cmathewson

That was my point. We have the arms--four in the top 101 according to BP. Whether that becomes a top 5 rotation is up in the air.

I have no problem with Pinto not starting on opening day. I just don't want to see him sent down. Counter-productive to his development. Plus, after watching Fryer for the first time, I don't get what they see in him.

Fryer looks brutal. He has yet to pick anything at the shoe tops or below, letting several of them go through the wickets.

I've counted nine balls in the dirt from Diamond today. Fryer has yet to pick one of them. Several have gotten through him. It's ugly out there.

The argument comes down to the value of the closer role. About this, there is no consensus. If you think a closer should be paid like a set-up guy and traded as soon as he acquires enough saves to give him sufficient trade value, this is a bad deal. If you think a closer is difficult to develop and should be held onto as long as there is a chance at a championship, this is a great deal. I have seen enough of closers like RD, LaTroy and Crapps to fall in the second camp. Besides, I don't think you create one hole to fill another. By all means, find a way to build a winning rotation, but don't do it at the expense of the bullpen. I also think your claim that in three years the Twins will still be one pitcher short of a top 5 rotation a bit dubious. They certainly have the arms to put together a top 5 rotation. Whether that happens is too speculative to base an argument on. If your claim is suppositional (i.e. supposing they are one starter short of a top 5 rotation in three years, then they could use Perkins to acquire that guy), then it makes some sense. But I still disagree with it. First of all, I have yet to see a trade of a closer for an ace straight up. It would take multiple pieces in addition to the closer to acquire an ace. As long as you're including other pieces, that's not the time to trade major league assets for major league assets. That's the time to trade prospects for the likes of David Price.

This. Plus, what does it say to the organization when a player basically kills it at three levels and still gets sent down in favor of a journeyman?

There's no one way to develop players. Some need to progress one level at a time. Others can skip levels. Those who skip levels tend to be the high upside guys. Mauer is the best example. The last guy they tried this with before Hicks was Dozier, which says something about their attitudes towards him. I always thought him more of a grinder. But he eventually made the grade after one failed year. So the question is whether Hicks is a high upside guy or a grinder? I fall in high upside camp. It seems the Twins do too, if I'm reading the line-up cards right. I think he learned everything he needs to learn to be successful up here last year. I know not everybody agrees. But I just don't see him needing more seasoning. If they had De Aza to hold down the fort until Hicks has filed off all his rough edges, I might think otherwise. But I'm willing to live with a few rough edges if it means not having to watch Presley every day. If he had major holes in his game, I would think differently. I would want him to work on those things in AAA for the sake of his development. I don't see any major holes. He has a good eye. He has shown an ability to make adjustments and be a bit more aggressive, when appropriate. He will never be a high contact guy, but that's not something you can teach. He will always need to rely on pitch selection, which is as it ever was for him. I have no qualms about his defense. He's still got stuff to learn. But so do most of the guys on the team. That's one of the reasons I love baseball so much--watching guys make adjustments so they can be more successful. If I'm going to invest in following a kid this way, I want him to have a chance at greatness. I think Hicks has that. If they sent him down, I would do a road trip or two to Rochester, just as I plan several such trips to New Britain (75 mins away) to watch Buxton. He's not in Buxton's class. But I think Hicks compares favorably to Torii Hunter.

The Twins have been open about this. He needs to learn the opposing hitters and his own staff and how to use those weapons to attack the hitters. It's not like he can't do it. It just takes time to learn it. Suzuki is really good at it, though he still needs to learn his own pitchers a bit. Catching is not a black art. But it is difficult to measure because there are so many variables. More than any other position, it requires a keen scouting eye to evaluate catchers. Very few reporters have that. So what we get from the media is vague.

I agree that Deduno has been lights out this spring. But it's interesting that he has done all his work out of the pen to date. I wouldn't be surprised if they go north with Gibson in the five spot and Deduno as the swing man out of the pen, just to save his arm for later in the season.

I don't know what there is to complain about. They're spending money for talent. What's not to like?

I was down on Colabello because I saw things in his swing that made him susceptible to pitchers who could exploit his weaknesses--the majority of major leaguers. But I've seen stuff this spring related to his offseason adjustments that are encouraging. So I hope they give him a shot.

Ideally, you would do both. You would have a roster that could score runs early, and you would have a bench that could come from behind when needed. To that tend, I think Pinto is your guy as the starter, maybe not in April, but at least by June. And you would have a DH/PH situation with thunder on the bench when needed. Barring a Morales singing, my money is on a Kubel/Colabello platoon.

I'm kind of hoping Colabello makes the team. That means they carry 12 pitchers (logical considering their offseason acquisitions), they only carry one utility infielder (no need for two), and two catchers. A Colabello/Kubel platoon at DH seems a lot more comfortable, especially with Kubel's .679 career OPS against lefties.

I think Suzuki is a good mentor for Pinto. He might not hit much anymore, but he's a good receiver and he calls a good game. I'm sure he'll start the majority of the games to begin with, but he will become the backup. The catching position is not something that is easy to grow into. We are spoiled with Mauer, who seemed like he could call a good game at 20. Most catchers take into their mid-20s to learn the craft. Pinto is right on track, but he has a learning curve left. Suzuki can help him with this. I'm not as concerned about the DH thing because catchers need to give their hands days off. The catching position is much more of a grind in this day and age than it was before Moneyball. So many pitches. So much time in the crouch. It takes a toll. Now, when Gardy talks about Suzuki leading off, then I really get scared.

Hicks is the front runner. He's just been hurt. But a couple of weeks like the last two games and it won't be a question.

I hope he gets some opportunities to DH. But I hope he doesn't use him at DH too much. He can learn a lot sitting next to Steiny. One note of encouragement came from a quote by Correia after yesterday's game that he felt was working with Pinto to get ready for Opening Day. It sure sounded like the plan is to bring Pinto north.

^^^^This should not be controversial to anyone who has followed the Twins. At least we don't have Tony Bautista blocking Michael Cuddyer or anything.

It depends on what you mean by "semantics." I think the word "talent" here means, roughly, "ability" or "skills." Not "tools." The view is, he better able to get major league hitters out than the likes of Correia.

Not a fan of pulling out one bad month and using that against players or pitchers. Most players have a bad month per year. Dead arm. Injuries they play through. Stuff happens. Let's not cherry pick to prove a point. His overall numbers in his second AA year were better. Not as much progress as I would like to see, but better. His numbers from the AFL were encouraging. Let's see what he can do at AAA.

Great synopsis. Repeating for emphasis.

We had a long thread about this. The upshot: It is relatively rare for partial tears to mend themselves. We found a half dozen cases out of the hundreds that ended in surgery. But the consensus of the thread was the guidance is different for position players than pitchers. Perhaps it is standard guidance to recommend rest and rehab for position players.

Then why do they say "partial tear" and prescribe rest and rehab? Why do they sometimes say "complete tear" and prescribe surgery right away? I think it's because they see more than mere inflammation. MRIs would be worthless if they only see what you can feel from the outside.

Part of my unease about adding more pitching depth is my admiration for Gibson. I have not seen that much movement on a fastball at that velocity since Scott Erickson. And I think he has a better slider than Erickson ever had. I think he was squeezed a lot last year and changed his approach to get more strikes called, which made him more hittable. This time around, I look for him to be the type of guy to get a lot of ground balls and a lot of strikeouts.

The premise is not that Gibson would need to beat those players out (which he should do without too much trouble), it is beating out Correia in a rotation of Nolasco, Santana, Hughes, Pelfrey and Correia. Take away Santana, and it's likely Deduno, who's arm could fall off tomorrow, giving Gibson his opportunity. But that wasn't the premise of this thread--whether it is a good idea to hire another veteran and block Gibson (and ultimately Meyer, if that veteran is hired for the longer term).

The hardest jump in development is to the majors. Most players take their lumps when they first come up. So they are almost invariably worse than a cheap veteran free agent at first. But unlike the cheap veteran, they have upside. So a team needs to make the uncomfortable decision to get worse at that position before it can get better. Because this decision is uncomfortable, it is often delayed to the point where the developing player is just biding his time. The more oldsters you have around, the longer it delays the inevitable for the youngsters. This might make sense for a contending team, but not for a rebuilding team. That's the theory anyway. Our opinions differ on how prevalent it is in practice. What I am concerned about is how likely it is for this franchise this year. I think the impulse to keep e.g. Correia in the rotation while Gibson bides his time in AAA is very strong. For how long? Consider if they get off to a hot start. It might go half the year or more, limping along with five-inning, three-run starts while Gibson dominates and waits. It does the team no good when it really matters, in 2015.