jkcarew

I'm really conflicted on this one. I simultaneously admire Molitor for many reasons and at the same time don't think he's a great in-game manager. I do, however, think he's intelligent and fully capable of adapting to and/or incorporating newer tools like analytics. He doesn't strike me as a close-minded thinker. While this year's results can be looked at as him having "earned" a new contract, I would expect (and want) the Twins to see if there is something better available. I do think this year's results ratchet up the pressure on the front office to be right, if they in fact go a different direction...(assuming Molitor wants to continue).

If it's considered the playoffs, why do they call it a play-IN game? Silly semantics, I know. It's the post-season. But my feeling is, the Twins would have a decent change in the one-game scenario...and it may as well be us...but probably don't belong in a true playoff series against any legitimate playoff team. Many positive things can be said regarding the season, the meaningful games down the stretch are icing on the cake. An playoff game or more this year might be painful to endure as fans but would be even more helpful to the team in the long run.

Quite possibly he'll be winning games with superior in-game decisions as a field manager for a Major League Baseball franchise near you. Depending upon where you are, that is. We'll see.

Not offended by the article. But kind of weary of Kaepernick articles, in general. Everyone talks about the political consequences of Kaepernick's actions. But there are real, non-political consequences as well. The goat rodeo of media and distraction that will surround the team and Kaep's own ability to put in the time to be an active NFL quarterback, while also playing the part of highly-visible political activist...is very problematic. Jim Brown, who has a lot of experience at both political activism and playing in the NFL said that, if Kaepernick wants to play in the NFL, he needs to recede from the political activist role for a while. That's not a political reality, it's an NFL reality. (To be fair, I'm not sure the media would accept him stepping away from that role anymore...even if he were to want to.) In the meantime, while Kaepernick is probably better than several QB's on current rosters, he's simply not good enough to take on this stuff...again, that's ignoring the political risk (or benefit) you may see in taking him on.

Agree that these are troublesome things. My points would have been that, one, a well balanced organization can win with a field leader that is not an analytics guy. (I think you've clarified with me that you didn't imply otherwise.) And that, two, an organization can win with a field leader this is a stubborn --hole...or whatever adjectives you want to use to describe 'difficult personality'. That an organization in this stage of it's evolution takes a significant risk when throwing away talent, even flawed talent. You seem to believe that Mientkiewicz is beyond that...that he isn't willing to consistently work in a professional manner toward the objectives of his bosses. If that were my conclusion (and it might be if I had more information), I would agree with you.

OK. Hostility toward new ideas, if true, definitely can't have that. But you state much of this with such certainly, and I don't know exactly where your information is coming from. What do you mean when you refer to "Dougie's baseball mentality". If you are referring to undesirable behind-the-scenes behaviors unknown to me...fine. But if you are referring to his 'intense style', then I would continue to disagree. I think results always trump style....and I want diversity of styles in the organization. And Doug has been very good with results.

That's funny! They have done a very good job of assessing and observing, though. From what I've observed.

Couldn't disagree more. Couldn't disagree more. Does analytics now provide the entire universe of player development and team construction tools? Will it soon? And what will analytics even look like 10 years from now? One thing it won't be...is associated with the term modernization. That will be something else. Will analytics evolve to the point of rendering in-game management or player motivation obsolete? Most likely, the art (and science) of evaluating players and constructing teams will continue to evolve. But, the ability to win games will remain the most important skill. Forever. To build an entire organization with ability to see things though only one lens, at any point in time, is questionable. In the long run, it doesn't matter how Mientkiewicz was fired or what his reaction was. This is professional sports, after all. All that matters when we look back at it, is whether he ends up being more valuable than the people we replace him with. In that regard, I'm glad so many posters have inside knowledge that Mientkiewicz is an insubordinate --hole. Because my alternative conclusion would have been that Falvey and Levine don't know what they're doing.

Yes. Television.

Very similar to his 2013 year in Rochester, expect larger sample size since he spent so much of 2013 in the majors. A lot of love here for Wade. Think he'd be interesting if he developed some power, but he really isn't trending that way. Slugging actually trending the other way. The right-handed hitting 4th outfielder discussed in the thread could turn out to be the primary subject of this article, could it not? The 14 games they stuck Garver in the OF this year in Rochester tells me that the organization was at least dreaming that he might have that capability. (That and pretty overt reluctance to start him behind the plate, even when Castro was on the shelf.) Meanwhile, Grossman's OBP as a right-handed batter continues to be elite. If you're healthy, the 4th outfielder doesn't have to field like Paul Blair. Defense becomes more of an issue if, based on splits, you are forced to platoon Rosario or Kepler. Admittedly, Molitor appears close to that with Kepler right now.

This...especially if you replace 'much more' with more. Not sure we can have one of the core 4 be a platoon player. And have always been mystified by the opinion that Kepler 'clearly' has more upside than Rosario. Mejia has to do WAY more. I'm not there with Polanco. He's had an encouraging year, to be sure...but I'm not convinced he will be a better value at shortstop (and/or second) than a number of guys that will be pushing him in 2 years. I don't think any of the other position guys have anyone pushing them any time soon. So, they better be 'core'.

Not really DH'ing THAT much...just not playing. Injuries and days off. Again, when we get to the HOF arguments...it won't matter why...the questing will simply be "will evaluators consider his career to have been a catching career?". But every year like this year that 'slows the bleeding' on his career averages, (while giving the totals a bit of a boost, as well)...can't hurt.

As you might guess by my moniker, I LIKE this! I love expressing my opinion that Carew was better than Killebrew. I usually don't stick around long to argue it, though. . Anyway, they were so different in style...couldn't get more different. And yet had a ton of respect for each other.

I'll agree with this assessment. The problem is that he didn't catch a ton, even during the years you site. Even in contemporary terms. During Joe's 10 seasons of catching, A.J. Pierzynski for instance, caught about 350 games more than Joe. You cite 8 seasons of elite rate stats elsewhere in your post, but Joe only had 6 seasons where he caught even half of the Twins games...and that's counting one where he caught about 90. To have the full 'extra' value of providing the averages he provided (both offensively and defensively) from the catcher position...you have to actually be playing the position in games. And it doesn't matter why you weren't playing or why your peak included a relatively small number of games. Just ask Tony Oliva. But that is really a Cooperstown discussion (or will be in the not to distant future), so I'm off topic in that regard. With regard to all-time great Twins, he's top 5 in my mind. And you can make a reasonable argument that 2009 was the greatest season ever by a Twin. (FWIW, I saw Killebrew's 1969 and Carew's 1977. Sigh.)

The hard thing about evaluating Mauer in history is that he has had two careers...and in two very different ball parks. His career as a catcher was at the very top of HOF standards offensively...no question. On the other hand, while he was at least average defensively...probably above average...he caught fewer games per season (and for way fewer season's obviously) than the all-time greats. This, even before his concussion. He was always mixing in games at DH and then there were his seasons of various pre-concussion injuries. As a first-baseman, due to a number of factors probably, he hasn't been anywhere near HOF worthy. Including this season, by the way. His current .810 OPS/117 OPS+ was bested by Kent Hrbek in about 10 different seasons. So, Mauer the catcher is top 5 Twin all time. I would agree with that. However, his legacy will always suffer from the production at first base in the second half of his career...and from the relatively few games and seasons, the shortness, of his catching career.

Assuming Dozier will want his big pay day (more than 2 years), there will be one more potential window to get something for him. Next season's trade deadline...only if the Twins happen to be out of it, obviously. Other than that scenario, we're probably looking at a compensation pick. Can't trade him this off-season now. You're expected to compete in 2018, and you're likely to not only get worse at 2nd base if you trade him, you're likely to get way worse. So, you'd have to be blown away with a trade offer at this point. And that doesn't seem likely. On a related note, Nick Gordon in 248 plate appearances since July 1 is slashing .219/.278/.313 with 60 strike outs. Gulp. SSS, young for his level, and still a very nice prospect etc., etc....but not exactly beating down the door for a middle infield spot quite yet.

I think it's much more realistic to consider that this year has not HURT Joe's chances. This year arrests the rate at which his career numbers were diminishing in stature. The only way it HELPS is if the voters don't notice he was a first baseman in 2017. An .810 OPS/117 OPS+ does not contribute to a hall-of-fame case for a first baseman. At all. For example, Kent Hrbek had about 10 years that were better than that. And no, Joe is not better defensively than Hrbek was at that position. If Joe makes it, it will be on the basis of what he did at catcher for 8 seasons from 2006 to 2103. Was it long enough? It hurts that even that 8 year stretch included 3 seasons where he didn't complete the year. The voters don't get into the business of projecting what your career would have been without the injuries. (See Oliva, Tony)

Fair enough. It was an anecdotal comment based on my perceptions having listened to most of Chattanooga's games on the internet. I went back and looked at Romero's game logs and it wasn't AS bad as I thought it would be. Some short outings with bad-to-very bad pitch counts; some short outings with pitch counts that really weren't horrible. All in all, not efficient, but not really out of line with what you see from many prospects. This year he's been averaging about 16.6 pitches per inning and his strike percentage is about 65%. The trend is not our friend, though. Last year, just about every number was significantly better than this year. Last year Romero dominated, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like a lot of posters have the perception that that he's dominating again this year. He's hasn't. He's had dominant or borderline-dominant starts here and there, mixed in with a whole bunch of mediocre, ok starts and a handful of clunkers. The AA level has challenged him. Happily, the one number that's held up is his strike out rate (although, it's taken a bit of a hit lately to 8.6 per 9). So, here's to hoping that this is a temporary plateau on his otherwise rapid ascent to the big club. But I'm not sure that, at this particular point in time, the Twins see him as 'almost' ready. We'll see.

I don't see it as the local columnist's job to recruit future free agents to stay. Also, whenever I see/hear the Harmon Killebrew 'start of career' comparisons, I cringe. The rules at the time created a situation where Killebrew was forced to remain with the major league club from the moment he signed at 17 years of age. His first 110 games or so, he was nothing more than a bench player, frequently appearing only to pinch-hit, and averaging no more than 2-3 plate appearances per game overall. And again, he was 18,19,20 years old at the time and should have been developing somewhere on a minor league field. Sano...I'm torn on Sano. I love him. I love his demeanor on the field and what we can see in the dug-out. Seems to almost always have positive body language and displays a ton of energy. Also seems truly engaged and the first to congratulate teammates when they do well...even when he is struggling. I think that is NOT that common and I think it's huge. I also happen to believe that Sano is a better athlete and more agile than the average fan (even the average TD poster) can even imagine. He's just a huge athlete. I believe that if he had grown up in the US he'd probably have ended up having to make a decision between D1 offensive/defensive lineman or baseball. (I think one of Howie Long's kids got drafted by MLB and ended up making the football lineman choice...but when you're from the DR, you don't end up with that option.) On the other hand, I do think it's a part of being (or becoming) a professional that you develop disciplines than enhance your craft. In Sano's case, if he is to reach true greatness...MVP/HoF-type greatness...he'll need to do two things. He'll need to obtain and maintain a leaner body and he will need to adjust to off-sped pitches away. When you're as talented as Sano, you can be good...you can be an all-star...without the sacrifices and improvements. But how good does he want to be? It's up to him. For now, I'll enjoy him for what he is. But eventually, the bar will be raised. It always is for the best players. Sano is not the first to face this.

It probably says a lot about the top end of the 2017 prospect pool that TD had Romero No.1. At the time that declaration was made, Romero was a 22-year-old 6'-0" right-handed starting pitcher with a grand total of 31 starts over 4 professional seasons...none beyond single-A...and with elbow surgery thrown into the mix for good measure. Ouch. The title of the article could be "Is it time to slow the roll on Fernando Romero?". He really hasn't been great this year. He started slow, then was very good for a while, then has been downright poor recently. Aside from a couple of instances (one referenced in the article) where he was removed early with a decent pitch count, more often than not, he has been very inefficient. Even when he was rolling, his pitch counts were usually getting away from him early. The numbers speak for themselves. He's barely averaged over 5 innings per start and his walk and hit rates have been significantly higher than in seasons past. Of course this can be considered SSS, but then, so can the combined total of his 'good' seasons. I'd be careful with him. I'd try to balance wanting him to experience the reality of a long professional season, while avoiding him trying to force results by changing his mechanics, etc. One thing I'm certain of having listened to the Chattanooga games this year...ceiling aside, Romero is significantly further away than is Gonsalves...at least as a starter. And yes, Romero is younger...by about 5 1/2 months. I'm guessing that we'll hear soon that Romero is shut down, and I'd be very surprised if we see him up for anything more than a relief inning or two...and only after the games don't matter.

Not understanding the questions regarding Dozier's leadership abilities. From what I see between the lines regarding consistent effort, focus, and energy...I'd take 9 of him. Actions are the only thing that have a shelf life for leaders...and the other 'behaviors' that I see from Dozier (I certainly don't see the behind-the-scenes stuff) seem very consistent with what I would expect from a team leader. For instance, I would absolutely want my 'leader' to desire the lead-off spot in the batting order...and to want the front office to be aggressive. Not saying I think he's "the" leader that we need to get to the next level. Just saying that I don't think it should be a factor one way or the other in the sign or trade decision. To me, if the FO thinks the price will be reasonable (also reasonable term), they have to at least consider signing him...there's just too much production there. I don't think it's a slam dunk decision either way. Assuming Javier, Palacios, Lewis are at least 2 years away, what they do with Dozier will be directly related to how they REALLY feel about Gordon. We know they like him...but how much? Do they see him as the future, or likely just a bridge to the next wave? Personally, I think Dozier is the better bridge choice, especially if a Dozier trade doesn't net significantly more in established pitching than a Gordon trade. Definitely don't want next season to start without Dozier either signed or traded, though.

It's probably fair to say that the Rosario-Hicks comparison has become much more debatable than it appeared in June. Meanwhile, I think we can all agree that, based on player value, this was an atrocious trade. Sometimes the swing and miss on value projection is so complete that whatever other justifications/considerations existed, they don't matter. It was just a god awful trade.

Many of these posts come across as tinged with jealously and envy. Maybe to be expected from a baseball blogging site frequented by hard core, sophisticated baseball fans. I don't look at it this way. I think football is simply different that baseball. I also think football at a youth or high-school level is totally different than football at the professional level. I love both football and baseball. I see them as different and they appeal to different aspects of what I think athletes and competitors can be. I would say I follow baseball much more than football at the professional level, and my relative interest in the Twins and Vikings reflects that. I would say I'm just weary of the NFL...the game atmosphere, fan behavior, the way the game is marketed, etc. But I also think those of us that feel this way will be in the minority yet for a long, long time. But at the youth and college levels I follow football more closely. As for the injury risk regard football...particularly the risk for youth and high school players, I couldn't disagree more with many of the posts here. If you think football is dangerous for your youth or high school player, you've been falling prey to bad and incomplete information. As the undisputed top dog, football has taken on the role of cultural bully in this time of incessant political correctness. Otherwise rational people are swallowing every bit of news regarding concussions as apocalyptic. Meanwhile, anything published that puts these risks in realistic context never seems to see the light of day. No sport, or physical activity, for that matter, is without risk...including risk of catastrophic injury. The benefits outweigh the risk, and the equation is not significantly different for youth football. If your kid is good at it, and/or if your kids simply likes it...let him play youth or high school football! It's the one remaining sport that coaches and scouts don't expect the kid to play all year. Let him play college football! If he finds himself in the NFL and facing a decade of collisions with guys that weigh 240 lbs and run 4.6 40's, then he'll have a decision to make. Full disclosure: I played football through college. I have two boys. One is playing college football now, the other never liked playing much and quit early on during his youth years. Both played baseball through high school. Also, I took my mother to game seven of the '87 series. That probably reveals more than I want regarding my age...and it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I just like remembering it and saying it...I took my mother to game seven of the '87 world series.