically JUST spend the money you're sitting on this year, you're also committing to paying that player (usually the same or a larger amount) in future years, when he won't be as good and/or as good a fit.

 

To cherrypick a couple of yjjj54's cherrypicked examples above, you could've signed one of Brian McCann or Russell Martin, two catchers who signed at or over 30 to five-plus year deals that, by the end of them, will be paying them $17 and $20 million a year, respectively, and who have already shown signs of decline. And as it turned out, he might have been enough of an improvement over Suzuki to help get you to the postseason in 2015. But he'll still be around in 2018, and at $17 or $20 million, he'll probably still be your starting catcher in 2018, even though there's no reason to believe he'll be any better then than Suzuki is now. So you've stuck yourself with what will probably be a bad catcher at best or a total $20 million loss at worst, at a time when you expect to have Buxton, Sano, Berrios et al. at or near their peak. There are times in the competitive cycle when that kind of tradeoff makes a lot of sense--I think Martin was a great move for the Blue Jays, given where they were at the time--but the Twins coming into 2015 just weren't at that level. It would've been a dumb gamble that happened to pay off, for now. 

 

Again, that's not to say there aren't moves that *would* have been a good idea, I just think the combination of sandbun's and yjjj54's recent comments provide a really good illustration of how "you never know--that's why you spend that money" is, generally speaking, a disastrous attitude in baseball.

Please explain why you won't be here in 2018, posting that "signing fee agent X sounds good NOW, but has consequences for the future."

 

The exact same rationale will exist then, no?

 

On the article...Sorry, but to me, this is nothing but a long, well organized excuse.  "There was no need to spend money in 2011, we thought we were good.  No need to spend money in 2011-2014, we sucked.  No way to know beforehand we wouldn't suck in 2015.  And BP says we'll suck in 2016.  Wait for 2018.  Of course, in 2018 it'll represent a bad investment, because 2022."

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I have two complaints about their spending during the past few seasons. To the best of my knowledge, the Twins have neither:
1) Paid the salary (either in full or just part) of a veteran player that they were trading away to potentially get a better return. Maybe they could have gotten back two prospects for Span instead of just one if they had agreed to pay half his salary. Maybe they could have received a better return (or at least had more teams interested) for Willingham, Morneau or Liriano if they would have covered their salary for the rest of the season.
2) Taken on a bad contract from another team in an attempt to acquire young talent. Both the Braves and the Brewers have used this strategy to get some good young players.

 

I also have smaller complaints about their apparent disinterest in going over their bonus pools in international signings and domestic drafts.

 

 

My other complaint, in addition to these three, is I think they could have been more aggressive in signing the one year flyers with risk that are mentioned in the article - they would burn a significant amount of money doing this, but they would also potentially grab someone who performs that they could flip for prospects.

 

I would have especially done this with relievers and backend starters. They weren't exactly floating in arms from 12-14.

 

Yeah.  From 2012-2014, the Twins seemed to be committed to getting low-variability immediate performance results from their FA investments.  Sometimes that is defensible to add some stability or fill out a roster, but it doesn't seem wise as an exclusive FA strategy, especially during rebuilding years.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I have two complaints about their spending during the past few seasons. To the best of my knowledge, the Twins have neither:
1) Paid the salary (either in full or just part) of a veteran player that they were trading away to potentially get a better return. Maybe they could have gotten back two prospects for Span instead of just one if they had agreed to pay half his salary. Maybe they could have received a better return (or at least had more teams interested) for Willingham, Morneau or Liriano if they would have covered their salary for the rest of the season.

I see this said a lot but I can't really agree with it.

 

If you're a team looking for mid-season help, how much more are you willing to give up for a Liriano, Morneau, or Willingham if the other team tacks on $3-4m? In my eyes, it's not much. Instead of getting the 14th best prospect, they offer up their 12th best prospect.

 

On the other hand, the Twins just handed away $3-4m for a prospect who might be worth a handful of dollars more than the prospect they'd receive without giving up a dime. Sure, it's not my money and all that but that's a pretty bad deal for the Twins. They're handing away millions to get thousands in return.

 

Now, this might work on occasion when a team is searching the couch cushions for mid-season cash but I suspect that situation arises infrequently. If it comes down to $2-3m and a late-season run, what owner isn't going to spring for that cash? It's likely they'll make it right back in fan attendance in August and September as everyone comes to watch a competitive team make a run at the postseason (never mind the increased ticket sales and revenue that bleed into the following season).

 

This argument seems like a good idea in theory but I don't think it's quite that cut-and-dry in reality.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Please explain why you won't be here in 2018, posting that "signing fee agent X sounds good NOW, but has consequences for the future."

 

The exact same rationale will exist then, no?

 

On the article...Sorry, but to me, this is nothing but a long, well organized excuse.  "There was no need to spend money in 2011, we thought we were good.  No need to spend money in 2011-2014, we sucked.  No way to know beforehand we wouldn't suck in 2015.  And BP says we'll suck in 2016.  Wait for 2018.  Of course, in 2018 it'll represent a bad investment, because 2022."

Yeah, we are pretty much already hearing from folks about how we need to conserve our money to pay Buxton, Sano, and Berrios.  (Ignoring the fact that they won't make anything until 2019 at the earliest, at which point every current contract will be off our books except Hughes' last remaining guarantee of $12 mil in 2019 -- actually, I wish someone in the Twins front office had used this excuse to block the Hughes extension...)

[drjim]

 

Yeah.  From 2012-2014, the Twins seemed to be committed to getting low-variability immediate performance results from their FA investments.  Sometimes that is defensible to add some stability or fill out a roster, but it doesn't seem wise as an exclusive FA strategy, especially during rebuilding years.

 

Or at least done a mix - the rotation after 2012 was an atrocity, so someone like Correia I can live with, but would have been nice to mix another upside play or two in addition to Pelfrey.

 

And the relievers were pretty uninspiring. They probably should have flipped Perkins and Burton. On the plus side they did keep a quality rule 5 guy in Pressly and gave some prospects their first crack at the bigs. But they should have been able to sign a few more high risk/upside flyers.

[Bill Parker]

 

Please explain why you won't be here in 2018, posting that "signing fee agent X sounds good NOW, but has consequences for the future."

 

The exact same rationale will exist then, no?

 

Maybe, but I hope not! As the part you quoted reflects, I thought 2015 was a great time for the Blue Jays to go for it, including signing Martin to that deal that will hurt quite a bit in 2017 and '18. The 2016 Twins probably aren't where the 2015 Blue Jays were, but the 2017 or 2018 Twins very well might be, if Buxton and Sano take their expected steps forward and a few things fall into place. There's just no justification at all for seeing this as a convenient excuse to keep kicking the can down the road. Among other things, why would I do that? I'm just a fan, myself. I'm not getting any of the money the Pohlads are saving. I'm just in favor of them spending it wisely, and not just so the fans can see that they're spending it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I see this said a lot but I can't really agree with it.

 

If you're a team looking for mid-season help, how much more are you willing to give up for a Liriano, Morneau, or Willingham if the other team tacks on $3-4m? In my eyes, it's not much. Instead of getting the 14th best prospect, they offer up their 12th best prospect.

Agreed, given what the Twins were offering those years, adding cash wasn't going to sweeten the return.  The more interesting idea was that of taking on other teams bad contracts to add potential assets.

 

Although a willingness to eat salary probably could have cleared roster spots earlier.  Not a huge deal, as we often weren't overloaded with internal replacements, but potentially relevant at times, i.e. Corriea who stayed on our roster into August when his starts could have been going to May and/or Meyer much earlier.  True, we could have simply cut Deduno or Pino earlier, but I like the idea of trying to find hidden value in them as well as developing future value in May and Meyer.  Casting aside a no-future player like Correia, even if we have to eat some salary, is clearly the best option of those 3 for a team like the 2014 Twins.  Holding on to him until we can offload his remaining salary too doesn't seem to offer much present or future benefit.

[Mike Sixel]

 

A key point that year was that it was the worst pitching fa class of the last decade or so, so it is not as easy as just saying insert player x there.

 

I would like to have seen more aggression on one hand, but on the other, that was a bad year to do it for reasons outside the Twins control.

 

BTW, next year's FA class, when the Twins supposedly will be competitive, so they should sign FAs?

 

One of, if not the, worst FA classes ever. Built. In. Excuse.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Agreed, given what the Twins were offering those years, adding cash wasn't going to sweeten the return.  The more interesting idea was that of taking on other teams bad contracts to add potential assets.

 

Although a willingness to eat salary probably could have cleared roster spots earlier.  Not a huge deal, as we often weren't overloaded with internal replacements, but potentially relevant at times, i.e. Corriea who stayed on our roster into August when his starts could have been going to May and/or Meyer much earlier.  True, we could have simply cut Deduno or Pino earlier, but I like the idea of trying to find hidden value in them as well as developing future value in May and Meyer.  Casting aside a no-future player like Correia, even if we have to eat some salary, is clearly the best option of those 3 for a team like the 2014 Twins.  Holding on to him until we can offload his remaining salary too doesn't seem to offer much present or future benefit.

All valid points.

[REPETE]

 

Maybe, but I hope not! As the part you quoted reflects, I thought 2015 was a great time for the Blue Jays to go for it, including signing Martin to that deal that will hurt quite a bit in 2017 and '18. The 2016 Twins probably aren't where the 2015 Blue Jays were, but the 2017 or 2018 Twins very well might be, if Buxton and Sano take their expected steps forward and a few things fall into place. There's just no justification at all for seeing this as a convenient excuse to keep kicking the can down the road. Among other things, why would I do that? I'm just a fan, myself. I'm not getting any of the money the Pohlads are saving. I'm just in favor of them spending it wisely, and not just so the fans can see that they're spending it.

Agreed.  Spending money doesn't equal wins.  But unless it's your team, you don't remember it happening.  Perfect example was the 2013 Blue Jays.  in 2012, they were bumping up against 90 losses, then increased their payroll >30% ($82M up to $125M), and pre-season prognosticators couldn't get out of their own way saying this team is now the front-runner to win the world series.  End result?  One less loss than the previous 89 loss season.  But nobody remembers the team that spend money and didn't win.  We just point to the payroll, and say "we need to spend more!".

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Or at least done a mix - the rotation after 2012 was an atrocity, so someone like Correia I can live with, but would have been nice to mix another upside play or two in addition to Pelfrey.

Yes.  The 2013 rotation play was desperately devoid of upside.  It screamed for Kazmir or at least a Liriano  replacement.

 

 

And the relievers were pretty uninspiring. They probably should have flipped Perkins and Burton. On the plus side they did keep a quality rule 5 guy in Pressly and gave some prospects their first crack at the bigs. But they should have been able to sign a few more high risk/upside flyers.

 

Looking back, Burton in 2012 could have fetched a return not unlike Jepsen did last summer.  Nothing great, but almost certainly better than extending him through rebuilding seasons and delaying that opportunity.  Perkins was probably signed with the understanding he wouldn't be flipped, so I'm less critical of holding onto him.

 

In any case, more Burtons or Fiens in those years, or Uehara's or Andrew Miller's or even Liam Hendriks, instead of Grays, Roenickes, Guerriers, etc. would have been advisable.

[tobi0040]

You look back to 2011 or 2012 and think, if we were bad to the point of:

 

-No money should be spent to upgrade the roster because we were that bad

 

-We had next to nothing on the way from the farm to help

 

That means a 3-5 year spell of being awful. There is literally no way around it.  We really, really should have traded 28-29 year old Joe Mauer.  Now I get that this looks brilliant in hindsight.  But We had to know that a 33-34 year old Joe was not going to be the same player and likely not catching anymore, so it should have been explored.  I get the PR issue.  But I am not sure fans would be too irate nowadays.

 

I am not a toe in the water type of guy.  You are either in or you are out.

[drjim]

 

BTW, next year's FA class, when the Twins supposedly will be competitive, so they should sign FAs?

 

One of, if not the, worst FA classes ever. Built. In. Excuse.

 

Completely different scenarios.

[drjim]

 

Yes.  The 2013 rotation play was desperately devoid of upside.  It screamed for Kazmir or at least a Liriano  replacement.

 

 

 

Looking back, Burton in 2012 could have fetched a return not unlike Jepsen did last summer.  Nothing great, but almost certainly better than extending him through rebuilding seasons and delaying that opportunity.  Perkins was probably signed with the understanding he wouldn't be flipped, so I'm less critical of holding onto him.

 

In any case, more Burtons or Fiens in those years, or Uehara's or Andrew Miller's or even Liam Hendriks, instead of Grays, Roenickes, Guerriers, etc. would have been advisable.

 

I agree that once Perkins was extended he should not have been flipped.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Completely different scenarios.

 

so I won't read "there wasn't anyone good to sign, it was a terrible class" all off season next year?

[nicksaviking]

 

Stauffer and Boyer were dumpster pick ups.  You could use the same logic for any position. 

 

 

 

You've been asking for bullpen upgrades all off season, how were Stauffer's 2013-14 numbers really much different than the guys you wanted this year?

 

Stauffer wasn't any good last year, that happens all the time with free agent relievers, more so than any other position.

[dgwills]

 

BTW, next year's FA class, when the Twins supposedly will be competitive, so they should sign FAs?

 

One of, if not the, worst FA classes ever. Built. In. Excuse.

Really the Twins should of been aiming for this year to be active it free agency. You know about when your highly touted prospects are going to become major league players. You know when Elite players from other teams and yours will hit free agency. Imagine if we had Buxton and Sano entering their first full year with Cueto leading the rotation. No Nolasco, Hughes, or even Santana to worry about. Sure we'd have to add another pitcher, but there would be better options. Hindsight is 20/20 of course.