YLT

On average, if gaining 3-5 runs over the course of a season is as simple and painless as penciling in the lineup in a slightly different way (best hitters at the top, worst at the bottom), what rationale is there for not doing it? It doesn’t take a huge amount of analysis, it doesn’t cost the team any money, it shouldn’t hurt anyone’s ego. I just don’t understand John’s position other than devil’s advocate for the sake of devil’s advocate. The “my precious boy” argument doesn’t hold water. Good players should want as many opportunities to show their talent as possible, especially ones where the current numbers indicate they are way better than a ninth spot hitter.

Call me impressed. Any word on whether these dealings were Ryan's? My guess is a little of Ryan and a little of Antony.

When a significant portion of the podcast over the last few seasons has been dedicated to both John and Aaron agreeing on the level of mismanagement in the Twins organization - I think Aaron had every right to be taken aback by John's stance. John's opinions are what they are - that's fine, but I think he deserves every bit of grief for statements like, "one of the best organizations in that decade run." Completely ludicrous.

The real question for John is why is he so interested in seeing Terry Ryan finish out the season? What value does that have for the Twins short term or long term? Especially if the Pohlad's don't have confidence in him.

I doubt Carroll would've put it in play early - he's nothing if not Mauer-esque in his patience and plate discipline.

Agreed, it was a bit frustrating to understand the point you were trying to make. Aaron was not arguing sabermetrics - he was simply stating that Dozier getting less at bats is good. There is no simpler way to increase potential run production than that move alone. I don't even know what point you were arguing (fluctuations in the sabermetric unknown?), you weren't even going for devil's advocate, it seemed to be just baying about sabermetrics in general - which was never the point. Better hitters should hit higher in the order and if that's something as simple as Gardy writing it down on the lineup card every day - why not do it? No calculation required.

On a similar note: are we of the delusion that players aren't still doping right now? Certainly these guys know about EPO and how well that works and how quickly you can taper off of it before a season starts. How often are major leaguers being tested? Is it ok to dope in the offseason to increase your workload without getting injured and then taper it off before the season begins? Or do they have to be caught in the act? Again, more complex interpretations of "cheating." Cycling and track and field are eons ahead of baseball in this area and I'd say they're still a few steps behind the best dopers. As one track and field commentator put it last summer, "you'd have to be completely stupid to actually get caught at the Olympics using a banned substance." It's all about the timing. So what is it: doping in the offseason is ok and during the season it's not? One time caught and you never go to the HoF? Lifetime ban from baseball on a three strikes you're out rule? What if MLB decides something that's legal today ("natural supplements", suspect use of thyroid medication (steroids), caffeine, etc.) becomes illegal in the next generation? What do you do with the HoF then? Look, I'm not saying we just let everybody dope and be done with it - exactly the opposite. If MLB is serious about this they better up their ante in terms of testing and biological passports, which I am in full support of, otherwise it'll just turn into the NFL. We're simply turning another blind eye if we think doping is over.

What's the argument for Perry or Ford being in the HoF then? Is cutting or greasing baseballs not cheating? Or is that just a clever or funny way to cheat so it's ok? How is that advantage any different than steroids? Both of those guys knowingly took illegal measures to enhance their chance of getting an out. Corked bat guys? In or out? How about sign stealers? It's complex and becomes a slippery slope - hence context of the era is needed.

I'd also like to point out that while McGwire, Bonds and Sosa were ripping jack-jobs off of every thing thrown their way, no one was saying boo about it. The fans loved it, the media loved it and the owners and Bud Selig knowingly turned a blind eye. The one reporter who wrote an article about McGwire's use of over-the-counter steroids was ostracized for bringing it up during the homerun chase. What McGwire was taking at the time wasn't even a banned substance according to MLB. Certainly he knew that roids = bombs, but there really wasn't much stopping him.

Like it or not, baseball's history is nuanced and complex - just like the rest of human history. The fact that it does have such a rich history (for better or worse) is part of what makes baseball such a fantastic game. That begs the question asked recently by ESPN's Jayson Stark: Is the HoF a shrine or a museum or both? If it's a shrine, then a group of people who are already in better get kicked out. Maybe Ty Cobb shouldn't be in the HoF because he was a raging racist. Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford certainly shouldn't if you consider doctoring baseballs a sin unworthy of the shrine. If it's a museum then that bad part of the history (cheating, drugs, racism, exploitation, etc) can be explained along with the greatness of the player elected. I'm a big fan of the HoF being a museum because historical context is a must. A baseball shrine is sterile, uninteresting and does not tell the story of baseball.

If only that were true. 2 of the most secure jobs in baseball. Yup, I'd predict Gardy retires from the job before the front office shows him the door. Andy I'm not so sure of. He might actually be walking on thin ice but again, it's hard to see them breaking up that duo. I think another important point from the managerial/FO side is their handling of injuries and the timing of putting guys on the DL. How many times have injuries been under-diagnosed or guys left on day-to-day status only to later go on the DL for extended stints? There's a major lack of communication between parties somewhere within the organization that is going to bite them some year when they actually are competitive. I'm as frustrated as Gleeman and Bonnes on that topic.

The Twins should take whatever they can get for Capps or even just look for a salary dump without any C level prospect - I'd be fine with that. They're paying this "proven closer" ~$80000 per out at this point. What a complete waste of money.

Agreed. Just because the Twins have the money doesn't mean those 2-3 (Hamels, Grienke and maybe Peavy) top tier guys are going to sign with a cellar dweller. It's a little harsh to say that the Twins couldn't land a 2nd tier guy as there are more of them in this year's FA class than in recent past. All tier 1 and 2 guys are going to be overpaid - that's just how it works out. If the Twins really are looking to cut payroll then they best roll with whatever sticks against the wall from AAA and maybe hope to luck out on a budget-level arm or two for the time being. It's hard to build a future contending team when you keep throwing money at the Jason Marquis' and Nick Blackburn's of the world or under-utilize high-leverage situation guys like Capps. I dislike everything about the Capps' deals but even more infuriating is how much he makes to pitch 60 innings a year. "Closers" are some of the worst ways to spend money in my opinion - especially a supposed "born closer" of Matt Capps caliber. That was off topic but I needed to get it off my chest.

Have the Twins ever spent 5 years / $90 million on a FA starting pitcher? None of those top level starting pitcher FAs would want to come here anyway. I'm very interested to see if the Twins are able to shop Morneau to any extent. Hell, I'd be happy to see a team simply eat his contract - no C level prospects needed. The idea of bundling Liriano w/ Morneau is interesting, though that's a pretty specific need that I doubt many teams have.

I'm getting really tired of the money argument for Mauer. It's just an easy out for the booers. When a guy of that caliber comes along you almost never get the value of the long term deal that you put into it. Though, if you don't put that kind of money on the table he's likely to walk and there's no way a guy like Mauer takes on a series of 2 year contracts with the Twins for a career. Only a small percentage of $100 million plus contracts end up actually being "worth" it - particularly in the final years of those contracts. This is why I think long-term deals are not very smart from the standpoint of the front office, no matter what the caliber of player. The Twins did what they did - the money's spent. Just enjoy watching one of the better catchers in the game for the next few years and boo the starting pitching as a whole instead - that's a far more troublesome area for the Twins at this point.