ThejacKmp

Does anyone know if Santana can even be in the park during the playoffs? Or will he just go home at the end of the season like he is a Detroit Tiger? Can't believe that rule. It's like if I went to jail for indecent exposure and then they let me out but made me come back for Christmas and Thanksgiving because those might be fun. MLB is trying to cover up for the announcers talking about Nelson Cruz endlessly the other year. Total BS. Where is the union on this one? That punishment is in the CBA and that's what a union is for - to fight management even when it isn't popular.

And Arcia. The Twins could solve some issues with those three pieces this offseason. And maybe unload Nolasco!

What makes you think that Mauer would hit better as a C than as a 1B? I can't see any reason that would happen. That said, it's always been an interesting thing but is likely a moot point. The Twins cast moving Mauer out from behind the plate as a way to protect his health. In this concussion focused time it would be very tough to move him back.

The Twins were forced to put Pelfrey in the rotation and then until lately, he did nothing that gave you an excuse to remove him. And even when he started to go downhill, there were injuries to Phil Hughes and ineffectiveness by Santana that made a Pelfrey change not first priority. Pelfrey seems to either have lost his leash or to maybe have one start left after today. That seems about right, especially with Hughes looking like he's ramping up to potentially be ready next week. Maybe one more Pelfrey start or (better yet) a look at Darnell or a skip in the rotation due to the off day tomorrow. That win loss stat is pretty meaningless - it would be the equivalent of saying that Dallas Keuchel is good because he has 17 wins. The stats that show the Twins should like seeing some lefties: team vs. LHP .259/.313/.410/.723 team vs. RHP .243/.298/.395/.692 It's not a massive difference but statistically significant. It also holds up for starters (what we're talking about really) vs LH Starter .255/.314/.414/.728 vs RH Starter .244/.296/.392/.688 I'll admit I was surprised that the Twins hit starters and relievers about the same. It would seem to me that relievers would have better numbers.

You have to give them credit for things that go well too then. Wait we don't do that at TD. That said, Molitor blew that one.

It was like Molitor was totally unprepared for a LH pinch hitter. Cotts should have been up the minute Ramirez got on. This one is on Molly, not Fien. He shouldn't be pitching to a LH hitter in that situation.

Well doing the math it seems you are right. I feel better.

http://www.rotoworld.com/recent/mlb/5479/aaron-hicks Rotoworld doesn't often get these things wrong. Fantasy people depend on it.

Okay the TR bashing has gone too far. This is patently false. First of all, the fact that the talented Twins pitchers were traded or signed elsewhere doesn't make service time any less important. The Twins had those players the time they did or traded them for what they got based on how long a team could control them - it's super relevant. You can rag on TR all you want but Johan Santana, Matt Garza and Francisco Liriano all refute your idea that he hasn't developed a pitcher worth worrying about when they hit free agency. Santana is clearly a pitcher "worth worrying about" in free agency. With Santana, the Twins didn't feel they could afford him at the end of team control (likely true) so they traded him. That doesn't mean that service time didn't matter - they kept him up until he had only one more year left. If they'd brought him up later they'd have gotten one more year of Johan or a much better haul if they'd traded him at the same time. Johan's time in the pen is a worst case scenario for bringing up Berrios - you waste a year of low leverage bullpen work and miss out on an ace for a year at the end of team control, whether you use that for another season of elite pitching or for a better trade haul. Garza was traded for Delmon (you can pan that trade but not the development of Garza and once again, the Twins got the package they got based on how many years of control Garza had left) and Liriiano was actually offered a similar contract to the one he got in Pittsburgh but he chose to leave. Actually, that last part is perhaps more damning of the Twins (but not specifically TR) because Loshe also left and had success elsewhere after becoming frustrated with the Twins pitching staff. Another example is Brad Radke. Though he was drafted before TR took over, he came up right as TR became GM. TR signed him several times to free agent deals. He was definitely a homegrown pitcher who was worth holding onto. You can not like TR for many things but the concept that the Twins have developed no talent is false, as is the idea that service time plays no role in Berrios. You may disagree about the relative value of Berrios pitching this year versus preserving a year at the end of his team control but it's a valid concern for TR.

Hicks is available to come up today. Why not today? Why wait an extra day? Why start Torii or Shane when you don't have to? Ack.

On that front, I think you're selling out next year in order to accomplish not much this year. If he does great and gets 34 games in this year, you have to leave him in the minors that much longer next year - which becomes more difficult to sell to fans and teammates. As is, he can have a great spring and be up by the end of April - basically you just need someone to do a few turns in the rotation and then he steps in. But if he plays this year and does well, the tempatation/expectation is going to be to have him on the roster opening day. And then you've blow your year. All of that would be moot if they were replacing Pelfrey with him - that would be worth the chance you end up burning a year of time. But some low leverage bullpen work (he's not stepping in to be the closer or even one of the top set up guys, he's going to be a middle innings guy barring injury) isn't worth it. I guess the equivalent would be this: let's pretend last years Cubs made a run at the playoffs. They were brought Kris Bryant up for the run and he hit well. The next year, would they have been able to stick him in the minors for not just the 17 days they did this year but for 51 days? They would've been crucified in the press and booed by fans - it never could happen. They'd have wasted a year of team control. And that scenario is actually decent for the Cubs - Bryant plays a pivotal role as a starter. Berrios wouldn't be starting or even closing games - he'd just be another bullpen arm. Its akin to bringing Bryant up to pinch run down the stretch. Look I'd love to see the young man play but the smart thing to do is to play the risk reward game well and save that year. Berrios isn't going to make the difference as a pen arm. He might as a starter next year or at the end of team control.

Yeah but "plenty of time" is vague; the specifics matter. Having an extra year gets us a better deal and if he does pitch like Pedro and we can't afford him (ala Santana) it gives the Twins an extra year of him playing before he leaves as a free agent or, more likely, is traded like Santana or David Price. The year of control on the back end is worth so much more than 15-20 innings in the bullpen in pursuit of a wild card. He doesn't push the needle enough in that role to justify risking losing a year of his prime. Now if there is a way to get him into the rotation, I'm all for bringing him up and seeing what he can do. But I don't see the Twins dropping two of Duffy, Milone, Santana, Gibson, Hughes and Pelfrey. There's just too much of a log jam ahead of him among the starters.

All the more reason to wait on this year. If it takes him awhile to ascend to elite (and you're right, I'm putting cart way before the horse on that one, he may never make it) then the Twins are going to need to wait to see how he develops before committing. As we saw with a later-developing Dozier, that can make it harder to get a good deal since a player is close to free agency. This is all the more reason to wait on Berrios this year and thus have an extra year at the end of team control when he is performing at his peak, not less. The service time thing is only part of it. Outside of injuries in the rotation that let him start, he just isn't going to have enough of an impact on this year's race to justify accruing the service time.

1) Agreed on health. That was more of a throw-in. 2) I'm doing this more from a "if he doesn't struggle" perspective because if you go from a struggle perspective than you gain nothing from bringing him up now (he struggles) so it's kind of a moot point. This whole conversation is premised on Berrios being an above average major leaguer with superstar upside. 3) At some point you need to play for 2015 but the million dollar question that we disagree on is "Where is that point?" I just don't think that Berrios helps you enough this year (even if he does get you 1 extra win, which is unlikely in that short of a period of time WAR wise) to justify losing a year of him later. If the Twins were the Royals, I might want to bring him up because a World Series is in the mix and you do everything to way that scale. The Twins are not there. They have an outside shot at playing in a sudden death game that they will likely not be favored to win in order to get the chance to make the "real" playoffs. Berrios is unlikely to meaningfully impact that one way or the other so it's not worth the very real cost of a year of service time.* 4) The Twins aren't going to be a flash in the pan, this isn't going to be his only chance to make a playoff run. He might even benefit from coming up early in the season when expectations and reprecussions aren't so high (though I will say that everything you read on this kid make you think he'd have no issues with the pressure). * I feel very differently about Max Kepler coming up. Get that kid up once minor league playoffs are over. His situation is a bit different because the Twin have an obvious need he can fill (ugh to Shane Robinson and Torii starting games and even with Hicks back, Kepler is an ideal platoon partner) and I think that he's likely to start next year in the minors since Arcia, Buxton, Hicks and Rosario are all likely to make the team (Arcia because of no options). Thus, he's way more likely to have some time back in the minors to make up for some of that service time.** ** That last part, by the by, is the best argument for bringing up Berrios now. If you think he'll start next year in the minors, then they can always just hold him down there longer next year and gain back that service time. I like to think he's going to force his way onto the team next year though. He's done everything and the upside is so tantalizing. Hopefully Nolasco goes somehow and we go with Hughes, Santana, Gibson, May and Berrios? If we kept Nolasco, I'd even favor wasting May in the pen in order to get Berrios a spot to shine.

I just can't buy that it's that simple. You don't just assemble the best roster, you need to be calm and make reasonable judgements based on risk vs. benefit. The Twins are risking a lot (a year of control, millions of dollars and maybe health depending on where you come down on that) for very little benefit (a power arm at the back of the bullpen). The benefits just don't outweigh the risks, and it's not close. We're all a little starved of playoff experience these last few years and I get the temptation to push balls to the wall but we aren't the Tigers. We have a bright future with many years of playoff contention. We can't risk that future to move the bar 1% towards a chance to play a sudden death Wild Card game. And if he struggles this is all a moot point but if you believe in this guy like we should and do, you have to plan for him not to struggle.

1) How about Brian Dozier? The Twins just bought out his years of control in order to stabilize costs, they got none of his free agent years. It was a good deal based on how he's played this year but if they'd had another year of control (or made the move earlier) they might have had the leverage to ( a ) drop the cost per year considerably or ( b ) get him to throw in a year of free agency on the end in order to keep the salaries higher. Those years may seem like they don't matter but they really really do. You really want that extra year of control when you're approaching Berrios about a contract in 2 years. It might mean you save tens of millions of dollars over the contract or get to buy out a year of free agency relatively cheaply. 2) I understand the playoff angle but how much does Berrios help that? He's not likely to be starting down the stretch and certainly wouldn't be starting the Wild Card game. Even if you make the Wild Card game (not a given clearly) you then only have roguhly a 50% chance (and likely less as the Twins will not be favored, won't have a shut down pitcher and will be the road team) of making it to a longer ALDS series where a Berrios-type might make a difference. And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that if the Twins make it that far, they'd already be able to move 1 or 2 starters to the pen. Is Berrios in the pen that much better than Pelfrey in the pen? Is that worth a year of team control and the millions of dollars that it could save the Twins? Heck no. The Twins should let the future be the (near) future and ride the guys who have gotten them where they are. Only way I'd bring Berrios up is if there were 2 injuries in the starting rotation and they needed him to start (I say 2 because Hughes will be back soon).

Yes but if they have him for another year they can buy out that year of arbitration. The number of years left matters because he'll hit free agency at some point and he gets much more expensive to sign (and is potentially gone given the Twins distaste for long contracts to pitchers). To put it in another perspective. how much would you have loved to have one more year of Johan Santana at the end of that contract? It seems a cart before the horse thing to compare Berrios to Santana but that is the best case scenario we have to consider. The other key to consider is that the number of years of team control dramatically effects the team's leverage in negotiations. The Twins are unlikely to make a move to sign Berrios after this year and you've then blown a year of getting to know him. The later into a player's years of control you wait to make that offer, the more you end up paying and the less likely a player is to include a couple of years of free agency for stability. 15-20 innings of relief are not worth 180-200 innings of starting plus millions of dollars they could spend in other places.

I hate to be the naysayer here but it would be insane to add Berrios this year and lose his age 29 year on the back end. He's an elite talent and a potential #1 starter - 1 more year in the Buxton/Sano prime would be way more valuable than 15-20 innings in the pen down the stretch (i don't see who the Twins would be willing to replace in the rotation and there's the matter of innings). It would be different if the Twins were competing for the division title with a full playoff series - you would be thinking more World Series and Berrios could help. But this is a team that is playing for a chance in the wild card game. It's agonizingly hard not to use him because we want the playoffs so badly but we've got to be smart about this. A full season of Berrios at 29 (knock on wood he's great) takes priority over 15-20 innings in the pen. Go Twins!

Agreed, all about avoiding those losing spells and catching teams when they're on a losing streak. Gonna be huge if the Twins can at least split games with Houston.

1) I'd like to see Alex Meyer get another shot in September. I know he struggled his first time up but that would add another power arm to the pen if he can harness his stuff. Much rather see us take a floater on Meyer than hope to recapture the Boyer magic. 2) Still devestated by what we gave up for Jepsen. I know prospects are unsure commodities and Jepsen has pitched well and fills a need but I loved me some Chih-Wei Hu. Going to be super frustrating if he develops like he could.

A baseball gene? I buy athletic genes, though I think it's had to separate nurture from nature on that one (if Dad and Mom played sports then its likely that Junior will play sports). But scouts and the Twins always talk about "baseball gene" like somehow the kids are born to play baseball because their Dad or Uncle had a pro baseball career. If Dad was a pro hockey or fotball player, they likely have the same athletic genes - it's more about what they were encouraged to play when they were young. Baseball gene = ridiculous.

The concept of the "baseball gene" makes the Twins front office seem like evolution deniers. I really hope that is just something you say in an interview, not a major part of the decision to take Nick Gordon. A "baseball gene" is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Take that science! Now a ballerina gene on the other hand . . .

So it's kind of like your high school girlfriend. You never wanted to marry her and you understand that your wife is significantly better but there's nothing quite like your first and you'll always be a little nostalgic.

Interesting that you would give up the 1991 for the 1987. Granted I was three in 87 and seven in 91 so 91 is the one that sticks for me but even if I were older, that 1991 World Series itself is so incredibly amazing (I rewatch games 6 and 7 every year before the Twins season) that I would imagine most Twins fans would trade 87 so their kids could experience 91. No?

Just to play devil's advocate, if you know this is a weak draft and there's a chance that next year is a great draft, isn't taking the gamble potentially worth the risk? I don't think this makes sense for the Twins since they're in the 6/7 hole but if you had the #1 pick and you knew that next year was a year with a couple of great prospects (let's say hitting since that's less likely to change) while you weren't excited about anyone this year, it seems like it might be worth a shot. The reputational thing is a good point and the human factor is a great point too. This is more in the land of make believe but I think it's an interesting idea.