South Dakota Tom

In the world of Falvey and Levine, can you imagine how qualified Mr. Alston must be? I'm excited to learn more about him, and one has the sense that there is a philosophy (throw strikes) and a method (no one method) that he excels at imparting, both from a statistical and psychological perspective. (noted: all but the sabermetric portion of that is true of every pitching coach ever hired)

I'm not parsing words here. The thrust of the article is that now that we didn't trade Dozier that the entire direction of the team should be altered. I understand your position that we might as well try to compete, but I don't agree that this one (failed) move should modify the long-term goal of gathering a team to compete down the road and giving younger players more playing time in an effort to develop. Adding a pitcher and a bat to the current lineup almost guarantees a level of mediocrity that prevents the rebuild, development of young players, and long-term goals. I disagree that this team should be led in that direction. You either compete or rebuild and you commit to one or the other. I don't think the failed Dozier trade in any way takes us from rebuilders to competitors, or from sellers to buyers.

Can't agree with this. Because Dozier didn't go to the Dodgers, the Twins now have an obligation to support him up and down the lineup? They abandon all plans to rebuild for the future because they couldn't pull off one trade for their best player? There is way too much gap between "rebuild" and "support your best player in the lineup with a solid lineup 1-9" for that to be an either/or proposition.

My greater sense, and it is explored here, is that the Dozier deal is holding up everything else. If Dozier is dealt (assuming for JDL +), then - and only then - do you reassess your needs. It is a domino - Polanco slides over to 2B, Escobar is penciled in at SS, and you decide if you have a 4th IF anywhere on your roster in 2017 (D San - no; Vielma - probably no; Beresford - possibly). So then that starting SS or 4th IF becomes a higher priority. I'm not saying we're getting a SS or RP or 4th OF back for Dozier, but you pretty much gotta wait and see. Any position that we fill now (outside of the emergency need at C) to some extent ties our hands on a potential return for Dozier. That's why the front office wanted final offers for him. If he is staying, we got holes to fill. If he is traded, we need to figure out where those holes remain. I agree with most here that Bellinger is probably not coming back in the Dozier deal, or the SS they like, but there is time to find those positions still before spring. Would be nice if something happened (my lips to God's ears) just to break the bleak monotony of this cold, windy winter, but I don't see our off-season shopping list as anything in crisis - least not from a timing standpoint.

OTB, I think the arguments against moving Santana as aggressively are two-fold: 1. With Dozier, we have another second baseman (Polanco) who could slide into that spot. Perhaps that represents a decline in production (and from a 40 HR guy, how could it not?), but it does unplug a situation where Polanco is playing out of position at SS and we still want his bat in the lineup while playing someone at SS who would be an improvement over Polanco defensively. With Santana, we don't have an abundance of pitchers who could move into that position without a fairly gigantic loss of production. 2. The second argument dovetails into the first, but essentially, we are looking to move Dozier in order to improve our pitching by getting 2+ pitchers who are almost MLB ready to steady the rotation. It is clear that finding two new starters will help this club far more than the drop-off in production from Dozier to Polanco. With moving Santana, the opposite is true. Even if we get pitching back for him (which would be wise, targeting another AA/AAA pitcher with upside to coincide with the arrival of others), we can't argue that we've improved the team for 2017. There is a very, very determined effort by the front office not to state publicly that we are giving up on 2017 (though a great number of posts all over this site talk about "the Twins are not going to compete in 2017/2018"). Should the team receive two or more players who can slot into starting roles in the near future for Dozier makes sense to the average fan. Getting a AA starter with upside to replace our best pitcher is a much harder sell to fans who just want to see their team be good this year. Seems clear to me that they can't sell that notion to the fans, so won't be able to move Santana until the team is out of it. Let's just hope that he's playing well and still brings back a pitcher with upside and an eta of 2017/2018 in return.

I'm a big fan of this move. Everyone's blueprint included improving the 2 spot, and we just did with the best framer available. Just seeing the .gif of him receiving gave me a p*** shiver. Ask a pitcher what it means to have someone frame every one of your pitches instead of sweeping their glove away from the strike zone as they receive a ball tailing outside. Confidence. Is. Ginormous. This is a signing that tells your entire pitching staff "you aren't as bad as you were made to believe" and "we are out to fix this" simultaneously. Hoping for Murphy/Centeno/Garver to cover that hole? Hoping for an injured Ramos or what, exactly? You want to criticize this move, run a happier scenario at catcher by me....

Looking at the alternatives, I feel like the Grinch looking at the Whoville phone book - hate, hate, hate, loathe entirely. Twins need to stop playing people out of position - period. Dozier to third? Mauer to left? Mauer to third? I'd put "keep Polanco at SS" as the exact same thing, much less Polanco to 3B. Based on his age relative to the maturation of the bulk of the future of this team, only one of those OP plans seems wise to me. We haven't sold high on a player in a long time - I understand the concerns about butts in the seats (and the counter-argument about winning being more important). Polanco at 2b, Dozier for a good pitcher, obtain the world's best catcher - is the only one of those options that doesn't scream "same old" pray-for-mediocrity to me.

Any player that we are talking about keeping to improve his trade value should be gone. The only way to improve their trade value is to play them, and that takes away from the big picture vision. Yes, I'm talking primarily about Trevor. I like him and think he can be a valuable player at some point, but not worth a gamble that paying him $8M and playing him over youngsters improves his value to the point where someone eats his contract and gives us anything of value. That just makes no sense to me, unless you really feel he is going to rebound in a huge way and don't mind platooning Sano - neither of which seems wise to me. I like the idea of platooning Vargas/Mauer/Park at 1B/DH. I agree with the folks who say that there is no place to trade Mauer (and the idea of cutting him is not wise either - if we were going to agree to pay his entire salary, someone would give us something for him, so why pay the whole salary and get nothing back?). Plus, the breakdown of the numbers shows that Joe was an .800 OPS guy until he got hurt and my personal visual was that he was pretty good in clutch situations (even though his RBI total was way down). There is clearly a place on this team for Joe Mauer, given all the alternatives. He would be an ideal pinch-hitter in late-game situations and the idea of him getting 350 ABS and working primarily against RH pitchers with Vargas as the DH on those days, and Park at 1B with Vargas DHing against lefties makes sense. And yes, if we're going to improve the starting staff, it is a combination of factors, many of which we already possess. We can't jettison upside prospects (and I am hoping Gibson turns it around next year and think he will). Keep Santana unless you are blown away by a deal for a major-league ready starter who is 23 and who will project into your lineup. Having Gibson, Santana, Mejia, May, Santiago, Berrios, Gonsalves, potentially Hughes (not counting on it) potentially available to start next year (plus the young starter we get for Dozier) is a pathway, if not a solution. So trade Dozier for the starter most likely to succeed, run the 1B/DH rotation, Polanco at 2b, Escobar at SS, Sano at 3B, outfield is set at the starting spots and pick a 4th OF from F.A. or Grossman. The biggest need on this team is behind the plate. I don't pretend to know much about Castro or any other FA, but we need the best pitch-framer run-stopper we can find, as it improves 12 other guys pitching and helps 8 other guys fielding. I think the biggest obstruction to the future is resigning ballplayers that take ab's away from guys who need to get a look, just so we can shop them for value. It is backward thinking. I think we blew it the last two months of the season by playing marginal stopgaps instead of the future, and hope we're not so awful that we get another chance next year to get it right.

Like many, I cannot for the life of me figure out why the Twins are not looking at their situation as a huge, rare (and hopefully non-repeating) gift. It is obvious that this is the time to play youngsters, visualize next year's (and 2018's) team, put players in their strongest positions, and see what you have. The team has done almost none of that. Excuses/reasons/justifications: 1. The team would like to see a .500 record, or close to it, in the season's final months. That will be their mantra moving forward. As Buck Turgidson said in Dr. Strangelove, "I think they've already invalidated that theory." 2. They are showcasing players to move them. As someone mentioned, having Plouffe play first base, allowing Danny Santana to get regular turns in the field and at the dish, failing to move Suzuki now, all seem destined to preserve the status quo but with a potential agenda. 3. The team truly believes that winning right now and playing the recognizable names is the best way to put fans in the seats. Trouble is, none of us (though many are not of the casual-fan variety) feel that is true. It is time, front office. It is time to transition Trevor May to a starter, as we have an abundance of relievers in the pipeline, and relievers are easier to find on the open market. It is time to whisper into Jose Berrios's ear that he will be on the mound every 5th day for the rest of his life. It is time to see ABWIII and Palka (well, September 1st). It is time to play Sano every day at 3b, and decide if Polanco can play SS everyday (a decision that should have been anticipated at season's commencement - how he played 0 innings at SS all season is beyond unforgiveable). I'd like to see Engelb Vielma play SS the last month of the season and put Polanco at 2b every day instead, maximizing positional potential. Rotate Plouffe, Mauer, Park, and Vargas at 1b/DH, use Dozier as a DH while you see what Vielma/Polanco looks like. With a stable OF of Rosario, Kepler and (in my opinion) Buxton, see what you have in potential back-up OFs with ABW and Palka and whether they can handle the duties of the corners. Bring up both Garver and Murphy and play them every single day from September 1st forward. Open auditions in the bullpen. I want to see them all. Every situation right now, frankly, is low-leverage. Truth is, Dozier, Plouffe, Mauer, Escobar, DSantana, Grossman, Suzuki, can sit for a month. Our draft position will hold in the top 2 or 3, we will be better in the long run, and for the first time in a half decade, we will put players where they ultimately belong. I'm tired of waiting for long-term vision from this team.

So who is the best defense-first catcher who will be available? I admit I just don't know enough about the names to know whether Castro or Pena or anyone else is a viable option. I am also in the camp that says no to Suzuki for longer than a year (and he'll get it), and no to Ramos or Wieters. I will honestly take a substantially-below-Mendoza offensive catcher if he can gun runners and inspire confidence in the staff.

Of all the options, I like the 26-man roster the best! I can see that being a part of the next cba, given the super-specialization and the union wanting that many more players with big league deals. Mauer, Dozier, Polanco/Escobar, Sano; Rosario, Buxton, Kepler; Centeno/Murphy, plus Vargas, DanSan and Grossman. Means dropping Suzuki (no multi-year deal, please) and Plouffe (August or non-tender). Gives us a bench of a back-up catcher (possibly Garver instead of one of the above), Escobar, DanSan, Grossman. IF (big if) we can go down to 12 pitchers at any point, there is a spot created for Park or ABW or Palka. In my mind this creates positional flexibility at 1b (Mauer, Park, Vargas, Kepler, Palka), 2b (Dozier, Polanco, Santana, Escobar), SS (Escobar, Polanco, Santana), 3b (Sano, Polanco, Escobar), and a primary three outfielders with Santana, Walker, Palka, Grossman also available. I'd like to see Vargas get lots of at-bats at DH, but also find a way to get Park/ABW/Palka into the lineup at DH occasionally. That is a young, fast, powerful team. Then we buy (or trade milb talent for) the best starter we can find. Gibson, Santana, Berrios, new starter and competition between May, Duffy, Santiago, Mejia for 5th starter spot, plus necessary placeholders when starters go down. You add one fine name to that list (help me here, please?) and you have a serviceable rotation.

We've been operating under stock market reasoning for too long - stocks are up, so don't sell because they are valuable and will continue to escalate. Stocks are down, so sell them off for nothing. When are we going to start selling off assets at their peak value? That's my thinking with Dozier - two months ago, we were all saying that if only we could dump him, but he's hitting so poorly and with no power. He is a cost-controlled player (though I am not familiar enough with the second base market to vouch that there is a need for him anywhere) that would be attractive not only to playoff teams but other teams who are looking to build quickly despite a disappointing 2016. There is no other reasonable place to put Polanco. The whole Polanco plays SS notion is wrong - it is the same thinking that puts players out of position, where they have limited or no experience, and dooms them to failure so the front office can conclude that they just weren't ready. Mauer will be staying at first, though he can be spelled by Sano or Kepler or Vargas. Polanco everyday at second. Escobar everyday at SS. Sano primary 3b. Park/Vargas is our primary DH/pinch hitter. Rosario, Buxton, Kepler in the OF. Grossman 4th OF; two catchers not named Suzuki (Murphy or Garver plus Centeno for the rest of this season to see what we have); and Santana on the bench. Depending on whether you can flip Plouffe or when he gets healthy, Santana or Beresford goes back to AAA. Once the front office starts looking at our prospects and their natural positions, they can start to look at the team of 2018/2019 and realize where the blockades exist. Abad and Kintzler - gone in the next two days. Opens up auditions for the rest of 2016. Suzuki - gone in the next two days. Opens up catcher spots (and we can resign Suzuki in the off-season, a la Aguilara, if desperation sets in). Milone and Nolaso - gone in the next two days (or in Nolasco's case, moved to long relief if no one will take on even a reasonable portion of his salary). Welcome to the rotation Trevor May and Jose Berrios. Not only does this rotate the roster and open up spots for prospects at their natural positions, it sends a message to every minor-leaguer in our organization that by effort and not by coronation or inertia do you play big league ball. Sorry for the long rant. If we don't use these next two months as an audition, we have completely wasted our already-wasted season.

Trade Dozier. Trade Plouffe. Bring up Beresford. Polanco plays second, Escobar at short, Sano at third, and while that might drop the bottom out of the world at Twins HQ, it is exactly what needs to happen to start playing the generation of ballplayers that might - just might - bring this club back to prominence. If any of you had a vote for whether or not this would spark interest in the future of this club, versus the depressing cycle we've been in for half a decade, you'd do it, wouldn't you?

Echoing many of the sentiments. This season will be a success if we realign the roster to place players in their optimal positions, and construct a lineup that has youth, speed, depth and a future. There are (again, as pointed out in various posts) a handful of moves that will straighten this out. 1) trade Suzuki, bring up Murphy; we will have 3 catchers on our 40-man next year with Turner and Garver regardless of what happens with Centeno; no room for 5 and no room for an aging, nice, weak-framer who can't throw anyone out in the team of the future; 2) Infield should consist of Mauer, Escobar, Sano, Polanco, and either Santana or Beresford as 5th, which means trading Nunez, Plouffe and Dozier; 3) Outfield is Rosario, Buxton, Kepler, with Grossman. Bench, 2nd catcher, Santana/Beresford, Palka/ABW, Vargas/Park. 3) Starting pitching, I think we keep Gibson (hard to find another with a brighter future for more cost control), Santana, Duffey, and utilize Berrios and May; means jettisoning Nolasco and Milone, with Hughes as long-relief, 6th starter, potential of Jay, Meyer, and others. The hope is that the trade of Plouffe, Dozier, Nunez, Nolasco, Milone, Suzuki frees up enough money to sign a frontline young starter. as most should be traded for high-upside low minors prospects who don't need a 40-man spot in the next year. 4) Bullpen is fungible; trade Abad, dump Ramirez, keep the rest, with a long dash of Chargois, Wimmers, plus the existing Kintzler, Pressley, Rogers, Tonkin, and the notion of Hughes, Perkins, Dean, and others on the horizon, along with a handful of other rising arms or free agent acquisitions. This backs us up in every position, all with young speed, puts everyone in their natural positions, and makes this a team worth watching the rest of this year and all of next, with a decreased payroll even after signing a top-of-the-order guy.

"If you have a guy that swings at everything you don't want to tell him to take" I understand people disagree with this statement, but I think the answer is more in the phrasing than the philosophy. Aggressive swingers don't respond well to "take pitches" because that takes away their aggressiveness. What Jake is saying is that if they go up to bat, not thinking "take" but thinking "is this a pitch I can drive hard somewhere" it accomplishes the same thing without substantially changing the hitter's mentality. I like it.

We've had some crazy good months of May, often spurred by young players. Plus, it is clear to me that both Berrios and Meyer will put fans in the seats. Raise your hand if you had a rotation of Hughes, Nolasco, Duffey, Berrios and Meyer on May 1. I think the point has been made, too, about Tommy Milone's splits first and second and third time through the order. We need a long reliever. No one doubts that Meyer's stuff is far superior. Other than the "let's have one left-hander in the rotation" bias, this move makes total sense. Excellent point, too, about contracts and long-term thinking. On a completely unrelated point, rambling through the mlb stats page, it makes one feel better if you just look at the 7-day stats rather than the season-long stats. Trending in the right direction for many players. Team needs at least a few guys with BAs between .250-.290 (and I don't mean the guys hitting over .300 dropping....)

The worst-case-scenario for the Twins is to have a combination of underperformance from several rookies and sophomores, and reasonable to good performances from Ryan Sweeney, Carlos Quentin, and Ricky Nolasco....and then making long-term or irrevocable roster decisions based on that. It would keep us on the path of least-development, and put in place a huge piece of the team that is, as they say, not part of the future. Now, if Ricky pitches well enough to be traded, that's a different kettle.

I've been wrong year over year on many players, but this is clearly a huge year for Polanco. If the team swims in mediocrity, I can see a scenario where BD is traded and JP becomes the regular at 2nd. This makes sense on two fronts: 1) Return for Dozier is relatively high as a power-hitting middle infielder cost-controlled for a few more seasons (as noted, through age 32) 2) Jorge Polanco represents a skill set different from the lion's share of the present lineup. We have multiple home-run, low-average guys (Sano, Park, Plouffe, Arcia, ABW, Vargas, even Escobar and Rosario are double-digit homer candidates). We have OBP without substantial power (Mauer, Kepler); we have guys who won't do either (catcher). We have exactly one potential OBP/speed threat (Buxton). Teams need speed in the lineup. I may be pushing things a bit, but I like Polanco in the 2-hole, behind Buxton and ahead of the mashers. This team lacks serious table-setters with speed. If Dozier can fetch a nice return, I don't see the trade-off between Dozier's future and Polanco's future being so great as to cast JP aside for nothing because the only spot he fits is already filled.

The more consideration I give to the 2016 lineup, the more convinced I am that it is falling on the shoulders (fairly or unfairly) of Byron Buxton. Let's look at the ways he impacts the lineup. 1. Lineup with Buxton leading off: Buxton, Dozier, Mauer, Sano, Plouffe, Park, Rosario, Murphy/Suzuki, Escobar. Without Buxton leading off: Dozier, Mauer, Sano, Park, Plouffe, Rosario, Murphy/Suzuki, Escobar, Buxton/Santana. Not only does the first lineup place players in their optimum position, it showcases a very strong lineup 1-9. We have power through the middle with Sano, Plouffe, Park in the 4-6 holes, We have a base-stealing, 1st-to-3rd demon at the top of the lineup, and what I would consider among the league leaders in the 7-9 holes. Without him at the top, almost every player is batting out of position. Too much pressure is placed on Park, Dozier is not a leadoff hitter in the OBP sense, and it feels like every player is one spot away from his ideal place in the order. We have almost no speed at the top of the order. We rely too heavily on 7-9 to produce runs or runners without a consistent RBI presence batting behind them. 2. There has been a lot of recent discussion of OF defense. With Buxton manning CF, you can place Rosario in RF or LF, and Sano in the other corner. At least two of the three are elite defensively, all three have great arms, and Sano's athleticism and arm and bat make the team reasonable with the fly-ball pitching staff they have. Many have pointed out how valuable the athletic outfield was to the pitching staff. I don't think it is wrong to suggest that the defense was worth half of the decreased ERA among starters last year, though statistics could prove me wrong. But if Buxton is sent to AAA, the outfield scenarios become....what's the word I'm searching for?....frightening. Sano, Rosario, Arcia? They cannot score enough runs to make up for the defensive lapses. And those lapses don't just cause runs to occur because of missed fly balls, doubles and triples. Those lapses cause mental anguish in pitchers who try to be too fine and miss their targets because of their fear of solid contact. You cannot pitch in the big leagues worried that any ball that is hit will become a problem. Defense translates into confidence in pitchers. Confidence in pitchers leads to success. The last thing I want to think when I'm a pitcher is the things I cannot do - "can't throw a fastball here to this dead-pull hitter; can't throw anything offspeed to this guy and speed up his bat; can't throw a change because he knows I need to avoid the fastball to avoid solid contact." 3. I'm not a huge believer in projections, but any scenario in which the Twins make the playoffs and win playoff games starts with Byron Buxton being a difference-maker. If he is a.290 hitter with a .365 OBP and .410 SLG, with 30 doubles, 13 triples, 10 HR, and 34 SBs, the progression or regression of every other player on the team (within reason, we can't have regression by everyone else) makes far less difference. We, in all fundamental fairness to our hopes and dreams, NEED this guy to break out. We don't need him to be the ROY, but he would need to be within the top 3. One caveat. I'm breaking one of my cardinal rules here. I rarely watch football, because I hate the hyperbole. They start every broadcast with "If the Lions are going to win today, so-and-so NEEDS to carry the ball 20 times" or "the defense NEEDS to keep the opposition under 50% in third-down conversions." I have watched enough to know that there are many ways to win, and teams win without 20 carries or 50% third-down conversions. There isn't one thing we need, if enough other things happen. But when I walk through the lineup, and through the defense, and through the possibilities and probabilities, it keeps coming back to this one guy. With all the known and unknown quantities on this team, if he's a bust and spends this year in AAA, I don't see a scenario where we are successful. If he's a ROY/MVP player, I don't see a scenario where we aren't a very, very competitive team with the sky as the limit.

That's much better than what I feared you meant....

Lots of hard work and a lot of thought-provoking posts over the holidays, OTB. I'll disagree about having more than 4 pitchers with 10 wins. I think 4 is a good number, but having 5 do that means that no one gets a mid-season injury, or that the replacements occur early enough to carry the load for the rest of the season. I am counting on that amount from Hughes, Santana and Gibson (barring injury), but not certain we will see that many from 2 of Milone, Nolasco, Duffey, Berrios, May, Meyer, et al. It is just going to be hard to find two of those guys who plug in and stay in the rotation to get the 20-25 starts that make 10 wins a reality. There's an irony there, too. If a couple of those names were gone, it would increase the odds of having the remaining pitchers lock into rotation spots. But I'm in the crowd that wants to keep the depth, knowing that a team will need 8 arms to get through the season. Happy New Year! And let's start talking about the start of spring training in terms of weeks (7 1/2 until February 21st) rather than months (less than 2!). Makes it sound closer.

Not trying to hijack the post, but setting a lineup becomes an interesting proposition for this team. To me, the fact that Mauer batted largely in the 3-hole and had 3/4 of his at-bats with the bases empty speaks more to the hitters in front of him than his production. Don't know the statistics, but not sure the #6 batter gets more chances with guys on base than the #3. I'll take that slash line out of my #3 hitter, but would sure like to improve the number of AB's with runners on. Being able to have an on-base producer (or producers) in front of Joe is that important. As good as Dozier was last year, he is not a prototypical leadoff guy and we spent much of the season without a fast-running, walk-inducing, good-average guy in the leadoff spot. Hicks wasn't perfect in that spot either and none of the other outfielders seem destined for that duty. Sure would be nice to plug Byron Buxton into that spot. With this lineup being power-oriented, there is an absolute necessity to have an OBP machine at the top of the order. Being able to project Buxton there makes everything else fall into place. Sure, that's a lot of expectation, but if he can take over CF and bat leadoff, that allows us to place Dozier, Sano, Park, Mauer, Plouffe, Rosario into the 2-7 holes, and leaves two pretty good players in Murphy/Suzuki and Escobar in the 8-9 slots. Joe always strikes us as the guy who is clutch and bears down in those situations (and this was an excellent post in pointing out just how real that sense is). But if Byron is not ready, who bats in the 1, 2 slots? This team doesn't seem to have a lot of guys in the starting 9 who project into those roles.

Three things I believe. 1. We will see a better Ricky Nolasco this season. 2. The Twins will release or put him in the BP him if he isn't good. 3. Mauer is the hub of the wheel for this team, offensively, and I don't mean that he propels them. If he is hitting, he's the 1B, and everything revolves around that (Plouffe, Sano, Park, Arcia, the Hicks trade, Kepler, ABW). If he isn't, he has to move down in the order; he has to move away from 1B, letting Sano play there (or Park with Sano at DH), and opening up the OF for the three best two-way players (probably Buxton, Rosario, and Kepler). It doesn't leave any room for Joe. But I completely agree that you can't just plug him in to that spot in the order and in the defense with the current (and future) alignment of the team.

I don't expect us to get the best buy-low candidate of the offseason (Cervelli). I think we got a fair return for what we gave up. I am in the minority on this position (given the OP) but I think there are a lot of reasons to love this deal. First, we have outfield depth, and it would have been difficult to find a place for Hicks on a long-term basis - not enough power for a corner, and two outfield spots covered with a logjam behind that is intriguing. But to me more important is the sense of being a pro ballplayer in your prime. JR Murphy has got to be absolutely jacked right now. He is going to play at least half the time, knowing that the Twins want to limit Suzuki's AB's, and he is solid defensively. He isn't crowded by a high-dollar veteran ahead of him and a top prospect behind him. Hicks is headed to crazy town with a ton of pressure and has not handled failure well in his history. I think this board is going to love our new catcher (for the next 7-8 years!), and realize shortly into the season that there was no place for Hicks on this team. And then again, i could be completely wrong.

I'm not so sure. Yes they could have signed someone, I agree with that. But who? Yesterday was the first day that this San Diego glut appeared, and everyone seemed very underwhelmed by the FA catchers out there who already signed for cheap. Maybe I should edit and add "or instead of Murphy, they had only signed a middling backup FA to address this glaring need"