twinsajsf

One potential "X factor" here is that Neil Allen is a recognized changeup guru, who has helped many pitchers add this pitch effectively to their repertoire. If Nolasco can stay healthy and allow Allen to work with him, maybe he can improve the pitch enough to make it an effective weapon, rather than scrapping it.

Will someone please start another thread today about Sano moving to the outfield!? And then another tomorrow, and the next day, and so on. I just don't feel like this is being talked about or analyzed enough. Personally, I feel like this is going to either be a terrific move or a complete disaster. Or somewhere in between.

Thank you, Bill! I've been trying to say exactly this with occasional posts for several years now, but have not been able to do so as eloquently or comprehensively as you have done here. I wholeheartedly agree with what you have said, and look forward to reading more from you. If you post more, then hopefully I can avoid my own clumsy attempts to make some of these points going forward:).

"Late Bullpen Additions Don't Appear a Priority". Thank goodness! There's no one still out there that is even remotely attractive. And for that matter, the only FA bullpen contract that, from a team standpoint, was reasonably good was Bastardo at 2 x $6M. I would have given him that, BUT would he have taken that from the Twins instead of staying with the Pirates, where he already was comfortable and where every pitcher seems to love being, or would WE have had to come up with more $'s and/or years to pry him away. We'll never know, but whatever, let's find out if any of the young guys can stick and be good or better MLB relievers. I'm fine with that.

On Sano in RF: "less than large defensive shoes to fill". I've been waiting for someone to acknowledge this. Lost in all of the angst about whether Sano can be at least an adequate (not embarrassing) right fielder is that we employed arguably the worst right fielder in MLB last year. Even if Sano is well below average at the position, that might still be an upgrade over last season.

This is referred to in the baseball trade as "being overexposed". Often guys like Nunez are playing well every 5th or 6th day (as was the case with Nunez early last season), and fans are thinking "this guy is hitting .360, why doesn't he play every day!?". Well, especially with advanced analytics these days, managers can look ahead and pick their spots with utility guys to play them against more favorable matchups for them. So, for a month or two, they can look like All-Stars playing once a week. But, if they play everyday, their flaws are quickly exposed and they are back hitting .220 and everyone is reminded why he's a utility guy.

OMG, all this time I thought we were arguing about veterans vs. prospects. Honestly, if it's down to Stauffer, Pelfrey and Milone for 1 spot, I don't even care .

Still confused about how you are arriving at these distinctions. Stauffer performed well (57K in 56.1 IP, 2.56 ERA) in the ML play, while Tonkin/Achter (I assume these are the two you are anguishing over) performed similarly in MiL play. None impressed in ST (though tonkin/Achter had smaller sample sizes and Stauffer's poor outing were the multi-inning ones when he was still competing for the 5th starters role. So, tell me again why Tonkin and/or Achter trump Stauffer? For what it's worth, I would have had no problem with Achter, in particular, claiming the 7th spot over Pelfrey/Milone, if that's the direction they end up going. Maybe over Boyer also, although if you can remember back that far (prior to his surprising retirment), he was a very good ML releiver also, and has been outstanding this Spring, so hard to argue either way too forcefully on that one. But over Stauffer? Hmm . . . no, that makes no sense.

Hmm . . . do you mean "great" or "good", and how long is "longer term", because he hs been "good" for the last three seasons (albeit in Petco Park). I also think it would have been a stretch at the time of the Stauffer signing (or even now, for that matter) to consider Milone/Pelfrey as "a lot more (veteran) talent" than Stauffer, particularly bullpen talent, since neither has actually done that in his career. They also had no idea that they were getting Graham or that he would earn a spot in the bullpen if they did get him. In the end, regardless of how it ultimately plays out, it seems prudent to sign a good veteran reliever for not much money as a starting point for repairing a lousy bullpen. The worst that can happen is that a bunch of guys perform well in ST and you end up having to make a choice between at least reasonably good (veteran and/or young) options.

Obviously, there is a lot of room for disagreement about whether the Twins should be trying to take what they consider to be the best team North with them initially or the team they think might be better a couple of months or years from now. For my part, I like that they they are trying to bring the best team North (which still may or may not include Pelfrey/Milone--we'll see), especially since it will already include a bunch of young guys still trying to establish themselves: Santana, Vargas, Arcia, Hicks/Rosario?, Pinto/Herrman?, Graham. I'm not harboring any illusions about winning the division this year, but I'm comfortable with the approach a bunch of young talent interspersed with solid veterans to see if we can actually get back to respectability in 2015 with Sano, Buxton, Berrios and Meyer pushing us beyond thereafter. Go Twins!

Again, it might just be this simple: 1) Twins' bullpen was bad last year, + 2) Tim Stauffer was good last year, + 3) $2.2M is chump change in MLB = Twins sign Tim Stauffer. Maybe you're just overthinking it?

Well, I guess that all depends on who you are comparing him to. Compared to all Twins relievers not named Glen Perkins, yes, he was good last year. Compared to MLB average relief pitcher ERA & K/9, yes, he was good (i.e. above average). Not great/elite (if that's what you meant to say), but good. Hard to complain about $2.2M for a good, veteran reliever on a team of mostly bad ones, but hey, that's just me.

After four lousy seasons, the transition back to being a competitive (.500ish) club is as much psychological as physical. As such, my guess is that the Twins are trying to find a balance between going all in for young upside (with the potential to crash & burn) and trying to put their most competitive foot forward in April/May to try to foster a "this year is going to be different" attitude. The point is that, for them, I don't think the short-run is completely irrelevant, which is why these decisions are not easy ones.

Umm . . . Stauffer had 9.4 K/9 last season (8.6 and 9.0 in 2013 and 2012), which trailed only Glen Perkins (9.6) among Twins relievers.

"I don't think it's lazy to expect Plouffe and Dozier to not improve. I think it'd be surprising if they did improve considering the jump they took and their age. Not that they are old, but that at their age players don't normally turn in yet another big jump of a season. Hunter was a below average RF, considering overall game, and as he turns 40, I don't expect much, if any, bounceback. I don't see how adding a 40 year old poor defender, with average offense for the position, as being big addition." For the record, I didn't actually disagree with either of those points. Rather, my point was that simply noting Santana's likely regression and that Plouffe/Dozier will likely stay the same and not improve enough to offset Santana, constitutes insufficient evidence (i.e. lazy anaylisis) that the Twins will be worse offensively. Likewise, Hunter doesn't have to "bounceback" from a good year offensively to constitute a major improvement over what we got out of Willingham and Co. (the spot in the batting order he will replace). So, combining at least similar offensive production with the very likely rotation improvement (Santana replaces one rotation spot that combined for 33 starts at nearly a 6.00 ERA, meaning that he doesn't exactly have to maintain his run of sub-4 ERA seasons to constitute a major improvement), this leaves us with only outfield defense (from really lousy to maybe really, really lousy) as a legit likely reason for the Twins regression this season. NOTE: He could have simply stated that the Twins might be a bit better, but the rest of the bottom half teams in baseball have improved even more, and top half hasn't regressed far enough, thus the Twins will fall fro the 24th or 25th best team in baseball to the 27th. Even this would have been less lazy and more plausible analysis.