mattjc1983

I'm not 100% convinced on Gibson, at least not unless we can extend pretty cheap. It's easy to get excited that we're finally seeing some ok value 9 years after he was drafted, but that's just it. He's going to be 31 years old next month, and his best seasons have been ERAs in the high 3's. After 160 career starts he's sitting at a 4.51 career ERA. His age and career #'s are actually alarmingly similar to what Ricky Nolasco was when the Twins signed him to that ridiculous contract. In fact, in most respects Nolasco was statistically better through age 30 than Gibson has been. Would you do the Nolasco contract again?

This is sort of a dual-response to this article and Nick Nelson's blog post later tonight. Nick commented on how the 2004 ALDS playoff loss (I think he was referring to Game 2 in which the Twins lost in extras) resulted in what was really his first blog post about the Twins. It was interesting to read how he got his start. I remember that playoff game well, I was a senior in college but didn't have television; i was at the college library watching the game via Yahoo gamecast. One thing that sticks out to me about that game was that it was Joe Nathan before we had all seen just how unreliable he could be in true pressure situations, so there really was no questioning Gardy, at least not when he initially brought him out True, Nathan's career postseason numbers were already terrible (.1 IP, 4 hits, 1 BB, 3 ER the previous year in SF) but .1 innings does not a career make. However, trotting him out over and over over the next 5 years for playoff failure after playoff failure was classic Gardy, an approach that has apparently rubbed off on Brad "Joe's the Closer" Ausmus. In my opinion, with a career postseason ERA of 9 and WHIP of 2.44, and assuming he retires after next year, Nathan would basically have to pitch several absolutely perfect innings of postseason relief over the next 2 seasons for HOF voters who value performance in high-leverage situations to give him serious HOF consideration. I digress, but my point is that trotting Nathan out in the playoffs all those years, trotting Capps out over and over in 2011 no matter how bad he pitched, and like decisions were the kind of thing that really wears on fans. Now that the deed is actually done I'm actually a bit sad, reflecting on how long Gardy has actually been with this organization as a coach, but I still feel it had to be done. Not that anybody would have really bought it, but I guess I'm just surprised he and Terry didn't try the resignation route, making it much easier to allow Gardy to take a position elsewhere in the org, although maybe they mutually agreed that it would be good to give the more rabid Twins fans some blood.

First post so I'll keep it (reasonably) short. The easiest answer to why I cheer for the Twins (coming up on 31) is that my Dad is a western Minnesota native and he and my mom met at University of Northwestern - St. Paul. I was born to cheer this team on. Why baseball? Because no other sport can compare: 1) Mike Trout being an obvious exception, for the most part you can't come into the majors and dominate from the get-go. While 18-20 yo kids have regularly come into the NBA in the last 15 years and instantly become the best player in the league or close to it (what's that tell you about the quality of that sport), the typical ROY in baseball has what, a .270/20/70 line? 2) It's a thinking man's game. Watching the NCAA tournament games just reminds me that about 95% of basketball is genetics. Baylor had 3 guys over 6'8" this season. The strategy was pass the ball down low, and let that guy throw his weight or height around until he got close enough to lay it in. That's not skill, that's genetics. With some exceptions, football is the same. It's about size and speed. Meanwhile, baseball has had all kinds of stars in all shapes and sizes. Whether at the plate, on the mound, or in the field, it's about knowing your opponent's tendencies, the situation at hand, and being prepared. Best game in the world!