Dantes929

Man, I really wish someone would insult me like that.

The Cards gave him a qualifying offer so if they thought he was actually bad then they should have been nervous he would accept it. 1.4 WAR? That's not so bad is it? Wouldn't a league average pitcher be an asset right now? I think I would feel a little better having him so this is a rare thing for me to be ok with a signing the rest of the board doesn't want. My preference has always been Cobb though.

And there have been hundreds of worse players than Doug that have fit in with contending teams. Doug M would probably have fit fine on that team also if he had stayed and if the twins didn't think they had a better option. If the Twins think they have another Justin Morneau that would be blocked by Mauer after this year then you are right that he probably doesn't have a place on this what we hope is a contending team. Saying a guy like Mauer has no place on a contending team as a stand alone statement is off the mark IMO.

Having a great defensive 1st baseman who gets on base 39% of the time. I can see where that can fit in on any contending team.

In Chip Hilton's Home Run Feud Chips teammates at University talk about how pitchers are always ahead of hitters early on but doesn't seem to take to long to for the batters to catch up. Did that reference resonate with anyone?

Of course having an ace is a positive. Having one or two increases your odds of making the playoffs to start with so there is already a built in likelihood of being successful in the playoffs with an ace that has nothing to do with the actual performance of an ace in the playoffs. In other words to be successful in the playoffs you have to make the playoffs and your chances of making the playoffs are better when you have an ace. Teams without aces are not very well represented and no one is saying an ace vs a non ace does not have an advantage. Saying you need an ace and then citing KC as an example to support the case when Cueto pitched like a #5 in the regular season for KC and in the playoffs is really a stretch. On the flip side, Santana might not fit your definition of an ace but he and others are certainly capable of pitching like an ace. The fact that he was not successful in the play in game does not mean he was incapable of being successful. He just had a very bad game. Certainly worse pitchers have won many playoff games. Flip side is true also. Maybe Gibson would have more success in the WS than Darvish had, or Kershaw. It would be hard not to. Aces wouldn't be aces if they didn't give you a better chance of winning but I think I remember one of the bad Twins teams beating 3 Cy Young winners in a row in one stretch. SSS says a good pitcher can beat a very good pitcher on any given day. Get to the playoffs and I would be fine with the chances of magic happening once there.

Santana should only be out for around 1/6 of the season. There was some analysis about his use of the slider that explained his success last year but even with regression he should be pretty good. Odorizzi should give us what Gibson gave us the last half of last year. I expect at least the same from Gibson as last year but last year he was our 3rd best and if our third best becomes our 4th best that is a good thing. I don't know how Meija had a 4.5 ERA last year which is the same as Hughes career ERA. I don't know how he doesn't end up in the top 5 on the depth charts. Either way the improvement should be in the middle to back end and there should be improvement.

Worked well for the 27 Yankees though. Just kidding maybe they had great pitching as well. Saying it didn't work well for Toronto and Texas is like saying having great pitching didn't work well for the Dodgers this year or like saying Santana can't win a playoff game because look, he pitched in a playoff game and didn't win. Give me Toronto's team that year every year into the the playoffs and I would be happy to take my chances. They won the wild card and the Division Series but lost 4 games to 1 in the AL championship. In those losses they averaged less than a run a game and gave up exactly 2 runs a game. They had no ace but giving up just 2 runs a game will win most of your playoff games. They had a great offense but scoring less than a run a game will not win any games for you.

I wonder what Mikelink45 thinks is the biggest question mark. I agree that Sano is the biggest question mark. I have no worries about the rest of the team. We had a question mark at DH and now we don't.

I would probably knock each of those 3 down one year. Overpay for a 3 year and rationalize that part of it is paying him for the great value he has given us. No need to try to extend him this year at any rate. Much like Mauer back in the day, his value isn't going to get much higher and could possibly be quite a bit worse by the end of the year.

Exactly this. He has been great and has been a great value. Accept and hope that he will be a great value this year as well. I like teams to plan for the future but there is something to having a great value in the present. When Santana hit his last year I couldn't believe how much people wanted him traded because he would be gone the next year. We had an undeniable ace for 11 mil for one more year. That is a pretty awesome value in and of itself. It was particularly annoying because that was the game 163 with Chicago season and I think it is safe to assume he would have made more than a 1 game difference and who knows how the playoffs might have gone. Enjoy Dozier for what he can give us this year.

I have played sports my entire life. When guys take shots to the head or sprain ankles or blow out knees or worse, you do what you can but it is mostly a helpless feeling until actual medical people arrive. When I I've been hurt myself, comfort from friends is maybe somewhat appreciated but no where near as much as when someone gets there that actually knows what they are doing. In the pros, that guy is right there. its not unfeeling on my part. I said in the original post the way things have always been is not the way things always have to be. Can Hughes do more for the catcher than the umpire can? If you have a broken bone or a concussion do you really need moral support or do you need a doctor? You are actually making a bigger deal abut what comfort a pitcher can give which is very little and very unnecessary. Heck, most of the time the catcher gets his bell rung the pitcher doesn't go all the way to the plate, anyway. If a player steals a base and jams a thumb or sprains an ankle or in Morneau's case gets a concussion do all his teammates come rushing out or is it the trainer? It sounds like Hughes didn't go see how Garver was and this was a ST game. Does that mean Hughes was uncaring? He just wanted clarification and I am saying the rule as is is very reasonable.

Why and in what role? I admit I have pretty much written him off but if he can get back to 2014 form I would be happy to be wrong. The suggestion of him being useful if he gets back to 75% of what he was he can be useful I disagree with. He needs to get back to pretty much his best. I have thought maybe the pen was the place for him the last two years but it was more to give him mop up duty and because our worst pen guys were probably no better. Now if he is not back to his best I am hoping with our additions we have better options in the pen and the rotation. If he earns his way back to either role I am all for it but in the past guys have been given spots because they have large contracts or because of success they have had pre injury. Not a big fan of that.

For Pete's sake. Are you saying the pitcher among all who are concerned is the one who should be checking on the injured party rather than someone that is trained to do so and can actually do something about it? Just because he is a couple feet closer? That would be the word you referred to. My point was everyone is likely concerned. If I was a family member I would hope that someone with medical knowledge would check if he is ok. As a family member I would take less comfort in the pitcher going and putting his hand on the catcher's shoulder and asking if he is ok or if he needs the trainer than if the trainer just simply went out there directly. In the past when the umpire is shaken up what happens? The pitcher and catcher meet on the mound and 7 other players are standing around doing nothing. What is wrong with the pitcher and catcher standing around as well? If there is a true value to meeting on the mound to discuss things mid inning then that is one more time one team has to do this over the other. If there is no value to it then what is the complaint to standing around. Loneliness? Boredom?

The way its always been is not the way it always has to be. A catcher gets his bell rung and it is natural for the pitcher to be concerned much like it is natural for the manager, the trainer, all the infielders , the catcher's wife and kids and his close friends to be concerned and yet not all of those go and see if the catcher is all right. The correct answer to Hughes question would be "There is no reason for you to come and check how he is doing." The guy actually trained to check if the catcher is ok and to do something about it if he is not ok is the guy that should be going to see if he is ok. If I am not clear, that is the trainer. The distance from the dugout is not that much different than the mound and I don't think anyone would object if the trainer jogged out there every time the catcher caught one on the noggin. It may sound a little cold but there is nothing the pitcher can do. Same thing with the umpire. You don't need a mound visit to give the umpire a little time to collect himself. Have the trainer come out and give him the time he needs. Player and umpire safety and common sense trump length of the game but player/umpire safety and common sense says that medical staff trump the pitcher and catcher when it comes down to who should monitor it.

"Like players, fans also care about the time of the game so long as it doesn’t affect their team. By all means, if the opposing team’s closer is taking too long in between pitches, they should be penalized. But if your slugger needs to readjust his batting gloves for the fifth time, you want that to be his prerogative." Nope! I want him readjusting his batting glove when it needs readjusting, not as part of a ritual. I get that rituals are important to the batter and the pitcher but it is the rituals that need adjusting, not the batting gloves. If Altuve never adjusted his gloves or left the batters box I am guessing he would still be the MVP and his team would still have won the WS. Like many things I equate it to golf. Rushed is no good but those that go at a snails pace don't play any better and cause those they are playing with and those behind them to play at a worse pace. Where's the integrity in that? A pitcher that takes too long between pitches makes a batter uncomfortable so the batter calls time out. The batter that takes too long between pitches to get in the box makes the pitcher uncomfortable. This is the kind of stuff the players should be concerned about relating to integrity of the game. As far as the visits to the mound maybe a study should be done on the results of mound visits.. If a catcher visits the mound during an at bat what was the result of that at bat? If a coach visits the mound what is the result of that at bat vs all the at bats where there is no mound visit? If it can be shown that the pitcher after a coach visit has the equivalent of a 7 ERA then maybe it will convince the coach that either his visit was detrimental or that if he has the urge to visit the mound he should just make the pitching change instead. It would be really interesting if you let the NL have as many visits as they wanted and limited the AL to a total of 3 visits, or even no visits and then compare the results of interleague play with those of the past.

I can if its Napoli. I like this signing so much better.

"Upon being selected first overall last June, he stashed his $6.7 million signing bonus in a trust fund, opting to live off his modest minor-league wage and foregoing the typical flashy celebratory splurge." Probably more like 3.7 million after taxes but on the surface of it he's either a smart kid or has some smart advisors. Not only is he set for life he can still say "Sorry, I can't pick up this check cuz I don't have access to the money."

I hope he's twice as good!

According to this issue age 24 is about when it started being an issue. He had such a great swing but he tinkered a lot with various batting stances and became a little pull happy when Reggie said he should be pulling the ball.. He lived the way he wanted and was certainly a great player. With different habits, conditioning and using all the fields I think he could have been one of the games greats rather than one of the Twins greats. Another guy that fell in love with moon shots. Awesome to watch but I think he could have hit more 350-400 ft home runs if he didn't try to hit 400-500 foot ones all the time. http://www.startribune.com/twinscentric-one-for-the-fat-boys/188360691/

Someone explain to me how Sano playing so so at 3rd or at 1st increases his value significantly. I guess it might keep us from getting a guy like Thome to come in and DH but how many of those are around. Aside from Thome, it feels like we have complained about the DH production for years. Makes a lot more sense for a decent fielding ok hitting third base man and Sano at DH than it does to have Sano at 3rd paired with an ok hitting DH. I like having a big guy like Sano in the line up but having two big lumbering guys like Sano and Vargas does not appeal quite so much. Besides which Escobar kind of deserves a shot after the season he had. Him at 3rd base with Sano DH seems better than Sano at 3rd and Gorssman DH.

Weight and conditioning part is a bit reminiscent of Hrbek. I remember it being a pretty much annual issue with how much weight he put on. He was a great player and shoe in for Twins HOFer, but I think with different habits his ceiling was baseball HOF. Sano has a different ceiling also if he can't control his weight and condition. i don't think being an ok 3rd baseman or a mediocre 1st baseman adds that much value. Let him DH because it is his bat that plays.

Please, explain how he was terrible last year. 4.14 ERA last year would put him very solidly at our number three. How is this not a great get? We basically have the same team as last year but better relievers and a better starter than all but two of our last year's starters. I was hoping for Cobb but this appears to be a solid improvement. Twins don't get better by picking up all stars at every position. They get better by improving at multiple positions either by acquiring guys or having guys already here do better. Sanchez, I don't get. This one looks good. I've got to believe he is better than the Colon, Santiago, Turley, etc. guys we were running out there for the 4th and 5th spots last year.

Tommy Milone wasn't so horrible such that an improved version would be so bad. Milone mixed speeds well which is more effective when you have a higher top speed. Hoping more for David Wells 2.0. I kind of like big loopy curve balls as long as they are more vertical than horizontal. I can't wait to see him with the Twins.

How about Rooker at 1st and Sano DH?