jmlease1

I both love Appel and am terrified of him. And Scott Boras has very little to do with it, although that is a bit of a problem is it means the Twins can't make quality signings because they have to go so far over slot to sign him. But if you draft him with the #4 pick, you really have to sign him, right? My real concern is that he's Mark Prior, vol. II. He's put up some ridiculous pitch counts in college and it has me concerned that he's going to break down quickly. You'd like the #4 overall pick to have a MLB career that's more than 3 solid seasons, 1 great season, and then no more seasons. Fortunately the draft is a ways off. The Twins have 2 major needs in the system: high-end starting pitching (because you always need it) and middle infield. But it doesn't look like there's a killer SS prospect right now.

Not really. A stupid idea is a stupid idea no matter how many teams do it. an 11 man pitching staff gives the team a 5-man rotation, a closer, 2 primary set-up men, 2 middle relievers, and a long man. That should be enough for a well-stocked bullpen. Throw another guy into the mix and some of them probably aren't going to get enough work, unless, again the rotation is an utter disaster. Having a 5-man bench allows the Twins to carry the 3rd catcher we know they will anyways, carroll as the utility inf, a 4th OF, and LH & RH pinch hitters (at least one of whom can play in the field). Whether they have the right candidates for the jobs is another question.

Carrying 12 pitchers is a bad idea. Getting down to 11 so the team can have a legitimate bench is a better call. The only way this team should need 12 pitchers is if the rotation is as much of a mess as it was last season, which would make the season an utter failure again. I'll love to see Butera get tossed over the side; I just don't think he adds much value. He's a fine defensive player but he's so awful with the bat that he's just not worth keeping on the roster. As a 3rd catcher/defensive replacement he won't hurt the team much, but a better bench bat should be able to help the team more.

Gibson's earnings shouldn't really be the issue here. (I will note that while he'll be under team control for the next 6 seasons, some of those are arbitration years, correct? I think we know what that looks like in MLB, where the arbitration rules are MASSIVELY slanted towards the players) If Gibson can pitch at the MLB level, here's expected to be a core member of the rotation next season. The question for this season has to be about what will be best for his long-term development. Service time should be a secondary issue. I would like to see Gibson's innings limit rationed out over the course of the full season. I think that would help him get used to the longer grind of a full season and prepare him to be a full-time member of the rotation. I don't want to see him in the bullpen; that's not his future role and he's never pitched there before. He looks like he's ready now. Put him on the roster, put him in the rotation (5th slot, IMHO, skip him a few times over the course of the season, and let him keep pitching into Sept). The twins are going to have him for the prime years of his career, now that he seems to be recovered (mostly) from the injury. Let's see if he can stay healthy.

I'd prefer that the twins give a bench slot to one of the younger players that grab one of the guys listed above who all seem...done. If I have to pick one of these guys, I guess it'd be Scott Rolen in hopes that he could help Plouffe get settled on defense? But if they really want to add someone for the bench they're going to have to make sure they carry no more than 11 pitchers. Which should be a done deal, but with the Twins...

This is an interesting piece and it's one of the things that should be the focus of discussion by Twins fans this season. I think there's a real danger in constantly flipping productive veterans for prospects until "the next wave hits" or whatever. Which is why I'm usually opposed to reflexive idea of dumping Willingham/Morneau/Burton/etc for whatever we can get. When the prospects arrive at the MLB level it's a) not usually all at once, and there will be some bumps in the road. Having veteran players you can count on is important too. Having your fan base not completely crater isn't bad either. I like rebuilding "destruction" when it dumps overvalued & underperforming players, when it brings in value prospects in return, and/or when it clears a position for a younger player who has nothing left to prove in the minors. I don't care for it when it flips a guy who is playing well for a C prospect.

Pressly is interesting to me; I'd rather he get a chance on the roster than a retread arm with little upside or future. But this article is dead on regarding bullpen construction. It can and should be done on the cheap, especially with teams still overvaluing and overpaying the closer role. A good and deep bullpen can really help a young starting rotation see some success, but doing it cheaply with young pitchers lets a team better spend its resources on other things.

There's a school of thought (started in the NFL, but I can't recall which coach said it) that after a 10 years or so you need to move on because the players start to tune you out. I don't know if that's true or not, but I think it's a fair concern. I would judge Gardy this season on a few factors, and winning isn't really one of them. 1. Does the team quit on him at any point in the season? If they do, then it's probably time to make a change. 2. Does Gardenhire embrace anything new this season to try and find success for this team or does he only run out the same bag of tricks? Managers need to grow too. I don't expect him to suddenly become a different guy, but if he doesn't show any growth either, it's worth considering. 3. How well does he work with the young players? This team will need to embrace the wave of talent coming up through the minors. If he's not able to work with and develop that talent, he's probably not going to be the right fit. This is admittedly a tough category to judge on; people will tend to evaluate it more on how well the young players perform, which as Seth points out isn't necessarily right. 4. Does he lose the fans? Yep, Gardy gets judged this season on PR a bit. Look, he's one of the most recognizable faces of the organization, with a serious platform and connection to the fans. If he's not able to help keep the fans connected and convince them that this team has a future worth watching, than that's a real strike against him. All of these things are possible. I don't think any of them are unreasonable. The difficulty is none of them are easily quantifiable. Seth is right in that managers do get more credit than they probably deserve when the team wins and too much blame when the team loses, but at the same time a lot of the criticisms leveled at Gardy have been consistent through good times and bad and a lot of them are certainly fair. The reasoning that most other managers act the same way isn't a particularly good one for keeping someone around, especially when one of the keys to success is being better at things that others fail at. I think Terry Ryan has a lot of these things in mind, and that's why this season is a "prove it" year for Gardy. Ryan needs to see that this is the right guy for the future. Loyalty has kept him in place this long; a lot of places would have moved on already, to placate the fan base if nothing else.

Mauer is very well suited to be the #2 hitter, but Gardy won't put him there. History tells us he'd rather have one of his middle INF at the spot. But the lineup posted above is very strong 2-7. But if Hicks or Dozier can't hit/get on-base there's going to be a pretty nasty gap over 8-9-1. I agree the odds of the Twins succeeding this season aren't high. There are enough pieces there to make it happen, but as we saw last season when you have too many question marks the odds aren't good. I believe this lineup will end up scoring runs roughly equivalent to last season (which is good) and the bullpen should be dependable and reasonably strong. But there are loads of question marks all over the rotation.

can we DH for our SS instead of our pitcher? It might work better than letting Florimon swing the bat the way things are starting to look.

I have to say, I'm deeply nervous and skeptical about medical news coming from the Twins these days. They've had quite a few significant injuries over the past few seasons, and seem to have managed to handle them very poorly overall. I don't know if it's incompetent medical staff, poor communications, bad luck, or what but it's gotten a little absurd. How many times will we get a report that an injury or surgery is considered "minor" only to have it turn out to be much worse? How many players will be considered day-to-day for weeks? At a certain point you have to stop believing word one about what the Twins staff says about an injury. Sigh.

One of the advantages to the twins roster going into this season is they have a number of young players that I'm excited to watch and see if they're going to be capable of being building blocks for the future. Seeing what happens with guys like Parmelee, Gibson, Plouffe, Hicks, etc should be fun for serious Twins fans. Last season's roster had a whole lot of ifs attached to it as well. I thought then that if a number of things broke right, the team would surprise a lot of people, but that there were so many question marks it was incredibly hard to predict how they'd actually do. Too many things that needed to go well didn't and the team stunk. My lesson learned? Counting on a lot of things to break well for you is a recipe for failure in that season. Either the Twins haven't learned that lesson, or they've decided that they're better off rolling the dice on a lot of things to find out what they can count on for 2014 and beyond.

I'm perfectly fine with a 1-year deal for Capps. I can even live with a deal that nets him over $1M. He's not a tremendous pitcher, but he is solid and if healthy you should know what you're gonna get. Frankly, his presence on the roster might get Gardy to use Perkins in more high-leverage situations. At $4-7M, he's overpaid badly. But he's not a bad bullpen arm and at a good price he could be a nice asset to a team that will need a strong bullpen.

My fear with a guy like Butera is that while he has a skill and some utility as a player, his inadequacies become a major drag when overexposed. Because Butera is a truly terrible offensive player, and at 30 years old, he's not likely to get any better. And it certainly possible his defensive will drop off quickly to the point where he had no value at all. At least the Twins haven't given him a multiyear deal (a preposterous idea, I know, but the twins have done such foolishness before). And the difference between what he's getting and a minimum salary guy isn't significant enough to cause the team to miss out on signing a free agent or extending a contract for a real player. So long as Butera only gets 100-125 ABs he probably won't hurt the team significantly. But if he pushes beyond that realm it starts getting ugly. Will Gardy treat Butera as a true 3rd catcher who catches no more than once a week and coming in late in games as a defensive replacement to give Mauer's knees a break in a game that's seemingly over? Or will he use Butera more as a backup because he likes Butera's D and how he can really pick it back there, giving him more starts than Doumit? That's the danger with a guy like Butera and a manager like Gardenhire.

Morneau's splits are the real concern here: he wasn't replacement level against LHPs, he was downright awful, and significantly worse than his career splits. He frequently bailed out early against LHPs when they threw inside, especially early in the season. You could see he was still worried about getting beaned and ending his career. (not unreasonable) He raked against RHPs. Was a serious power threat and capable middle of the order bat. But only against RHPs. If he can get back towards adequate against LHPs, he's going to have a significantly better season. Dealing Morneau in the off-season would have been a mistake unless someone made a heck of an offer, because it likely would have resulted in being little more than a C-level prospect and would have been seen as a salary dump. So why do it? Better to see if Morneau improves and regains more trade value or can become a piece worthy of an extension.

I think the common perception will be that he'll dip a little, but I think he'll actually be slightly better when you account for ballpark factors, etc. (His OPS may drop some, but his OPS+ will probably be fairly consistent) I think we'll see the improvement more on the defensive side as he shows greater comfort at 2B.

I like the idea of Gibson as the 5th starter and here's why: it's a way for him to pitch through September without over-stressing his arm and keeping him to a reasonable innings count. As the 5th starter he'll get skipped occasionally, giving him some breaks throughout the year, but it'll give him a chance to prove that he can make it through a long season and prepared him to move up and be a #2 starter in 2014. Harden is the other possibility: being the 5th guy might be the best way to keep his ragged arm healthy too.

I feel for Jack Morris and the supporters on his candidacy. He was a terrific player in his day and a crucial part of 2 World Series winners (not so much for his time in Toronto, where he was decent in the regular season in 1992, brutal in the playoffs which carried over for the remainder of his time in baseball). He pitched a TON of innings, started a TON of games and pitched well. He pitched in big games and was seen as an "ace". He had 2 fantastic World Series, not just the 1991 game 7. (Morris was great the entire 1984 & 1991 WS; people forget about the 2 complete games in '84) So it's easy to see how he's got some passionate defenders. And Jack would hardly be the worst HoF pick, especially if you emphasize the "fame" aspect over sheer ability and achievement. And some of the "stat-head" crowd have been a little too sneeringly dismissive of Morris as a HoFer, which just gets his supporters to dig in harder against advanced stats and so forth. But at the end of the day, Morris is a borderline candidate at best for me. He's the Top Dog in the Hall of Very Good. I simply don't buy into the argument that Morris "pitched to the score" to explain away the high ERA. And the ERA is just too high for me. The ERA+ of 105 just doesn't fly. I can't find a lot of secondary stats to support jack Morris that aren't tied to starts & innings pitched. Do you know what category Jack Morris led the league in the most times? Wild pitches. Did it 6 times, including his final, abbreviated season. Going beyond the stats, the best description of Jack Morris is "workhorse". From a subjective point of view, does that scream Hall of Fame? The peak just isn't high enough for me (top bWAR is 5.6, top ERA+ is 133 and after that age 24 season he never crossed a bWAR of 5 or ERA+ of 130 again), despite the longevity. Morris does get extra points for some of his workhorse stats, and should get notice & credit. 10 seasons over 240 innings pitched. 11 seasons with 30+ starts. 11 seasons with 10+ complete games. Those are really really impressive numbers and a lot of teams would simply kill for a guy that could go out and pitch that many innings and keep you in a game. Compared to a guy like Curt Schilling, it's hard to say Morris stacks up. The only category Morris wins is in durability. Schilling had a high peak, more great seasons, a far better ERA+, more K's, also had the great post-season heroics. Mussina is a better comp, especially in style, right? Still hard to pick Morris over Mussina. The toughest beat against Mussina is he never lead his league is basically anything. But Mussina was a more effective pitcher than Morris. Higher peak, higher sustained effectiveness. Similar longevity. Morris wins on innings pitched, but 250 innings spread over 18 seasons just doesn't make up for the huge differences in ERA+ (123 for Mussina, 105 for Morris). Morris wins on post-season success, but I look at it for bonus points more than anything. Schilling and Mussina are both Hall of Famers for me, I think, but both of them have some warts that keep them from being slam dunks like a Greg Maddox or Pedro Martinez. But both are easily above Jack Morris for me too. I don't think Morris is going to make it, and that ok by me. I'm not going to rage if he gets in, either.

Not the craziest idea I've heard this winter. It would allow Gibson to keep pitching longer into the year while still keeping his overall workload at the arbitrary innings cap he's going to be on. I wonder if that would help keep someone like Harden healthier over the course of the season as well? Wear vs sharpness, maybe? It would be creative. Would it create any additional strain on the bullpen? You'd essentially be dumping the long man/mop-up guy spot on the staff unless you carried 12 pitchers (a horrid idea, IMHO, but one the Twins have gone with before) If these guys are more capable of getting deeper into games, 5 guys in the 'pen should be enough, but too many bad starts in a row and you'd have to scrap the idea, I think. It should be something worth considering, but it'll never happen. Gardenhire & Anderson are far too conservative to even bandy it about.

I don't really disagree with Nick's premise here, but this list is a little deceptive by including teams re-signing their own guy. I mean, the ChiSox bringing back Peavy didn't ADD anything to their club or the division; that's a status quo move. A good one for them to be sure, but if the idea is to look at how the Twins have improved their pitching in comparison to the other teams, keeping in the returning free agents distorts the picture somewhat. One of the Twins biggest moves to improve the rotation is addition by subtraction. That's important too, but it's hard to get excited about. But if you pull Sanchez & Peavy off this list, you get a better picture don't you think? (Sanchez is arguable since he didn't spend a full season in Detroit) I would very much like the Twins to sign Marcum, who would make this list look better for the Twins.

I'm a little confused at the "if Morneau starts out hot we should trade him!" talk. I think people are vastly overrating the return we'd get on him, for one thing. Sure, if he's playing well a number of teams would be interested in him. But they're not going to give up much for a player who's a rental for the rest of the summer, and has his kind of injury history. I just don't know that the team is going to get much for him, and it would pretty clearly signal the Twins are giving up on the season, which will cause attendance to drop pretty sharply. I'm also firmly of the opinion that baseball is different than other sports where tanking a season (basketball) is frequently a good idea, or a quick turnaround is relatively easy (football). Guys who can be this kind of middle of the order hitter aren't that easy to find. And if Morneau is healthy and playing well, I'd rather look at re-signing him for a few more years. If Parmelee hits well enough and plays well enough in the OF, it'd be nice to continue to have Morneau's bat helping power the offense. And I have to believe it'll be easier to sign him to a reasonable contract if the team doesn't dump him midway through the season...

He's still playing at least half the time at catcher, so I think he still counts as a catcher. And regardless, his stats count even if he'd DHing, just maybe not as much to some voters if he stops playing a significant defensive position. Oliva was a terrific player and has a reasonable HoF case, but the injuries really costs him and the last 5 years of his career added very little to his case for the Hall. Oliva had an 8 year run where he was an elite hitter and was an all-star for all of them. But his case is based on the premise that his peak was high enough to to get him in absent real longevity, as the other 7 years of his career just don't help him. Mauer, on the other hand, is already almost even with Oliva's career WAR, above him in OPS+ and looks to be able to add several more seasons of significant value. The only way Oliva is above as a player Mauer is if Mauer stops playing in May and ends his career.

Oakland A's Reggie Jackson was phenomenal. Angels Reggie was overrated, overweight and in decline. But Reggie had 10+ all-star caliber seasons, including MVP caliber ones. Toss out the rookie year and the last 5 (although even at 39 Reggie had a very nice year and was decent at 40) and you get a better picture. Schilling isn't a good choice. He was a great pitcher and has a legitimate HoF case, but if you're narrowing it down to a top 100, they should be no-doubters. Schilling isn't an easy call. His first 4 years he couldn't get out of the bullpen. He had his first all-star type season and then got hurt for a couple of years. Went on a nice run as a very good pitcher...and got hurt again for a couple of years. He had 4 more dominant, elite years...and got hurt again. He was never a big "black ink" guy. He gets some additional credit for post-season success, but any extra credit he gets for being terrific late in his career is offset by doing nothing at the start. I'd rank Killer a bit higher myself, but I'm guessing his lack of defensive value drove him down a bit; he was a better hitter & slugger than Reggie. Puckett should have at least gotten honorable mention, IMHO, but I'm guessing he's getting caught in the debate over a) his defensive value, and longevity. I mean, bRef has Puck as a net-negative for defense over his career and piled up most of his positive value in one season: his rookie year. Now, I have trouble seeing it that way, but without giving him the defense, Puck falls closer to the lower end of HoF CFs than the top in terms of WAR. Admittedly, that's not the end-all, be-all. But there are probably some reactionary fools who look at Puck and think he got too much of a sentimental bonus and needed to be pushed down. There are a lot of goofy things on this list, but I suspect they did it hoping to stir people up more than anything else.

If the Twins want to bring Harden in on a minor-league deal, that's fine. You can't expect much out of a guy like that with his history. I mean, even in his "healthy" years he only topped 150 innings once! But he's got good stuff and might be able to contribute out of the bullpen more effectively?

Well, that's why some of us have said he might not be there yet. But a few more seasons and he gets there for sure. every year he tacks on like last season he starts passing milestone questions like 1st ballot, inner-ring HoFer, Top 5 catcher all-time, best hitting catcher all-time, etc. I really believe that when Mauer's career is over we'll be talking about him as a once in a generation hitter and one of the best all-time at his position, a lock for the Hall of Fame on the first ballot.