yarnivek1972

Well, tonight ought to reignite the should have traded Dozier debate. Guess who starts against the Red Wings for the Durham Bulls.

All that tends to prove is that as age has caught up with him, he is unable to maintain his edge like he could even 5 years ago. He can still be productive in short bursts when he gets adequate rest. But he simply is incapable of maintaining production consistent with his lineup spot if he plays too much. IMO all the rain outs have kept him fresh.

The Twins were 11-20 in the games Straker started.

Sorry, it has to be said. It's like a baseball conversation between Kirk and Spock. Ok, back to seriousness now.

I fail to understand why any team would trade young, controllable pitchers that are doing well (like Manaea or Nola). If you are rebuilding, those are the guys you build around. If you are contending, chances are they are a big part of the reason why. Let's put it this way, would you trade Jose Berrios? Would trading him really be any different than the A's trading Manaea? Or the Yankees trading Luis Severino?

99 K vs 84 BB in 237 career IP. Neither is a good number, especially for that era. I have no idea how WAR is calculated, but for Straker to have a WAR over 2 in 1987 seems ridiculous to me. Yeah, here you go: Juan Berenguer's WAR in 1987 was 2.0, LOWER than Straker's. Jeff Reardon's was .7. Tell me with a straight face that Straker was more important to the 1987 Twins than Berenguer and Reardon. It tells me that WAR is not a very reliable way to compare players.

I don't think I am. The fact that Stewart is injured substantially reduces his prospect status IMO. And in Stewart's case you are already talking about a guy who's stock dropped quite a bit from the start of 2016 to the start of 2017. So, are you talking about a guy who's preseason ranking was 6th in the organization, or now that he was off to a bad start AND is hurt, maybe a guy outside the top 10 in the org?

Not likely going to be able to trade an injured prospect, like Stewart.

The problem is that the Twins still really have played mostly bad teams. Yesterday was their first game against any of the 3 best teams in the AL. And they lucked out into seeing their # 5 and a reliever who is not a MLB caliber pitcher. The Twins are still just 2-4 against the Tigers and Indians, two teams expected to be in contention from the Central. They just lost 2 of 3 to the Rockies and a ways back 2 of 3 to the BoSox. Frankly, the Twins record is largely a product of beating down the Royals and White Sox. When they prove they can hang with good teams, I'll take notice. This series is a good test.

Probably wishful thinking.

Wait until they have actually played against some good teams. The Twins have yet to face the 3 best teams in the AL.

If Escobar gets more at bats than Vargas this year, I would consider that inexcusable.

Phil?

It's certainly was an appropriate name. What did the Twins need in 1987 and 1988? Les(s) Straker...

Not sure that's accurate. Looking at AL rosters, the only ones carrying 5 listed infielders are the Tigers, Royals, Angels, Rangers and Twins. That's 1/3, certainly not most. The Astros only have 4 listed. I'm sure NL teams do, but NL teams don't have a DH.

He's still a back up for a reason. That reason being he isn't good enough to start more than once a week. Maybe twice.

To me, the term "super sub" implies a guy that is good enough to be a regular starter and perhaps maybe even be the guy who gives most of the rest of the regulars a day off. IMO that isn't Escobar. Even at his BEST, you are talking about a barely replacement level hitter (.709 career OPS vs LH starting pitchers). He's even worse vs RHP, which is what 65% or more starters in MLB are. YEs, I think it is legit to pigeon hole numbers vs STARTING pitchers if the implication is that Escobar is a "super sub". A lot of hitters can beat up on mediocre middle relievers. How you do against STARTERS determines whether or not you deserve to be one. IMO Escobar is a back up infielder, nothing more. If you are expecting consistent offensive contribution from your back up infielder, you are setting yourself (and your team) up for failure. To that extent, Adrianza and Escobar clearly overlap roles. Adrianza is without a doubt the superior defensive player. And while he really hasn't had much of an opportunity to display it, the "eye test" sure suggests that he is fast. Times he's made routine plays at first look very close, etc. Point being, would the Twins be better served with Zach Granite on the roster? Possibly. Given Byron Buxton's penchant for crashing into walls, perhaps most definitely. But wouldn't Palka provide more punch? Perhaps, but wouldn't he also duplicate Kennys Vargas? BH Park? OK. To do what? The Twins already have 2 (3 if you include Grossman) DH/1B types. How do balance playing time for a 4th? I know many have suggested cutting Vargas. You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I pretty strongly believe that he is a better hitter than Park. One of Falvey's most noteworthy actions was to NOT add Park to the 40 man roster this spring. If he wouldn't do it when Park was hot, why would he when he is not? btw, Park's numbers in AAA this year are lower than Vargas'. Park has about 10 more PA. Would that disrupt Granite's development? Development for what? First off, he projects as a reserve type. Second, he's older than 2 of the 3 current OF starters and less than a year younger than the third - who has roughly 2 seasons at the MLB level under his belt. So, yeah, if someone makes an offer for Escobar, you'd better believe I'm listening. Right now, I doubt any offers are coming in.

Of course, that isn't how he is being used. Someone posted numbers the other day showing Duffy was being used in high leverage situations, moreso than any Twins reliever, including Kintzler.

If Hughes had started the year on the DL - or more accurately if it looked in ST that it was likely he would - Duffey most likely would have been in the rotation.

This is one of those "are we a contender or not" arguments. If you believe you are contending, Haley has no business being on the roster. If you believe you won't, it MIGHT be worth taking a chance to see if he can be somebody that can help in the future.

If the Twins start to tumble in the standings as the result of the increased quality of their opponents, Escobar could all of a sudden be very expendable. If Sano were to get hurt for an extended time, that would be the end of the Twins chances to contend anyway, so would it really matter who played 3b? Odds are it would be Matt Hague, who is still putting up solid numbers in AAA. He's not Sano, but if he were half of what Sano was, he'd be in the bigs somewhere. Adrianza probably wouldn't start at 2b or ss either. Engelb Vielma probably would.

Ask yourself if it ever makes sense to pinch hit for your DH. He has one job. To hit. If there comes a situation where he should not be hitting, maybe he shouldn't have been the DH to begin with. You call it a defensible move. I disagree. More on general principle than results. Pinch hitting for your DH THAT early. IMO blunder number one. Pinch hitting a guy who's "success" vs LHP this year is mostly tied to sample size IMO blunder number two. As has been pointed out, Vargas' struggles vs LHP this year are also likely sample size. He's a consistently more dangerous hitter vs RHP, but he's usually better than he has been vs LHP. I would have had less of an issue if Grossman had pinch hit. He's simply a considerably better hitter than Escobar, especially vs LHP. Vargas, much like Kepler, won't find a groove vs LHP - as he did last season - if he doesn't face them. The very miniscule odds that Escobar was going to provide a game tying hit in that spot do not outweigh all the drawbacks I have mentioned IMO. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that it was defensible. I am also entitled to mine.

Those calling the move defensible seem to be ignoring the fact that the Vargas/Escobar spot came up again in the game and Escobar struck out. Again This time against a RHP. Perhaps Vargas provides a big hit in that spot. Thanks to Molitor's short sightedness, we'll never know. And, just to be clear, it isn't this move specifically that has me calling for Molitor's head. It's one of dozens. Obviously, you wouldn't fire him with the team in first. But I seriously doubt he survives the season based on my consistent belief that this team will go downhill when they start playing better teams. Like the AL East and the GOOD teams in the West.

This Let's start with: batting third, Byron Buxton; Batting fourth, Joe Mauer.

Better idea: fire Paul Molitor. I'm pretty sure Falvey didn't put Vargas on the roster for Paulie to pinch hit his utility infielder for him.