Printable View
I was listening to the game last night on my way home from a wedding (Gladden didn't kill me this time but one of these days I will fall asleep behind the wheel and accidentally crash into, and kill, a family of 6...which is why it's irresponsible at best to allow Gladden near a microphone), and good old G money briefly mentioned some sort of roster action involving Blackburn coming in the next few days.....any idea what he was hinting at?
Rob Antony said last night that they were discussing a potential demotion to AAA again since he has options. They wanted to talk to TR this morning to get his input... IMO this is going to happen, and we'll either see Hendricks or Vasquez come up and take his place.
Package him in with either the Denard move or the Morneau trade that is made in the off-season. Getting his $5+ salary off the books is as valauble as anything, be it team chemistry (joy in knowing you aren't guaranteeing a loss every 5 days) and more $ for the payroll.
You'll have to package him without telling the other team, who the hell would want him as part of a trade?Quote:
Originally Posted by Siehbiscuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siehbiscuit
Great idea, let's lower the return on a possible Morneau or Span trade :banghead:
Cool... then he can go down there for two more starts and pitch well and come back and be the same again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Stohs
Do you think the Star Trib will write a new article about how he "found/fixed the mechanical problem", or will they just re-run the previous versions?
NBA teams do this ALL the time. When you give up the best player in a trade or in this case a quality MLB player for the "potential" of an unproven minor leaguerthrow in your worst contract. A Span trade may be able to fetch the Twins two prospects, an A and a B prospect (what the Twins wanted from the Reds at the deadline). So to respond to getting a lower return on the trade...YES, it would absolutely lower the return, but to me getting Blackburn's $5.75 million off the books next year is worth only getting the A prospect. I would at least consider it in the trade talks, because his contract is a waste of valuable payroll and it eliminates the need to put him in the rotation just because he is paid so handsomely.Quote:
Originally Posted by alarp33Quote:
Originally Posted by Siehbiscuit
Great idea, let's lower the return on a possible Morneau or Span trade :banghead:
You're missing one key thing...THIS ISN'T THE NBA!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Siehbiscuit
Blackburn will never be back, time to cut the losses and DFA him. Orgainization needs some credability, 5.5 mil for next year is already a sunk cost, maybe you can save .5 mil as someone signs him.
.... and then come back from Spring Training next year, look like he "found his confidence" again, start the season with the Twins and lose it all over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Stohs
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiehbiscuitNBA teams do this ALL the time. When you give up the best player in a trade or in this case a quality MLB player for the "potential" of an unproven minor leaguerthrow in your worst contract. A Span trade may be able to fetch the Twins two prospects, an A and a B prospect (what the Twins wanted from the Reds at the deadline). So to respond to getting a lower return on the trade...YES, it would absolutely lower the return, but to me getting Blackburn's $5.75 million off the books next year is worth only getting the A prospect. I would at least consider it in the trade talks, because his contract is a waste of valuable payroll and it eliminates the need to put him in the rotation just because he is paid so handsomely.Quote:
Originally Posted by alarp33Quote:
Originally Posted by Siehbiscuit
Great idea, let's lower the return on a possible Morneau or Span trade :banghead:
Umm, wrong sport. There is a salary cap in the NBA, not in MLB last time I checked
What the hell does it matter at this point, the front office can say one thing and do another. We kept hearing about all these changes JR was gonna make, no scholarships, earn your playing time, looking into the medical staff, accountability within the organization. We've seen nothing but the complete opposite all season long.
The Twins can do or say anything they want about Blackburn, the bottom line is sans DFA him he'll be in the rotation next season getting destroyed once again.
I do believe Blackburn and staff identified some problems. But, judging by the video since his return from Rochester, I don't really see any changes to his mechanics/delivery that are different from earlier this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by alarp33Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Stohs
Do you think the Star Trib will write a new article about how he "found/fixed the mechanical problem", or will they just re-run the previous versions?
"Hopefully from here on out he'll figure things and get himself on a little run and get some confidence going into next year, because he should be a big part of our rotation next year," Gardenhire said
According to Gardy, Blackburn is going nowhere.
So if Blackburn is sent back to Rochester (nice payback to them for reupping the PDC:)) who pitches Wednesday? Is Walters ready to go?
Walters has been getting about 3 innings per outing, as was the case Sunday night. Must be on a pitch count.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbknudson
And neither are the Twins if they continue to retain players that are this bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Highabove
I believe you are correct, but he did throw 59 pitches in that outing Sunday. Given the options (and I know it won't be Wednesday due to timing) maybe we should activate him sooner rather than later. If he can only go five innings and throw 80 pitches or so, is that any worse than running Blackie out again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. EdWalters has been getting about 3 innings per outing, as was the case Sunday night. Must be on a pitch count.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbknudson
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/0...rade+Rumors%29
Nishi and Blackie off the 40 man...who's coming to mpls! Round 3 for Hendriks?