Jim H

Baseball teams can be very interesting because I too believe that team chemistry, or whatever you want to call it, can contribute to winning. This talk about culture is a little different than what a baseball clubhouse is likely to be. Many corporations try to create their own "cultures" which tend to exclude people, no matter how competent, who don't "fit" the culture. I know some people who were let go or downsized by one the big employers here in Fargo. Some were close to brilliant in their field. I know one who became a contractor like what Mike had described in an above post. One of the problems I have with these kind of cultures is that it is a sort of prejudice that I am pretty uncomfortable with. When you start firing people who are good at their jobs, merely because they don't "fit" quite well enough with a particular group, well that doesn't seem quite right to me. That you have "measures" that let you justify it, almost makes it worse. Now, I don't believe baseball organizations operate that way. Baseball is so competitve that performance tends to be the overriding factor. Clearly, if you have 2 individuals whose performances are likely to be very close, management is going lean toward the individual who brings certain intangibles to the mix such as leadership, ability to mentor, etc. Trying to establish some sort of "culture" like some corportations do what likely be impossible given the everchanging nature of a clubhouse. Nevertheless, most teams do try to establish something like the "Twins Way" which is in part, a way to bring people from widely disparate backrounds together to work toward a common goal. How important the "Twins Way" is, well, that is open to debate. Clearly, talent is an awfully big factor here. Doing things the Twins Way won't help much if the players aren't talented enough.

I have a hard time understanding why everyone wants to get rid of Correia. Of all the pitchers on the Twins roster this spring, he was the 2nd best pitcher(next to Nolasco) in 2013 at the major league level. On top of that, does anybody really think he will back a haul in trade? Finally, I expect that the chances of him being one of the 5 best major league pitchers of the available options, is probably better than just about anyone not named Nolasco. So why really, do so many of you want to get rid of him?

So you are trying to fire or at least remove a competent contractor because he doesn't fit your culture? I have a hard time understanding what this even means. If he is good at his job, does he somehow make others worse at theirs? How do you measure that? Now if he is an ass, well I understand that, and an ass can certainly make others worse at their jobs. But you don't seem to be saying that. I guess if we are applying this to baseball, well I would rather spend time around good guys than not so good guys. On the other hand I really prefer to work with people who are good at what they do and continue to work to make themselves better. I expect that is true in baseball as well.

I don't get the opposition to signing Guerrier at all. He isn't that far removed from being an effective short reliever. At 35, he isn't really all that old for a relief pitcher. It is a minor league deal, and he isn't going to be taking up all that many innings this spring that should be going to somebody else. Heck, usually the Twins sent the 40 man guys who aren't going to make the roster to the minor league camp early so if they get hurt in ST they won't have to be carried on the ML DL. So there will likely be innings. If he really looks good this spring and makes the team, it probably means that Pressley or Tonkin or both get AAA seasoning, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If he doesn't make the team, he is cut or goes to AAA for a month or 2. If there is need he could be called up, more likely he is released by June no matter how he is pitching in AAA. There is very little downside to any of this, maybe some marginal prospect is held back in AA for awhile longer than he would be otherwise. Maybe a kid who could be in the majors like Pressley spends some time in AAA, which again isn't neccessarily a bad thing. It does sort of look like those who are complaining about this signing, are looking pretty hard for a reason to complain about Ryan.

Good article, Nick. People forget how mediocre Hunter was at the beginning of his career. Actually, his minor league career was mediocre as well. He didn't really hit outstandingly in the minors until he was sent back to the minors after being in the majors for more than a year. I remember thinking that Hunter wasn't going to be more than a 4th outfielder. He really wasn't very good defensively either, Kelly played him in leftfield for awhile. Even after Hunter was established, he really wasn't all that consistent. His season numbers always looked OK but it was generally a hot month in the middle of the season that made them look pretty good. What this indicates about Hicks, I don't know. There are some similarities and Hicks has demonstrated much better plate discipline in the minors than Hunter ever did. I don't that agree that the Twins should have forced him to quick switch hitting either. I just think the Twins and fans should be more patient with him. I think he will be pretty good, eventually, it just might take a few years. One last point, most posters on this site did indeed want Hicks to go north last spring. There were very few who actually posted that he should be sent to AAA. It wasn't just the Twins who thought his spring indicated that he was ready for the majors.

One of the problems with the WAR debate, is the idea that plus 1 WAR actually translate to one win. The fact that Drew is has a plus 1 advantage in 2013 over Florimon means that WAR believes Drew was the better player. I don't really believe that anybody who understands WAR, really believes there is a one to one correspondence between a plus 1 WAR and an actual win. It might be more, it might be less, given that there is more than one WAR, it could be almost anything. Trying to peg the actual difference between Drew and Florimon is a tricky thing and I doubt if using one stat, even WAR, is going to tell you the actual difference. What I tend to believe is that Drew's defensive value, no matter how you try to measure it, is declining. Florimon's defensive value is likely better than Drew's right now, and may increase slightly as we go forward. Since some "experts" believe Drew might not be able to stay at short much longer, that is another factor. Largely, you have to believe that Drew is and will be a hugely greater value offensively at shortstop over Florimon or whoever else the Twins might be able to send out shortstop over the length of the contract, to justify signing him.

I have been a little leery of Garza for 3 reasons. A lot of his perceived value is fueled by strikeouts and stats like FIP which are heavily strikeout dependent. Strikeouts are fine, but they aren't the only stat to look at. 2nd, it has always bothered me that if Tampa Bay would have thought he was a top of the rotation guy, why didn't they keep him and build the rotation around him? The same is true of Chicago. They are in the same place as the Twins, why not keep him and build a rotation around him? Two different management teams have been trying to trade him from Chicago for 3 years. Finally there are the injury concerns. I guess I am not as high on Garza as others seem to be, largely for the reasons above.

I think Garza is largely a mid rotation starter, I really don't see how anyone puts him up to a top of the rotation starter. Largely that is what is Nolasco is, as well. Hughes, if he somehow pitches to his ceiling, is a mid rotation starter as well. Pelfrey, at his best is a mid rotation starter. So, I am not particularly excited about adding another mid rotation starter when what is really needed is a top of the rotation starter. If the Twins are going to have a top of the rotation starter, it is likely to come from the group of Meyer, Stewart and maybe some of the other guys in the minors. They aren't going to get one in free agency, at not this year.

Oldguy, I tend to agree with you about WAR. Anytime you take a bunch of stats, mess around with them and create one number, well you have to trust the creators of this, I guess. It doesn't help that there are 2 versions. For me, I would rather look at the component stats, it is going to tell me, personally, more about the players I am comparing. That said, I agree with CMath about Plouffe. He is way too inconsistent both offensively and defensively, but there is enough talent and enough flashes of production, that it is too early to give up on him. Let him play 3rd till Sano shows he's ready to take over. At that point well, the decision about Plouffe might be clearer. There is a fair chance there will be an opening in the OF. Maybe a super utility role will work, or maybe a trade. But there is no big hurry to make a decision on Plouffe now.

There's nothing really wrong with any of this, though I think Polanco is the better prospect, even though I think he is a 2nd baseman rather than a shortstop. Polanco is farther away, but he appears to have a chance to be top of the order hitter while likely playing darn good defense at 2nd. Santana, if he is better than a utility guy, will likely never be a great shortstop, despite the range and arm. The bat will keep him in the 9 hole. As you say, comparisions are tricky, but I like Polanco better at this point.

Extreme shifts have been around for a long time. Using modern data gathering techniques as when to employ them makes a certain amount of sense. Still, it can be relatively easy to defeat these shifts as well. I remember years ago, Kent Hrbek winning a game when shifted like that by flaring a little popup the opposite way. Using an extreme shift like that against say Mauer, no matter his groundball tendencies would seem silly. You would think he would just bunt for doubles all day. I know lots of you would like to see the Twins get all modern and stuff, but I have certain reservations about how effective these shifts really are. Some of the data available kind of confirms those doubts.

In looking over Seth's projection of where the infielders may start the season, I do wonder a bit about Santana. He probably should/could/might be at AAA. Despite all his tools it doesn't seem like the Twins consider him at all ready for the majors, but that could change with some consistency with the glove. I also kind of wonder if the Twins wouldn't like to put Michael at SS at AA to see what he could do there, and maybe find out if there is any chance of him becoming a useful big league player. The idea of Polanco becoming a big league SS as a regular seems a bit optimistic. When he was basically a full time 2nd baseman in low A ball, it doesn't seem like the Twins really view him as a future major league SS. I wish I could of seen Goodrum play SS, views of his suitability for that position seem all over the place. Hearing about Ryan Walker makes me want to root for him, though I kind of doubt if he is a real prospect.

The reason I include Albers as a reliever is because he has little chance to make the team as a starter, but there might be room for a swing man/long man reliever depending on what the Twins decide to do with Swarzak. I really don't see Swarzak making the team as a starter either, but he could be moved into the 6th/7th inning role depending on how the bullpen shakes out.

I agree with this. Duensing is probably the best left handed reliever at or close to the majors not named Perkins. Thielbar, Albers, and possibly Ibarra might help a bullpen in some role, but Duensing has better velocity and better stuff than any of them. He is also not that old, their is a good chance he will be pitching in in the majors for a long time.

I always liked Revere and figured that at some point in his career he could compete for a batting title. That still doesn't make him anything resembling a great player, but I think he is a clear major league starter, as long as he has his legs. I rather liked the trade at the time, because I thought Worley could help as a starter, and May had a reasonably high ceiling as a potential starter as well. Most of that still holds except for Worley. May still has a pretty high ceiling and even though I doubt he reaches the majors this year, I still would have some hope even if he doesn't dominate at AAA this year. Most of you are right though, if he is going to be a solid major league starter, we better see signs of it this year at AAA.

Florimon is not yet and may never be a great shortstop, but his tools are better than anybody who played shortstop for the Twins all the way back to Gagne. I hadn't heard of any reports that actually say Santana has better tools than Florimon. Some who have seen him play on this site are impressed with Santana's tools but not that impressed. So I think I will reserve judgment. Especially since your 2nd post didn't mention otherworldly.

Actually Ibarra and Watts had nice seasons as well, a lot of appearances though. Thorpe seemed to have pitched well, as well. Interesting note that Dereck Rodriguez appeared as both a pitcher and hitter. Mop up work, I suppose.

Do you really think that this is true about his range? If his range is actually that much better than Forimon's he would be considered a super SS prospect close to some of the best prospects. Nobody considers him that. Florimon has very good range and a strong arm. Those aren't his problem. Consistency and the bat are his problems.

It seems to me that when players keep their effectiveness late into their 30's, there are several factors involved. Leaving out PED's, these factors include health and fitness, modern medicine-including surgery, and the player's ability to adapt to his declining skills. Usually a well rounded hitter like Molitor has to decide whether he is going to concentrate on power or average. You saw it a bit with Puckett whose home run totals dropped after his prime years but his average was good. You see the same with Hunter. Some guys like Thome virtually gave up any effort to hit for average and concentrated on power.

Oh I don't really think Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame nor do I really think Boyer is any sure thing either. But since I doubt you actually looked at their career stats I will publish them here. Robinson played 22 years, had about 800 more games and over 3000 more AB's. Boyer's career was 15 years, he was an all star 11 times and MVP once. Robinson Boyer R1232 1104 H2848 2143 HR268 282 RBI1357 1141 obp322 349 slg401 462 ops723 811 BA267 287

If you get a chance, compare Ken Boyer's stats to Brooks Robinson's. They started about the same year, 1955 although Brooks was only 18 when he first appeared in the majors. Boyer was 24. The biggest difference is that Boyer was basically done when he was 33. Brooks played into his 40's and had some ok years after 34. If you compare their stats through their peak years, you might be surprised how good Boyer was. If you are into WAR(I am not) you will see that their total WAR through about their age 34 seasons, are very close. As far as defense goes, Boyer was considered very, very good. I expect some St Louis fans would tell you he was as good as Brooks. None of this means that Boyer belongs in the Hall. All I am saying is if St Louis would have been a bit better during his peak years it might have helped his chances to make the Hall. I like Killer a lot too. He was a real team player and actually played a lot of LF as well. It depended who was on the team. When Rich Rollins had his good years, Killebrew was in the OF a lot. When Don Mincher was with the Twins, Killebrew kind of switched positions a bit. What I remember about Killer's defense, particularly at 3rd, was that he had no range but caught what he got to, and had a strong arm. I was also a kid, so others would know better than me.

Ken Boyer, in particular is quite comparable. He won 5 gold gloves and had a decent bat. Ron Santo's career overlaps with Brooks' as well. He of course is in the Hall. It could also be noted that Harmon Killebrew played about 1/3 of his career at 3rd and was a much greater offensive player than Brooks if only adequate at 3rd.

I am not sure what you are looking for here, and I was not trying to imply Brooks Robinson does not belong in the Hall, he certainly does. I am not going to look this up, but 3 3B of his era who had good stats and good defensive reps were Ken Boyer, Clete Boyer, and Frank Malzone. This era's offensive stats were rather depressed which is when you look at the raw stats that Brooks had, you might not be that impressed. What "made" Brooks was the 1966 World Series. As great the Baltimore pitching staff was, it was largely a pitch to contact staff. They allowed a lot of hard contact in that Series but most it seemed to be in Brooks' direction and he made a number of incredible defensive plays. I believe he had some clutch hits as well. I do remember watching at least part of the series on TV. I think it was the a little later when the games were played at night. So would I have had to watch the games in study hall or on the weekends.

I have no real idea what you mean about Gardy attitude toward Arcia and perhaps other young players. A great of deal what Gardy says is generic, you read what you want into it, and a lot of fans do. The really important stuff Gardy says, is said directly to the player and largely in private. I don't hear a lot of "Gardy is sure tough on young players" from ex players or really indirectly from anybody else who might have some actual knowlege. The whole Gardy is too tough on young players seems to come from certain segments of the fans, who largely don't like Gardy for other reasons as well. None of this means that Gardy is the perfect manager for every young player or that he is anything close to a great manager. I think he is a good manager, I think he has a good, hard working staff and I am satisfied with that. I thought Tom Kelly was pretty close to a great manager. I wish he would of had better teams to work with during his time with the Twins. There were those who thought he was too hard on young players as well. It is sort of ironic that among his more important most-managerial duties for the Twins is working with young minor league players.

So what we are getting is a 2 year rental, effectively preventing the Twins from finding out what they really have in Pinto. After Weiters leaves you are back to finding a catcher for what could be a developing team with hopefully a number of young pitchers forcing their way onto the roster. I have no idea what it would cost in terms of prospects to get Weiters for 2 years but unless you could extend him when you traded for him, it would likely be too much for a rental that wouldn't be around when the team is actually getting good.