Mr. Brooks

Well then I think you are taking it out of context. It didn't seem to me he was using the "top 10" to rip Mauer, but to point out that he's not quite the doubles machine that cmat was suggesting, as opposed to singles where he was more frequently in the top 10.

I think you misread his post Jerr. He didn't say, "Mauer only finished in the top 10." He said, "Mauer only finished in the top 10 one year."

I'm not even sure what this means, or how it relates.

And yet some on this board are almost dismissive of the speed tool. I've always wished there was some kind of adjusted OPS to take into account the additional bases that a guy with this kind of speed are able to take.

But not always. To assume that the poster he quoted is too stupid to know the difference between the PA's where he gets a couple good pitches but manages to coax a 7 or 8 pitch walk, and the obvious pitch arounds is pretty arrogant.

The first 2 sentances seem to contradict themselves. Often times the first pitch meatball down the middle is going to be the most hittable pitch he's going to get.

Really? Then what does this mean? You'd rather he swung at bad pitches in the hope that...he accidentally got a hit?

LOL, someone please make a gif of the look on Molina's face after he makes a perfect throw to second base and doesnt come close to throwing him out.

It's almost as absurd as the idea that Mauer doesn't get a single hittable pitch in any of his plate appearances that result in a walk. I don't think anyone is asking him to swing at a bad pitch instead of taking a walk.

Typical "Stohsie" laughing off, disregarding, and not taking seriously any question that is even remotely critical of the Twins front office. Thank you Jeremy for taking the question more seriously. I thought your take on the question was pretty solid, even if I disagree with some of it.

I tend to fall into the Mauer "apologist" category, but here are a couple things that have really bothered me. 1) The way the whole bi lateral leg weakness bizarro injury was handled. As someone has pointed out before, he could have simply taken 5 to 10 minutes to issue a press release, or sit down with a local reporter every now and again, instead of all these bizarre explanations that were coming out of the organization. 2) "The Bunt" Others have touched on this a little bit. "The bunt" was only one snapshot in time, but what it represents is a pattern of unwillingness at times for Mauer to embrace the "leadership" role. I'm not saying Mauer should be a "rah rah" leader, if he's not that person, he can't do it. Period. People would know it was phony and it would backfire. But, that said, he also can't ONLY lead by example. Not everyone has his talent, so simply going out there and being great at getting on base is not leadership. It makes him a great player, but it's not leadership. What he could do to show leadership is try to put the game on his shoulders at times, instead of being so willing to take a walk, or lay down a bunt, and pass that responsibility onto the next guy. Early in the game, sure, I want Joe getting on base any chance he can and let the chips fall where they may. Late in the game, I don't want my best hitter coaxing a walk. 3) He just wants to be an "average joe". The contract doesn't bother me ONE BIT. At the time he signed it I thought it was a fair deal. I disagree with those who say he gave us a discount, but I also don't expect him to. But what does bother me is his extreme naivety regarding the consequences of signing such a big contract. Fair or not, you no longer get to be "just another one of the guys" after you sign that deal. He seems dumbfounded that the press goes to HIM when things arent going well. He seems irritated that his tip amount at a restaurant is going to hit Twitter. I also disagree with cmat who earlier said that Joe works as hard as anyone in the offseason. I've never gotten that impression at all, and in fact I'm quite sure I've often heard quotes from his saying he hasn't/hadn't done much baseball activity over the winter. He's never struck me as a guy with a Torii Hunter like, extreme offseason conditioning program.

Are you talking about the same Gardy that I've seen place almost zero emphasis on defense the last 5 years?

These guys are very young, and in many cases immature. I'm not giving the organization a free pass on giving up on Sulbaran just because he showed up "out of shape". 1) Pitchers don't necessarily need to be in great shape to be good at their job. Take David Wells for example. He put up very good numbers last year, why not give him an opportunity to do it again, and if it starts to look like his performance is bothered by his weight or conditioning, address it then? 2) We are just going to bail on our prospects every time they don't do exactly what the organization asks them to in the offseason? Eddie Rosario, allegedly, cares more about getting high than he does his baseball career. Are we just going to bail on him as well? Not being able to make the CR rotation was not because of his performance, he pitched great last year. If the organization couldn't find a spot for him, that is on them, he couldn't have done much more last year to earn a spot somewhere this year. I'm not saying this will be another one, but this organization is starting to develop a track record of giving away talent in head scratching trades. Ramos for Capps, Garza for Delmon, Gomez for Hardy for Hoey, Liriano for Escobar, etc.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the Nunez trade. I view it as another example of the Twins being cheap. Here is why: If they really want to upgrade the SS position, just go out and sign Drew. Sure, you'd have to overspend, and I know it's easy to say when its not my money. But, I fail to see how overspending on him would hurt in any other way then perhaps philosophically (having a "price" and sticking to it). If there is one thing that we supposedly have (according to ownership) it is payroll flexibility. Yes we (hopefully) have some promising players coming up soon that will eventually need to get paid, but almost none of those players are even up yet, meaning they won't be due big money for 4 to 6 years. We could easily bite the bullet and "overpay" for Drew on a 3 year deal, and it wouldn't hamper our mid to long term payroll outlook. Nunez is, at best, only a marginal upgrade over Florimon. Sulbaran is a good (maybe not great) prospect. He's about the range of prospect you would expect to get with the 2nd round pick that you'd have to forfeit to sign Drew. So basically, for the same value of prospect you can either have a marginal upgrade (Nunez), or a significant upgrade (Drew). Tell me why I'm wrong to think this. Thanks.

Great read. If only every baseball player worked as hard at their craft as Cola seems to. I'm not sure what will eventually become of Chris Colabello, but I know that I'll be rooting for him along the way, whether that be in Target Field, Korea, or the beer leagues.

I'd be curious to hear your argument why they wouldn't deal Deduno? He's 30 years old, and if he can't crack the rotation this year, when will he? We will have to make room for at least one, and hopefully both, of Meyer/May within the next year. After that you have the Stewart/Berrios/Thorpe/Gonsalves wave coming up. I believe Deduno has previously been removed from the 40 man, and every team in the league passed up the opportunity to take him for nothing, so I think if someone decides to offer you anything of substance for him, it'd be silly to pass it up.

And Perkins cost us a game blowing a save that an average closer is able to close. They play 162 for a reason, this isnt football. In baseball even the best players will fail often. Plouffe isn't a great player, but at his salary he doesn't need to be, but come on, he can't be league average because he will make some errors?

End of April to mid May sounds fine to me, I was fearing the answers were going to be later than that. Outside of hoping he gains trade value though, I guess I don't understand why Burton should have such a long leash. Sure, he was pretty good in '12, but he wasn't very good last year, and his career numbers are pretty mediocre, at best. On top of that his age means its unlikely he'll be a significant part of our next contending team, where as Tonkin hopefully will be.

I'm aware of the rule, it was a rhetorical question, because Seth insisted he's not our 3rd catcher.

I would think that would be a no brainer. Where on our prospect spectrum do you consider Eades vs. Sulburan? I'd think most people have them fairly close. Eades a little bit higher perhaps, but consider that we got Sulburan for Drew Butera. A non top 100 prospect by himself doesn't get you very much on the trade market.

You only consider Drew a "minimal" offensive improvement over Florimon?

While that may be true, it does at least allow Pinto to pinch hit without the fear of losing the DH, does it not?

DISCLAIMER: I UNDERSTAND WE ARE ONLY 6 GAMES INTO THE SEASON. I UNDERSTAND SMALL SAMPLE SIZES ARE IN PLAY. I AM NOT MAKING, NOR ATTEMPTING TO MAKE ANY "BROAD", "SWEEPING", OR "FINAL" CONCLUSIONS. (IT'S SAD THAT I HAVE TO POST THIS DISCLAIMER SIMPLY BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS BASEBALL BEFORE JUNE) So given the bad performances we've seen so far from the pen, how soon do you think we could possibly see a move? And who do you think would be the first one up? Tonkin looked great during his call up last year, looked even better in ST, and he just threw another 2 hitless innings with a 2:0 K/BB ratio today. I was a little (only a little though) surprised he didn't make the club out of ST, given Antony's comments about guys stepping up and winning a job. Of course, in hindsight those comments seem a little hollow given some of the players we did take north. If he keeps putting up numbers in AAA, and guys in the MLB pen keep struggling, how soon do you think we could see a move? I'd really like to see him up here.

Well if you want to wait a couple of months to evaluate his bat, that is fine I guess, (though I'm not sure what else he has left to show you), however bear in mind that at that point Drew is no longer an option. If they target Drew it would have to be soon, because the closer it gets to the draft, the harder it will be to sign him.

Yeah, that is a good point. I hadn't really thought about it that way.