JB_Iowa

I really don't care if they go with a 5 man or 6 man rotation. I can see greengoblinzrulz' point about it not being a "real" test but I'm not sure if it matters. They will still be facing MLB-caliber hitting (at least when they are playing a team with playoff aspirations). And I fully understand wanting to limit Diamond's innings. BUT I am tremendously bothered by the idea that they may lose on purpose. I can hear it now as the next argument by the apologists that this team isn't as bad as some of us think they are. First it was having to start on the road and with tough teams in April. Then it was that the team played .500 ball "since May" -- ignoring both this team's record in August and the 2011 team's June and July record. I can hear it now -- the Twins lost in August and September because they knew that losing would benefit them. No, it doesn't necessarily benefit them. It gives them a higher draft position. It also continues a culture of losing and lack of determination that already seems to permeate this club. I want to see some young kids come up and play with enthusiasm and try their d*mndest to win.

Well, that triple play was fun to see ... if you are an Oakland fan.

I hate to make this a referendum on TV watching in Iowa (and to hijack the thread to focus on that issue) but I want to add a couple of things. JC and I have been over this in the past so he knows my position. I agree that having 6 MLB teams blacked out can stink. BUT for some of us, it is a great thing. I have DISH network. Without subscribing to any additional "baseball package", I get all 6 of the "blackout" teams -- Twins, Royals, Cardinals, White Sox, Cubs and Brewers on a number of different regional sports stations and they are all included without extra fee. Add that to the Mets on WPIX, plus MLB network and MLB alternative and there's plenty of chances to watch most teams so I see absolutely no reason to shell out for internet mlb or a satellite baseball package. I also live in a community where my local cable carrier includes FSN. JC's problem is that he is in southeast (okay southcentral-east Iowa) where his cable provider probably offers the Cubs, White Sox and/or Cardinals. I sympathize with JC's complaints (even as I feel like I reap the benefits of the whole thing) but the problem is that Iowa really is a very mixed baseball market. Depending on where you live, you may traditionally have been a Twins, Royals, Cardinals, White Sox or Cubs fan (Brewers probably less so even in Northeast Iowa). One solution would probably be to simply make an exception for Iowa on the mlb tv rules while leaving everybody else alone. I don't think there is another state with a similar situation of being considered in the market of so many teams.

I don't even know where the "since May" .500 record idea comes from anymore. According to baseballreference.com, the Twins record by month is: April 6-16 May 12-16 June 14-13 July 12-14 August 6-11 So, they had 1 month above .500 (June). One slightly below .500 (July). Taking those 2 months together, they were still slightly below .500 (26-27). Even if you throw out April altogether, they are 44-54 (.449). I don't think there's even a date in May that you can "cherry pick" to somehow give them a .500 record. You can't just celebrate June and July and forget April and August.

Please re-read my post. Where did I say fire everybody and start over? I said that there need to be some changes and that this franchise needs an injection of fresh energy, leadership and ideas. That is not the same as saying fire everybody. But take a look at the leadership (on field and front office) over the last 10 years. It is moribund. When you seldom bring in anybody to challenge your status quo, you get complacent. I believe that the Twins are paying now for failing to gradually infuse new talent over time.

This is interesting to me because what you might view as "unselfishness", others might view as a lack of leadership. If you are willing to let someone else be the hero, it seems to me that you might also be just as willing to let someone else be the "goat."

I'm not a big Phil Mackey fan. For the most part I find his analysis interesting but his tone condescending. On this column, though, I wonder if his audience isn't the Twins brass as much as the wide world. Part of a campaign to remind them that they have a long way to go with the pitching staff.

People are all over how good the Twins are when they do great and throw everybody under the bus when the are not. Its just too bad the same dozen negative posters keep repeating the "fire Terry, fire Gardy" mantra. It is old and stale. I sincerely hope that when this team is .500 next year and competing for the division within the next 2 that these same folks will admit their inadequacies and retire from posting. And if none of that happens, will you come back and admit you were wrong? I remember a number of posters in various places saying that THIS year couldn't possibly approach last year's record of futility. Well, guess what? Mauer and Morneau have been healthier and more productive than almost anyone could have anticipated. The rest of the line-up has been pretty healthy, too. Admittedly the hit with Baker was a hard one and I think most of us expected more from Frankie (although he has always been a cautionary tale). Pavano? Can't say that was unanticipated. There were plenty of people who were worried about giving him a multi-year contract the last time. And yet, as of today, the Twins' record is worse than last year. By the end of the year, they may not have equaled last year's futility but its going to come pretty darn close. I'm willing to give Terry Ryan some slack. It is hard to turn around a team in one year. On the other hand, I can't forget that he WAS with the team after he left the GM's chair the first time albeit not as GM. In addition, he pretty much absconded from responsibility in the face of some tough challenges (Hunter, Santana). While I am reserving judgment on Terry Ryan, I strongly believe that some changes need to be made in this organization. It is stale, stale, stale. I'd prefer a new manager but if nothing else, there needs to be some changes in the coaching staff. Just like there needs to be changes in the front office. This franchise is starving for some new leadership, energy and ideas.

Mr. one_eyed_jack, time for you to get excited about the Lynx. Hey, at least the women know how to win.

And therein lies my problem with Joe Mauer. Logically, I can appreciate his performance. Emotionally, his performance leaves me stone cold. I don't anticipate his plate appearances. I could care less whether he wins another batting title. He comes up to bat and I say "meh". I know that he will probably take the first pitch. I know that he will work the count. There is simply no element of surprise or emotion. That's the way he plays -- emotionlessly. And that's the way it leaves me -- emotionless. I don't dislike him. I don't like him either. I really just don't care about him. And that is a sad thing to say about your favorite team's "star".

PLEASE don't let them think that all the Twins need is for these five players to mature.

For me it comes down to this: the game was tied. It wasn't like they needed Willingham to come up and hit a grand slam. Are you going to "man up" and take your best shot at giving your team a chance to win? Or are you going to pass the burden on to your teammate? I guess Mauer could argue that by walking he was giving the team its "best shot". Looking at the statistics of both players, I have to question that.

I hope Willingham gets a bunch of that 9 in the next 2 games because he's my "pick to click" for this series. I could use the points. Willing you on to more HR, Mr. Willingham.

Maybe somebody who knows for sure can fill me in, but here's a possibility. The Twins signed their TV deal several years back, whereas the Padres just signed theirs recently. Does anyone know for sure on the date? I was thinking that the TV deal was only extended sometime in 2011. I remember thinking that there'd be a nice influx of dollars annually and was disappointed to find out that it had already been renegotiated.

Maybe its just my part of Iowa but for every 1 person I know that winters in Florida, 50 winter in Arizona. (Texas would be a different matter but between Florida and Arizona, its not even close). And a lot of people hit Cubs ST in AZ. Even though the Twins have a long history in Florida, I don't think that a move to Arizona would be that big a deal.

I said 72 before the season started. I wavered from that a little early in the season but for now, I'll stick with it. (Even though it requires them to play about .500 ball from here on out).

---This. You know what wins games? Good starting pitching. Guys like Brian Duensing, Boof Bonser and Nick Blackburn may be good enough to get you wins against Kansas City in June. But when that's who you're counting on to beat teams like the Yankees in October, sorry, not happening. All this stuff about the Yankees being in Gardenhire's head is just nonsense. I suppose the Giants won it all in 2010 because of Bruce Bochy's steely nature in the playoffs, not because they had a starting rotation full of aces. I didn't see anyone on this thread say that attitude ALONE would make the difference. The REAL QUESTION is whether the Twins could win in the playoffs EVEN WITH power pitching if there isn't ALSO an attitude adjustment. A lot of us appear to believe that the Twins problems in the playoffs go beyond power pitching (or even power pitching and power hitting).

I've always looked at it a little bit differently. You imply that Gardenhire has some fire -- and I think that's true but while he shows flashes of fire from time to time, his managing style is best characterized for me as "taking the long view". Not panicking when you are down and working hard over the long season. And come to think about it, that's pretty Midwestern, too. Power pitching (and power hitting aside), I agree that the playoffs require a different psychological approach than the regular season. Is that the SOLE cause for the Twins dismal playoff record in the last 10 years (I'd like to say recently but its not so recent anymore)? Of course not. Does it play a factor? My answer is yes. So count me as another one who shares some of your sentiments.

The clause about keeping the facilities competitive (however it is worded) sounds like a full-employment bill for lawyers trying to enforce it. Hopefully the clause is pretty specific about how they measure comparability of facilities, etc. or it could take until 2020 just to resolve any issues.

Thanks for the responses. I had thought about psychology vs. teaching but hadn't given a thought to the "been there, done that" credibility issue. I just think that as fans, we sometimes see what is happening at another level and think a particular coach should be with the big league club. And while that person might also be great at the ML level, his skills may be more important in the minors at that particular time. As for Brunansky, Seth, I would also point out that Revere credited him with helping him with changes that helped him too. Every coach has success stories as well as less successful results. And Thrylos, this doesn't mean that I don't think that there may need to be changes at the ML level. I'm also of the opinion that, at some point, people often stop responding to certain messangers.

Without getting into the specific merits of Vavra vs. Brunansky and Anderson vs. Cuellar, I'd like to throw out the general question of where a team should put its perceived "best" coaches. MLB level? Triple-A? Instructional leagues? Realizing that every coach has strengths and weaknesses, I'm still curious as to what everyone thinks. Should the "best" coaches be kept with the minor league teams where there is more opportunity to impact young players? How different are the skills required at the major league level? Should a team aspire to move its best coaches up? This question came to mind because of Brunansky's rapid rise through the system. But I'm really not asking about his merits vs. Vavra's but rather, if you want to use a specific example, would Brunansky (and his skills) be more valuable to the minor league team or the major league team? Same thing with pitching coaches.

Although I clearly remember Bruno as a player, I had to go back and look at his coaching history. It's remarkable to realize that he has only been back in MLB and with the Twins since 2010. A lot of success stories in a short period of time. Congrats to Ben Revere for "figuring it out" with the bat. I really didn't see this coming last year. Good for him.

I don't know how most of you caught the statement. Bremer drones on and on so much my ears automatically tune him out most of the time. Technically, I think, it is the player's contract that is property of the club, not the player. But I wouldn't call Bremer out on this specific example. I suspect that he might have applied the same terminology to Valencia or Neshek or Breslow or any number of other former Twins players -- and I think many of us may have used the same terminology on occasion. Especially if we are speaking or in live chat where you don't review and edit your comments the way you can here. There is a lot of racism in this world. I know I'm guilty at times (although I hope I catch it in my mind before I speak or act on the thought). Bremer's statement just isn't a very good example. (Oh, and the differentiation with Thome may have been as much due to his age and professional accomplishments as much as race. Okay, that's probably age-ism but most of us are guilty of that, too)

Willingham and Plouffe are probably contributing to the increase in the number hit by the Twins. The Twins lousy pitching staff is probably contributing to the increase in the number hit by opponents (note that the percentage of HR hit by the Twins as compared to opponents is about the same as in 2010). But that also makes me think that there may be some Park factors (e.g. prolonged heat) contributing to the increase. Time will tell.

Re: TV Revenues Don't you also have to look at demographics? Without knowing this for sure, my guess would be that the average age in the Twins' market is higher (maybe significantly higher) than those in the Dallas market. And I would bet that if you look at average age of actual viewers, the age is higher on FSN than for the Rangers as well. And OLDER translates into less advertising revenue. I would also venture a guess that the Dallas market is an expanding market in terms of size . I doubt that is true of the Twins market. I think both of those factors -- plus market size, plus other available outlets -- played a part in the size of the Twins TV deal.