Nine of twelve

I don't have anywhere close to the amount of time and energy this would require, but it would be interesting to see the results of an evaluation of every trade tree in Twins history.

You forgot to mention that Connie Mack was an icon in terms of in-game apparel.

I'll respectfully disagree with most of this post. The geography is a very minor issue. St. Paul would not be a major problem geographically for MiLB. Not at all. Look at a map of AAA franchises. St. Paul would be no more inconvenient, and probably less so, than Tacoma or Salt Lake City, not to mention the fact that Memphis and Nashville are in the PCL. And, as others have pointed out, MiLB can realign the leagues if they wish. And to call the American Association quality independent ball is inaccurate, IMHO. Keep in mind that there is a good reason that the players in that league do not have contracts with MLB franchises. The vast, vast majority of players are simply not good enough. And that in turn is why the marketing of these teams emphasizes gimmickry rather than the quality of play. There's nothing wrong with being entertained by that, but don't try to pretend that the baseball is good. As for me, I'd much rather watch talented players learning the game and improving their skills at low-A than the has-beens, never-wases, and never-will-be's in the American Association.

Other than St. Paul, the only city in the 5-state area that could possibly support a AAA team is Des Moines and there is no chance that the Cubs are looking to end their 40-year relationship with that city. Some will claim that Madison could support a AAA team, but this is not a thing. Madison can't even support a Midwest League team. Moreover, if Madison were a viable location the Brewers would be all over it. Proposals for a AAA team anywhere else in the upper midwest are laughable.

CHS Field was designed to accommodate expansion.

This is a piece by LEN III lifted from the StarTribune web site. https://m.startribune.com/twins-drop-rochester-as-aaa-affiliate-eye-st-paul-as-replacement/573034791/

This goes to the larger issue of who the Twins' outfielders should be. In this day and age a major league roster should have four outfielders plus at least one utility player capable of playing a corner as needed. There should be two LH batters and two RH batters or the equivalent in switch hitters. At least two should be capable of playing CF. Buxton is a natural born center fielder. He is who John Fogerty wrote about. Kepler can play there. So can Cave, and even Rosario in a pinch. So it's more about balancing the roster by adding a good right-handed-hitting outfielder. It's a bonus if he can play center.

This is a good point. I don't know the details of the parameters used to calculate SDI but I would think it could be configured to account for changes in win probability, unearned runs, or even pitches thrown. There are probably other relevant parameters as well. And for all I know it may already do that.

I only regret that I have but one like to give for this post.

There's no fight against analytics. It's a fight against the other team. And what you call anti-analytics is just analytics.

Who is "we" that hears this? From whom does "we" hear this? Does that source know this first hand? And if so, how?

It's become a pejorative term but... The only thing that has changed is that over the years we have greatly improved the depth and quality of the data. That and the term "analytics" has supplanted the term "statistics". All managers have used analytics for decades. I think modern-day managers use analytics more than in the past simply because there is more information that is useful but no manager makes decisions based only on the numbers.

Yep. With the exception of a bases-empty single a hit is almost always more costly than a walk. So increasing the likelihood of a ball being put into play will increase the incentive to settle for a walk.

I'll expand a bit on what you say in your first sentence. I think the game would be improved with more batted balls put in play, fewer walks, fewer home runs, and fewer strikeouts. The two changes mentioned here would most likely accomplish three of those four objectives, but IMHO the walk rate may actually rise. A pitch delivered from a lower mound will be easier to hit so I think pitchers will be more likely to nibble, especially with runners on base, and give up more walks as a result. I think the solution would be to increase the size of the strike zone along with the two changes you mention. Implementing this would be a tricky process that may require a few years to fine tune. At the risk of appearing to channel Bert Blyleven, we would have to find the balance point of the three variables. The strike zone has to be enlarged enough to keep the number of walks in check, but not by so much that the number of strikeouts gets too high. The mound has to be lowered enough to control the number of strikeouts, but not by so much that the number of batted balls gets too high. The ball has to be deadened enough to control the number of home runs, but not by so much that it causes a new dead ball era. And by the way, fewer walks and fewer strikeouts means fewer pitches and a faster pace of play. I also want to say that I apologize for contributing to the divergence of this tangent from the narrow topic of the thread, but in baseball it all ties together. The changes discussed here would affect how batters approach pitchers and defenses, which in turn affects how pitchers and defenses approach batters. Edit: I see ash replied to my post as originally posted. This version was being edited while he replied.

To answer your last question, the goal to me would be to have more playable balls hit by batters. My idea would have three parts. One, a larger strike zone so batters would swing at more pitches. Two, a lower mound to negate the advantage pitchers would gain with a larger strike zone. Three, baseballs that are softer and/or have more air resistance to make home runs less frequent.

spycake, I think the title of this thread may be inaccurate. The title makes it sound like a team puts a new DH in the game with each new pitcher. Unless I read things wrong, my understanding of the proposal is that the DH rule would only be in effect while the starting pitcher is in the game. After the starting pitcher is removed there is no DH for the rest of the game. Either way I think just installing universal DH makes more sense.

Yep. I don't think anyone believes that Romo will pitch better next year than this year. I think that whoever takes his roster spot in the bullpen will do better than he would have.

I think it's very, very likely that this is the right move because I think it's very, very likely that his effectiveness will continue to fade, and probably quite rapidly.

Make the offer (for one year or two) large enough that he's willing to stay but small enough for the Twins to be willing to DFA him if need be for the good of the organization.

Same as the in the regular season, although pitching is even more important in the postseason than in the regular season.

This is it. And as many have said before, scouting and player development are the keys to doing so. And it's necessary to have a manager who knows how to make good guesses regarding who plays where and when.

Yep. We would need to know the OPS against the second time through for ONLY those pitchers who pitched the third time through.

I watched very little of the game but I did see the last play and I thought exactly the same thing as the other recent posters regarding Phillips. If Arozarena wound up at third there was an advantage for Phillips to be at second base rather than first, specifically that it eliminates a force at second. But as soon as he reached second base he should have stood on the base until the inning was over. (Unless the next batter walked or hit a home run.) There wouldn't have been any reason for him to even take a lead in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth with a runner on third. This reminds me of a story an acquaintance told me. He had done some high school girls softball umpiring, and this apparently happened in a game to determine a birth in the Wisconsin state tournament some years ago. Last inning, home team down by one run, runner on third, two outs. The batter hits a home run. The runner on third base, in her joy and celebration, does not touch home. The girl who hit the home run circles the bases and touches home. The coach of the visiting team points this out to the umpire, who correctly rules that the batter is out for passing the runner. That becomes the third out and no run scores. The visiting team wins the game and goes to state.

The majority of the time. And similarly if a baseball strategy works the majority of the time then it makes sense to employ it.

There is also the ghost of Albert Pujols, although his cliff came at a much earlier age.