jeffk

If you narrow your goal to being very specifically "what can we do to optmize the chances of a World Series in five years", then yes, one can't really argue with this article. I also know there's a bit of one-upsmanship around this forum as to who can be the coldest, anything-to-win armchair GM. But this prospect is so entirely depressing that I'm kinda surprised anyone sees things in terms that limited. He's one of only a handful of watchable aspects of this team, and his contract quite obviously represents a gentleman's agreement regarding not being traded. You trade him and even more people stop watching and stop caring. In fact, even if the goal is a World Series, trading him and giving people another reason to stop showing up may end up undermining you by reducing ticket sales even further.

"Where are the dingers?"

Maybe this is just denial, but with several years left on his contract he should still be cheap and dominant in a couple years when, with any luck, the Twins have completed their rebuild, at which point he's quite useful.

We've become crazy blessed with a great local brewing in just the last few years. It's important to remember that the new Renaissance of craft beer - both here and nationally - is only possible because of what a handful ballsy brewers did back in the 1980s. Thanks to Summit, not only for the sponsorship, but for real beer!

This came up some last year as well. I actually don't see why not break down the distinction between "starter" and "reliever". The added flexibility would keep oppoents off-balance in terms of platoons, and you would be free to quickly remove a pitcher who wasn't having a good day. Nobody would wear themselves down throwning 100 pitches. Pitchers who only have two good pitches wouldn't be as exposed, and most would only see each batter once or twice at the most. The entire distinction seems somewhat arbitrary, borne out of baseball history. Maybe it wouldn't work. But when you have nothing to lose and terrible starting pitching (not to mention decent relief pitching) perhaps it's the next moneyball.

I think they've worked themselves into a position where not competing next year isn't an option. As much as the baseball mega-nerds on TwinsDaily.com don't care about 80 wins and would happily trade off everything, accept another two seasons of awful play, and then try to turn it around with a 95-win World Series competitor, the consequences of fielding another 65-win team on the third year of a new stadium would be devestating. People would simply lose interest, profits would continue to fall, the payroll would continue to shrink, and the death spiral would be unavoidable. The Twins need to field a respectable team next year, even if it means only 80 wins, just so people find showing up at Target Field appealing.

I'm a believer in cheering for division-mates in the post-season when your team doesn't make it. I never understood the thinking behind hoping your geographic copatriots get crushed by the Yankees because you weren't able to do it. I'd love to see them get far.

You can statistically fluke your way to a high BA for a few months. It seems less likely that you can fake your way to 10 HRs in 22 games or whatever his crazy tear consisted of. A home run just isn't an accident. He clearly has something. Even if he were half the player he was during June and July he'd still be a permanent solution at 3B.

How is $14M not significant? That's not a sure thing; even if he's good, as we saw this year there's a limit on what you can get for a 3-month rental. I don't recall any top prospects being moved for future free agents.

The folks pushing for mixing in Parmelee with the other DH/1B starters are not making the most efficient use of our resources. On a team with money and depth and no major issues, then it's really nice to have a good young prospect play half the season behind a core of veterans. In the case of the Twins, with their gaping holes and budget issues, there is simply not that luxury. The loss of Morneau will be sad, but even if we don't get much in return, that $14M is two decent starting pitchers. A team with Parmelee at 1B and two good starting pitchers is a better team than one with Parmelee at AAA and no decent starting pitchers. Someone getting injured is just a risk you have to take; not trading Morneau is guaranteeing failure for the team by virtue of having no starting pitching.

A lot of people are dismissing his success as low-BABIP luck... however, it's hard not to notice the pitchers you mention as having low BABIP are more less recognized as excellent pitchers - something about what they do keeps hitters from making good contact, and we accept that they're aces. Now, those guys also rack up strike outs and limit walks, so nobody's saying Deduno is an ace. But maybe he's a #3 who will continue to give up walks but not hits. I understand it's statistically rare and I wouldn't bet much on it, but I also think there's more to it than the idea that everyone should have the exact mean BABIP or else they're just lucky.

There's been some comments on TwinkieTown about moving Mastroianni to 2B, which is actually his original position. Given the glut in the outfield and his fairly impressive season, is this a good time to give it a try in terms of planning for the future? If he continues to hit and can handle it, you've plugged a huge hole with cheap, team-controlled player for several seasons. He could be the Plouffe of 2B. If it doesn't work... what's to lose?

I'm sympathetic to the original poster. On one hand, the point of a forum like this is so a bunch of baseball nerds can bitch and discuss hypothetical scenarios. Certainly it's boring if it's just a bunch of cheerleading. On the other hand, for some people the wheeling-and-dealing mindset has gotten out of hand. Why would you trade Revere? He's good, young, cheap, and you developed him. That's the kind of player you trade *for*. If you are dead set on trading an outfielder, you trade the veteran Span.

I'd just like to point out that all those people who wanted him platooned were wrong. What a short-sighted waste that would have been, not given him a chance to work it out and turning a former MVP into a platoon player with minimal value, all to save a win or two for a losing team.

I don't know about his past or projected future, but this year his 104 OPS+ pegs him as a dead-average hitter, which would play pretty well as a starter at 2B - particularly with what we've been fielding there for the last few years.