Alex

I just want to add agreement that there is a disconnect between busting both myths, even if the the conclusions are technically true. Moving two or three pitchers to the pen who aren't proven relievers is a long shot to make the pen better So, solving one problem with the other, in this case, doesn't make sense.

I actually think it is, but there is a balance that could be struck, especially when we have signed and still have marginal pitchers in the rotation. We're talking about pitchers who are not drastically, or even definitively, better here. So, saying the risk is greater to give these guys another shot is a complete matter of opinion, especially as all three have had success in the majors. If we are evaluating players by one season, we should also be incredibly critical of the Hughes and Pelfrey signings. As Leviathan points out, there are other players we should then be looking to get rid of including Hicks, Willingham, Plouffe, etc..

Valid point that their years are limited, but it's still more value (if they are successful), less risk, and cheaper than going out on the FA market. If they do fail another year, you can make the same decision that is being discussed now but would have more information to do so and won't really be any worse off.

This is the crux of the argument in that, as things stand now, they'll likely won't get that chance with the Twins because they'll be picked up off waivers. So -- again, if no other moves are made -- the Twins will lose the chance to see if those players do have a high upside.

Considering they didn't do that last year with Worley and save an option year, no.

It's been an interesting discussion as there are valid points on both sides and it seems to come down to our own individual approach to how a baseball team should be built. The bottom line for me is that it is important for the team to get better immediately. However I am worried they could be sacrificing long term value for marginal increase in success (depending on who you don't like: Hughes, Pelfrey, or Correia), even if I like the overall approach. We're not talking about an option here between Diamond and Anibal Sanchez. If any of the pitchers -- that are now out of options -- we're talking about (Worley, Deduno, Diamond) could become solid #4 or #5, that has a lot of value at their contract level for multiple years. It's possible that they won't, but this is a season where it might be worth a couple of wins to leave room and give a couple of them a last shot. For those looking at creative solutions, I hope you are correct, that the Twins will figure out a way to create some space and get something of value in return. I'm not as confident, but they did do it to some extent on the offensive side, where it looked like they were getting heavy with DH types, and it's similar in a lot of ways here.

This discussion has two different parts: 1) Does this move with Mastro mean the Twins will give the starting CF job to Hicks? My answer is yes. 2) Should they? No. I won't go into detail because it's really no different than the discussions on this last season.

I think Leviathan's approach is dead on here, and I really don't get the people that simply want to let go of players that have had success (because they are out of options and had a bad year last year) when they are younger players with more upside. Especially when some of the young players we're talking about have had more success than a pitcher or two under contract. If that's the case, we should be cutting bait on most of the team that started last year with the exception of a few. I appreciate making the rotation better through FA and am glad the Twins have done so to some extent. However, the key is to actually make the rotation better both immediately and in the long term. We'll see if they've done that, and when these players are let go, we'll see if they could have helped the Twins and are players that end up being ones we complain about because they have success elsewhere. Either way, it's very tough for me to see the way these players have been handled as a mistake in some way. Maybe they mishandled their option years and placement on the forty man roster. Maybe they didn't give them enough time in the majors to show what they had (or didn't) and thus couldn't even move them in a trade. Maybe they just did a poor job of developing these guys or drafting them in the first place.

My larger point was that letting a young player play isn't necessarily a scholarship if that's what his development needs. Signing free agent pitchers and signing "good" free agent pitchers are two different things. I think that most people are happy with two of the three (one way or another), but the third doesn't sit well. While he wasn't a pitcher, the Doumit extension shows exactly what can happen when you don't have roster spots. Doumit wasn't really deserving of playing time but he was stuck holding a roster spot that would have been better served by Arcia, or even Parmelee (to at least give him one last extended look). This could apply to pitching this season. Heck, we're acting like Deduno was terrible, but he's actually been good and barring injury seems to deserve a spot more than Pelfrey. Now, though, the Twins have decisions about him, Worley (who has had success and they traded a decent player for), and Diamond (who is probably not as good as his first season and is probably better than his second).

I agree completely with this, and certainly their handling of him has affected his trade value to some extent (of course, if he was terrible that woudn't have helped either) but by handling him the way they have, there's no way the get anything in trade for him.

Out of option guys, especially on a team like the Twins, have little value. I mentioned this in the Parmelee thread. If a team could wait to get a player for free, they're not going to trade anything significant for him. If a player is out of options and can't make the active roster as bad as the Twins have been, there are very few, if any, teams they'd be useful to.

Let's not act like they haven't gone against this statement multiple times after it was made. In some cases, giving a guy like Gibson a shot is more valuable and important to the team long term than having a guy who might pitch better on a one or two year deal.

He's basically there in case of injury at this point. If he isn't going to play ahead of Kubel, as it appears, then he has no trade value. No one is going to trade anything significant when he'll likely be available for free at some point before the season starts. The bottom line is, though, that if a player can't find his way onto the punchless Twins at this point, he's really got no value.

-whoops, somehow missed the two posts above.

I think he still needs at bats everyday and it's not a good idea to have him struggle out of the gate.

I wouldn't be so sure about this, but I hope you are correct.

I agree that right now the offense isn't looking much better than last season unless we get development from some players Hard to complain about the signing at this point, though, as they needed to address pitching first and this fills a need. I'd still like to see them upgrade an OF position and move the Hammer to DH, but I haven't kept track of what's out there.

Maybe, maybe not. I think there are places he could be valuable and a decent signing, but I don't think he's "only a possibility" because of sabermetrics. I mean, he's a 5 WAR player over 7 seasons (BR, 8 by Fangraphs), so not sure anyone would argue he sabermetric friendly. On the other hand, he's going to be thirty and it's likely his bat speed is dropping, leading to more Ks and fewer HRs. We'll see. Either way he's not a fit for the Twins as they stand right now.

It's more palatable if they trade or release Doumit, but Thrylos sums up the current situation nicely. Willingham should probably be a full time DH, Pinto might also be more of a DH than C, but I think he needs to get a chance to work that out. So, I also think that signing a more versatile OF that pushes Willingham to DH and backup OF (and Doumit out) is the better way to go than to sign a guy who would only be used as a DH against LHP and can't really field.

Having a committee DH,which is where it looks like the Twins are headed, is different that platooning. A platoon at DH, ie taking up two players for a spot there, is a great way to end up with an incredibly inflexible bench. It would leave the Twins with two spots (assuming 4 bench spots and one a catcher), essentially one iF and one OF. This team is flush with only bat guys who have, so Reynolds make no sense. They need to upgrade hitters that will also play in the field.

I guess that's true, but for running I was thinking of above average for position. Not sure why I had that stuck in my head, especially since I wasn't thinking that way for the other two categories.

And it isn't who you might think..... Based on Fangraphs and from Beyond the Boxscore https://twitter.com/BtBScore/status/411595734715076608/photo/1 It's actually a pretty exclusive list, with only 21 players in the majors making it.

Great summary from a cost/value analysis.

Nothing lost here on a minor league deal. If we open the season with Willingham, Arcia, Doumit, and Kubel all actually on the active roster, then I'll be more concerned with overall flexibility (lack thereof) on the roster.

I know a lot of people didn't really care to about Hendriks being waived, but I think that if the situation were reversed and the Cubs had waived him and Twins claimed him, we'd think it was a smart move.