JB_Iowa

I'm in the he's "stale" camp -- and it actually doesn't have a lot to do with Gardenhire himself. I believe (and believed this long before Gardenhire was hired) that most leaders have a "shelf life" of about 7-10 years, maybe a little longer. There is a reason for term limits in politics. There is a reason that the Methodist Church used to rotate ministers about every 7 years. I've seen it happen with school superintendents, hospital administrators and a number of other "leadership" positions. After a period of time, they seem to lose their effectiveness. It isn't that they are doing anything "wrong". It just becomes time for a new voice, new energy and a different leader. Sure there are exceptions but given the performance of this team the last 2 years, a leadership -- and culture -- change is needed.

They seem high to me as well. I'm sure the All Star game has had a positive influence. But I'd also discount the figures somewhat simply based on the fact that the information is coming from Dave St. Peter. You know that he is always going to spin, spin, spin.

Gardenhire has got to go -- if only so I don't have to hear him call Aaron Hicks "Hicksie". This has got to be a new low.

I'm getting dizzy from all the spinning. And have a feeling the earth may shake when the spin-meisters all go kerplunk in April.

Have a great season. Hope your wife is enjoying your relocation to Florida as well (okay, its cold and snowy in Minnesota -- kind of hard to think she wouldn't be liking the sunshine!) Thanks for all your posts over the last year -- it's always fun to read about your life in baseball (and outside it too).

Thanks. Between mis-adding the top part and forgetting the "other obligations", I was really off. And it is all just a reminder of how much some of those bad decisions cost.

Doesn't anyone question his numbers? Where does he come up with "Last year, our payroll was north of $100 million and we lost 95 games."? I went back through Jeremy Nygaard's excellent roster payroll list and I just don't get it.

There are a few women who post here .... is everyone your brother? I have no problem with the premise of your post -- the bickering gets tiresome. But I'd also like to remind everyone that it generally takes at least 2 posters to bicker (otherwise the lone "bickerer" is just posting into thin air and that person should easily go on your "ignore" list) -- if it becomes apparent that no one is going to "win" the argument, it is often better to just walk away. Walking away doesn't mean that you "lose" -- it just means that you're sane.

First, I want to thank you for a well-written first blog post. And, I agree with much of what you've written. I want to point out what has been another "conundrum" for me that ties into your 2nd to the last paragraph. I'm am absolutely convinced that Gardenhire's long-term approach ("Keep playing hard boys, we'll get 'em tomorrow), is a significant part of the success that the Twins enjoyed during the 2000's. He generally did not allow them to get too high or too low -- keeping them on an "even keel" with an appreciation for the length of the season. I do believe that it helped them down the stretch. But I also believe that it puts them in middle gear and that they were unable to shift out of it when it came to the playoffs -- when time is NOT on your side and there isn't always a game tomorrow. Don't get me wrong, the lack of power pitching and the gaps in the line-up were also a big part of those losses. But sometimes "little engines" do win, even in the playoffs, but they have to have the right mindset. And I just don't think that Gardenhire and the other leaders on this team (whoever they may be cuz I'm not sure I've ever been able to identify them well) were able to shift from a long-season view to the urgency of the playoffs. And in a sense, I wonder if the organization's current stance isn't somewhat like that. They were used to sustained long-term success in the 2000's (albeit no playoff wins) and now that they have had a disastrous two seasons, I think they are still stuck in 2nd gear. I hope that they can shift to 1st as some of the prospects develop so that the Twins may eventually be competitive in the post-season but I'm not sure that it'll happen especially if 2nd gear (no substantial changes in the organization) eventually produces regular season competitiveness.

I'm bookmarking a number of threads to reopen in October. We can all review them to determine who is a real "fan". Time to quit arguing over how dismal this team is -- or will be -- time for pitchers and catchers to report. Then we can all see whether the optimists were right or whether the "nattering nabobs of negativism" (of which I'm one) should keep nattering.

I conserve my quota of "hope" during the offseason and start using it up on Opening Day.

Signed receipts would be a lot nicer than a spreadsheet. I can hear the lawyers now. Spin, spin, spin.

Last year Jim Crikket posted on the Knuckleballs blog about the need to spend more to field a semi-respectable team. I disagreed with him then because I felt like there were too many gambles with the health of Morneau, Mauer and Span to justify spending more than a starting payroll of $90-$95 million. But we got some reasonably positive answers on those health questions. I just cannot see the justification for reducing the payroll another $15 million or more. Was there NO ONE out there on a 1 or 2 year deal who could help improve this team (even marginally)? No pitcher, no middle outfielder, no outfielder? Or maybe several someones. Yes, it might block some of the team's younger players but for the most part, most of them could benefit from some additional time in the minors anyway. To me, the Twins payroll reduction is a blatant insult to fans. Especially their season ticket holders. Yes, as of now the off-season is still incomplete but every day that passes and every player that signs with another team is another slap in the face to Twins fans when from all reports the Twins haven't even made a legitimate attempt to sign most (if not all) of them. This franchise owes it to their fans and the taxpayers of Minnesota to make a legitimate effort to sign the most competitive team that they can within reasonable budget figures (let's talk about the 50% policy Mr. St. Peter). That's why the Marcum signing is frustrating -- not because he signed elsewhere but because it appears that the Twins aren't trying very hard to sign anyone.

Interesting that Mackey may be on the "Free Slama" bandwagon. And why does "runs every transaction past the Twins internal statistical department" not inspire me about the USE of those statistics? Also love that they are "airming for 2014 more than 2013". I suppose so but I don't think 2014 looms as a very big target for this group either.

I'd give them an incomplete. They addressed a long-term need in the pitching staff, took a big gamble on the 2013 starting rotation, did nothing to improve the middle infield and gambled with the top of the line-up and outfield defense. It is really pretty futile to try to assign a grade at this point -- there's just too much gambling going on (and no particularly good odds). If I had to assign them a grade, it would probably be a C but overall, I think that this franchise has a lot of work yet to do (for this season and beyond).

I'd like to rephrase the question a bit: "Why AREN'T they spending more money in 2013?" and "WHAT will they do with the savings?" I think that the HONEST answers to those questions would get a little more at the heart of my discontent. Right now I think that they aren't spending money mostly because Terry Ryan is ultra-conservative financially and has a significant distrust of purchasing free agent pitching. I don't think it has anything to do with whether spending the money might actually improve this team somewhat. I honestly believe that it goes to the heart of a psychological, philosophical and emotional issue for Terry Ryan. He is cheap -- and he wants to build a pitching staff on the cheap. He (and the rest of this organization) does not measure success in terms of wins and losses but in terms of how much black ink is on the bottom line. In answer to my second question, I would guess that they are simply going to use their non-spending to increase profits (at least for now although as JC mentions, if they don't spend more, their revenues may nosedive and then they'll be in a different kind of mess). I'd like to believe that they will harbor it for more significant free agent acquisitions in the future but until they make it clear that they have changed their accounting approach, I have no choice but to believe that any savings will go straight to profit. I have made it clear all along that I don't have a problem with spending less than 50% if, in contending times, the team is willing to send significantly more than 50%. BUT as of right now, I have not heard ANY Twins official (where are you Mr. St. Peter?) state that the team is changing its approach to the 50% rule. As I've stated before, the policy apparently has a lot to do with a ceiling but nothing to do with a floor. All of the team's fans have a right to be skeptical and disenchanted with the way that the free-agent dance has been handled by the Twins this off-season. Season ticket holders, on the other hand, also have the right to be angry for being misled.

Election to the HOF is a privilege, not a right. It is not something one “earns” by attaining certain performance benchmarks even if some standards are thought of as nearly automatic. There are some players who may have been caught in the cross-fire this year. I believe that it will eventually sort itself out. While it may be “too late” for someone like Jack Morris, it is not at all clear that he would have been elected even absent all the furor over steroids. I strongly believe that voters should consider cheating when they determine whether someone belongs in the HOF. Whether it was Pete Rose gambling on the game or players using PEDs, their behavior was a direct assault upon the integrity of baseball and upon its history. Does that mean a voter should deny a player entrance based on a mere suspicion of PED use? No. But I think that voters have every right to both delay based on suspicion and then to exclude based on a preponderance of the evidence. Judgments may (and should) be made both on the evidence that there was PEDs usage AND on the LACK of evidence that there was PEDs usage. But the standard in every voter’s mind needs to be preponderance of the evidence NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We aren’t talking about denying a player his freedom. We’re not even generally talking about denying them the fruits of their PEDs usage – they still retain the titles and MONEY they received as a result. Using those standards, some “clean” players may still end up as collateral damage and some PEDs users may still get in the Hall but voters will then have done the “best that they could” given the circumstances to sort through and clean-up the debris from the steroid era. Writers, as well as players, the players’ union, Bud Selig, club owners and management, ALL share responsibility for the PEDs mess. (You can’t convince me that there weren’t writers who turned a blind eye.) They should not perpetuate it by now voting players they reasonably believe used PEDs into the HOF. The museum can still have displays about the accomplishments of some of these players – and should have displays about the whole steroid era – but that is wholly different from ENSHRINING them in the Hall of Fame. I hope that the HOF and the voters step up to the plate and do the job that the game of baseball should have done 15 or so years ago.

I didn't expect that it would change your vote ....; more's the pity.

Dump most of your list. And go read Verducci's latest article: Why I'll never vote for a known steroids user for the Hall of Fame - MLB - Tom Verducci - SI.com Nobody explains it better.

I just don't know. Was the knee "as good as it gets" last year or could his work over this winter further strengthen it? If he could further strengthen his base, that might off-set wear & tear from the extra year on his age. My guess is that there will be a slight decline in his overall numbers but that it won't be a significant decline. I would still hope that he can maintain and OBP of .400 or more but a drop in OBP would not bother me as much if his extra-base hits would increase back to 2010 levels or better.

It is very hard to go back and find cites for these policies but my recollection is that it has come up in the context of back-loading (or front-loading) contracts ... especially when the Mauer contract was announced. My recollection is that the Twins made it very clear that they do business on an annual cash basis. If I felt that it was important to have a specific cite, that's where I would start looking.

It is pretty pathetic -- and it is amazing to me how people have "scaled back" their expectations on what pitching can/should be acquired as the off-season has progressed. Keep kidding yourself that TR is "saving" that money for a future year. Apparently the 50%+ rule only applies as a ceiling not a floor.

Fun post. Have a safe trip. I thought the water tower was referring to what was behind it not to what should happen to what was behind it!

Thanks for the insight, Parker. And thanks to Mr. Goin for talking with you. Mr. Goin and his intern may be very good at what they do -- the question is how much weight the "powers that be" give to their analysis (especially if the powers-that-be don't want to hear the analysis only want a capsulized result). I would hope, though, that if the results of their research are fruitful, they may gain a larger placehold within the organization.

There is always another possibility. Maybe, despite his public comments, Gardenhire intends to step aside after the 2013 season (step aside as in retire or move to another position with the club). I know that is contrary to everything he has said in public but given his age and health (I keep remembering his brother's heart-related death), it is not inconceivable to me. If that is not his intention, I still don't know that a losing season means that Gardenhire is gone. There would probably be some public demand for Gardenhire to resign but perhaps not as much as there would be for Ryan to resign. Giving Gardenhire such mediocrity to work with may actually be protecting his job as long as the results are in the mediocre range (losses about 90 or less).