TheLeviathan

I'm making no other argument than this: We don't know what a healthy weight is for Sano. We've seen him badgered for 280, 290, 260, and many other numbers in between. I'm all for imploring the guy to be physically ready to play. I'm not for attacking him with arguments that amount to "He weighs more than 240, he must be lazy"

Does Sano have to be "lean" in order for you to be happy? Because, if so, I'd wonder about why half of our 25 man roster doesn't have a similar thread as this one.

So 5 pages of assuming what a healthy weight is by the number of pounds? Dwayne Johnson weighs 280. What a fat guy. Maybe we should just try saying Miguel is "out of shape" and concentrate on that. As soon as you start tossing numbers around about what a guy should or should not weigh and be healthy...you lost me. That's being obtuse. The Twins medical staff can discern that from more personal testing, you calculating it based on his height is nonsense.

Just take the emphasis on the number associated with his weight. Miguel Sano will always have a "heavy" number. Focus on being in shape, healthy all year, and contributing. If his weight interferes with those we should be concerned, but not with whatever number he may be at.

Gardy's head may explode trying to figure out that one.

Pittsburgh and a few other teams developed a reputation for taking other team's castoffs and under-performers and finding ways to tinker with them. If this FO can bring that kind of approach to value added FA, then it's going to go a long way towards moving the franchise forward. So much so, that I'm perfectly fine with less splashy moves as long as they can show they can "fix" guys with regularity.

It's hard not to look at his profile and see things to like and things to not like. But he's advancing well and young for his level, so I think this is about right. He's not particularly valuable right now though, so I hope they don't deal him right now unless he is over-valued by their trade partner.

It doesn't shock me. You're a fair person in how you respond to this team, I genuinely appreciate your posts because you're among a the group here that you can't predict what they're going to type before they type it. I come here for interesting takes, the cookie cutter responses aren't interesting. The Strib comments are full of those, I come here for interesting takes. (If anything, your previous posting endeavor was more shocking) The current talent of the rotation makes me think a .500ish team, which puts you in the conversation for a WC spot. Which would then mean the real question could be their aggressiveness at the deadline. But I think adding a guy like Cobb or Lynn could put them solidly in WC and divisional contention. In lieu of getting a #2, I'll settle for having a bevy of 3/4 types. This offense is good enough to make that workable. And in lieu of Cobb or Lynn? Well then go get a DH and just put your foot down on the offensive side of the game. Either way, this current roster is too middling for my liking. And that looks like a wasted opportunity.

Absolutely we needed this, but without the other level of arm the rotation is still a major weakness. I'm not even asking for an ace, just a more natural 2/3. This deal is great, but more is still needed.

That's a good question. I complain about some of our decision making, but I'd stop caring about baseball before I'd want to be a fan of either Florida team.

HRs are a little worrisome but otherwise he profiles as a fine midrotation guy. But I hope they arent done. This is a nice palate cleanser though.

Its not the level of arm we need, but its great value.

If Rooker is ready after this year....give him the job. I appreciate Joe and think he's gotten a largely unfriendly reception to his production, but he's no longer providing enough from his position to justify continuing the relationship.

Didn't waste any time selling us on the ol' veteran leadership either huh?

If Sanchez won't take a ST invite or minor league deal....move on. There is simply no reason to attach anything else to any offer for him.

Why not just give him an invite to camp then? Everything about this smells like they plan to actually have him in the rotation. There is nothing about that anyone should be happy about.

The problem with throwing 9-10 guys at a rotation to see what sticks is that in-between finding the guys that do stick (if that even happens) you have a lot of terrible pitching to get to that point. Make no mistake, this rotation and the options currently in house, are akin to giving up on the season.

This is well said.

Well, we're getting a little late in the game here, no? I don't want to parse out what "priority" means, but I believe sport front offices need to say what they mean and mean what they say. If you sell hope, you better be prepared to either deliver or at least give every sign that you tried your rear end off to do it. And if you don't, the blow-back is on you. Otherwise, just don't stick your neck out into that territory. They could've just stuck with their "we're looking for pitching upgrades that make sense" schtick and we all know what that's code for. Fine. But that's not what they did and the expectations they built were evident here. Nick Nelson relied on them for a very upbeat blog not that long ago. So did several other regular bloggers here. There was clearly such a buzz in the fan base that the ownership threw a little gas on that fire at Twinsfest. People took them at their word. They started to feel hope. And now they wonder whether they ever should've bought it at all. That's fair. Hell, that kind of hope is what makes us fans is it not? So I don't appreciate the way you are bouncing from thread to thread basically insinuating we're all a bunch of silly persons for taking them at their word and holding them accountable to it. They need to be held accountable to it - it's the only way this changes. And it needs to change.

Two things: Whenever I've heard the FO talk they are careful to talk about upgrading their pitching as a whole, rather than specifically targeting starters. I appreciate that mindset because the bullpen did need work...but now it's the rotation. If he said that, that's good to hear, but it needs to happen. Maybe I'm wrong and I said something along the way that indicates I blame them personally for something, but my issues are all rooted in skepticism. They, ownership included, were adamant about their intentions. It seems odd to me that in November, when Darvish is slated by most to get 6 years and closer to 200M, that you'd balk at 5/100ish. What changed? Did they think in November that 5/110 was going to do it? If so, that seems....naive? If they were prepared to be in the 150+ neighborhood, why balk now? What they said, relative to what they did, opens a wide door for questioning. I think that's fair. What I don't think is fair is to just dismiss this disappointment and start making excuses for it. Somewhere along the lines the rhetoric didn't match the action and we do have a right to be upset about that. Personally, I was never of the notion we would sign Darvish, but comments in the wake of the signing by the FO and some here have been frustrating. I love many parts of this team right now and am pretty bullish on their chances. This market seems ripe to capitalize. I grant there is still time....but it's ticking fast.

The problem is that if we're going to rely on drafting and developing starting pitching....that might take awhile. The current offensive core is here right now. I'm all for this FO really investing the time and effort into fixing the structures that develop young pitching, but that investment isn't bearing fruit anytime soon and we're talking about upgrading now. Part of what made Darvish appealing is that he's a significant, immediate upgrade that wouldn't necessarily hamstring the team's future. Trading for Archer requires pulling from the farm. Signing Darvish only requires pulling from the wallet. I don't think anyone disagrees that this team is primed to have a nice run here.....but only if they acquire pitching to help right now. So talk of the farm is just not applicable to this conversation.

I'm guessing something in the neighborhood of 4/50 or 4/60. I always thought Cobb was the more likely target and possibly even a better value, but we haven't seen the team particularly attached to him so far this offseason. I think signing him could still do a world of good, but I would probably still get at least one other arm.

We balked, at least partially, at an opt-out clause did we not? On the basis of it being too "advantageous" for the player. We also balked at a 6th year, but that was the expectation for Darvish in November and we didn't seem to be balking then. Neither of those strike me as particularly courageous. They made good signings with Pineda, Reed, and Rodney. I tip my cap to them. But they deserve no shade here - their comments before and after have made this situation very questionable and should be approached with skepticism that reflects that rather than lining up excuses.

Less crappy outcomes do not equal "positives". You construed our best pitcher being out for April to help with September as "That's Good". Myself, and others, are responding to your arguments. We're responding to the blatant contradictions in your own blog posts on Darvish. We're responding to your manufactured, poor arguments as some desperate attempt at a silver lining. Sorry Nick, the landscaping doesn't look nice with the house on fire. The house is still on fire. That is not "good", no matter how many ways you want to spin it.

He had way more solid ground to stand on in that argument though.