mikelink45

Interesting. Not exciting, but at least another name to talk about. They have enough players they can drop that I do not worry about that. Checking stats - the ERA number for the last two years are amazing. Why? His career numbers are really pedestrian - who are we getting? http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/belisma01.shtml

Since Haley represents our big pitching acquisition I would sure like to see him better than prospect 21 in a mediocre farm system ranking.

Okay we will be better. We will lose 90 instead of 103. what good is that? Our best chance for improvement is with our young batters, but if they had been better last year we would still have been last. It is the pitchers and better framing does not put new arms on the same old players.

It is all about approach to pitching. We used to expect 200 innings, it was not an elusive goal, but we began a dramatic shift and what confuses my old mine is that we seem to have more arm injuries in the five man rotation, less inning years than I remember from the 4 man, complete game period. Here are the yearly total innings pitched leaders - note Mr. Blyleven with 271 in 1986 after 293 innings in 1985, and Jack Morris with 293 in 1983. And from 1980 to the beginning of baseball the leaders were routinely getting 300+ of close to it. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/IP_leagues.shtml This Grantland article asks what is happening and starts with: Tommy John surgeries are ripping through baseball at a faster pace than ever before. Twenty-five percent of active MLB pitchers have had the procedure, which reconstructs a pitcher’s torn ulnar collateral ligament, as have 15 percent of current minor league pitchers. Last season was particularly distressing: More pitchers had the surgery in 2014 than in the entirety of the 1990s. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/tommy-john-epidemic-elbow-surgery-glenn-fleisig-yu-darvish/ I must emphasize that this is Tommy John related and now we are seeing a new series of injuries which have not had an operation developed to get them back on the mound. Jeff Passan wrote the book ARM and was on NPR in an interview that I found interesting: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/31/472541597/injuries-increase-as-pitchers-throw-harder-faster-and-younger but none of these answer the question - why didn't we have this many injuries prior to 1980 when pitchers threw more? Of course there were some, but it does not register for me that the numbers match what we have today. I tried to find stats, but could not. Anyway, I find this whole discussion to be interesting and puzzling.

I responded to Brock who questioned my position and I will share with you (a kindred spirit) with this list of Twins wins and losses http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/history/year_by_year_results.jsp and wonder how many stars we can pluck out of this history. I know we have had players like Steve Carlton come on the roster for a short time past their prime, but while they are MLB HOF they did not do enough with the Twins to be on the local HOF. Thanks for your comment.

How many of the recipients can you name? I can't and they do not hang as banners on the lamp posts. I am not mad about this, but I know that every year there will be 1 or 2 more and I cannot see that a team with the record that we have had since I ushered in 1961 has that many stars - http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/history/year_by_year_results.jsp If they choose to add more names I will be fine, just like I look at the MLB HOF and cringe at some of the names I will wonder what it takes to be a Twins HOF member. In the long run it is just something to write about while I wait for the season.

I am not impressed by the Twins Hall of Fame. I am a small hall advocate for Cooperstown and when I look at the quality of the total Twin inductees I shiver. We do not have to have HOF inductees, but if we are just going to name nice guys who once played for the Twins we need to change the designation from Hall of Fame to memorable guys.

I remember the long ago Go-Go White Sox with Nellie Fox and Aparicio starring on a team that featured speed, pitching and most importantly fielding. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-go-go-white-sox-flashback-0914-20140914-story.html Yes they lost to the Dodgers in Four, but the point is that fielding matters. With a very weak batting line up they were still able to win. I would add the Baltimore Orioles who were known for Great pitching, home runs and defense. Contrast Mark Belanger who could not hit at all, but could field at SS next to Brooks Robinson who was a wall at 3B with the potential of Polanco and Sano. Paul Blair wandered the outfield and caught everything. Weaver balanced his slugging, fielding and pitching to create one of the best World Series winners. I know that not every great fielding team wins the World Series, but I also know that great fielding and pitching teams do not lose 100 games.

Nicely done - I will say that optimism brings us to 95 losses. Your points are really valid. There is a reason that Santana was available to us when he was a FA. Dozier is someone I really want to continue his upward direction, but he is in his 30s, he has only been good 1/2 of each of the last two seasons. I had such high hopes for both Buxton and Berrios that I have reduced the team losses because I think they will turn things around this year. Finally - thank you for questioning the Castro effect. I do believe that framing is not going to make this a good pitching staff and his reputation is going to take a hit. In fact I do not trust the framing stats as they are currently. Throwing strikes really does beat stealing them. His bat is weak and we might be saying - I wish we had Suzuki at bat - a few times this season. Nice essay.

Disappointment is the only word I can apply. Nothing against Dozier although I still fear his next slump. And nothing for De Leon - I know nothing about him, except what I read in the TD posts. What I wanted to see was the FO making some things happen. So far nothing that gets me excited for the 2017 season or the next from FO change. I am still waiting and hoping.

The FO duo may have needed some time, but we hired experienced people and they had an opportunity for some evening reading to get ready for their new job. I cannot judge how good they will be because so far I have not had anything to indicate trends, errors, or good decisions. Unlike most I am not enamored with Castro. I am fine, we need a catcher and I am glad he is better defensively than Suzuki, but so far he brings us to 100 instead of 103 losses. Hughes and Perkins and Gibson come back with another level of competence and we are at 93 losses. The no-names we added to the team through rule 5 and FA signings have to shine in a shocking way and suddenly we are only a 91 loss team. After the last six years this is not enough. Remember we had to have a new stadium to compete. The state did their part now its time for the Twins to step up and do theirs.

What we needed, but could not do is get rid of excess, clear the decks, allow the young players to move up and if they are not ready get one year fill ins, but not more DH/1B, no more catchers. I would love to see a true 3B and Sano as DH and Mauer on the bench for spot starts, and if it is Vargas or Park at 1B for defensive substitution.

I went to Baseball Reference to look at Hughes ten years of service. He has a total 12.3 WAR and average of 1.23 per year. His big year with the Twins gave him 4.3 - tax that away and his remaining 9 years of service with an 8 WAR does not give me a reliable pattern to have great hopes after an injury year. His 10 year average is 8 wins and 7 losses and many of those years were with the Yankees and much superior supporting players. Career Years are difficult. They raise expectations and contracts, but are seldom repeatable even without injury recovery. We still have him under contract through the Mauer years so we will look at some way to use him. I would love to be wrong, I would love to have the stats wrong and show me that a pitcher in his 30s with a major surgery and a mediocre track record can be a star!

I am sorry to say that I believe his HOF chances are gone and each of the years he has played since moving from catcher have cost him more votes. It is a shame, but the vote should look at a career. A couple of past the prime years are okay, but we are moving to a point where he will have half a career well below his standards. The injuries took their toll and that is regrettable. The money belongs to Polhad so I could care less. With a payroll at $70million when you remove the three high paid and injured players we have not invested enough where it counts. Other teams have big contracts that they regret because most sign them when they have already peaked. Mauer was at his peak and the investment did not look as bad. However, having made a bad investment the team compounded the error by not building a team and writing off the bad debt. That is on owners and FO not on the player.

I know that is true, but how many of those teams have had an equivalent six years and a promise of change?

I would label this year the winter of Dozier. We do not talk about Santana, we have Free Agent signings that make us go to Baseball with a "who the hell are these guys" search and so we make a daily hope that there can be something of interest to speculate or debate. This has been one boring off season. Let's hope, somehow, that the season gives us something a little more interesting to think about.

If the FO peeks in at TD and all our comments I hope that they see that the Vogelsongs and other Old Vets and mediocre talents are not lighting up our eyes. We are going to lose unless the young take charge and move forward so lets move on and get the youth here. Let them learn hard lessons and establish themselves in the bigs. I am not seeing any real direction yet, so I hope it is something that will be unveiled in ST. But lets move on from the current rotation, adding age to the BP, keeping Santana and others we see no future for. At least we can enjoy the excitement of the youth playing hard and getting lit up a few times with hopes that these are just growing pains and not a continuation of mediocrity.

Make it Two - if DeLeon has the potential that seems to be indicated then Dozier is expendable. 42 home runs meant 103 losses. Losing him might have meant 106 if 4 WAR is correct and his replacement would not have helped win any game. Big deal. DeLeon is a pitcher and pitching wins games more than batting. I would do it straight up. We really cannot lose in this even if we eventually seen Dozier in the HOF.

I do not believe the Twins will or should do this. The only value of this little exercise is to give us something besides Dozier to talk about - can he pitch? I would rather see us clear the glut of almost good DH/1B that we already have.

I am a small hall guy and would actually like to have an election to remove or down grade some of those who are in. I am bothered by Bonds and Clemens, as much for their attitude as their acts so I probably would not vote for them, but I would not object either. Bonds upped his production which never fell off, Clemens on the other hand had lost his luster and Boston was not anxious to keep him. He had a second career, and as good as his first career was, it is his second, enhanced career that makes him the All Time Great. Bagwell, Rodriquez, Walker, Raines - yes (I like their defense and I keep seeing too much emphasis just on offensive statistics) Sosa, like McGwire was an interesting blip in the offensive fireworks, but before that no one saw him as HOF, neither were defensive giants, and unlike Bonds did not have anything to really boost them into the Hall without their steroid bombs. No to both.

Good posting. I think that your points are very good. Mussina was always good, just not great, not the ace, not the pitcher you had to have for a big game. He played on good teams and he filled his role, but I do not think he made the teams better.

So glad you posted this. It is very accurate. A bloody sock does not get you in to the hall - Jack Morris had a world series game that needed no gimmick and won more games (yes I still like victories - it might not be the same now, but when pitchers went more than 5 innings it was their game). He is a blow hard, but so were many athletes - but when Jack cannot make it Curt should definitely be on the outside looking in.

Boshers - B, nice story, but not an A reliever. Chargois - C. Nice that he had a decent finish, but the grade has to include the entire season. Kintzler - completely agree. May - I am in the minority, but May has been too inconsistent in any role when you look at his abilities. I give him a D for the year. He needs to stay healthy and consistent. O'Rourke - I am fine with his grade based on what his talent is, but if he is going to be used like last year he is a C. Which leads me to hope you will be giving grades to the Twins Coaches and front office in your next posting. Pressly - you said, good not great - I believe you were describing a C pitcher. Rogers - once again your comments call for a grading of coaches. Tonkin - F. Lots of potential, a long minor league record, poor results. It is fun to think about this grading system and you do a really nice job. My grade adjustments are just for my own entertainment and not a criticism. Please keep doing this. As someone who must give out grades I enjoy seeing how the process extends to the Twins. And how would the curve look if we graded them against the division, the league and MLB?

You could be right on this and if he were with the Pirates, for example, they would hav coached him and built on the talents he does have. But for grading purposes you have to look at what did happen.

Yes - they have to stick with Berrios, but you are right he is an F and so is Duffey and Gibson. Duffey may have some value with his fabulous curve ball but the team needs to know how to use it and he still has the same pitching coach! Gibson has been around to long to excuse his performance and give him anything more than an F - how many winning teams would have had him in their rotation? Yes - Hughes is an F and like the three above him the same pitching coach who got so much out of him last year is still there. I was really hoping Hughes would keep some value after his amazing standout season. Santana is an A - I know he is mid-rotation on another team, but it does not lessen the contributions that he made to this outrageous contingent. The fact that Santiago had a decent 7 game streak after learning to ignore the suggestions of the Twins coach gives him a C- in my grading system. Now ideally 2017 will see us trade Santana even though he is by far the best on the roster and bring in some more minor league strength and hopefully Gibson and Santiago will get off to a decent start and we will flip them too. Hughes, with his contract, will remain ours. By the second half of 2017 I hope to see a very young rotation and improved coaching so we can really build all our young players for a break out 2018. I am not interested in a .500 team even though that would seem to be a big improvement.