TwinsWonWithHunter

There is a lot of history here. Back in the day, the Twins moved Aguilera into the rotation. This would have been early on in the Ryan era. Mid-90s, well after Aguilera was an established closer with two WS rings (Mets, Twins). The move did not work out and he was flipped back to bullpen as I remember it. Which is just a way of saying we play Yo-yo with our pitchers as a matter of course!

1. A GM who is not afraid to say, "our plan did not work. Now it is time to start over." The current front office (and manager) keeps rolling with the same tired veterans--Mauer, Plouffe, Dozier, Nolasco, Hughes. Those five players need to be benched/bullpened or removed from the roster. But the current organizational leaders seem to be saying: these guys are getting paid truckloads of money. So they need to play/start." Why? To Justify the money? That makes no sense. The team has hit rock bottom, so we need a GM who is willing to call this S^%$show for what it is: dump the dead weight and move on. 2. A GM who tells us what the off-season payroll cap is; or even just a range. Every year, the current GM says, "Payroll is not a problem. If I present the right deal to ownership, they will sign off on it," or words to that effect. OK, maybe if we had known the payroll cap, we could have deduced that perhaps Ryan wanted to sign some relief help this off-season, or a veteran OF. But that Pohlad said, "You can't go over $105 million" (or whatever it is). Let's have some transparency here. Some honesty. Now that still does not excuse the current GM from having not moved, say, Plouffe and Perkins this off-season to free up cash and get Sano to 3B. Who knows, maybe he tried and there were just no deals, and he was all but hamstrung by the budget. Well then, give us a GM who tells us the numbers up front. 3. As long as the next GM comes from outside the organization. That is really the main thing.

I do not say this in jest: the Twins should give serious credence to designating Mauer and Plouffe for assignment or releasing them outright. All the FO has done during the 2016 debacle is tinker with spare parts. They have yet to send a message (demoting Buxton and Rosario was not a message, btw, as much as it was a plea to them both to please improve their games. It is not like we replaced either one of them in the OF so much as put place holders in their stead). It is time, however, to blow up the team's "core." And neither Plouffe nor Mauer--especially not Mauer--have any trade value. None. So the only way to make them go away is to pay them to leave; if we want to farewell them, tell them not to let the door hit them on the way out.* Put Park at 1B, Sano at 3B, call up Vargas and somebody else. Move on as an organization from the Mauer era, and accelerate the Sano-to-3rd move, which we all know is coming. If the Twins want to lower payroll by 23 million the next two years to account for the lost Mauer money, whatever. We are going to go in full youth/rebuild mode anyway; its not like the Pohlads are going to add payroll to try and fix this mess. *Footnote. Mauer, thank you for the batting titles last decade.

There are so many things to say about this team. Where to start, I have no idea. Certainly, as Nick writes, the vaunted up and comers have not delivered at the ML level. Whether they are just overmatched right now; are/were overrated; or were counted on too heavily--probably a combination therein. What I found most alarming during the off-season (aside from not tending to the bullpen) was that, even though the FO wanted Hunter back; was willing to pay him handsomely and guarantee him 350-400 at-bats, to be that veteran guy the young core could lean on; and to serve as a safety net to a completely unproven outfield lot, when he retired, the FO elected to make no attempt to replace him. Let's think about this for a minute. Since the FO wanted Hunter back, even in a 4th outfielder/spot-starter capacity, the "want" indicated a need for him, for what he or presumably someone "like" him could provide: Experience, personality, and a track record of production. Someone who would not waste at-bats, someone who understood fundamentals. Someone who could be a voice in the clubhouse. And oh, by the way, back up that voice with some clutch hits. Not talking MVP-caliber here, or even all-star. But for God's sake, at least someone we could count on not to run into outs on the bases, and to not look totally overmatched. Now, an argument could be made that Hunter's abysmal June thru Aug last year may have signaled he was all but done. And that he knew it, his decent September/swan song notwithstanding. Fair enough. But that would not negate the need to, at the least, replace his production--and his standing as a veteran outfielder. So where was the 4th outfielder signing? Why didn't we push for, say, Raj Davis, who signed a 1 year deal for 5.25 million - exactly the type of team-friendly pact the Twins try to specialize in; that does not clog up a spot long-term or get in the way of the young guys. On the contrary, it is to protect the TEAM short-term (from depending too heavily on the youth) and to help the young guys. Davis is hitting .256 with 4 homers, 18 RBI, and 10 steals. Does anyone on this forum think anything other than, had the Twins signed Davis, he would be a fixture in the lead-off spot. Good grief. And no, Raj Davis is not the difference between 10-30 and contending. But I would like someone to explain the logic of not backing up these young outfielders with a veteran who can produce (the Park signing did not replace Hunter. Maybe in the abstract--a 6-hitter, 20 HR, 80 RBI--but not in the tangible reality of putting a veteran in the OF to replace the veteran we lost). Anyway, today's rant.