diehardtwinsfan

I doubt it's stamina. It isn't as though he's never been able to pitch through the 6th. I'm guessing a combination of nerves, not quite having his best stuff, tiring, and a few other things likely led to it. That happens to a lot of guys from time to time. I'm also guessing he works through it just fine. If not, worst case is that he spends a bit extra time in AAA. He's 21. Time is definitely on his side.

yeah, last time they did something like that, they shipped off a kid named Lawton for if I remember right, Rick Reed. That killed the offense. I suspect Plouffe is an offseason deal, and I have no problems targeting a young ML ready catcher for him, as I think he's good enough to net it.

I remember that well as I lived there at that time. It worked out very well for them as they kept their core in tact. I wouldn't be surprised if they waited a year. The costs do go up, but so does some of that certainty. The Twins aren't hurting financially, so there's something to say about letting some of the risk play itself out, as a 7-8 year deal would still be very much of an option next year (it would just cost a bit more). That being said, if they are comfortable with Sano, his work ethic, and that he is a long term major leaguer, I think it would be wise to extend him sooner than later.

Anyone else think that Miranda Waiters would be a better President than the crap coming out of DC these days?

i'm going to go out on a limb and say that the main reason Longoria signed that contract is that he wanted to be in Tampa. Not sure if Sano wants that or if he wants to test FA... who knows. I do think that for a guy that is looking like a sure thing elite guy, getting that extension done sooner as opposed to later from a team perspective. Sano may want to bet on himself too. Who knows.

If there was a reason to trade an elite prospect, that would probably be it. I'd probably flip Plouffe for an above average catcher if I could this offseason, but I'd think long and hard if Beane offered him up for Berrios and a lesser prospect.

I really liked that they went with HS upside type guys with these two. Good seasons in the GCL would go a long way to giving these guys some solid status. They are quite a bit younger than their league.

His minor league career K rate was just over 8 per 9. Not quite sure 1K an inning is sustainable, but there's no reason to think that he cannot keep a K/9 in the 7-8 range. That would be Brandon Webb back when he was good. We have a nice group of young pitchers in May and Gibson complementing Hughes for 3 spots. The real issue long term is Santana, Nolasco, Milone, Berrios, Duffy, Rogers, and (hopefully) Meyer.

I'd be more interested in long term help vs. short term help. The pen should be addressable cheaply, and I have no problems trading off a marginal prospect for a quasi decent reliever. Who I'd trade: Pelfrey - think his time might be up here. He will probably get something from a team that needs pitching. Won't likely net much, but if I could ship him off for a decent reliever with a year or two left on his contract, I would. Plouffe - a wildcard here. I'd probably wait closer to the deadline to see if Sano is still hitting, but if he is, I'd shop Plouffe for a long term catching fixture. If I cannot get it, I don't trade him. If I can, then Arcia gets called up to DH and Sano moves to 3rd.

I think Tonkin just needs time. Problem is that this is the one thing he doesn't get. I don't understand why he cannot occupy a roster spot in favor of some of the lower ceiling guys who really aren't getting the job done either.

I'd say it's looking like Plouffe is traded this offseason. SSS for sure, but promising.

This... That's the part that I've never quite understood about these conclusions. If it matters for pitchers, then it matters for hitters too. It may not matter in the same way, but it matters. Side note, I'm pretty sure this is from a style of thinking that no longer exists in the SABR community.

I'm fine with that, but I do believe that the parents of said pupil should have every right in deciding what school to send their children to, and by proxy, which school receives those funds.

I work almost exclusively with DoD clients, and I can say for certain that the way we do military spending desperately needs to change, just like everything else. I'm not saying education needs to be farmed out to the highest bidder, but I am saying that right now, public schools that aren't very good at education get the lions share of the dollars and if I don't want my kid going to said schools, I either need to move or pony up extra cash for private schools. This isn't about the highest bidder, it simply recognizes that parents need a say in their children's education and it incentivizes those who do it well. I live in one of the top school systems in the state of Indiana. How is it that we continue to be one of the top systems despite the fact that we are the lowest funded of all Indiana's districts? The problem isn't underfunding. I agree that education is a necessity, but let's not pretend that we've been doing it very well or that we can simply fix it by throwing some additional cash at it. And while we are at it, let's stop pretending that parents shouldn't have a say in how their children are educated. I think freedom, more than education is a cornerstone to any democracy, which means that people are free to be dumb too, and that education systems should be more focused on giving people the tools to make intelligent decisions than telling them what the 'intelligent decisions' are... you and I both know that at the end of the day, this is nothing more than another means to manipulate the masses into doing the bidding of those in charge. At the end of the day, it no longer educates.

That's just it though, we did nationalize education, and we spend billions on it. I'm not sure 'underfunding' is the right answer here. It didn't work. When states were doing their own things (as backwards as it may look to some of us), they had better results. This is one of the biggest problems I have with any government involvement. If it doesn't work (and it usually doesn't), it becomes a 'well we didn't do it enough' answer instead of killing it off. That's how government bureaucracy works, and it's also how things end up being around for far too long. There's really no accountability, nor is there ever an exit strategy to failed government intervention, and the solution to bad results is always more intervention, even if intervention is the reason the results were bad in the first place. I think one of the biggest problems is not allowing competition within the schools. I pay property taxes for education. However, I cannot turn around and use those funds towards the education system that best fits my child. If I don't like my chosen option, my only real options are to pay out of pocket for a better school or to move. Both options tend to be cost prohibitive and punish the poor more than anyone else. The other big problem is the idea that everyone is entitled to go to college (no child left behind is a great example). That's something that many of these other countries who have passed us have figured out. I don't think it's the right of the state to designate this, but I do think that in our zeal for fairness, Americans ignore that there IS an intelligence bell curve. We simply throw money/resources at all of them. There's no shame in working in a factory, or becoming a plumber, and if we are going to hand money to people, there's nothing wrong in making sure it's earned. Likewise, all funding gets collected at higher levels and then redistributed. I don't see how that ever works others than to create additional bureaucracy. As already mentioned, collecting property taxes at the state level and then distributing locally doesn't work, so explain to me how collecting it at the national level, distributing to states, who then turn and distribute it locally is somehow going to solve (and cheapen) the problem? It won't.

When the Department of Education was formed, US children were number 1 across the board globally compared to their peers. Where are they now? Have American children simply got dumber over the last few decades or perhaps the idea of a Federal education standard somehow muddied education reform? I think government involvement in education needs to happen more at state and local levels. What I see now are a whole lot of federal standards and teachers that are teaching to a test as opposed to educating our children. That doesn't work well for anyone, especially teachers who are forced to act in the best interest of the school system instead of the children they teach. As for big companies, I think there's something here. Though the failure has been allowing them to get as big as they have gotten and not used the anti-trust laws that have been in existence for a century. These big companies have bought our federal politicians, essentially allowing them to regulate the markets to their advantage. In a true free market system, when Lehman failed, it would have taken down Goldman and Morgan with it. Instead, they got you and I to purchase their junk assets at 100 cents on the dollar. That's not a free market.

I think the problem here is that Rogers still has potential (and value) as a starter. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you that his ultimate destination may be the pen, but I think the first problem you have is that O'Rourke is only going to be a reliever, and in terms of facing lefties, is ready as well. I have no problems with this approach. Now if O'Rourke fails, I think the idea of Rogers coming up to be the LOOGY has merit, but I do think that he's better served continuing to start. I wouldn't be surprised if that is Roger's preference as well.

I really don't understand this argument. Burdi started out in AA this year and he failed. Would he have somehow succeeded if he had moved up a bit earlier last year? I highly doubt that. Lest we forget, his first professional start he managed to not pitch through an inning while giving up a ton of runs. There's no harm in giving him time at that level to make sure he's mastered it, especially given that relief pitchers are more vulnerable than others to SSS criteria. The problem with Nick Burdi is not the Twins' management of him, but Nick Burdi. Can he overcome it? Most likely, I would guess. But it might actually take some time. That's not the end of the world. He's a college draftee who is in AA for his first full season. That alone, while not unheard of, is pretty impressive.

Most of us recognize that by 'doing something' the government tends to create more problems than it solves. It also recognizes that not every problem out there is solvable by the government, and most certainly not the federal government. State and local governments likely have a better grasp on their constituents to solve those issues. But yeah, there are solutions there. You have to recognize the problem for what it is, and neither party really gets its head around the fact that the government is a big part of most of the problems that we face today. I know it isn't always as simple as 'shrink the government', but honestly, that works more than people give it credit for.

I don't see this as a trade either team would be terribly interested in. If the Brewers shop Lucroy, they are essentially committing to a full rebuild. They would probably be interested in some younger pitching options (Berrios, Stewart, etc.). Not opposed to targeting Lucroy, I just don't think this deal is worth it for Milwauke, and I don't see the Twins really offering that up either.

I was just looking at those guys myself as I'm putting together a prospect list later this month. What I fund amusing about it is that 3 or 4 years ago the system was so weak that guys that young having standout seasons in rookie ball were top 10 guys. Now, they aren't even heard of. Given their age relative to the league, these guys will likely be on our radar quite a bit in the near future. Would love to know more about them though.

Perhaps there should just be a general disclaimer for Dick and Bert.

I think Plouffe is traded or moved at some point in the near future, though I do think there's some wisdom in letting Sano acclimate with the bat a bit first. He's certainly hitting fairly well right now, but we are definitely in SSS territory, and I'd like to see how major leaguers adjust to him once the scouting reports get out. Plouffe is an offseason trade at the earliest in my opinion. That said, I really hope they get a good ML ready catcher for him.

Those are video game stats by those 3 lookouts hitters. I'm not sold completely on Walker just yet, but man he's fun to follow. Sano and Kepler are looking like pretty sure things at the major league level, and if Walker can cut down on those K's just a bit, he's probably right there with them. It will be interesting to see where they place him given his OF defense isn't all that good from what I've read. But if he can improve just a bit on his contact, he'd likely be a pretty awesome DH/corner OF.

not terribly surprised. Meyer hasn't been that good. Hopefully, he's headed back to AAA with a few new things to work on.