diehardtwinsfan

Everyone said that about him last year too, and yet he still got plenty of pitches to hit out. I think Dozier's second half woes are likely attributable to something else personally.

I'm officially flying into Tampa on the 11th. It's about a 2 hour drive from Tampa to Fort Myers, so I'm hoping to be in town around lunch and catch that game

This has nothing to do with being dominant or even "pretty damn good". It has everything to do with what is best for ABW (and conversely, what is best for the Twins). Neither of those rather subjective terms have can adequately shed light on what Walker needs to learn in order to become a successful major leaguer. Yeah, he hits a lot of home runs. We all get that, and we all like it. But I don't think it's unreasonable say that he might need to work on other areas of his game to be a successful major leaguer, and what determines what this is has very little to do with the numbers he put up in AA last year. Why is this so difficult to understand? Results are not the be all/end all of player development. Far more goes into it than 30ish home runs, championships that involve more than 2 dozen other guys, and a decent OPS. The kid has moved up a level each year. He was added to the 40 man. We all clearly see his value. We also see the causes for concern. There's nothing wrong with that.

Not a good sign, I'd agree, but not with out precedent: see Morneau, Justin.

The more I think about it, I think this might be best for him. He's clearly improving in the BB category, and perhaps seeing if those are sustainable and that he can make a drop in his K rate might be good for him. At AA he's a call up away regardless, but truthfully, he's going to be behind Arcia, Kepler, Rosario, and until Plouffe is traded Sano for any corner spot. I'd add that I suspect Sweeney could work himself into that mix too if he's doing well and Buxton forces things at center. Walker will likely see some time if injuries get in the way, but I suspect the bulk of year 1 on the 40 man for him will be in the minors. Letting him spend a month or two in AA to see if the changes he's been working on are legit isn't a bad idea at all.

Given the amount of time that Mauer has needed to recover, I think it can be safely said that 2013 wasn't likely the first time he had his bell rung so to speak (whether that was in HS as a football player or even as a pro baseball player, who knows). That said, I think he has about 69 million reasons to stick around for 3 more years. I get that his contracts are guaranteed, but I suspect that like it or not, Mauer probably doesn't like the idea of collecting that money without performing. As for hanging it up... well, that's up to him. I'd probably think about it if I were in his shoes (but to be fair, I'd probably keep playing if I was him as well), as he's taking some risks. Concussions have links to ALS and CTE where as bi-lateral leg weakness is often associated with ALS.... not exactly a way to go if you ask me. I guess I just hope he understands the risks. That's probably the biggest problem most athletes face with these types of issues. They don't understand the risk. The reward is often worth it, but the risks are very real.

This is encouraging. Let's hope Arcia takes that step forward that we had hoped he would take last year.

If anything, I think this should be a reason for the Twins to take it easier with him this year, and not necessarily plug him into the lineup every day (and given Park and Arcia likely on the roster, that should be doable). I'd imagine a lot of that stress gets brought out when the season gets grueling... call me crazy there. That said, it's year 3 now. Hopefully his brain has healed. He never had a ton of power, so hopefully that batting eye comes back and he can have a couple more .320/.400/.480 type seasons.

I haven't been on this forum in a bit, and I'm not sure I want to read through the 6+ pages we have around whether guns should or shouldn't be legal. I'll circle back here and make some points that always get lost in this conversation. 1) The second amendment was put in place largely as a check and balance against tyranny of the government. Guns for self defense were pretty common place and that didn't need to be specified back in the late 1700s as there were very real self defense issues that every citizen had to deal with at that time. If you read the writings of many of the founding fathers, the purpose of guns/militias was precisely that, and let's not pretend that we've evolved beyond that in the last 200 years, because we haven't. Corruption is real. Eminent domain is real. Since it's formation, our government has constantly sought to repress the rights of individuals (and let's not pretend this is on one side of the aisle here, it's not) as those rights often times conveniently get in the way of it's plans, whether they be noble or not. 2) There is always a cost to freedom. This debate, along with a few others we've had in this forum, really ignores this fact. The whole point in living in a free country is that people are free to do what they want so long as they aren't infringing on the freedoms of the people. We like to say we have freedom, while with the same breath attempt to restrict the rights and freedoms of others, and they often don't appreciate it. I don't care if it's homosexuals, polygamists, drug users, prostitutes, or gun owners to name a few, but in each case, these people are free to do what ever it is that they want so long as they aren't forcing something on someone else. The same works for the opposites in these groups. I have no right to tell a homosexual couple that they cannot marry, just as I have no right to tell my sister how many guns she can own (she has quite a few more than me). There's no difference. 2b) There is a place for reasonable regulation. The key word is reasonable. It's not unreasonable to ask a prostitute to ply his/her trade in specific locations so as to provide a certain level of discretion. It's not unreasonable to ask pornographers to use a .xxx domain (or something like it) so as to allow those of us who don't want to be exposed to it an easier means to filter it out of our searches as well as keeping it away from our children. It is not unreasonable to restrict gun ownership from those who have been convicted of violent crimes, as part of punishment for crimes is usually the forfeiting of some or possibly all rights as it is. The key word is reasonable, of which most of today's gun laws are rapidly moving this country in far from reasonable directions, and the debate is generally being framed in far from reasonable standpoints. The process to obtain a firearm in some states is rather onerous, and instead of focusing on those who have abused the privilege (which is completely doable), the laws focus on all people so as to provide a means of discouraging them to get them. The second amendment is pretty clear on the idea that the right to have guns is not to be infringed, so if this is something we need to change, then perhaps its time to change the second amendment. The fact that so many people would stand up against something like that ought to be a clue right there that this is infringing on a lot of people's freedoms. 3) Someone said this earlier, and I don't remember who, but people are so incapable in this country of solving conflict that they run to guns. The comparison also pointed out to the current gridlock that we face in DC as a perfect example of that. That hit the nail on the head. The problem though is not taking the guns away from everyone (or even restricting what you can and cannot own). You can make all the gun laws in the world and still not prevent Sandy Hook or Columbine because these are problems of the heart. That, unfortunately, is a fact. It might make you feel better about things at the end of the day, but this is the moral equivalent of putting a Band-Aid on a severed artery because someone who wants to do something this gruesome will do it, and nothign will stop them. Criminals break the law, and no law will stop them, and it's not an accident you see these events in places where gun control laws are more strict or where carrying guns are restricted. My sister (a police officer by the way) has a term for this. It's called a target rich environment. But getting back on this point, it really gets to the heart of the other problems above. It's easier to simply demonize your foes and then justify whatever actions necessary to beat them than it is to actually resolve conflict, understand their concerns, and find a solution that attempts to address people's fears. It's the same reason why it is we have complete gridlock in DC right now, and it's the same reason why it is that Republicans and Democrats still fill both sides of the aisle despite their complete inability to govern fairly or competently. It's the reason why people are quite content to allow the courts to overstep their constitutional boundaries. There's a cost to freedom. We say we like or democracy and freedom, yet in so many ways we go straight out to principles that are completely contrary to democracy and freedom because it's easier to act in a totalitarian manner than it is to work through the difficulties of true compromise. And again, both sides do this, and they do it in just about all facets of governing. That problem is a heart issue. It's apparent in DC. It's apparent in these forums. It's apparent pretty much everywhere. Solve this problem, and you'll eliminate many of the contributing factors to some of these atrocities we are talking about, but unless people actually identify the real problems and come up with real solutions to them that attempt to placate real fears, all that will be done is add more problems that create more fears and create more anger. It's a cycle, and a nasty one, and unfortunately, it's plenty apparent here.

Considering said document is the governing laws of our land, I have to disagree. That was it's purpose. You know what else? The founders intentionally created a means of adding to this document and removing from it, and considering that this supposedly is the governing law of the land, if we are to respect it, perhaps we should use that process to change it where appropriate. There's a completely legal way to change it to fit the needs of today. It was designed precisely to be difficult to change so as to prevent many of the problems that we presently face today. Throwing it out because it's inconvenient is precisely why we have the mess that we have today, as both parties toss it out with this same attitude whenever it's convenient to them.

I'm not I completely agree. I think they contribute much in line to the way a typical player contributes. If you could measure WAR for managers (and I don't really know if that will be possible), you'd find a good one might give you 3 wins over the course of the season and a bad one might lose a game or two. The problem is quantifying it. With Gardy, I don't think that was too hard. He made a lot of poor decisions b/c they were easy decisions. I would take Mollie going forward without question at the moment. The real question is how he learns and adjusts. I think the multiple inning thing for relievers was a good thing as was the increased use of shifting (which I'd add is more quantifiable than lineup decisions).

By the say, if anything else, this should make us all appreciate it when a guy like TR gives that journeyman a call up for a few weeks or lets them stay on the 40 man over the winter. Sometimes the 'just cut them' mentality ignores the many years of blood and sweat these guys put in to get there.

That scenario doesn't bother me too much as there's value in that host family relationship that doesn't necessarily show up in these discussions, though I think that pretty much takes care of rookie ball. Once you hit full season ball though, or reach a certain age, I'm guessing that is pretty much out the door.

So is that monthly salary carried over the year, or is it just for the 5 months they work? But yeah, that's pretty bad.

I saw something published once (long time ago though)... it was pretty much peanuts. I want to say once you made it to AAA you were doing OK (something like 30-50k but I could be wrong there), but prior to that you weren't making minimum wage. 40 man roster add got a bump too. But yeah, 2 weeks of MLB pay check is pretty big to these guys.

If I remember right, Garver was the runner up to Turner for the Johnny Bench award. They aren't that far apart defensively... and Garver is much better with the stick. I tend to agree with Thrylos here, Garver is a much better prospect. The defensive drop off isn't nearly as steep as the offensive gap between the two.

For those TD ST regulars, is there a particular area of the stadium where TDers tend to congregate? I'm not sure I'll make there for the game on the 11th, but I'll be there on the 13th and wanted to buy tickets sooner than later (or does it make more sense to just walk up and buy a ticket).

I'm well aware of that. I suspect most of the reputation came more from the snark that usually came with the evaluations. They had a pretty bad farm system back then...

I'm not sure I'd call Polanco's bat major league ready. He's has all of 16 MLB at bats (for one), and his AAA OPS was .667 (.740 in AA in 2015 as well). His OPS has dropped pretty significantly has he's faced higher competition, and while age is on his side, I'm not sure we should pronounce his bat 'major league ready'. Let's see how he does repeating in AAA. A nice bounce from a 22 year old, and I think it might be worth finding a place for Polanco. For the record, Dozier's post all star OPS was .631 (.841 pre-all star, something Polanco hasn't exceeded since rookie ball), and his glove is above average now. If there's a case for anything, it might be to give Brian a bit more rest during the early parts of the season and possibly change his workout routine a bit to focus on endurance. I'm not sure I'd trade Dozier for Polanco just yet. That seems pretty short sighted.

Not to get us back on topic But I have to think that (assuming there are no injury issues) someone gets traded this spring. I do agree that it isn't as likely as it should be, but plenty of teams need pitching help, and we have 7 capable starters with an 8th 1 year away from having to be on the 40 man. You can play an options game with Duffey, but I just don't see a scenario where one or both of Milone or Nolasco is with the team by June. Nolasco b/c quite frankly he's been bad and should be on a short leash, and Milone b/c he is what he is (though to be fair to Tommy, he's been pretty consistent in outperforming his peripherals for his entire career). If there aren't injury issues, I have to think someone would be more than happy to take Tommy off of our hands, and give us a nice prospect too. Going back to May, this is that whole short term/long term thing. He led the team in WAR up until the point he was demoted, and was pretty much lights out that month too. I think you have to look at his projectibility in the rotation as he could be a solid #2 for quite some time. To a lesser extent, that's Gibson as well (as his K rate took a big move in the right direction last season)... but that would hurt us in the short term (the pen in particular) for a much more valuable asset long term. We're pretty much stuck with Hughes and Santana (though in both cases, we probably won't feel 'stuck' with one or both next season). That leaves the last spot to whom I'd put Duffey... again, more projectibility there. That's not how it will happen though. What it should be: Santana, Hughes, Gibson, May, Duffey What it will be: Santana, Hughes, Gibson, Nolasco, Milone

I think the Law hates the Twins thing goes back maybe 5 years, but I haven't seen much indicating that's true in the last two or three years.

Given where they are picking, this might be a good spot to grab a falling high ceiling guy who fell due to injury. You won't likely see a potential can't miss guy there, so getting a high ceiling would be nice. Other option would to grab a guy like Cody with the understanding he's going under slot and then get some HS guys in 2, 2b, and 3.

No not really at all. I have no doubt that certain skill sets will do better than others when prompted, but most hitters who make the majors struggle. That's a verifiable fact. I'd add that while Sano did quite well, his peripherals in MLB said otherwise, and as I've said in other threads, if he doesn't correct those, he's going to find himself struggling in the big leagues. Sano at the least has a track record that says he can, b/c his peripherals in the minors have always been very good. But make no doubt about it, there are scouting reports out on him now, and if he doesn't return to minor league habits, he's going to struggle. Walker on the other hand, has never put up the peripheral data that screamed success. He can hit the ball along way when he hits it, but that all or nothing approach will be more northing than all when facing competition that is talented enough to take advantage of the flaws shown in scouting reports that for the most part don't exist on him yet. The Delmon Young comparison might be apt, except that Walker strikes out a lot more than Young (who was a free swinger). There's no reason to rush the kid, he needs to figure this one out.

Well said Dave.

Have we forgotten that top 100 is essentially the 3 or 4 best prospects in each system? Anyone in the top 100 could be a very good player. Superstars have been born who were never on lists. Yeah, there's a lot less of them, but top 100 also says a lot about what the chances of them making and sticking in the bigs, but it's hardly a be all, end all evaluation of prospects. Delmon Young was #1 over all prospect. So were Joe Mauer and Ken Griffey Jr. It's still quite subjective, even though there's good objective criteria to evaluate, there's a lot of gut feel in there too. The bottom line is that I wouldn't sneeze at any prospect in the top 100. It's still simply a probability game at the end.