Jim H

I agree with the poster that suggested that the "right thing" to do with Gibson will likely be pretty obvious by the end of spring training. Right now, it seems that while he is likely healthy, he suffering the effects of not pitching competitively much in the last 2 years. It could easily be that pitching in the minors on pitch limit would make some sense. He could work on his mechanics, timing, secondary pitches, etc. On the other hand if Diamond and/or Pelfrey aren't ready and nobody else steps up, maybe starting in majors makes sense. I suspect the "right" answer will be more obvious by the end of the month.

Brad, I owe you an apology as well. I guess it seems to me that WAR is the new hot stat, and it is clear far too many don't understand its limitations or even acknowledge that it might have some. Many of us are drawn to baseball in part because of stats and their historical importance to baseball. I enjoy reading well researched stat based stories. I didn't mean to imply your story was lacking in those areas. But I will say that I don't have much faith in conclusions based on WAR. For all the reasons above, and maybe a few I didn't get around to stating. And the general premise of the article. Yes, the Twins have not had many outstanding middle infielders. A few at 2nd, headed by Carew and Knoblach. I remember Versalles as well. 1965 was special, he deserved the MVP award. Gagne and Smalley are really the only other shortstops that were noteworthy for more than a season or 2.

One last thought on WAR. A major component of WAR is UZR. I dislike UZR because I believe the whole concept backing UZR is flawed. UZR gives a grade to every play a fielder makes. That grade is based on where the ball is caught. There are adjustments based on how hard the ball is hit and the handness of the batter. The problem with the concept is that where the ball is hit has no real correlation to how difficult the play is. That depends on where the fielder started from. Fielders position themselves differently for every hitter, often making further adjustments based on the pitcher, the pitch, the count, the number outs, the score, etc. The whole idea that a ball hit to a particular part of the field has the same difficulity no matter who the batter is just wrong. Clearly Thome and Revere would be positioned entirely differently even though they are both left handed hitters. There, I hope you understand where I coming from, even if I am a old, cranky man.

I am sorry you perceive it as a personnal attach. But using a one number to compare players playing different positions from different eras has so much margin for error in it as to be almost completely meaningless. At least that is my perception. You did say in the original post that you did not know how WAR was calculated. Now that is quite a bit different from not wanting to explain it because it is complicated. You also said there at least 3 different versions of WAR with strikingly different numbers. So there is no standard way to calculate it. You picked one because-why? This is the reason I have trouble with these new stats. You are taking or perhaps asking other people, to take on faith that these stats really mean much and the calculations actually lead to what they purport to represent. The problem is they are taking the original stats(which all have flaws) weighing them in some porportion which might distort them even more, perhaps leaving out stats that might even be more useful and creating one number. Now I understand why people use them, and I appreciate your disclaimer. But other than as fun and simple way to look at and compare players, it isn't very useful. It is also likely to be very misleading. Finally again, I am not attacking you personally. But I really think if you are or anyone is going to use these new stats, they better understand them, completely. They also better be able to defend them, because I feel they often lead to some very misleading conclusions about various players.

I find it troubling that people will use a stat that they do not understand. How can you say it is the best way to compare players when you don't understand how it is created? People on this site argue about stats and their sigificance all the time. And that is about stats that they understand. People use WAR because it is easy to use. The idea is that somebody can take a bunch of stats, weigh them according to the value THEY PERCEIVE them to have, and then combine them into one number that allows you to compare players from disparate eras playing different positions with roles that have changed over the years, and actually have that number mean something? All that and you don't even know what stats the various sites are using and what weight they are giving to each stat. WAR isn't really a stat. It is a convenient fiction that allows people to do some things that would be difficult to do with real stats.

There are perhaps 4 players in the minors who have some chance of being an average to above major league shortstop. Santana might be the leading candidate but Micheal, Goodrum and Polanco have enough tools to be in the conversation. Santana really resembles Florimon to a large degree, which should temper the enthusiam over Santana a bit. Having a lot of tools doesn't really mean that they will be realized at the big league level. But like Florimon having great tools like Santana has, means you get extended looks despite inconsistency and generally poor minor league production. Having patience as an organization can sometimes really pay off with toolsy players who take a long time to "figure it out". Santana's year last year gives some hope and Goodrum is another toolsy guy who may figure things out someday.

I think you are right, Burnett is a bit more likely to be sent down. I would qualify my answer this way. I don't think the Twins are going to punt this year, but everything they do will have an eye toward the future. I would also add Pressly into this because they will likely lose him if he doesn't make the team. I don't think they bring in Roenicke and Wood if they were totally satisfied with Swarzak and Burnett. Even if they don't want to lose Swarzak, they could try to pass him thru waivers at cut down time if Roenicke or Wood really impresses. I expect the Twins to keep Pressly unless his control is terrible and they don't think he can help at all. So Burnett could easily be sent down. It is also seems unlikely that all of Swarzak, Wood and Roenicke make the opening roster.

I must not be clear about my point on Dozier and Carroll. I'll summarize: I see your point of view. You could be right, largely on all of them, although I think Carroll is really past the point of being a passable big league starter. Just because you could be right, doesn't however, mean that you are or will be right. In Dozier's case, I don't really see much value in AAA. Even if he was rushed, now is his opportunity. If he can field like a big league MI, the Twins can put up with some ups and downs with the bat. Florimon showed in his short look last fall, that he can be a spectacular shortstop. His range and arm are at least the equal of Bartlett and his shortstop instincts seem better. Clearly, he needs to be more consistent, but if he can be, then the Twins will be willing to put up with a weak bat. Using Carroll to back up both makes sense to me. He will certainly get plenty of starts. If either hits a rough patch or suffers a minor injury, Carroll can hold the fort for awhile. Carroll really reminds me of Denny Hocking. A career utility guy who steady with the glove and could hit a bit, but really wasn't an everyday player. I don't know if either Florimon or Dozier is an everyday player in the big leagues either. But now is the time to find out. With Micheal, Santana, Rosario, Polanco and Goodrum in the minors, the Twins could find a solid or better starters in the near future. If Florimon and/or Dozier can prove to be big league quality middle leaguers, that has trade value. Even if they are only passable, they can hold the fort till better replacements are ready. If it turns out that they aren't really even Carroll good, well, now is the time to find out.

I enjoyed this article. Good writing. There are clearly more than one way to rebuild and all plans have risks. It is not like Kansas City and Pittsburgh were trying to be bad for 2 decades. For all the respect Tampa Bay gets, they were bad for a good long while. They also are bit short of good position players right now, which might undermine their good pitching. I think the key is to hire a good GM and then give him enough time to actually implement a plan. Many franchises(owners) get impatient and after a few years, dump whoever they put in charge and start over. I don't know how many GM's Kansas City has gone thru, but you can see the results. They may of screwed up their current rebuild by getting impatient again. The Cubs have been largely bad for much longer than 20 years. They have had money to work with, and sometimes they have been decent for a few years. But they should of had some periods of long term success like most wealthy franchises have. I think that good management is even more crucial in baseball than other major sports. In basketball, one player can turn your franchise around. In football, a good quarterback and couple of good drafts can make you a Superbowl contender. In baseball, the developmental time for prospects is so long and you need so many that it is easy for things to go wrong, even with good management.

Since we really don't know what the rotation will look like when the season starts, or what it will look like in June or what it will be like by the end of the year, it is really hard to guess what the level of interest in Santana might be. That also doesn't take into account the progress or lack of progress, Meyer, May, Berrios and others might make this summer in the minors. Santana will always have interest for those in Minnesota but the chances he will be any sort of fit for the Twins in the future, is pretty remote.

I don't know that I agree with John's assertion that Carroll is certainly the best of the 4. He is a solid, older utility guy. I think there is at least some reasonable chance that any or even perhaps all 3 of the others, could be a big league regular at short or 2nd. Carroll never really was, even last year, he basically showed that he was a very good utility guy. He looked stretched when forced to play every day. John could be right, the other 3 might very well prove to be no better than utility guys, but I think it is too early to make that claim. Even if that is all they turn out to be, it doesn't necessarily mean they are or will be worse than Carroll. It always surprises me how quick people are to dismiss prospects when they don't immediately live up to expectations. People were calling Span a failure long before he reached the big leagues. I remember reading last spring those who thought Plouffe should be released. While John and many others could be right about the middle infield candidates this spring, I would like to see what they do with an extended opportunity. It is not like there are a lot of other options or that Carroll really deserves another chance to prove he is more than a utility guy.

Clement could hit 400 this spring with 8 home runs and still likely won't the team. If he did a lot of that damage the last 2 weeks of ST he might have a chance, but it really doesn't change what he is. The Twins likely have better bench options than Clement. He will go down to AAA and if the need arises and he is hitting well, he could conceivably be called up. What the Twins will be looking for is for the young guys like Hicks, Dozier, Arcia to show what they can do. That is take good AB's, show that you hit a major league fastball, not get fooled by off speed stuff, take good routes to the ball, make the routine plays. If all that shows up in the stats, well and good. But the stats don't really matter much. Over 30 or so AB's a few scratch hits can be the difference between a 300 average and and a 250 average. A couple of home runs hit early in the spring, with the wind blowing out, against a guy still trying to locate his fastball aren't going mean much. The Twins aren't going to worry if a guy like Harden gets kicked around his first few outings. They aren't going to be extremely impressed if some young guy strikes out the side. I expect it maybe quite difficult this spring to evaluate all the pitchers. There are some guys coming off injuries, some guys they won't want to expose to waivers, so I doubt the ST numbers will match up with who they decide to start the year with.

Plouffe looks like an all or nothing type. Occasional hot streaks with long periods of nothing. People like homeruns, so if he hits enough of them, the low average will be overlooked. He does need to field, however. I also agree with the above poster, if he can be close to what Cuddyer did with the bat we should be happy. Cuddyer was a much better minor league hitter, although he was up and down. He was a streaky big league hitter as well, but he generally managed a decent average, had good doubles power, and actually was a better right fielder than most will concede.

Actually, in his brief callup Herrmann didn't show that he can hit better than Butera. Still, Herrmann is young and probably needs work on both his offense and defense. I suspect that he will never be more than a big league backup, but it is too early to make that call. I think he needs to be at AAA working on his game. I also think that for the couple of extra hits Herrmann might provide over the 100-150 AB's that Butera will get, well I'd rather have Butera. He is clearly the beter defensive catcher, right now.

I tend to agree with Seth on Hendriks. I think he has a good chance to be really good. Control is often overlooked when people talk about pitchers, but having the ability to stay out of the middle of plate and still get ahead of hitters is really important. Especially if you lack high ninetys velocity and/or overpowering stuff. That said, it looked like his curve and change up weren't as good as they need to be last year. As young as he is, there is a good chance that they will improve, or perhaps he will just trust them more.

The only part of this I agree with is that re-signing Morneau is not about Parmelee. I don't think re-signing Morneau is at all similiar to Hunter. The Twins could and did replace Hunter's offensive and defensive production, much more cheaply. I don't think that is possible with Morneau, even if he doesn't quite rebound to his MVP self. He isn't that old, he can be very productive for at least several more years(if he is healthy), and it is far too early to speculate on what his contract will be. I don't think that all the young prospects will be ready to replace the offensive production of both Morneau and Willingham for at least a few years. I would much rather keep Morneau around rather than Willingham. So, if Morneau proves himself healthy and productive, I would like to see the Twins re-sign him, though not for more than 3 years. His contract would have to pretty outlandish to actually prevent the Twins from adding necessary help. That is assuming that most of the hot young prospects turn into productive major leaguers. If they don't, the Twins won't be able to afford enough to sign enough free agents to be competitive, anyway.

Too me, the key thing here is what do the Twins want to do with Dozier? If they view him as more of a 2B, well then bring in Brignac and let him compete with Florimon. Since the Twins don't really have either a starting SS or 2B at this point, I wouldn't mind seeing one more guy in camp. Now all of this assumes that the Twins view Escobar as a utility man or perhaps a guy who needs more minor league time.

I think the Twins really need a shortstop that they can put out there nearly everyday, who can at least catch the ball and make all the routine plays. Neither Florimon or Dozier or really Carroll either, showed that they can be that kind of shortstop last year. Apparently the Twins feel that either Florimon or Dozier can be good enough or we would of seen someone like Brignac sooner than now. I guess I wouldn't mind them adding Brignac, I think he probably is good enough to make all the routine plays. I don't imagine he will hit much better than Florimon, though.

I don't want to be argumentive, but all baseball is competitive. While major college baseball is certainly competitive, I don't think that will help much in deciding whether a guy can play major league ball. I remember a few years ago, one of Twins minor leaguers(one of Seth's favorites but I can't remember his name) had played with Nick Swisher in college. He was drafted in the middle to late rounds by the Twins. He even had similar college stats to Swisher. I believe he got as far as AA. I don't think college stats are very meaningful. They tell you nothing about where they are in terms of physical maturity, or what developmental stage they are at. Some people are physically mature at 18, most probably aren't. Stats can't tell you any of that. Most major leaguers say that work ethic and makeup are important to major league success. Stats can't tell you about that. There is a reason why teams have so many scouts and why more than one scout looks at the top prospects. Even with that, there is more failures than success in a draft. Can the Twins do a better job of drafting. I suppose. But there is a certain amount of luck involved as well. Injuries happen. Some kids won't do the necessary work, no matter how talented they might be. Some probably can't handle the travel or pressure. The Twins organization can certainly be criticized on many levels, but I don't think stat analysis is likely to replace oreven be much help to scouting.

. I have seen this claim before. I really wonder how true it is. I believe I read recently that the average age in the Midwest League is about 22. That would be considerably older than the average age at any major college. On top of that most of players in A ball are either the best players from college or superior high school players who often have played pro ball for a year or two. What might be true is that the skill level at in major college conference is comparable to A ball. I doubt if the talent level is.

This thread suggests that most of you don't think Benson has much of chance to make the team out of spring training. I wonder if this is true. Last year he was pretty bad, but before that he has mostly been more highly regarded than Parmalee. So what do think, Benson has no real chance to begin the year in the majors, or he makes the team if Hicks does not?

I tend to agree with Roger here. I was trying to find a nicer way to point out the flaws in your post. I doubt if Butera could be passed thru waivers without losing him. More to the point, why would the Twins do that when they clearly value his skills? Rather than spending time bashing the Twins for valuing a guy like Butera, maybe you could consider why the Twins and most other teams, really consider it so important to have a defensively skilled catcher as their backup.

I always thought that part of the theory behind Moneyball was to draft college players because less scouting was required. Partly because their stats meant a little more than high school stats would, but also because college players would be a little closer to physical maturity so less projection would be needed when evaluating a player. Now I not sure what Thrylos' point in all this is, but I too have hard time seeing how analylic input would be very useful with high school players and even most college players. As far as Ryan's part in this. I know he is a skilled scout. I doubt if he sees many or maybe not any of the drafted players. So I doubt if his input is very significant during the draft. He certainly evaluates players after they have joined the organization. There could easily be some pointed questions about why certain players were drafted at that point.

I am not sure what you are saying here. In order to claim Martinez on waivers, the Twins would have to pass some one else thru waivers. I suppose they could do that with Butera or even Hermann but they would have to like Martinez more than either of those. Even if Martinez is a better hitter than Butera, that really isn't the prime consideration for a 3rd catcher. Letting someone else go to add Martinez to the 40 man would mean having 6 catchers on the 40 man roster, which seems like a lot.

Thank you for answering my question. So if I understand you correctly, the Twins haven't really changed their philosophy in the drafting of pitchers. It just so happened that the pitchers they liked best this year, were mostly relievers. Ok, I agree that getting an ace is either drafting early or getting lucky. It is also true that the power arms drafted by the Twins over the last 20 years haven't worked out very well.