Jham

Shouldn't be at 23. Peak metabolism. Plus he's a pro athlete. Has trainers dieticians and games in sleeves and 100 degree heat. He should shed excess weight during the season. The fact that he gained weight during the season may be as troubling as anything. That said, he's a kid. He quit drinking. This all speaks to rededication. Hopefully there will be more concentration in the field, in the batters box, and of the field. In other words, more maturity.

Could you explain? I mean upper cut swings are naturally longer, and lots of players will naturally shorten up against power arms. I'd agree that the Twins way of bunching hits is a tough way too win against great pitchers that don't leave many balls up. 1-0 looks better than 0-0 with a runner on first. Personally, i thought Vargas came back with a noticeably shorter more powerful swing. I'd like to see him keep that. He doesn't have the hand eye coordination that Manny and papi had. They could get away with a loop (mostly). Vargas isn't that talented.

I think we have to start May over Berrios. He's been more successful, and apparently can't handle relieving. I am however, very skeptical that he'll be able to hold up to a starting campaign after breaking down as a reliever. Hopefully the regular rest will benefit him, but I can't imagine that he'll be able to keep himself from overthrowing when he gets in a jam the same way he did out of the pen.

The Kohl Stewart apologies are starting to sound more and more like the abw3 blind faith. Higher rated prospect, but eventually how he acheives is as important as that he adhesives if he's going to continue to acheive.

Best of luck Gardy! We're all pulling for you!

I'd say the scouting and projection game has changed slightly since then as well...

That's a little simplistic isn't it? Choice A - Shuffle, may, at least occasionally be better than Choice B- fix backlog. How bad is the backlog? How incompetent are the shufflers? There's a lot of variation in there. I mean, Plouffe could play 3rd. If Sano can't play third, did we have anyone to plug in who could play right as well as Plouffe played right and hit as well also? I mean, if we shuffled Sano to first and Mauer to DH in hopes of keeping Mauer fresher, would that be so terrible? Are Vargas and Park so good that it warrants having poor defense at third or rf? Not likely, in my mind...

I think we've hit the nail on the head here. Everybody's arguing different points. 1) Can Sano Play 3rd? 2) Can Sano Play Right? 3) If he can't play right, is it because of effort? 4) If he can't play either, where do we put him? 5) What's best for Sano now? 6) What's best for Sano in the long term? 7) What's best for the team? 8) Is 3B more important than right (where does he do less damage)? It seems if you provide an answer to any of the above, your answer is assumed for the other questions as well. It's no wonder there's disagreement.

I get that, poor wording. I was actually just saying that it's hypocritical to say that thinking Sano could play right was naiive and presumptuous while in your next stanza making a very presumptuous statement despite contrary evidence. "Quite possible" is a qualifier you took advantage of, but not a benefit you have afforded any other poster on the site. Who said Sano would even be good in right? A lot of people said he had the tools, or could be ok, or that it would help the team if... basically, that it's "quite possible" that a young athlete like Sano could adapt to a position with less risk and difficulty at this stage in his career. Aside from hind-sighting the result, you've hindsighted out all qualifiers made by other posters to win some sort of "I was right" ego contest. I appreciate your position and belief in Sano, but some of your rhetoric is a little over-the-top, no offense.

He's young and he received criticism and some negative feedback for probably the first time in his career. He may have resented this at first, but he's a kid who not only missed out on the college years, but also his high school years. That's the cost of being a sports prodigy. Now he has money and last year had a free off-season. Distractions were imminent. If he adjusts and dedicates himself in the way he did to get here in the first place, he should be just fine with a chance at being really great. He's got the personality to be a leader as well, which this team sorely needs.

You can't call your theory "quite possible" and then say it's presumptuous and naiive to think otherwise... He hit worse once moved to third... He also played 3rd at an abysmal level even at the end of the season. Which I and many others predicted, and so we were right... too... This isn't a contest, and that's not a good thing. Maybe he'll improve and be league avg. at third and hit top-spinners over fences to all fields, and I will gladly say NYTwinsfan was right and I am happy to be wrong... Right now his swing plane generates top spin to his power field, which means he'll hit fewer HR and have more lasers caught by left fielders than necessary. That's his biggest issue, in my opinion. I don't see him having a defensive position other than first base. If he's not a better fielder than Mauer, he definitely shouldn't be playing third. If he is better, then he should be at first, and Mauer should DH and stay fresh.

Oh playing right field for less than a half of a season set him waaay back... That's why his 3B was awful, pop ups hit him in the head or not at all, and uppercut every swing? I was in favor of him being in right, because there are fewer chances for him to screw up there than at 3rd (although mistakes tend to be more costly). But a healthy Plouffe compared to... 1 of the Schaefer's in the line up? I mean it's debatable, but hardly criminal. I'm interested in seeing Sano develop 1 thing: backspin. He can't be an elite power hitter with his hardest hit balls diving like a forkball. If he can do that he'll hit 50 and it won't matter much where we play him! Hope you're right about him being able to play 3rd though.

Yeah, I'm not saying it's not possible. I just really think that would be poor negotiation on their part if they actually wanted Dozier. If a lawyer negotiates a settlement, not showing all your cards can make sense because you can always use litigation to force or leverage opponents. In this case, there is no forcing, so not giving your best offer and saying straight up, "this is my best offer, take it or leave it," makes no sense. If it would embolden the Twins to ask for a 3rd prospect, the end result is the exact same: no Dozier. To not take your best shot at your number 1 guy because you were afraid how team C would view the offer, if they ever even heard and confirmed what that offer was, then you shouldn't get in the trade game at all. Even if the trade were strictly viewed from a prospect ranking perspective, our scouts and FO may have had different grades. I mean, the last thing we want is a DSpan - Meyer trade again, even though most of us would take that risk again even though it looks like the Nats knew exactly what they had. It did not seem that the Twins were nearly as high on De Leon as many of our posters and that they were already settling by making him the centerpiece. We've got a whole year to year and a half of prime trade time left. I doubt the return at the break or next off season will be so dramatically different that it would't fall within the highly variable margin of error for prospect projection to begin with. IMO.

This would make the Dodgers front office horribly incompetent. If Dozier was their guy, and Forsythe was always an available second option, why would they withhold their best offer? That makes zero sense. And literally, that's the definition of low-balling which would imply the Twins did right to walk away, and the Dodgers got what they deserved. There is no possible advantage to withholding your best offer regardless of whether you think it will be fruitful or not.

To me, this all boils down to reduced bat speed with perhaps some lingering concussion issue. Mauer's approach has always been to let the ball get deep then use his exceptional hands and compact swing to make perfect contact. Seeing the ball longer allowed better pitch selectivity. As his bat speed has declined, he's had to start his swing earlier to catch up, and he's not able to be as selective. He's beaten by fastballs and off speed pitches. He's guessed more and more. There are a lot of good hitters who guess a lot, start their swings early, and strike out. Mauer has only barely adjusted his approach and swing. It may make sense for him to experiment with a leg kick and a power stroke since he has to start his swing earlier anyway. Might as well start it much earlier. But yeah, my prediction is continued decline.

Except right now, the Twins still have the Twins pitching staff...

I mean, they did what they set out to do back then. That's not luck. i was just pointing out the irony of the fact that they were unwittingly playing moneyball while they were (rightly) critical of the early metrics. The reason I said it was lucky, is because the team never changed its philosophy even as the metrics improved (in some cases vindicating the front office's initial skepticism). As the metrics improved, the guys that slipped through to the Twins started getting paid more and by better teams. The Twins then seemingly desperately tried to switch horses and go to power arms and bats with disastrous results. The idea of stocking up on huge major league ready bullpen arms was actually super-savvy and ended up being the model that won a WS for the Royals, almost won it for the Indians, and attempted by the Yankees. The problem is those big college arms weren't as big league ready as we thought. The evolution of metrics is fascinating to follow. The Twins seemingly beat the metrics by focusing on the areas where metrics initially missed (defense and ground balls), but there are fewer and fewer gaps between the stats now. As such, I wonder how relevant Moneyball is in today's game. The metrics are now commonly available to fans, let alone analytics staffs. Are there traits that are still currently undervalued in the market? Enough to make a difference in roster construction? The gap in analytics might be foreign markets where stats aren't available, and player development which still seems totally unpredictable. The Twins have been hit and miss in the first, and pretty poor in the latter.

I haven't seen many people say the Twins did a bad job drafting. I've seen some criticism of maximizing and developing talent, of holding on to and supplementing talent, and hitting on impact players. Hard to dispute a ton of that. Regarding the draft, the Twins were vocal with their organizational strategy of taking safe college arms and toolsy high school athletes early. Basically, they took safe (and cheaper) approaches than riskier high-upside arms or more expensive position players with more highly advanced skills. This strategy did not seem to change regardless of the available talent pool, or how drafting and scouting changed with analytics. The strategy worked better when analytics were limited. As teams pushed all in on Moneyball strategies that emphasized OBP and HR, the Twins continued to emphasize limiting walks and playing defense. The metrics scoffed at this approach and the Twins kept winning. The metrics caught up, and pitching and defense became coveted across the league. The Twins had actually taken advantage of a market weakness, the infancy of defensive and pitching metrics, by shear luck. Guys we used to be able to add and use are now pricing us out. Basically, like many of our prospects, we failed to develop. Let's also keep in mind, the available path to the League should be a lot easier on this team. We should have more picks making the show, at least for an audition. With that in mind, it's no wonder it seems we've got loads of fringe 40 man players being protected or cut with little relevance outside of TD forum fodder.

First post since this fall when work monitored my internet usage and blocked the forum section of the site. And I'm using it to let you know I plan on stealing your phrase and using it as often as possible from now on.

Is Pat Light developing a knuckle ball or something? Or does he not qualify because his 98 was actually 93.

I think you may have blended my posts with others. I've never suggested we sign a single free agent. I've suggested we hold on to Ervin Santana rather than trade him for a lesser return. I've suggested we low-ball Plouffe if it means we can put Sano in a better position (literally) to succeed. I've suggested trading Dozier for a top young arm. BUT I also suggested that we probably tried that at the deadline and didn't find interest. I said the same thing you said. Trades are about value, and if the rest of the league doesn't see Dozier as worthy of losing an ace or potential ace, we're getting great production at a great price. We're not like the Yankees where we can just unload a couple expensive relievers and instantly rebuild the farm system. We have to be creative. If the pitching isn't available for Dozier, how else can we acquire it? I don't see us signing a World Series caliber staff in the 2018 off season. Even if we're building to 2019, we're probably going to have to start adding arms now. As Chief has said, there's no guarantee the market is any good when we're buyers, and we might not have a chip like Sano or Buxton or Kepler or Dozier to deal at that point. You hit the nail on the head. Our biggest philosophical difference is patience with prospects which for the record, is the opposite of a nuanced approach. I'm all for being patient with prospects when warranted, but then you shouldn't be relying on them or building around them. Work them in, surround them with talent so that the team's success and failure isn't hinged on them. We were super patient with Alexi Casilla, Pedro Florimon, and Danny Santana. A lot of good that did us. You have to be patient with the right prospect. How do you know if you're being patient with a late bloomer or wasting years chasing a 4-year-old prospect ranking? Short answer, you don't. So either acquire more talent and rely on those prospects less, or try to acquire truly elite prospects who require less patience.

I mean, I think we basically agree. It sounds like we're both looking at a wait and see type of year. It's a matter of whether we try to get creative to find capable arms and hope the kids are as good as projected, or do we wait to make those additions after they prove worthy of receiving conditions. Your previous posts made it sound like you thought we should bank on this core being outstanding three years from now, and that adding youth should trump adding talent. I don't mind your conservative approach to adding talent. But sometimes I think you're too liberal with your projections for prospect development. I take a measured approach to prospect development, and liberal approach to adding talent. I think consistently looking for upgrades is a better way to achieve steady success than trying to peak, make a push, then rebuild. Both routes have had success. Both have failed. Personal preference. So from that regard, I can't say you're wrong "per se" so I'll take back the insanity comment, but nor do I think that I've in anyway softened my stance.

So that's the definition of cherry picking. I said IF they're good enough to win in 2019, they're good enough now. I'm willing to see another card. You're saying the team is historic garbage, but you want to build around that garbage for two or three more seasons? Insanity. Either they're garbage and we should fire sale while our core still has value OR we can see if this young squad can make a large jump as young clubs often do. You're calling Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Berrios, Rosario, Vargas, Chargois, et al 8 2 offsuit. I'm not the biggest believer in this core, but I think they're a lot better than that. Again, if we're that stinkin awful, how on earth can you justify building around this squad for 3 more years? Make some calculated moves, see if we can improve, and if we can't, I'd rather know that next year than 3 years from now.

It's ok to sign some stop gaps and try to win a few games before your magical 2019 run where all the prospects somehow peak at the same time. I'll agree that it's unwise to put all of our eggs in the 2017 basket. I would argue that it's more unwise to put all of our eggs in the 2019 basket. If we get to 2019 and Sano and Buxton are winning MVP's and have some sort of fun nickname, and the pitchers look like they're top 10 rotation, maybe shove all in. (Again, if they're MVP's then, they should be pretty darn good now). I'd say right now we have Q J of hearts, a really nice starting hand. But the flop came out A A 10 and now we got a crappy hand. Chief is suggesting a small bet at the board hoping we can either steal the pot or hit a King on the turn, and probably doing the same thing on the river. This way, we reserve some chips so that we can push all in if we hit that King of hearts. If things don't work, out, it's not that hard to fold. It seems like you're suggesting we fold, then fold again, until we're dealt a pair. Then just shove all in, then just watch the flop, turn, and river while having all your chips already in the middle hoping you have a pair of Kings and not a pair of fours. Personally, I'm not confident enough in our starting hand to push all in and watch the board play out through 2019. I'm suggesting we try to win now. I surround this team with some talent and give them 1 year to show they're worth continuing to build around. Then I don't need to take such a large leap the next two years. And if they can't show they're ready to compete, I fold. I try to figure out which of our "stars" still have the most trade value and I try another hand. Good players peak early and sustain success. If this core is good enough in 2019, they're good enough now. And they'll need battle testing. If not, better we find that sooner than later and move on before they Plouffe or Delmon out on us.

First off, if we trade Dozier for a pitcher slightly worse than divan but maybe better than Santiago,i may quit following the team. If we trade him for a pucker better than Santana, then we're not really just sitting are we?