deanlambrecht

Oddly, I felt the same way. A big part of me wanted the dismal performance to continue so that the Pohlad's would have absolutely no grounds to continue stating that the team was anything other than a total system failure. Given the historically bad performance this season, with a W/L record to show for it, the Pohlad's hand is forced, and if they don't aggressively make the needed changes that are plain for all to see, it will be clear to all where the blame should be placed. Here's to a new era for this team, already intact with incredible offensive potential (and to a lesser-but-still impressive extent, defensive potential). Here's to the Pohlad's finally doing what it takes to deliver this team from oblivion.

This is what I fear is correct. I hate to be so pessimistic, but there are only so many gut-punches a fan can take before expecting the kind of outcome Nick describes here.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C6cxNR9ML8k

Agree 100%. In particular your pointing out the flip-flopping recommendations from us in the TD peanut gallery. For me, perhaps the only thing more aggravating than the Twins performance thus far is the hyperventilating about it here at TD. Your recommendation to "step back and take a deep breath" is exactly right.

Maybe Seth will comment, but I agree that you've misunderstood Seth's post. To my understanding, his point is that while the team isn't technically/mathematically eliminated, it is practically eliminated. And from the premise that this team is practically eliminated, he lays out the plan to send most of the guys who have almost no time in AAA down until August 1 while we field the older guys and see which ones we should keep and which we should try to trade on/before July 31. Frankly (and assuming that I'm right about Seth's underlying premise), I agree with that assessment and also generally agree with the subsequent plan.

"Reclassified," perhaps. Any suggestions about how they could do a better job of rankings? "Taken with a modicum of skepticism," no doubt. Never was in doubt. Anyone who wasn't already doing that was simply fooling him/herself. Prospect rankings have never pretended to be something that shouldn't be greeted with informed skepticism.

This is an excellent suggestion.

Yes. I'd add only the Pohlad's culpability to this analysis. Terry Ryan and the Pohlad family, in that order, are the biggest problems on this team. Jim Pohlad's comments last night lead me to conclude that he fundamentally misunderstands the game of baseball. I never thought I'd miss his father's presence, and maybe I actually don't, but I think he understood the game better than his sons. We need an owner who gets it, and we don't have one. Edit to add: it's far too early to know whether Molitor is the right guy, as the OP points out.

Epic, Riverbrian. Absolutely epic!

According to this link and the updated post above, Santana likely on the DL.

Ya'll (you know who you are) can stop clutching your pearls about David Murphy now. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/04/david-murphy-requests-release-leaves-twins-organization.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

That is an extremely pedantic comment. The author plainly qualified the comparison and showed how it remains apt despite not being a 1:1 comparison. The author's article was altogether the type of writing that makes TwinsDaily a very good site for all things Twins.

I think you're wildly overestimating the confidence a team should have when making a bid on a player like Park, and the reasonableness of taking other team-altering actions on what amounts to a rather slim chance of landing that player. You also still totally fail to take into account the basically non-existent market for 3B's at this time. Regarding not working Sano in the outfield, you're quite right. They landed Park early and should have started repping Sano their asap. I think they'll soon realize that was a big mistake. But I think the remainder of your analysis is still rather problematic. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

The problem with this, though, is clear when you look at what the roster is doing. I did that yesterday in the late innings when the offense was flailing once again. Of the 25, Mauer, Escobar, and Nunez are the only ones hitting (and doing so at an elite level in a small sample size). But when you look at the rest of the roster, the only players who we can reasonably expect to improve their performance reasonably quickly are Plouffe and Dozier, and to a lesser extent, Suzuki. That leaves far too many other position players on our roster who are little more than wild cards with respect to whether we can expect mlb-quality at-bats from them this season. I include Sano in that calculation as well, because even though he was an absolute monster last season, he only played 1/2 a season. Opposing teams have without question been watching loads of videos on him, and at this point we don't know how strong his ability to adapt to changes at the mlb level really is. Buxton, Santana (assuming he returns), Murphy, Rosario, Arcia, Park, etc. Not sure we can really count on them, as hopeful as they appear. It is only nine games. I'm not one to panic or throw in the towel, as many who comment here are, sadly. But I do think there's a real cause for concern that 2016 could be a dreadful season for us, despite how bright our future appears. Let's hope these youngsters start hitting, and soon.

I think there are a few problems with this analysis. First, we do know that the Twins has scouted Park for a long time. That does not mean, however, that getting the winning bid on him was a sure deal. They also knew, for instance, that other teams were scouting him and, particularly given Jung-ho Kang's success in Pittsburgh, that there would likely be a good number of aggressive bidders. Further, it's a secret bidding process, so they had little idea about whether they would be the successful bidders. That makes it quite a surprise that he ended up on our team. Second, it's likely they were quite aware of the trade market for Plouffe. We fans didn't know, of course, but in retrospect it's quite easy to see that there was little market for third basemen this offseason. David Freese's eventual cheap contract painted that picture for us. But the Twins weren't in the dark in that regard. There is plenty of talk between teams, and Plouffe's value was probably well known. Bottom line, Plouffe's value was likely well known in advance, and the possibility of landing Park was the statistical equivalent of drawing a wild card.

Too late unfortunately. He got 3/$31M with a mutual 4th year option from the Giants. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/giants-nearing-deal-with-denard-span.html I would have liked to have him back, even on a two year deal (or three under the right terms). Nice guy, solid player, can teach the kids, and if we don't need him, and excellent trade chip. Best of luck to him in SF - he can't be disappointed about that!

Hey Nick, heads up that mlbtr is now reporting Lowe's contract was only worth $11 million, not the previously-reported $13 million. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/12/tigers-sign-mark-lowe.html The handbook predicted 2 for 10, so this new info improves your amazing predictive powers!!

Why perplexing? We're pretty sure Murphy can give us what we need right now - average production at catcher. We had an expendable player in the outfield, and we made the move. That doesn't seem terribly perplexing. As for the body we got, would I like to have gotten a super-star catcher instead? Sure? Where were we going to get one? We weren't going to get one in exchange for Hicks. Do you know whether NYY is listening to offers for Sanchez? What are the chances he becomes an even average MLB catcher, like Murphy, let alone a super star. And who, exactly, would you give up to get Sanchez? Buxton? Because that's probably what it would take. The only other potential trade I saw was the oft-discussed Plouffe + for Derek Norris from the Padres. I don't know how plausible that really was - perhaps the teams discussed it. Perhaps they still will discuss it, though at this point it's time to turn to our bullpen situation, and Plouffe might be a better trade chip in that regard at this time. But the bottom line is this trade isn't terribly perplexing, and the wish list you proposed is just that - a wish list.

Thanks for supporting your post. Knowing that it was from 2011, we get more information. For instance, at that time: - Greinke wasn't yet the dominant pitcher he became in 2013-2015. - He was still haunted by question marks based on his social anxiety disorder. - This wasn't a trade rumor in the sense that it was being discussed by the teams, but mere speculation that if the Twins were to go after Greinke, they'd need to offer both Hicks and Gibson. In hindsight, might it have been a good move to make? Perhaps, but hindsight is always 20/20. And we still don't know if there were any activities by either team to make that move or anything like it. But it's fun to consider!

This, exactly:

Yuck. Frankly, I'm not terribly confident in Duensing. Weird that the bullpen is our clear problem, no?

Probably the biggest problem with the Clutch statistic is sample size. Even a multi-year veteran like Mauer takes a great deal of Clutch opportunities to compile statistically significant numbers. @TwinsFanLV, I understand your frustration, but I think it's misdirected here. This post is about Joe Mauer's ability to hit with RISP and in Clutch situations. The numbers support the notion that he's especially productive in such situations. If the "only" stat the counts is wins, then each year there are 29 "losers" and 1 "winner," and oddly enough under your construct, the "winner" is not even necessarily the team that wins the World Series (because that team doesn't always and doesn't necessarily have the most wins). So I think your notion of the "one stat that counts" can only lead you to a frustrating end. There's much more going on in a game than that, and I think you'll have more fun with the sport overall if you start appreciating the nuances, as frustrating as losses can be. Trust me, I'm not terribly happy, either.