bird

Some cats have nine lives, but maybe Frankie's a cat with nine deaths, and nine dead cat bounces! His 15K performance was probably just one more of his patented dead cat bounces. So, now the Chisox will coach him up, proving to tobynot jason and the rest that Rick Anderson is a pathetic incompetent (Frankie was coached by someone else when he performed well you see). What are the chances Frankie puts a string of decent performances together for Chicago, and then comes apart atthe seams again say, just in time for a playoff start. Yeah, I wish we could feel better about this trade, but...

I was in the camp favoring offering Frankie a fair extension, even overpaying for a year at $12M or getting the draft pick if he wouldn't be reasonable about an extension. However, I'm not going to declare this move as a bad one. How can you predict that? In fact, it's just as reasonable to predict that Pedro Hernandez will have a more productive career going forward than Frankie. Over the years, my guess is that, when I've disagreed with a Terry Ryan move, he's been proven right 70% of the time. Geez, I sure hated giving up Bullock for that no-stuff stiff Diamond.

This may shock some of you, but I don't object to the idea of replacing Gardy. I've always viewed him as above average at managing a clubhouse and about average as a game manager. I have always assigned no better than a 50% chance of improvement under a new manager. I'm seeing the strength of the argument that perhaps Gardy has worn down. His clubhouse management appeared to be sub-par last year, and his game results have been underwhelming for two years now as evidenced by all the mental mistakes. Managers have off-seasons toop. I still think he manages the pitching staff very well, and I'd give him solid grades again for this year in that category. I DO believe that his biggest problem is this collection of somewhat heartless players. Too many of these guys know the trainers too well. The body language is often pathetic. My hope is that Terry Ryan, over the course of the next several months, finds a new home for the players they know already are not tough-minded. Do we really know who thet are? We'd probably all guess most of the same names: Liriano, Mauer, Morneau, Span, Baker, Valencia, And Casilla are some of my suspects. I get the sense that Willingham and Doumit are grinders. But I could be totally off base on some of these. Regardless, wouldn't you really enjoy watching a team that always appeared to be playing both hard and tough?

thrlyos, the Twins did not sign a bunch of washed up FA's in 2012, did they? Your "Twins Way" schtick is old news. The "Twins Way" is actually happenning much differently than you portray using pre-Target Field examples. What I assume is they'll sign at least one Shaun Marcum-type free agent. They'll be better. They'll be more fun to watch. They'll probably struggle to be a .500 team. But the thing that we can surely count on is that you'll ignore all the Willingham, Burton, Doumit moves and continue to use the Marquis backfire, or some other move you hate, to make your case. Yawn.

Suckage is one way to look at 2013, but I see a half full glass. Why? We may see some very fun glimpses of a bright future. I'm very excited to see who, among a very promising group, shows they belong with the big club. I will choose to look for improved play from the likes of Revere, Hendriks, Plouffe, Parmelee, Dozier, Robertson, Oliveros, and others. Who will see big league time among Benson, Arcia, Hicks, Tosoni, Guerra, Hermsen, Gutierrez, Wimmers, Bromberg, Waldrop, Herrmann, and others? Will we enjoy continued improvement due to Terry Ryan's moves? Some of us have gotten some satisfaction from the improved lineup and bullpen this year. Are you at least optimistic about Sano, Rosario, Salcedo, Kepler, Buxton, Berrios, Melotakis, Goodrum, and others? It's OK to be reaistic, to expect some failures but there should be some good news too. Enjoy! 2011 was almost invariably unwatchable. 2012? Watchable quite often. 2013 is not going to suck for a lot of us, and I hope some of you choose to come along for the ride instead of looking for the inevitable sources of bad news.

TR's candor is refreshing.

There are a bunch of good reasons not to move Arcia, Benson, Hicks, et al en mass to AAA : 1. The AAA guys are better at filling in at MLB. Most of the roster has already logged time in the bigs this year. 2. With the exception of Arcia, none of those players is putting up truly dominant numbers. And even Arcia has work to do against lefties. Hicks has six fielding errors. 3. They don't have enough worthy candidates in Fort Myers to replace them. Lance Ray, Angel Morales, Daniel Ortiz. None have an OPS above .750. 4. New Britain is playoff bound. And since staying in AA is not harmful to their development, why not let them play and win together there?

DPJ, YOU'RE the one who said Wimmers was destined to be a back-end guy unless he gained 5-6 MPH on his fastball. MOST, not some, but MOST analysts described his ceiling as higher. Two of those analysts have been mentioned in this thread. No analysts have been mentioned that supported your opinion that he was so obviously no better than a back-end guy. So, it's OK for you to have that opinion, but that doesn't support a conclusion that it was a bad pick. I was challenging you to come up with some alternative names- pitchers that throw "hard enough" to meet your standards that were available to the Twins. That's all. Now , in retrospect? Sure. I agree with Mike Wants Wins. Wimmers is very unlikely to become a #2, and it's a reach to project him as a #3. But that's looking retrospectively.

Exactly what problem does Lillibridge solve?

Again, DPJ, name us two pitchers in the Wimmers draft that hit 97 MPH with their fastball. Just two. Now, were they available to the Twins in the Wimmers draft? No? OK, then name me three pitchers who WERE available when the Twins drafted whose fastball sat at 95 MPH. It's just not that easy.

Well, DPJ, perhaps you disagreed with the scouts back then. Perhaps you'll be right. Wimmer's ceiling was generally described as 2-3 starter, and his FB was 91-93, and more that one scout described it as plenty good enough to miss bats. I cannot recall a single scouting report describing his ceiling as "back of the rotation". If it was, he would've been regarded as a second rounder, like Baker was. So, either that's your opinion, or you should back it up if it's a credible professinal opinion. Which is it?

Oh, and thrylos, Trout would be languishing in AA if he were a Twin? I call complete bulls*it on you there. A future all-star languishing in AA because that's how incompetent the Twins are. Just like they screwed up like that with Hrbek, Mauer, Puckett, Wynegar,.....oh, this list goes on and on and on, thrylos. You don't have evidence to support the ridiculous claim you make over and over and over, thrylos. It's just another of your tired, untrue characterizations.

You know, we're seeing the same convenient memories here from the same Twins bashers. DJP, the way-overused pitch to contact mantra and the same old soft tosser crap gets thrown out like the garbage it is. You appear to recall almost nothing from the scouting reports on Wimmers at the time he was drafted. What did his FB top out at during his collegiate career, DJP? Many scouts had him pegged as a 2-3 starter with an acceptable ability to miss bats. And Mike, help me out with how different the scouting reports were for Baker versus Wimmers. Why did Baker fall to the Twins instead of being scooped up later in the first round like Gibson and Wimmers?

twinswon1991, thanks for the post. What a hoot! And what a privilege it is for all of us to share in those scintillating conversations you have so often with all of the scouts behind home plate. Many thanks! Oh, and thanks so much for your obvious objectivity. You know, it's a rare genious that can declare a draft to be an epic failure before some of the players have even strapped on a jock, but you obvipously have inside info, such as DJP's unquestionable judgment that we have a bunch of flawed college relievers on our hands. Geez, what a bunch of crap. Funny stuff.

Whether it's pitching or position players, and regardless of our trading chip, I absolutely love the idea of obtaining higher-ceiling prospects from the lower levels as opposed to a Brett Cecil type. If you want a MLB-ready pitcher, just keep Liriano for another year for $12M. You're either getting yourself a bargain, or you're overpaying him by about the cost of a Marquis.

Nope, DJP, it IS because of having a thinner pool of talent to work with. And it IS because you refuse to give an ounce of credit to them for, among others, Plouffe and Dozier (both starters along with Revere and Diamond) , and any of the other dozen contributors from AAA so far this year. Or any OTHER starter "in the last handful of years", like Span or Burnett. The opposite is true: they are VERY GOOD talent evaluators and have done a VERY GOOD job in the draft over the past couple of years, although this has yet to be proven out for your view or mine.

DPJ, You accused roger of pouring syrup on **** and calling it pancakes for making a solid argument that the last five drafts are better tha most of you think. Your retort? Pretty much pouring **** on ice cream and calling it a sundae. But there are two distinct questions, really. First, what is the comparative quality level of the system. And second, are the Twins any good at evaluating and drafting players? If you fail to acknowledge that there is an appreciable disadvantage to drafting in the second half, and often bottom third, in the draft order for a decade, then you might conclude that the Twins, with a system most pundits rank as barely in the top half of its peers, are crappy drafters. I think the pundits are right in ranking the system where they have, and that many of you think it's much worse. I think the system may instead be slightly better than most pundits because of the east coast effect and the top ten draftee effect. And I think the Twins are better than average as drafters.

Fanatic Jack, Thanks for introducing an exceptional forum topic. Oh, and thanks for exonerating me... You too, MWW. The most obvious point of contention we have is this: some observe the Twin's history and conclude that they will never, ever spend satisfactorily to produce a winner. That's a very understandable outlook. I just disagree, for two primary reasons. First, Carl Pohlad is gone, God rest his soul. He was hurt my the way he and his family were treated LEADING UP to his decision to give it up. He saw that his kids and grandkids had to put up with crap. There was internal debate about whether it was worth it to continue ownership even after the contraction crisis passed. Carl's kids and grandkids, some of them anyway, do in fact have a desire to produce a winning team. This notion that they only care about money is antiquated and wrong. And the cheap tag is a harsh one to place on these people. I admit to a bias, in that I know a few of the kids and grandkids, and happen to like and respect some of them. Second, the new revenue stream has not been in place long enough for us to witness any dramatic changes in the W-L column. But good things are happening, and we should start to see the results on the field as early as 2014, and we'll see glimpses (players) of the future next year. They are spending! Sano is an obvious example. They picked up a top five international prospect, and signed Australia's best prospect (a pitcher! a pitcher!). MWW, I totally agree with you that they must find one or two #2-type starters from outside the system for 2013. (Let someone else overspend for Greinke and Hamels please). You think they won't and I think they will. And Jack, I think you believe they should go hogwild and sign Greinke, right? I agree with many others here that that would not be smart money. They can skin the cat without going there. One last point: one would expect an organization drafting in the second half, usually bottom third, of the draft for a decade to have a middle-of-the-road farm system, right? That's about 500 rounds of second-half choices. And they arguably lacked the resources to compete internationally for many of those years. You can count on one hand the number of current aces that were on the board when the Twin's number got called. So it has always bugged me a little bit that, because the system isn't first-rate, that the Twins' scouting, development, coaching, front office, ownership, and peanut vending personnel are all incompetent. Again, great discussion. Thanks.

I exten d my apologies to any of you who fell like I've cheap-shotted or insulted them. That is not my intention.

USAF, there may be innaccuracies, but remember, his point was simply that there is a "wall" (distinction?) between Twins money and personal money. That particular claim is spot on.

Terrific writeup, powrwrap. The Twin's LLC DOES have other shareholders. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to them that supercedes any "responsibility" they have to us as fans. I opposed the public financing of the stadium. Not because Carl Pohlad was rich, but because I was irritated by the incongruity of public financing without full financial disclosure on the part of the Twins, and because of the structure of the deal. The team has no obligation to the players and their union to open the books, but I really think we as taxpayers deserve more transparency. If I was the Czar, I'd step in and stifle the greed all around: players, owners, agents, and fans. How ridiculous is it that games are out of reach financially for so many families? As Czar, ticket prices would go down, salaries would go down, public financing would cease. And the players would still play, even at a frifth of what they make right now.

Highabove, I haven't attacked anyone, or thrown any cheap shots. I've attacked some people's arguments, and I've criticized people in the past who have taken cheap shots at players, managers, management, and owners. On this thread, I've been critical of Jack's arguments, but I did not throw a cheap shot. I did accuse him of throwing one at the Pohlad boys, who I know and respect. My discussion with MWW has been very civil. So I have no idea where you're coming from, but I hope you'll refrain from throwing your own cheap shots, OK?

Mike Wants Wins: 1. I predict the payroll will not be smaller, on averge,over the next three years. Why? Because the Twins said they'll spend, on average, around 50% of revenue, and I believe them. Looking at one year is disingenuous given that promise, isn't it? 2. I base MY belief that the farm system is maybe a top third system talent-wise on the strength primarily found in the lower levels. But I also think you've been mischaracterizing the quality of the higher levels. Yes, they've lacked "impact players" I suppose, depending on your definition. But they have beared fruit: Revere, Plouffe, Dozier, Parmelee, Mastroianni, Hendriks, Oliveros, Diamond, Burnett, DeVries, Manship, Walters, Deduno, Robertson, Fien all played AAA ball this year, did they not? And the numbers at AA this year? Pretty darn good, Mike. Last time I looked, their team ERA was 4th of 12 teams. But whether the system ranks at the 33rd percentile or the 50th percentile, it's significantly better than so many of you choose to believe. 3. The team is better in the opinion of many, many qualified people. That is a fact. The record? That's a different fact. It doesn't refute these people's opinions. We can disagree here. But the fact you recite isn't conclsive, and the season is only half over, Mike. Your fact may eventually support these opinions. 4. I described a number of pitchers as being "a couple years away". I did not say a year away, or less than a year away, although many, many quaified people would opine that some of them are indeed less than a year away. Gibson, Hendrik, Wimmers, Bromberg, Hermsen, Stuiffbergen, and Darnell would be some that might, yes, might be ready in the next two years. Of course, you can describe all of them as having "low ceilings". Are any of these guys aces? Probably not. But don't miss the point I was making, which is that we are not entering the 1990's, as Jack believes. In addition to those potential starting pitchers, add the following names to the list of prospects we may see stick with the club within the next two years: Gutierrez, Guerra, Oliveros, Robertson, Waldrop, Slama, Parmelee, Hicks, Benson, Herrmann, Tosoni, and Arcia. Many will fail, but some will be "high ceiling, impact players by the definition of a lot of us.

gunarthor, I've served on two different non-profit boards and have witnessed first-hand the generosity of the Pohlad family. They've earned hostility? How, by being hostile themselves? Sure, they've earned criticism, but the outright hostility and name-calling is classless. I'm guessing that the Pohlads, as individuals, give away a higher percentage of their annual income than most of their critics on this blog. And they get called cheap, and much worse, by those people.

Fanatic Jack, have you considered the possibility that YOU are the one distanced from reality. Keep an open mind and hear me out on responding to your argument above: 1. They did NOT "cut payroll". They had gone OVER budget the previous year. But, much more importantly, no on promised you they'd spnd some precise, magical number each year. They promised to spend, ON AVERAGE, roughly 50% of revenue. Now, you think they should have overspent again by signing, say, Cliff Lee. The Twins don't agree with you. Not because they're cheap, but because they don't see the wisdom and value of such a move. Ryan made a bet that Baker, Liriano, Pavano, Marquis, Blackburn, Hendriks, and the myriad of AAAA options in Rochester would work out. He lost the bet. TGhat happens. Who won that Cliff Lee bet? 2. The farm system is hardly in shambles. That's a complete myth, unsupported by the facts. Most pundits rank it as a middle-of-the-road system. Ryan doesn't try to "sell" anything. He in fact has publicly agreed with this assessment. Personally, I think he's being cautious, and that the farm system is already a top third system talent-wise. 3. This team is NOT worse. It's quite dramatically better, although it hasn't shown up on the scoreboard yet. AS the young players like Plouffe, Dozier, Hendriks, Revere, Hendriks, etc. gain experience, the wins will come. 4. This might be 1980 all over again, Jack, not 1990. I'm not comparing Parmelee, Revere, and Plouffe to Hrbek, Puckett, and Gaetti. But there is a strong nucleus of players on the way, and some of them are only a year or so away. And a number of them are starting pitchers with projected ceilings a bit higher than Walters, DeVries, and Diamond. Obviously, many won't pan out but some of these will in the next couple of years: Gibson, Hendriks, Wimmers, Hermsen, Bromberg, Salcedo, and Stuiffbergen are examples. And the low minors is stocked wi9th pitching talent. Check the team ERA's for Beloit, Elizabethton, and Gulf Coast teams. 5. Maybe the dumbest strategy is the one you suggest, which is to compete for the services of the next Barry Zito or Cliff Lee. That is a recipe for an unsustainable future. Building up the farm system is the right move, and progress is being made. You just don't see it, and you don't have the patience for it. And remember, the revenue stream they enjoy now has only been in place for what, three years? 6. Lastly, you're a Pohlad hater. An unbecoming trait, Jack. But you do have plenty of company out there. It's easy to hate the money that ain't yours to spend, isn't it?