MN_ExPat

Come on now. If you want to be an Ebenezer... go ahead, that's your right, but don't lash out at other fans who choose not to share your vitriol.

Would that honestly be so bad? Don't get me wrong, I/we all have our favorite players and "superstars" that we love to watch play. But if I'm being truly honest with myself... I love the game itself more, and a team that is like a swiss army knife, and truly gels and blends, is just fun to watch and follow.

Would you say he's gone Plaid? ?

Don't disagree with that sentiment, but also I can't say that agree with it either. There's a lot going on here, so I'll do my best at attempting to address each point (probably poorly, so bear with me): If you are a first or second round talent , maybe 3rd(or the parent or the agent) do you really want to sign with a team that basically says for the next 10 years you are going to be a 3 inning pitcher? I honestly think this depends on a lot of factors. First, every kid is different and wants different things. There are some who wouldn't accept a role like this, while others don't care at all and just want to play and do whatever it takes to excel and help the team succeed. And what team is going to draft a pitcher in one of those rounds and pay them the slot money to be a part-time pitcher? So basically the team will have said we won't ever go after healthy top end talent, we are going to settle for lesser? Again, this depends. There are so many variables that go into drafting and then getting an arm to the majors, that in the end a wise/good team usually winds up going with talent and projectability over role/status. Also, at no time has the FO EVER said, literally or figuratively, "we won't ever be going after healthy top end talent, we are going to settle for less." And yes it is bad for baseball to try and remove the star starting pitchers, quite a few of the games I have attended with my son revolve around who the Twins are playing and who is pitching that day. Multiple times we have decided not to go to a game on a bullpen day, because they tend to get long and boring and have went when Berrios or Odo, or a stud on the other team was pitching. I don't in any way feel that baseball is trying to remove "star" starting pitchers. This in many ways feels more akin to what I see in HS and many college settings these days. Multiple arms that can be interchanged and used in a variety of ways. MLB may be the melting pot of the worlds major talent of baseball, but it feels like the league lags behind HS/College/the Minors in being creative about how to mange the game and roster usage. I am not saying this year it would be a bad idea I am saying the philosophy is a bad idea, and I can't believe the players union would accept it. This isn't really a player's union type of thing in my opinion. Also, not a big fan of MLBPA in the regards that they don't (at least openly) campaign for the betterment of players in the minors, but that's a conversation for another time. I actually think pairing Winder with a Ryan and Ober with Balazovic, would be a great way to build them up. Sign a couple of pitchers, trade for a pitcher, then let the rookies thrive but not asking too much of them for too long. Honestly, I think this is more of what the team and others around the league may have in mind. For what it's worth, this is what I think.

You're forgetting a big piece of the equation here... the player, and what he wants or is willing to take on. Now I may be misunderstanding your post (it's been known to happen before), but at the end of the day the player makes the decision. Not the agent. Many guys coming out of college, or even high school just want to play and don't care where or how as long as they can contribute in a meaningful way and get consistent time on the field (I spend a LOT of time around HS players and I hear this sentiment a lot). As far as this being "bad" for baseball? Can't say that I agree with that wholeheartedly. Teams have already had success with some version of this (Tampa and KC come to mind). All it takes is someone getting the right formula and pieces together in one place, and then voila... magic happens.

I'll lead with that I'm not beating the drums that the FO signs either of these guys, However, just wanted to add that we don't truly know what's going through their heads when these guys are making their decisions. I think we (myself included first and foremost) often overlook that point. True, there are players who just don't like Twins/Minnesota/Twin Cities/Upper Midwest, etc., but this is true of everywhere in this country. There are places in the U.S. that I would rather be doused in gasoline and lite on fire than willingly choose to be assigned there for work. Baseball players are no different. What you're saying is true, just feel that the "winner" part is often just a tiny facet of the whole decision process.

Interesting thought. I'd have to feel that they could have both given Pineda's reported desire to resign with the Twins and the fact that he won't cost that much in the grand scheme of things.

Oh, it's completely over the top Good Sir. Like low earth orbit over the top... ?.

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's not possible.

Umm.. no

Great write up Ted. My son and I were talking about this last night while watching the game, and while it was the right decision for the Twins to move on (I feel at least), I'm happy to root Eddie and the Braves on in the Post Season. Plus I like watching the Dodgers loose only slightly less than the Yankees or Houston... so yeah there's that as well .

Thanks for the write up Sherry. Honestly, I'm not sure what direction the Twins and the FO will go in the spring. However, I've always liked Rooker and will continue to pull for him. Funny story though... We were at a game in Jacksonville when Chattanooga (AA) came to town and my kids were at the Lookouts dugout getting autographs from the players, when my son spotted Rooker walking by. So he calls out super loud "Hey Rook! Sign my ball!" The look on Rooker's face was hilarious. You could see the wheels going in his head and he seemed to be thinking "Did this kid just call me a Rookie or was he using a short form of my name?", but he just shrugged, smiled and grabbed the ball to sign it.

Never really thought about DeSclafani as a potential target, and truth be told never really knew a lot of detail about him beforehand. However, his profile (provided for continued good health) could be a solid addition to the staff. Also, I wouldn't freak out if the Twins traded for Gray. He's been a solid MLB pitcher for a team in a non-pitcher friendly park. While there is a portion of the TD crowd who don't care about the cost all that much and would probably trade their own mothers or at the bare minimum their mother-in-laws... (but to be honest that might not be that much of a stretch on that last part ?‍♂️), none of us should be all that surprised at what the final cost in prospect capital will be to bring him into the fold.

Great take Doc. I too share your hope and beliefs .

Well that's very noble of you to grant him that extra leash. You are as wise as you are beneficent. ?

I have to wonder if the plan all along isn't to send to the AFL but rather Fall Instructs. This way, the Twins can greatly control and watch over the final stages of his rehab. They would probably have a little less direct control/contact if he is in AZ as opposed to Florida. Hard to say either way, but that is my initial thought.

I'm with Seth on this one. I'm going to just have to disagree with the "torch and pitchfork" crowd. While I would love to see Baldelli flash some more fire and brimstone from time to time (I can't help it... that's just where my personality tends to stray), I won't fault his ability to manage the "team". He knows baseball, and while many would disagree with his decisions (myself included sometimes), he's the skipper and has earned the right to make them as he sees fit.

Yes Sir, those are all very good questions, and actually that would be pretty cool to research that out. All I've personally heard/read so far is primarily anecdotal evidence. I want to say that I saw either Garver or Jeffers discussing that stance briefly during an interview. I remember (probably not accurately) them saying the stance was relatively comfortable but it greatly limited their lateral movement, especially to the side where their leg was kicked out. Beyond that, I mostly draw from my own observations from HS, college and MLB. When the catcher is down in a low stance such as is being discussed here, their (the catcher in question) movement does appear to be hampered. I add to that, when I'm down in shooting stance that requires my knees/legs to be in a similar position my ability to move laterally quickly is greatly diminished. So, what does all that mean? Actually, probably nothing, but it would be cool to look into more .

Mucho harshness... Have you noticed the stance the Twins have their catchers getting into? Try that yourself and then tell me just how a catcher is supposed to block or stop a ball outside, especially to the non glove side (usually the leg that is kicked out). To attempt to gain an increase in called strikes, they are giving up some defensive mobility by the catchers.

Are you actually watching the games Jeffers plays?

Like Steve just said, plus you have to step back much of the time and look inside the numbers. We as the average fan have very little idea of what the team's developmental folks are working on with these guys. So while I agree, on the surface .214 looks a little cringy (as my son would say ?), the other numbers point to a ton of potential. True, he may never fully realize it but he's only just beginning his pro career.

Then it's probably a good thing you're not the GM. ?

Then we agree to disagree. So be it... but you make me sad. And when we speak of you, we may still speak fondly, for we are nothing if not forgiving and generous.