Brock Beauchamp

Escobar had an OPS+ north of 100 (just barely, but still) in two of the past three seasons. Last season was a disaster but he must have been injured because he was so bad at everything. Vargas is likely the better hitter but going from recent numbers, maybe not by a lot. I don't really care what Escobar did in his age 22-24 seasons when he accumulated fewer than 200 plate appearances a season. It's not relevant to who he is today as a 28 year old any more than Brian Dozier's 2012 is relevant to who he is in 2017. Still, Vargas deserves a legit shot at playing every day for a couple of months. This organization hasn't done the guy any favors.

That's fair. I hope they had a good reason for the Tepesch start because from the outside, it was puzzling.

Sure, lots of coaches had hands-on experience with Berrios but the last time they saw the guy was when he closed out that horrible 2016 season. And they didn't get a good look at him in spring so their last chance to really examine the guy was when he was terrible and obviously doing things wrong. Again, I find it hard to fault them that they took the cautious approach in that situation.

This thread is... bewildering. Bird's point doesn't seem the least bit unreasonable. The draft is something of a crapshoot but if a team is 4% better at identifying possible performers throughout the draft, that's going to reap dividends over the long run. But that means it's entirely possible they still fail the other 96% of the time because the draft is pretty close to a crapshoot in the later rounds. Think of it in terms of blackjack. Each numerically higher up card from the dealer only changes the percentage of winning/losing by a couple of points. But if one player plays smart and hits every time the probability is 51% and stays every time the probability is 49%, that player is going to win more money over the long term than a player who does the opposite.

I'm not against that idea but I want more than Jay. I want Jay, Burdi, and possibly another guy before I think about removing any (performing) arms from that clown car that resides beyond the Target Field outfield.

Another thing we've lamented in past years is how the front office so often put guys in situations where failure was likely. Alex Meyer springs to mind and the ridiculous call-up he got two years ago (I think it was two years ago, anyway). Aaron Hicks is another example. Maybe even Buxton in the third spot this season is an example (but it was fixed so quickly that it's hard to complain too much about it). Whereas this front office gave Berrios every chance to succeed instead of fail. They let him go to the WBC because he wanted to do so. They put him in Rochester and let him dominate, something he probably needed after his disastrous rookie season. Then, just 40 days into the season, they called him back to Minnesota and he's killing it up here. Berrios looks like a different pitcher today. Maybe he would have been that pitcher that on Opening Day but given how little he pitched in March and how bad he was in 2016, I'm skeptical that would be the case. Letting a promising young prospect get his feet back under him before exposing him to MLB opposition after a disastrous rookie campaign isn't something we should be criticizing. Now, if it was July 1st and Berrios had just made his first start after tearing Rochester to pieces for three months, that's something to complain about. But Jose made his first start on May 13th.

While Duffey might be able to start, I can't support the idea of moving guys out of the bullpen unless it's because they're terrible pitchers who are demoted/released.

I expected very little of Vargas defensively but he's looked okay to me. I support the idea of sitting Mauer once or twice a week and think Molitor is open to that idea but the rainouts have really caused problems over the past few weeks.

Possible? Sure. I don't think anyone should dispute that it was possible. A good idea? I don't think it would have been a good idea. The new front office who didn't have any hands-on experience with Berrios. He was absolutely terrible last season. He barely pitched in Spring Training so the new front office left March still barely seeing the guy. It made all the sense in the world to give that guy a few weeks of observation in Rochester before deciding whether he was MLB material. We don't even know if Berrios was working on anything specific in MiLB so that's another reason why they may have wanted to see him in Rochester for a month.

There was a ton of risk in putting Berrios in the rotation on Opening Day. What happens if he posts four consecutive He goes back to Rochester. The process starts over. We don't see Jose until July. That's quite a risk, in my opinion.

Dude, Santiago is an established veteran with 750 career IP. Berrios barely burned through his rookie eligibility in 2016 and was absolutely horrible while doing it. There's nothing to compare between those two guys.

It's a fair point. I'm not concerned yet but I noticed how many guys he's been walking lately, even before you started this thread. It's something to watch for sure.

Uh, that's not very simple. Out of curiosity, how do you keep rotations aligned when rainouts come fast and furious in April and Rochester starts most of its games before the Twins on a nightly basis? And how do you adjust the Rochester rotation to accommodate this "up in the air" rotation? And what does that do to overall development of your players? And why are you wasting Mejia, the second best MLB-ready pitching prospect, in the bullpen after his strong Spring Training? What about his development? That's just about the least simple argument I've seen on this board.

Janeway is awesome. The Doctor is awesome. The rest of the cast should have been left on a desolate planet somewhere in the Gamma Quadrant. Though Seven of Nine was a decent character later in the series.

As a series, absolutely. If we break it down into seasons, DS9 had the best seasons (4-6, primarily 5-6). The Dominion War is the best Trek ever, IMO.

Quite a bit harder. Fastball velo: 2015: 90.2 2016: 90.4 2017: 92.1

It's possible. Pedroia has a significant home/away split OPS: +.090 home with lots more doubles. But Pedroia has a pretty balanced spray chart (actually, kind of ridiculously so) and the split could just be coincidence.

Not many. The Twins gave three starts to Mejia, which objectively was not a terrible call. They gave a single start to Tepesch, which probably was. Berrios wasn't ready for Opening Day after spending a bunch of time on the bench in the WBC. He was absolutely terrible last season and the front office obviously needed a better look at him in person before promoting him to Minnesota. They didn't get that in Spring Training so their next option was Rochester (never mind that Mejia had a strong ST and earned his spot, as much as a player can/should earn a spot out of Spring Training). The Twins gave just one start to their fifth starter between April 23rd and the day Berrios was called up. One of the stranger talking points running around this board is the implication the Twins sat on their hands for weeks while Berrios was dominating. The guy was called up and started the team's 33rd game, which is just a hair over 20% of the season. And the Twins used a fifth starter just once after their 17th game of the season (just a hair over 10% of the season). So, in essence, I guess we could lament that single Tepesch start but that seems somewhat silly to me. Gibson was going to have an opportunity to get his feet under him and he last pitched May 4th, the team's 26th game of the season. He was yanked from the rotation after six starts, which is pretty close to the minimum a team will give a struggling starter. So, if we really want to pick nits, I guess you could toss one Gibson start in there, suggesting the Twins should have pulled him after five games. So... two games? It still seems silly when framed that way.

I don't think it's an MLB thing, I think it's a MiLB thing. The teams probably pay for their own balls. It doesn't make it less stupid, only more acceptably stupid. MLB should pay for MiLB balls because it's in their interest to do so.

I'd have to check but I believe front offices are contractual, like the rest of baseball. It may not be a matter of whether you want to become a POBO but instead whether your current employer will let you become a POBO. Teams usually play nice with one another and let their front office people interview and take jobs between seasons but they could easily say they won't allow it to happen during the season. Could you imagine how upset Cleveland would be if Falvey asked to leave in May, just weeks before the draft?

I want to see Garver next year for sure, I'm just not really sure it's a question whether Garver can handle backup catching duties if the front office feels his defense is adequate. Does it really matter if your backup catcher hits? I don't think it does. Even if Garver posts a .500 OPS in 2018 over 200 plate appearances, I don't know if I really care to "see what we've got" in 2017. I'm not saying I don't think Garver should get a taste of MLB this season, I just don't know if it really matters right now. He could come up in July or even August and get some reps.

I'm also not sure whether Adrianza is any better than Vielma but the front office has obviously taken a shine to Adrianza. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing because Vielma is reportedly a polished infielder but if he came to Minnesota and started booting the ball and making stupid mistakes, he wouldn't be the first guy to do so (we all remember Hicks' early fielding difficulties in MLB). All in all, I'm far more concerned with what's (not) happening in the bullpen than I am the catching situation. Gimenez is on track to finish the season with 200 plate appearances. Even if you replace a .600 OPS with an .800 OPS over that time, the actual win difference isn't a whole lot. Not that I'm saying the Twins shouldn't be looking for an advantage here and there, only that the likely difference between Garver and Gimenez is rather small, and that's assuming Garver is the defensive equivalent of Gimenez (a rather big assumption).

Man, I just don't see it that way. Maybe they're redundant right this moment but I'm still not sold that this infield will be here in July, either due to trade or injury. Having both Adrianza and Escobar gives a lot of leeway in case of injury. Escobar can step in as starter at 3B, SS, or 2B and likely hold his own, leaving Adrianza as the futility guy. It'd be nice if the Twins had an acceptable futility guy ready in the minors and Vielma might become that guy but he was only promoted to Rochester a few days ago. I'd stand pat with most of this roster for the time being.

See, I don't really buy that he's a #3. He's a #2 with the risk of falling into a #4/5. I'm worried that the hammer will drop on this guy at some point and he'll revert back to his career arc. Here's a good example of why Santana isn't a #3. Here are his seasons with 20 or more starts (pruning out half seasons because it's hard to get a read where he would have finished). Seasons with a 111 or higher ERA+: 2008, 2013, 2016, 2011 Seasons with a 94 or lower ERA+: 2012, 2007, 2014, 2005 Seasons with a 95-110 ERA+: 2006, 2010 He's rarely mediocre. He's usually well below average or well above average. IMO, Santana is a rather peculiar case because I can't recall another pitcher who was healthy for so long and so wildly inconsistent, rarely settling into mediocrity.

Pretty much. My only real concerns with Santana are the following: 1. If he's injured or just breaking down a bit. Unlikely, at least in the context that we don't have enough data to support this idea. 2. Whether he's truly past his ying-yang career performance. Is he truly a 115 ERA+ guy now or is he still prone to his perennial 90 ERA+, 120 ERA+, 90 ERA+ seasonal performances? When Santana is rolling, he's a solid #2 pitcher. The problem over Santana's career has been that he's a #2 one year, a #4/5 the next. It's rare to get a "decent" performance from Santana. He's usually quite good or kinda bad.