nicksaviking

I do too. No offense to Blaine Boyer, but these are the kinds of gambles the team should be making. The odds of him figuring it out might not be high, but if he does, the results will not be boring. He's the kind of guy who will almost certainly only be either a bust, or have late inning abilities, this isn't long-man/swing-man/mop-up-duty kind of material.

Affeldt, Adams, Burnett, Broxton and League all performed poorly. Fujikawa was an unknown international signing who was a real crap shoot going in. It looks like from this list it's about 50/50 that it works out (45/65 if Fujikawa is weighted the same). The one thing that seems to be common though, is that the busts have either been injured or were not good strikeout pitchers. Meanwhile, Grilli, Peralta, Choate, Soria and Gorzlanny all seem to be able to manage at least a 8.0K/9.

For a month until Buxton and/or Kepler come up? Big deal. And Robinson is a free agent. Reports of the Twins interest in bringing him back probably will need to be re-evaluated now that the OF situation is back to uncertainty. With how aggressive Ryan has been the offseason, I highly doubt he's going to look at Shane Robinson and think, yeah, I'll settle for that guy in November.

I wonder about the timing the the Hicks and Herrmann trades now. The Twins almost certainly knew they were getting Murphy when they traded Herrmann yesterday, hindsight makes it pretty easy to deduce that the Twins didn't first get rid of their back up catcher and THEN go searching for a new catcher. So why was this one announced last? It seems that either the Twins didn't want AZ to know that Chris Herrmann was about to become expendable, or the Yankees gave the Twins a take-it-or-leave-it offer and told Ryan he could think on it. I also wonder if Ryan asked for Gary Sanchez and was told no, or if Ryan actually valued Murphy's MLB experience (or some other factor) more and he was the preferred target?

Also, as Nick mentioned in his OP, this move likely means the Yankees don't re-sign Chris Young. If the Twins go after him instead of Robinson and make him the 4th/platoon guy, I'll love this move. He hits lefties better than Hicks does. Better than nearly everyone actually. And sorry to repeat myself with the Chris Young-as-a-bench-bat love. I can't remember which threads I've been in.

This trade only excites me in that I think other guys with better offensive upside will get more at bats with Hicks out of the way, but that 85 RC+ doesn't bother me. I am wholly unimpressed with this generation of catchers. Only 12 catchers with at least 400 PA had an RC+ of 85 last year. Only 8 were over 100. It's not like there were any great upgrades available unless the Giants were dangling Buster Posey.

I think the Twins got the short end of this deal, but we shouldn't be comparing Hicks to Murphy, we should be comparing Hicks to whoever gets his at bats. The removal of Hicks will probably mean more at bats for Park, Arcia; Kepler and/or Vargas. It doesn't seem too out of reach for those guys to top Hicks' offensive production. No one has to "win" a trade for it to be a good move.

Can was among the HS arms I was really hoping the Twins would draft instead of Wimmers. Still, I agree, no way can that be the centerpiece. I'll trade for relievers, but they are the cheapest position to fix through free agency.

I think Plouffe is underrated and could be of good value to other teams, but he'd be a much better fit for a stout offense that could see him bat 7th or so. The Twins still have some work to do to beef up the OBP of the middle of their lineup. Sano can't be the only guy in the heart of the lineup who can get on base.

I don't care about the money, I care about the roster spots and the inflexibility of not being able to ditch these guys. If I thought management would eat two years of sizable contracts I wouldn't be concerned. Not that I don't blame the management as I don't think any team eats more than one year of a large long term deal. So what happens if the Twins don't do well in 2016? These guys can't be sold off to restock, does the team just go right back out there again and sign more vets to take up roster spots?

I'll take any of them on a minor league deal, just so long as Rob Anthony and Ron Gardenhire aren't making the 25-man decisions this spring. I'd really like to find a fit for Span actually on a short term deal, but I don't think there is one, and I think Span still gets a long(ish) term deal. This team could really use a guy at the top of the lineup to get on base as Dozier on-base skills aren't ideal for leadoff and Hicks and Buxton still look pretty questionable. But the Twins need another left handed hitting OF about as much as they need goalie.

Kyle Lohse too is available. Just an observation, don't kill the messenger!

Is that the can of worms about how Torii isn't a good teammate? Or the can of worms about how Morneau was probably in town to hammer out the framework of his new two year deal?

I do want to say that, and it is the pitchers that have put a sour taste in my mouth. I don't like the idea of rolling the dice again in the veteran free agent game since now the odds are really in the house's favor. The risk for Wieters looks higher than it was for Martin and McCann and the reward is lower. I will walk away from the table before I lose everything. I don't want to have to try another rebuild before this one even started. Six vets over 30 signed through at least 2017 is going to make that more likely if the season doesn't go as we hoped, and likely the only one of them tradable would be Perkins, IF he returns to form. I didn't want Shields or Lester, but I'd be a much happier camper if the Twins hadn't signed Nolasco, Hughes and Santana (and Suzuki) but instead had just signed Shields and Martin.

I'd be open to seeing any kind of stats that show otherwise, but statistically and visually, to me it looks like guys are peaking very, very early these days. Even look at last year's All-Star game, something that used to be loaded with veterans getting in based on their past reputations; it is now loaded with kids. Just look at last year's Twins, from the rotation to the lineup, it was almost exclusively carried by the younger guys. I don't disagree that there are still plenty of good contributors over 30, most are solid role players, but why on earth would anyone give a role player more than a two year deal? Guys on 1-2 year deals can be traded if the season goes in the toilet or a young player emerges. Guys on 1-2 year deals can be sent to the bench or DFA'd if they stink, we continue to see the Twins in awkward positions now because they have given too many guys 4-year deals. It hasn't worked, they need to stop digging themselves into a deeper hole. I'd be fine taking a chance on a couple long term deals to vets, but it's got to be quality over quantity. From my perspective, two guys on a 4-year/80M deal are better than four guys on a 4-year/40M deal.

I can't see a free agent ace coming here unless it's unexpected, such as the Cardinals turning around Chris Carpenter or when RA Dickey came out of nowhere for the Mets. I'd certainly be willing to trade for a young one though, say Matt Harvey. I'd even be OK chasing a big money free agent starter, just not until Santana, Hughes and Nolasco are no longer guaranteed roster spots.

I don't want to say about the time PEDs became passe, but only two of the top 20 offensive players in WAR started the year over at an age over 30, and only three of the top 20 pitchers. Of all pitchers and batters in the top 20, only Curtis Granderson was over the age of 32. It sucks, but it's been headed this way for several years and I'm betting there are several GMs who are already planning to take advantage this.

There are plenty of low risk free agents, they come on 1-2 year deals. Those are the only kinds of free agents I'm supportive of at this time as the team already has Mauer, Santana, Hughes and Nolasco guaranteed to take up four of only 25 available roster spots because of their long term contracts. The roster just can't be filled with untradable, unmovable veteran contracts or they'll end up like the Tigers, but with a lower quality group of veterans mucking up the works and fewer division titles to show for the moves.

Yeah but giving a four year deal to a CF wouldn't kill your roster if his defense or offense tanked, a team carries four or five anyway. You should only have two catchers, and there's nowhere to put this guy if the wheels fall off. When Mauer's deal is up, this would make more sense. Four years just isn't a good move for free agents over 30. Two years? Sure, I'll get on board.

It's a tough spot for Gardy, he has a rep as an manager from a bygone era. As mentioned a guy can change, but at the same time, it's also not fair to chastise a GM take for not taking that leap of faith. I think Gardy really liked the "old school" rep he had with the Twins, plenty of people wear that like a badge of pride. However that's not what most people who do the hiring want to see these days. Gardy had ample opportunities to change his rep with the Twins. No one was stopping him from shifting or platooning. No one was forcing him to bunt. Perhaps he was better with numbers than everyone thought, but all I can remember is when he sarcastically called them "cybermetrics". I would really like to see Gardy get another shot, but he had to know long ago that a revolution was taking place in baseball. I like the guy a lot, but I have to say, Gardy probably should have considered the idea that the Twins might not be his retirement gig. He really should have done more to put down the league-wide idea that he was resistant to new ideas, especially if he really wasn't.

No illusions here. There's one good well-rounded catcher in the league and the Giants aren't selling. The difference between the rest isn't that big and becomes nearly negligible once you get past the top five or so. Not everyone gets a stud catcher, it sucks. The other 29 teams will have to figure out other ways to win.

Well for one thing, healthy seasons on the wrong side of 30 aren't a given, and four in a row are going to take some luck. My main point was that his defense could be replicated or even better, which seemed to be your sole argument for signing him instead of Pierzynski. My underlying point was that his offense wasn't so far above average that other free agent catchers will have no chance at matching it.

Dioner Navarro is better defensively and Geovany Soto is comparable. Odds are that he'd be better than both offensively, but it's not even close to a sure thing, they've both had seasons as good or better than Wieters offensively. I sure don't think he's 4 years, 60 million and a draft pick better than them.

Wieters has been fine offensively, but not better than Pierzynski and his career offensively is pretty similar to Chris Iannetta. Defensively Dioner Navarro is in the same ballpark and Geovany Soto isn't much of a step back. No argument that Wieters is the best all around catcher available, but there's no way he's 60M and 4 years better than any of the other options. And it's really that 4+ years that most concerns me. And the pick.

I'm OK with that. I'm not typically risk adverse, but the Twins just have too many terrible contracts at the moment. If they can't pawn them off on other teams, they really need to wait until they expire to start handing out more questionable long term deals to vets. I want a good catcher too, but it's not worth hamstringing the future over; offensive catchers are not a necessity.