Major League Ready

Polish this pig anyway you like. The 16 pages of discussion suggested it was not nearly so clear as "two bad pitchers being traded. Just for the record, I agree completely that it was too bad pitchers being traded and "there was nothing to see here". This medium has its challenges. h2oface and I might be thinking exactly the same thing and its the 16 pages of discussion that I am questioning in terms of expectations.

OK. Educate me. How is that not what should have been expected in return for Nolasco? If it's what should have been expected, what are you complaining about?

What did you expect to get in return for Nolasco? No kidding, they did not get an Ace.

I understand where you are coming from but there is a limited amount of man power working a lot of deals in a very short period of time. Do you really want to waste time working on a deal that returns nothing or focus as much attention as possible to the deals that have a return associated with them? We also have Berrios joining the rotation and hopefully Chargois will be up soon as well. I think there is value in having a veteran catcher to help them get started at this level. It comes down to he is not blocking anyone so what is the point of moving him for nothing in return? These deadline deals are kind of like playing chicken. You have to be willing to hold your ground until the very end. Sometimes the other side is not going to give in and the deal does not get done. I guess the point of all of this is I don’t understand why anyone would complain about the FO for not giving away Kurt Suzuki.

Can you explain how it is inexcusable that they did not trade him when your evaluation of him is that he is "terrible"? What exactly were they supposed to get for a terrible player? Given your general assessment of Suzuki, why would you think he should have been easy to trade?

Things are looking up .... Twins had a pretty decent month in July and the offensive potential is apparent.Nolasco gone. Thank God!Berrios up and hopefully for goodPolanco up and hopefully for goodSome decent talent added to the farm systemSantiago will improve our staff for next year.Santiago and Santana are potential deadline assets next year if our young core is not able to get us in contention next year.

I hope you are right. That would increase both the likelihood or Suzuki getting traded and the return.

I looked yesterday when Toronto was mention and I just don't know why we would trade with them unless Reid-Foley was part of the deal. The deal for Nunez was the same way. If you looked at their prospects, Meija stood out as the target.

That kind of ceiling and 6 years of control for Abad ... That's a pretty solid trade! Sure, a lot of these guys flame out but we just need a couple of the several we have to work out and we will have a great bullpen for several years.

I think you guys are getting too hung up on "trade value". I am in the camp that you don't trade Santana for whatever you can get. If they can get a piece that will make a significant contribution going forward (however you want to quantify significant) I think you trade him. To only trade him if you get blown away does not make sense to me either. History or the odds if you prefer suggest the final couple years are decline years and then you got nothing and have 14M/yr wrapped up in a non-contributor that could have been spent on a contributor. This is all just another way of saying it depends on the return and let's flip the guy likely to be in decline when we are finally contending again.

Keep in mind that I am just reciting things I read and my memory could be off but I read an article last year that I thought said the lowest paid GMs made over $1M/yr and the top GMs were $5M+. Again, just an old recollection of an article so take it for what its worth. Now I am curious. Might have to search for some articles this weekend. I don't know how Jim Pohlad could possibly make the decision to keep RA Why fire TR to hire RA? Just tell him he is retiring at the end of the year and RA is taking his place. Why create the drama?

Fair point! I think this medium has a tendency to blur the degree of certainty implied. You are correct in that I can’t know this in absolute terms. It’s not a math problem where we can prove it. This sort of question does not lend itself to an absolute conclusion as is the case with most business issues. On the other hand, the very limited number of available positions implies something that is absolute enough to be called a law (Law of Supply and Demand). Which is also why the position pays so well. The GM position in MLB pays quite a bit more than positions with similar responsibility in most corporations. It’s also something I am very familiar with because I inherited relatively dysfunctional organizations every time I was hired into a similar role. Problems and challenges are to be expected. It goes with the territory.

Like Alex Meyer?

The evidence is never conclusive in these instances and even if it was you would not be privy to it so no wonder you have not seen it. Man, why do so many sports fans such a difficult time recognizing they simply don't have access to critical information? People keep saying why would anyone want this job? Are you kidding me? For starters, there are only 30 such jobs in the world and it pays a couple million bucks/yr.. If you are a past GM or an aspiring GM, this job is of interest. They are basically where KC was a few years ago with a little more revenue to work with. We also have substantial depth in the farm system that should feed the ML club for several years not to mention a top pick next June. Edit: I should have also said these jobs generally don't open up when everything with the team is perfect. Any qualified candidate would expect there will be obstacles to overcome.

Simple. Because it is very likely a couple players will be traded in the next ten days and that will open spots for them. I don't think much of Ramirez but he might be needed for awhile if Kinzler or Abad or both are traded. Chargois moves up to the ML club and Hildenberger goes to AAA. If Abad and Kinzler get traded, Chargois and one of the others mentioned get moved up. It just does not make sense to debut guys right now when the landscape will be considerably more clear in 10 days. Plus ... Ramirez was just sent to AAA and replaced by Boshers. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/minnesota-twins

What information are you using to come to the conclusion on who is calling whom? Do you have some inside knowledge or are you drawing conclusion from bits and pieces of trade rumors?

I have said all along (look back) that the question right now is not if the team has a problem with making a big deal but should the team be making a big deal. These deals have either happened or have been proposed here. Is it not relevant to ask if they would have been positive long-term deals for this organization. The whole point is that there is a lot of complaining here about something the Twins wont do when if fact they should not being doing that type of deal right now. What's the problem? Fans want it right now and many are obviously willing to throw away the future for instant gratification. Complain If they don't do anything when they get into contention but to complain now is ridiculous. Yes, they have not made this type of deal in the past but they also did not sign $180M extensions in the past either. There is a good chance Ryan won't even be here when they are in contention. So, why all the belly aching now? Maybe the problem is my expectation of fans being reasonable when the term fan is derived from fanatic.

The Twins have gotten equivalent production from the SS position without taking on the $22M in salary and therefore don't have what will likely be another contract like Mauer's on the books until 2021. That money instead can be used for a productive FA once the team is once again contending or to keep our key players long-term. Think Royals with the ability to go out an add another key piece through FA. I am not sure what's difficult to understand about that.

What about Lucroy? Would that have been a good idea? What trade that actually happened would have been a good move for the Twins? We would all like to trade for a great player without trading great prospects. That is the fallacy that always exists in these discussions.

How is this relevant? We are not discussing if Toronto should have made this trade. The two teams are in very different positions.

The entire content was relevant to why the Twins should not have done any of these deals last year or now. Let’s not talk about ignoring elements of a post when … You ignored the part about explaining how the Twins could have gotten Tulo without giving up a top prospect given Colorado got a top 50 and two other pitching prospects. You ignored the fact that Reyes had $48M remaining and Tulo had $109M. You might not think this is relevant but anyone I have ever worked with that has every managed at $100M plus P&L would consider that omission a significant lapse in judgment. You also ignored there is also a risk in acquiring a good player like Miller. You also refused to acknowledge that the Twins were not ready and giving up top prospects at this time would have been a bad idea, especially for Lucroy who would have been a FA after next year. You ignored that the Twins would have very likely ended up with a couple years of a very bad contract with Greinke or Tulo and that those contracts would be bad when the Twins are much more likely to be contending. Most importantly, you ignored the potential for these deals to kill a franchise for several years. Perhaps you can explain how none of this was germane to your post.

First, tell me how they would have traded for Tulo without giving up a top prospect. The Jays gave up a top 50 pitching prospect plus two other pitching prospects. Casto is already pitching at the ML level already and Hoffman is #46 on MLB.com. Second, they have gotten equivalent product from current players at $20M less per year. Third, do you think the back-end of Tulo’s contract is likely to be “Mauer like” in terms of value? The high profile players that are part of these trades don’t always pan out either. The Dbacks deal for Shelby Miller is a very is a good example because the scenario is so similar. They are a team that had been very bad but had pieces in place. They made the big deal you and others are so enamored with believing it will make the team a contender. How is that one working out? Miller was just sent to AAA. That’s how bad he has been and the Dbacks are under 500. And, they would not be in contention even if Miller had performed at his career norm. They were not ready which is what I keep saying about the Twins and you keep insisting they should go for it anyway. The dbacks are going to have Grienke’s contract until he is just short of 38 years old. That big deal will probably hurt this franchise for several years to come. Just like Tulo’s contract is likely be an anchor for Toronto in the final couple years. These deals can kill a franchise. That's the disconnect between fans and the people responsible for the long-term health of an organization. Why would you risk this now when the Twins when they are positioned to put a great product on the field for a decade or more? To answer your question. Yes, there is a time. The Twins are just absolutely not in that time. You make these kind of deals when you are in a window of contention. Posters here were ready to trade Kepler plus whatever else for Lucroy during the off-season. He would have been gone after next year and the Twins will have Kepler who will likely be a better player for an additional five years. We would have gained (arguably) nothing by trading for Tulo. We would have picked up $20M in salary on an aging SS. Gordon will be almost 26 years old when Tulo’s contract is up. How is that not going to end up being a problem? Plus, once we are finally out from under Mauer’s contract, we would have another boat anchor and you and others would be complaining that we can’t sign big name free agents or perhaps even keep our own players. It all sounds wonderful if you ignore the almost certain long-term cost.

No doubt that it happens to every team but it does seem like more than our fair share have done well elsewhere. I don't think one can deny we have also not developed front of the rotation starters. This is where I find fault with the organization. To be fair, it does look like we have some guys in the system right now that could or even should be legit.

Are you suggesting it would have been a good idea to go all-in last year. Obviously, that would have required they give up several of their best prospects. Berrios and Kepler would be history and so would have a couple others. Keep in mind that there was no way they were winning the division. The benefit of paying the all-in price, if successful, would have been a wild card. In other words, a 50/50 shot at a series. BTW ... The 2015 Mets and 2015 Twins were not even remotely similar cases. Please compare those two teams starting with starting pitching. I would argue that following the 2015 Mets model would have been grossly incompetent.