LaBombo

Maybe he can take Anderson with him.

Not buying it. First, it matters a great deal whether you win 85 or 95 games when trying to reach the playoffs, even in the "worst division in baseball". 85 wins in the Central Division going back to 2003 (the first season after revenue sharing took on its present form) gets you a division title one time. 90 wins since 2003 would win the division just three times (88,89, and 90 wins). And the supposedly now mythic, nearly unobtainable yet statistically meaningless total of 95 wins or more was the amount it took to win the Central in half of the past 10 seasons. In fact, the average number of wins to capture the AL Central since 2003 stands at just above 93. 85 wins almost certainly doesn't get you the Central. Also, although it has practically no meaning to AL Central teams, it's worth noting that 6 out of the last 11 AL wild card teams since 2003 have won 95 games or more. And no team has won an AL wildcard berth since then with fewer than 91 wins, or would have won the new second wildcard spot with just 85 wins. 85 wins doesn't get you either wildcard. Second, it DOES matter how good a team is in the regular season when looking at John's stated goal of winning the World Series. Since 2003 only ONE team (La Russa's '06 Cards) with 85 wins or fewer has won the World Series. Nobody else did it with fewer than 90. And only two other have even made it to the WS with fewer than 90 regular season wins. 85 wins gives you a one in 20 shot of winning the WS if you have a Hall of Fame manager. In other words, let's say we do win 85 games with a Twins team whose entire projected 2013 rotation at the moment consists of Scott Diamond, and whose present middle infield stands to be yet again one of the worst in the AL. That 85 win team has about a one in 10 shot at winning the Central, and a one in 20 shot at winning the Series. So despite John's interesting statistical mirage, I'm going to paraphrase Moneyball despite whatever additional scorn that might earn me. "Do I care if my 85 win team didn't win the World Series because 85 win teams suck in the postseason, or because 85 win teams don't make the postseason?" "No, you do not."

Agree with your overall assessment of priorities in the last sentence, but not how much a good rotation helps a pen. Another way to look at the rotation's effect on the bullpen is this: The AL teams with the weakest rotations (Twins, KC) in terms of IP depended on their bullpens for more than 100 extra innings pitched than the teams with the starter IP totals did. 100 innings. Purely in terms of innings pitched, that's enough to wash away the collective sins of Jeff Gray (5.71 ERA), Tyler Robertson (5.40), and Jeff Manship (7.89). Can you totally eliminate your 2 or 3 worst relievers' damage to your season by getting 100 extra innings from your starters? No, of course not, thanks to the effects of usage limits/leverage/strand rate/etc. But you can damn well reduce it, and expend fewer resources shoring it up when there are plenty of other holes to fill.

When making your estimate, don't forget the wasted treatment time due to the Twins' medical staff mistakenly diagnosing it as a very high ankle sprain...

Hardy for Jimmy Hoho. Before that trade, Smith just had the appearance of garden variety incompetence. But after it, I started to suspect outright, deliberate sabotage. Which proved correct in light of the man Smith chose to replace Hardy at short. That was the one that finally blew his cover.

Guess I missed the part where I mentioned Terry Ryan. Maybe you can show me. And your belief that the realization by St. Peter that the marketing was substandard just happened to coincide with a steep plunge in attendance and train wreck performance on the field is suspect at best.

My point was that obviously a crappy product is harder to sell, and I'd expend most of my energy improving the product rather than the marketing. If the Twins need to revamp their marketing strategy with a "tough times" outside firm, that would tell me all I need to know about how they view their chances of contending next year, and quite a bit about the year after.

Agreed. That seemed to be one of the most consistent strengths of the franchise. When a steep decline in attendance exactly corresponds to a steep decline in on-field performance, marketing is the last thing I'd be worried about.

Parker, you made a good case for Marcum, but you omitted the last sentence of the interview with him... "The Kansas City, Mo., native added that he has no preference with the geographic location of a franchise or if it's an American League or National League squad, but wherever he ends up signing, he wants there to be a realistic chance at making the playoffs." Which pretty much rules out the Twins. On the other hand, rationalization can be a powerful force when fueled by greed. But if Marcum rules out the Twins for being non-competitors in 2013, we'll have another high water mark of Twins futility, since Marcum apparently sees an 89 loss team that's gone 20 years without a postseason appearance as having a better shot at the playoffs.

You made a good case for Marcum, but you omitted the last sentence of the interview with him... "The Kansas City, Mo., native added that he has no preference with the geographic location of a franchise or if it's an American League or National League squad, but wherever he ends up signing, he wants there to be a realistic chance at making the playoffs." Which pretty much rules out the Twins. On the other hand, rationalization can be a powerful force when fueled by greed. But if Marcum rules out the Twins for being non-competitors in 2013, we'll have another high water mark of Twins futility, since Marcum apparently sees an 89 loss team that's gone 20 years without a postseason appearance as having a better shot at the playoffs.

There's nothing wrong with bringing him back on a one year deal with incentives, just as long as he's not counted on as one of the three pitchers Ryan says he needs to find in the offseason. But that won't happen. The Twins would absolutely count on him to duplicate his best season, and if/when he gets hurt, they'll probably misdiagnose it again, and he'll end up missing half the season or more, again. When that happens, there will be no backup plan in place, and Ryan will try to wave away the injury as both unforeseeable and unpreventable. And when the fan base questions the credibility of a front office that obtuse, Ryan will politely instruct them to shut up and eat their seven dollar bratwursts.

If there's a way to screw it up, Ullger will find it. And it's a big deal because every piece of institutional culture that you preserve from a regime that hasn't won a playoff series in a decade and has racked up nearly 200 losses in the two highest payroll seasons in its history represents a 'business as usual' attitude that's likely to keep failing. The new hires are probably a good start, but they all represent some level of the comfort of familiarity as well. It gives me the feeling they're there to keep Gardy happy rather than shake things up. Hope I'm wrong. We'll see.

Agree with almost all of your points, Storm. But I'm not suggesting that the Twins try to match the Tigers player for player. The Buehlre/Tigers staff comparison was just meant to differentiate between 'improving' and 'competing'. Buehrle would improve the Twins. He would not, as staff ace and sole significant 2013 FA pitcher addition, help them compete against the Tigers.

You're probably right about the Marlins shopping Buehrle at some point and not expecting much in return. But I'm not sold on the idea that the Twins will make up much ground on the Tigers by spending $17+ million a year for 3 years on a middle-aged guy who'd be the 4th starter (or maybe 5th at the end of his contract) in Detroit. And they'd be done in free agency unless the Marlins picked up a big part of the tab, which they won't. As depressing as it is to use him as an example, Joe Saunders could give 90% of Buehrle's performance for half the money. Great job on the forecasts, Nick.

And until May most people thought he was AAA filler. And people keep saying nothing went well..... Don't forget the bullpen, which outperformed expectations, and whose coach was fired today...

Seth, I admire your writing and I appreciate everything you contribute to Twins baseball talk, but I totally don't get this perspective. We've had enough of this route to failure over the last decade, and a pathetic three-and-out against the Yankees puts a far worse taste in my mouth than a stinky season with the promise of a stronger draft. It bothers me that people say "anything can happen in the playoffs" --which is proveably false. Carl Pavano cannot magically become Curt Schilling in the postseason. Danny Valencia cannot become Miguel Cabrera. Ron Gardenhire cannot become Tony LaRussa. You get out of the playoffs what you bring into it. The Twins brought nothing into the postseason over the last decade, and got exactly that out of it. The trophy is never a guarantee, but, c'mon, there's a reason why the Yankees considered drawing the Twins a first-round bye. And they were right. It's a sound philosophy because baseball, more than any other sport, has the "best team on paper" losing to an "inferior team". The 2006 Cards were not the best team in baseball on paper, yet they won the World Series. You can't get to the World Series without making the playoffs. After that, anything can happen. I'm all for the Twins pushing harder to make trades to push them over the top in years they are competitive but the idea of "building a World Series team in March" is a ridiculously impossible challenge. You do your best to field a competitive team, then you supplement that team mid-season in years where you think you have a real shot to win it all (2006 and 2010 come to mind). The Twins have been very good at building a competitor. They have not been good at pushing hard to build a WS team mid-season. But before you build that "WS team", you need to be competitive. Walk before you run. The Twins are awful right now. Their first step should be a return to legitimacy, not burning it all down and hoping that 500 things come together perfectly in 2016 and they become a world-beater because chances are that most of those 500 things required to build a world-beater just won't happen on the timeline you hoped to see. All you have to do is look through the recent histories of really bad MLB franchises to see how "building to win it all" often leads to "more losing seasons as prospects sputter and fail". You're failing to acknowledge an entire decade of Twins baseball history, other than the meaningless references to 2006 and 2010. "Just make the playoffs" resulted in the one of the most embarrassing postseason losing streaks in the history of sports.

An organization that employs Scott Ullger doesn't deserve to win.

But that's not the argument, is it? You claimed "no impact prospects ready to contribute". By that reasoning, it's impossible for any prospect "to be ready to contribute" until they've actually done so. Gibson should be ready to contribute by the All-Star break if his rehab goes as expected. Parmelee is already contributing. Arcia and Hicks have a good shot at contributing. No one is claiming certainty about anything, we're simply refuting your statement that "no impact prospects are ready to contribute in the majors next season". There are several who should contribute at some point in the season. I'd be suprised if he's not pitching with the big club by early June at the latest. So would I. But he's pitched a grand total of 275 innings of professional baseball, most of it below AAA, and is early in the rehab process. Beauchamp offered Gibson as an example of a guy who can be counted on now to be ready to help the Twins contend on opening day. I see little evidence of that. Gibson may actually make the team with a strong spring based on need alone, unless the FO decides he starts in AAA no matter what. But the idea that the Twins would view themselves as contenders while simultaneously counting on Gibson, as of today, to hold down a rotation spot from day one is a big stretch. They'd be setting themselves up for another April apocalypse, especially if they fill other rotation spots with potential arsonists like Sam Deduno and his 1/1 K/BB ratio and 5.16 FIP.

Then you missed the point the same way they did. Guess I'm not doing very well at getting that point across. If you think Gibson's shown as of today that he's ready to hold down a rotation spot on a contender, I disagree. Otherwise, your post makes absolutely no sense in the context of what I've been saying. My points were, going back to my first in this thread, that A) the Twins will not be contenders next year. Therefore, it couldn't hurt to see if Florimon can contribute (I'm thinking utility at best) by playing him ahead of Carroll, who will be 40 when I think the Twins might be relevant again. Which of those two points do you disagree with? If you disagree with my reasons why the Twins won't contend, that's fine. But at no point have I ever opined that any of the players in question would not play for, or even contribute to, the Twins in 2013. I just said that I don't think that anyone is ready now to contribute to a contender. Brock agrees with me about everyone about Parmelee, and he's probably wrong about him, unfortunately.

Not to mention he had a 10/1 K/BB ratio over 6.2 IP in those two Triple-A starts, which is... pretty good. Overall, Gibson put up a 4.13 ERA, 1.13 WHIP and 33/6 K/BB in 28 innings on his rehab stint. Not sure how that can be viewed as discouraging for a guy less than 12 months removed from TJ surgery. Who said anything about Gibson's rehab being discouraging? I said three things about Gibson: two bad starts in AAA, could surprise people next year (the good kind), and as of right now, cannot be counted on to hold down a rotation spot (not 5th, though I didn't state that) on a Twins team that would hope to contend in 2013. I'm assuming that if you disagree with any of those points, it's the third. Gibson's progressed faster than I expected, but claiming certainty that he'll be a key contributor to a contending 2013 Twins team is beyond absurd in my opinion.

While I understand your sentiment, the Twins aren't nearly that bad off. Parmelee is already in Minnesota. Gibson, Hicks, and Arcia will probably make appearances in 2013. And where has Ryan said he's not going to make changes? Ryan has stated repeatedly that the Twins will not be major players in free agency, even going so far as to make the laughable, empirically false assertion that the 2013 free agent pitcher crop is "thin". And he's also insisted there will be no major turnover in off-field personnel. Sounds like no significant changes to me. And as I said, no prospects are ready to contribute. Whether Arcia or Hicks get a cup of September joe has nothing to do with helping the Twins win in 2013. Gibson may surprise, but he's been dreadful in his first two starts at AAA. Oh, almost forgot, Player A Age 23 A+/AA 610 PA's, .287/.366/.436 Age 24 AAA 282 PA's, .338/.457/.645 Age 24 MLB 175 PA's .239/.303/.396 Player B Age 22 AA/AAA 559 PA's .284/.370/.448 Age 23 AAA 174 PA's .385/.477/.629 Age 24 MLB 143 PA's .260/.322/.374 If you're expecting a big boost from a full season of Player A, Chris Parmalee, then have a big steamy helping of Player B, David McCarty. Yes, there are differences, and reasons to be optimistic about Parmalee in the long term, but a half season of unprecedented AAA hitting isn't one of them. In other words, I didn't forget to mention Parm as a prospect ready to make a major contribution in 2013. I just don't see it happening.

Competent 39 year old utility player or fringe 26 year old utility player as your starting shortstop next season? That's a real nail-biter for a franchise that will be fighting to avoid 90 losses for a third consecutive season next year. It seems obvious that Florimon and Dozier or somebody else with even a faint whiff of potential should be starting in next year's middle infield. But maybe I'm missing something. Without disputing that Carroll would probably represent at least a small improvement over those two at short, let me ask the Carroll backers this. Why do you care? Is it that you believe the Twins will be a contender in 2013 despite being a 90+ loss team with the 3rd worst run differential in MLB, no impact prospects ready to contribute in the majors next season, and a GM who has vowed not to make virtually ANY significant changes in 2013? Or is it that you're reeeeeeally worried that they'll lose 90 again instead of just 88?

That's incorrect. ESPN published the results, but the information was gathered and interpreted by two independent firms and a university.

Yeah, that's actually not a flaw, it's THE POINT of the exercise: to factor out the raw popularity differences between sports, like your Twins/Wolves example, and create a picture of how fans view a given sports franchise relative to the other ones in that sport. No, the weakness of this interesting study (and thanks, OP, for posting it) is the relatively small data pool to draw on of fans with extensive knowledge of other franchises in a given sport. For example, how many baseball fans have been to a game in more than half the other stadiums in baseball? Without sampling primarily fans with a strong knowledge basis for comparison in categories like "stadium experience", then the study is telling us more about how good a given franchise is at pleasing the fan base in such a category than it it's telling us how stadium experiences really compare by city.

I am all for giving Slama a chance. Your line is preposterous. Metrics alone do not predict major league success. David McCarty comes to mind as he tore up the minor leagues, fizzled at the majors. There is a clear difference between the skill levels of the players at different levels . To the Twin's credit they are not public about their perceptions of what is lacking in Slama's pitching. On the other hand, they must still be interested in him when discussing winter baseball option. . Yet another straw man from the anti-stat crowd. Who is saying "metrics alone"? Nobody. And what on earth could you possibly think that dropping David McCarty's name does for your 'argument'? He was a mediocre hitter in his only full season of minor league ball before getting his first extended look in the majors at age 23. Why are you attempting to equate that to Slama's brilliant minor-league record?