When yesterday started there were, to me, two undeniable truths regarding the Twins and any potential trades that could have taken place.
- Most of the players who could have been seen as trade chips had little to no value due to salary concerns, performance, or both.
- The only player of significant value was Glen Perkins.
- Bowden refers to Ryan as "stubborn" without qualifying the statement. Calling Ryan stubborn implies that there was a deal on the table that he could have accepted but chose not to, regardless of whether or not it would actually have been a good trade. He makes it sound as though Ryan should have taken any trade, just to do something. (I imagine Ryan sitting at a table with seven phones in front of him ringing simultaneously while he sits there with his arms crossed yelling, over the din of the ringing telephones, "NO! NO! NO! NO!")
- Bowden then says, in the very same sentence, that not trading Perkins "was probably a mistake", as though he's hedging his bets in the same breath. Based on calling the Twins General Manager stubborn, you'd expect him to firmly believe it was a mistake. Not probably a mistake.
- Bowden also says "the Twins' inability to eat salary", when in reality the Twins were probably happy to eat some money if it meant they'd get something preferable in return. Here's the proof:
- Finally, Bowden insists that the Twins "were way too quiet considering how much improvement they need." If the Twins didn't get an offer they were happy with on Perkins, who exactly does Bowden think they were going to trade for improvement? Josh Willingham is hurt, Justin Morneau has had a bad season and has $6 million left on his contract, and everyone else from Mike Pelfrey to Kevin Correia to Ryan Doumit to Jamey Carroll aren't performing well, either. The only player who could be traded for "improvement" would have been Perkins, who Bowden seems to insist should have been just traded for something. Which, really, would have been the dumbest thing the Twins could have done.