BD57

"20/20 hindsight" is pretty weak tea for a critique. Simmons was hired to play defense, period. Darn near everyone thought there was enough offense throughout the rest of the lineup to overcome his weaknesses at the plate. Obviously, that's not how it's turned out. The lineup's been considerably more anemic than was expected (injuries may have something to do with that), and the pitching's been so bad there's reason to doubt offensive performance "as expected" would be enough to overcome it. You have a better argument for "The Twins overpaid Kepler when they extended him."

Agree with some of this. By & large, baseball pays guys for their track records, not their potential - not like the NFL, where guys with potential get big money early. Of course, the NFL is also dealing with younger guys who potentially have their "prime athletic years" ahead of them. In most cases, the "big money" pitchers have already put up at least a couple of their "prime athletic year" performances in the previous team's uniform . . . "How many of those years do you have left?" is the question. We couldn't come to terms with Johan when he was clearly one of the best pitchers . . . how'd that contract work out for the Mets? I suspect they were hoping for "more than they wound up getting." That's the risk of giving an established starting pitcher a "big" contract . . . . you're paying for performance you didn't receive, in the hope you'll get enough similar performance in the future to make it worthwhile. A team has to have the ability to "cover for a mistake." The Twins' income structure is nothing like the Yankees; it's much more of a challenge for the Twins to absorb a mistake. What baseball "needs" is to pool ALL revenue . . . National TV, National Radio, AND Local TV & Radio. The big markets won't agree, of course - "We get paid for our product, people are more interested, willing to pay more, etc.' The counter to that is "Without the 'other' teams - like the Twins - you have nothing to broadcast. Whether you like it or not, the only reason you have broadcast rights to sell is because we exist ... so we're as much a part of you getting that money as you are." Like I said, the Big Markets will never agree.

is it "normal" or "unusual" that 25% of an organization's top prospects are injured?

Appreciate the analysis. Only problem: it's built on an assumption which "might not be so," namely, the "top level" free agent starters would sign with the Twins if actively pursued, offered competitive money, etc. Based on the last few free agent cycles, I believe the Twins are at a massive disadvantage in pursuing the "top level" FA Starter compared to the largest market teams (like the Yankees & Dodgers), that the Twins won't even be considered by the "top level' FA Starters unless the Twins offer significantly better contract terms compared to those teams. Further, there's a good chance the Twins wouldn't be considered even if they did so. For whatever reason - beyond pure contract dollars - those guys appear to want to be in the "big markets": whether it's "better chance of winning there" (the top-level guys are typically at a stage in their career where winning a World Series is higher on their list of priorities), or "More off-field earning potential," or what, I think those guys generally aren't interested in coming to Minnesota & the Twins would have to offer significantly better contract terms to "get them interested." Which is a hard thing for a smaller market team to do.

Given the idiocy which has passed for "Another Minnesota day ending in 'y'" over the past year plus, no one associated with Minnesota should be sneering at ANY other state.

It'd be good for us to move Donaldson if we can. We're obviously looking at a "rebuild," which means we need "kids to come up & get good" . . . which isn't likely to happen during the remaining term of his contract. See if we can get some more "kids" for him ....

I hope he does well - except against us, of course - as I can't blame Berrios for wanting to "cash in" when he has the chance. It's distressing that we can't draw interest from the better free agents. IMO, it isn't "just" a matter of "What's management willing to pay?" IMO, the "market" - the Twin Cities - has something to do with it, too, because there's more money available "off the field" in New York, Boston, LA, Chicago, etc. than there is "here." IMO, we'd have to pay more than the "big boys" to overcome the "off field opportunities" they have in the "big boys" market . . . and, again IMO, expecting ownership to do THAT just isn't reasonable.

I hope Nelly gets a ring. He deserves it. Glad we got more than a box of balls in return.

Agree. For a "mid/small market team" to put together that kind of staff, they'll need one of two things (1) An owner who's a gazillionaire willing to spend money to get a championship; or (2) the luck to have a true #1 and true #2 come out of your farm system at the same time.

What sort of "money" does Berrios want to resign? I suspect he wants "Quality #1 Starter on a contender" money. IMO, he's never pitched at that level. Sure, he's been our best starter this year . . . but that's not saying much, His career ERA is over 4. He has yet to post a season ERA under 3.5 He doesn't even average 6 innings per start. There have been too many starts like last night: Good at the beginning, and then everything goes off the rails at once. Berrios strikes me as a #2 on a "decent contender" staff which lacks depth. And if I was serious about winning, I'd want to assemble a staff where he was a #3. Again, I suspect he thinks of himself much more highly than that, which inevitably leads to "No deal being done."

Um ... yeah ... no. The world may think the Twins are suckers, but they don't have to play along.

Don't want Buck doing it . . . he'll get hurt.

Bottom line, 2 runs isn't enough. The pitching has been bad, the relievers have been bad, the lineup has been bad, Rocco's managed himself into some horrible situations (that infield alignment in Oakland with a lead in extra innings would be "Exhibit A" at the trial) . . . . This team is doing next to nothing right beyond showing up for the games on time.

I've long believed no team is as good as it looks when it's winning, or as bad as it looks when it's losing. This bunch is proving the last half of that "saying" a lie.

The offense is obviously a problem. 3 runs in 2 games? 5 in 3 games? Granted, the Red Sox have been playing better, but still - that's bad. But . . . . Berrios is supposed to be a #1, and yet, when presented with the situation where a true #1 slams the door, he spit the bit; the game unraveled because he lit the fuse. There's no indication this team has the heart to "win something meaningful." I'd love to be surprised, and I'll gladly - eagerly, even - eat crow if they prove me wrong.

good luck on "concessions from the Governor."

Manfred should benefit from comparisons with Adam Silver, and, perhaps, Roger Goodell. Thus far, it appears the NHL has done the best job of managing its situation - hard to believe that could happen with Donald Fehr representing the players, but it seems to be true.

I have no problem with keeping him. IMO, the declining production at the end of the season is as much attributable to the rest of the lineup stinking out loud as anything else. Whether it's pitchers giving him nothing to hit, or him trying to carry the team because no one else is hitting (and swinging at pitches he's ordinarily take), the fact of the matter is, NO ONE was hitting at the end of the year. The lack of offense is an issue. There are a lot of other guys - Kepler, Garver, Sano, to name a few - who have more to answer for on that front than Cruz. And then there's Donaldson & Buxton - neither one of them are of any use to us if they can't stay on the field. I'll entertain the notion that Donaldson had "bad luck" . . . mostly because he's "new to us," not because his missing time is "new." With Buck, though ... we're past "bad luck." This has happened too many times. Why he's "brittle," I don't know, but he is. I know that the moment we trade him, he'll never miss a day the rest of his career . . . but it's maddening to spend so much time talking about "What we could be with a healthy Buxton."

There are a lot of issues to address. Maeda definitely helped the rotation, and Pineda has earned his keep. Berrios is streaky - but he can be "streaky good." The issue is offense. It's been offense all this season. For all the "Bomba-stuff," we're not playing slow pitch softball. I'm told 51% of our runs in the regular season came from HR's ... maybe the talking heads got that wrong, but if they didn't, we either doubled the HR production of the next best team, or we were PATHETIC with the rest of what you'd call "offense." When postseason comes, "Slow-Pitch SB games" go out the window; a team has to be able to "actually hit," and this one didn't. Where are the problems? Buck can't stay on the field, and - at least for me - I've reached the end of my "bad luck" rope. It's happened too many times. He doesn't do us a lick of good if he can't play. Sano is a complete mess. Either he learns to put the bat on the ball or he becomes Dave Kingman - if that. Rosario . . . . stupid, stupid, stupid. You DO NOT get thrown out of a playoff game. He's too old, too much of a veteran, to be that selfish. The whole approach to hitting needs to be reevaluated. Too many guys stunk up the joint this year. TOO MANY. A whole lot of people need to take a look in the mirror & hold the guy looking back accountable.

The 9th inning was horrible, granted . . . But scoring one run. You can't demand your pitching staff win a game where you score one run. The offense is flat out bad. They've been inconsistent / bad for most of the season, and they've been particularly bad for the last couple of weeks. There are too many "outs" in the lineup to sustain anything. While I'd love to see them prove me wrong, I'm not expecting it.

Which was horrid on those "fans" part.

This whole series, the umpires have been calling pitches 4 inches (even more) off the outside corner strikes .... Is there any "quality control" with them at all?

All the travel has to have gotten old - especially as Bert has gotten older. I appreciate him. Is he 'the best'? No, but that's OK; there's only going to be one "best," and everyone can't have that guy (whoever he is). He's been "good" and that makes the games entertaining.

Sano's gotta cut down on the strikeouts - a guy his size, with his strength, has to make contact. At least, more than he does now. Right now, I'd say 'Sano' b/c I expect a guy to become more disciplined & refined as he gains experience and I can't say Sano's doing that; too many swings & misses.

Agree .... but Buxton's luck would have to radically change for this to "not cost him time."