Mr. Brooks

I couldn't disagree more. For his career, Pelfrey has a below average ERA+. He's at best a #4 on a bad team, or a #5 on a good team. The goal should be to get better. How can you get better by just bringing back the same cast from 90 loss teams? Same argument as Morneau, I don't get how bringing back the same cast of characters makes you better. Here is how you get better. 2014: Sign a #2 or #3 (Lincecum, Johnson, Hughes or Tanaka), promote Gibson to rotation. Promote May and Meyer sometime after the ASB. 2015: Sign or trade for a #1 or #2. Promote Berrios sometime after ASB. By mid 2015, this gives you a rotation of: #1/#2 signed/traded for in 2015 Meyer #2/#3 signed this winter Gibson Berrios/May That still leaves you with the Deduno, Hendriks, Diamond, Worley cast to choose from for depth if someone struggles or get hurts. You will also have Kohl Stewart, Stephen Gonsalves, Ryan Eades, and a few other prospects (possibly our 2014 top 6 pick), knocking on the door by then too. Tell me where Pelfrey fits into this rotation if you sign him to a long term contract? And even if you don't have faith that Ryan will sign any significant FA arms, he still doesn't fit here by mid 2015. Diamond is not as good as he was in 2012, but he's not as bad as he was this year either. Even with no upgrades, you could have this rotation by mid 2015: Meyer Gibson Berrios May Diamond/Worley/Deduno And you still have Stewart, Gonsalves, Eades, etc. knocking on the door. Unless all of our pitching prospects fail, I just can't see any scenario where we are not regretting years 2+ of any long term deal given to Pelfrey.

To me, that is exactly why Hicks should be in LF. There is much more ground to cover in LF than RF, and LF is going to get nearly 2x the chances as RF (nearly twice as many RH hitters as LH hitters). I want Hicks range in LF, there is nothing wrong with Arcia's arm. How many more runners would get to 3rd on Arcia as opposed to Hicks? Maybe 4 or 5 per season? That is far too infrequent of an event to be worth wasting Hicks range in RF, IMO.

I don't think that is fair. Let me start by saying I still think Hicks will be a starting MLB player, but the part I bolded is going quite a ways off the deep end. I think the people most critical of him would have expected him to struggle, but he went far beyond just struggling. He was so downright awful, that it is understandable to have concerns going forward.

I just don't believe that he can be signed on a 1 year deal. If you have to sign him to a multi year deal, than this portion of your argument becomes less relevant.

From 1967 to the present, if the player with the highest average in a league fails to meet the minimum plate-appearance requirement, the remaining at-bats until qualification (e.g., 5 ABs, if the player finished the season with 497 plate appearances) are hypothetically considered hitless at-bats; if his recalculated batting average still tops the league, he is awarded the title. This is officially called Rule 10.22(a), but it is also known as the Tony Gwynn rule because the Padres' legend won the batting crown in 1996 with a .353 average on just 498 plate appearances (i.e., was four shy). Gwynn was awarded the title since he would have led the league even if he'd gone 0-for-4 in those missing plate appearances. His average would have dropped to .349, five points better than second-place Ellis Burks' .344.[8] In 2012, a one-time amendment to the rule was made to disqualify Melky Cabrera from the title. Cabrera requested that he be disqualified after serving a suspension that season for a positive testosterone test. He had batted .346 with 501 plate appearances, and the original rule would have awarded him the title over San Francisco Giants teammate Buster Posey, who won batting .336.[9][10] Batting average - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't you say it was silly to cite someones defensive struggles during their first 80 MLB games, when discussing Dozier, but now have already concluded that Arcia is a poor defender?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply saying lets not get too attached to a recent 11 game stretch.

What about the other 4 seasons?

Arm strength is a bit overrated IMO. Not in the sense that it doesn't have value, but in the sense that range should override arm strength, IMO. Left field plays much bigger than right field at Target Field, and left field will also get more chances than right field against most lineups (more RH hitters than LH hitters). To me, Hicks range has more value in LF than his arm does in RF. Plus, it's not like Arcia has a noodle. No, it's not as strong as Hicks, but it's capable for RF.

And where does Sano play?

Any of the good QB's in the NFL would eat defenses alive with AD, a top 5 offensive line, a pro bowl TE, a proven possession receiver like Jennings, and talented (though admittedly unproven) weapons like Patterson, Simpson, and Wright. Maybe it's unfair, maybe he was a reach at #12, but fair or not, there are expectations of a QB taken #12 overall. If you just want a game manager, take a guy in rd 2, or trade down to the bottom half of the 1st round. If you take a guy 12 overall, he should be a top 15 QB, AT LEAST, by his 3rd year starting. And yes, he does have the weapons to do that. How would you compare our "weapons" to the weapons that SEA and SF had on offense last year? Kap and Russel Wilson both had breakout years with as much or less weapons on offense, both were drafted as recently or sooner than Ponder, and neither were drafted as high as Ponder.

Maybe because 11 games is a pretty small sample size. Wouldn't you rather take a career worth of data over 11 games?

He is a Scott Boras client. Assuming he stays healthy and pitches like he is right now for another 3 weeks, he's not signing a 2 year deal. Do you really want to lock yourself into Mike Pelfrey for 4 or 5 years? I don't.

If he's only the 17th best QB in the NFL, he should get the blame. That is simply not good enough for a #12 overall pick in his 3rd year starting, and with the weapons we've surrounded him with.

No, it wasn't that recent. It was Lance Odom. I was right that he was once in the Twins system, but no longer was at the time he caught the jitters. He was in the Twins system from 99 to 2000, never got higher than Low A ball. He then bounced around the Independent league for a few years, before this happened, it was literally his last pitch as a pro:

There are managers in baseball who use their best relief pitcher in a tie game in the 9th, rather than save him for a situation that might not arise. I agree there are too many who automatically defer their "closer" to save situations only, but that shouldn't give Gardy a free pass on it. Like the saying all of our mothers told us, "if your friend jumps off a bridge...."

The following comment is always made, when regarding whether to let Gardy go after the year: "Gardy has no talent to work with, the W/L record is not his fault." It's really not meant to be inflammatory, there are plenty of posters in here who have that stance.

I did not tell you that you were wrong. I simply asked a question.

Gardy once again saves his best relief pitcher for a made up situation which might never arise, rather than pitch him in the most obvious high leverage situation. Again, someone explain to me how Gardy has no bearing on the results?

It's amazing how often the wild pitch on an intentional walk happens in the minors. Several years ago there was a pitcher in the Twins organization who caught the jitters and could no longer find the zip code of the the home plate area. He threw a 'walk off' wild pitch on an intentional walk, and literally never threw another pitch of pro ball again. Someone help me out with his name?

If they only wanted a backup for emergency purpouses, and weren't going to actually play him unless Ponder gets hurt, they could have signed any number of much cheaper backup QB's. I don't think you can judge the current regime based on how Chilly handled his QB situation. I was critical of Spielman originally, but I think at this point he deserves some credit. He's assembled a pretty good roster here, with some pretty shrewd moves, and I give him way too much credit to think he's just going to throw it away because he will have blinders on regarding "his" QB. The Vikings consider themselves a contender. If Ponder is as bad as your numbers, he will be replaced after the bye.

Maybe he's trolling you? I don't read a lot of his stuff, because I refuse to pay for Insider. But I do know for a fact that he knows baseball.

I disagree. This is the great thing about the NFL. There are no "scholarships" , as there sometimes are in MLB. Ponder has no excuse this season. It's his 3rd season, and he has plenty of weapons. The best RB in football, a top 5 offensive line, a good veteran receiver who WILL get open (last year one of the prevailing excuses was that nobody was ever open, which is a pretty big indictment on the coaching staff, if true, considering that AD draws 8 and 9 in the box, meaning single coverage on every play), a top 10 TE, and couple of young weapons who both have a chance to be very good at their specific roles (Patterson as an explosive deep threat, and Wright as a poor man's Harvin). Mediocrity will not be accepted this year. Ponder will need to take a significant step forward this year, or his career in Purple is over.

If he's allowed to start 14 games with those awful numbers, I would ask why we signed Matt Cassel?

Maybe not in contention, but they would sure help a lot. Cuddyer in RF adds 2.3 wins. Span in CF adds 2.4 wins. I won't add Revere, because he was making the league minimum, so obviously you can't even make an argument that he was a salary dump. Nathan in the bullpen adds 2.0 wins. Liriano in the rotation adds 3.1 wins. That is 10 wins right there, which gets us to .500 or above, or the "meaningful" games in September that Terry Ryan claimed we'd be playing.