zwiefz

I'm looking at a similar question-planning to take my son to his first game(at least his first game out of a baby carrier) later this summer. My thoughts at this point are to get the cheapest seats possible. No matter how much he likes baseball I don't seem him sitting still for the entire game. My dad and I usually spend about half the game in our seats and the second half wandering the concourse and stopping wherever we can find room every inning-so another benefit for a small child is to see the game from different points of view. I wouldn't want to spend a ton of money on a seat we might not end up spending much time in. Plus, the people sitting around you may not always find the behavior/questions of young children as endearing as you do The cheap seats would give you a little more space since they haven't been filled in a few years and less chance of ending up by some grouchy old man.

Official roster lists 1 outfielder(Kubel) and three shortstops(Escobar, Santana, Nunez). That has to be some sort of a record. All from the team that supposedly had such a surplus of outfielders over the past few years.

I would also add Kubel to the list of those who have cooled off quite a bit. But most importantly I think this is a critical time for Brunansky. Before the Dodgers series everyone was praising him for getting the players to become more patient and wait for the good pitches to hit. But now pitchers have made the adjustment to what the Twins want to do. Haren even directly said it. As a side note there is a really interesting story on SI.com about the Brewers hacking at first pitches, etc since pitchers are being told to get ahead in counts and throw first pitch strikes. Why take a 3-0 pitch when you know it will likely be a fastball down the middle? The article calls it Brewerball and discusses it as a response to the Moneyball philosophy that a walk is as good of a hit. Personally I like the aggressive approach,(in moderation) walks don't score a runner from second or go for extra bases. Anyway, back to my original point. MLB is a constant challenge of adjustments. It is coaches job to try and stay one step ahead. Bruno came up with a good formula, pitchers caught up to it, now the next move is up to him.

I think it's awful hard to make too many conclusions about the pitching from this series. Overall, I think all three starters basically had one rough inning but otherwise pitched well enough to give some hope. In particular it was nice to see Hughes have 7 K's. Yes, he gave up two home runs, but we knew he was a flyball pitcher and Chicago has been nearly as much of a bandbox as Yankee Stadium so I'm not surprised by that. I think the main issue with the bullpen was that they had to pitch cold. I mean that as a two fold statement. Obviously, the weather was not conducive to getting warmed up well and get a good feel for their pitches. But also, I don't think the bullpen pitchers got the same work in throughout spring training because so much attention was given to the starters. Bullpen arms need to get in the groove of pitching every couple of days or every day in the case of a closer like Perkins. They definitely did not get that in spring training. I think the pitching will be fine after a few series and a little warmer weather so they can actually feel their fingertips.

Mike-First of all, you are correct that there isn't a lot for Bartlett to teach Mauer, Suzuki, Kubel or Willingham.(4 of 13 position players, Bartlett makes the 5th true veteran) But just because Plouffe(2 1/2 yrs in MLB), Florimon(1 1/2 yrs in MLB), and Dozier(1 1/2 yrs in MLB) were starters all of last year doesn't mean they don't have things to learn. I think the results of last year prove they do. I would classify these three as 'young veterans' As far as what you call 'mythical young players' I would put Hicks, Arcia, Pinto, Escobar and Colabello in this category(Colabello may be older than the other three but he still has virtually no MLB experience. So 8 of 13 position players have less than 2 1/2 yrs played in the big leagues. I would consider that young.

Jason Bartlett made the team for a few reasons in my opinion: 1)He apparently is versatile defensively, although I haven't seen enough of him play anywhere besides shortstop to verify that myself so I have to trust those who have been watching him daily 2)He is essentially another coach who will help teach the younger players the "Twins Way". That phrase has brought nothing but scorn and laughter the past few years, but Bartlett was around when it actually existed, was something to be proud of, and something to strive for. This is the same reason that guys like TK and Guardado are brought in for spring training instructors. 3)He knows and is comfortable with his role. He is the 25th man. Very little is expected offensively from the 25th man on any team in MLB. What is expected is someone who is professional and is ready to go that once(maybe twice) a week when someone needs a break or gets hurt. Otherwise they essentially rot on the bench. I would rather have that position be filled with an expendable veteran than a young player who still has room to grow and truly would rot if left on the bench. Chris Hermann, Danny Santana, and some of those guys that are close need to play. So, basically I think Bartlett(and Kubel to a lesser extent) are great guys to have on the bench-so long at that's where they are. If Bartlett plays sparingly than I think it is great. If Gardenhire develops a Punto-ish crush on him and plays him daily then I will agree that it makes no sense. Only time will tell.

mlbtraderumors says Bartlett has been added to 40 man per Phil Miller

If my math is correct, the Twins official website lists 25 players on active roster and 38 on the 40 man. So if both Diamond and Parmalle are removed that brings the numbers down to 23 and 36. Neither Kubel or Bartlett are listed on either roster yet. So even if both were added and Florimon started the season on the DL there would be plenty of room to add either Mastro or Ramirez to both the active and 40 man. Don't forget about Ramirez as an option for back up CF. He started out there last year and did well early on in spring training.

Just like everyone else that has commented so far, I am really surprised by this deal. I agree with other posters who have pointed out that 1)the Twins had do something in Nov and couldn't take the risk of waiting until the end of Jan and hoping someone fell into their lap 2)that for Garza to come back to the Twins it probably would have taken a lot more cash to wash away the bad blood from his first tour with the team 3)why did all the other team looking for pitchers(especially legit contenders) not outbid the Brewers? One new point I wanted to make(I'm not sure anyone has mentioned this yet): I'm glad the Twins are keeping their budget flexible for 3-4 years down the road. If everything goes as fans hope by 2017 the Twins will be forced to look at extensions already for guys like Meyer, Sano, and Buxton in order to buy out some arbitration and early free agency years. That has been the trend in MLB recently and assuming there are still a couple guys like Mauer, Perkins, and Nolasco around eating up good chunks of salary, payroll space will be at a premium before too long. Johan Santana is the perfect cautionary tale of signing hard throwing pitchers with a history of problems to long term deals. Over the course of one contract since being traded by the Twins he has gone from a dominating staff ace to a guy hoping to land a minor league deal. The Mets were thrilled the first couple of years but I'm guessing they regretted that contract the past couple years. Based on the fact that someone else didn't offer Garza more money and years I don't think the Twins are the only ones who think the Brewers will be having buyers remorse in years 3-4: which is exactly when the Twins are hoping to be a legit contender again.

True, very little(if any) help for the offense. But take a look at the free agent list for this year. When guys like Salty and Drew are ranked among the top 10-20 position players you know there isn't much out there. There was no way the Twins were getting an Ellsbury, Cano, etc type player. Spending money just for the sake of spending money(even if it isn't mine) doesn't make sense. Assuming the Twins would have to offer significantly more than other teams to sign a free agent since they are a bottom feeder currently, who would you have pushed for? People are talking about $10 million a year plus a draft pick for Drew. For 32 more points of batting average and 4 more homers than Florimon? I'll pass. Same goes for any thought about adding Mark Reynolds. How is he an upgrade over Plouffe? Can't play defense, strikes out more, and hits for a lower average. Maybe after the pitching market sorts itself Ryan can swing some sort of deal for a position player by dealing from the 'surplus' of starters or prospects. But at this point I think what you see is what you're going to get. And based on the price tags I'm seeing on the free agents that have signed so far, I don't fault the Twins for not going harder after any of these guys.

First time post so be gentle I would consider Nolasco, Hughes, and Pelfrey as locks(based soley on the recent financial commitment). But with Diamond, Deduno, and Worley out of options would the Twins be able to get anything of value(i.e. position players or legit pitching prospects at this point) for any of them OR Correia? Remember, Correia's name was floated at the trade deadline last year. The only reason he has been considered a lock thus far is because he was the most consistent starter last year. But with Nolasco and Hughes added is that as much of a necessity this year? I see Albers, Gibson, and Johnson in AAA to start as injury insurance or until their performance warrants a midseason trade/demotion of one of the opening day rotation members. So does anyone see one of the rotation candidates being part of a trade yet this offseason? Out of Correia(consistent), Deduno(intriguing), Diamond(lefty), and Worley(young) do you think could get the most in return?