iTwins

Given that my answer today varies wildly from what I would have said in March, I'm okay with waiting it out until the trade deadline just to see how everyone looks, where the team is, and who is still on the roster. Okay, that's a cop-out. If I had to choose today, I'd say Escobar and Gibson are the two you really should extend. Dozier seems like he's gone and the group of Buxton, Sano, Rosario, and Kepler all have something that makes the timing poor.

This was exactly the point I came here to make. Tom's idea seems like a great one - it limits the innings on both arms, and saves the bullpen every fifth day (in theory). At the cost of a bullpen arm who hardly gets used (insert thinly veiled cough masking Phil Hughes' name) - this makes a lot of sense.

The Twins could weather the Polanco suspension because they had Eduardo Escobar. The Sano injury forcing Escobar to third has given too much playing time to some very weak bats (Adrianza, Petit). Factor in injuries to Castro (whose bat was doing pretty poorly, but maybe the injury had some effect on that?) and Buxton, and suddenly the offense is relying on guys like Wilson, LeMarre, and Grossman to pick up the slack. When your bench depth is forced into starting roles, an offensive drop off isn't all that surprising. The next move will depend on a lot on Sano and Castro's timelines. If there's still several weeks ahead of Sano - Nick Gordon should get the call. If Castro's recovery look to be a challenge, time to start shopping the trade market.

Robbie got his first hit on opening day. He tied the game with a pinch hit single in the 9th against the O's.

I'm pulling for a great year from Garver, for no real reason beyond an interaction I had with him at TwinsFest this year. I picked up a game used (spring training) Garver jersey from the Twins authenticated garage sale booth - and decided it would be cool to have him sign it. When I put the jersey in front of him, he became visibly excited and said, "Is that a Garver jersey!?!" The level of genuine excitement and joy he had due to someone wanting an autographed Mitch Garver jersey was delightful - and one of my favorite interactions at TwinsFest. For that (admittedly goofy) reason - I'm #TeamGarver this year.

I made it to two Twins games last season - and through some crazy luck, I was able to see the debut for Granite and Garver. It's always fun when a guy gets announced for the first time. Most of the crowd knows it's his debut - and the excitement, regardless of the score, is palpable.

It's been a few years now, but I used to write somewhat routine blogs - and was fortunate enough to have a handful of them featured on the main page. Ultimately I stopped writing for a handful of reasons. 1) Inconsistent feedback. Of the posts that were promoted to the front page, all but one were featured without any comment or feedback from site admins letting me know (a) my blog was posted / featured and ( b ) what they liked enough about it to feature it. It was hard to know what the site was looking for, and what aspects of my writing I should focus on to add value to the discussion. 2) Wide open topics. This is a weird one to note, but let me try to explain a bit. While one of the perks of writing is being able to choose whatever topic motivates you in the moment, it becomes a challenge on a site like Twins Daily. It was common for me to think "I wonder how Kyle Gibson's splits look when you factor in 'x'?" - I'd begin researching and writing it, only to find that Parker (or another writer, but it seemed like Parker and I were on the same train of thought a lot) posted a story 20 minutes before mine was ready. I deleted quite a few posts because the main stable of writers hit the topic as I was wrapping up my version. That meant I needed to focus on some of the more esoteric perspectives in order to avoid duplicating posts - which got tiring after a while. 3) The upgraded site's inability to cooperate with Baseball Reference tables. I do a lot of my writing with the support of statistics - I like data to support my arguments, and Baseball Reference was my favorite source. BR has a helpful "embed" feature on any tables you generate on their site - I frequently used this in my blog posts. However, when the site was upgraded, that functionality broke. My old posts were unintelligible thanks to line after line of HTML errors - and my new posts couldn't feature the customized data I wanted. This was the proverbial straw that broke the back of the camel called "desire to keep writing." These may seem like minor things, but the combination of all of them made it easier to walk away from writing on the site.

I'm split fairly evenly on the "keep" and "let go" sides of the equation - and I think it ultimately comes down to two points. 1. Do you believe Molitor's strategic thinking can be coached? His propensity to bunt is frustrating, his lineup decisions are inconsistent, and his bullpen usage is Gardenhire-like (not a compliment). If the FO believes this is due in large part to a relatively new manager still feeling things out, I think you bring him back and keep providing him with the resources to make better decisions. 2. Where do you attribute the improvements this team made defensively, at the plate, and on the bases? There's no doubt that there were massive improvements all around during this last season - does the credit for that go to Molitor's coaching, or others on the staff? (Rowson obviously gets credit for the offensive improvements). If the improvements were in spite of Molitor, you move on - keep the coaches who contributed to the success, and replace with a better fit at the top. These are both tough questions to answer, but that's why I'm commenting on a Twins site and Falvey and Lavine make the big bucks.

This team lost 103 games last season, and very few gave them a shot to be good this year - let alone make the playoffs. When they clinch it - go nuts. They've earned a celebration. I don't subscribe to the philosophy that celebrating a success means their focus will fade.

I browsed all ten pages and didn't see him - Luke Hughes

Came here to say exactly this. Escobar is one of my favorites, but if it's an either / or battle with Adrianza, give me the better glove. As we've seen this season, defense goes a long way towards playing better baseball.

I've liked what LaTroy has brought to broadcasts - particularly his unwillingness to simply tow the "conventional wisdom" line that Dick likes to tout. (Favorite moment with LaTroy was last weekend, when Dick asked who he thought the home run leader was. Dick was a bit taken back by LaTroy firmly stating it's Bonds - and continually alluded to the fact he thought it should be Maris. LaTroy, without missing a beat responds "If you're looking for someone to agree with you, you're talking to the wrong guy". I like that LaTroy brings a newer "era" of perspective to the booth.) Torii was fun for a bit - but he doesn't really add anything of substance. If Smalley could learn how to speak concisely, he'd be the clear winner. He's provided some interesting insight during games, but gets a bit too carried away at times. Jack Morris is apparently contractually obligated to take one shot at analytics per inning. Hard pass.

Had Souhan's original column contained some of the supporting evidence (this is who I talked to, this is how I followed up - etc.) that his second column contained, I think this whole thing is a non-issue. The problem many readers (myself included) had was that his original take was poorly argued and did not articulate his ultimate point. It read like a cheap shot at Sano, conveniently issued just as he went on the DL. The second column contains too many pot shots (Perkins, the "unnamed" blogger(s) who readers shouldn't trust) for me to put much credence in the content. In that regard, I feel like John's post is right on point. Souhan's take reads as "quality is defined by access" - and as others have successfully argued already - that's not accurate. Ultimately, it's much ado about nothing. I don't seek out Souhan's content due to many of the same issues that popped up in these past two columns. Readers should voice their opinion with clicks. Read the good stuff (e.g. Berardino, Brandon's stuff at Zone Coverage, Gleeman, and Twins Daily) and let the others shout into the void.

I was a big Gibson supporter - up until a few weeks into this season. After years of repeating "once he puts it all together" - I gave up all hope that he would, in fact, put anything together. By July I was in the same mindset as the Twins' FO - sit in Rochester, you're not needed. I'm hesitant to jump back in on the Gibson bandwagon. I've seen this too often to fully believe he's suddenly morphed into the pitcher we all had thought he could be all along. With that said, his recent success has moved me from mid-season cynic - "Oh, Gibson's on the mound tonight? Maybe I don't need to watch" - to interested to see how he finishes out the year. I'm not writing him off yet. Given his first few months - that's a pretty good endorsement.

I think we saw Gibson benefit from facing a young White Sox team that hasn't learned to lay off of breaking balls. Innings 1 and 2 were the Gibson we've come to expect - but then the White Sox's young bats got over eager and started chasing anything and everything near the zone. Thankfully, this Twins team has become one of those teams you don't want to let hang around in a game. The White Sox could have (should have), put this game away by the end of the 2nd. They didn't - and the Twins' bats made them pay for it. It's nice to be on the other side of that equation for a change.