Don Walcott

I became a Rockies fan by marriage. Living in Santa Fe, NM, we're less than 6 hours from Denver, and a about 7.5 hours from Phoenix. So we've been to spring training games in AZ the past four years, and go to see the Rockies every summer. However, I did wear my Hrbek jersey to the Twins games in Coors. I've been to four of the six games they've played there.

This is a great debate about May. I think the team should see how he performs in Spring Training. If he's good enough, he should start. We can figure the rest out. Saying that he's so good in relief, that we need him there, is a bit like having the best player on an NBA team be a 6th man, because he'd be the best 6th man in the league.

Attendance has dropped by over 1 million since 2010. Yet even this losing team continues to make profit for the owners. If the owners spent the money necessary to try to win (like the Tigers), it's possible that they could earn $50 million per year more just from selling tickets. The TV and internet money is getting better every year, and the team is worth $900 million, probably soon to be $1 billion. The owners are very comfortable whether the team wins or loses. What I don't understand is with this kind of money, why don't they at least take a real shot at winning right now, when the team is getting better? Considering how much profit can be gained by being good, isn't that a risk worth taking?

Are you reading this topic, or just trying to be condescending for fun? Who said it was a charity? Who said the players weren't paid? The whole discussion centers around paying players. It is a business, but it's also a product -- an entertainment product. We, the fans, pay real money to support this product, hoping our team wins. And if the owners of our teams choose to not play the best team, and give our team the best chance of succeeding, we have a right to complain. I'm not sure why so many people seem so concerned about whether the owners are making a lot of money on an asset they own that greatly appreciates in value every day they own it. I'd rather see the Twins make the playoffs and have a chance to win the World Series than to see their owners maximize their profits (although winning and making more profit also coincide). And if that means losing a year of control of a player, and having to sign them to a long-term contract a year earlier than you'd otherwise have to, I'm all for the player getting paid. And, in fact, there are several good examples of teams doing the smart thing by signing up their young stars to long-term contracts well before free agency (e.g. Trout and Posey). I can understand the other side of the argument, but I don't think I'm being unrealistic or naive for taking this position.

Exactly my point in prior posts. Though I'm still not convinced that it's "smart" as much as "clever." We'll see if Bryant and the Cubs mend fences.

That's a good point. However, in many cases a smart team with an asset like that, signs them to a long-term deal before he becomes a free agent, like Mike Trout. The Angels could have just continued to pay him what arbitrators decided until their control ran out. But they invested wisely instead.

That's a deceptive misquote of my post. "Penny wise, pound foolish" did not immediately follow my comments about Bryant. And if you're definition baseball is the business of baseball, then say "the business of baseball." Baseball, to me, is a game. And I think it is a realistic discussion to have regarding whether a team puts its best players on the field. I'm a fan, and I want my team to win, not save money for the owners.

No, I meant what I said. The "long-term/strategic" is simply another way of saying you want "control" of an asset, to save you money. It had nothing to do with baseball. The Cubs played a replacement-level player who they promptly dumped instead of Kris Bryant. Now, you might say that they saved themselves some money by doing so, but there's no way you can argue that they kept Kris Bryant in the minors because it made their team better. And gaining the one extra year of control this way for a player of this caliber might not even end up being such a great long-term strategy. If they've pissed off Bryant and his agent, he might not sign on for a long-term contract with the Cubs when he's reached superstar status. Rather, he and his agent will play this out until free agency, and he'll leave the Cubs. So the only thing the Cubs will be able to do is try to trade a Scott Boras client, who everyone knows will want to test the free agent market at some point, which will depress his trade value. I hope the Twins don't make this mistake with Berrios. We aren't going to win 97 games, like the Cubs did. The margin for error for this team is slim, and winning a couple of extra games because we had Berrios pitching rather than Nolasco might be the difference between playing in the post-season or not. How much money do you think just the one post-season game makes a team? $5-10 million? How much is that extra year of control worth? Penny wise, pound foolish.

You mean, a "money-related" reason. Failing to put your best team on the field because you want "control" over an asset is not baseball-related.

Schoenfeld had the Twins as #5 possibility of being the mystery team, and said this about our trade prospects for Fernandez: "Minnesota Twins. No, they're not going to trade Miguel Sano or Byron Buxton, which means the Marlins would want pitcher Jose Berrios, who had a 2.87 ERA between Double-A and Triple-A with more than a strikeout per inning, and outfielder/first baseman Max Kepler, he of the .416 OBP in Double-A. The Twins could also include Trevor Plouffe, allowing the Marlins to shop Martin Prado or move him to left field. Sano then slides into his natural position of third base instead of being forced into the outfield. The Twins haven't made a splashy trade or free-agent signing in years. Maybe it's time." If Berrios, Kepler and Plouffe could get us Fernandez, that would be awesome. Though I'm not sure why the Marlins would want to increase their payroll as part of the deal.

If Berrios is good enough, they should start him in the rotation at the beginning of the season. It would be what is best for a team that is only marginally contending, and needs a lot of things to go right to be in the pennant race in September. If Berrios is good enough, a few years from now, we should be trying to lock him up to a long-term contract, rather than nickel and dime him because we can. I hope the Twins treat him right, he's a top of the rotation starter for many years, and he wants to stay a Twin.

I agree that the way the system is set up, the Cubs may have been legally entitled to hold Kris Bryant back from being in the majors for several weeks, just so they could control him for another year. Howver, I don't agree that this use of the system is in good faith by the Cubs. There was absolutely no legitimate baseball-related reason for them to do this, and I hope it cost them the division and home field in the playoffs (who knows whether it actually did?). I think it is a breach of their covenant of good faith and fair dealing with their player, and I would expect Kris Bryant will remember this when he's weighing his options of signing a contract with the Cubs or pursuing free agency at some point. I also think it was a disservice to fans, especially Cubs fans, to not field their best team with their most exciting young player on the field. So even though the Cubs may have been technically entitled to do what they did, I wouldn't applaud them for it.

I hope Buxton does start the season with the team. He is easily our best CF. I can understand hoping he can work on his hitting at AAA. But he can work on his hitting in the MLB, too. He'll be around a bunch of major leaguers who can help, Brunansky, and Molitor. Even if he takes a while to hit, he helps this team with his defense and speed. And if he can hit . . . .

In soccer transfers around the world (not necessarily in the US), the player gets some percentage of the transfer fee (10%?). This deal would seem more fair to the player if he received something like that up front. Or maybe his agent gets his payment up front from the Korean team. Very happy about the signing. Not sure about people celebrating the fact that the player gets a lot less than expected. Personally, I'd rather see the players get more money than the owners. And now Zimmermann and Price are off the board. Looks highly unlikely the Twins will be competing to sign Greinke or Cueto. Oh well . . . .

Apparently, Cueto just turned down $20 million per year for 6 years from the D-Backs. I understand the Twins are unlikely to be in the bidding for the top available starters. But I think they should be. I fear the team will regress with out a serious quality upgrade in the pitching staff. The Tigers look like the team everyone predicted would win the division in 2015, but now they have a closer to anchor their bullpen.

I just wonder if we could have had Zimmermann pitching for us instead of against us next season. For that price, he would have been a huge upgrade in the Twins' starting pitching, and I believe he would have helped our bullpen as well. Now, let's hope the Twins can get Cueto, Greinke or Price. The AL Central is going to be tough.

I wouldn't worry about Jose's health. I saw him talk about his rehab on a 5-Hour Energy commercial. He had me at "They said . . . I was one of the best pitchers in the game . . . ."

When we're doing WAR calculations for pitchers, keep in mind that neither fWAR nor bWAR are good rating systems for pitchers. These two different rating systems diverge greatly on their values of pitchers, which shows you can't really trust either of them. That said, do you think the Marlins would take Nolasco back as part of a trade? Maybe they'd only remember how he pitched when he was a Marlin?

I would love to see the Twins spend the money on bringing in an Ace and a great position player. I think they can afford it. And I think they'd actually see revenues increase. And I'd bet Terry Ryan would love to make a big signing or two. However, I fear that the ownership, not Ryan, is the impediment. The Twins have a history of being cheap, and crying poor. And many fans join that bandwagon and blame the "overpaid" players. Instead of criticizing Ryan so much, I think we should question the owners who never show enough faith in this team to spend the money they should to make us contenders.

1991

Is there any reason why Mauer couldn't play in the outfield rather than Sano?

I don't agree that the Twins can look to the Royals as an example for why they shouldn't go out and get an Ace this off-season. Cueto is at least top-5 in the majors over the past two years, and led the league in Ks and IP last year, 2.25 ERA in 243 innings, and was #2 in Cy voting behind only Kershaw. Cueto's an Ace. Although there were times Cueto did not pitch well, he was also the only threat to finish a game or even finish 8. Having that kind of pitcher is important. It is true that Cueto didn't join until the end of July. But the Royals needed him down the stretch and in the playoffs. The year before, they had Shields. He's not as good as Cueto, but he also can go deep into games consistently. He tossed 227 innings, going 62/3 innings per start and received MVP votes. The prior season he led the league in innings and received Cy Young votes. Having a starter who can go deep into games consistently helps keep the bullpen fresh as well. Last season, the Twins bullpen had no respite. And I don't think you can count on Santana or Hughes to consistently pitch deep into games like an Ace should. What the Twins could do to replicate the Royals' success is turn decent starters, like May and Hughes, into top shelf relievers. If we can sign one of the big 4 free agent starters this off-season, we can shore up the bullpen and have a top-tier starting rotation -- e.g. (Cueto, Zimmermann, Price or Greinke), Santana, Gibson, Duffey, Berrios. That's the upgrade I want to see.

Can we still enjoy Mel Gibson movies or Ted Nugent's music? I think it's an interesting question raised about Torii. I had a really hard time reading things and believing things that were written about Kirby. When you are a lifelong fan, and you have favorites on your favorite team, you'd rather overlook or ignore the flaws in your favorite players. I think it is amazing progress that people generally are against Torii's religious condemnation of homosexuality. Let's just not take it too far and condemn Torii for having an opinion most of us disagree with. I still have fond memories of Torii as a player. As a Clemente Award nominee several times, it seems he must have done some really good things as well.

I think the whole debate about whether an Ace does this in the regular season or an Ace does that in the post-season for your team is irrelevant to whether the Twins should sign one of the four clear #1 quality starters on the market this off-season. The Twins have a chance of improving on a great season. The Twins have the money to spend. One of Zimmermann, Price, Cueto or Greinke could provide the Twins with 200+ innings of sub-3 ERA. Add that to Santana, Gibson, Duffey and Berrios, and possibly Hughes (if he's back to 2014 form), and we will significantly improve the team's runs against. Top starters who eat innings also give the bullpen a rest, and that helps make the bullpen more effective. This looks like the best opportunity, this off-season, to sign one of these guys. If the Twins regress, and we want to get them off the books, there will always be buyers in New York, LA, etc. Regardless, the Twins have money, will make more money by signing one of these guys, and this really could take us to the next level. Even if Berrios could be an Ace, or Hughes or Santana could pitch that well (despite their histories of not being at that level), that shouldn't deter the Twins from improving the pitching staff with a proven #1 guy. In fact, getting that guy could make the other starters better. Like some other posters here, I'd love to see them get Zimmermann.

Greinke, Price, Cueto or Zimmerman. Let's get one of them and make a real push to contend and go far in the playoffs over the next few years. If you replace about 200 innings of our current pitchers with 200 innings from one of these four, our team will give up a lot less runs. If you have a #1, plus Santana and Gibson pitching around 200 innings, then get 150-180 from Berrios and Duffey (giving them periodic rests for a start or two during the season), you also save the bullpen so the bullpen will be more effective. I like May in the bullpen. I like Hughes in the bullpen. I think Milone can take over for Duensing in the bullpen. I think Nolasco can be a long reliever, who can be prepared to start if someone needs a rest or gets hurt. I also think the Twins have money to spend, and doing so without giving up prospects sounds good to me. Also, you have to spend money to make money. Think of the attendance and merchandising uptick from one of these guys, especially if we are in a pennant race all season, and even moreso if we're in the playoffs. That will pay for the contract. I can't stand the idea of Nolasco having a spot in the rotation. I don't think anyone's trading anything for him. You couldn't give him and his contract away. But maybe he has a comeback season in him, and can be useful as a backup option in case someone gets hurt. How about this for a pitching staff: 1 Greinke, Price, Cueto or Zimmerman 2 Santana 3 Gibson 4 Duffey 5 Berrios Middle relievers: Milone, Nolasco. Relievers: Cotts, Jepsen, (Boyer, Fien, Meyer?) 7th-9th inning: May, Hughes, Perkins That's from just adding one guy at the top of the rotation. Do you think Molitor would have a problem with having too many pitchers?