one_eyed_jack

Here is the thing: The Twins have not won a WS since 1991 (this is 21 years ago). The Marlins have won 2 in that span with build up and burn down plans... ---Yes, thank you, thrylos, I can do basic math. And while we're on the subject, that's less than 10% of the World Series winners in that span. And how many other "blow it up and rebuild from scratch for 3-5 years from now" efforts have failed? There have been a lot more than 2 in Kansas City and Pittsburgh alone. So the Marlins notwithstanding, I don't view it as an approach with a recent track record of success.

No reason the Twins can't compete for the division next year given the weak state of it. And they should always be trying to compete. I don't buy into the whole idea of going into the tank and aiming to compete in 3-5 years. You think there's a problem with lack of accountability now, wait until you see what happens when you start conceding seasons from the outset. And how many of these multi-year rebuilding efforts actually work anyway? How often do you see teams win the World Series following a path laid out 5 years earlier? Improving the team today and building for tomorrow do not have to be mutually exclusive. You can, and should, do both.

Cards in 5. Their luck has to run out at some point, but it's hard to bet against them with the way they just keep winning.

I've got the Bombers in 6. I had been pulling for Baltimore, though I realized that when they beat Texas in the Wild Card game, it left the Yankees path to yet another World Series appearance pretty clear. This is a weaker Yankee team than in years past, but still a damn good one. They managed to beat Baltimore, who I consider a tougher opponent than Detroit, despite playing a pretty subpar series by their standards. Plus I've gotta think they're thirsty for vengeance for last year. One thing we know all too well as Twins fans: the Yankees are really, really good at exposing their opponents' flaws, especially in October. And the Tigers are a flawed team.

Well other than Detroit, mine didn't hold up. Major choke jobs by Texas and Cincy.

Well, that's all folks. Sad to see the O's go down. Much as I loathe them, you've got to tip your cap to the Yankees. This is not as strong a Yankee team as we've seen in years past. No Mariano. A-Rod a shell of his former self. And they didn't play anywhere near as well as they're capable of playing. Some of their really good hitters had some really bad AB's. Yet they still found a way to gut out a series win over a worthy opponent who played them strong all season. Pretty impressive, if you ask me.

I don't know, but I'm getting kind of tired of these Cardinals post-season miracles. They've had more than their share.

---I think that you're either taking controversial positions with the intention of sparking debate or a certain other poster who has a penchant for selectively acknowledging facts and over-emphasizing trivialities in support of the ridiculous has hacked your account and is posting under your name. So I can take your response to accept that the Twins pathetic acceptance of a $20000 pittance for a fan favorite, an ambassador to baseball, who still had the fire in the belly and with still something left in the tank was better than what they could have received at the deadline in 2011- or what the Orioles received this year- two prospects who have pretty decent major league potential. ---Dude, stop it, you're just being antagonistic here. Thome had a no-trade clause that he did not waive until August. He did not have one this year. So unlike the Phillies in 2012, the Twins could not have just traded him to whoever they wanted at the deadline in 2011. They worked out a trade with Cleveland, who claimed him on waivers. There's a massive difference in those 2 situations. There are plenty of legit reasons to rail on the Twins front office. There's no need to manufacture them by molding facts to fit a narrative, which is what you're doing here.

---I think that you're either taking controversial positions with the intention of sparking debate or a certain other poster who has a penchant for selectively acknowledging facts and over-emphasizing trivialities in support of the ridiculous has hacked your account and is posting under your name.

I'd like to add my voice to the chorus of gratitude if I may. This place is a godsend for Twins fans. The results weren't what we'd hoped for, but thanks to TD and its great community of posters, I had fun, and I learned a lot. Hope to see you all around here through the playoff and the offseason.

I've brought him up before, but I'm going to register another vote for Ken Oberkfell. I've been intrigued by him as a possible Gardy replacement since reading this article earlier in the year: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120205&content_id=26582426&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb ____ The locals refer to Oberkfell as "El Mago de los Leones," Spanish for "The Leones' magician" because of his mystifying success since taking over the club for the 2009-2010 season. ... "Special" is one word to describe Oberkfell's run with Escogido. "Magic" is another. "Oberkfell is type of manager the players love playing for," Escogido president Luis Manuel Bonetti said. "He's the type of manager that lets them play. He doesn't put any restrictions, and really understands the culture that we have here." Oberkfell said Hall of Fame skipper Whitey Herzog, who managed him in St. Louis, is his biggest influence. He also credits Tigers manager Jim Leyland, who managed him in Pittsburgh, for helping him become the manager he is today. ___ -Track record of success, as described in this article plus he once won Minor League Manager of the Year -Obviously knows how to work well with players from different cultures -Coached with the Mets at the MLB level, so he's knows all about dealing with the media, which is a big part of a manager's job -Strikes me as a guy who is a nice mix of new school and old school baseball thought

---OK, I can see railing on the Twins for the whole Hardy thing, but the Thome deal? Really? He had a full no-trade clase that he didn't waive until late in the season, and then he had to be put through waivers, where he was claimed by Cleveland. Not to mention he was past 40 and it wasn't at all clear he would play beyond 2011. Baseball America had Simon and Lino ranked 18 and 21 among Orioles prospects after 2011, so it's not like they gave up top-tier minor league talent here.

Great story, thanks for sharing.

---It isn't actually spelled out in the rule. But that's not how that rules are written, they generally don't state that the reasons for their existence. But even though it isn't written, the rules do not exist in a vacuum, and the reason for the rule is not exactly a mystery. I'm sure all umpire are quite aware of it. It's just basic common sense to interpret rules in light of their purpose. When you have a situation that falls within the letter of the rule but is clearly inconsistent with the spirit of the rule, then common sense should prevail. A common sense application of a rule that furthers its purpose is nowhere near as likely to spark the kind of outrage and controversy that this ruling has. But when you make a ruling that defies common sense because it is contrary to the rationale of the rule, you're opening yourself to it.

I'm happy for JJ. Good player and a good guy. I was fine with the decision not to bring him back, but he sure would have been a lot better than anything else we've had at that position. That said, even with JJ Hardy instead of the guys we've been putting out there, the Twins are still a pretty bad baseball team. Hopefully the ex-Twin trio of JJ Hardy, Jim Thome and Lew Ford (!) can do with the O'd what they couldn't do with the Twins and beat the Yankees in the playoffs. I know that all 3 of those guys took those defeats pretty hard when they were here.

Running 50 feet from your usual position and almost colliding with an outfielder is "ordinary effort?" From the rule: When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners. Now, if it was ordinary effort why did it take 6 seconds for the umpire to call it an infield fly? It wasn't an ordinary play. It wasn't an ordinary call. It was ordinary effort. Any shortstop not under that ball would be justifiably criticized if not benched. The umpire immediately calls infield fly when he determines it. What should the time limit be? Maybe it should be in the rule. But that would be preposterous. I'm not saying it was a great call. First thing I wrote was that I didn't think it should have been called. But arguing against it based on the rule book is nonsense. It is hard to argue when the umpire follows the rule book. It can be annoying... like when they never call a strike at the letters until you don't want them to and they do and "Fox Track" confirms it. Or when they always call the runner out at second during a "phantom" double play... until they don't and you don't get a critical out. If the umpire had not called it, I doubt there would be much discussion that he should have. But he did and it was justified based on the rule book. ---Well, he was justified based on the rule book in the sense that he called it when he judged that he should. Of course, that would be equally true if the ball had landed on the warning track, so that argument doesn't really get you anywhere. There are 2 problems with defending Holbrook's ruling: you need to 1) stretch the meaning of the word "ordinary" well beyond what makes sense in the context it is used in the rule and 2) completely ignore the rationale for the rule's existence, which was not all applicable to this situation.

---Yes, it was. What's even more galling to me are the feeble attempts by MLB to convince us that this was the correct call and the national media actually buying it instead of doing their job and calling BS on it like they should. All of these explanations involve standards like "square to the ball" or "under control" which are found nowhere in the text of the rule, and ignore the "ordinary effort" standard that is in the text of the rule.

I think Rosenthal has a good take on it: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/umpires-and-mlb-executives-blow-call-on-little-understood-infield-fly-rule-in-nl-wild-card-but-fans-have-no-excuse-100512 I suppose you could argue it was "correct" within the letter of the rule if you're willing to stretch certain words far enough. But there's no way you can argue it falls within the spirit of the rule. You can't tell me this was the type of situation that the rule was intended to address. Under Holbrook's interpretation, the rule should be invoked every time an infielder runs into the outfield and starting calling for a high fly ball. I've never seen the rule applied that way. And Cardinals reaction was very telling. They were confused, not screaming for an out call.

The entire Rangers team has been imploding for 2 weeks now. Go O's!

The ball landed 225 feet from home plate. I caught this stat on Twitter: In past 3 seasons, longest "infield fly" that wasn't caught (only 6) was 178 feet from homeplate. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1360689-cardinals-vs-braves-umpires-call-contriversial-infield-fly-rule It's an egregiously bad call. What's amazing to me is that some people are actaully defending it as the correct call. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2012/10/05/infield-fly-rule-umpire-braves-cardinals/1616389/ I don't see how this play falls within the letter or spirit of the infield fly rule.

---Totally for, I'm with you 100% on this. My preference would have been a total housecleaning and new faces brought in from outside. (I probably wasn't clear, but when I pointed to those guys you mentioned not being former Twins, I meant that as a good thing.)

---Good question. Every time the subject of staff changes comes up, there's a chorus of demands for Molitor, Gladden, Hrbek, Brunansky, Carew, etc. But there's more to coaching and managing than telling war stories from your glory days. I need to see something more than "he played good for the Twins 2 or 3 decades ago" on a guy's resume to convince me he should be brought on board. I'll join the chorus, Gladden isn't a great radio announcer, but pretty good at calling a spade a spade and was a leader on the field during his playing days and seems to be player's mentor who can light a fire of encouragment. Bruno has had some of the guys he's worked with speak up for him. Omar Vizquel has already been credited for mentoring the younger guys during his playing days. Ivan Rodriguez is begging for a coaching job and was an absolute competitor. All of these guys would be a fresh of breath air if they joined the coaching staff, after games when Gardy might claim that the players "battled their tails off" I might even tend to believe him. ---I'm actually OK with Bruno because he has a track record of coaching success. Gladden does not. I'd be thrilled if we had guys play the game the way he did. Maybe he could get guys to play that way, but his personality and playing career alone are not a basis for assuming he can. The fact that you were a great player in an orchestra does not necessarily mean you will make a great conductor. The other guys you mentioned were not Twins. I'm not against former players. I'm against the idea that being a good Twins player once upon a time means you'll make a good Twins coach today.

---Good question. Every time the subject of staff changes comes up, there's a chorus of demands for Molitor, Gladden, Hrbek, Brunansky, Carew, etc. But there's more to coaching and managing than telling war stories from your glory days. I need to see something more than "he played good for the Twins 2 or 3 decades ago" on a guy's resume to convince me he should be brought on board.

A couple of points I'd make in response: Gene Glynn was only added to the organization 1 year ago. Tom Brunansky has only been back with the organization for what? 2-3 years (hired July 2010). Bobby Cuellar, while he did spend time in various coaching capacities with the Twins over the years, has also spent time in a number of other organizations, so he's hardly a Twins organization "lifer". If these three are indeed added to the Big League club, I don't see it as your typical "inside the organization" promotions. Also, while it may be true that Gardy, Andy, Ullger and Vavra remain in Big League positions, I don't think there's any doubt that with Glynn, Cuellar and Bruno, Terry Ryan would be putting in place a potential core of successors to Gardy and his gang. If the 2013 season starts off with another crappy April, I wouldn't assume the holdovers keep their jobs all the way through 2013. Paul Molitor is on record saying he'd be interested in a coaching spot, too, if the Twins want to talk to him about it. Add him to the Glynn, Cuellar, Bruno trio and that would be sending a clear shot across the bow at Gardenhire. ---All good and fair points. But I guess I was hoping for something a little bolder after 2 putrid seasons. If it's already been decided that Glynn, Cuellar, Bruno and Molitor are the successors to Gardy, Andy, Vavra and Ulger then just make the damn move. Don't drag it out by repurposing Vavra and Ulger and making Gardy a lame duck.

It was before my time, but did Twins fans in the 70's whine about Rod Carew because he didn't hit for power?