by jiminy

I think this is a really interesting point. Most of the focus has been on his offensive decline late in the season. That's certainly glaring: a drop from .841 to .631 in OPS 1st to 2nd half last year, and from 19 HR to 9. But what if this decline was health related? What if he was playing banged up? Wouldn't that affect his fielding as well? Before I tried to interpret the decline in his season by season fielding stats, I'd want to see them broken down month by month, or at least 1st half vs. 2nd half. If he fielded well in the first half of the season and then declined, I'd speculate it was health related and be optimistic he could rebound. If not, I'd speculate the three year arc was meaningful. Anyone know where to find split stats for fielding? Either way, a few more days off seems a wise precaution.

That has always been the argument to me, too -- until I looked at the stats Nick posted above. According to the numbers, May is NOT a better SP than Milone. And not just the third time throught he rotation, when he gives up a .907 OPS, which should give anyone pause, even his biggest fans. He's not even better the FIRST time through the rotation. Does he have more upside? Sure. Given his age its fair to weight his last starts more, which were extraordinary. But more upside does not necessarily mean more production. A near sure thing like Milone is very, very valuable. Especially at his price, which is low. You need to look not just at value but value to salary ratio, and Milone is a big plus there. Given that his trade value is low, too, I hope they don't dump Milone just to make room in the rotation for May. The numbers say that could weaken both the bullpen AND the roation. This reminds me of when the Tigers dumped Fister, because they didn't need him. You can never have too much pitching. The only reason to trade someone is if they bring back someone you need even more. I don't see that happening with Milone. That said, you only have so many roster spots, so I'm not going to second guess them if he's the guy to go. I just wouldn't be in any hurry, that's all.

You mean, until Buxton happens? CF doesn't seem to offer much opportunity for Santana long-term. It's great he can fill in there, but it doesn't counter the argument that his best chance to help is as a utility man, it reinforces it. He may have talent, but right now he can't seem to hit, field, or improve his plate discipline. He's got a long way to go before he deserves a spot on a major league team. His 2014 makes me retain hope, even if it was BABIP driven. But his 2015 means he has to prove he can do it again before he deserves another shot at the show. I wouldn't cut loose a guy with no options to make room for this guy. Not till he turns it around. His 2014 was already an outlier when it was happening. All that's happened since is he's regressed to his minor league history. At this point he's nothing more than a lottery ticket to be more than emergency AAA help. Not trying to be negative -- people do turn things around. Dozier was mocked. Span was mocked. Neither showed much in the minors, or in their statistical history, but the scouts insisted there was something there, and they were right. Santana's got the tools. He has a shot to be the next Eddie Rosario. Of course, Rosario also has a chance to be the next Santana. Not as a fielder, but his plate discipline and K rate aren't much better. If pitchers find a weakness there's not much wiggle room to stay above average. Jeez, I am being a little too negative here! I think I need lunch.

Not saying I disagree with your over-all point, but I would just add that 21 WAR from one player over 3 years is much more valuable than 21 WAR over 6.5 years from three players. At least if your goal is to win a championship. By analogy, imagine we were talking about home runs. Say you could get one guy who would hit 150 home runs in the next three years, or three guys who would hit 150 HR over six years. It's not that those guys don't have value, but you could fill your whole roster three times over with guys who hit 8 home runs a year and never win a pennant. You only get so many at bats, and you need to make the most of them. Same with high WAR players. It's good to have a lot of guys who contribute a little. But you only get to play nine guys at a time, and if you want to be the best, you need guys who can produce dramatically more in their innings that other players can. A great player producing 7 WAR from one lineup slot, or one rotation slot, is going to help you come in first place a lot more than someone who adds two wins a year but does it again the next two years. At the end of the season, all that counts is wins per season. In your scenario above, you compare Fernandez contributing 21 wins in 3 years to Berrios, Gordon, and Burdi contributing more than 21 wins over 6.5 years. According to that math each current Twin is only contributing a win per season. That won't get it done. You also need to consider that since those wins are spread over three players, you need to compare not to what Fernandez would produce, but what Frenandez plus shortstop X plus reliever Y would produce. If you don't have those guys you don't play short handed. You'll play somebody else, who very likely will be above replacement level themselves. Wow, I'm kinda talking myself into this. Gordon and Burdi may be fine players but are they dramatically better than Polanco and Tonkin, or whoever's next in line? I don't know. It really comes down to Fernandez's injury history. That would be the stumbling block for me. Well, that and budget. You're not really comparing those guys to Fernandez. You're comparing those guys AND whoever else you could get for Fernandez's soon to be very high salary. There, I talked myself back. Give the young cheap guns a chance, and if you're in the hunt in July, make a trade then. Or better yet, sign Greinke, add him to all the young talent you didn't trade, and create a team that could actually scare people for years to come.

The knock on him is those gaudy numbers are the product of a fluky BABIP and outstrip anything he ever did in the minors. The fear is he will do what Danny Santana did -- regress when his inflated BABIP regresses. He has never shown any power and has poor plate discipline. Hiring a guy based on a brief spurt of fluky numbers that belie poor peripherals is a gamble. That said, all of that applies to Hicks, too. So it's a reasonable gamble. And probably a lot less risky gamble than investing tons of money and tons of years on Wieters or LuCroy, who are despite having more upside are dangerously old, inconsistent, and injury prone. So I'm fine with all three of the moves, personally. But I also agree with the main point that at some point you have to look past the pretty good to the really good if you want to win. The goal after all is to be the BEST team. Which requires some real stars. You can't buy the best team, you need to get lucky with some prospects, which the Twins seem very well positioned to do. But to not just get to the playoffs but beat really good playoff teams with ace pitchers, you need an ace pitcher or two. Which might mean instead of signing guys like Santana, Nolasco, Pelfrey, and Hughes, you pool all that money and buy someone like Price or Greinke. Yes, that's a gamble. Tying that much money up in one player can create an albatross contract like Mauer's, or worse if he's injured. But it's usually the only way to win it all. And they have enough income to budget two or three max contracts in there and still win if one fails. They can afford both Greinke and Mauer, if they don't tie up too much money in mediocrities. But as someone pointed out, look at the Royals. Defense, run production, and a great bullpen can keep you in the hunt, as long as your rotation is deep enough. Remember in the past the Twins would have a few stars, and a few players so bad they would basically cancel them out. A team with no weak spots, and a smattering of stars, can win a lot of games too. I expect the Twins to balk at the expense of an ace starter but possibly get a high profile reliever or two. Not saying I'm for that -- relievers are a notoriously bad risk, and they might do just as well by cycling minor leaguers like Burdi and Tonkin and Meyer in till somebody sticks. But at least a reliever doesn't break the bank. They can afford a 3/27M contract or two even if he flops. That's about all I'd expect though. It's going to take several breakout performers of the young guys to make the playoffs next year. Which if it happens would be the best possible core you could have--young, cheap talent. I'd rather see that happen AND add Greinke, and they could afford to do that, thanks to the new stadium and the league's TV contract. I just don't think they will. And neither does MLBtraderumors.com. They think the Twins' big pickup this off season will be Ryan Madsen, or someone like him. That and Park could well be it. One last prediction: if they do sign Park it will be for significantly less than $40 million. I just don't see the Twins going for that, or him turning down anything under $25M.

Thanks for the link! I'm not usually into speculating about trades, because they almost never happen as envisioned, but I am completely buying that San Diego is an intriguing match. They stretched their payroll to stock up on veterans and bombed. It's hard to imagine they wouldn't love the chance to shed some of that salary. And an ace pitcher, a catcher, a reliever are exactly what the Twins need. The fact that they are overpaid works in our favor here. The Twins have been sitting on a cash cow for years, stockpiling cash from their subsidized stadium. They are now good enough where it makes sense to spend some money. The playoffs are in reach. Shields, Norris, and Kimbrel or Benoit could be difference makers. And the Twins have more prospects than they have room on the field for. A motivated trading partner, eager to shed salary at the very positions we're welling to spend to improve, might be just the ticket. Their GM is if nothing else a bold trader (that's how they got into this mess). Why not? The post above says they need a shortstop. Maybe Polanco? Or sell high on Escobar? They could use a third baseman, and the Twins are itching to move Plouffe to open a slot for Sano. The Twins have a ton of young outfielders. I'd start with Rosario. On the one hand, he's a proven performer, not just a prospect. On the other hand, his plate discipline and walk rate are low, so we may be seeing his ceiling. I like him, but I'm more intrigued by Kepler and Buxton. If they are excited about Arcia or Vargas, those guys are going to have a hard time finding playing time, especially now that they have park. Clear the logjam. I know that won't do it, and we'll have to part with some people it hurts to lose, too. But you don't have to give as much talent if you're also offering salary relief. Kimbrel and Shields may be worth their salaries, barely, but the odds are they're not. So we're not talking a huge dip into our talent pool unless they pick up some salary. I would hope the Twins would pay all the salary and keep the best prospects. They can afford it. That stadium cost them almost nothing, once you add up that they are paying their small portion of the stadium costs from the naming rights -- meaning they are paying almost nothing at all! (Why did we give them naming rights???) But the deal was, we give you a ton of money, and you give us a good team. So do it. And build it with money, not by mortgaging the future and trading away young talent for old. We've waited long enough. Shell out the money, take their overpriced stars off their hands, and win now!

Somehow these awards make the Twins seem a lot farther from a championship than I felt before. Partly that's watching the playoffs. Games are being won there by truly dominant pitching performances. Who would provide that for the Twins? Who will next year? Having a winning record is nice. Not having black holes in the lineup or the rotation anymore is really, really nice. Being competetive and in the playoff hunt is great, too. But realistically, do you see this team being competive in the playoffs if they did make it? I can see the offense coming together enough to play with anybody. Especially if Dozier makes some adjustments, Hicks doesn't fade again, and Buxton figures out how to hit a curveball. But who would match up with the other team's ace? Or the other team's number two? You might get to a guy like Keuchel or Price now and then, but not consistently through three rounds. Sometimes you've got to be the one to shut the other team down. I just don't feel like this team is one opponents would fear in they playoffs. The last time I heard that was when we still had Liriano and Santana. I remember a friend who is a Yankee fan (not his fault, he was born there) wanting nothing to do with them in a five game series. But I think the Yanks would LOVE to have faced the Twins this year. Not saying they can't become champions. They just have a ways to go. Their rotation and lineup are mostly set for next year. So how are they going to make the next leap?

I would say, definitely not, but that's what I said last year, and some of the same situations remain: Arcia, Buxton, Kepler, Robinson are all far from sure things to be major league ready. Rosario could regress, and it's too early to consider Hicks a sure thing despite his strong finish. Coming up with three playoff-team quality outfielders is not easy, certainly nothing to take for granted. Torii played a very useful role this year, against my expectations. Still, though, no. A .702 OPS just doesn't cut it, unless you're a superb defensive fielder, which Hunter is not. It's hard to see him contributing much even as a part timer. Torii faded at the end of the year and his career trajectory is not going up. You can doubt Arcia all you want, with good reason, but despite all his flakiness, Arcia STILL had a higher OPS than Hunter by season's end. If you're only gonna get a .702 OPS, you can get that with a prospect, while also getting him either some on the job training or exposure as a dead end, both of which are useful. And then of course if Kepler or Buxton or Arcia do catch fire, you can't block them. So Hunter is really only useful if everyone else bombs. If they soar, he's a problem. And if they do bomb, he's not much of a solution anyway. He still has something to contribute, but is it worth it? Not if he's a malcontent on the bench. The kind of team that would want Hunter, frankly, is one so awful that they just want a famous name to dangle in front of their fans because their present is hopeless and their prospects if any aren't ready. Philadelphia and Milwaukee come to mind. Miami used to do this a lot. So did the Twins -- Brett Boone, Ruben Sierra, Rondell White, Kenny Rogers, Bob Wells, Sidney Ponson -- you could add Kubel and Bartlett last year. Everybody does it -- dangle a familiar name to draw fans when you don't have much else to offer. Sometimes these work out okay, like Torii this year, but usually they're embarrassments. Next year, the Twins have too many young players with upside to clog the arteries like this. One possible location that intrigues me for Huner is Detroit. Ausmus is on record as saying the Tigers lost a lot of intangibles when Torii left, and they didn't realize how much they'd miss him. If they lose Cespedes, why not bring him back?

That's funny, that's exactly what I was going to suggest -- or at least wonder about, I'm not in the business and wouldn't know. But when I learned to drive, my brother made me pull away from the curve, then pull back and stop the car. I then had to tell him EXACTLY how far my tires were from the curb -- and then get out and look. Over and over. It was brilliant. There is no better way to get a sense of space and distance than to guess, and check. So my uneducated thought was, he should stand in while a pitcher throws whatever he wants. He has to, 1) predict where the ball is going to end up when it leaves his hand, 2) show EXACTLY where it passed the plate after it does so, and 3) have a coach show him where it really went. Over and over. Why not? If the problem is not knowing how far a ball is going to break, or not being able to gauge exactly where it actually ends up, work on that. The more times you say, it went right here, the better your eye will get, right? Oh, and Delmon Young not mastering something has no bearing on how anyone else will do. I give him credit for trying, if he did this, but it surprises me. He never struck me as the learning type or the listening type. This is just going from what I read, but I thought he was notorious for refusing to listen to coaches. Perhaps everything I read was wrong, and he was a student of the game, but the impression I got from the presss was he was pigheaded and refused to adjust. But whatever -- he's just one guy.

Good point about the biggest position of need at the deadline being shortstop. And it turns out not trading for a shortstop was a brilliant call -- it would have cost us Escobar's spectacular second half, and possibly having him as a starting shortstop next year. I will say, though, that it was clearly a mistake to stick with Danny Santana at shortstop as long as they did. It clearly was not working, and they were very stubborn about doing something about it, even when it suddenly mattered. Switching to Escobar a month or two earlier could have won the wild card. So why didn't they? It clearly wasn't on-field production. One factor was probably the assumption that this was an audition year; they're not going to win anyway, so you may as well see what you got with the rookies. And it turned out to be the right gamble with Rosario, right? I was fine with that. But even I would have bailed much, much earlier on Santana. Let the poor kid work it out in AAA, that's what it's for. Was it his surprising success last year? It shouldn't have been a surprise that didn't last! And Molitor knows how to read modern statistics. I don't think that was it. The worst reason would be because Molitor announced in the preseason that the job was his, and he was sticking with Santana all year. You don't sacrifice the team's success to save face. Better yet, don't make pronouncements like that. If you want to give him a long leash to work out the kinks, fine. But never promise to do anything that hurts the team. If it was embarrassment or pride or credibility that made him stick with Santana longer than he wanted, that's sad. Tragic pride, you could even say, like in Greek dramas. But I have too much respect for Molitor to think that was the main reason. It might have been part of it, but it's not enough. My guess is it was also partly a reward for playing out of position last year in centerfield. He sacrificed without complaint, came through anyway, while learning on the job, and now deserved a fair shot at his real position, where he might be even better. That's honorable, I suppose, to pay someone for their loyalty -- but clearly wrong. It has to be all about the team's success. I'm okay with trading present day struggle for future success, but not with trading present-day struggles for past efforts. His job is to win, damn it. His players know it. You don't lose your team by winning, but by playing favorites. Did it help Danny Santana to play 88 games, at a .524 OPS? I don't see how. But more important, if that's your priority, you've got your priorities wrong. Especially if those 88 games of .524 OPS cost you the playoffs. Which, frankly, it might have. If other teams were demanding a ransom in prospects for a bullpen arm who may or may not have been better than Tonkin, fine, stand pat. If a starting catcher costs you Kepler or Buxton, and you don't like the catcher enough to bite, fine. But they had another shortstop that whole time already on the team. A shortstop with a .721 OPS in 133 games last year. And they sat him for 88 games, in favor of a rookie who happened to have a .405 BABIP the year before. (When I looked up his 2014 BABIP the page that came up was titled, BEWARE OF DANNY SANTANA BABIP REGRESSION. So no, his struggles should not have come as a surprise to a modern-day front office.) I don't know if promoting Berrios would have won them the division or not. I cut them slack on that -- I respect not rushing player development, and their eventual promotion of Duffey turned out to be nothing less than brilliant. If I had to single out one thing, I'd say it was those 88 games of .524 OPS from Danny Santana, when a better player was right there next to him the whole time.

very interesting comparison of the pitching under Allen and Anderson. What those numbers seem to indicate is that the pitching was equal or slightly worse in every category except ERA. The biggest divergence is that last year's pitchers gave up an extra three quarters of a run despite having a significantly LOWER FIP. The most obvious explanation for the difference in ERA is fielding. This fits both the numbers and the eye test. In every category that is independent of fielding, they didnt seem to improve, yet their ERA improved. These numbers point to fielding as the difference. Likewise the eye test would suggest that substituting fielders like Rosario, Hicks, and Buxton for Arcia, Willingham, and co. would help the pitchers' ERA. The numbers bear this out too, with the league's lowest WAR in outfield defense paired with a near league high fly-ball pitching staff. This is not an indictment of Allen at all. His emphasis on changeups seems a legitimate part of the narrative, and there have been a surprising number of rebounds from ugly play by several members of the staff, who in past years might have just bottomed out. But the above comparison seems to single out fielding as the biggest difference.

I don't know if they did the right thing or not. But while service time may have been a factor, it was certainly not the only factor under consideration. Also being weighed were his innings limit, his development, his major league readiness, and the cost of losing a player to fit him on the 40 man roster. Basically, they could had had Berrios for a very small number of innings at best, and the cost would have been significant. There's no guarantee he would have been better than the options they already had, or than Duffey. They said he needed to work on a few things to really make it in the majors. They may have been right. Jerking him between the bullpen and the rotation might have harmed his development and/or health, and since he'd never relieved before, would have been a big gamble during a pennant race. Yet using him as a starter would have meant they only had him for a handful of games. Rookies thrown into a pennant race sometomes do well, sometimes don't -- more often don't. And then when Hughes comes back, who do you sit? And who do you cut from the roster, and lose forever? How do you know you wouldn't be better off with those two guys than Berrios? I'm very open to the idea that he could and should have been promoted a month or two ago. But at this point, the gains would have been so marginal, if any, that it would not be worth the cost. Maybe they waited too long; maybe they thought they were out of it, and now regret it. Hey, I thought they were out of it. Remember, they were sinking like a rock. Now that they weathered the storm, and are still in the hunt, it may turn out they should have gone for it and promoted him six weeks ago. But it's not a sure thing either way. Before the focus turned to Berrios, the nonstop clamor and impatience to promote was focused on Buxton, and how did that turn out? He, too, was destroying the minor leagues. But once in the majors he was totally overmatched at the plate. Before that, it was Arcia who was being idiotically ignored -- until he failed to hit AAA pitching any better than major league pitching. Personally, I'm fine with leaving Berrios in the minors till next year. He's 21. Either Hughes, Nolasco, Santana, Gibson, Pelfrey, Milone, May and Duffey are enough, or they aren't. I can't get that exercised about not promoting a kid who was in AA a few months ago into the heat of a pennant race. If your chances at the playoffs depend on a gamble like that working out, your chances aren't very good anyway.

Nunez is arguably the best shortstop on the roster right now. Not saying that's a good thing, just that they are not likely to jettison him.

Thanks, Parker, I love these analyses -- I always see more after you've pointed stuff out. It is really noticeable in the older clips how he's only using the top half of his body, not his legs. He does seem to use his whole body more. In a previous post on Hicks you pointed out how he didn't plant his front foot, but just rolled over it. That doesn't seem to have completely stopped. His high step does seem to help his timing and to involve his whole body. But another benefit of the step, I thought, was you start to move your whole body forward, plant your foot, and transfer that forward momentum to your bat. I don't see that happening with Hicks. Do you think planting his front foot instead of rolling over it would help? Not knocking where he is now -- hey, I'll take it -- just wondering if you see the upward trend maybe continuing even further.

Great stuff! Thanks for making these points so clearly, as always. Of course their solution yesterday -- hit four home runs a game -- works too, though admittedly it's not as reliable a long term strategy.

I think you're getting way ahead of yourself. Not one of those guys has proven he can contribute at a playoff level. Not one. We need three. The odds of getting three starters -- and not just league average starters, which in itself is a very good return for a prospect, but people who can play for a championship contender -- out of eight minor leaguers is far from a sure thing. In my opinion, if we keep them all, and get a playoff level outfield from that group, we should consider ourselves very fortunate. This doesn't mean I'm not open to a trade -- far from it. If you could solidify another position that's in worse need, of course go for it. I just think talking about a surplus is way premature. All of those players have significan flaws or uncertainties. The best prospect on the list, Buxton, got completely dominated in his first look at major league pitchers. Will he adjust? Probably. But many never do. Rosario never walks and strikes out a ton. Does this mean he will fail? Certainly not. But most people with poor plate discipline don't suddenly improve. Hicks has never dominated offensively at any level. He's young and still improving, and I like his chances a lot, but it's an uphill battle. ABW and Arcia are strikeout machines -- very talented ones, with exciting potential, but the Yankees aren't about to break down our door begging to put them in their outfield. And that's the standard we should seek: are they good enough to play, every day, for the Yankees? Those are the players we need, if our goal is to beat the Yankees in the playoffs. I'm not a pessimist. I'm pretty excited about our chances of reaching that level, and I think there's a good chance three of those eight could surpass the Yankees' outfield someday. They just still have a long way to go. Personally I would not trade one for a stop gap rental reliever who slightly improves our chances this year alone. I'd roll the dice with one of the hard throwers in our system now, who might do just as well, and worse case scenario, we get them some major league experience. I like what the Twins have been doing this year, cycling the young guys through the majors for a look. If they contribute, like Rosario and May and Sano, keep them, and if they're not ready, like Buxton, Arcia, Morales, and Meyer, they now know what they need to do to make it the rest of the way. I'd keep doing that all year, hope we strike gold a few times, and go into next year with a full deck of options, all more seasoned than they are now. There are plenty of minor league pitchers I'd rather see in the bullpen than some expensive "proven veteran" who will cost some of our bright future. And since relievers are so variable, I don't think that would even hurt our chances much this year, if at all. Is anyone we could get in trade really better than Berrios or Jay? I'm not so sure. And I'd get a much bigger thrill out of watching one them lead us to the playoffs than some rent-a-veteran.

Someone with a 7% BB rate adn a 37% K rate in the low minors is going to get eaten alive by major league pitchers. He may be leading the league in home runs but it's against pitchers who aren't consistently good. They give him pitches to hit. Typically as you move up the easy pitches to hit stop coming, and the K rate goes up, not down. Unless he makes a concerted effort to improve his plate discipline he is doomed.

Sounds like just what they need! And great tasting, too! Too bad it's available for a limited time only. Too true, unfortunately...

You make a good point: Amazingly, adding Santana, quality arm though he is, does not necessarily improve the team at all! There is no one currently in the rotation who replacing with a pretty good pitcher is an obvious increase in wins. For now, anyway. At some point this season, injury or ineffectiveness will make another quality arm extremaly valuable. But for now, I agree -- inserting Santana could easily make the rotation worse, not better. Amazing.

I'd stay the course. Rebuild. They're not there yet. Even when they were winning they had below overage offense and below average pitching. They just tended to hit them in bunches, concealing the over-all numbers. Now, they are still above .500, but they've given up more runs than they've scored. If a few players caught fire and led another winning streak, I'd consider them real contenders. But Buxton didn't give them that kind of a lift, and now he's injured. Torii did for a while, but now he's fading. Vargas may be the next Big Papi, but he sure isn't yet. Mauer is having his worst year ever. Their two hot shortstops from last year are combining to be among the worst in the league this year. They have a great second basemen, but that's about it. The team's best hitter is hitting .269. The next to are at .259 and .258. (And no, seeing their OPS wouldn't cheer you up. I don't usually look at BA either, but it's what pops up on the first page of the official team site under team leaders. You see that and you go, oh. Yeah.) I think this team is exciting because of its future. Vargas may or may not hit this year, but between him, Arcia, and Sano, there's definite hope at DH. Hicks may or may not hit this year, but between him, Buxton, Rosario, Kepler, there's definite hope for the outfield. Santana may or may not hit this year, but between him, Escobar, and Polanco, there's definite hope at shortstop. Between Plouffe and Sano, there's more than hope at third, there's genunie confidence. At second, even more so! Dozier is playing like an all-star. At first, I consider Mauer to be as good a candidate as any for a real breakout, I really do. He was too good, too long, to give up on. I suspect teh effects of his concussion are just not gone yet. But if Morneau came back, why can't Mauer? And they finally have numbers are starting pitching to ensure they'll never be throwing out AAA pitchers multiple times again in the rotation (as opposed to AAAA pitchers, or better yet genuine prospects, or actual qualified veterans, which they have now in abundance). It's a fun, exciting team. But it's not one to sell out the future for the present on. The best shot in the arm they could get would be to promote somebody and strike gold. So, try out Buxton, try out Meyer, and if they don't work, try out Sano and Jay and Kepler and Arcia and Polanco. If they're not ready, chalk it up to experience. If they bloom, great, enjoy the ride. But don't mortgage the future for a short term rental, unless to supplement some future stars who have blossomed early. And I dont see that yet.

"Or should we just starting taking odds on the first "stick a fork in him" article?" It's one thing if a guy with a history of success in the minors gets battered around in his first appearance in the show, and peole want to instantly give up on him. That's not what's happening here. It's the opposite. In Meyer, you have a guy who for his entire career has failed to command his pitches, gotten behind in the count, grooved a fastball, and gotten hammered, even in the minor leagues. And after brief stretch in the bullpen, we all wanted to wish that all away. Look at what Parker said about how minor leaguers were shelling him up to a few weeks ago. Did something REALLY change? Or was the sample size of his brief bullpen career so small we were able to project our fantasies on it? For him to succeed, he is going to need to be able to throw his breaking pitches for strikes, and command his fastball enough to avoid grooving it down the middle. Otherwise he will continue to get behind in the count, and become 95 mph batting practice. That's not my opinion. That's just a description of what happens. In the MINOR leagues, mind you. It would be great if that stopped happening. Tall pitchers often mature later. It could happen. It just hasn't happened yet. Would I stick a fork in him and give up? No! But it doesn't make you some unreasonable curmudgeon to want to see some evidence first before concluding that he's radically changed, and the faults he's struggled with his entire career are magically gone. You can't just wish that stuff away. I'm still very hopeful that with hard work and good coaching his positives will strengthen and his negatives will recede. A consensus of scouts nationwide consider him a top 100 prospect, so knowledgeable people think his chances are good. He just still needs to improve a few things. A few very important things. You say if he fails as a starter, he can "certainly" thrive as a reliever. I don't think he's certain to fail. But it seems premature to say he's certain to succeed, either. The odds may have been above 50-50 when they got him. But based on the lack of progress he's made since then, it's hard to say they're better than 50-50 now. Isn't it? I'm not a good judge of talent, so if you're seeing something special in him, I'd believe you. I'm just looking at his record and not seeing an upward arc. But hopefully that will only make it more satisfying when he turns into a dominant reliever! Yessss! I can't help it! Hope is what baseball is all about. And hey, if it isn't Meyer, it will be someone else. There's finally enough hard throwers in the minors that I feel good about the odds that some of them will come through. We'll take a look at Meyer this year, give him his shot, and if it's not him, take a look at someone else. There will never be a fork you can put in the whole team!!!

Enough with the head first slides! How many injuries will it take before someone tells them, no more! Paul Molitor, I'm talking to you! It's like running with scissors -- stupid! Remember when this happened to Cuddy? Cost him half a season. Those shoes have spikes on them. It's insane. It's a crazy, needless risk. You may as well tell them to go ahead and drive drunk. And don't say it's just hustle. You can go all out on a feet-first slide too. This is not Nick Punto we're talking about. He can slide head first. This is the future of the entire franchise! Seriously, if I were manager, I'd make it clear if you slide head first, you get benched. And fined. And spanked. Whatever it took.

I'm glad you brought this up. The writing here is as good as any Twins blog around. But the intrusive bells and whisles are so annoying it's gone from first to last in line as a place to drop in. I wasn't sure what to do. I've contemplated a non-public email to the editor. I don't just want to be negative. What I want is to come here more often and read! So take this as constructive criticism from someone who's on your side! I read a lot of baseball talk on my phone. But Twins Daily adds a really, really annoying frame to my phone screen. It says Twins Daily on the top, with an ad on the bottom. Every time you slide the page up, which is every second or two, the frame on the top slides up and off the screen -- yay! And the ad slides up into the middle of hte page. The second you let go, though -- bing! The banner appears on the top and bottom again. One, it's a small space, which can't really afford to be made even smaller. And two, the constant jumping motion is immensely distracting. It's like someone clapping their hands right in front of your face. You just can't tune it out, no matter how many times in a row it happens. I am serious: this alone is enough to make me refuse to read the site. Really. I read twinkietown, startribune.com/twins, aarongleeman, hardballtalk, even the official Twins page, and then, sometimes, will grit my teeth and come here. I miss the site, because as I say, the writing is great. I learn stuff! Parker explains mechanics better than anyone I've ever seen. Seth and Roger know more about the minor leagues than anyone else I read. And thre's more. But I can't STAND my one, tiny little screen being full of MOVING ads. It's like someone shouting in your eyes, non stop. And it's so pointless! The top banner isnt even an ad! As people here have already said, I get it, you deserve some revenue. But TWINS DAILY inserting random phrases every TWINS DAILY few words, in each and TWINS DAILY every sentence, for no reason at TWINS DAILY all, just makes no sense. TWINS DAILY It doesn't increase revenue. It actually costs you TWINS DAILY revenue, because it drives away readers! TWINS DAILY You are literally reducing the number of eyeballs who TWINS DAILY read your ads. Why? Why? it's like a TWINS DAILY little kid who just learned he can TWINS DAILY make each and every letter on TWINS DAILY the page a different color. Yes! You TWINS DAILY can! But please don't! It's TWINS DAILY really annoying! It isn't even TWINS DAILY good advertising for your brand! It just makes TWINS DAILY everyone hate the TWINS DAILY name Twins Daily! btw this site works fine on my work computer. Whatever ad block software it has on takes care of the video ads you're talking about. If it's really annoying you that much, get over your guilt and use ad block. You're not helping anyone by letting it drive you crazy. Just wait till they sell a shirt or something, that will be worth more than watching 10,000 ads. Your time is too value to sell for a fraction of a cent. If I knew how to block the ads and banners on my phone I would. But I'd rather they just showed a little restraint. No one wins if I just don't come anymore. Well, I guess you all win, as it's one less annoying comment. But I've been wishing for a long, long time that they would just show a little respect for the people who are TRYING to remain readers, but can't take the nonsense. I literally cannot stand to read this site on my phone anymore, so I go elsewhere. And that make me said. Sorry for kvetching. Really I don't want to just whine. What I want is for you to make the site more pleasant, and get more readers! Show a little class, restraint, respect for your visitors, good taste, whatever you want to call it. People will only love you even more. Thanks for listening.

Thanks for a good read! I agree about Dozier not batting leadoff. The team's leading HR hitter should not be batting in the spot in the order with the fewest RBI opportunities. I don't agree with commenter who worried whether his performance would sustain in a different spot in the batting order. It's too big a sacrifice to make for a hypothetical worry. My personal opinion is while comfort with a particular spot in the order may offer some emotional security it's way overblown--hitting is hitting. Aaron Gleement tweeted recently that 45 of Dozier's 60 career home runs have been solo. That's just a waste. To quote another AG tweet: Re: Byron Buxton's initial expectations. Here are the only 21-year-old CF since 1980 to be above-average hitters: Trout Andruw Griffey Bonds This to me suggests he should not bat lead-off. A guy straight from AA would impress just by hitting .250 with a .300 OBP. I would be extremely pleased to see that production in his first go round, not disappointed. I find it highly unlikely he would get on base enough not to be a drag on the batting order leading off. I'd bat him 9th. Then you get all the benefits of his speed on the bases at the top of the order if he does get on base, with no damage if he doesn't. Let him learn. If he turns out to be Trout, move him up. But expectations of him being Trout are just unrealistic. We have a gem here, but he's not a superstar -- YET. Finally I personally hope they don't trade Plouffe just yet (at least not just to dump him, of course anyone is tradeable if you get back more than you give up). There's no certainty that Sano will stick at third, or that he can get on base in the majors. You have just one weakness in your swing -- one -- major league pitchers will find it and relentlessly exploit it. I've seen all-stars suffer for years trying to overcome a single weakness -- like Darryl Strawberry's vulnerability to an outside curve ball. Look at what happened with Arcia and Vargas. They came up and lit the world on fire -- and then they got shut down. Until they learn to compensate, there's no guarantee they'll ever be back. Suppose that happens to Sano. If you've already traded Plouffe, who plays third? Nunez? Escobar? I guess you can limp through that way for a while. But as long as we're fantasizing about contending, let's keep open the possibility of Plouffe returning to last year's form, when he outhit Pablo Sandoval. He's a good fielder now, too. I prefer to give him a long leash at third, and if he earns the job, plunk Sano in the DH spot next year. If they both play at all star levels, that's not a bad situation. If you don't want to DH Sano because of Hunter, that's a mistake. Hunter is not part of the future; I would not give up Plouffe in order to sign Hunter for another year. Plouffe is more valuable, a better fielder, AND costs less. If someone needs to go, give up the 40-year old. He may or may not have another year or two in him, but he'll be gone soon either way. If he wants to be a mentor, make him a coach. That's my two cents. welcome aboard, and come again soon!