Nick Nelson

I think fans tend to get overly accustomed to a certain vibe and lose their perspective. In the 2010-2011 offseason the Twins were coming off three straight winning seasons. I remember disliking many of their moves and expressing a foreboding feeling about the coming year. I was constantly accused of being overly negative for no reason. And even my most pessimistic premonitions fell short of what actually took place. The last two years have been as bad as can be. Assumptions are that experiments will go poorly and injuries will pile up. That's reflected in Howard's tone, which is understandable. But the Twins have two former MVPs, under 32, as healthy as they've been in years, and a bunch of potentially solid pieces around them. It's just not that outlandish to think the pitching could be around average and this team could hang around .500, which would make it an interesting and (IMO) satisfying season. All they need is some good breaks and, while we haven't seen many of those the past couple years, they do happen. Look at the 10 years prior.

Ah. That makes sense. Never heard that. Still, Gibson is 17 months removed from surgery now. I understand the need to be cautious but I still think cutting him off at 130, if he's pitching OK, is overkill.

There has to be someone pushing for an innings limit in order for it to be implemented. Pelfrey would probably prefer to pitch as much as he can because he stands to get a bigger contract (and hit more incentives) if he pitches 170 innings instead of 130. The Twins have no real reason not to let him pitch as long as he remains effective. But yes, the difference is stark given that Gibson returned last June and already pitched 50 innings between rehab and the AFL, whereas Pelfrey will be less than 10 months removed from TJ at the start of ST. Quite honestly I think Gibson's inning cap (especially if it's 100-130 as Murphy reported) is overly cautious.

As frustrated as I was with some aspects of Smith's tenure, he oversaw the biggest international spending spree in franchise history during a stretch in 2009, throwing big money at Sano, Kepler and Polanco. That play is looking really smart right now, and will look genius if Polanco has another year like his last one.

I wouldn't doubt that. BR has Sano listed at 195 (ha!). Still, as you said, that doesn't change the fact that he's a huge kid.

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1346-Is-Sano-Too-Big-to-Stay-at-Third

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3181[/ATTACH]We’ve reached that time of year, just before camps in Florida and Arizona officially get underway, where many publications release their annual top prospect lists. Since he was recently in town for TwinsFest and his name has appeared near the top of many of these lists, Miguel Sano has been buzzing in local baseball circles. La Velle E. Neal III recently remarked with some astonishment about Sano’s size when he saw him, noting that the 19-year-old (!) will be listed at 6’4” and 235-240 lbs this year. Naturally, this leads back to questions about the top prospect’s chances of sticking at third base, where men of that stature are somewhat uncommon. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the height and weight measurements for third basemen across the majors last season (numbers courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com): NYY: Alex Rodriguez 6'3" 225 lbs BAL: Wilson Betemit 6'2" 220 lbs TB: Evan Longoria 6'2" 210 lbs TOR: Brett Lawrie 6'0" 215 lbs BOS: Will Middlebrooks 6'4" 225 lbs DET: Miguel Cabrera 6'4" 240 lbs CWS: Kevin Youkilis 6'1" 220 lbs KC: Mike Moustakas 6'0" 215 lbs CLE: Jack Hannahan 6'2" 210 lbs MIN: Trevor Plouffe 6'2" 205 lbs OAK: Brandon Inge 5'11" 190 lbs TEX: Adrian Beltre 5'11" 220 lbs LAA: Alberto Callaspo 5'9" 200 lbs SEA: Kyle Seager 6'0" 195 lbs WAS: Ryan Zimmerman 6'3" 230 lbs ATL: Chipper Jones 6'4" 210 lbs PHI: Placido Polanco 5'10" 190 lbs NYM: David Wright 6'0" 210 lbs MIA: Hanley Ramirez 6'2" 230 lbs CIN: Scott Rolen 6'4" 245 lbs STL: David Freese 6'2" 220 lbs MIL: Aramis Ramirez 6'1" 205 lbs PIT: Pedro Alvarez 6'3" 235 lbs CHC: Luis Valbuena; 5'10" 195 lbs HOU: Chris Johnson 6'3" 220 lbs SF: Pablo Sandoval 5'11" 240 lbs LAD: Luis Cruz 6'2" 220 lbs ARI: Ryan Roberts 5'11" 185 lbs SD: Chase Headley 6'2" 200 lbs COL: Chris Nelson 5'11" 205 lbs As you can see, only two regulars at the hot corner – Miguel Cabrera and Scott Rolen – were in the same physical class as Sano, who as a teenager might not even be done growing yet. Cabrera was one of the worst defenders in the league at the position, although it bears noting that the aging Rolen was considered a stellar fielder in his prime, so his size wasn’t necessarily an inhibitor. Given that Sano is already bigger than almost any third baseman in the majors, at age 19, and has demonstrated shoddy glovework thus far in his pro career, the odds seem heavily stacked against him remaining at his current position, especially with an organization that values steady defense more than most. A switch to first base or an outfield corner wouldn’t preclude him from becoming a star caliber player, but it will ding his value to some degree. One way or another, this much is clear: Unlike Brian Dozier, Sano really is the next big thing. Literally.

Well, there's no way to prove this one way or the other since the Twins smartly will not waive him, but I'm quite confident he'd be snatched up pretty quickly. Citing his career ERA isn't really relevant because it's inflated by his failures as a starter, which most likely is not his long-term role here. He's been perfectly solid and reliable as a long reliever -- a point which you apparently felt no need to address. "He sucks, look at his ERA!" is not a very nuanced argument. This is where baseball fans can be a little unrealistic. Pick your battles. You can't have a fire-balling, high-upside player in every single roster spot. You need a long reliever in your bullpen and it's not going to be a star pitcher. As the numbers show, Swarzak has been plenty useful in this capacity and he bailed the Twins out last year after a number of short starts. Also, he costs NO MONEY. BTW, I'd be inclined to challenge the notion that he has "no upside." He was a Top 100 prospect at one point, he's 27, and his velocity has increased each year in the majors. His K-rate, while unimpressive, was above average on this squad last season. He's got as much upside as anyone who's going to be sitting at the end of your bullpen accepting a mop-up role as anything more than a transitional phase.

Hard to disagree with this. The Twins were as well positioned to take this gamble as any team in baseball. Unless it is commonly known among front offices that the guy's arm is on the verge of falling off, I can't make any sense of it. The thing is, he came back from the elbow injury last year and pitched well in August and September. Lights out in his last three starts. Just bizarre. Can't see any way he'd be viewed as a bigger risk than a guy 10 months removed from freaking Tommy John surgery.

I am mystified by the Swarzak hate. He might be the most underrated player on the team. The guy fills a valuable, albeit less than glamorous, role and he does it pretty well. Obviously he was miscast as an MLB starter, and the Twins seem to realize that, but teams need to have a durable guy at the end of their bullpen who can come in, throw strikes and toss multiple innings after a short start while keeping the game in hand (especially with this rotation). Swarzak does those things -- 4.05 ERA as a reliever last year, 3.99 the prior year. Also, he costs nothing. Rip on Corriea and Butera all you want, but these misguided attacks on the mop-up long reliever? Not exactly dispelling the notion that things are getting a bit too negative around here.

Hard to put much stock into quotes from the player himself, but if he ends up staying relatively healthy and pitching the way he has for most of his career, there are going to be a lot of teams looking stupid -- none more so than the Twins.

Defending the signing of a bad pitcher by pointing out that he's slightly less horrible than the worst pitchers on one of the worst staffs in the majors last year, and then calling others irrational, is... odd. Honestly, I think the justifiable frustration with the Correia signing stems mostly from two things: 1) He was the premier free agent pitching acquisition by a team that claimed to be serious about wanting to turn around a horrendous rotation. 2) The extra year. It means this isn't quite as simple as -- in your words -- "if he sucks, he'll get cut." The Twins are now obligated to stick with him past the point where he proves himself a liability because they have a chunk of cash committed to him the following year. See: Nick Blackburn.

I don't see what's irrational about it. The Twins' pitching staff is in horrible shape, in part, because they value pitchers like Correia.

I agree. The problem, of course, is that he hasn't been league average in like four years and has never thrown 200 innings. And that is verifiable evidence. I get that people want to look on the bright side, and it is indeed possible that Correia could be serviceable if things break right, but let's not act like he's some 25-year-old prepared to turn a corner in his career.

I’d be curious to know what changes he made in order to improve his command and cut down the walks. It is one thing to study game film and decide you need to throw more strikes (I’m sure many pitchers reach this conclusion) but it’s another thing entirely to execute it as well as he did. Has any reporter gone in-depth with him on this subject?

People aren’t allowed to criticize his approach to the MLB roster while acknowledging that he and his staff have done a very good job rebuilding the farm system? This is not a black-and-white issue.

This is completely and utterly ridiculous.

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1341-For-Better-or-Worse-Scott-Diamond

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3162[/ATTACH]Will the Twins’ de facto ace retain his label as the club’s top starter or descend into mediocrity this year? Let us take a deeper look. 2012 Recap Diamond gained little consideration for a big-league job in spring training after going 5-19 with a 5.44 ERA between Triple-A and the majors in his first year with the organization. So, he reported to Rochester and started his season on a tear, going 4-1 with a 2.60 ERA while flashing much improved control in his first six starts. That was plenty to earn him an invitation up north, where a bloodied staff was looking anywhere it could for bandages. The lefty was that and more, rattling off a 5-1 record and 1.61 ERA in his first seven starts. He continued to pitch well deep into August before a bit of a rocky finish. Diamond was bound to cool off, but the let-up didn't come in the form of a ghastly regression to the mean, as he still finished with very strong numbers. At the end of the year, Twins brass made it clear that Diamond was the only starter who had guaranteed himself a spot on the 2013 staff. In a season where just about everything that could possibly go wrong in the rotation did so, Diamond was a breath of fresh air. Contrasting sharply with most of his injured or fledgling counterparts, he rebounded from a brutal year to become a shockingly steady force. To say he was the rotation's rock would be an understatement; he threw 64 more innings than any other Twin despite spending his first month in Triple-A. It's a success story that the club will cling to as they hope to get lucky with several wild cards this year. Why He’ll Be Worse This is a pretty straightforward case for anyone with an understanding of statistical probabilities in baseball. Diamond held one of the lowest strikeout rates among all MLB starters, but was able to limit the damage on balls in play by inducing lots of grounders and handing out very few walks. His GB rate (53.4 percent) was among the top ten in the majors and his walk rate (1.6 BB/9) was the lowest in the American League. Diamond has posted strong grounder rates throughout his career but it's tough to be elite in that category from year to year, especially as hitters make their adjustments. His phenomenal walk rate was out of character with previous norms; in fact, his mediocre control in the Braves organization is probably a big reason they were willing to part with him. To turn around and become one of the most prolific strike-throwers in the majors is either a remarkable triumph of dedication and coaching, a fluke, or both. Any regression in walk rate or BABIP will decrease his margin for error, at which point an inopportune extra-base hit here and there can dramatically change his results. It's the nature of a pitch-to-contact hurler relying on control and grounders. As a relevant example, think of how volatile Carlos Silva was from year to year. Why He’ll Be Better Let’s be honest: there’s almost no chance Diamond will be better than he was last year. While everything was going wrong for everyone else in the rotation, everything was going right for him and the odds that he’ll be able to match his core statistical marks from 2012 are extremely low. What fans and coaches are hoping is that Diamond can maintain, or regress modestly, and remain a quality mid-rotation starter while logging 200 innings. As long as his BABIP doesn’t skyrocket and he can keep the BB/9 mark down, that’s a perfectly realistic goal. The ground balls are more than likely going to be there, as he has demonstrated throughout his career a keen ability to keep the ball down, which also prevents many from leaving the park. Conclusion There's a conception that stat-driven analysis is overly focused on strikeouts, and fails to give much consideration to any other aspect of pitching performance. But Diamond's 2012 season was the perfect example of the things a stat-head would look for in a guy that doesn't rack up a lot of whiffs. He pelted the lower regions of the strike zone, resulting in weaker contact and few free passes. This approach also yielded extremely low pitch counts (he never totaled more than 104 in a start despite completing seven-plus innings 13 times), and you know how much the Twins appreciate that. Diamond's successful 2012 season was characterized by his ability to throw strikes, get ahead in counts and challenge hitters. Will the new season establish his strides in those departments as trend or mirage? That's the question that could very well dictate whether he's an asset or a liability.

So when someone starts a thread about Correia, people are allowed to say only positive things? Even when his explanation for previous struggles isn't really backed up as a general rule by evidence? In addition to Willihammer's stat above, last year AL & NL starters averaged an identical 5.9 IP/GS. It's not like people are randomly bringing him up to bash him. To be fair, when you look through Correia's game log, you can see that there were several games where he was pulled while pitching fairly well with his pitch count still around 80-90. But the fact that the Pirates were so apt to remove him in these situations says something about their level of faith in him, not to mention the status of the games (teams usually pinch-hit when they're losing). It's a two-sided coin in the same way as Terry Ryan's remark about Correia's innings being low because he was removed from the rotation.

? 2008 Liriano was an ace? He threw 76 innings in the majors, and a good chunk of them were horrible. The ace of that staff was... I dunno, Blackburn? Sort of seems to disprove your whole point here.