Right now, I'd project the opening day lineup to consist of Sano at 1b, Polanco at 2b, Simmons at ss, Donaldson at 3b, Arraez in LF, Buxton in CF, Kepler in RF, and Garver catching. Assuming a 13-man position player active roster, that leaves 5 spots open. Ryan Jeffers is one. Jake Cave is another. At some point, sooner rather than later, Alex Kiriloff is a third. Brent Rooker is a fourth, leaving Lamonte Wade, Astudillo, Blankenhorn, Gordon to fill in (or rotate in) the final spo
There have been several excellent "how would you spend $x?" articles written this off-season. There is some point in the winter when the ice breaks and teams start signing players; there are often several points at which these occur, and I've often wondered how that math gets done, realizing that one would be criticized for either moving too quickly (gross overpay for Player A) or too slowly (completely missed out on Player A, you numbskull!). It is one thing to say that the Twins' payroll for
It is universal that you have to beat everyone to win the World Series. I get that. But is there a playoff seeding that might be more preferable than even one or two seeds higher? That is the question. As it stands (games through September 10, roughly 15 games to go), the AL standings show: Rays A's White Sox Twins Blue Jays Astros Indians Yankees We know some things are pretty certain - the 2nd and 3rd place teams in the AL Central are likely to be the #4 and #7 seeds (best secon
There has been a steady drumbeat in Twins Territory regarding upgrades to the bullpen. The purpose of this article is not to disagree with them, so much as it is to discuss reasons why delaying such a move is best for the club over a long season. First, the facts: Twins have 5 pitchers on their existing 25-man roster who have options remaining. Berrios (1, which will in all likelihood never be exercised), Smeltzer (3), Rogers (2), Harper (3) and Duffey (1). I think we can add Rogers to the
When players and owners put pen to paper on the last collective bargaining agreement, the hope seemed to be that a combination of revenue-sharing and a luxury tax would work in concert to allow all organizations to field competitive teams. The players went along with the traditional formula of underpaying minor leaguers, and locking up younger players for pre-arbitration (3 years, or at least 2 years if you were a Super 2 - including a minimum 86 days and being in the top 22% of your same-yea
There was an effort to discuss this topic awhile ago, but I thought I would pick it up again now that the rumors and suggestions are increasing about what to do with the existing pitching staff, both starters and relievers. I'm not someone who lives and breathes Baseball Reference, but I think a strong statistical analysis is the best route to take in considering both 1) what the front office is thinking; and 2) what the needs and holes are with the existing roster. So let's assume that in a
Means 9 trips through the rotation for each starter, and got me to questioning what would be the best way to appropriate those starts from now - 117 games in - through the rest of the season. The clear emphasis must be on 2019 and 2020 and what will best serve the club moving forward. That is not to say that you stop pitching Berrios, Odorizzi, or Gibson; those guys need to stay in rotation and continue to demonstrate that they can last an entire season and get their 30+ starts in. In
The more consideration I give to the 2016 lineup, the more convinced I am that it is falling on the shoulders (fairly or unfairly) of Byron Buxton. Let's look at the ways he impacts the lineup. 1. Lineup with Buxton leading off: Buxton, Dozier, Mauer, Sano, Plouffe, Park, Rosario, Murphy/Suzuki, Escobar. Without Buxton leading off: Dozier, Mauer, Sano, Park, Plouffe, Rosario, Murphy/Suzuki, Escobar, Buxton/Santana. Not only does the first lineup place players in their optimum position, it
How do we keep Trevor and Miguel in the lineup together? How do we find the right catcher? How do we shore up the bullpen? Should Torii Hunter have a role? Do we need another starter, or just swap out some that we have? Can we afford an ace? How do we do all this under a scenario that the F.O. might actually consider, from an economic perspective? I think it can all be done, by next spring, with relatively few moves. But two of them are big. We would trade Brian Dozier and Kyle Gibson.
We have a rotation, today, of Santana, Gibson, Pelfrey, Milone, and Duffy. Let's say, theoretically, that we arrive at game 162 and need a game 163, or, better yet, a one-game playoff against the Yankees or Blue Jays (no other scenario seems very plausible right now, at least not one involving the Twins). Santana could pitch a game 163, though I'm not certain I'd want him to unless he starts picking it up a notch or two. I'm assuming Phil Hughes will be ready by then, but not certain I want
As we approach the non-waiver trade deadline, many commenters have discussed the logjam that we are facing in the roster decisions that will need to be made this off-season. While we search for potential catchers, relief pitchers, and other assorted pieces of the puzzle (both this year and next), it would help me greatly if someone could list the names of those we need to add to the roster this offseason or risk losing to Rule 5 or minor league free agency. Whether this is in the form of a p
With Tonkin being optioned back to the minor leagues, the Twins have created a hole in the lineup in advance of a 10-game road trip, with the first six of those games in National League ballparks. Some people have suggested that Oswaldo Arcia could return, or a utility player such as Doug Bernier. However, it has appeared to me that the Twins have tried to introduce new prospects during road series, in order to avoid the double-edged nerve-sword of a simultaneous major league and home debut.
I really hold back what I would like to say about then payroll arguments here. The fact that people don't accept the amount taken in dictates the amount going out requires one of two things. Extreme financial ignorance or fanatical bias that prevents the acceptance of something some basic. I did not change the argument. It's the same idiocy over and over. Do you really want to be on the side that suggests revenues does not determine spending capacity?
At this point in the pre-season, I’m just so happy to be seeing games again, I don’t care about the Twins record in 2023. I think they’ll win it all, unrealistically speaking 🙂