BD57

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."

First, it wasn't an "agreement"; if it was an "agreement," the Players would be in Court (or before an arbitrator) demanding that it be enforced. And they aren't. They discussed terms and concepts for re-opening, at a time when neither side knew for sure what that would look like. The assumption was "there would be fans in the stands" and owners would have that source of revenue available to them. That was before it became apparent that some levels of our national leadership were in love with the Lockdown & would do what they could to prolong & extend it. Now, we're "here" and one of the presumptions of their discussion - "fans in the stands" - has been shown to be inoperative. The Owners are saying "This Changes things," and the Players response is "The HeckYou Say - we want the same money, even though you won't have that source of revenue you were assuming you'd have." Hard to believe the Owners didn't fall all over themselves to say Yes to that 'swell deal' .... You've taken a "side" and that's fine. Your "side" is "The Owners loss of the revenue source they thought they'd have is no reason for them to refuse to agree to the Players' terms." That's fine. Make the argument. But spare us the "There was an AGREEMENT" business, because, again, these sides would be in court or arbitration, not spitting at each other in the press, if there was an enforceable agreement. Baseball is the most dysfunctional Labor / Management sport there is, in large part because both sides persist in selfish, oppositional behavior at every opportunity. This year is the quintessential Cluster because of the Shutdowns. If BOTH sides eventually come to believe it's important to have a season in 2020, they'll come to an agreement. If BOTH sides don't - if one or both decide their parochial interests are more important than salvaging something out of 2020, which is going to be a "one off," then there won't be a season.

Have the players offered to agree to "Whatever terms the owners wish?" No, of course they haven't. They want what they want, just like the owners. This is on both sides. That's not going to be popular here. So be it.

Covid would be no concern. At all. Minneapolis would. People up there, beginning with local government, have lost their minds.

So you want to fight the "Players are being ripped off, as usual" fight this year - as usual. M'kay ... While it's easy spending other people's money, the guys who actually pay the bills aren't obliged to agree with you.

Well, I personally think the "bias" that's showing in some comments here is believing "this year" is a fitting battleground for the otherwise constant "Players versus Owners Money Wars." The usual "business model," where "fannies are in the seats at games" and buying tickets, hot dogs, beer, soda, popcorn, hats, jerseys, and so on, is out the window (and with it, the cubs are pocketing the money those fans spend for those things, which is available to pay - among other things - players) is not in play. The notion that the teams should just eat that lost revenue, but pay players as if they received it . . . . Not a one of you would do that in your own business. 2020 is a "one off." Owners & Players either "partner" in "putting on a show this season," or there will be no season. They can go back to hating each other next year.

"pro-rated salaries" would be an easy "fix" if all aspects of the season were "pro-rated" - such as, for example, "attendance at games" . . . but it doesn't sound like that's going to happen. If there's no fans in the seats, then you don't have a truly "pro-rated" season. While it sucks all the way around, this season - if there is one - is a "one-off" . . . figure out a way to get through it. As for the health risks - based upon what we now know, the players parents and grandparents might be at some significant risk, there might be some team personnel who have some risk, there may even be a player here or there who has some real risk, but, by & large, the players won't have significant risk. No, I don't want any of them to get it - not the players, not anyone around them, not their families . . . still, this stuff isn't "The Andromeda Strain."

They'll probably have shorter flights which means "less cost." Given it seems inevitable they'll at least start without any fans in the stands, unless TV pays a "bonus" just for having baseball to broadcast (how likely is that?), "no fans" means no one will be making money & some could be losing . . . . IMO, they're trying to minimize expense & think this will do it. If there are "10 teams per," then ... 100 games? It doesn't compute - it won't be balanced unless they play "outside their conference" (thought I heard they weren't going to . . . . so I'm probably wrong on that). An even number makes sense - 50 home / 50 road. 12 games, all "in conference" would make sense - but that's 108. If you play 10 against each team "in conference," then you've played 90 & have 10 left over to play "someone else" - schedule balance becomes a problem with 30 teams, though (each "conference" would have to split in half to allow everyone to get 10 games "out of conference"; someone would draw the easier schedule). Go to 8 & now you have 28 games "out of conference" .... it's getting unwieldy. How you work playoffs with three "conferences" and no/limited cross-over is going to be a challenge too.

Unless there's reason to believe we didn't make competitive offers (you guys can let me know if that's the case), it seems the "top end" free agents aren't interested in playing in Minnesota - and if that's the case, there's not much the Twins can do about it . . . The Twins can't create secondary income opportunities for those guys the way other markets can. People tend to ignore that part of free agency . . . . "The Player has a say in where he goes."

"Winner." I wasn't looking at us as anything but "long shots," even with 101 wins. I don't like losing one bit. I don't like seven "one-run" innings in a playoff series. However, being "angry" or "frustrated" with it isn't going to change anything. And anyone who thinks Rocco or the front office is satisfied with how things ended ... well, I'm sorry, you've either never played or you've forgotten a lot since you did. NO ONE LIKES LOSING. True professionals do, however, learn to deal with it, because it's going to happen - and "learning to deal with it" means "OK, that happened ... what are we going to do so next time, we take the next step?" I don't need my manager having a tantrum. Sorry if some do.

Well "detachment from reality" is a matter of opinion. This team wasn't supposed to win the division, and certainly wasn't supposed to win 101 games - people forget that ... get a little "greedy." Do you REALLY think Rocco's not aware of the team's weaknesses? I don't ... I just think he's not willing to say anything remotely critical of his guys in public.

Make a huge run at Cole; let him know "Whatever it takes." It may not work, but we need to be seen as "serious in the market." We need a "#1" - we don't have one now.

There's nothing he can say which will make fans who want a scapegoat happy. If he blames anyone, the fans will say he should've blamed anyone else. If he blames himself, the fans will say it's not good enough. Because fans will not accept that, sometimes, the other guys are flat out better than our guys. We scored a total of seven runs in three games; the Yankees scored seven runs in a single inning. We do not have "shut down pitching," which is what we need to compete in the post-season. Hopefully, the FO will go out and get someone to head the rotation so Berrios is our #2. Hopefully also, our young hitters will grow into the moment - we didn't have a single "crooked number" inning in three games. That's a quick way to three "L's." When "They" are better than "You," then "You" need to face up to it, tip your hat, and go to work on getting better.

Odo's a good #3. We should definitely want him back. We need a "shut down" #1.

Yes, I remember game 1 ... games still have 9 innings, though, right? 5th to 7th inning, Yankees "crooked number, crooked number, crooked number." We weren't competitive. That's my opinion ... and, as I understand it, people are allowed to have opinions around here.

Bottom line - we didn't hit. Not nearly enough to be competitive. The one game we were "competitive" - game #3 - we scored 1 run, and blew our best opportunity (bases loaded, no outs, got nothing). Championship teams score runs in those situations. We don't have a #1. Berrios might be a #2, Odo might be a #2 - more of a #3 (and a good one), but we don't have a guy who blows people away. Some of it might be "our guys are inexperienced, and the Yankees aren't." We'll have to see about that. First two games, though, we were just obviously over-matched, and it was a matter of "when is this going to blow up" ..... I wish it was different, but it wasn't.

It's the "nibbling." Romo goes right after hitters. If he gets beat, he gets beat going after hitters, throwing strikes. When Gibson gets beat, it's because he "loses it." Guy gets on base, and he walks the next guy; gets a guy down 0-2, and then doesn't come near the strike zone after that, until it gets to the point where he throws something "fat" and it gets hit. Romo has a slider that moves, hard. It allows him to be successful even though he only has a "minus" fastball these days. He's fearless, and everyone knows it. Gibson does not project "fearlessness," even though his fastball, when he's healthy, tops out at 94-95. As the year's gone on, the way he's pitched, it looks like he's afraid to throw the ball where hitters can get a bat on it. It strikes me that he's pressing, trying to be "perfect," which is a recipe for failure. Simply put, Gibson seems like he's teetering on the precipice of disaster all the time - giving him a "clean inning" with a three run lead just doesn't seem like enough. All the good work he did last year, when it looked like he'd finally figured some things out, has gone away. By every account, Gibson is a good man and teammate. He's a guy you'd want to be successful for more reasons than just "it helps the team" - there have just been too many implosions.

Before the season, I think that was a "hope," not something anyone could say was going to happen with any confidence. Keep in mind how much of the offense this year was driven by record-breaking HR hitting. I don't know that anyone had reason to "know" that was coming. Yes, we thought we'd be better than last year - but I doubt anyone saw 101 wins coming, and "more than a few" thought Cleveland deserved to be favored in the Division. It only became clear the window was open - shoot, it was gone - during the season. And even then, we took some hits along the way (Buxton getting hurt & out yet again, Pineda getting disqualified, just as examples) which leave us going into the post-season at "less than full strength." I agree the FO needs to treat next year as a "Let's win now" opportunity. I'm not faulting them for what they did this year; with the exception of Dyson (did they miss / overlook something?), they made very few mistakes.

done!