diehardtwinsfan

Definitely up near the top. I'd add wins, losses, and saves (which are very much team stats that one person gets credit for). I'd also add errors, which is so ridiculously subjective that I really wonder why anyone bothers tracking them anymore

If my post gave you the impression that the blame was placed on the 52% crowd, then I'll be the first to say I didn't do a good job explaining myself. That wasn't my intent. I was attempting to focus on a hot button issue. I will say that from a moderation standpoint, action was taken against members of both crowds.

This is a bit off topic, but are there any statistics out there that tell us what percentage of outs are being handled at the SS position comparied to the other positions in the game? I get that C is a bit different, but with SS, it's a lot easier to look at what percentage of plays short stops are involved at in comparrison to the rest of the postions in baseball. To me, this is the answer to whether or not I want a glove first or a bat first at that position.

I'll throw some brief comments here. Just to be clear, I'm speaking for the mods when I say that we are quite open to this discussion. If people have some better ideas for some of this, we would like to hear them and this is an acceptable place to have this discussion. To provide a bit more context, the closed sticky thread was essentially a private conversation that I had with one poster who wanted some clarification on the subject. The rest of the mods felt this would be a good thing for everyone to see, so I sanitized the coversation and re-posted it as the addendum to the "and then there were two" thread. I think I can safely speak for the rest of the mods in that we are equally frustrated with some of this, and for whatever reason, the 52% thing certainly seems to be a bit of a hot button point of contention between a number of people. To be clear, I don't think any of us have a problem with the 52% thing being brought up in the proper context, but as we saw in the original thread, it can descend into a whole lot of ugliness in a hurry. Those who were around last summer can certainly attest to the fact that this particular topic hijacked a ton of threads last summer, and I think I can safely say that this is something we would like to avoid this year.

I do remember him getting off to a great start. While I'd say the odds are low, he's shown enough with the bat where I'd like to see him get an extended shot at the job... That's my 2 cents.

Hicks is better than Adrian Peterson?

You are comparing Apples to Oranges here. You are comparing guys who haven't graduated to the Braves' system prior results. It's quite possible you are right (I hope note), but that won't be known for quite some time.

The Twins might be able to swing a trade for a reliever that has some established success in the majors, but I don't see a whole lot of trading. If they get anything at all of value for Diamond or Worley, I'll be shocked. Everyone knows they are out of options, so no one will offer anything for them... I'll add to it that their performance hasn't exactly made trading either of them easier.

Are they keeping all back on an innings limit or something else? None of these guys really have anything to prove spending more time in rookie ball.

I honestly don't know. Probably a backup plan... I think he has options yet and isn't even on the 40 man.

I had a bit of a dialogue with a poster in regards to moderation actions in regards to the "and then there were two" thread. The moderators recommended it be posted for all to see as we felt it could provide some useful guidance: 1) I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with arguing that the Twins should spend more. It tends to cross the line when the words used are meant to inflame. Certain types of posts which are often laced with sarcasm and oversimplify the views of others in particular tend to attract attention. As we saw in this thread, Twins Daily is a veritable powder keg right now. It doesn't seem to take too much to get under people's skin, and then there's a mess to clean up, and unfortunately, that thread has gotten pretty messy. 2) We are also not a big fans of the us vs. them mentality that's been going on. There's a lot of people in the middle being crowded out. I know that there are several mods who felt the Twins should spend more, some didn't. I've been more in the middle on this one personally, and haven't been a fan of Santana... maybe it's b/c he's been a few fantasy teams of mine and never really lived up to the hype... who knows. But one thing we are trying to correct is this extreme us and them viewpoints that tend to derail perfectly good threads into shouting matches between the same few posters. We get tons of complaints from people who are quite sick of it. It harms the overall quality of the site and tends to drive away people. No one wants that. 3) There's no rule against saying "they have more money than they are using". As a matter of fact, using those exact words as an item in as a part of the case you are making isn't going to inflame anyone. I think it's well established that they could spend more if they wanted. Pounding that argument into the ground in every single thread, without addressing other counter points DOES cause problems. The same is true with the counter argument that basically says that everything the front office does is good accomplishes the same. What I've seen in some of these arguments is the refusal to answer the counter arguments that others make to these statements, or to even acknowledge that these people have a right to this opinion, and there are a lot of people (myself included) who don't feel the need to spend just because we can, nor do we feel that the front office has done everything right. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on these, but that doesn't mean we cannot have good discussion. That's especially true if we treat each other respectfully and choose to actually read and respond directly to people as opposed to mischaracterizing their opinions. 4) There's some rub in this whole 52% thing. It was well documented in interviews with the front office that this number is not a hard fast set in stone number, but a target. The Twins have never said what they do with the extra, nor has there been a concrete definition on what number they are using to get the 52%. There's a ton of speculation involved with it, and it's brandished about as though everything about it is an indisputable fact. That gets under people's skin. Likewise, I think the bigger issue is that with some, that's only thing they fixate on, and just keep repeating the same line over and over and over again, while mis-stating or just ignoring the points others are trying to make. It gets brought up in nearly every thread where people are talking about money and we have the same argument over and over and over again. To the mods, this is where we start to consider it trolling. The 52% thing can be valid, but the complaints that people made in this thread were equally valid. 5) There really comes a point when everything that needs to be said has been said. One of the big problems we had last year is that every single thread was being hijacked by this debate that was being had in this forum. I'd go to check the minor league box scores and find it there. You see a nice article on Sano, Meyer, Mauer, or Correia and it would be there. It was tiring, so tiring that site owners were talking about how they hated to go to the forums. I wasn't a moderator back then, and felt terrible for those guys. I don't need to name names, but we get complaints from "both sides" and have moderated "both sides" heavily. This isn't an issue of favoritism. We moderators don't even agree on this subject. That said, we don't publicize our moderation actions, and I'll simply say that there were a bunch of infractions handed out for this thread. The truth of the matter is that either point can be said, but people need to take some time to make an intelligent point and to do it respectfully. It's not unreasonable to ask people to try and understand what the other side is saying. Doing so will only strengthen your own point, and will do wonders to reduce the consternation we saw in this thread. Please keep this in mind. The mods.

I have a tough time believing Hicks will be here on opening day. I really want him to spend some time at Rochester. Not sure on Cola and Parmelee. I think Parmelee is the better bet to succeed long term, but I have to think that this will be his last shot. I wouldn't mind Cola as a late inning bench bat. None of the other bench options look like options if you need an offensive sub.

I'd still argue it's cheap. 6M for an elite closer is a bargain.

I was thinking this same thing... PTBNL conditional on Worley's results. He's had success in the NL, and the Braves saw him plenty in Philly...

I don't get the complaints. Perkins is still a really affordable pitcher. He's been closing at an all star level for several years now, and if another team wants him, they are still going to be paying for him. Personally, I would have traded him (strictly from the business angle), but he's a classy guy who is one of the faces of the franchise. This is hardly a bad move.

I can give you 5 million reasons why they won't cut him.... those same reasons existed with Blackburn, and even then he was given his release with only a few months to go. They could DFA him, but he can refuse assignment and instantly become a free agent. I understand that 5M is little to a baseball team, but it's still a huge amount of money. Throwing millions away is never a good way to run a business.... and in KCs defense, the signing was not a bad one. It isn't like Nishi where he's clearly a sunk cost.

Because I don't think he's ever going to be better than that. I like him and I hope he does well, but he's a speed guy who plays great defense, but has zero arm strength and zero power. He won't get a lot of walks b/c pitchers know he's not going to hurt them.

I won't argue with you on Nishi, though that one really looks like a Bill Smith "get something done" move... Perhaps I'm wrong. I have a tough time believing that anyone scouted him... though if you read the write-ups on it, it isn't as though everyone came out and said "bad move"... The press was clearly reading other reports in the press. I wonder if the scouts were doing the same... As for Worley and May, I'm still shocked we got a bucket of balls for Revere, so I'm not going to complain about the return.

The O's dont' have tons of money, but the Jays aren't exactly cash strapped... and yet they didn't sign Santana. Why would they give up something of value for KC? I think Levi is right here. Pelfrey won't go at the deadline and KC won't go until then.

Trying to steer this back on topic a bit. Here's the real issue with signing Santana as I see it. 1) He's not as consistent as you'd like 2) He's going to cost a 2nd rounder 3) We have 4 pitchers under contact this season, only one is not going to be under contract next year. 4) We have promising prospects in Meyer and Gibson as well as some wild cards in Darnell, May, Deduno, Worley, and Diamond. 5) This wasn't going to be a short term deal. Given that, I can see why it is that the Twins only wanted Santana on a bargain. There's a lot of risk here. Risk in losing a guy that turns out good. Risk in Santana turning back into a pumpkin. Risk in blocking prospects... etc. It's about risk. They didn't think Santana was worth the risk at the price he was asking. Neither did, I might add, the rest of MLB. There's a time and a place to spend that money. I don't think this was it.

I was planning on contributing, but I think I'm going to have to be a moderator with this thread. Let's tone everything down. As well, just a reminder, but TD policy is pretty clear where moderation actions need to be discussed. There is a reporting function for posts and this is a really good place where it should be used. As well, if people are tired of the 52% thing, it's quite easy to simply not respond to it. Just a thought.

I tend to agree, but there's a time and a place, especially if the Twins think the BPA at that point is a guy who is like to go at 10 as opposed to 5. Also, there's the risk/reward scenario where you might think that a B and a B+ guy is worth more than another slightly better B+ guy. Let's just hope there are 5 guys with elite level skils on them, and it won't matter.

I thought Duensing was a requirement for any trade to bring in top level talent into this organization...

By the way, just a point to make, but I'm quite glad the Twins didn't add Sano to the 40 man last year for a Sept call up. This move would have cost a year's worth of service time on top of the option that would be exercised when he returns from TJS.

I don't see the consternation with a guy like Johnson. He's not even taking up a 40 man spot. I would assume that the Twins saw something in him they felt they could tweak. I wouldn't expect him to suddenly be an ace, but hard throwing lefties are hard to find, and if the Twins think that they can do something with him in exchange for a year at Rochester, I'm quite fine with that. Johnson will only be pitching in Minnesota this year for the following reasons: 1) He forces it, and everyone will be happy. 2) There were A LOT of injuries/ineffectiveness this year. I'm not sure I'd call this a "crazy depth" situation, but Johnson is still a better starting option than several of the options that got way too much time starting last season. There are several guys on the 40 man who would be promoted ahead of him, and I'd imagine that they'd add Meyer to the 40 man before they add Johnson as well. Johnson is a low risk guy with a potential reward.