TheLeviathan

This is a total copout - what teams have a "surplus" of pitching. Remember, you are suggesting that they can trade Morneau and Span for immediate help in 2013 that will also be around for 2014 and beyond. Just what teams are going to give up such a pitcher for Span or Morneau? (Especially given their flaws) What's funny, is prior to 2010 you were being a "realist" and I was accusing you of being a "pessimist." It's essentially the same argument - you turned out to be right in part because you were being realistic.

RP - I've double checked my posts....they are in english. The issue is not can we get some low minors guys for Span and Morneau - the question is can they get players that can both help next year and years after that. Seriously - go back and read the first post you've responded to, things are getting wildly twisted by responses like this.

Um....I specifically replied to Nick's trade suggestion. Care to respond to that instead? I can see adding one key guy in FA and a flyer but that isnt what the conversation was.

Well, let's examine that - just what do you think they could get for Morneau or Span? If they add a young pitcher with that trade, sure, then I'd agree that it was a good move. To me, any move that doesn't improve the team for 2015 and beyond is a mistake, so just who do they land in these deals that both helps next year and for multiple years in the future? I'll be honest, I don't see any players that fit that. I could see players that are helping in 2015 and beyond, but ones that both help now and that far in the future would seem to me to be a bit beyond the price range of a home-field dependent outfielder who isn't amazing and a first-baseman that has exactly one month of elite play in him for the last 3 years. (And still has a hefty contract) I'm not trying to be difficult, I've looked at a lot of teams and I just don't see anything like what you're suggesting.

Its also quite expensive and difficult to insure as many potential backslides as the Twins currently possess. And that is saying nothing for the costs to improve.

I edited my post, I realized I mischaracterized your point - what you said is that these things could have been expected. I'm not saying we can count on these failing either, but many of the things that are going well certainly fall into one of the three categories I listed. I'm not sure why that rubbed you so wrong, but something being "unexpected" just means it has a more dubious future. To me it's very different when Joe Mauer as a young player comes up and is successful and when Denard Span goes from being a "meh" spec to a contributor. My faith going forward is much more strongly held to the guy with pedigree then. Many of the things going well for us this year do not have that kind of pedigree. When you combine that with the idea that we'll have to pull from that relative strength (offense) to repair the badly damaged weakness (pitching) - I don't see how anything better than spinning our wheels is possible. Worse yet, we wouldn't be just spinning our wheels - we would have wasted assets for the longterm in the process. As for the future - I'm very encourage by Plouffe, Diamond, and Revere - very positive about those guys. Morneau probably moreso than most. I'm just not letting it delude me about 2013.

Thanks for making my point! That's exactly what I'm trying to say! Plouffe was unexpected. Revere's degree of performance was unexpected. As were many other things, among them things you noted. Nick was arguing that many of these "above our heads" performances were reasonable to expect on the basis that they were former first round talents. I simply used Delmon as an example of a player that fit a similar mold to his qualifications, who had a breakout year, and then reverted back to the previous Delmon. Nothing is stopping many of these other "unexpected" breakouts from doing the same.

Exactly. You either have a great QB or you have no chance. Sorry, it's the sad fate of the NFL we live in.

I'm comparing them because someone said "former first round picks" who "figure things out in their mid-twenties" and look like "long term impact players". Please explain to me how a 25 year old Delmon Young's 2010 is "irrelevant" given those qualifications? This is some serious gymnastics Nick - pretty damn hard to think you're being rational on the subject when you're doing that. You set the qualifications, not me. Alright, now a charge to "prove a negative" - on a roll here. Um, I haven't even given you close to the worst case scenario. I've merely talked bout player production - I haven't mentioned injuries much at all. I haven't talked about Scott Diamond's great year, Morneau, Alex Burnett and Jared Burton, Denard Span, or Ryan Doumit. Again, my point is not that everything is going to go wrong, but to reinforce just how many things have gone right. People are focused on the awful pitching early on, but that awful staff shouldn't have been that big of a surprise. I see a group of people so giddy that the team is competitive that they're ignoring their rational perspective. Personally, I'm pretty confident Diamond is going to be a good pitcher for us, that Morneau is back, and that Plouffe's post-Ruthian binge was even more encouraging than the homeruns (the guy was really approaching the ball well), that I was way wrong about Revere (he is a keeper), and that Mastro is going to be a nice addition. These are great things to build around long-term. However, none of those things so color my perspective that I can't see a team playing above it's head. If we pour assets into next year that could be better poured into the long-term future - that bothers me. That doesn't make me a pessimist, I'm just trying to see the forest for the trees. And I really don't want to move what assets we have to help immediately that would be better served helping down the line.

So Delmon is irrelevant even though he is a first rounder who had breakout 2010.but Plouffe hitting homeruns at a Ruthian pace for a month is perfectly reasonable to expect because he is a former first rounder? There are certainly positives to enjoy and some of them will likely continue but being realistic isn't being negative. It is mighty polly-annish to believe we will trade a strength for a weaknezs and still maintain the strength, have everyone above their career norms continue as is, have youngsters again next year breakout, and have no one unexpectedly regress. I choose to be a realist and think we are better off building towards the future than that polly-anna take. It may come through, but I wouldn't bet on it. Pretty simple idea, no need to get huffy.

That's why I think only bodily harm to Ponder can save us. Wanna flip the coin for which one of us is Tanya Harding and which is Shane Stant?

Road Span looks like Rich Becker.

I'm sorry, aren't you the same Nick Nelson who said, effectively, that Perkins "sucks at baseball" and should be cut just two years ago? And wasn't Plouffe unable to field a position and batting in the .100s in April? Revere we might have expected to contribute...but again....to this degree? Willingham's career year of health and production in his mid-30s? I can go on, but you're intentionally missing the point (and being hostile doing it - cute!). I'm not suggesting that all of these guys are going to suck. But two years ago we were saying the same things about Valencia that we are about Plouffe. Same with Delmon. Same with Liriano. In 2011 we looked mighty stupid for assuming all those out-of-the-norm career spikes were going to continue. As for the pitching, what we walked into ST with (not counting Baker's issues) was an aging pitcher with a long track record of injury, a headcase we didn't know what we'd get performance-wise, a Gardy-guy who hasn't been good since game 163, a converted NL pitcher who makes Pavano look like a power guy, and a lefty that can't get righties out. Were they even worse than should have been expected? Yes, but if you can say with a straight face that you were "surprised" that this rotation was one of the AL's worst, then you've severely lowered you standards for what a quality starting pitcher is. I'm not saying all of these good things can't last. They very well might. But if you go ahead thinking this group can get it done with just some pitching help - I think you're in for a rude awakening in 2013 when some of these things normalize. That's not being negative, that's just being realistic. I still flip on the TV, cheer when we win, and enjoy what I'm seeing. It is possible to be a fan of your team, enjoy it, but also be a realist when you sit down and talk about things hypothetically on here.

Boy are Dick and Bert working to pin that bunt single on Nishioka.

Let's talk about how lucky the Indians are getting by hitting pitches the team even acknowledges he can't control. HAS to be luck.

Other than that last one - I think those are all perfectly reasonable to expect. The problem was that the roster was managed in such a way that these players became critical, rather than role players. So, these are pretty bad examples if you want to contest the point. Nothing says these positives can't continue, they very well might. I'm just not convinced we should bank much on it.

No one can predict the future, but I'd just like to point out one thing: Almost everything going right for the Twins this year could be put in the "unexpected", "fluke", or "likely not sustainable" categories Almost everything gone wrong was because of mismanagement by the organization. If I'm a betting man, that makes me nervous about the future.

Yeah, it's a revolving door alright - but god do I hate that pick of Ponder.

I believe the best way to start this forum off is to wish serious bodily harm to Christian Ponder in hopes that another awful season will land us a legit NFL QB like Barkley and not Pennington the Second.

Well, I think you might have missed my point. The logic that "We're bad" means "Play a bunch of young kids" leaves out the important piece of "play a bunch of young kids WHO ARE READY". You don't just call up a kid because you suck - call him up because it will help his development. I'd argue we haven't been helping Dozier's development for about 2 and a half months. It's too late to rectify it now probably, but the guy hasn't been making much of any progress for a long time now. Just because we're bad isn't an excuse to continue that method. Hopefully that was better articulated.

I still can't wrap my head around the logic that you just keep tossing players out there that have a future with this team, no matter how much it hurts their development, simply because the season is lost. The players that belong out there in that situation are Capps, Pavano, Nishi and anyone else that some miracle might give them value to be claimed or traded for. A guy like Dozier should be part of the future plans, letting him repeatedly fall on his face doesn't help him with his future. It hasn't been helping him the last month either when people were using the same logic in June. Then a 5 game streak in early July somehow confirmed that insanity, but the truth is he's been overmatched. And he's been overmatched for awhile.

I still proudly wear my Koskie jersey - my favorite Twins of the last 20 years. Glad to hear his life has been able to stabilize.

Do what's best for Dozier - I'm sure we can find someone to stand at shortstop for a few months of a wasted season.

I'm not saying I want him there long-term, but that's what is likely to happen.

I'd argue they should have anyway. This kid has some tools that are easy to like...but jesus has he been bad.