Linus

Doesn't change a thing for me - I still want a quality FA starter for next year. I'm done waiting around for guys to "hopefully" develop - especially considering the org is still weak in starting pitching at the highest levels. If May continues this progression next spring they can easily find a spot for him. I'm looking forward to the problem of having 6 quality starters for 5 spots (as in I'll believe it when I see it).

I'm not concerned about him per se, because, in my book, he is an elite fielder on a team that desperately needs defense. He's already a strong contributor in the field and on the bases so his inconsistency with the bat is less concerning. I am a lot more worried about the rest of the roster who are generally poor in the field and inconsistent with the stick.

As I've posted in several other threads, the ability level of the roster is the determining factor in wins and losses, with everything else being periphery. I get as frustrated with Gardy as anybody (his mantra of "I want to play Santana at short" but never doing it is the latest thing to drive me nuts) but I don't believe the Twins will suddenly make a quantum leap forward from switching managers. I will say he deserves heat for his idiotic roster construction at the beginning of the year. My greatest concern about keeping him is his absolute faith in veterans at the expense of younger players who may be our future. That alone might make him the wrong person to manage us during this transition to younger players. Making changes to appeal to the fanbase is a poor way to run a franchise and should have no bearing on important decisions. Make decisions that give you the best chance to win and all the rest will take care of itself.

This is a complete non-factor - his contract isn't that much. They can just release him like they did with Marquies. With his arm troubles of the last couple years, I bet the Twins aren't even counting on him for next year.

I am a fan of Escobar and he was solid on both sides of the ball this year. However, given the potential upside to Santana, its worth it to let him play short and see if we have something special here. Knowing Escobar is waiting in the wings if Santana fails leaves the Twins in a pretty good position for the next couple of years. I also like the idea of keeping Nunez - he swings the bat pretty well and plays acceptable defense at several different positions.

I don't think Terry Ryan believes in the concept of a "rebuild". I've never heard him endorse the concept even conceptually. Rather, he has always stated that he is continually trying to make the team better position by position using multiple avenues (farm system, trades, waiver claims, free agency). In other words, if he believes there to be a need to improve a position, he is going to not necessarily going with a young player if he has a better option in some other fashion. I think this is what led to a lot of frustration on the part of some fans who kept clamoring for a full "rebuild" and it wasn't happening. If asked, I bet he would still say he is not in a "rebuild" rather he finally is able to find better talent from the farm system that he can't find in the other avenues.

I am firmly in the camp of, if you sign somebody, they better be quality and not another depth move. I like Shields the best because he has been so reliable. I think an understated factor in this discussion is the possible wear on Scherzer's arm - that would have me a little leary. Definitely would go hard after Lester and Shields; Santana not so much. I am not at all worried about a logjam of pitchers. If we end up with more than 5 effective starters we can trade one and what a nice problem to have. I also think Pelfrey is a non-factor. His contract is small enough they can just eat it if they have to.

I've never been a big believer in Plouffe but I really give him credit for getting better in all facets of the game when it looked like he might play himself out of the league. The thing I've noticed is that his throwing is so much better than it was before. If he can continue to improve (and at his age it certainly is possible) he could be a valuable commodity if / when Sano needs a spot. While he is never going to hit homers like he did for that month a couple years ago, he certainly looks like a guy who can hit close to 20 homers, a bunch of doulbles and get on base at an acceptable level.

Does Garver bat right or left handed? Really interested to see what Walker can do in New Britain. How is his defense? He's a big man so I am wondering if he can stick in the outfield or his a DH in the future?

I would disagree with this assertion. The information required to make this type of decision is not available to TD posters - sorry. His actual working knowledge of pitching mechanics, his ability to relate to players, ability to communicate his thoughts effectively would all be the most important factors in a decision like this. We don't know this stuff and never will. Twins Daily is great - I visit every day but let's be honest. All of the this stuff (including mine) is speculation, pure and simple.

This. The act of firing someone is not akin to cleaning out your garage and should not be taken lightly. If he is truly deficient at his job, he should go but none of us has the information required to make that assesment. I get the whole "bottom line" argument but its not that simple. He's had horrible pitchers to work with over the last 4 years. For all we know, he might actually be really good at his job but there is only so much that coaches and managers can do. I wonder if the pitching coach in NY is getting ripped because he couldn't get the best out of Phil Hughes like the pitching coach in Minnesota?

I have several thoughts here.... Reason I don't want him here: if everyone keeps up with this "Dougie Baseball" bit I'm going to go nuts. Its old already and he is still in Ft. Myers. Reason I want him here: his wife is defintely worth a camera shot or 10. On a serious note: do we know he is any more forward thinking about sabrmetrics, etc. than Gardy? Just because he's younger doesn't necessarily mean anything. What we know for sure is that he's won but he has also really good players. My guess is that Jeff Smith is suddenly going to turn into a managerial genius the next year or so in New Britain.

What's holdin this team back is a lack of good players. I understand the frustration and I couldn't care less if they fire them all or bring them back. I just think we all have to be realistic about how much of an impact the manager and coaches really make. I can't find much of anything to defend Gardy and Andy. I am also ready to say that you could have hand picked your manager and pitching coach at the beginning of the year and the results would essentially be the same.

Actually, I don't believe coaching plays a "major" part. The Twins have had fundamentally sound teams and good pitching under this regime at certain points in the past. What it really shows is that the Twins just haven't had many good players lately. Fire them all if you want, just don't think coaching will take this starting rotation and turn it into gold. I'm not advocating for keeping them either but it is way more important to go get a couple of pitchers than a couple new coaches.

Absolves them of what? Approving of a survey question that Keith Olberman found funny? Complete non - issue.

"a horse well beaten".......more like beat to death, pulverized and sent to the glue factory. Can hardly wait for the fireworks.....

First off, the Twins likely did not create or complete the survey. As another poster noted, this is almost always done by a third party specialty organization. Second - who cares? Is this really a big deal? Are we so hard up to rip the Twins that we are going to worry about this? I personally am glad they are ignoring it - shows that they might have something bigger to worry about.

I am in agreement that the first 3 are givens. My dream is that they go out and get another quality starter that is equal or better than Hughes. Unless most here, I think there is a pretty good chance that Meyer is with the team right out of spring training, assuming he performs well. We all said there was no way they would break camp with Gibson this year but that is what they did - I can see something similar happening next spring. Darnell, Gilmartin, et al will be great depth to have at Rochester. My guess is that Pino is a DFA. I am also not worried about Pelfrey. His contract is small enough that if he isn't pitching well enough to have a meaningful role, they will waive him.

Good thing he is giving Vargas hitting advice.......I like the potential that our lineup has and they have scored a lot of runs this year...however, they strike out way too much, which is one reason they tend to be inconsistent. Arcia is the poster child for this problem and he, along with several of his teammates are going to have to figure it out.

I would like to go get another outfielder or two but am not going to because......I am going to take all the money and go get a free agent starter that is equal to or better than Hughes. We have enough quantity, we need quality. I'm not worried about the contract or blocking someone because, first of all, we don't know that we will be blocking somebody and we do know that our current rotation is holding us back. If we do end up blocking somebody, its not really a problem because starting pitching is the best trade currency there is. I will worry about having too much quality pitching when we get there. As far as the lineup, I don't see major changes unless we can't sign a pitcher. If that were the case, I would add another outfielder with the watchword, again, being quality.and the ability to cover some ground. No more DH types in the outfield. Specifically, I am not even counting on Sano, Buxton or Rosario next year. Santana plays short with Esco and Nunez your utility guys. Plouffe at third, Dozier at second, Mauer at first. Suzuki and Pinto split behind the plate and Vargas is the full time DH. Arcia gets right and I hope that Hicks can handle center. If not we have to pick up an outfielder. At this point, if I'm only carrying one backup outfileder it is Schafer. I don't mind Parmalee as a bench bat as he can play multiple positions but I like the speed and better defense that Schafer brings. I would keep Parms on the 40 man if possible and deal him in the offseason. Same thing with Fryer, he's not part of my team next year but he might fetch a low level prospect since Butera did. Cola, Pino, Bernier, Floriman all DFAs. There are others I'm sure but I am doing this off the top of my head. As far as the field staff goes, I don't really care. I'm not a big believer that they make any substantive difference. No, Rick Anderson didn't wreck Tommy Milone in two weeks.........(he's org depth at AAA by the way; no way am I counting on him or Pelfrey next season).

Strikeouts, particularly the assessment of pitchers ability to strike out batters has garnered much attention in the last couple years. So much so that some baseball pundits consider it the best indicator of a pitcher's effectiveness or potential. While I think the strikeout is currently being overemphasized, I definitely agree with the premise that a ball not put in play for an out is far superior to one that is put in play, even if it should result in an out. So, to my first apparent contradiction: if striking people out is so important as a pitcher, why shouldn't hitters be equally as concerned with preventing strikeouts? Many observers say things like, strikeouts don't matter because an out is the same whether it is a strikeout or a flyball, etc. Batters are striking out in record numbers with no apparent reservation or change in approach to prevent it. This flies directly in the face of the modern pitching credo. The same contradiction appears to be at play in reverse with walks. We have people say they don't care if a pitcher walks too many batters if they have high strikeout rates, even to say that a walk is preferable to a hit because, after all, a walk is just one base and a hit can be more. Contradiction number 2: why is the modern hitting philosophy to work counts with the hope of getting a walk, while driving up pitch counts. If obtaining walks is such a crucial offensive strategy shouldn't there be equal emphasis on the pitching side dedicated to preventing walks? I will await the wisdom of the Twins Daily posting community.......

I think people are underestimating that most of our young players in the lineup will continue to improve which makes the lineup better, even without adding new players. I'm of the school that they could very much use a left fielder and another starter but only if they are quality players. We don't need anymore quantity, especially with starting pitchers. I would go hard after someone that will move in at or near the top of the rotation. In the event that we end up with too many good, proven, candidates for the rotation, we can deal someone. After what we've seen the last few years, I will take that problem. With a rotation upgrade, this team will be 500 in 2015, with an outside chance at contending.

I don't think the game is "pretty much as it has been"; not even close. It is substantially different and most of the differences result in a slower, less active game. Whether its the strike zone, hitters approach, habits of both pitchers and hitters, use of relief pitchers there are very real differences and all have resulted in longer games and less activity. Are people less dedicated to the game? Yep, it was America's pasttime. However, is the chicken or the egg?

The problem is more than the "median" length of a game. First of all, there are some games that last 4 plus hours which is just not good for the game. Even a diehard baseball fan is not going to stay interested in that length of game. More important than the length of games, in my view, is the relative inactivity. With small strike zones and hitters essentially trying to walk and / or run up pitch counts, there is just nothing happening far too much of the time. My 16 year old son loved baseball at one point when he was younger - he hasn't watched a game in years because of the pace. To watch hitters take a pitch, step out of the box and adjust their batting gloves just about drives me over the edge. (Same thing with a pitch that is essentially belt high being called a ball.) I really think calling the rulebook strikezone would solve most of the problems. Hitters would be up there swinging or otherwise risk always being in the hole - the whole strategy of working the count, etc would become a failing notion. Pitch counts would drop dramatically, reducing the need for relief pitchers which slow the game down a lot. Or, we can just outlaw batting gloves.....

Whether you like his responses or not really isn't the issue. He's giving his views in areas that most GMs simply won't address.