This is a repeat of a forum post I made in December 2012. I'm blogging it now mostly for my own convenience; I took the time to look up several pitchers and I don't want to have to search again when I try to remember what I learned. The question was, if you were GM would you have matched the 5/$80M deal for Detroit's Anibal Sanchez? The context now is, when if ever would you sign a pitcher to a long term deal, given that there is room in the budget until the rookies start to earn big dough ...


My snap reaction was yes I would sign Sanchez. Then I tried to think about how Terry Ryan sees it, in terms of risk. Sign him to 5 years, then the last year of the contract you'll be paying him (say) $15M or $16M in 2017. This is right in the heart of the new window of competitiveness, right? Will that $16M be part of the winning formula? Or will it be a boat-anchor preventing you from making a deal to push this juggernaut team to a second straight title?

Well, roll the clock back 5 years to 2007. Not that all of these pitchers were available to sign at the time, but let's focus on who was completing his 28-year-old season, just as Sanchez is now. Limit it to guys who clearly were established starters. These 28-year-olds were:

Carlos Silva
Johan Santana
Gil Meche
John Lackey
Jeremy Guthrie
Mark Buehrle
Erik Bedard

Isn't this kind of a Murderer's Row of pitchers who teams actually *did* make an investment in? And with the exception of Buehrle, aren't they the ones that, 5 years later, fans of their current teams wail and gnash their teeth over?

Now put yourself in Ryan's shoes. Are you really going to pull the trigger on Sanchez for 5 years?

As I said above, I would. And this quick little bit of research reaffirms my reminder to myself, that when Terry Ryan and I disagree about something, take another good hard look.

I've been asked about my daily choice of avatar(s). That joke has pretty much run its course so I'm not going to continue it indefinitely, and I thought I should just put the lengthy explanation here as a blog entry for possible future reference.

I started out without any visual embellishment to my postings. After a while I decided to try it out, after seeing others' choices. I didn't like my own photo for the purpose, and the first one I settled on, inspired indirectly I suppose by USAFChief's lovely older woman, was the equally lovely Amy Farrah Fowler.

Amy seems to capture the analytic tone I aim for in my posts (when I'm not being goofy). Why not Sheldon Cooper, if "analytic" is the aim? I don't know, I just find her character funnier, and I liked the incongruity of picking a female. I went back and forth with variations, such as this one.

Anyway, I later decided I needed an avatar to counterbalance my snark instead of amplifying it. I found this one, during a phase when TD policy was being enforced to achieve a kinder gentler forum,

and it felt right for the purpose and I used it for quite a while - you can say the rudest things and the sunshine just takes the edge right off. However, I went back to wanting something that said "no, I meant it that way." I settled for a while on McKayla Maroney, an internet meme after her Olympics medal ceremony went a little wrong:

I tried a similar one with McKayla and Obama

and I found one of Hrbek with the same looking frame of mind

I played around with a couple of other avatars of interest only to someone in my particular location: Tahoe Tessie

our local answer to the Loch Ness Monster, and Archie the mascot of the AAA Reno Aces

He's gross. I also tried this one.


Now, around this whole time, a TD advertiser was selling t-shirts. Bad Idea. (The company name, not a critique.) They used one model who was particularly striking, so much so that I figured it would kind of violate TD policy if it was not in an actual ad. So, naturally, I adopted her as an avatar.

As my project leader at my first job at Control Data would probably still say, she's a real day-brightener. (He would have been fired in the first week, nowadays, nice guy or not.) Notice the artful Twins logo I added, covering up the company blurb. To my surprise, this actually provoked a large quantity of (positive) feedback - and here I was trying to make a post-feminist statement or something. This photo was especially popular during game threads, garnering comments and making people not notice Aaron Hicks hadn't had a hit yet. It may have been due to her large bosoms, I can't quite be sure. At any rate I felt weird having her as my permanent avatar. So I hit upon the idea of using her strictly as an in-game avatar - a good luck charm. This, unfortunately, coincided with a bad few games for the Twins. So I tried mixing things around, using her as a reliever after she failed in the starter's role; she was there for Tyler Robertson's last home run, so I banished her from that role too. For a while she was the game-winning celebration avatar, where she couldn't cause the team any trouble. I still hate the idea that female members of TD would avoid the game threads on my account, though. Meanwhile, the Sunshine avatar got re-purposed for Kevin Correia - KC and the Sunshine Band, get it, get it? (Not unless you are over 40, probably.) It worked well in that role so I didn't want to change that. I also attached another internet meme, Allison Stokke

to Pedro Hernandez, who also did well with her as a good luck charm. (In addition to being pretty, Allison was a straight-A student in high school and got accepted at Berkeley, and set a freshman HS national record for the pole vault, prompting one wag to comment that she was the winner of the genetic lottery.) Yes, I added the tasteful TC artwork to her uniform too. I have not succeeded in finding a suitably lucky avatar for Mike Pelfrey; I tried the Free Beer one, and here's a more recent example:

but it did not help past the 5th inning yesterday. Worley has had mixed success with this one of a Yoga-ist

courtesy of Willihammer, but the Vanimal still gets the early-inning jitters so I may keep searching. I've tried this other t-shirt model for Scott Diamond

without resounding success for the pitcher (but plenty of positive feedback from other posters.) Oh, and here is another day-brightener who I tried as a good luck avatar but brought only bad luck (I think it was for Pelfrey again):


As for the bats, I have tried a change of pace for a "rally avatar" when the Twins need some runs in the late innings; I had high hopes for this one

but nothing materialized, and the following avatar was in place when Arcia hit a 3-run shot in the 9th

but it was not enough for a win, and in a more recent game it was used again but Arcia languished in the on-deck circle when no one ahead of him reached, so the jury is still out. I used the one-and-only Don Mossi one game:


I think that mainly covers it. I still had an idea or two for future games, but aside from that the joke is pretty much played out and I am retiring it, particularly as it is about as offensive to some as if I used photos of minstrels.

But for people who want to see the Bad Idea girl in the future, well, she's blogged right here as an encore:

I do not however endorse this form of horndoggery. :whacky028:

Previously I posted anagrams of the 2013 Twins active roster. Here are permutations on some recent additions:

Oswaldo Arcia
Iowa Carloads
I Also A Coward
A Cow Loads Air

Scott Diamond
Candid Mottos
Misadd Cotton
Condom Tit Ads

Pedro Hernandez
Preharden Dozen
Pardoned Her Zen
End Red Porn Haze

Anthony Swarzak
What's Zany? Akron!
Hawk Annoys Tzar
Who Yanks Tarzan?

There is already a lengthy thread in the forum, about the Twins' abortive offer to let fans watch home-team batting practice for $15; I did not get too worked up about the topic at first but I contributed and the obsessive reader may see a theme or two repeated here. Well written essays, pro and con, are also found at
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/44474154/
and
http://www.brandonwarne.com/2013/04/...ch-bp-my-take/
among others.

To me, the problem is shocking tone-deafness on the part of the team, to the romance of their sport.

Sports are often equated to entertainments like movies, and no one expects to come in early to a movie and see filmed rehearsals of the actors struggling through their lines. (Instead you are subjected to ads and bogus quizzes on screen.) They got rid of the cartoon before or after the feature film, long ago. And no one likes the prices of concessions any better there than at the ballpark, but like at the ballpark, some people pay and some people gripe and some people do both.

But sports, and baseball in particular, aren't necessarily like other entertainments in all ways. BP (in double particular) is a mixture of tradition and romance. What do you actually learn from watching BP? Not much, and in fact the prime age for watching might be pre-teen on up through college or so - exactly when you would like to make sure you've hooked your future customers. And even at those ages, probably the second time they go early for BP they'll end up engaging in horseplay in between dives for home run balls, or wander around looking for something to eat. It's not the activity
itself, it's the atmosphere. You're watching what goes on before the curtain really goes up.

It's reported that the teams in Washington and Cleveland open their gates 2.5 hours before first pitch. I would be curious to see how the Twins might respond to this. "Oh, well, Washington and Cleveland, sure, they can do this, because..." what? Ushers and security staff cost less there? Fans there are much better behaved and won't spray graffiti on the walls like unsupervised Twins fans would? No one in Washington or Cleveland actually takes them up on their bluff of an offer and the ballpark is essentially empty until 15 minutes before game time?

Charging $15, or even more (Braves and Astros are among those offering VIP packages down on the field), positively kills that "behind the scenes" atmosphere. A VIP package may substitute a *different* atmosphere, an entitled feeling from having it made, well enough that you (or Dad) can plunk down the money (for you), but the romantic one is lost. The $15 makes you *part* of the scene, you're no longer behind it.

And for what? 60 tickets times $15 means the Twins likely are being honest about only recouping the extra cost of having some fans come through the gate early, or as some people irrelevantly point out, what Joe Mauer is paid to tie his shoelaces before a game, unless he pays someone to do that for him. But is that the smartest way to manage this $1000 per game?

No one's asking to be let in free; they already have a ticket (perhaps at a cut rate from StubHub, and maybe that's sticking in the team's craw?). Could the Twins not gain that much in goodwill by having a policy that the first 60 fans in line with tickets can just come in at X o'clock? Or make it a lottery, or something; never mind, I need a real PR expert to figure out how to not disappoint the family driving from Ft. Dodge or Fargo with that plan.

Or, open just one gate that allows access to the outfield seats, come-one-come-all, open up a concession stand selling burgers and overpriced soda, and recoup the lost $1000 from the 500 hardy fans who like to be there early. It's not like there's a risk of the high-priced ticket holders using this as a ruse to stay in the cheap seats when the game starts. And we're not talking about letting hobos in without a ticket. Behavior problems can be dealt with as strictly, or maybe even more so, as/than at the game itself; getting kicked out during BP and not seeing the game at all would be something a rowdy teen would remember and avoid happening again, but this seems really overthinking it except that you do have to have security on hand.

With regard to the argument that it's just offering something (for a price) currently unavailable (at any price), thus increasing freedom or something or other, the problem is that BP means more to people than just a commodity like a toaster. That's the "romantic" part I was getting at. BP's something that has been taken away over a long period of time, quietly and somewhat ad-hoc. I remember being very shocked the first time I went to a game at the Dome and had to wait and wait for the gates to open and by then BP was just ending, maybe just a few of the road team's scrubinis. So apparently I had been accustomed to seeing BP at Fenway, Baltimore, and wherever else
I had seen major league ballgames by that time (as a kid I lived in barren Indianapolis so I didn't have MLB to go by). Later, I remember driving through Waterloo Iowa, pulling up to the ballpark on a whim and learning that the game would start 2.5 hours later but "come on in, go back and by a ticket when the office opens later". I know that low-A is not the majors, but what I would *like* to feel is "come on in, you're welcome to wander around," and currently the attitude is "gates don't open for a while," and now this new wrinkle is "oh, well, sure, you'd be welcome if you fork over an additional $15".

I'm more on the rational/analytic end of the spectrum than most. If this stream of memories of Waterloo Iowa is what comes to mind from news of this $15 idea, it speaks to how BP is more of a deeply emotional issue than a matter of monetizing a commodity. Our society tried to reject "monetization equals freedom" in the sixties (remember the backlash against "status symbols"?) but in the long run the monetizers have won out; there's a stock market segment in the hard news on even a nominally leftist media outlet
like NPR nowadays, for goodness sake. The aim to bring a business mentality to every aspect of life would be shocking even to the Mad Men of the 50s-60s. And this trial balloon by the Twins touches some of us in this way.

There is a borrowed word, lagniappe, that roughly means a Freebie, as from a merchant. If MLB teams want to stress how much they run their businesses *as* businesses, they should remember that this word exists, and that not every business decision has to be made by the people wearing the green eyeshades. They have plenty of extra-cost options already to which their solution is "well, then don't buy it". Maybe it's *smart* business, here, to give away something that is widely perceived to be of value but which they can apparently envision making only $1000 a game from anyway.

Their tone-deafness on the romance of the game risks making people think of Monty Burns shuddering at the thought of ever giving anything away.

It's been a few years since I did this. You'll either love it or hate it. Here are some anagrams of the 25-man roster. I don't claim a lot of creativity, and I used a program to generate possibilities. I spared the mods some grief by leaving out the dirty ones. Some names are pretty barren (had to cheat and use Mauer's given name Joseph), while others give an embarrassment of riches and you might think up better ones. Or you might even spot some typos/errors, because I don't have an editor to check my work.

Burton, Jared
Jarred On Tub
Be Rotund Jar
Red Banjo Rut

Correia, Kevin
I Overrank Ice
Arrive Nice, OK?
Re: A Rink Voice

De Vries, Cole
Relieves Doc
Ever I'd Close
Lo, Deceivers!

Duensing, Brian
SABR Inning Due
Unbending Airs
A Burdening Sin

Fien, Casey
In Ye Faces
Yes, Fiance
If Eyes Can

Hendriks, Liam
Kindlier Hams
Damn Irish Elk
Had Milk Rinse

Pelfrey, Mike
Key P.M. Relief
Keep My Rifle
Me Fry Elk Pie

Perkins, Glen
Kneel, Spring
Kennel Grips
Kelp Ginners

Pressly, Ryan
Snarly Preys
Spryly Earns
Sly Spy Reran

Robertson, Tyler
Re: Yr Rotten Lobs
Only Best Terror
Torrent By Loser

Roenicke, Josh
Senior Jock, Eh?
No, I Chose Jerk
Hi, Joke Censor

Worley, Vance
Lawyer Coven
Clever? No Way
Rewoven Clay

Ryan Doumit
A Minor Duty
Rainy To Mud
Road Mutiny

Joseph Mauer
A Hose Jumper
A Jeep's Humor
Heroes Jam Up

Carroll, Jamey
Clearly Major
Am Jolly Racer
Larry, Calm Joe

Dozier, Brian
Bizarre Odin
Bird Air Zone
Barn Iodizer

Escobar, Eduardo
Absurd Rodeo Ace
Due A Scoreboard
Bread Cause Odor

Florimon, Pedro
Implode For Ron
Redo Minor Flop
Poor Field Norm

Mastroianni, Darin
Indiana Rainstorm
Maintains In Ardor
Nod, Sit In Marinara

Morneau, Justin
Unjar Mounties
Injures Man Out
A Moist June Run

Parmelee, Chris
He Riles Camper
I Help Screamer
Smile, Preacher!

Plouffe, Trevor
Pervert Of Foul
Flop Tour Fever
Prove Four Left

Hicks, Aaron
Oh, I Ransack
Hi Narc, KAOS?
A Shark Coin

Ramirez, Wilkin
Kremlin Air Wiz
I Win Milk Razer
Kiwi Raze Mr. Nil

Willingham, Josh
Jowl Lashing Him
MN Jails High, Low
Hill Jig Showman

---

I'll try this as a blog entry instead of a forum post.

The Tigers continue to shop Rick Porcello to no avail. MLB Trade Rumors states that the Padres turned down a chance to trade either Huston Street or Luke Gregerson to get him. Other deals have failed to materialize. I suppose the equivalent from the Twins standpoint would be Glen Perkins, factoring in the NL and the Padres home park. Would you make that deal, if the Tigers also saw it that way (and were willing to trade intra-division)?

Porcello was a hotshot coming out of HS who had a very promising major league season as a 20 year old, but has failed to progress (or regressed, actually), sporting an ultra-Twins-like K/9 in the 5's the last two years which actually lifts his lifetime average a bit. Few walks but very hittable (Pitch To Contact?), with not overly many HR. He's in his arbitration years but can't be a free agent until 2016, according to baseball-reference.com. Based on his track record he'd not be much of an improvement over what the Twins rotation already consists of, but at age 24 there is still seems the chance of a breakout, in which case you have him for three years, at increasing cost of course.

My own take is that I'd be on the fence and would want my scouts to have a consensus that Porcello can still improve before I'd go for such a trade. (Which is hardly different from any proposed trade, but even more so than usual.) It's tempting, but you'd want to have a clear idea what it is you think you can fix, which is always a risky proposition when other people have already tried.

Originally posted in reply to thread These Call-Ups Are a Downer

The Twins' 40-man roster is apparently at 39 right now, and the desire for waiver-wire flexibility is a reason given not to bring up one or two other players for September, such as Anthony Slama.

How can a last-place team have any issues at all managing their 40-man roster? Just sooooo many talented players, the other teams will scoop an All-Star-in-the-making right up, if the Twins aren't careful?

Indecisiveness, maybe that's the reason. Morneau, will he or won't he return to previous levels? Span, can we squeeze just a bit more out of a trade? Middle infielders, so many flashy-glove no-stick players to choose from, better hang onto a bunch and see if one steps forward.

Meanwhile, at least, the scouts and front-office can make up their minds about Slama not being able to translate AAA success to the majors. So I guess indecision can't be the culprit after all.

Without going through the 40-man, spot by spot, doesn't it break down roughly like this?

• your 25 best guys for the major league roster
• 5 AAAA guys to cover the inevitable injuries
• 5 young guys who are too old to be left off but on whom the jury is still out (a little indecisiveness is necessary and good)
• 5 contingency spots because what I just laid out here is too simple

What additional needs and purposes are clogging up the Twins' 40-man roster? With 21 pitchers and 18 position players currently listed, I guess the area of concern is clear. I'm not in the mood to discuss spots #39, #38, ... .

A forty-man roster is intended to be a bit of a headache for the "have" teams. Not the have-nots.

The transactions of the last few days boil down to Blackburn being replaced by Deduno, and Parmelee being replaced by... Fien? So, we're back to a roster of 13 pitchers and 3 catchers. Very little scope for pinch-hitting and pinch-running. I guess this has been hashed to death, but it still seems weird to me. Wasn't so long ago that 11 pitchers were enough for a staff. And I think it detracts from the enjoyment of the tactical game - instead of managers having to anticipate opposing moves and countering them, it's just a matter of running wave after wave of fresh arms out there to throw heat for an inning.

There has been much banter about whom the Twins might trade, and what they might get in return, if and when they decide to give up on the season and become "sellers" at the trade deadline in July. Folks seem to expect that several prospects can be obtained for the most prized of the Twins' trading chips, thus restocking the minors and/or bringing major-league ready talent to the parent club, particularly on the pitching side.

So I got curious what kind of return teams actually get, historically, when they trade someone valuable. The other day, I put out a posting with the question of what good trades came to mind - ones at the high end like Teixeira that brought a good nucleus. (Thanx and a tip o' the baseball cap to daan4786, boom boom, cdog, coach j, gunnarthor, and jtrinaldi for their nominations.) I wound up with 17 trades to look at.

A few opening comments. I am not trying to judge who "won" these trades; each one was viewed at the time as a gamble on young talent in exchange for a known quantity (to whatever extent value can be known in baseball). I decided to use Wins Above Replacement (WAR), as found on the baseball-reference.com site - I need a metric that attempts to place a value on batters and pitchers alike, combining offensive and defensive contributions, and it's not my purpose here to defend WAR itself - if you don't like WAR, feel free to construct your own study. :) Finally, this is not a comprehensive study of "trades in general" - I was purposely looking for trades that brought a lot in return, again because of the presumption in some places that the Twins can restock with a few astute trades, so I colored the discussion from the outset by holding up the Teixeira trade as a benchmark.

For each veteran listed, I present the return that was obtained (either a number of prospects, or a specific name when it was one-for one), the age of the most recent season (or mid-season) of stats when the trade took place, the date of the trade (to distinguish between off-season trades and deadline trades when the in-season WAR reflects only a partial season), and then three WAR values: of the current or most recent season, of the previous season (in a few cases marked by asterisks I give some benefit of the doubt by reverting to two seasons previous, when the previous season was marred by injury or otherwise didn't seem representative of what a GM would be looking at), and finally a career total WAR up to the time the trade occurred to give a sense of the total body of work by the given age. Again, my purpose is not to bother looking after the trade is completed; the clock stops when the trade is made.

Here they are, sorted in order of the age of the veteran player:

Mat Latos for 4 prospects
Age: 23 Dec 17 WAR: 1.5 Prev WAR: 3.0 Career WAR: 4.4
Gio Gonzalez for 4 prospects
Age: 25 Dec 23 WAR: 3.9 Prev WAR: 3.6 Career WAR: 5.8
A.J. Pierzynski for 3 pitchers
Age: 26 Nov 14 WAR: 4.2 Prev WAR: 2.1 Career WAR: 8.6
Matt Capps for Wilson Ramos
Age: 26 Jul 29 WAR: 0.3 Prev WAR: -1.2 Career WAR: 3.9
Zack Greinke for 4 prospects
Age: 26 Dec 19 WAR: 3.2 Prev WAR: 10.1 Career WAR: 24.8
Mark Teixeira for 5 prospects
Age: 27 Jul 31 WAR: 2.5 Prev WAR: 4.2 Career WAR: 22.3
CC Sabathia for 4 prospects
Age: 27 Jul 7 WAR: 1.7 Prev WAR: 6.0 Career WAR: 25.7
Chuck Knoblauch for 4 prospects
Age: 28 Feb 6 WAR: 6.5 Prev WAR: 8.4 Career WAR: 36.3
Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir
Age: 28 Jul 30 WAR: 1.7 Prev WAR: 2.4 Career WAR: 4.4
Shaun Marcum for Brett Lawrie
Age: 28 Dec 6 WAR: 3.8 Prev WAR: 2.7* Career WAR: 9.1
Hunter Pence for 4 prospects
Age: 28 Jul 29 WAR: 3.2 Prev WAR: 2.8 Career WAR: 17.3
Matt Holliday for 2 prospects and 1 established reliever
Age: 28 Nov 10 WAR: 5.6 Prev WAR: 5.8 Career WAR: 17.5
Michael Bourn for 4 prospects
Age: 28 Jul 31 WAR: 2.1 Prev WAR: 5.3 Career WAR: 13.0
Frank Viola for 5 prospects
Age: 29 Jul 31 WAR: 3.1 Prev WAR: 7.4 Career WAR: 25.0
Casey Blake for Carlos Santana
Age: 34 Jul 26 WAR: 1.6 Prev WAR: 2.4 Career WAR: 14.8
Carlos Beltran for Wheeler
Age: 34 Jul 28 WAR: 3.5 Prev WAR: 3.5* Career WAR: 58.7
Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz
Age: 36 Aug 12 WAR: 2.0 Prev WAR: 1.7 Career WAR: 24.8

Capps and Zambrano and Marcum jump out as having the thinnest "resume" at their respective ages; a single (but very good) prospect was fetched in return for them; their all being pitchers suggests what GMs are thinking when they trade away prospects. Latos and Gonzalez were very very young, so their Career WAR can be excused as their recent two years' WAR were very attractive ("only" WAR of 1.5 from a 23 year old? sign me up!). Michael Bourn is a bit shaky in this grouping, with his main attraction apparently being his previous stellar year. The older guys, Blake and Beltran and Alexander, each snagged a single (but again very good) prospect.

OK, so now what? Well, I picked ten current Twins player that seem to be the subject of trade discussion in the TwinsDaily forums. Again, I sort them in order of age:

Danny Valencia
Age: 27 Jun 12 WAR:-1.1 Prev WAR: 1.9* Career WAR: 0.2
Alexi Casilla
Age: 27 Jun 12 WAR: 0.5 Prev WAR: 1.3 Career WAR: 1.2
Francisco Liriano
Age: 28 Jun 12 WAR:-0.9 Prev WAR: 4.0* Career WAR: 8.0
Denard Span
Age: 28 Jun 12 WAR: 1.7 Prev WAR: 2.3 Career WAR: 13.4
Joe Mauer
Age: 29 Jun 12 WAR: 1.0 Prev WAR: 5.5* Career WAR: 33.9
Nick Blackburn
Age: 30 Jun 12 WAR:-1.0 Prev WAR: 0.5 Career WAR: 3.6
Justin Morneau
Age: 31 Jun 12 WAR: 0.2 Prev WAR: 4.6* Career WAR: 18.5
Ryan Doumit
Age: 31 Jun 12 WAR:-0.1 Prev WAR: 1.0 Career WAR: 7.1
Josh Willingham
Age: 33 Jun 12 WAR: 2.0 Prev WAR: 2.1 Career WAR: 14.8
Carl Pavano
Age: 36 Jun 12 WAR:-0.8 Prev WAR: 1.8 Career WAR: 14.9

And now, I look for matches between the Twins list versus the historical list, guided to great extent by age.

Valencia, Casilla, Blackburn, Doumit: None of these guys remotely resemble any of these historical trades, not even for a single good prospect. They just don't have the track record. It's possible that a trade for a prospect could occur, but it won't be a Smoltz or a Kazmir.

Liriano, Pavano: Nobody in the list of trades had a bad current WAR, where the trade was made based on hopes of a rebound to past performance. It's hard to forecast getting a genuine prospect in return for either pitcher, sorry to say.

Willingham: Kind of matches up with Casey Blake, who netted one good position player, moreso than Beltran who brought a pitcher. We love JWillie, but his offense so far is a little out of line with his track record while his defense is a known minus, and I don't see GMs valuing him as highly as Beltran for a pennant push.

Morneau: I was surprised that his current WAR remains so low, due to the below-par batting average. Again, we love him, but I suspect the WAR reflects a little more faithfully how other GMs will factor in the potential for a full rebound to his MVP season versus the risk of injury. If his current WAR were higher he might be a good match for a Hunter Pence or Michael Bourn kind of trade, and I don't see his salary being an obstacle. But as it is, I just don't know.

Mauer: Again the current WAR does not reflect what he could contribute if he bounces back a bit more. Maybe WAR isn't so good a proxy for what another GM might think of Mauer in a trade; but then WAR doesn't reflect the high-end salary Mauer commands, either. Tough to find a match in the first list - Knoblauch had established a really stellar resume by about that age, but his two most current seasons far eclipse what Mauer has (though I give Joe the benefit of the doubt with that asterisk). Again, I don't see a haul like in the first list, if Mauer was traded.

Span: Finally, the trading chip most talked about here. Where's the match? Unfortunately, Zambrano looks like the closest one to me (Zambrano came up late, accounting for a relatively low career WAR), even though he's a pitcher, suggesting that only one stud prospect could be obtained for him. Span is valuable, indeed, but relative to other center fielders he's just about average, and the list of trades doesn't suggest how you would do more than close one hole (say in the starting rotation) while opening the hole in CF (which you might hope to cover with Revere). To get more, Span would need to be perceived as much better than average among center fielders.

Well, I came out of this small study with basically the same view as I came in with, that even "backing up the truck" to dispose of current players would not re-stock the system like one would hope. The design of the study was shaped by my expectation, no doubt, so maybe I've overlooked some area of hope. But right now, I don't see how Terry Ryan will be able to do better than tit-for-tat trades, that bring individual young talent at the expense of current abilities; there just is nobody on the roster like Teixeira and Knoblauch and Viola in their primes. Pavano was supposed to be our Doyle Alexander to use to snare a young talent, but it doesn't look like it's going to work out.

While looking for something else, I ran across on Yahoo's team roster page that Drew Butera is listed among the pitchers.

So that I won't think I was just imagining things after they correct it, here is a compressed screen shot:

In a Marquis-out/DeVries-up thread, it was mentioned by more than one that Matt Maloney ought to be put into the Rochester rotation. I had been thinking along those lines for a while now, too.

In fact, I wonder if the Twins considered doing this in April for the parent club, before sending Maloney down, by putting him into a long-relief outing or two. Unfortunately he pitched so poorly that they couldn't even "stretch him out" for a few innings, in anticipation of a trial as starter. He might at one point have been Plan A for replacing Liriano or Blackburn if need be (the "need" has since then been proven), as he was the one brought in to relieve them on April 17 and 24 respectively. If he had done well in 3-5 innings he would have then been on the cycle to enter the rotation at the next turn. But he didn't. By May 2, according to this theory, they had given up on the idea, letting him finish only the 3rd inning after registering two outs plus an RBI double; all his other appearances were in later innings with no scope for long work.

Perhaps he pulled a (reputed) Kevin Slowey-ism by making excuses saying he could only be effective as a starter, pissing off the coach and manager and earning the DFA to Rochester. That's just libelous speculation of course - my apologies, Sir. :)

But his track record has been as a starter who put up promising AAA numbers, more impressive at Louisville 2010-2011 than DeVries has been in the same league 2011-2012 for instance. Then suddenly in 2010 when Cincy brought him up they stopped using him as a starter after two more-or-less decent starts (ERA 3.09) and used him exclusively in the bullpen, with OK results as well. In 2011 Cincy used him very inconsistently, mostly as a reliever, and his unsightly season ERA (despite good numbers during his AAA time) came about in 3 putrid games out of 8, with one start in late April and then one start during September garbage time.

After Cincy dropped him, Minnesota seemed to decide he's purely a reliever, if I just go by his usage and stop trying to read between so many lines. Considering the thin state of the Twins starting staff, I don't think they should overlook any potential resource to help them get through the season, even if he's no long term answer.

I'd plug him into the Rochester rotation and see if he's worth a July or August call-up. My fingers would be crossed that Cuellar there can get him on track, if the problem had been either the mental approach of trying to prove worth as a starter while in the bullpen, or perhaps some mechanical tweak to help him. So far, 4 innings into his Rochester career, he's given up two baserunners and no runs, so maybe the Cuellar magic is already working.

Again, he's not going to be a difference-maker, and my title for this post is tongue-in-cheek. But I hate to see my team leave a stone un-turned.

Why is it that on most days, when I channel surf to ESPN during commercial breaks of the other show I'm watching, I never get an update on how the Twins' game is going, but when they lose a game 16-4 like yesterday it's constantly the game shown on the crawl at the bottom of the screen when I click over there? Ugh.

May 15: on this day in Twins history, 2012, Jason Marquis gave up three home runs in one inning, in a lethargic 5-0 loss that also featured (not to be outdone) four different Twins grounding into double plays.

Wait, what? You have to wait a year to mark a milestone like this one?

The Twins lost 2-1 yesterday, wasting a pretty good season debut by P.J. Walters. From the AP story:
The struggling Twins offense couldn't come up with a timely hit. Minnesota went 0 for 9 with runners in scoring position and stranded six runners over the final four innings.
"We had plenty of chances, but it just didn't work out for us tonight,'' Twins manager Ron Gardenhire said.

Hm. On offense, the Twins had 5 hits total, but 6 walks to go with them. The Jays had 7 hits, and no walks. The Jays grounded into two double plays; the Twins didn't ground into any but had a runner cut down on a fly ball. The teams had two extra base hits apiece:, a double and a homer for the Jays; two doubles for the Twins. For the game:

TOR: BA=.219 OBP=.219 SLG=.344 OPS=.563
MIN: BA=.161 OBP=.297 SLG=.225 OPS=.522

These are both poor batting results, as you could expect in a 2-1 game. OPS isn't the greatest stat in the world, for various reasons - but it says that in this game, Toronto did a little less poorly. The Twins did a nearly acceptable job at getting guys on base (league average OBP this year is .317), but their slugging was putrid (league SLG is .405). The eventual game winning hit was Bautista's home run. Mauer and Dozier apparently gave the ball a ride but only collected doubles. That turned out to be the difference in the game.

Walks are better than outs, doubles are better than singles, and homers trump them all. Bautista didn't have anyone on base when he connected. But he put himself in scoring position nonetheless while standing at home plate, and the Jays won. (Since the Twins only run was scored on a walk, this means two of the three runs in the game were not covered by the RISP statistic, for what that's worth.)

For the season, the Twins are 10th in the league in getting on base. They are dead last in slugging average (and in home runs in particular). Not coincidentally, they are also dead last in runs scored. The table setting is below par, and the power is simply not there at all. Adding Komatsu and Mastroianni only addresses the table setting, at best, and does nothing for the glaring need, throwing the offense further out of balance even if they do better than the players they replaced.

Until both facets of the game improve, and a balance between getting on base and driving runners in is achieved, run scoring is going to remain at a premium.

And until such time as the Twins still lose despite getting better game-OPS than their opponent, lamenting about 0-9 with runners in scoring position is for, well, losers.

As of May 3, 2011, the sainted Drew Butera had this set of stats for the Twins:
AB: 50
BB: 2
H: 5
2B: 2
R: 3
RBI: 4
BA: .100
OBP: .151
SLG: .140
OPS: .291

This morning, I see this for Trevor Plouffe 2012:
AB: 36
BB: 7
H: 4
2B: 1
HR: 1
R: 3
RBI: 2
BA: .111
OBP: .256
SLG: .222
OPS: .478

He's been basically five walks, and one double turned into a home run, better than Drew Butera.

Drew came back strong to finish with a .449 OPS. Trevor is already higher than this so can we hope for great things from here on out?