Minnesota Sports Forum

JasonIsDaMan wrote:I don't know. You can't get free agents if you stink, but if you trade guys who can bring you a good return in an effort to stop stinking, then you can't get free agents either? I think you are reading too much into it. I think if The Twins trade Willingham to a team that is a contender in December of 2012, he's fine with it. I remember TEX needing LF/DH production at the end of 2012, but I could be wrong.

I think destination and/or circumstances also plays a role. If they would have unloaded him for a middling prospect and cash to the Cubs because they didn't feel like paying him anymore, then yeah, that sends a poor message. Miami is going to have that problem when they are set to contend again. But it's warm and you don't pay 10% of your salary in state taxes.

This year is a perfect example of "Built not bought". How many FA's under the age of 30 were worth a damn? Everyone like Nolasco, but he's in his 30's and has a 4.37 career ERA.

I do think one was Hughes. You can't be a fly ball pitcher at the new Yankee Stadium

Ahh, but you CAN get free agents regardless of if you stink or not as long as you're willing to pay the money and have a big enough market. Prime example is Seattle going after Cano. Whether they get him or not, it shows that they're willing to make a big splash like that in FA. The Twins would never be a team involved in a guy like that. It's not how they are or have been in the past.

And not really. My case is pretty logical, I just think you're not looking at it from the right view. If the Twins trade Josh just one year into his deal, doesn't matter the team, it looks like they're lacking commitment to a guy they just signed.

"He's fine with it" -- That's not my point at all Jason. Who gives a shit if he's okay with it, honestly. My point was that potential FAs around the league can look at that and have reason to not sign with Minnesota.

If I was a free agent, why would I sign with a team that has traded a free agent just a year into his deal? I'd much rather go sign with a team that keeps their commitment strong to their players. Teams that believe that the player they signed is more valuable on the team than in a trade just a year after. I'd rather be in a power position and choose a team that doesn't trade a FA pickup until the final years, barring injury or poor performance. Because keep in mind, it's not like Willingham did anything wrong.

Going after Cano? So all you have to do is make an offer, or float in the media that you are going to, and suddenly you're a "player". And for the record, I don't want the Twins to go anywhere near a 30 year old coming of a .905 OPS year (when Mauer signed his deal, whatever anyone thinks of it, he wasn't 30 and his OPS was 1.050) who floats in the media that he wants 10yr/$300m. Who needs the wasted time and headache?

I just don't think there are a lot of guys out there who are ecstatic that the 96 loss team didn't trade them, no matter what point they are in their contract.

And I'm not saying Willingham did anything wrong. It's a business, and you have to do what best.

Sorry I'm late to the party on that, I guess I disagree Cam that it's a bad rap of you sign a guy then trade them. Example of this was Ben sheets a couple years ago had a good second half of the season with the brewers. Oakland signs him basically on the intention to trade him. Is it the worse thing to sign a guy then flip I don't think so.

We've other young guys coming up through the system like Kepler and even Rosario won't stick at second now with dozier at 2nd. Remember Tom Kelly says that he think Rosario bat can be good as Carews, that he hasn't heard a ball jump off smaller guy like that's bat since Carew.

Let the record clear I wanted to trade willingham at the end of the season 2 years ago his stock was never gonna be higher at that point. And I don't want to trade any of our outfielders but if had choose one it would be Arcia not Hicks

Thanks for the input Jester. I have a question: If Rosario can do .800 OPS in the majors, and figure out how to pass the drug tests, wouldn't it be better to keep him and move Dozier? Kansas City is literally looking at about .500 OPS from the 2nd basemen they have signed right now. Wouldn't they give up something of merit? And I guess I would have to ask Cam if moving Dozier now kill their chances with future free agents.

"And I guess I would have to ask Cam if moving Dozier now kill their chances with future free agents."

I realize you were trying to make a joke, but at least make one that makes fun of what I actually said. Try again, maybe? Maybe a joke about trading Hughes or Nolasco after next year's season? That would work.

You're right it was a joke.

But look at it: Right now, based on 2013, you have to say Dozier is a top ten 2nd baseman. He wasn't in 2012, and there's no guarantee that he will be in 2014. Kansas City won 86 games and is making short term moves that suggest they want more. So if they call with a Godfather offer and the Twins move him, why does he have less right to be upset than Willingham would have in December of 2012? Because guys on three year deals making $7m buy houses, but guys under 6 years of team control making $500K, and then what they make in arbritation, only rent?

2nd question: So in December 2012, the Twins move Willingham for a frontline prospect or prospects, and they are pieces of crap, but if they move him EIGHT months later on 7/31, which was REALLY close to happening, they are perfect and odor free? Really?

And what about Doumit? IMO, he would have been moved a day after he signed the deal for the right prospect, and will be moved for the right prospect all the way up to the morning before game 162 in October 2014. Is his 3 year deal less worthy than Willingham's? He's produced less, but he also makes less.

I just think it's got to come down to the on field product, and I think they all get it.

JasonIsDaMan wrote:You're right it was a joke.

But look at it: Right now, based on 2013, you have to say Dozier is a top ten 2nd baseman. He wasn't in 2012, and there's no guarantee that he will be in 2014. Kansas City won 86 games and is making short term moves that suggest they want more. So if they call with a Godfather offer and the Twins move him, why does he have less right to be upset than Willingham would have in December of 2012? Because guys on three year deals making $7m buy houses, but guys under 6 years of team control making $500K, and then what they make in arbritation, only rent?

2nd question: So in December 2012, the Twins move Willingham for a frontline prospect or prospects, and they are pieces of crap, but if they move him EIGHT months later on 7/31, which was REALLY close to happening, they are perfect and odor free? Really?

I just think it's got to come down to the on field product, and I think they all get it.

I already told you that it doesn't matter how the traded player feels. I don't care if Willingham is upset or happy about a trade. Moving him after his Silver Slugger year wasn't a good sign to POTENTIAL FREE AGENTS. I used Caps Lock so you might read that part. (Keep in mind that I have already said that I would have traded Willingham, but I do see the reaction it could have had)

As for Dozier, it's different. He's a homegrown talent. Trading him has absolutely no negative effect on potential free agents because he wasn't one. That's why I thought it was laughable that you made that comparison.

Had they traded him at the deadline, it wouldn't have looked bad at all other than the fact they'd be selling low. At that time he wasn't producing and he was injury prone. Trading him then sends zero negative signs to future free agents, which is my entire argument anyway.

As for trading Dozier, I guess you could make a case, but to me he's not a guy that should be moved. His defense was Gold Glove worthy and he definitely showed a decent bat for a 2B.

Jason I don't agree that you play Rosario at 2nd based on Dozier fielding this guy is a top 3 guy defensively, I actually think he should've won the gold glove but because his name isn't pedoria it's why he lost.

If dozier could play shortstop id be all for it but we've seen him there in the past. I just personally don't think he will be able to handle short stop.

Ppl forget Rosario was CF RF in our system he has a strong arm too. If he could play left with Buxton and hicks in RF, my mouth is already salivating. That was my point on Arcia do you guys think he can take a Kubel role where he starts half the week in the outfield and DHs when he's not?

I think what were all trying is to say is the twins don't pull the trigger on trades when people stocks are at there highest mark. Examples Frankie and Delmon and now Willingham

I don't know if we are going to get anywhere, because I don't think there's a ton of quality players who want to stay on a 96 loss team, and I don't think guys at that level think "Well, I'm Home Grown, so what right do I have to comment?".

I think Free Agents sign the best money deal they can, only let other factors come into play when the money is close, and understand that business concerns will drive how long they stay.

Once again, the Twins biggest problem to Free Agents is their habit of being outbid. That's really it. The largest contract to a non-home-grown player is $48m. The Yankees pay the locker room attendant that much.

As far as Dozier/Rosario, all I can say is that if Rosario is in Rochester on July 31th with a .800 OPS, playing defense, and peeing all proper, one of them has to be moved.

Jester: If you see Rosario as an OF, that fine. Then one of the OF's need to be moved. You have to get value for these guys, not try to build a Rochester team that can beat the Astros in a 7 game series.