Steve Lein

Sweet! It's a high-energy intro that kinda amps me up, looks like it might be doing the same for you! Keep it up man, you guys are doing great!

Haven't yet tried out OOTP, but have played Baseball Mogul for a while (Sports Mogul Inc.). I'd guess they're very similar, though OOTP looks quite a bit more refined as far as presentation. What song did you pick for your at-bat music this year, A.J.? Atmosphere "YGM"?!?! q;)

Forget the all time FSL HR leader, just compare Sano to the Twins leader the last 5 years in the FSL: 2013: Miguel Sano - 9 HR in 21 games (91 PA's). Current League (and all of MiLB) Leader 2012: Lance Ray - 13 HR in 108 games (426 PA's). League Leader: 24 2011: Oswaldo Arcia - 8 HR in 59 games (227 PA's), Danny Rams - 8 HR in 87 games (342 PA's. League Leader: 26. 2010: Nate Hanson - 11 HR in 110 games (455 PA's). League Leader: 21. 2009: Chris Parmelee - 16 HR in 123 games (501 PA's). League Leader: 18. 2008: Wison Ramos - 13 HR in 126 games (500 PA's). League Leader: 29. This is truly special "raw" and "in-game" power as far as the history of Twins prospects are concerned. If you project Sano to 500 PA's based on his numbers now, that equals 49.5 HR's over the full season (probably not likely to happen, but look at those league leader numbers, nobody even close to that). 3 times as many as any other prospect in the FSL the last 5 years. The most since 2005? Brock Peterson with 21. If we compare him to some of the current or former Twins stars: Morneau hit 4 with the miracle in 53 games (20 years old), Mauer hit 1 in 62 games (20 years old), Kubel hit 5 in 116 games (21 years old). Sano turns 20 on May 11th. The FSL has certainly held down power numbers, but they can't contain Sano!!! Just a further sidenote, Eddie Rosario is still hitting great, but I hope those who were comparing him to Sano as HR-hitting prospects, now acknowledge the differences.

I think Sano's going to be fine at 3B while he's young. He looked ten-fold better at 3B this Spring Training than last, and believe it or not, he's abnormally athletic for his size, which helps him in that regard. And I think 1B would be a vast waste of what he can do defensively, so I'd keep him there until he's the worst defender at the position in all of baseball (if such a thing might happen), then I'd try him in RF before ever sending him toward 1B.

Love this, John. I've been on an almost permanent vacation from blogging due to lack of time (trying to change that), but I remember when I started blogging going through the same things as discussed here. I'd promote my posts on places like Twitter and Facebook, and daily page views would be around 25-40 (probably all family and friends). Then through persistence and dedication, this number started rising, and the website I wrote for (now defunct) made progress getting our stories out there through things like Google News. Then Seth also noticed, and was gracious enough to ask me if I'd like to be on a panel of writers for a series of Minor League Prediction posts he was putting together. This was awesome for me (thanks again for that Seth!). After those developments the page view number rose significantly. Every once in a while I get asked by people who know I've blogged before, if I had any advice for them because they wanted to start. I always went back to what my Creative Writing teachers and professors said: "Writers write, if you want to be one, you have to work on your craft." With enough time and topics, people will notice! And this site is a great tool for that.

Got to see Arcia in a bunch of the ST games last week. He definitely looked behind the curve due to the injury. K'd in over half the plate appearances I saw, and pretty much all of them were ugly at-bats. It was as a bit disappointing, but not all that unexpected given the circumstances. Hopefully he gets caught up fast hitting wise, looked fine out in RF.

I love Kepler as a prospect. He is the guy I'm looking forward to watching again the most next week while I'm down at Spring Training.

From Mackey's chat the other day: "Comment From Scott Does Ryan not care about the service time with HIcks by having come north with the team vs. leaving him in Rochester for 6 weeks to push back his clock? [TABLE] http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/avitars/phpwjkHkuPMac1500armscrossed.jpg Honestly, the service clock thing isn't a huge deal. Teams hold players back to make sure they don't become arbitration-eligible after their second year, which really only saves a couple millions bucks in many cases. " [/TABLE]

I wonder if they are constructing their lineup, with all the talent they have, to in effect go 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3. So in this scenario, Mauer is a leadoff guy?!

I know you have a personal hatred of me, but salary in 5 or 6 years just isn't going to matter to the extent the Twins should be worrying about it more than putting their best team out there day 1. Depending on if the player is "good" or "not good," that will get taken care of on the Twins own terms. As in, they'll sign them to an extension they are comfortable with before those final years ever come up (because he's "good"), or they'll just ride it out and cut their losses because they're not spending an inordinate amount of money on the guy anyway (because he's "not good"). Drew Butera is getting more money this year because he's a Super Two, but are we complaining he's overpaid? (no, because he falls into the "not good" player category and we don't really care) Furthermore, are we complaining we didn't end up keeping Liriano? Casilla? ("not good" players) Would we have been pissed if they lost Mauer? Morneau? Cuddyer? Baker? or Span because of this?! ("good" players) Connect the dots. It's not that complicated. Certainly not to the extent you believe when attempting to belittle my opinions on the subject, and is exactly what Phil Mackey is getting at in that chat quoted earlier.

I'm in the camp that no matter how good or bad your team is supposed to be in the upcoming season, you bring the best players north to start the year, no matter if they are a rookie without a single MLB at-bat or a 42-year-old-pure-pinch-hitter/DH. Because while we might say that the outlook is bleak, there are plenty of times where that doesn't end up the case, and if you don't have that "best team" to start the year, you might shortchange yourself. And as for the quote, I also have a big problem with the "starting their clocks early" thinking. The reason being, if the player is ready and has shown or demonstrated that he is the best option, explain to me exactly how that clock is starting "early"? They are ready, so let them go play. This is obviously open for interpretation when it comes to Hicks and Gibson, but I think at this point they are showing they can handle it, as evidenced my the MLB team managers comments related to the two.

That's EXACTLY what I'm getting at... For those "good" players (I've used that specific term in every post I've written about this), the "team-control" always get's taken care of before those 6 years are up, so it's essentially a non-issue.

Me too, and is exactly what I'm getting at with all my "misinformed ravings" about why I think "team control" is a non-issue. It just takes care of itself in so many different ways... My whole whole idea is that the 5, 6, or 7 years of "Team Control" from "MLB service time" scenarios (this is not the same thing as an "extension" in my world) are never going to factor in for good players. If a "good" player is getting to those late years and they don't want to spend the money they will need to to keep them, the team will trade them instead of losing something for nothing (see Shields, James). If they're a guy a team has determined is worth it and wants to keep, they buy out those years (see Twins, numerous). If a player isn't all that good, they just get let go (see Casilla, Alexi). Fact is, if it takes you 6 or 7 years to determine that a guy is worth keeping beyond that "team-control" time-frame, they probably aren't...

Aaaaaand, Thankyou Nick.

If you are retaining a "Major League starter for less money and/or additional years" through the arbitration/team-control process, that means that player isn't doing as well as you want as an MLB player. Arbitration does not keep salary down for good players, it inflates it rather rapidly (Look at Buster Posey, he is "Super 2," and his 1st year of arbitration eligibility got himself $8MIL, up from about 615K). I still feel the "team control" stuff that is always brought up is the dumbest argument anywhere on this site. If a player is good enough, those 5th or 6th years of "team control" aren't ever going to factor in, they will get an extension (or they'll get traded because the price is too high). There are numerous examples of Twins players where this has happened. You can also look at the players who do make it to that 5th or 6th year of "team control." You will notice that they are middling players that you hope will come around and show they deserve a longer-term commitment. The Twins, as far as I can tell, only have 2 players with contracts through Arbitration for this season, and their names are Brian Duensing and Drew Butera. A middle-reliever and backup-backup-catcher. Not exactly key pieces for the future.

I'm assuming you mean Weighted-On-Base-Average, which Joe fares pretty well in (as does every .300+ hitter), he is above average in that. But what it doesn't do is measure how good a guy is at "producing" runs by himself or when the opportunity presents itself (hitting HR's, men-on-base, etc...), it measure's that players own contribution to the potential for "scoring" a run himself (if I understand it right). Take Adam Dunn. Last year his batting average was .115 pts lower than Mauer's, but his wOBA is only .030 points lower... Joe also is one of the best OBP guys in the league, but that hurts his value as a run-producer as well. There is only one situation where a walk can score a run, and it's a pretty rare one. If I'm comparing these primary #3 hitters with high OBP's (.370+, there are 12 of them) to their wOBA, Mauer's is on the low end (he beats only 2 of them, and not by much). And this is while he led the league in OBP. It's very interesting stuff to see the data you can pull looking at this stuff. One final stat of note I've found, is the "average" primary #3 hitter grounded into 11.5 double plays on the year. Joe had 23. Ironically, the only guy with more than Joe, was your AL MVP, Miguel Cabrera (with 28). And even though I'm pulling all this data, I do agree with you, as much as I'd like to see Mauer hit #2, he's still probably the best fit on this team for #3. Only way I see it differently is If Morneau is raking, 'cause then it's him.

Just an FYI - I've been doing a lot of research for an article I've been writing, which is basically about Joe Mauer vs. the rest of the #3 hitters in baseball (He's not nearly as good in this regard as you think) that I may or may not ever finish. For this, I have a spread sheet with all the primary #3 hitters for each team in the league last year. The results of that show your statement is flat out not true (and I assume is the same for almost all other years). The "average" slugging percentage of primary #3 hitters last year was .489, Joe Mauer was .446. "Average" amount of HR's was 23.03, Mauer had 10. And If I do a little more math instead of taking a straight "average", the slugging percentage of primary #3 hitters across the league last year was .491. Now, he does come out above average in a lot of other categories, but he's not nearly the same level of run producer (which a #3 hitter should be) as most others. And since you brought up slugging percentage, the only primary #3 hitters Mauer beat last year in this category were: Justin Upton, Jason Kipnis, Brett Wallace, Alex Rodriguez, Chase Utley, and Kyle Seager. That's only 6 out of the 29 other players. And thanks Nick for agreeing with me about "best roster" going north and how 6 years down the line shouldn't come into the thought process!

I think you need to temper what your definition of "above average" defense is a bit. In Arcia's case, everything I see and read says he has enough arm for RF, but not really a "cannon," and will not impress anyone with his range or speed. Having the arm is nice, but we all know it has a far less impact on outfield defense than actually being able to run down fly balls. I'd put exactly "average" as his peak (which is to say if everything develops perfectly for him there, he will be an average RF defender) I highly recommend this site, run by Mark Anderson of Scout.com, and here's his write-up on Arcia: http://baseballprospectnation.com/2013/01/21/scouting-report-oswaldo-arcia-of/ As for your second sentence in my quote snippet, that's why the guys that do stay there (and have the other "tools" besides the defense to stay there) become the blue-chipper-top-10-in-all-of-baseball-prospects, so sorry, but position does matter. But I agree with the others, being ranked where Arcia is as a RF is not a slight to him and what he's done at all. It shows that most everyone believes he has a "plus" bat.

It's funny how that year is also the only year he's really hit like a prototypical #3 hitter should... (outside of the Avg./OBP, of course)

I'm in the camp that you should always go north with the "best roster," regardless of where the player's are on their Arbitration timeclock. I have never understood this thought process, and frankly, it should only weigh on penny-pinching franchises, which the Twins are not anymore, or at least shouldn't be operating as such (that's another debate). If a player is ready and seizes the opportunity, let him play and sort it all out later. It's a disservice to fans everywhere to keep any player held back when you know, or he's shown, that he can contribute more than what you have on the MLB roster. And to everyone who is going to say "why would you want a guy on the MLB roster at age 23, when you could have him for an extra year during his peak at age 29." Well... Look at the Twins history, if a player is brought up and he contributes a good amount to the MLB team, they extend him before the Arbitration years run out anyway. Justin Morneau, Joe Mauer, Denard Span, Nick Blackburn, Scott Baker... I'm sure there's plenty more examples. Also, if a guy is kicking ass and taking names at the MLB level, using Arbitration isn't exactly a good option to keep a player's contract costs down. Frankly, to me, Arbitration is designed for players like Alexi Casilla. They've shown something, but not enough yet to warrant a long-term commitment, and if the price gets too high, you just let them go. I'd say it's pretty rare for a good player to make it to that last year of Arbitration without at least having extension talks, their arbitration prices just get too high. Take Mike Trout for example, you really think he's even going to go through the arbitration process once? I don't. If Hicks takes the CF job on day 1 and runs with it, the same thing will happen with him (in addition to the fact you might have the best player available for your MLB CF job). If he falters, then what happens you ask? He gets sent back down to AAA and likely misses the MLB service time cutoff for Super 2 status anyway. Then, in 2014/15/16, If he ends up middling in the Majors like Casilla, are you really gonna be worried about having him around that age 29 season?! It's all a moot point in Hicks' case if he doesn't show enough to win the job right out of ST, but I don't see why there is such a big issue with this. If a Span vs. Gomez ST situation plays out with Hicks vs. Mastroianni/Benson/etc... though, I'll be nonplussed, as will Gardy from the sounds of it.

Also, from "Our Picks For Potential 2014 Top 100 Prospects": http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2013/02/our-picks-for-potential-2014-top-100-prospects/ John Manuel: To borrow a phrase from our College Top 25 rankings, Twins center fielder/second baseman Eddie Rosario may have suffered from some poll mechanics. I put 55/High grades on both Rosario and J.O. Berrios but ranked Berrios higher due to his greater importance to the Twins as a potential starting pitcher, and due in part to uncertainty over Rosario's future position. He may not stick at second base and might be a tweener as an outfielder—not the defense for center, not enough power for a corner. But I believe in the bat ultimately and think Rosario could wind up as a Shin-Soo Choo, Nick Markakis or David Murphy type, a corner outfielder who hits for high average, hits a lot of doubles, draws walks and is an above-average offensive player despite average home run power.

aj (new york): who is a good comparison to oswaldo arcia and where do you see him starting the year? John Manuel: We've always gotten Bob Abreu comps on his stance and swing. He lacks that patience and speed, but probably has more raw power. Few minor leaguers fit the RF profile as well as Arcia; love that guy's bat.

I'd be extremely happy with these projections, as the OBP and OPS numbers put this as one of the top offenses in the league, like top 5 for sure, both well above league average. But you also project fewer runs scored (below league avg., and which are a good margin lower than what those OBP/OPS numbers would project), which is logical considering they are replacing two guys who hit at the top of the order last year and scored 141 runs between them (Span, Revere).

Thanks for posting that link. I like the talk about the "game" they play before the actual baseball game. My townball team plays the same thing while our opponent is taking their infield, we call it "2-ball". Our rules are if you miss or drop the ball, or make a bad toss, you turn your cap 90 degrees. Once the hat comes full circle around your head it's taken off, then after your next fault you are out. Good times, though I never win...

I stopped arguing because the realization finally came that we were arguing different points against each other, not differing opinions on the same point: Brock and others are arguing that Arcia, by his current age, is a better prospect than Kubel when looking at where Kubel was at the same age. I don't really disagree with this, but... My argument is that Kubel became the better prospect overall when it comes to where his "peak" was on these lists, not accounting in any form for age, and I'm talking about top prospect lists that encompass all of the minor leagues, not just the Twins. Kubel made the top 20 at his peak when his knee was blown out. Arcia is just now cracking Top 100's (Law has him 59, Mayo 93, and BA and BP didn't have him on their lists last year, while Law had him at 85). Then we get to the point that in a season where Kubel was 21/22 years old, he demolished AA/AAA. Guess what age Arcia is going to be this year at potentially, AA and AAA? He's going to be 21/22. Yes Arcia finished the season where he turned 21 years old in AA, whereas Kubel finished the season he turned 21 years old in A+. But they are going to be at the same point this year for their age 22 seasons, and if you expect Arcia, let alone ANY other prospect in the minors to match what Kubel did there, you're expecting a lot. It's great that Arcia has been better than Kubel from the rookies leagues and through A+, but I have to believe we all agree that success at AA/AAA should matter more, right? Even with the great numbers Arcia put up last year at 21 at AA, he's not on Kubel's level for me (as a prospect in the regard discussed above) and I don't put nearly the same stock in performance for less than a years worth of age difference that they are in these time frames, and will finish this upcoming season as. They're both going to (likely) have made their MLB debut at age 22, so what happens to this argument then? Edit: And as I post this I see Gunnarthor basically explained the point I'm trying to make here, probably better than I did. Thanks for that.