IndianaTwin

I don't think you're being negative at all. I agree that injuries are a reality, which is why I don't get too hung up in February about which five are the first five to get a shot. I picked those six, but I'd easily add Vogelsong or somebody else if a couple of those are hurt. Looking at the schedule, I do like the idea of starting with six, however, particularly if that includes at least a couple of Hughes (coming back from injury), May (transitioning from bullpen), or Berrios (still progressing in innings). That's a way of continuing to work them in gradually.

A week or so ago, there was a discussion about adding another bat (Napoli, etc.) Given that Wieters is still available, on a scale of 1 to Stupid, what about pursuing him as the other side of the platoon? Besides catching 40 percent of the games, he could DH or even play 1B in a few more games. I know that managers are loathe to DH their second catcher because of losing the spot for an injury, but realistically, that might cost them 1 or 2 at bats over the course of the season.

After the day off after opening day, the Twins play 21 games in 22 days. Rather than making a big deal out of who gets the No. 5 spot, I'd say plan toward a 6-man rotation of Santana, Santiago, Gibson, Hughes, May, Berrios,* with the assumption that one will be hurt by April 26, resulting in a five-man rotation by when the off days start to appear. Pitchers getting hurt is just what happens. Then, keep with whichever five are healthy and start to feed in the others as needed (or when ineptitude sets in). We're going to start at least 10 guys by the end of the year. Does Vogelsong have an opt out in his contract? If so, he'd need to be included if he's pitching well in spring training, a possibility that shouldn't be discounted.

Some impressive clips. Including that Jon Miller pronounced it "Ay-ray Odd-ree-ONZ-a." When it comes to Anglo guys pronouncing Latino names, I'll take Miller against anyone.

My standard line is, "Football and basketball are just something to have on TV until baseball comes around." The best part of the Super Bowl is that it means it's only about a week until pitchers and catchers report. That said, I think it speaks highly of this site that so many players and others responded. Thanks again for all you do to make this a great distraction from the stuff I SHOULD be doing.

I'm an old goat too -- do you have a couch I can crash on? It's not like poor sleeping conditions will negatively affect my performance.

How about this one -- sign me! For the league minimum, I'll gladly be the 4th outfielder and endure the wrath of Twins Daily posters.

I don't think I'm selling them short. And I don't think I've said that they NEED extended inactivity to get familiar. Rather, I've tried to say that I think they should have the freedom to jump into the pond at the time they are ready. Rather than selling them short, I give them props for making what they think is an educated judgment on what is best for the organization and not trading him if they haven't gotten what they think he's worth. I also give them credit for not jumping to an assumption that many of us on this Web site (and many in the national media) are making -- an assumption that says, "I've got to trade Brian Dozier for whatever I can get by the start of spring training, because there's no other way forward." Sorry if "Can anyone think of someone who came in as a GM (particularly a first-time GM) from outside the organization and made a good move in trading away the team's best player within three (or even five) months?" feels too specific to be helpful. It's intended to be pretty general. I'm fine if you prefer it as "How often do rookie GMs come to an organization and win a blockbuster trade early in their tenure?" I stuck in 3-5 months because they've been on the job about three months and it will be roughly five months into their tenure when the season starts. Some of us on this site probably think waiting a week was too long, and some of us probably think waiting 9 months is too long, so I was trying to emphasize our current situation. Similarly, I said "best player" because we've been talking about Dozier. If you want to expand that to "guys as good as Dozier or Santana," I'm fine with that too. My underlying points still stand: 1. I think it's human nature to be pretty cautious in a new job. 1.1 That may be even more the case when you're new to the organization. 1.1.1. And even more so when it's your first job at that level. 2. They're still early in their job. 3. Given 1 and its subpoints and given 2, I'm cool with the fact that they haven't traded Dozier (or Santana) yet. I also heard someone say recently that we should pay attention to the anomalies, because it's in the anomalies that we are typically pushed into new and better ways of thinking. I was asking for a little help in finding the anomalies. The best possible anomaly I've heard so far is Matt Klentak trading Ken Giles. Probably too early to tell if he won the trade, but we'll see. Even if it was anomaly in coming early in his tenure, he did seem to follow conventional wisdom in forcing both quality and quantity by making it a 2 for 5 trade, something that for what we know, the Dodgers haven't offered. That we don't have others swarming to mind makes me think that it probably is pretty common for new GMs to be cautious, and I'll continue not getting too worked up about the fact that he hasn't been traded yet. And if they make a trade tomorrow, I'll either give them credit for making a good trade or say, "Hmm -- they must know something I don't."

I don't, but that's sorta my point. I think most new GMs from outside an organization are naturally cautious, and that may generally be for the better. Talent's hard to come by, but it seems that 1) a bad trade can generally hamstring a team more than a good trade can help it; and 2) the likelihood of a bad trade increases when you're playing short-handed by not having a complete understanding of the value of your assets. I don't have a way of quantifying statement 1, but statement 2 seems pretty clear to me.

Okay, although there's also a pretty significant difference in that Coppolella was in the Atlanta system for at least eight years, including two years as assistant GM. I probably should have phrased the question as "Can anyone think of someone who came in as a GM (particularly a first-time GM) from outside the organization and made a good move in trading away the team's best player within three (or even five) months?"

There are plenty of reasons to trade Dozier. I won't summarize, but they seem to center around "We're bad, and his value will never be higher." There are at least a few reasons not to trade Dozier. These are harder to summarize, but the sentiment seems to be, "We're not saying we can't trade Dozier, but we need to get more than what seems to be on the table." I have another possible reason for not trading Dozier that I'm not sure has been discussed much, at least not in these terms. I'll get at it by asking a question: "What is the best pattern for a new President/GM?" When I'm new in a job, the first thing I want to do (other than find the best local lunch spots; oh, and "Where's the crapper?") is get a really good handle on the situation. If my boss (or my first hire, depending on whether we're thinking of Falvey or Levine) is also new, I especially want to get a handle on the situation before making any major changes. Now, I know that it's easy to say that getting a handle on our current situation is saying, "We suck." More specifically, "Our pitching sucks." But that doesn't seem complete enough for what I'd want. I'd want to know the degree of suckitude at each position, from our best player to our 100th, from our big-league manager to our lowest-level scout. I want to know which asset has potential to be great and which has the likelihood of continued suckitude. And that takes time. Thus my question above. The only example I looked at was The Mighty Theo (hereafter, TMT), who was signed in October 2011. Here's what appears to be the extent of TMT's first offseason: Signed Reed Johnson as a free agent.Traded Sean Marshall for two guys I don't remember and Travis Wood.Traded Andrew Cashner and a nobody for Anthony Rizzo and a nobody.Signed Paul Maholm. That's three moves that classify as "tinkering" to me, plus hitting the jackpot with Rizzo. But even Rizzo has a pretty big asterisk. TMT had drafted him with the Red Sox and had a very good handle on what he was getting. TMT had a much better handle on what he was getting in Rizzo than FalVine would have in trading for DeLeon or probably anyone else in the Dodger's system. In general, TMT's moves didn't begin in earnest until mid-2012 (the draft, primarily, followed by a couple deadline deals). In his first offseason, the only potential assets he traded away were a combined 86.1 previous-season innings from Marshall and Cashner. He seemed to take a much more patient approach than we are suggesting in trading Dozier. So, back to my first question: What's the best pattern for a new President/GM? I'll show my bias toward patience by asking another honest question. Can anyone think of someone who came in as a GM (particularly a first-time GM) and made a good move in trading away the team's best player within three (or even five) months?

This could be fun. Is there an AB/IP minimum to qualify? I was always a Paul Thormodsgard fan myself, though it's hard to argue with Dave McKay either.

More than that, actually. Last year 153 guys started a game in the AL. That's an average of more than 10 per team. Of those 121 started at least 5. Among rookies, only three started more than 15 games and none more than 26. And as you note, there may be even more with the shortened DL period. I'm with you. No need to try pushing an entire MLB season out of Berrios. Odds are slim that he'd make it through unscathed -- he still hasn't gone beyond 170 innings. He was great in Rochester but struggled in Minnesota. Spend April/May in Rochester, maxing out at 80-90 pitches and working out the details of what he learned in the majors. Then bring him up around June 1, looking for a time when his first several starts could slot against weaker teams. He could get still get another 22 or so starts in the majors. That would also keep him fresher for the meaningful October games. Oh wait. Ignore that last sentence.

Being 400 miles away from Target Field, and stuck with the White Sox on our cable channel, this site has been so helpful in following the team I've been blessed/cursed with supporting for more than 40 years. Thanks to the moderators and all who contribute. And speaking of contributors, a huge shout-out to the rest of you as well. I often read insightful columns on some other news or fan site (whether sports, politics, or faith -- all important to me). But typically by the time I get five or so posts deep in the comments section, I am reminded of the dark side of Interweb conversation, and I and remember again what a gift it is that both the moderators and posters at TwinsDaily are committed to civility. Sure, every once in a while the edges get pushed, but all-in-all the discourse here is a welcome gift in the middle of the crud that gets posted below the "Add Comments" line on other sites. Thank you, thank you, thank you. And thank you.

Suzuki: Gone. And good riddance, as I understand it. Centeno: Gone. And good riddance, as I understand it. In 2015 AL, the top catcher on each team averaged 87.2 starts. The No. 2 guy averaged 44.8 starts and the No. 3 guy 21.8. The No. 4 and beyond guys averaged 8.2 starts. I don't know if those are typical breakdowns, but they seem typical. Only KC used just two catchers, but Salvador Perezes don't come along very often. So, you need three catchers. Meaning that unless we are satisfied with 132 starts out of Murphy and Garver and 30 more out of people even further down the depth chart, we need another body. In that context, Castro seems the best of what's available.

Cool -- I wasn't the only who thought of Lenny. Are they related? Can't be that many Faedos (Faedoes?) (okay, guys named Faedo) out there.

#18: Because the alternative is watching the White Sox.

JHam, I was among the softball players yelling at the screen when he uncorked it, but you've convinced me. I'd even highlight a point you hinted at. Dyson is an 86 percent career stealer. You can argue that the throw only cost the Twins a base for one pitch. And the KC batter is not going to swing at the first pitch. Could one even suggest that a good OF is saying, "If I have any chance at all, I'm going home because a single is the same as a double with Dyson as the batter/runner"?

I didn't see this anywhere, but maybe I missed it -- not that I'm looking forward to the winter of 20whatever, but was Berrios kept in the minors long enough to get the extra year of team control?

Really? I thought they all turned into "Nolasco stinks." Did I miss the memo? In seriousness, I am willing to be an optimistic in thinking that Ricky could still be a serviceable part. I know it was against minor leaguers yesterday, but for those who have seen him on several occasions, has he done enough to pass the eye test of being at a different point than the past couple seasons?

1) There would be several. We still have the ticket stub from my son's first minor league game, a 1996 contest of the Fort Wayne Wizards starring (don't throw anything at me) A.J. Pierzynski. When the same son was 11, we did a seven-games-and-four-Halls-of-Fame-in-eight-days trip. Afterward, we sent gobs of photographs to players and a large number of them autographed and returned. It's a great keepsake photo album. On said trip, we were standing along the foul line at Comerica Park with a ball my son had gotten. We politely waited until a player finished his conversation, not quite sure who it was. Given his size and the several references to Notre Dame, I deciphered an ID and instructed my son to say, "May I have your autograph, Mr. (Craig) Counsel?" The guy looked a little perplexed, which made sense when he signed his name "Andy Green." Turns out that Counsel had gotten traded from the Diamondbacks that winter and was no longer with the team, but it makes for a good story in our family.

Though Joe Nathan didn't come over until 2004, I clump him in with that group. My kids were at the autograph-seeking age, and we went to a lot of games around the country. I'm sure I was biased, but I thought the Twins (especially the bullpen guys) were particularly gracious signers for my kids, and I thought Nathan set the tone for that. He and Juan Rincon.

While we're at it, what's the latest on a 37-year-old Johan, who said in June that he wanted to take a shot at 2016 after shutting down due to a toe infection? That's a reunion tour I think I could support on a minor league contract.

I'm on board with the non-much-more-needed. I'm a fan of having lots of possibilities available, so I'm most interested in free agent signings over giving up minor league (or Plouffish-type) talent. Following your logic on someone like Fister, what about Lackey? In the three years since Tommy John, the ERA+ has been 117, 102, and 143 this year. Winner personality, veteran leadership. Not quite a Grienke, but better than than what Santana, Hughes, or Nolasco showed up with. Supposedly a two-year deal will get it done, which allows the Millone/Duffey/Berrios/May/Meyer/Nolasco... situations to sort themselves out. I use the same "quantity" argument on not trading Plouffe. Only 110 guys had 500+ at bats in the majors last year, which is less than four per team. Between Plouffe, Sano, Maurer, and Park, there's a good likelihood that at least one will miss time. I'm cool with having the four guys to cover 1B, 3B, and DH, and for the perhaps 25 games in which they are all healthy, figure out which one is best to stick in LF. I'd also be cool with a Span-type to serve as Buxton insurance/place holder. Again, I'd rather add by FA than trade talent at this point.

Pujols (6-3, 230) played a bunch of OF after virtually no OF in the minors. Miguel Cabrera (6-4, 240) played a bunch of OF after virtually no OF in the minors. And Jim Rice (6-2, 200) was a toadstool. Seems like it's at least a possibility for Sano. Going there for a time doesn't put him in the OF for the rest of his career.