StormJH1

It's absolutely the right move, but it's a bummer. Parmelee wasn't really a top prospect, but he looked really good last September, and I would have put money on him succeeding over other sorta-prospects like Plouffe. Mauer is playing a lot of 1B these days, which is good, but you wonder if this will put Morneau in the field more often than he probably should be with all his issues. Doumit may play there too, but he's only been there for one partial game out of 31, and I remember him saying something like 1B was his "4th preferred position" after C, RF, and DH (not in that order).

@Alex - Okay, so you are saying that because a hitter of Mauer's ability (even the non-2009 versions of Mauer) is scarce because those numbers would be difficult to replace at catcher. Point taken. But as you continued to say, that only generates actual "value" for the Twins if they continue to "fill other portions of the roster". The Twins didn't because they can't - about 1/4 of their budget for a 25-man team is tied up in one guy. This team has guys like Parmelee at 1st base and the collection of Doumit/Komatsu/Clete/Plouffe in right field, when those two positions are supposed to be two of the most productive offensive positions in baseball. If both of those positions were filled with even "average" players for that position, and if we got a little more production of of SS, 2B, and 3B, then the "positional scarcity" argument would make sense. The Twins simply elected to use their $23 million on Mauer instead of upgrading those other positions. @gunnarthor - I'm not sure that's necessarily true that he would have gotten more. I believe that there was a definite market for Mauer, and that market pressured the Twins to drive the price up to the extent they did (I actually have more of a problem with the length of the contract than the amount per year). First of all, with the aid of 20/20 hindsight, he would have become a free agent after 2010, not his stellar 2009 season. His 2010 line of .327, 9 HR's and 75 RBI's (on a very good team, by the way) is nice, but unless you think Mauer would've "tried harder" in a contract year to hit the ball out of Target Field...I think there were signs even by the end of 2010 that his 2009 numbers were an anomaly. Plus, Mauer had some past durability concerns, and the "prime years" for a defensive catcher are really around the age of 24 to 28. In other words, the mere fact that he was a catcher wasn't going to inflate his value if they didn't believe he'd be a full-time catcher in 5 years. Also, there are other reasons to think that NYY and BOS (the two most commonly assumed targets for Mauer) would have paid a catcher $20 million plus. The Yankees, at that time, had two stellar catching prospects in their own system - Jesus Montero and Austin Romine. Assuming that one of those two guys might have been a 5-10 years solution at that position, why pay Mauer? Meanwhile, Boston had Victor Martinez for the end of 2009 and all of 2010, when he caught 100+ games for them and had a season as good or better than Mauer as a 31-year old. They could have retained V-Mart (who only caught 26 games for DET the next year) for about half as much money, or simply determined that they wanted to go in a younger (or more defensive) direction. The fact that the Twins had to commit to Mauer before 2010 while he couldn't have been signed by another team until the winter of 2010/11 would have reduced his market value also, since he hit one homer at home that entire season.

Yes. Yes. YES. I've said this over and over again! Positional scarcity is the #1 argument for why Mauer's numbers can't be compared against 1st baseman and corner outfielders. That's an excellent argument in a 12-team fantasy baseball league, to which I'm sure any Mike Napoli owner from last year or Matt Wieters owner this year can attest. But in REAL baseball, the only time that positional scarcity actually matters in the overall production of your lineup is when you believe you have a lineup so deep and dominant that you have the ability to "stuff" in a productive hitter at positions where most teams are employing scrubs. Some good examples of this would be like Jorge Posada on the Yankees, or Allen Craig playing second base for the Cardinals because Berkman, Beltran, and Holliday are blocking his other positions. Even if Mauer were hitting 25+ HR's per season (which would be intrinsically valuable from ANY position), it has no value from a "positional scarcity" standpoint so long as you're filling up other positions with guys like Punto, Casilla, Nishioka, Valencia, Carroll, Plouffe, Parmelee and other guys who are considerably below-average for their positions. Plus, the days of Mauer catching 100+ games a year were virtually over by the time he signed his contract anyway.

That's an accurate recap and I absolutely agree that they had to sign him, even if they knew it was a significant overpay. Had this site (which is far more critical than the average fans wearing Mauer J-shirts at Target Field) existed in early 2010, I bet most of us would have been in favor of the deal if it were a simple up or down vote (myself included). But there's two separate issues here: (1) Should the Twins be faulted for signing Mauer to such a large deal, as opposed to driving a harder bargain or letting him walk? (2) Is Joe Mauer living up to his contract, to any degree of reason, with the knowledge that the team paying him was never going to have an "infinite" budget, and that his deal could have a suppressive "Kevin Garnett" effect on the quality of the other 24 players on the team? I think most of us are in agreement on point #1, which is the point you were arguing. Point #2 is more divisive. It's not that "blame" Mauer for taking the money (who wouldn't) or even that I demand at all times that Mauer's on-field production matches the level of his salary. Look at Albert Pujols right now - sustained success in MLB is difficult even for elite players. But I think it's Mauer's "approach" to baseball, both on-field and off-field, that really brings the contract into question. Like the perception that he missed two months because he was more interested in pimping video games than doing leg squats. Or that he does his best to stay invisible from the media at the very times when people need some type of information from him. Or (as was stated above) that this "superstar" player looks almost relieved to be getting a free pass to first base, when really, he's paid to be impact player, not a table setter (fair or not).

Gardy may never get to manage any of these guys anyway, who knows... Was hearing Appel may go first, but that could change. Look, while it's obvious that they need pitching, you don't mess around with #2. If Buxton is the best player, and the Twins next 4 picks after that are pitchers, could you really say they "neglected" pitching? Of course not. But I'm glad to hear that Zimmer sounds like an exciting Top 3 talent, so we at least have the "option" of taking a pitcher up there that we could be excited about. It's a double-edged sword because we're hearing more and more (from scouts and Keith Law-types) that college pitchers are getting overworked in pitch counts. On the other hand, a college pitcher has more of a track record and could also be in the bigs within a year, which would obviously help the Twins. Terry Ryan and Co. need get some arms, but I don't want him or the fans thinking about how we "fix" 2013 with this draft. 2013 will be determined by the guys already on the roster and whatever else we can piece together. The Twins need to get players with upside and just accept that 4 out of 5 of them will probably be unmitigated busts. The foundation for this season's pitching woes (apart from injury troubles) was that the Twins kept using the draft to acquire guys that really never had a ceiling above that a replacement level player they could have signed through free agency or otherwise acquired. That has to stop, and I think they know it now.

Paul Allen has argued this point on the air a number of times. People accuse him of being a "homer", which he is, but his defense is that he's a Clear Channel/KFAN employee, not an "employee of the Vikings". That may be technically true, but the Vikings contract with the various media outlets to provide local coverage, so it's pretty easy to envision that if P.A. got on the air and pooped all over the Vikings during broadcasts and his daily show, the Vikings could effect some type of change there. I think Robby is a different case than Dick and Bert. Dick and Bert don't actually interact with players too much during the games, guys like Robby do. So if he wants Denard Span to come talk to him instead of just ducking into the clubhouse after a game, it helps if Denard actually like Robby. But the players can't ignore the whole television production - that's their gateway the fans.

It's tough for me to answer this question for the reason that I wasn't born here and I've experienced how things are in other markets. Even in Detroit, which is more like the rest of the Midwest than it is like Boston or New York, there is a much more critical spin by all media. It isn't just sports. People here expect to be fed positivity. Turn the 10 o' clock news and the atmosphere is bright and cheery. You might even see a human interest story in the first 5-10 minutes. The evening news in Detroit is "gotchya" journalism - straight-faced telling you the events, but with a flavor of "good guys vs. bad guys", or "look at how awful those people are". It's really hard to explain unless you've experienced both markets for any period of time, but it's a palpable difference. Minnesotans love to complain about things, but only if they're the ones doing the complaining. With the Twins, I don't think that most fans would respond well to a telecast that talks about how badly this team is underperforming. They'd just assume turn it off. And I don't have the right to say if that's "right" or "wrong", that's just how I view it. I think that the type of fans who would bother posting their thoughts on message boards (or listening to other critical media outlets) watch sports for reasons other than "enjoying when the team wins". People who do that are true "fans", but only to a certain extent. I like to look at a bad team and figure out why they're the way they are. Having grown up a fan of the Detroit Lions and Tigers, I think there's also a cynical pleasure I get out of seeing "professionals" who are routinely inept. But I do still watch them, and I don't watch any less when they're bad.

As many of you probably saw from AaronGleeman.com, Aaron got into a Twitter feud with Robby Incmikoski about Aaron's criticism of Roy Smalley's comments about Jason Marquis on the broadcast. I don't really have a strong opinion about Robby - I recognize that his particular job requires him to be a cheerleader because he's the guy that has to stand on the field and get them to talk to the camera. He also has to bear the brunt of sophomoric stuff like Valencia on Monday insinuating that Robby would "jump on Joe Mauer if he got the chance". For the most part, Robby does his job, and I don't have a problem with him. Today, Robby is continuing his semi-meltdown by tweeting only positive statistics about Twins players, saying that he'll leave it to other media outlets to be negative about this team. But if that's the case, I think he needs to stay away from engaging bloggers, fans, or legitimate media outlets if they want to be critical of this team. What does he expect? The team is terrible. They're the worst in baseball, and very well may end up the worst team in baseball, after some people already bestowed that honor upon the 2011 Twins. Yet, if you watch the FSN broadcast, Dick Bremer and company are doing their best to put on a good face. Pitchers like Pavano and Marquis are celebrated for "giving their team a chance" to win, even though they're giving up 4-7 runs a start. And the general tone is such that you'd have no idea you were watching a team struggling this bad unless you muted the television (or checked the standings). How do you guys feel about FSN's coverage of this debacle? Would you rather the broadcasters sounded more like "Gleeman and the Geek"? Is that even realistic? What responsibility does the TV crew have to convey the reality of the situation, as opposed to simply putting on a television show that they'd like people to watch?

On the same point about so-called "elite strikeout guys" (usually 9.00 K/9 or better), I will say that there seems to be a limit on how bad you can be if you can make THAT many guys miss. That certainly is not the case for pitch-to-contact guys, such as the entire Twins staff. Pavano can avoid walks as much as he wants, he's serving up batting practice, so a 5.00 or 6.00 ERA is within reach. Brandon Morrow is probably the upper limit of how bad you can be for a top-tier strikeout pitcher. Dude is a machine: 10.9 K/9 in 2010 and 10.2 in 2011. But his ERA's for those years were 4.49 and 4.72. Probably didn't help that he pitched a lot at Rogers Center, which is hitter and homer-friendly. But like the ESPN Baseball podcast was saying about Tim Lincecum, you can't be on pace for 214 strikeouts AND have an ERA around 6.00, that doesn't make any sense.

Ha. Very true point (and one that always irks me about "park" factors). They should really only figure in visiting teams, and then compare it against other parks in that league. (There are probably stats that do this). But while the Twins' pitching has been horrible, so has the Twins' offense, for the most part. So while are pitchers are serving it up for other hitters, our batters are also deflating those numbers because we have Carroll instead of Cano, Valencia instead of Freese, and Mauer instead of Wieters (ouch). Also, the Twins are no longer a "left handed" team from a power standpoint, and I don't perceive this park being trouble for RH power hitters at all. Willingham certainly isn't struggling with it. And many of those early season numbers are suppressed by the cold, but we've had very good conditions in April and early May so far.

Mauer was paid based on his 2009 performance, with a little bit of hometown discount and "new stadium pressure" sprinkled in. Hardly anyone realistically expected Mauer to live up to the on-field performance of a $20+ million player, and we accepted that fact. But that being said, how much further do we lower the bar for this guy? Forget the 2009 "Brady Anderson" year, what about 2010 Joe Mauer? I think the fanbase would eventually have warmed to the idea of a .320 hitter who has about 10 HR power (especially with the evergreens in the batter's eye, c'mon you guys...), but was still a line drive hitter who would get some doubles and, of course, be very selective at the plate and set the table for the hitters behind him. Crap, I'd almost be happy to have even THAT guy back right now, and we ripped him them too!

Please. I could go with the cheap shot route and simply point out "8-23". I think that argument has more merit in other sports where individual players have more of an impact, such as basketball. Then again, you could use that same point to ask why you would ever pay an individual baseball player 23 million dollars a year unless he was so clearly exceptional and dangerous that he DID have that type of impact on a lineup. Mauer clearly does not. Leadership means a lot of things. And while it's totally possible that Joe Mauer is a terrific, vocal leader behind the scenes (and the exact opposite at all other times), I doubt it. Here are some characteristics that have been traditionally held by "great leaders" over the years. While few leaders possess all of them, ask yourself, how strongly does Mauer possess any of these above someone who is merely a "pretty good" player? - Leader by example/Wills his team to victory by exemplary performance - Vocal leadership/A verbal clubhouse presence who praises teammates and will criticize them when they get out of line - Dedication & Perseverance/A player who sets the tone for the entire team by working harder than anyone else at his craft and inspiring them to do the same - Team "Spokesman"/A player willing to put himself in front of the media and and shoulder the blame for the collective failure of the team - Durability & Dependability/A player who inspires teammates by staying in the lineup when other players would have looked for an excuse to take time off - Visible presence in the community/Spokesperson for the team ...And I can go on and on. I will say, however, the last one in that list may be something more important to fans than other players, but it is important. Mauer is a Florida resident and rather than being upfront and honest about what was going on, he was virtually invisible from the media and the team for two months while his team struggled badly. I understand that he may be trying to "right" the ship this year by playing 30 out of 31 when the team is even worse. Kudos for that. But he is a ballplayer and this is his JOB. And I'm not going to forget 2007 or 2011, or any of the other lingering "issues" about his value to the club. As for his physical condition, it's tough not to wonder or think about someone like Rocco Baldelli. Hopefully, Mauer's issues are only musculoskeletal, and can be corrected. But it did look earlier in the season like he was thinking about pulling and driving the ball, and that's already gone. You can talk about bad luck (BABIP) or defensive shifts, or whatever...but if Mauer's entire game becomes simply trying to hit groundballs through holes in the infield, he's going to hit into a TON of double plays and ultimately not be incredibly valuable to this team...even if he's batting close to .300.

I second this. I'm fine with Jamey Carroll being on the team, he's actually quite useful. But I wasn't fine with two years and I wasn't fine with making him the starter when he should have been latching on for whatever utility role he could find in the league. Just because Roy Hobbs started mashing homeruns at age 40, I don't think Jamey Carroll is going to... How's about we start doing some inventory and seeing if Plouffe is the next Valencia or the next something else?

Intresting re: John's discussion about no reliable predictors from year-to-year. There are 9.00+ K/9 guys that still get hit very hard or walk tons of guys and get burned that way. One thing I will say, though, is that while "special sauce" may be the case for starters (so that they can fool batters more than one at-bat), you see very few upper-tier relievers without high K rates. Missing bats by throwing hard would seem to be a valuable skill out of the bullpen. But yeah, if it's 95mph and straight as an arrow, most big league hitters are going to tee off on that if they see it coming. The Erick Aybar at-bat the other day where he "slug bunted" a single over Valencia's head made me bury my forehead in my palms. Not so much the play itself, which was just a single and actually a nice piece of strategy, but the fact Pavano's stuff is so slow and flat that he had the confidence to lean out on the front foot and do that as if he was playing ping pong. I really don't see something like that even being attempted against Strasburg, King Felix, or even a mediocre pitcher who throws hard.

The broadcast crew noted during the game (when they obviously had no idea he'd be sent down afterwards) that his defense had been significantly better in the past three weeks. I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment, as his range leaves something to be desired even if he isn't making errors, but take it for what it's worth. What people need to understand about Valencia and this move is that Valencia is not a "prospect". He's 9 days older than Ryan Zimmerman. It just doesn't feel that way because Zimmerman was up in the majors in 2006 playing a full season and posting better numbers at Age 21 than Valencia ever will. However, in terms of their development arc, Zimmerman and Valencia are at roughly the same place. Valencia is what he is. He was never was really supposed to be a 10-year solution at 3rd base...he was only thrust into that role because Joe Crede didn't work out the year before, and the only other options were guys like Harris and Punto. Did anybody else catch Valencia with Robby Incmikowski (sp?) in the pregame on Monday? Robby was razzing him about why they had picked Mauer instead of him for Pick the Stick, and instead of just rolling with it, Valencia something to the effect of "Whatever, you would jump on Joe Mauer if you had the chance". I didn't see if anyone else noticed it on Twitter or the boards, but this is just yet another example of this guy's immaturity, and you can imagine there are much worse cringe-inducing moments behind closed doors. Those would be excused if he was a serviceable big leaguer, but unfortunately, he isn't.

My issue is with point #2. First, literally all you said was that out of 5 teams (in the Central), you thought we had the 2nd best farm system. Even if true, what does that really mean for us? There is no question that pitching is a disaster throughout the organization. I expect them to address that in the amateur draft, but help will still be many years away. Really, if you took out Sano, I don't think there's much to like about the organization. Also, when you compare us to teams like the Royals, remember that they've been much more aggressive calling up guys like Hosmer, Moustakas, Duffy, etc., who could still be in the minors at their age.

I don't like the word "fluke" because it implies that the outcome isn't legitimate. The win last night was legitimate. It also so happens that sometimes teams throw out a lineup and pitcher inferior to the other team, and still win occasionally in the course of a 162-game season. It HAS to be to the case, otherwise the "worst" team in the league would be 0-162, as opposed to winning 40-60 games. Diamond was 4-14 with a 5.56 ERA and 1.57 WHIP at Triple-A last year. He had much better stats prior to that, but my point is that this isn't like an "Anthony Slama" situation where the guy has an impeccable track record in the minors, but is nonetheless deemed as not having big league stuff. Fortunately for Diamond, even a 5.56 ERA would have made him a better option than Hendriks, Blackburn or Liriano so far. As for Dozier, I'm absolutely rooting for him. There is nothing to be gained by playing 38-year old Jamey Carroll on a bad team while overripe mid-to-low-tier prospect languish away in the minors.

What is it with acquiring these 4th or 5th outfielders and then Gardy playing with his new "toys" day after day in the lineup? At least in the case of Komatsu, he's 24 years old and hasn't had an extensive look in the majors yet. But Clete Thomas was two wasted weeks, and here we go again. It's like they said on Gleeman and the Geek: if they were going to acquire a new outfielder to give all these at-bats, they might as well have given them to Plouffe or Parmelee, or even Revere.

Of the 13 pitchers used by the Twins this year, Matt Capps has been used in the fewest innings (10.0). Alex Burnett has the most innings (15.2), presumably because he's the only guy of the pure relievers that can go for more than one inning. I post this fact not to suggest that the bullpen has been the "reason" for the Twins struggles (it hasn't, the SP has), but only to point out the absurdity of closers and especially PAYING for closers. Matt Capps, along with Glen Perkins, were considered the "best" Twins relievers heading into this season. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it is at least a fair assessment based on track record, etc. in an otherwise very inexperienced bullpen. We felt strongly enough about this to re-sign Capps and, in the process, forfeit another compensatory pick we might have received for "losing" him to free agency. Except we all knew this team would be under .500. So now that the team is even worse than that, and our starters routinely are forced out of games early, how is it that our "best" reliever is the guy being used the least? Capps has pitched on pitched back-to-back days only ONCE this year (April 11-12). The average distance between appearances is approximately 3 days of rest, with one stretch where he wasn't used for 6 days (April 23-29). Guys like Capps, Burton, and Perkins need to be used in the highest leverage situations, and they should be used more often than guy who are terrible. If you wait for the 9th every game with THIS team, the game will already be over. What exactly are we saving them for? Or, more accurately, what are we paying them for?

Good take. It's not that I hate Carroll being on this team, I just think they should be bothering with him at such a critical position when we need to start answering questions about our future. Every organization should have glove-only SS's in the Double-A and Triple-A that can handle that part of the game fine, even if they hit around the Mendoza line. I would rather have used the Carroll money on a veteran 3B (as in, better than Burroughs) to push Valencia, then buy a stopgap veteran at shortstop who we all knew CAN'T HIT. At least now they'll start looking at guys like Dozier, but I think Valencia is out of here for the first respectable offer they get. Mauer and Morneau, the supposed "leadership" of this team either aren't tough enough mentally or aren't interested in policing guys like Valencia. His attitude would be no issue if he were decent, but the reality is that he sucks. And if you suck AND have a bad attitude on this team, you lose your "scrappiness scholarship" from Gardy and find your way off this team pretty quickly.

Are the Twins REALLY playing the Super-2 arbitration game with BRIAN DOZIER? That made me laugh/throw up in mouth a little bit. Dozier's about to turn 25 and he hasn't seen a game in the bigs yet. This is not "prodigy" or elite-level prospect like Justin Upton, Evan Longoria, or Hosmer, where you KNOW the guy will be in the majors at some capacity in 5 years. Dozier could be terrible. But if there's a chance he can help this team now, even marginally, then they really should have been looking at guys like this last September in the majors BEFORE going out and signing Jamey Carroll to 2 years. Also, I think it should be noted that for everyone who loved the Carroll signing (including some very respected bloggers), the guy is now essentially being benched only a month into the season, and it wasn't even because of his defense.

I don't know if this team would know a "BPA" in the draft if it came up and slapped them anyway. Their best prospect, Sano, was an amateur signing. Other good players to come through the organization in the past 10 years were actually acquired from other organizations (like Santana and Liriano). Totally agree on point #2 above - I don't think it's short-sighted at all to say that we're going to focus on loading up on pitching in this draft. What could be the harm? One of the few good things about our farm system is that there are some decent position players out there, and while you can't predict MLB success, there's a much better chance that a stud 3B or OF will be at least physically able to play the game in a few years, as opposed to a stud pitcher, who could blow his arm out before he even makes it to the Twins.

And I see your point about WAR, and raise you with the argument that "WAR is complete and utter garbage". The whole point of the Mauer defenders on this thread is that "Mauer is a very good player, but he's just 1/9 of a lineup". Then they throw out a WAR number which is synthetic number translating individual contributions into a team accomplishment: WINS. I'm a fan of statistic that take good outcomes of things hitters are supposed to do and measure them. "Hits" does that. So do home runs, or batting average. I'm also a fan of statistics that take desirable outcomes of hitters and try to weight them for how desirable they are. Slugging percentage and OPS would be examples of that. Where I struggle is when you show me two numbers like 2.2 vs. 1.7 and tell me that Player A has the higher "WAR" and is therefore the better player. Really? We know how many wins the Twins have. So why do I care about a number that tells me how many more wins the Twins should have playing Mauer as opposed to "replacement player X", when you didn't even use WINS to calculate the stat in any way? Sorry for the rant, but WAR has become like the "currency" on Twins Daily, and it needs to stop. At least the quoted poster acknowledges that it's worthless for determining "immediate value". WAR....*huh!*....what is it good for? Absolutely nothing...

This is kind of a new take on a well-beaten topic, and I like it. You can beat down his argument and say things like "he's just one guy" or that the charges about his "leadership ability" are either unfair or irrelevant. But I think this point exactly captures why people are so frustrated with this guy. It's not the single-digit home runs or the defensive approach at the plate. The injury issues are a part of it, but even the most ardent Mauer hater probably believes that Mauer wants to be in the lineup and helping his team whenever he can. No, the problem with Mauer is that he doesn't WANT this to be his team. And like it or not, we paid him to make it his team. Everything from the St. Paul pedigree to Kemp's commercials with his mom, we looked at the numbers and the uneven track record and everyone KNEW we were overpaying him. And everyone, including me, came to the conclusion that "you gotta do it anyway". Mauer can't get develop mystery illnesses and disappear from the media for two months, like he did in 2011. If he had a stronger presence in the media and in the community, and took ownership of this team, good and bad, we wouldn't be having these discussions. There are problems with Mauer that you can't measure with sabermetrics.

Agree and disagree. I'm done with Tosoni...well, he was really a non-starter. Guy is 25 years old and a career .221 hitter in 317 PA's at Triple-A. The appeal of this for a corner outfielder is...what, exactly? But I agree on the Mastroianni bit...not that he's so great (though his Triple-A numbers have actually been pretty good), but that it he was acquired to specifically do what Clete was apparently picked up to do. These types of transactions I do blame on Gardy, not just the front office. Leyland confirmed Gardy's man-crush on Clete Thomas for years, and Gardy gave him way too much playing time. Gardy just has "his guys", but he spends this time acquiring or wasting roster spots on scrappy guys instead of trying out even mid-to-low level prospects like Plouffe, Parmelee, etc. that have at least a glimmer of hope of becoming something more.