twinsfansd

I think it's great that we have 3 guys in the history of the Twins that are deserving of being the best 3B. I loved how both Gaetti and Koskie worked endlessly to improve their defense so that they could stick at the position. Their bats were their calling cards, but their defense became better over time, especially Koskie. There is no doubt that Killebrew is one of the best, if not THE best player, in Twins history. If he isn't going to be on the team as the best 1B, then he has to be the best 3B. 'Nuff said.

For me, Smalley was elite in his prime at both offense and defense. He gave the Twins 6 very good years as full time shortstop before he was traded. Gagne was also elite on defense. He was less so on offense, but he contributed some big moments for the Twins. While he was less than a star at base stealing, I do remember that he was an excellent base runner. Versalles was nearly before my time, but I think his contributions were highlighted by his offense. Cardenas was only there for 3 years, but I enjoyed watching him. But again, I think his offense was his highlight more than defense. Guzman was an exciting player, just probably not as consistently good as he could have been. I would rank them like this: Smalley/Versalles/Gagne/Cardenas/Guzman Finally, I think Casilla was such an exceptional talent. I was always disappointed that he could not ever seem to be consistent. If he could have played all the time like he did in some stretches, he could have been near the top of this list.

Cron is going to be on the team. I believe he signed a guaranteed contract before the tender deadline, so he is not under the rules where they can cut him in spring training and only pay part of his contract. Austin can also play outfield, and that would be the logical fit for him now, since all of the outfielder on this team bat left handed. He may be the 4th OF, or if they carry 4 bench players, the 5th OF.

I did not know that Billy Martin actually played for the Twins. But in checking on that, I discovered he was traded to the Twins part way through the 1961 season, so Billy Gardner actually started the 1961 season as the Twins second baseman. I agree with Carew/Knoblauch/Dozier probably in that order. I do think Alexi Casilla was an exciting player although he didn't play full time nor a lot of second base.

A couple more points to add. On tanking, let's look at last year as a perfect example. The 2 worst records in baseball were the Baltimore Orioles and the Kansas City Royals. Yet both of those teams definitely started their seasons fully intending to compete. The Orioles signed a few high dollar free agents and held on to Machado and a few others that they could have gotten bigger trade haul from before the season. Kansas City brought back Moustakis and Escobar, and held on to Duffy. They tried. Now you want to take away their high draft picks? And then, nobody tried to tank more than Miami but they will pick fourth. So you want to put them in a draft lottery and give them a chance at number one anyway. I say leave it alone. Trying to play God with rules only makes things worse. As far as this thing about the players deserving bigger paychecks just because of higher revenues, I say foul. That's just a ploy that agents use to fill their pockets. How come we don't despise Scott Boras for his billions as much as we do the owners for theirs. It would be far more fair to distribute that extra revenue to the people working in the office, scouts traveling the country, ticket takers, hot dog vendors, yes to more for minor leaguers, the trainers, minor league coaches. Why don't we take the players salaries above a certain amount and redistribute that to all those people. Then we will find out what the players' version of fair really is, won't we? Just food for thought.

I haven't read all the comments here, so maybe some of these ideas have already been offered up. I would indeed make the DH universal. However, I would make the DH more robust. I would make the position interchangeable just like any other position. In other words, the DH could become the 2B for defense later, and the 2B would become the DH, or a different player could become the DH. Or The DH becomes the 2B, the 2B becomes the 3B and the 3B becomes the DH. And then, because of that flexibility, I would leave the roster at 25. At least until after this is tested. I would not be opposed to 26 players eventually though. Roster expansions in September do create some roster advantages, but the also ran teams do need to have an opportunity to test their younger players against stronger competition. What's the difference between that and that team fielding a whole team of rookies, because they traded off all the veterans they had at the trade deadline. Teams facing them after the selloff certainly have an advantage over the teams that faced them earlier definitely have an advantage. There is no real solution to this problem that works for all the teams. So leave it alone. Mandating that a team use a pitcher for 3 batters is also a bad idea. Because now you have a team that may have the benefit of having a balance of LH and RH batters in their lineup having a competitive advantage over the other team that now cannot use their pitching staff to combat that. At the same time the hitting team is free to pinch hit against that pitcher without the pitching team being able to counter that. Again, it will make the games less competitve. I think the better solutions are the ones that just try to take the wasted time out of the games, like not taking forever to make a pitching change. Like the idea of no additional warm up pitches on the mound. And figuring out how to get the pitcher in the game quicker. Make it mandatory to use a golf cart. Tanking is a big issue over nothing. Tanking has been going on for years. Somebody has to be the low man on the totem pole. And while teams may not see a need to spend needless money when they have no real chance of competing, I don't think the plan is to just stick extra money in the pockets of the owners. I am sure those teams would much rather be competing and turning the turn stiles. Why make a team that is clearly in a rebuild situation sign a couple of players that won't significantly help their situation anyway. Really? They are still not going to change the level of competition. Why not allow those teams to expedite their rebuild and return to competition. Is what Houston and San Diego and Atlanta and the Twins did really that bad? Or the Phillies? Maybe if the Yankees and Dodgers and Red Sox and Cubs and Nationals weren't still able to corner all the best players, there wouldn't be so many teams tanking. Teams that are perennially in the middle of the pack because they were always trying to compete but can't get over the hump are also perennially boring. Teams like the recent Giants, White Sox, the Brewers for many years, the Mets, the Cinncinnati Reds, and so forth. They should have tanked or should have tanked earlier. Personally, I would rather watch a team that is letting their young players play and develop than one with a bunch of washed up veterans trying to hang on just to force the owner to spend a little money. Wouldn't you?

About that, a couple of years ago I was at a game where the Twins played the Atlanta Braves. Duffy started against Mike Foltynewicz. I was in the left field stands, and both pitchers warmed up in the outfield right in front of me before they moved on to the bullpens. I can tell you that there was no comparison in the velocity those 2 exhibited there in front of me. It was before Foltynewicz really took off, but I could tell then that I would take him 10 times before I would think about Duffy. Until Duffy can develop a good changeup, or maybe a cutter to keep hitters off his fastball, they will lay off that curveball and hammer his fastball all day long, just like they did that day.

Ryan Jeffers should be on the Power list and I think Nick Gordon belongs on the honorable mention for best athlete.

I have been following the Twins for at least 50 years and have seen a lot of players come through the minor leagues. They all develop at different paces. Many have a lot of bumps in the road before the finally get it. Many that don't have a lot invested in them are given up on before they finally get it. I think too much is read into all the things that happen in the minors. We as spectators have no idea what might be going on behind the scenes.Many times when players seemto be struggling, they may simply be trying something new. A new approach or a new pitch for instance. Stewart had immense talent but not much experience when he came into the Twins system. So it was inevitable that his talent could carry him early on, but he would need to learn to pitch eventually. What happened about 3 years ago was that he needed to buy into the things he was learning about pitching and incorporate them with his talent. The fact that last year he became aware of the analytics that were being used to help him might be because that was the first time they chose to share more of the process with him. The process may have been there all along, but he maybe wasn't buying into it as much as he could have. That's just an idea I have about how things happen. For what it's worth. No matter what the reason, I hope it continues to evolve.

Can't be patient with Navaretto much longer. He is a minor league free agent after this season I believe.

And Aaron Hicks! How did that work out?

I agree on Stashak. If his performance is repeatable, he could see Minnesota next year. I held my breath all the way thru the Rule 5 draft because I could see a non-contender putting him in their bullpen. There does deem to be a lot of pitching coming thru the system, but the more bullpen arms the farm can develop, the fewer expensive bullpen arms that will need to be signed. I really think the farm should be able to develop all the arms a team needs if a continual flow of new arms is added. And if there gets to be an abundance at the top level, they become currency for the front office to use to shore up other areas.

I just think that if Sano plays like he did in early 2017 and Buxton plays like he did in late 2017, this team can be very good. I think the front office has to count on that because they can't NOT count on it. And if it happens, I think they have the resources to add later and make a push. And realistically, if they wait things out, maybe something falls to them that makes a ton of sense now. I just don't think they want to "reach" for anything right now.

Of course the plan is not based on JUST Sano and Buxton. There are 25 players on a team, and really 40 if players are moved in and out. But there is no denying that at least for this year the team has to proceed with those 2 being the important cogs in the gear. All the other pieces have to mesh with them. But if they fail again, the team has to be in a position to cut and run, and build for next year. And having no long term commitments and all their prospect capital in place, they can go in any direction they want for next year. But if things do come around for this year, they do still have the option of devoting more resources to this team and going for it.

They said when the off season started that they had confidence that Sano and Buxton would return to their former selves, and that they would build a team that would play a wait and see approach with them. Another words, I think they are building a team that will be as good as Sano and Buxton can make them, but one that is low risk if they don't re-establish themselves. Because they can't spend enough to make this team competitive without Sano and Buxton living up to their potential. Bottom line, Sano and Buxton need to perform to make the plan work.

I think I heard that the front office has hired a whole swarm of analytical people. It seems to me that maybe one of them might know more than we do about what Perez is capable of. I for one am excited to see what they can do with him.

I don't know that we need to sympathize with either. Nor do we need to demonize or be jealous of either the players or owners.

I failed to fully elaborate about what I see as limiting current teams from being fully competitive because of albatross contracts. We have the Los Angelos Angels, Texas Rangers, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, Baltimore Orioles, New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Miami Marlins, Cincinnati Reds, Chicago Cubs, Arizona Diamondbacks, San Francisco Giants, and even the Dodgers are all either currently or very recently curtailed competitively because of very large unproductive contracts they carry on the books. All those unproductive contracts restrict what is available to teams to pay other players.

The thing that sticks in my craw about free agency is that before ANY player makes it through 6 or 7 years to make it to free agency, they have already made at least several million dollars even under today's rules. It makes it real difficult for me to feel any real sympathy for any player who thinks they are being mistreated. That being said, I certainly don't have a problem with anybody getting as much as they can, and using any means available to them to enhance their value. I don't, however, agree that driving a wedge between the players and management, much less between players and the fans, is in anybody's best interest. I know player agents, of course, would not ever agree that many players in years past may have been overpaid. And now since the front offices have tools available to them to more precisely determine what a player's value is going forward, the are able to adhere to contracts with more favorable terms. While many contracts in the past worked out to be of acceptable value, we all know that many put teams in positions where they were unable to be competitive because of albatross contracts. We have had a few of those right here in Minnesota (think Phil Hughes, Joe Mauer, Ricky Nolasco, many more). But think about other such deals, like Josh Hamilton, Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriquez, Prince Fielder, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jason Hayward, Yu Darvish and the list goes on. Do you really blame management for their caution. I think in today's environment, more players may find benefit in negotiating long term extentions while they are in the productive years of their contracts and still under team control, thus locking in bigger pay days early, then be willing to accept what the market bears when they hit the market in maybe their early 30's, instead of maybe at 29 or 30. Another market force at work here is that there seems to be an abundance of very productive young players coming through the pipeline right now. Is that maybe because modern analytics has made teams more productive in preparing their young players? The players I really have empathy for are the ones that will end up without a contract at all. And there will be many.

If you think the Twins are spending another $50 million you better pack up and become a Yankees fan. I see they overpaid for ottavino today.

I do not favor either. I just see no need to be jealous of ownership just because they have money. A lot of these rules are in place to protect the smaller market teams from being ravished by the big market ones. What kind of position do you think the Twins would be in if the Yankees were allowed to come in and take all their good players just as the Twins get them developed and ready to produce at a high level. And don't give me that "the Twins are not a small market team" because they are all small market if the yankees and red sox etc. are allowed to spend at will.

I for one am getting sick of all the sniveling on this site about how owners need to pony up even more money to a bunch of guys that are bringing in millions already, and claiming they are "underpaid". People that can't get over their jealousy that the owners have ridiculous wealth need to get off their butt ends and go out and earn some themselves. This country is being taken over by a tsunami of complainers that think eeverybody should be "entitled". I've got news for you. All of those people that think they should be "entitled" are the ones at the bottom of the economic scale because they spend all their time setting around feeling sorry for themselves. Get a life. Go out and kill something and drag it home. While I certainly think that every player is entitled to whatever he is capable of taking home, I don't think he is entitled to more simply because his employer is on a higher economic scale. The owner is entitled to keep all the market will bear as well. It is called "Capitalism". It is what this country was founded on, has always survived on, and will continue to survive on until the jeolousy overtakes all sanity. Then we will be Russia. Seems like a lot of people in DC think that isn't a good idea. All of that being said, back to the budget. Just because there are a few dollars available in this year's budget does not mean we can run out and sign a bunch of long term contracts for a bunch of expensive players. All that accomplishes is tying up your budget for future years, when a lot of our current young players will be getting more and more expensive. As players like Berrios, Rosario, Kepler, Gibson, May, Buxton, Polanco, Sano, Garver, and the list goes on, get more expensive, the budget will get more than tight in coming years. You, of course, are suggesting only short term contracts here which are fine, but for every one of these short term deals that are signed, a player with longer term control for the club is forced from the 40 man roster. That may come back to haunt the team in the end. Players like John Curtiss have the potential to be important cogs down the road. I'm sure all those things are being balanced by the front office as they make these decisions.

While I understand every player's desire to make as much money as possible, I do not understand the concept that any of these players that have made it as far as free agency are in any way suffering or in need of being felt sorry for. Why, as fans, would we want to make things more cushy for them early in their careers, thus removing the incentives for them to perform at a high level to get an opportunity to cash in on the payday of a lifetime for almost any of us. While I acknowledge that the players have every right to negotiate as lucrative of a CBA as they possibly can for their benefit, I certainly do not think it is in any way not the owner's rights to also negotiate an agreement that is in their best interest. When we are talking about players getting contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars and holding out for more, I for one do not have any feelings of pity for any of these players. I do, however, feel a degree of sympathy for all the thousands of players who have tried and failed to reach this pinacle of the sports world. The ones that toiled as hard or most likely harder than a lot of these guys that now stand to make a mere "million" dollars a year because they are being so "abused" by front offices and ownership. Thus is life. Get used to it.

Just what more did you expect him to do there? He was too far from the plate for any kind of slide. He hit the catcher and his arm and went over him and managed to get his knee on the plate. The only thing that didn't happen is the catcher didn't drop the ball, which goes to the credit of the catcher. The real goat here was the third base coach.

I think we are not thinking through what the FO plan is for the bullpen this year. I see several of these guys on the AAA shuttle all year long as they work to find out who can perform in different spots while keeping fresh arms on the roster at all times. It also gives them the option of increasing or decreasing the bench as circumstances warrant. Therefor, the guys that have options remaining will be more important than those that don't. The use of the opener could also make it necessary to move fresh arms up and down throughout the season as the opener pitches in a game and then may be shuttled down to bring up a fresh arm for the bullpen the next day.