Dantes929

There is some talent on this team and appears to be some near ready talent in the minors and lets not forget that we have the same team we did last year except hopefully a year better and with better bullpen talent. That is why I am not giving up on this year but I am ok with "there is always next year". Its what I love about baseball. I felt it even after 87 and 91. Its the baseball fan anthem. Being one of our top three starters probably would place him in the difference maker category. I said as soon as the year was over that if we could just get Cobb and a reliever and be done I would consider it a success so I still feel that way. The true odds were that we wouldn't get that much. Same team as last year with a better starter added, a better reliever added, and May and some young guys waiting in the wings. The big downer for me wasn't losing out on Darvish but losing Santana for 12 weeks. I will say for Darvish though that my first sights of what it would take to sign him was 175/5 so I maybe could have swallowed 150/6. Is it wrong for me to hope he is a bust in Chicago?

I agree. Some of his pitches were smooth and made me think this guy is 3 weeks from the majors but then I kind a saw what you saw which is mainly inconsistency. I don't know when the video was taken so hopefully he has progressed since then.

Old topic but if I am not mistaken there is little to no evidence that innings limits have any effect at all. Twins are considered to be one of the most cautious teams in terms of protecting prospect arms while also being historically and collectively considered softer throwers than average but does anyone think the Twins pitchers have had fewer injuries than average? Blyleven threw 141 innings at age 18, 210 at age 19 and 278 at age 20. It just seems bizarre to me that some one can throw 80 innings and the protocol is to shut them down, have them take 6 months off and now they can throw 100 innings. I think it makes sense to not let a guy throw 100 pitches right away in ST or not letting a guy throw too many pitches in one inning but a lot of the precautions seem to have no scientific or even anecdotal evidence supporting them. I do remember one article supporting what we saw Gibson doing last year which is exercise and stretch in between innings. That makes sense. Having someone with arm fatigue or soreness sit out a start or two makes sense. Shutting guys down for reaching innings limits just seems arbitrary to me and deprives them of developmental experience..

Yeah, I saw him a little on youtube and he seems to have a lot of recoil on the follow through. I think I have heard that it is not so much the forward motion but the stopping that puts the arm at risk. There did seem to be some sink on his pitches which explains the ground ball rate. Two seamer, 4 seamer, slider, curveball and changeup. Unhittable on paper.

Does anyone know the recidivism rate on Tommy John? Isn't it stronger after the surgery? Sometimes I have thought we should just have our prospects get the surgery the day after they are drafted and be done with it. I do wonder if he should take a page out of Koufax and Verlander playbook and tone down the fastball a little bit in favor of command, at least in the minors. Starters that throw 100 don't seem to last that long.

I am ok with this. Play well and you can increase that number. Play poorly and you get what you deserve. Biggest thing I always fear is a start like 2016 where it felt like they were out of it after 10 games. Give me 41 wins at the halfway point and I think I would bank it. As least from right now we can dream that Santana will be in good form and maybe May and Sano as well to give us more than 40 wins the 2nd half. Say what you will about Kintzler he really did well for us, especially early. I do not have as much faith in Rodney to produce the same results which mitigates the general improvement of the pen.

Someone else put Jones in the conversation. I don't consider 5 seasons to be a really small sample size and mostly was just responding to this quote in the original article. " Behind even shortstop, this is probably the weakest position in franchise history. Bob Allison would have been the shoo-in here but he spent a majority of his career in right field. Mack was the de facto left fielder. Hey, at least he brings some championship pedigree to the team." Maybe Matthew meant it a little different than I took it. Maybe he was more dismissive of the left field position in general but to me Mack is a very strong choice rather than just the best of a weak crop.

Well, 4.5 seasons, 633 games and I don't hold the player's strike against him. Jones played 300 more games but had 8 fewer WAR so basically Mack for 5 years and a replacement with a negative 4 WAR for each of the next two seasons equals Jones. Ok, that might be going too far and I liked Jones but he is closer to Span that to Mack. I liked Span too but Mack was just better than either. Longevity should count but that is a really big gap in production. If you put more weight on longevity that I do then Allison is probably the better choice anyway.

Mack's OPS while a Twin was .854.That is better than Mauer, better than Hrbek, better than Morneau, better than Carew, better than Koskie, better than Gaetti, better than Hunter, better than Smalley, better than Oliva and better than Puckett. Better than Jones also. His WAR per game was way better than either Hunter or Jones. Sadly his best season was a monster that was cut short by the players strike. http://www.startribune.com/twinscentric-most-underrated-player-in-twins-history-was-rule-5-pick/182341191/ Looks like he continues to be underrated.

My opinions that differ strongly. Hrbek was a fantastic fielder that should have won Gold Gloves. No Twin comes close for more than a season (Mauer last year) However, Morneau with an MVP, an MVP runner up, and a 20 place finish trumps Hrbek's 2nd place and 16th place finishes. OK, the strong opinion was on the fielding not so much the choice cuz Herby was really good. It certainly is close at shortstop. I am ok with Smalley but shortstop is a pretty important defensive position and Gagne was so much better. Never saw Versalles but a league MVP and a couple GGs is worth a lot. Again the strong feeling is against saying it wasn't close. Shane Mack is not a weak sister. His OPS while a Twin was .854. That is better than Mauer, better than Hrbek, better than Morneau, better than Carew, better than Koskie, better than Gaetti, better than Hunter, better than Smalley, better than Oliva and better than Puckett. Viola probably deserved a little more respect. Cy Young and two other top 6 finishes plus if a pitcher ever carried a team to a WS it was him and that wasn't even his Cy Young year. Gaetti as a utility infielder is pretty weak. Smalley wasn't great defensively and Carew really wasn't that good defensively and I don't think you really want a pinch hitter for any of those guys so late inning defense I would go with Punto. You've already got Knoblach that can come in and give guys a break for a game without losing the bat. Punto also better for late inning pinch running. Gaetti was good but just wouldn't give much added value on a team like this. Essentially, I guess I have less issue with your picks than I do with your comments on some of the players.

The triple negative in the last sentence throws me a bit. 91 team was very good. They won the division by 8 games and Puckett had a WAR of 4 that year so to say the Twins would have no championships without him seemed like a factual statement that had no facts to back it or was an opinion stated in the form of a fact. They would most likely have made the playoffs with Puckett and may or may not have won without him. Even if they don't win without him, which I admit is a possibility, it is a team game and there were a lot of players on each of the WS teams whose absence might have meant no championship. Heck, they might not have won either without Gladden and he probably doesn't make my top 50. Its certainly not blasphemy or outrageous to suggest Puckett wasn't the top Twin.

Pretty good chance that the same could be said of Hrbek an Gagne. Definitely would not have won in 87 without Viola and we got Tapani and Agulerra in a trade for him so definitely would not have won either without him. Does that mean they should be ranked 1-4? Actually, there is no real evidence that the Twins would not have won without Puckett. That is opinion. Seems wrong not to have Morneau on the list.

Oh, sh&%! or Oh, Fu#@ me! Gotta be one of those.

That sounds reasonable but then I think "we want to train the umps to call a game the same way a robo ump would so why not just use the robo ump?" All calls affect a game and regardless of the training there are still going to be calls like the one where Santana deserved a strikeout and instead gave up a 3 run jack. That is not a subtle result. I also get that there is a human element that you want to save but there is also one that I would like to see eliminated. Leslie Nelson umping is an absurd extreme example of how applause affects the calls of the ump but I have been playing, officiating and spectating for nearly 50 years and know that working the ref or ump whether it be by fans, coaches or players has an effect that it should not have. Umpires are human and have bias. That is the problem I have. Maybe there is a coach or player that is intimidating, maybe there is a player the ump doesn't like and maybe there is a team that the ump was a childhood fan of. Do the Twins get exactly the same calls in New York that they would get in KC or in Minnesota? If you believe they do then ok. If you think they don't because of outside factors and there is bias then why would you be ok with that? When I used to play basketball there was a school that had a very passionate crowd and a very intimidating coach and we knew when we went there we were going to come out on the short end of the officiating. This is a home field advantage that I believe exists that I would prefer to get rid of if possible. Maybe robo umps is the answer and maybe it is not but I would not mind seeing it tried out.

When I was in Catholic grade school in the early 70's we had a guest speaker that was a Jew and talked about the history of her people and also talked about the racism and such. I remember learning that to jew someone was offensive because it depicted a people that were money grubbing and unfair. I had never made the connection between the word and the religion. I wouldn't have even spelled it the same way. To me it was just a great and descriptive word for negotiating and getting the better of a deal from someone and there is no substitute word that quite does the job. I guess my point is the Fighting Sioux is kind of a cool nickname with also cool mascot and logo's and like many sports names there is the comparison to war or battle and intimidation. There is no other name that evokes quite the same imagery as the Fighting Sioux but I doubt its origin was to honor anyone. If classes are mandatory teaching the history of the Sioux and why and how they are being honored then I am wrong. If the name of the sports team is the only thought ever given to them that is a different matter. I guess the flip side to the result of all names being changed to more a benign nature is that without the sports teams named after them no one will think of them at all so it is a trade off of anonymity and apathy vs indignation about insensitivity.

That is so funny. I very nearly included that exact position in my post. I was going to comment on the fact that I don't really care about the Vikings name or mascot but I like the helmet. For boring hours during grade school I would trace and color in or even draw free hand a picture of that helmet. I would be fine with the Minnesota Cool Helmet With Horns football team. Minnesota CHWH for short. Or Minnesota the Best Helmets. Being attached to that makes as much sense to me as any other mascot or logo.

it brings tears to my eyes what massive and monumental grief and hardship it will bring to the Cleveland community to no longer be identified with caricatures of a race for which they have no connection whatsoever. Clearly the harm they will have to endure as a result of not having the grinning Indian as a logo is immeasurable. The suffering will be felt for the foreseeable future and beyond!

I look at a stat like 80% of Native Americans are not offended by the term Indian and 20% are and I wonder if that 20% is taking it all too seriously but I am a German whose family moved here a 100 years ago and give very little thought to any of my ancestors beyond my parents so I know I just can't relate to that kind of heritage ownership. But what I REALLY don't understand is the other side of the coin. If you are not Native American, or specifically a member of the Sioux tribe why would you take such issue with a sports team that stops using either as a mascot? You really need to step back and just ask yourself. "Why do I care". My college changed its mascot and I gave it less than 5 minutes. thought. The same would hold true for any of the teams I have played on or followed. I am not a Crusader, a Raider, a Viking, a Redman or a Twin. I love the Twins and like the history and reason for the name but even if it wasn't deemed culturally offensive I wouldn't spend any time protesting a change. I kind of like names that draw on history or geographical significance but don't insist on it. If the Golden Gophers changed their name to the Gray Squirrels how does that change any one's lives. What's wrong with people that they wrap themselves up with a stupid mascot so tightly. Just felt like that needed to be said again.

I would have no problem with Nunez as long as it is understood he will bunt at least twice every time he faces Sabbathia.

When I see a major piece of legislation being voted down because of a few swing votes that cited integrity, transparency, etc, as the reason only to see that same legislation passed a couple days later that somehow coincidentally had contracts(pork) for the swing voter's states added to the bill am I too skeptical to think the same of the player's union? I would welcome more than a generic "we voted it down to protect the integrity of the game". What is it exactly that compromises the integrity of the game? How about some details that a reasonable person would agree with. Why did I immediately think "Reasonable request turned down, not because of the substance of the request but because it could be used for negotiating or political purposes." Took me very little time to find an article supporting that thought. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/pace-play-impasse-signal-larger-issue-baseball-article-1.3768152 This also supports Spycake's position that slow pace has been a recent issue rather than an issue throughout the history of the game. it also supports my memory that I didn't used to yell at the TV " throw the ball already!" or "get in the batter's box already!". Golf is also a game that has no natural clock and yet they have pace of play rules. As a result there was a penalty stroke assessed in 2017, one in 2013 (to an amateur at Augusta) and one in 1995. I can easily imagine that once the players get past their pettiness this rule would have no effect at all on the game except for quicker pace. Of course there are other possibilities for speeding up play but this is a no brainer.

Yankees should have won 100 and the Twins should have won 83 and it was in New York so they were definitely underdogs but still only a good performance from Santana away from stealing one. Didn't happen. Such is life. I think any one of the three is a good bet to close the gap because I do have faith that Mejia and or others will fill more of the gap at the very back of the rotation. Someone we don't expect is going to surprise us in a good way but I agree with Chief's position that a solid or better starter from the outside would be a big plus. I don't believe these guys are rehashes of Correia and Nolasco. I think they are true upgrades. Any one of them.

I think I confused the game results with the series results. So I also missed the games started stats but he was 5-4 in terms of record but 3-4 in games started. Doesn't really disprove that they are capable of winning playoff games. I think they have all come back from injuries and Cobb coming back as well as he did without a feel for his best pitch is encouraging to me. If he gets the feel back, he could be a real sleeper. If he doesn't, he still has a nice curve ball and could still give us mid rotation performance.

Yes please. Like the pitch clock, the time has come to try this out. If we are not doing this why not just let the players call their own balls and strikes. Just kidding. I would like to see it in action before coming to a conclusion. Pitchers taking forever to throw the ball doesn't belong in the game and umpires deciding games with lousy strike zones and lousy application of lousy strike zones doesn't belong either. It was fine when that was the best option. All we hear is that both pitchers and batters just want consistency. As a fan, I would prefer that as well.

My original post was in response to a post saying Cobb and Lynn don't win you playoff games and I was just pointing out that they were 8-4 in games they started. Empirical is based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Small sample size but it still refutes that original post. I conceded that Darvish would probably be successful more often but on 2nd thought, where is the proof that he is flat out the better pitcher? Career ERA and 2017 ERA say there is not that much difference. You can point to other stuff but now we are out of SSS and if your goal is run prevention there just isn't that much difference. Ok, that middle paragraph is the epitome of SSS. Santana pitched horribly. Anyone that pitches horribly with respect to their abilities is not going to be successful. Darvish and Kershaw both showed us that. Santana pitched like an ace most of the year and then has a clunker. That is evidence that he didn't get us out of the WC game but certainly not that he was not capable of doing so. That is evidence that it is still baseball played on a field rather than on paper. I am guessing none of us are that far apart. We would all be happier with a better pitcher but my starting point the day after the season ended was that the odds say we end up with none of those three so from that starting point I am happier if they are able to sign any of them.

I agree though I think the premise of Darvish vs both Lynn and Cobb is pie in the sky. If we sign just one of those guys it falls under your blanket of reasoning. I would be happy with any of the three because I think any one of the three would deepen and improve our rotation and give us a better shot at the playoffs. I would rank them Darvish, Cobb and Lynn. I don't trust NL starters even though Correia really wasn't that bad for us. Nolasco was. Anyway that is why I rank Cobb slightly ahead of Lynn. Cobb has done it in the division with the best offenses.