Should the Mariners Guarantee Russell Branyan a Second Year?

If you were a GM, would you feel comfortable guarateeing two years to Russell Branyan? The Mariners might be, but they look a little hesitant to give Branyan anything more than a one year deal off the bat:

"Branyan is coming off a 31-homer breakthrough season that was marred at the end by a back injury. He didn't play after Aug. 28 because of a herniated disk, but said Tuesday his back is considerably improved.

"I really want to get something done; I really want to stay in Seattle and be there the next couple of years," he said. "That would be awesome. It would be nice to finish out my career there. But it's obviously in their hands. It really is. I'm not being too demanding. I just want a fair shake.

"I've said all along I would like more than a one-year deal. I would like to try to find some sort of security. I played my whole career under a one-year contract. I feel like I'm in position now I can be a little larger part of a ball team and factor into bringing a championship to Seattle."

The article goes on to state that the Mariners did indeed offer Branyan a one year deal with an option for a second. I think Branyan made the right choice in turning that offer down because I think he can do far better than that on the free agent market.

However, the Mariners are now in a very interesting spot. Russell Branyan was the Mariners top power hitter last season and could have hit 40 home runs if not for a September injury and a weak second half. Without him in the lineup, there's no way that the Mariners would have stayed in contention for as long as they did. Simply put, Russell Branyan was awesome at the dish for the Mariners in 2009 and if the Mariners are going to compete in 2010, they will need Branyan (or a power hitter like him) to put up big numbers in the middle of the Mariners lineup.

With that in mind, if the Mariners can lock up Branyan for $4-$5 million dollars annually and he hit 30-40 home runs in 2010, then that contract will look like a steal for the Mariners.

At the same time though, the Mariners have to be careful here. This is the same Russell Branyan, who for years had teams salivating over his power, but disappointed by his inability to put it all together. Sure Branyan had a solid 2009, but what if the Russell Branyan's 2009 season was simply a fluke? There is some risk here in signing Branyan to a multi year contract simply because his history does not suggest that he will be able to sustain such a high level of performance.

Sure, the Mariners have a payroll that allows them to take some chances, but giving two years guaranteed to Branyan has the ability to bit the Mariners in the butt if the 33 year old Branyan struggles at the dish.

In the end, I think Branyan and the Mariners will come to terms on a two year pact. The reason why: locking up Branyan to a reasonably priced contract will allow the Mariners to focus their money and efforts on the bigger prizes this offseason: Jason Bay, John Lackey, and maybe even a contract extension for Felix Hernandez.

So...what should the Mariners do?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: The Javier Vazquez Contract Extension

For the past few weeks, fans and baseball people have been suggesting that the Braves will trade Javier Vazquez this offseason. Even though Vazquez is coming off the best season of his career, the Braves have a surplus of starting pitching and are in dire need of a power hitter. Vazquez, who will be a free agent after the season, is one of the Braves most attractive trade pieces and seems to the logical choice for the Braves to move.

But are the Braves actually looking to extend Javier Vazquez? David O'Brien writes:

"Vazquez, coming off arguably his best season and one of the best by any pitcher in the majors in 2009, is owed just $11.5 million in 2010 before he can become a free agent. If they had their druthers, the Braves would like to keep him, maybe re-sign him to a long-term deal. He’s a fine pitcher and teammate and a great example for the other pitchers, and Vazquez has made it known he’d prefer to stay in Atlanta, where he always wanted to pitch and where his first season was everything he’d hoped it would be (well, except for the Braves not making the playoffs)."

So is a contract extension possible? What would it take for the Braves and Vazquez to come to an agreement on a contract extension? Let's take a look at the goals for each side:

The Braves

1. Keep their ace at a reasonable price

2. Retain their rotation depth for 2010 and beyond

The Javier Vazquez Camp

1. Financial Security

2. Stay in Atlanta (where he wants to be)

So how about this deal for Vazquez and the Braves?

(3 years/$36 million) with limited no trade clause restricting what teams he can be traded too

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $14 million
2011: $11 million
2012: $11 million

Why it works for the Braves:

1. Keep their ace under contract

2. "hometown discount" (makes only $22 million from 2011-2012 when he could make much more on the free agent market)

3. Contract expires in 2012 along with Tim Hudson's contract and Derek Lowe's contract. (Just in time to extend Jair Jurrjens and Tommy Hanson!)

Why it works for Vazquez:

1. Financial Security

2. Stays in Atlanta long term

3. Gets an extra $2.5 million in 2010 just for signing the extension

If the Braves fail to sign Vazquez to a contract extension, then I could see the Braves turning around and dealing Vazquez for either a power hitter or salary relief.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Jeff Suppan Edition

*Over the next couple of weeks, Jorge Says No! will take an in depth look at some of the worst contracts in baseball. We'll evaluate why the player was signed, what went wrong, and future implications of the contract. Behind every bone head decision, there has to be a reason for it...right?*

Why Sign Suppan: Looking back, it's hard to fathom why the Brewers decided to make such a vast commitment to Jeff Suppan. Prior to the 2005 season, Suppan was nothing more than an average to below average pitcher, who only had one season with an ERA below 4.

But the 2006 offseason was the perfect storm for Suppan. He had a number of different things going for him.

1. Huge postseason
-For those that don't remember, Suppan was the MVP of the 2006 NLCS and pitched a memorable game 7 against the Mets . Because of his post season performance, his stock was at an all time high and he gained a reputation as a big game pitcher.

2. Consistent
-Suppan's calling card on the free agent market was his durability and his ability to take the ball every fifth day. From 1999-2006, Suppan never made less than 30 starts in any season.

3. Free agent market
-Aside from Barry Zito, the free agent market was barren of quality starting pitchers. Even though Suppan was far from an ace, his performance in the postseason combined with the lack of starting pitchers on the market made Suppan immensely more valuable than he actually was.

As GM Doug Melvin noted at the time:

Suppan is expected to join Sheets, Chris Capuano, Dave Bush and Claudio Vargas in Milwaukee's starting rotation. Adding depth to that group had been a priority for Melvin, but the GM had been critical of some other free-agent contracts awarded in this frenzied offseason. Suppan was worth spending on, Melvin said.

"This guy has more wins than Barry Zito over the last three years," said Melvin, referring to the consensus No. 1 free-agent pitcher on the market. "There's more to it than win totals, but that says something. He has 44 wins over the last three years and he has won some big games."

What Went Wrong: Simply put, Suppan reverted back to his pre 2004 ways. In each of his three seasons with the Brewers, Suppan's ERA has exceededded 4.62 and he has never won more than 12 games. Suppan's ERA has gone up in each season with the Brewers and he has performed nothing like the "big game, durable, ace" that GM Doug Melvin thought he was acquiring.

Future Implications: Luckily for the Brewers, Suppan's contract expires after this season so the future implications of this deal should be minimal. However, Suppan is owed $12.5 million in 2010, which will limit the Brewers payroll flexibility this offseason. Hypothetically speaking, if the Brewers did not have Jeff Suppan and the $12.5 million owed to him, the would they have been forced to trade JJ Hardy? More food for thought: if the Brewers did not have Jeff Suppan, then would the Brewers have been able to make a stronger run last winter at CC Sabathia?

Lesson Learned: Ask yourself this: should a team with a $70-$80 million dollar payroll really commit $8-$12 million annually to a mediocre pitcher, who is past his prime and lacking dominant stuff? I think not.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Phillies Can Be Scary Good...Right?

Even though the Phillies already have a boatload of money (almost $110 million) committed to player salaries before arbitration, that does not appear to be stopping them from making a serious run at Roy Halladay this winter. It's that kind of attitude that can separate the Phillies from the rest of the NL once again and make them one of the favorites to win the World Series:

"The Phils paid nearly $140 million in salary and bonuses in 2009, and they already have more than $106 million committed to 12 players for 2010. That's before Joe Blanton, Shane Victorino, and Carlos Ruiz get significant raises. That is also before they get a third baseman and upgrade the bullpen.

There won't be a lot of room to take on Halladay's $15.75 million salary for 2010, but sources say the Phillies might make an exception for that caliber of pitcher and make another big run at the World Series while they have Lee (he can be a free agent after 2010), Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, and Jayson Werth in their primes.

As many as a dozen teams could be in the running for Halladay, so his coming to Philadelphia is far from a sure thing. But don't count it out. These are the glory days for the Phillies. They are thinking big, and players want to play for them.

"We're in a fortunate position," Amaro said in general. "We've become an attractive place to go."

Kudos to the Phillies for actually recognizing their window. Too often in sports, teams fail to recognize their window for success until that window has actually closed and by that time, it is too late. Because most of their core players are already in their 30s, the Phillies know that the time to win is now and acquiring Halladay would put them on that path.

However, at the same time, there has to be some thought into the future of the Phillies. If the Phillies go ahead and trade for Halladay, they will probably have to deal at least two of their top prospects in addition to JA Happ. While the acquisition of Halladay would certainly make the team stronger in 2010, the Phillies farm system would be absolutely decimated from the Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay trades and the team would be lacking depth throughout the organization. If the Phillies are struck with a series of injuries or poor play, then they might struggle, even with Roy Hallday.
So what cost is acceptable for the Phillies to accept their window and make a play for Halladay? At what point do the Phillies hold off on acquiring Halladay because they'd be risking too much of their future? If the Phillies have the chance to make a trade for Halladay, should they do it?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Why Would the Orioles Sign Chone Figgins?

Lost in Tim Kurkjian's piece about the offseason is this nugget about Chone Figgins and the Orioles:

"Figgins had a poor postseason at the plate, but will be coveted by several teams (White Sox? Orioles?) if he gets to free agency. Chances are, the Angels won't let him get away."

Now, I can understand why the White Sox would want Figgins given his speed and ability to get on base. He would be the ideal leadoff hitter in that lineup and would make the White Sox lineup much, much better.

However, I'm failing to understand why the Orioles would even get involved in the Chone Figgins sweepstakes. I understand that with Melvin Mora moving on, the Orioles will need a new third baseman in 2010.

But why would Chone Figgins be the answer? Sure he's the best third baseman on the free agent market, but he makes absolutely no sense for the rebuilding Orioles for the following reasons:

1. He will be very, very costly ($11-$13 million annually)
2. Figgins will be 32 next season and is not a long term building block
3. The Orioles already have a player with the same strengths as Figgins (Brian Roberts)
4. The Orioles are finally devoid of any bad contracts or again veterans...so do they really want to commit an expensive, long term deal to a player, who will eat up roughly 1/8th of their total payroll? Not in my eyes.
5. The Orioles have no chance to compete in 2010
6. The focus has to be on building for the future and developing their young players...not bringing in aging, expensive, veteran players!

In short, there is no plausible reason why the Orioles should covet Chone Figgins right now. None whatsoever.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Market for Roy Halladay

The market for Roy Halladay is bound to heat up over the next few weeks. Yes, it finally looks as though the Jays have made the decision to at least explore the idea of trading their all world pitcher. What teams would be interested in the perennial all-star? Everybody???:

“Everybody would want him,” said one Blue Jays insider. “It’s would they have the prospects to make us better and would they give them up?”

There is also one more item for prospective suitors to consider: Would Halladay want to go to there?

The 32-year-old will earn $15.75 million US this season in the final year of a contract that also includes a no-trade clause, meaning Halladay can veto any deal not to his liking."

Ok, so not everybody would be looking to acquire Roy Halladay. But given his ability, you can understand why everybody would want Halladay. But what teams actually have a realistic chance at acquiring Roy Halladay?

First off, the team has to fit these three criteria:

1. Have top prospects to deal
2. Have a legitimate chance to compete in 2010 to entice Halladay to waive his no trade clause
3. Have the money to afford Roy Halladay in 2010 (and hopefully beyond)

With that in mind, let's take a look at what teams should (and probably will) be interested in the Blue Jays ace and explore what teams meet the three criteria:

Phillies:

1. Do they have top prospects to deal?

-Yes. The Phillies came close to acquiring Halladay at the trading deadline last July, but ultimately opted for Cliff Lee instead. The Phillies have a number of prospects and pieces that would interest the Blue Jays (Happ, Brown, Drabek, etc), but it remains to be seen if the Phillies are any more willing to part with those guys now than they were in July.

2. Do they have a legitimate chance to compete in 2010?

-Yes, the Phillies won the World Series in 2008 and made the World Series in 2009. They are one of the best teams in the NL and adding Halladay would only make the Phillies stronger.

3. Do they have the money to afford Roy Halladay in 2010?

-It remains to be seen how much money the Phillies will be able to spend this offseason given that they already have $109 million committed to 2010 player salaries. And finally, would the Phillies be willing to acquire Halladay even though both he and Cliff Lee will be free agents after the season?

Then again, a rotation featuring Halladay, Lee, and Hamels would be pretty incredible and make the Phillies the heavy, heavy favorites to win the NL East.

Red Sox:

1. Do they have top prospects to deal?

-The Red Sox have one of the deepest farm systems in baseball, but it remains to be seen what prospects GM Theo Epstein would be willing to part with to acquire a possible one year rental.

2. Do they have a legitimate chance to compete in 2010?

-Absolutely. The Red Sox made the playoffs in 2009 and have been one of baseball's model franchises since winning the World Series in 2004. The Sox starting rotation is not necessarily a weak point right now, but if they acquire Halladay, their rotation will instantly become one of the best (if not the best) in baseball.

3. Do they have the money to afford Roy Halladay in 2010?

The Red Sox will have roughly $20-$30 million to play with this winter, which means that acquiring Roy Halladay is pretty realistic economically for the Sox. However, if the Sox acquire Halladay, they will be faced with the daunting task of trying to resign both Halladay and Josh Beckett at year's end.

It comes down to this: what is one year of Roy Halladay worth to the Red Sox?

Angels:

1. Do they have top prospects to deal?

-The Angels have a number of interesting pieces to move, but I'm not sure that the Angels have enough high end talent to entice the Blue Jays to move Halladay. The Angels have talented prospects like Jordan Walden and Hank Conger, but I'm not sure that those guys rank as highly as Drabek, Buchholz, or Brown.

2. Do they have a legitimate chance to compete in 2010?

-Yes. The Angels are by far the best team in the AL West and even though the team will be undergoing some major changes this winter, the Angels should be able to compete in 2010, especially if Roy Halladay comes on board.

3. Do they have the money to afford Roy Halladay in 2010?

-The Angels have plenty of money coming off the books this winter, which makes them a stronger possibility for Halladay if they decide to go that route.

Dodgers:

1. Do they have top prospects to deal?

-The Dodgers have a number of valuable pieces and young prospects to offer the Blue Jays, but I'd be interested to see if the Dodgers would be willing to move Chad Billingsley or Andre Ethier to acquire Halladay.

2. Do they have a legitimate chance to compete in 2010?

-Yes. Halladay is exactly the kind of front line pitcher the Dodgers need and would make the Dodgers the favorites in the NL.

3. Do they have the money to afford Roy Halladay in 2010?

-You have to wonder how much money the Dodgers would be willing to take on with all of this McCourt divorce business going down. $15 million is a lot of money especially with all the arbitration cases the Dodgers have this offseason. No one is really sure how much the Dodgers can spend at this point.

And finally, no matter what you read, never count out the Yankees in the Halladay sweepstakes. Never ever, count out the Yankees.

Do you think Roy Halladay will be traded? If so, where?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Should the Dodgers Trade Juan Pierre?

Now that Manny Ramirez is officially back with the Dodgers, it looks as though the Dodgers will look to trade Juan Pierre. Take it away, Dylan Hernandez:

"With Ramirez back, the Dodgers can resume searching for a team to which they could deal outfielder Juan Pierre, who has two years and $18.5 million left on his contract. Colletti and his top assistants will head to Chicago for the general managers meetings, which start Monday."

Everyone seems to be clamoring at the idea to trade Pierre. And why not? Even though Pierre is set to make $10 million next season, it looks very likely that he will be a fourth outfielder yet again for the Dodgers, which is awkward for all parties involved. Pierre played very, very well during Manny Ramirez's absence and there is little doubt around baseball that Juan Pierre deserves to be a starting outfielder. He is simply on the wrong team and in the wrong situation.

At the same time, is there a case to be made that the Dodgers should not trade Pierre? Absolutely.

If the Dodgers do indeed find a taker for Pierre, then they will probably be forced to eat a large portion of the $18.5 million remaining on Pierre's contract. In addition, what are the chances that the Dodgers will actually get something valuable/useful in return? If the Dodgers don't eat any of the contract, then I'm sure they will have to take another bad contract back in return. And if the Dodgers eat a majority of the contract like we all expect them too, then what's the likely return on Pierre? A couple of mediocre prospects, no?

With that in mind, if the Dodgers cannot get payroll flexibility or something of value in return for Pierre, then they should just hang onto Pierre for the time being. Even though he is "just" a fourth outfielder, Pierre could have tremendous value for the Dodgers if any of their outfielders get hurt or he could provide useful depth for the Dodgers off the bench like he did last year.

I know the situation is not ideal given how much Pierre is making, but that does not mean the Dodgers should just give up Pierre for nothing while eating most of his salary. If Pierre is back with the Dodgers in 2010, then I'm sure he will find some way to contribute and make himself useful or even more tradeable.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Alfonso Soriano Edition

*Over the next couple of weeks, Jorge Says No! will take an in depth look at some of the worst contracts in baseball. We'll evaluate why the player was signed, what went wrong, and future implications of the contract. Behind every bone head decision, there has to be a reason for it...right?*

Why Sign Soriano: The Cubs were coming off a tremendously disappointing season in 2006 in which they lost 96 games. The pressure was on GM Jim Hendry to turn the Cubs into contenders immediately and he turned to the free agent market to improve the team. Hendry was looking to add some pop to the Cubs lineup and there was no player more qualified than Alfonso Soriano, who was coming off a 40-40 season with the Washington Nationals. Even though Soriano had no real position, the thought of Soriano in the Cubs' lineup was enticing for Hendry.

As GM Jom Hendry stated at the time:

"Once we re-signed Aramis, he was our target guy. We clearly felt he was the best free agent on the market," Hendry said. "I think we're all surprised and happy that the player and his representatives wanted to act so quickly. Usually these type players end up being high stress and high-stakes poker right down to the end."

What Went Wrong: Soriano put together a stellar first season with the Cubs in 2007 in which he led the Cubs in most of the major offensive categories despite missing time with a torn quad. In 2008, Soriano missed a large chunk of time because of injuries and as a result, he only played in 109 games. Despite leading the Cubs in home runs again, the season was trying for Soriano as he struggled defensively in left field and became a liability in the outfield. Things (hopefully) bottomed out for Soriano is 2009 when he hit just .241 with 20 HR, played horrible defense once again, and missed most of September because of knee surgery.

Future Implications: The biggest problem with the Soriano contract currently is that it makes it very difficult for the Cubs to make any moves. To be fair, Soriano's contract is not solely responsible for this, but for better or for worse, it seems as though the Cubs are stuck with Soriano for the foreseeable future. He is signed through the 2014 season when he will be 38 years old, which has to be a scary thought for Cubs fans, who have already witnessed their fair share of injuries with Soriano. If Soriano does not return to his all-star form at the plate, then this contract could haunt the Cubs for the next five seasons.

Lesson Learned: It's hard to feel sorry for the Cubs in this situation even though Soriano has been a disappointment over the past two seasons. Anytime you commit 8 years to a 30 year old player, there are important risk factors that you have to consider: injuries and decline. Unfortunately for the Cubs, Soriano has been dealing with his fair share of injuries during his tenure with the Cubs and even though it's not totally clear right now if he is truly declining, there is plenty for the Cubs to be concerned about. Conventional wisdom would suggest that as Soriano shifts father away from his prime years that his numbers will decline even further; for the Cubs sake, they have to hope that the opposite is true for Soriano.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Should the Brewers Sign John Lackey?

I'm skeptical, but Buster Olney is more optomisitic than I:

"Remember, it was only a year ago when Milwaukee offered CC Sabathia a $100 million deal, so the Brewers clearly are prepared to pay big dollars for a big-time starting pitcher. And they have a clear need: Even with rising star Yovani Gallardo anchoring the staff, Milwaukee ranked dead last in starters' ERA at 5.37 and 27th in rotation innings this past season.

The Brewers conceivably could enter into trade conversations for Vazquez or Halladay, but this course would be problematic. Milwaukee traded aggressively in 2007 and 2008, most notably for Sabathia, and this depleted its farm system. Trading a top young player for a one-year rental like Vazquez or Halladay might not make sense

It probably would make more sense for the Brewers to take a serious run at Lackey, who as a free agent would not cost them talent in trade. He would take pressure off Gallardo and fit their team culture.

The Brewers also could easily structure a Lackey deal to fit their payroll into the future. Jeff Suppan's contract will expire after next season, and the only real long-term obligation the Brewers have set in stone is to young slugger Ryan Braun, who is signed through the 2015 season. Milwaukee just reduced salary obligations by trading J.J. Hardy to the Twins and replacing Mike Cameron (who made $10 million last season) with Carlos Gomez."

There's no doubt that if the Brewers add Lackey, then this team would become one of the favorites in the NL Central. A rotation led by Lackey and Yovani Gallardo would be one of the best 1-2 combos in baseball.

But before getting all giddy at the thought of Lackey joining the Brewers, ask yourself this: should a team with a $80 million dollar payroll commit more than 15% of their total payroll for the next 4-6 years to a 31 year old starting pitcher for with a history of arm problems? That doesn't seem like a risk that I would be willing to take.

Furthermore, if the Brewers sign Lackey, that would just about eliminate the possibility of the Brewers retaining Prince Fielder long term. Fielder is certain to command a contract worth $15-$20 million dollars annually, which would make it almost impossible for the Brewers to retain him, unless they felt comfortable spending between 40-50% of their total payroll on two players. At this stage in the game, are the Brewers prepared to give themselves no chance to resign Fielder?

Of course, if the Brewers plan on trading Fielder, then they could conceivably sign Lackey and not have to worry about a possible payroll logjam. But once again, ask yourself, is John Lackey worth the risk for the Brewers?

I understand that the Brewers need to take advantage of the limited window they have right now to compete, but Lackey is too expensive, requires too much of a commitment, restricts their payroll flexibility, and ultimately, is not worth the risk for the Brewers, who unfortunately do not have an exorbitant payroll.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Did the Twins Make a Mistake by Picking Up Michael Cuddyer's Option?

$10.5 million for Michael Cuddyer in 2011! Rob Neyer is not a fan:

"Cuddyer is a good hitter but a subpar outfielder, resulting in a player who is, at his best, worth less than $10 million. Granted, considering the $1 million buyout, the Twins essentially have committed to spending $9.5 million on Cuddyer in 2011. And $9.5 million isn't much more than what he was worth this year, and in 2007 (2008 was a disaster).

Of course the problem is that Cuddyer has entered his decline phase. He'll turn 31 next spring and (more to the point) 32 in 2011. He might be just as good in 2011 as he was in 2009 ... but we know that he probably won't be. We know that instead of being a (roughly) $9 million player, as he was this year, he's more likely to be an $8 million player or a $7 million player.

No, the difference between Cuddyer's salary and his value is not a great deal of money. But the Twins have a history of overspending on decent players while complaining about the high price of truly great players. Remember, it was just a year ago that they couldn't afford Johan Santana but quite happily blew $9 million on Craig Monroe and Livan Hernandez. And if they're not able to keep Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer in the long term, their money mismanagement is simply going to drop them from contention."

I dunno if I would call this money mismanagement. Sure $10.5 million might be slightly excessive for Michael Cuddyer, but I don't mind this move at all for the Twins. As long as their payroll jumps as expected into the $80-$90 million dollar range, then spending $10.5 million on Michael Cuddyer is not a horrible move. If the Twins' payroll was closer to $60 million, then I would completely understand Neyer's frustration with the Twins, but these are different times for the Twins. Instead of operating like a small market franchise, the Twins should (and hopefully will) have a more aggressive approach and take advantage of their new resources.

What I find strange about Neyer's response is his last sentence about the futures of Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau. The Twins actually do have Justin Morneau locked up long term-he is signed through 2013-a move that was praised throughout baseball. And even though Joe Mauer is a free agent to be after the 2010 season, the odds are high that he will remain with the Twins and it should be taken as a good sign that the Twins want to surround Mauer with quality talent. Hopefully with their new resources, the Twins will not have a problem locking up Joe Mauer to a long term contract similar to the one that Justin Morneau signed a few years back.

And finally, I'd to see any evidence that Neyer has that Cuddyer is currently on the decline. I understand that as players get older, they generally decline, but Cuddyer's numbers this season do not present any evidence that he will decline in the near future. Picking up Cuddyer's option is a good risk for the Twins to take and if you need any evidence of that, just look at Cuddyer's stats in 2007 and 2009.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)