KirbyDome89

This isn't an isolated article about Sano's weight. There were multiple threads devoted to different articles last season as well so I'll give most posters the benefit of the doubt and assume they read the article, and I can't speak for everybody but personally I'm tired of columnists using his weight as a boogeyman of sorts. He struggled in RF because of his weight, he "struggled," at the plate last season because of his weight, and now he's injured because of his weight.... Maybe if he lost a few pounds Molitor would stop bunting. Can't wait to read that column....

Certainly larger moves, but they also have a definitive direction. I think the decision of whether or not a team is/isn't a contender is fairly large. To me, the more radical move is changing that stance 3 times in a period or roughly 4 weeks.

I guess if he can't blame Sano's weight for his performance this season then blaming an injury on it is the next logical step....

What was personal about Kinsler's comments? He called out Hernandez for being a bad ump and said his poor performance is affecting the outcome of games; which it is. Did you read the whole article and all the comments Kinsler made? I didn't see anything I would classify as malicious or vicious.

Agreed. Maybe I see the moves from one week being contenders and trading for Jaime Garcia, to the next week selling Kintzler and Garcia, to the next few weeks refusing to bring up younger pitchers because they're "still in the hunt," as more radical. I too want an organization that is able to roll with the wave, not one that moves perpendicular to the wave, and right now it's hard to tell which is the case.

In fairness that post was a week ago before they swept Milwaukee. That said, I've been staunch all year about not putting too much stock in a handful of games whether they're good or bad. Pat on the back for ol' Bartolo for the complete game and following with another decent start, but he has been much more lackluster than vintage this season so I'm still having a hard time getting excited about him starting games for the Twins. No, nobody can say for certain that Gonsalves will be better than a guy like Enns, but taking into account his minor league track record as well as the horrific numbers some of the waiver/non-prospect arms have piled up do they really have anything to lose by giving him a shot? That was the point of the post.

If they're insistent on bringing up more fringe players before giving innings to Gonsalves or Bard then why not call them up now so the September innings can actually be used on players that have a good chance to stick with the Twins? Why waste more time and innings on Gibson/Santiago/Colon? Everybody knows exactly what that trio is at this point.

Fair enough. I guess I see no downside to 2-3 extra starts with the Twins as opposed to Rochester.

I'm not....that was a worst case scenario I'm in support of Gonsalves coming up yesterday...

What good does waiting three weeks do? Honest question. They've done everything but come out publicly and say "the season is done," so I don't understand why they need to wait until they're mathematically eliminated to get guys up. The season is riddled with poor pitching performances so the idea that they're worried about a younger guy having a rough start and wrecking the season after they've already waived the white flag seems odd to me.

If there are guys who could be getting innings but aren't because the Twins keep handing starts to Colon, then yes, he's blocking them.

He's rocking an ERA over 7 on the year, his MN ERA is over 5 even after that magnificent complete game, he was blasted in his brief minor league stint, and he nearly retired a month ago. There is no reason to keep handing him the ball, even if some desperate team does somehow arrive at the decision to trade for him. Whatever poor return he brings back isn't as valuable as the innings he's being given.

Who the **** is trading for Colon? I agree with the OP, if they're going to call it a season (they have) then get guys up and let them player more than a few games in September when rosters expand. We've watched poor baseball the last 5+ seasons and the only thing worse than another losing year is the FO pretending they're building a winning team by running out any and every waiver wire retread they can find and playing guys out of position.

Nobody can know whether the prospects would've performed better than that list. Personally I think they easily could've, because apart from possibly Boshers it was a pretty poor performance all around by those pitchers. I can't "prove," whether the Twins were right or wrong, but to say that somehow invalidates my point is fallacy, and it's ignoring the FACT which is that older/less upside pitchers were heavily preferred.

Not AT ALL what I said, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you knew that.... The use of older/less upside players, whether from within the organization or the waiver wire, has been given priority over younger/more talented pitchers in the organization. I'm not sure how that is debatable given the names that have pitched this season.

Turley, Rucinski, Wheeler, Wilk, Colon, Tepesch, Breslow, Wimmers, Boshers, Heston, Gee.....not exactly an influx of young talent. The Twins set their franchise record for # of pitchers used in a season tonight. A quick read through the names is all it takes to assess which side they've favored.

Like I said, the argument certainly has merit. I was in the pro trade camp, but there is no doubt next season would be tough if they sold Ervin. Right now I see a team that needed to significantly outperform their peripheral stats, and needed Ervin to have a career year just to melt down near the trade deadline. They certainly can compete in 2018 and I hope they do, but I'm not banking on another year like this from Ervin, and unless they finally deliver on the sweeping changes this offseason I wouldn't consider a playoff berth likely. Based on what we've seen from this FO so far it's questionable at best whether those changes occur.

I can understand the view that the value Dozier and Santana provide the Twins next season is greater in the short term than the players they would receive in return. However, if the Twins can't sell because "their value isn't high," when is it expected to go up? Is Dozier going to have another 40+ HR season? Is Santana going to start 2018 like he did this season? Unlikely. The chance to sell either of them at peak value has come and gone. The disappointment isn't about what they received. I don't think anybody can complain too much about the return for Kintzler, Murphy, and Garcia. What is disappointing is that it feels like once again the Twins are in neutral rather than moving in a direction. Personally I would've liked them to either be big sellers or go after a starting pitcher. That isn't about wanting action, it's about a franchise that has sputtered along for 5+ years finally drawing a hard line. It's true that big changes this offseason can make up for another lackluster trade deadline and hopefully it does, but wasn't this deadline supposed to make up for the previous inactivity during the past offseason? Also wasn't the previous offseason supposed to bring big changes after the disaster that was 2016? I get that this FO hasn't been in place for a full season yet, so I guess they still getting the benefit of the doubt but I agree with the sentiment that so far they haven't done a whole lot to differentiate themselves from the previous regime. I believe the displeasure with the way the season/trade deadline has played out is warranted.

It isn't "fair," that a 6'4" linebacker has to tackle a 5'7" running back below the pad level. It isn't fair that a 6'10" pitcher like Randy Johnson can release the ball significantly closer to the plate than a pitcher who is 5'10". Do these need to be addressed to create uniformity as well? As is stands right now EVERY hitter covers the same % of their body. I fail to see how giving a guy like Aaron Judge a zone from mid thigh to his belt is somehow fair to hitters and pitchers alike!

I'm not the one arguing for "fairness." No sport is "fair." IMO you've chosen an arbitrary rule and decided it needs to be changed because the measured size of every strike zone isn't the same and therefore its "unfair," but like I said you're completely ignoring other rules and aspects of the game that can also be considered "unfair," to certain players. A pitcher's delivery or height, as well as a batter's stance and height all have advantages and disadvantages but for some reason you're only concerned with one aspect and it's apparently "unfair," while all other factors aren't. Argue it to absurdity if you like, but using your own "fair," logic we should really make sure all hitters swing at the same speed lest guys like Sano generate more power, and outfielders should all start from the same position in the field so Buxton types can't use their speed to play in and cover excess ground behind them, and we better draw a line in front of the mound which pitchers aren't allowed to cross before releasing the ball that way the distance from release to the plate is uniform. The reasoning is so that Aaron Judge doesn't get to have belt high fastballs as the top of his zone while guys like Altuve are swinging at pitches at their shoulders. Eliminating the upper part of the zone for larger hitters isn't making it more "fair," for pitchers or anybody else.

It is consistent though. Every player hits in the same width zone that stretches from point A to point B lengthwise on their body. Like I said, what isn't "fair," would be setting a uniform zone where smaller players are forced to cover an area disproportionate to their size. That disadvantages players at certain heights and gives an advantage to those who are larger. As it stands right now every hitter covers the same zone proportionate to the size. It certainly isn't the only rule pertaining to height. I just gave the example in football where you aren't allowed to tackle an offensive player above a certain point, or quarterbacks in the pocket below the knees. You're right, the rules are the same for everybody, and one of the rules is the strike zone. Every batter hits in a zone proportional to their size. My point is that physical characteristics/abilities give players an edge in every sport. Some rules favor taller players, some favor stronger players, ect... No hitter is at a disadvantage as it stands now but setting a standard zone clearly favors one group and diminishes another. Like I said, it creates an imbalance, it doesn't solve an existing one. My

Organizational depth certainly isn't a sexy return, but for a rental starter and a reliever they weren't likely to resign I can't complain too much. I had next to no faith the Twins were going to make it into the postseason, but the fact the regular season is already over still bums me out. The moves were better than the half measures we've become accustomed to but I was still hoping for a little more noise whether they decided to buy or sell.

You're arguing for a rule based on dimensions as well... The point wasn't that there are no rules pertaining to height. It was that all players will hold advantages in some areas and disadvantages in others. You've chosen to focus on a single advantage a smaller player holds and called for it to be removed but you've completely ignored the other side of the coin; the disadvantages smaller players face, and the advantages larger players have. I'm not calling for a rule to govern Buxton's speed or Sano's power, I'm pointing out that those are advantages they hold over other players due to their physical makeup, yet nobody seems to have a problem with that.

That comparison feels very much like apples to oranges. Rules pertaining to body size can be found in any sport. The NFL has a designated area where you can can hit an opposing player when making a tackle, a player can't land a helmet to helmet hit. Same with the NBA, if you foul a 5'8" player across the head when he drives to the basket it's a flagrant foul; you can't use the argument that if he was 6'6" it would've been the shoulders. I have 0 pity for players like judge, they have natural advantages as well. Should Miguel Sano not be allowed to swing so fast because he hits the ball too hard? Does Buxton need to have a delay before being allowed to run because he's too fast? These are both physical characteristics that give them an advantage yet I don't hear anybody call it unfair.

Again though, Judge is covering an area that is proportionally equivalent to the strike zone of every other hitter in baseball. IMO it cannot be any more uniform than that. If it's more difficult for pitchers to throw to Altuve because his zone is smaller, that's a natural advantage. It's no different than Judge's strength giving him and edge, or a taller pitcher's release point that is closer to the plate being an asset.