brvama

Staying put is better than many of the names being floated. If a player doesn't bridge a short term gap or can improve the team longer term than stand pat.

U hope you're right and that there are absolutely NO legs on these rumors. I have to keep reminding myself that they are only rumors for now and not get too worked up about them YET. So far I'd be happy if they come out of these meetings with nothing then to hook a throw away. I wish this was over and spring training was starting.

Would that type of move get us to compete for a division title in 2015? And what would be the long term advantage of that?

Recent events definitely bring race relations to the forefront of today's general conversations. Your comments are well-written. They do however, IMHO, fall prey to the standard stereotypical assumptions. I don't believe the lack of more black MLBer is about race. Let me just say that there seems to be too much attention to highlight differences rather than commonality. And a point of contention, what makes you think the black baseball player conversation at home is that much different than the white family, or any other American? Most Americans have the same dreams, hopes, and concerns. There is an assumption in this country, perpetuated by a few that the color of skin means the innerself is different also. That is not the case. I know from experience in my family. As Stringer says the AA is an American. Culturally, their isn't a learning curve to the way of life as an American. The situations you cite are more influence by social criteria than color,imo. The black community has a great number of models who have become successful. Unfortunately, too many so-called leaders continue to ignore those role models and continue to savage their community for self profit, fame, or power. Personally, I believe the continued separation of color in our conversation harms race relations more than bringing us together. It continues the "we" versus "them" mantra. There is a great deal more common bond than is universally recognized. Regarding MLB, as you've stated, some effort has been initiated toward bring baseball back to the AA community. But let's face it, should we be concerned that the disproportionate number of NFL, NBA or NHL players don't reflect society too? Is it a problem for baseball? Yes, but not as much because of the color line but more with the community structure. That's where I think the RBI is a good start.

I side with the improve camp on Mauer. His concussion problems set him back on his off-season training and conditioning. This year he should be able to come in ready to play. Also he will be another year removed from concussion. And time is important with these injuries. As far as production, Joe should trend back to his norm minus age performance deterioration. And certainly having a HOFer leading you and in your ear gives hope that some past issues can be rectified, ie, first pitch strikes, shifts, etc. Unless he's stubborn to a fault, Joe has the makeup to be the best he can be, as do most MLB stars. Thus I expect a much better season for him. 310/380/425

This is not to derailed this thread, but I find it shortsighted to suggest a possible replacement for Plouffe at third is Mauer. That is not going to happen. It took Joe a half a year yo get comfortable at first. What makes anyone think he can just move across the diamond so easily. To my chagrin, as a former 1Bman, playing first is supposedly the easiest position to play. (Of course, I disagree with that.). Any trade of Plouffe will be covered by Esobar or a non-Mauer player. Secondly, IIRC Sano's defense had been coming along quite nicely before his injury. Has his improvement vanished because he lost a year of playing? I would think not. He is still my candidate to man 3rd for several years to come, once his arrives. Let's keep him at his position, just like we all want to get Santana to short even with his shortcomings, pun intended. And as far as value for Plouffe, Crick doesn't do it for me, even with Susac. I'm just not enamored with Cricks the centerpiece of a trade.

There were no winners in this fracas. For my personal view, I gravitate to sports, or any entertainment, to get away from daily life struggles, including politics. I think it's important to separate the player from the individual. If you want to delve into the individual, do an in-depth story about the individual. There's a right time and wrong time. Also, having the"entertainer" espousing their beliefs because of their public status irks me as much. There is a right and wrong time for that. Example, the Rams five "protest" at the NFL game. They have the right but they don't own the venue. If one owns the venue then they have every right to say or ask what's on their mind. Just don't take my time to do that.

To me, this isn't a big deal. Each has some value and the cost is reasonable. With Duesing and Nunez, letting them go for nothing at this point is simply not wise. They could be included in a trade to help sweeten the pot. Or they could find better replacements later and deal with them later. But for now, we know the minimum the roster has.

I'm not thrilled with this news. Like many I like Torii but not for a return to MN. The cost is suspect and the OF defense has not been addressed. As far as mentoring Buxton, that will be hard if Buxton's in the minors. Generally I've defended the front office but IMO they blew this one.

You lost my interest when you suggested trading Hughes & Nolasco for an position that has a solution coming and only needs a short term fix. WHY weould you re-create the black hole the Twins have had the past 4 years? There is finally some improvement in the SP. I understand Nolasco sucked last year but really why would the Reds want him with their staff and also what is their need for Hughes. Just doesn't make sense for the Reds. Except to flip those players to others. From a Twins perspective this trade would create more problems then solving any. Plus it is way overpay IMHO.

I agree with your prognosis. Unfortunately Swarzak has price himself out of the market. He's done a very good job for the role he was assigned, but can be replaced with a cheaper version. Such is the business of MLB. Same with Duesing. If the Twins were a WS team they might be tendered. Not now. I think they might keep Nunez to start the season. Who do we have that would replace him? Drawing a blank. Not sure they'd go outside for someone for that role.

The '...sons' of Minnesota doth protest of being called bland. And what's wrong with milktoast?

To answer your question - Rosario. But I think The point is that Tomas is not proven that he'd slot into a starting role immediately. Good chance he'd need time in the minors for a bit. Or he could start out, but it's unknown. Plus having prospects near with potentially the same skill set why go out after a Tomas when we aren't at that point to consider a run this year. IMHO it makes more sense to focus on other needs to set up for 2016.

Amen!

New voices don't always require strange faces. In my experience, people genereally follow the company line to remain employed while often differing on the way things are done. So, do we know for sure, that all of the coaches will spout the same line as when Gardy was in charge? The first and biggest change is Molitor - it will be upon him to right the ship. For example, the new CEO we hired kept the same senior management and has them following his vision with entusiasm and efficiency. It can be done. I totally agree with Seth's take on the "freshness" of the coaches hired. It really boils down to one's perspective. I look at Molitor as a change in direction. And I also believe that all the hires will bring strengths AND new approaches to this team that Molitor likes. Again, new ideas can come from familar faces as well as strange ones.

My thoughts exactly. Apparently, the scouts saw something liked and the $$ aren't much. Low risk, high reward type of transaction. I do like the youth angle - almost like a Draft 5 move. Plus, if I'm correct, he has options available to help with his development and really his evaluation. While I am neutral on him with plenty of questions, I do like the action taken.

Steve, I enjoyed your AFL updates. Thank you.

Noted in the article is how the Willis/Molitor conversation went regarding philosophy. To me that indicates there is not much "insider" with this candidate. My criteria is if there has been any common experience during TR's tenure, or even Molitor's, and how long that was. It would be interesting to see how other clubs and/or GMs fare in this area, like the Yankees, Red Sox, or even Cubs. I do believe, maybe wrongly, that the familiarity criteria is down on the list, but it certainly has an impact never-the-less. It still comes down to getting the right person for the job, as Big Dog pointed out. It is, however, a topic that is getting redundant, as far as I am concerned. There are two views and it seems like neither side has much wriggle room for change. So, maybe we should put this to rest and discuss the pros & cons of the candidates. Given that, I like both of these candidates and would be happy with either, from what little I know.

I'm surprised he didn't take the QO, but a 2 yr deal might be all he wanted. Maybe he is thinking after that he will call it quits. Accepting the offer poses a big risk if he should continue to have health problems. I also agree with Brandon about getting closer to home and his Wright freindship may have some influence. As far as the Mets, I'm stunned.

I think Gibson will continue to improve. TJ certainly hurt his development, but he is now getting to the stage in his career that he understands what it takes to be a MLer. He will justify his draft position, IMHO.

Don't know a lot about any except Masterson, and he along with Morrow are the only ones I'd look towards. I like Masterson ground ball efficiency and we are short LHPs so that brings Morrow into play. Personally, I'd like TR to make a play for Lester or Scherzer b/c I think it would fit long-term. But in reality, outside of Masterson/Morrow I'd pass.

Agree. Anyone they go after needs to be part of the future and not a short-term fix.

All this speed up stuff for a time savings of 8 minutes. My goodness, I stand around scratching my head trying to remember what I am doing here longer than that every day. It's stupid. I am all for improving the pace of the game, more for the momentum and flow, not necessarily the length. IMO the umps have enough things to do (and improve on) then to monitor clocks. Baseball is not a game of time - if it were there would be no long extra inning games. Hey, maybe they could do away with extra innings and add ties to the wins and losses.

Great article Parker. I think what Molitor brings to the running game, as Dozier said, is preparedness - understanding the little things that can achieve a SB vs. CS. That would be extremely difficult to measure. It is really about technique and understanding the little things that can overcome one's physical weaknesses. I believe this is what Molitor brings to the table - a profuse understanding of the game and how to make the most of it.

Establishing rules sometimes is counter-productive and it would be better if the players would make an effort to speed up the game. But I doubt that would happen and any vote you suggest would likely keep the status quo IMHO. Rules always end up being implemented b/c a few people take advantage of the situation - true in life also. Now regarding the pitchers clock, 20 seconds may be a bit short and most pitchers generally don't fool around. Those that do have more negative effect on their teammates in the field. I think the league would be wise to have the umps push it along. But I'm generally neutral on this. It has been my observation that the batters hold up the game more than anything. This constant fidgeting, adjusting gloves, calling time to get the proper placement of feet, etc. is annoying. Get in there and hit. They should be allowed to look for signs for vairous plays, but come on, beyond that becomes a ritual of the ridiculous. It's a cat and mouse game that needs to stop. I fault the umps for not getting them in the box. I do agree with you Sharon, on the trips to the mound however. But even that has limits - one per inning should suffice. I remember in the "good old days" the infielders would make trips to the mound to settle down the pitcher.