TheLeviathan

I was just using baseball reference for those 10 comparisons. I also didn't highlight him for the injury reasons, Espinosa and Crosby do remind me a lot of Dozier on the other hand. But let's be clear - Dozier has been above average for only 1.5 years. He was pretty bad to start 2013 but then came out of nowhere in June and August of that year. I'm not sure why that deserves 50+ million when your hand is far from being forced.

First, I'd argue the longer the deal the less valuable he'll be in trade. Span had value because it was a short deal that wouldn't hang over your head for long. Signing Dozier to such an extension would, for all intents and purposes, make him untradeable for at least the bulk of the deal. Second, I'd also quibble with your conclusion at the end that you can subtract that 20M and suggest we're buying Dozier for 5M a year. It doesn't work that way - the 75 to 55 comparison is fine, the point about 5/35 is just erroneous and misleading. Brian Dozier has accomplished one season in which he was an above average major league baseball player and that one season was very erratic. If a repeated 2014 bumps his arb. cost by an average of 1-2M for the next few years I can handle that and talk extension at the end of the year when we have more data on what he'll be. If you want more reasons to consider that, please look at the ten players Dozier's career is most similar to thus far: Dale Sveum (962) Bobby Crosby (957) Danny Espinosa (953) Damian Jackson (952) Ted Lepcio (950) Tim Teufel (949) Bernie Allen (948) Don Zimmer (945) Gary Alexander (941) Andre Rodgers (940) Yeah, Bobby Crosby and Danny Espinosa aren't guys I want to toss 60M at because we're happy with 1.5 seasons of baseball.

His OPS is largely HR driven and that has proven streaky. I like the way Dozier plays but is he so good we should rush into an extension years before we need to? What's best case scenario? We save a few million? I guess I don't see that outweighing the risk. I'd advocate that for an elite talent. A good talent? No thanks.

Extending your relationship with Plouffe by a year doesn't change your standing in any way. You MIGHT save a little bit of money at the risk of feeling it's wasted at some later date. Are we so far removed from Blackburn or Joe Mays that we think these sorts of moves have no downside? I liked it with Span and even with Perkins, but it's not always a good idea.

This thread reflects our reality the last four years: a guy plays competently and we fall all over ourselves to hand them millions for half a decade. Let's let the career play out a bit and assess his value when we aren't awful.

They're rare because the union heavily pressures against them. I've tried, largely in vain, to get people to stop suggesting these because they just don't happen with regularity for a reason. Only in hockey and football is it accepted practice,in baseball and basketball it is taboo.

Except there can be serious consequences to not waiting. Dozier's offensive production has been very streaky and you run the risk in paying him huge money now that he becomes the Twins version of Allen Craig or many other guys who got paid too soon. There is just something about Dozier's game I don't trust Longterm.

I'd wait for two reasons 1) Make sure Dozier is consistent enough to warrant an investment and 2) Shorten the extension and/or buy out an extra year. I just want more data on what Dozier exactly is before I'd be comfortable giving him that much money.

I would argue that the coaching staff and general manager didn't push nearly enough for the guys with the talent to do that. I think there was a belief that you didn't need to have that kind of talent in order to be an effective pitcher. It was almost like the Twins were trying to target a market inefficiency but went too far. Furthermore, I don't think that strategy would've been employed without heavy influence from the field staff. So while Anderson's general philosophies were fine, the problem was that they went too far with it from both a team-building and coaching perspective.

I agree and that's why Anderson had to go. Somewhere along the way a sound philosophy became an offtrack dogma.

I don't think there is a dissonance. As pitchers you want to be ahead in the count and not walking people and as hitters you want to avoid swinging at pitches out of the zone. The problem is that the Twins' pitching philosophy became too overzealous and there wasn't enough "good" strikes and guys able to miss bats in the zone. "Pitch to contact" was all about enabling weak contact and staying ahead of hitters, something all great pitchers do. We just started to believe any old schmuck could accomplish that if they had "good control".

The key to changing the Twins mentality isn't to stop pounding the zone - Anderson was spot on with that strategy. But at some point you have to recognize that the best pitchers pound the zone and finish hitters themselves. We built rotations, targeted arms, and pushed players to become only half of that equation. I don't know where it went off course but hopefully a change sets it back on track again.

I also worry that at Rios' age those nagging injuries are more of the norm rather than something he can bounce back from.

+100

It's hard to argue a counterfactual, especially when you agree with the premise. i'm not opposed to rushing some kids, but many people are recommending that become the default way of filling positions. I'm not comfortable with that. And I'm certainly not ready yet to declare Santana and Vargas shining beacons of success with that philosophy. We got a ways to go on that one.

We should probably start by dropping the assumption that Santana is a known quantity. He is one of the most obvious regression candidates I can recall in quite some time. Before we declare Vargas and Santana as successes that warrant during that practice into a habit, I might suggest we give it a bit more time. The truth is that pretty much all teams avoiding rushing players because it harms development. Going into next year relying on a guy in Rosario who is not ready, coupled with Hicks who has proven to be as unready as any ballplayer I've seen in, coupled with Schafer's almost certain regression....sounds like one of the worst planned disasters since Battlefield Earth.

I could quibble with some points but this is a really nice article!

We can afford to not be unprepared at both. This doesn't have to be an either/or. Your plan means we have 4 completely unproven guys for 2 spots that are vital offensively and defensively for us. I saw what that looks like last year and I cannot fathom endorsing that again.

Schafer is fine as a plan for fourth outfielder and Rosario should certainly have a shot, but signing no one ensures we have to rely on a bunch of sketchy bets rather than taking a chance on Rasmus like we did Hughes. Wasn't 2014 enough of this same lesson about going into the season without plan Bs? Our CF situation was a disaster for this same line of thinking. I don't want that again, frankly it's unacceptable to go in that unprepared again.

Knocking Rasmus on past performance seems like a very strange take to have for someone campaigning for a Hicks/Schafer platoon. Just sayin'.

Based on their revenues, expiring or traded contracts, likely arby raises. It's a pretty reasonable assumption that this team has some significant budget room to work with.

Because: 1) Money isn't an issue and 2) Schafer's production last year doesn't exactly jive with everything else he's ever done at the big league level. Counting on those two as a platoon might as well come with a wish for another Sam Fuld to get cut around the middle of April.

A player like Rasmus can be moved if those other issues force us to open a spot for him. Buxton's timetable is completely up in the air and likely not a factor this season. Injuries happen. Rosario and Hicks shouldn't be banked on. We need more than one guy in our OF that we can look at and say "you deserve to walk in as a starter." Right now we have Arcia and he's an outfielder in name only.

If your scenario is "what if these four things all happen in the best way then we have a logjam" - I'd suggest that your optimism is clouding the view of what is needed. Good teams don't plan for everything going right.

I think some teams might be willing to go 3, I wonder if Rasmus is the one that will keep it at 1-2 years as a way to rebuild value.