one_eyed_jack

I think saying the playoffs are a crap shoot is oversimplifying it, but I agree with the basic idea that success in the playoffs is dependent on a number of factors beyond your control. thing Detroit is extremely fortunate to be where they are. First of all, it's not often you can get to the playoffs with the 7th-best record in your league. And when you do, chances are slim that most of the teams better than you will fold, leaving you with a clear path to the World Series. Yes, the Twins have a long post-season losing streak. But a lot of those games were really close, and had a couple of things gone the Twins way, the results may have been very differently. The margin between victory and defeat is so small once you get to the playoffs in any sport. Look at Tom Brady. They guy is thought of as one of the best postseason quarterbacks of all time. But when you look closely, he's a Tuck Rule and a couple of missed FG's by Vinatieri away from being the guy who couldn't win the big one.

Hope you're right on all but Span. Trading Span for pitching seems to be the trendy idea, but I'm not sure I buy that's it's the right thing to do. I agree though both that it will happen and that whatever we get in return will probably be less than what most people are hoping/expecting.

I'm not sure why everyone is so wound up about Molitor not being brought on board. Is he so clearly the right choice that it's considered a 'snub' to not hire him? I don't think he's entitled to a job simply because he had a great playing career and is a popular local figure who wants it. Maybe he'd make a great coach or manager, but I don't think we've seen enough to assume that. I would have been fine had they hired him, but I'm not ready to start ripping them for the fact that they didn't. What I would rip them for is this: if it's true they've decided that Molitor (or Glynn) is the guy to replace Gardy, then just make the flippin' move. I don't see what good is served by putting Gardy in lame duck mode for a year.

"The Twins are still holding out some hope that Nick Blackburn can contribute to some degree next year." ---Yeah, I hear that the Pro Shop in Apple Valley is a bit short-staffed, and Hrbek's lost a couple of servers at the end of the season, so there should be some opportunities for him. That's gotta be what they're talking about here, right?

If he can be had for a song, it's worth considering. As for the "he's not enough of an upgrade over what we have" argument - what do you at shortstop? Go with Florimon? Or is there someone else you'd bring in? I'm not convinced Florimon is the answer, and the list of available free agents is pretty weak. One of the things Ryan needs to figure out is how to improve the team while giving up as little as possible. Seems like this has the potential to be the type of low risk/high reward move the Twins need to make.

Part of me would love to see the Twins shock everyone and sign Greinke. Not only would it add the top-notch starter they've been desperately lacking, but it would send the message that they are actually serious about winning. It won't happen. The other part of me is fine with not handing a massive contract to a guy with that many question marks just because he happens to be the best of a week free agent class. But it will be interesting to see where he ends up. He turned down 5 years/$100 mil to stay in Milwaukee, so that bridge is probably burned. I'm guessing the Angels want him back and the Rangers and White Sox will probably make him offers, both tried getting him at the deadline.

---Not sure about the manager thing, they didn't miss a beat after La Russa hung it up, but pitching? Definitely. Starting pitching in baseball is like goaltending in hockey. You need it to win. If yours is really good, you can win despite flaws in other areas. If yours is really bad, forget it, you're done, it's nearly impossible to compensate for it with strengths in other areas.

---A lot of that risk is tied to money. The Tigers have consistently had a top-5 payroll while the Twins, until recently, operated on a shoestring budget. You're a lot more likely to win big playing at a high-stakes blackjack table than you are playing nickel slots.

I can see the idea that you'd trade what the Twins have done recently for what the Tigers have done recently. But if you're looking for someone to model after, wouldn't it be better to choose, say, the Cardinals as opposed to the Tigers? Unlike the Tigers, the Cards have actually won it all, and unlike the Tigers, they have been good almost every single year.

---But that doesn't always work either. They did that in '87 when they traded John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander. How did that work out for them? They lost in the first round of the playoffs, then spent most of the next decade-and-a-half or so in the crapper. (You think 2 years of losing is bad, try 16.) Trading prospects for proven talent makes some amount of sense when you're one player away and have a stockpile of minor league talent. (The Yankees, for example, were able to trade for A-Rod without giving up Cano.) But going all-in and mortgaging your entire future is risky business. Its kind of like putting all of your chips on one number. You'll win big if it comes up, but you're left screwed with nothing if it doesn't.

I'd say some of what the Tigers is worth looking at as a model. The Fister and Sanchez trades helped build a solid rotation behind Verlander. Delmon and Peralta, though flawed players, were good pickups from divisional opponents selling low. However, the Tigers needed some good fortune to get to where they are. Thanks largely to defensive ineptitude and inconsistent effort, they spent most of the year chasing a very mediocre Chicago team, and needed a late-season collapse said Whiteys to win baseball's weakest division. 2 other teams from the AL had more wins and didn't make the playoffs. The Tigers record would have earned them a 4th-place finish in either the East or West. Thanks to the Rangers collapse, they were able to get to the World Series without having to beat the AL's best team. (For that matter, they're lucky that Baltimore couldn't put away a very weakened Yankee team, I think the O's would have given them a tougher time in the ALCS.) So I'd like to see us improve through getting the better of trades the way they did, but I'm not sure their overall model is designed for sustained success. For all the talk about Mauer's contract, I'd rather be stuck with that than Fielder's. They've also been very willing to part with prospects, good chance that comes back to bite them eventually.

---OK but first, we should have another thread full of racially-tinged diatribes about Nishioka.

I dunno, the Twins lost some close playoff games in the Bronx partuclarly in those last couple of series. Had the Yankees been without Jeter and Mariano and A-Rod had been reduced to a shell of his former self, some of those may have turned out differently. I'm surprised the Yankees went down without a fight in the series, even without Jeter. I don't know if Girardi deserves to be fired, but there were some questionable decisions, including the random, head-scratching lineups. I'm sure plenty in the NY media will be calling for it.

I'll never forget the 2009 ALDS when Delmon came up in extra innings with the game tied, bases loaded, and nobody out. He swung and the first pitch and smoked a line right at Tex. A little higher and to the right, and that's a bases-clearing double. <sigh> So it was a painful on some level when he smoked that ball to Swisher in extras in game 1, and Swisher did his best Delmon Young imitation in the field on it.

1) If RBI and SLG are your metrics for an elite offensive season, do you believe that Rod Carew only had 1 elite offensive season in his career? 2) Yes, some people continue to look at RBI as a key indicator of a player's worth. There is also still a Flat Earth Society. My metrics for a truly elite offensive season include BA, OBP, and SLG. Combining all three--not just two--makes a season truly elite. Makes a PLAYER elite, particularly if he can keep it up for more than a season or two. Good, or even really, good, isn't the same as elite. Thinking RBI are a KEY indicator of a player's worth isn't what I said, but even that would make more sense than thinking RBI have NO VALUE WHATSOEVER. Getting on base, in and of itself, is not the goal. "Not making an out" is not the goal, either. Crossing home plate is the goal. BTW, Carew did have only one truly elite season in his career. He also had a long career with several really good seasons, and a couple really, really good seasons, followed by a long and graceful decline into retirement where he was still respectable and piling up numbers. Hence, he's a HOFer. It's also worth noting you ignored about 90% of the post, including the question at the end. ---In the Twins situation, it doesn't make sense to trade Sano and Gibson for anyone. Too many holes to fill to give up too much for any single player. You could add Verlander or Trout to the current Twins, and it's still not a very good baseball team. However, if the Twins were a really good team, and adding a player of Mauer's caliber would push them into the league's elite, then sure, I'd consider giving up top prospects for him.

I'm guessing Jeter will be back next year for a farewell tour/final shot at glory. But that will probably be it for him, Rivera and Petitte, and the Yankees will truly be facing the dawn of a new era.

1) If RBI and SLG are your metrics for an elite offensive season, do you believe that Rod Carew only had 1 elite offensive season in his career? 2) Yes, some people continue to look at RBI as a key indicator of a player's worth. There is also still a Flat Earth Society.

I don't think anyone is suggesting there's a "cry for" trading Mauer. I know I'm certainly not. However, I don't think that means having a discussion of the pros and cons of such a trade should be off limits either. I think the first place I ever heard the theory that, "the team who gets the best player in a trade wins the trade," theory was from Colin Cowerd. Hardly a source I put much stock in. In baseball, perhaps more than any other sport, there are any number of examples where a rebuilding team that has multiple needs will trade a "big name" player to fill those needs. The A's have done it often. Sometimes it works out for them, sometimes it doesn't. You also don't necessarily know that the "best player" at the time of the trade will turn out to be the best player over the longer term. How do you think Atlanta liked the way that trade of Doyle Alexander to the Tigers for a 20-year old John Smoltz worked out for them? Again, I don't necessarily think you're wrong about the best approach this offseason being to build around Mauer rather than trade him. In fact, I happen to agree with that approach. I'm just not so ready to completely dismiss the possibility of a trade as I used to be. ---Well, it's a sports cliche that has been around a long time and has been repeated by many because it's largely true, the fact that Cowerd was one of them notwithstanding. No, the topic of trading Mauer should not be off-limits. However, I can't picture a realistic scenario where it would be a worthwhile thing to do. Sure, you can find examples like Smoltz, but how many prospects actually develop into Hall of Famers? If Boston were to get really stupid and offer the sun, the moon and the stars for Mauer, OK, fine. But more likely, it will be turn out to be something like what we got for Santana or the Rangers got for A-Rod that will be viewed as pretty disappointing in a couple

---Kevin Love is a terrible comparison. You cannot expect a guy barely old enough to drink legally to win in the NBA while surrounded by a bunch of stiffs and a clueless coach. That doesn't mean he can't make a team more successful.

You don't trade Mauer. You build around Mauer. First of all, what are the chances you are going to make out better than your trade partner in a Mauer deal? Slim. In almost all sports trades, the team that won the trade is the team that got the best player in the deal. Who are we going to get in return that's a better player than Mauer? Second, let's say we do get a prospect that actually develops into a superstar (though most do not). Eventually he'll want to be paid huge money too. Then what do you do? Deal him for prospects because he's not worth it? For years the fan base complained endlessly was that the Twins were basically a farm team for the Bostons and New Yorks of the world. Now there's a cry to return to that?

---His defense is somewhat overrated. He wouldn't get as much hype and exposure had he spent his career in KC or Cleveland. And yeah, the whole St. Jeter thing gets old. However, you're going way too far in other other direction here by ignoring the amazing career he's had dismissing him as a compiler. The guy is a first ballot HOFer for sure.

I don't read much into soundbites, especially when they're basically non-statements like this. To the extent he's saying anything here, it's only that he's not going to pay ace money for a #3 starter.

I guess this must go the same for AJ Pierzynski. ---Obviously. It couldn't be because different players get booed for different reasons.

I get the the "well, if we can get him cheap, he's worth a gamble" argument. But he's not going to come cheap. There will be some idiot that overpays for him. There always is with guys like this.

Too many unknowns to answer this question now, let's see what the offseason brings.