The only way I would be enthused about a Napoli signing is if the new brain trust explained how it fits into their strategy. I took the Park signing last year as a signal some roster changes would occur in response, and nothing happened. Right now Napoli would amount to a replacement for Plouffe's spot on the roster, and I don't see how that makes the team any better, but instead the roster would be more jammed up than before.

 

Didn't they cut Walker loose because they had too many corner OF/1B/DH types?

 

The decision on Walker was made during the season.  If you remember, a reporter asked Molitor why Walker and others were not called up when the rosters expanded.  Molitor's strange response was, "Well, we don't know who will be on the team next year."  Walker's release was planned some time ago, so his release probably has nothing to do with a glut of players at the position.

The Twins need a player on the team who can mentor.  Preferably more than one.  If Napoli is the guy, the Twins should go for it.

This would almost certainly be a 1-year deal, so no damage will be done.  Platoon him with Mauer at 1B and platoon him with whoever the DH ends up being. This will keep people fresh, which is a key thing to consider for the aging Mauer. 

 

As for all of the skepticism that Hunter helped the team in 2015, look at the team that Hunter left to join the Twins in 2015 and their subsequent record.  Look for some quotes by the players of that team as to the reason for their drop.  If you think Hunter and 2015 are flukes, examine more evidence.  I think you will find that it was no fluke.  And then hopefully we can go on to argue something a little more interesting.

Edited December 1, 20169 yr by Doomtints

 

The Twins need a player on the team who can mentor.  Preferably more than one.  If Napoli is the guy, the Twins should go for it.

This would almost certainly be a 1-year deal, so no damage will be done.  Platoon him with Mauer at 1B and platoon him with whoever the DH ends up being. This will keep people fresh, which is a key thing to consider for the aging Mauer. 

 

As for all of the skepticism that Hunter helped the team in 2015, look at the team that Hunter left to join the Twins in 2015 and their subsequent record.  Look for some quotes by the players of that team as to the reason for their drop.  If you think Hunter and 2015 are flukes, examine more evidence.  I think you will find that it was no fluke.  And then hopefully we can go on to argue something a little more interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

 

You can freely post this argument if you research Hunter's career and can't find the pattern that many people suspect is there. 

 

Right now there is no proof one way or the other that Hunter made a difference.  There are opinions on both sides.  If you are interested in changing the other side's opinion, do the research.

 

The fact that you are using this argument suggests to me that there is plenty of evidence that Hunter has made a difference not just with the Twins but with other teams, and you simply are throwing this out there to try to poison the well. 

Edited December 1, 20169 yr by Doomtints

 

You can freely post this argument if you research Hunter's career and can't find the pattern that many people suspect is there. 

 

Right now there is no proof one way or the other that Hunter made a difference.  There are opinions on both sides.  If you are interested in changing the other side's opinion, do the research.

 

The fact that you are using this argument suggests to me that there is plenty of evidence that Hunter has made a difference not just with the Twins but with other teams, and you simply are throwing this out there to try to poison the well. 

 

No, I am arguing you can't show causation. Correlation and post hoc analysis doesn't prove anything. Not. One. Thing.

 

No, I am arguing you can't show causation. Correlation and post hoc analysis doesn't prove anything. Not. One. Thing.

 

One can definitely show causation, for anything.  Research does a body good.

 

Thanks for providing my daily dose of nihilism, though.  Now I don't have to crack open the politics section of the newspaper. 

 

One can definitely show causation, for anything.  Research does a body good.

 

Thanks for providing my daily dose of nihilism, though.  Now I don't have to crack open the politics section of the newspaper. 

 

Huh? 

 

What is the cause, how does he make players better, which players did he make better, and how? 

 

I am not arguing leadership has no value, I'm asking what he does, and how, and to whom....because to argue that he does make a 10-20 game difference for a team is a darn large claim....

IMO we've thoroughly examined the Hunter effect as it relates to Napoli. Let's move on.

The decision on Walker was made during the season. If you remember, a reporter asked Molitor why Walker and others were not called up when the rosters expanded. Molitor's strange response was, "Well, we don't know who will be on the team next year." Walker's release was planned some time ago, so his release probably has nothing to do with a glut of players at the position.

The guys who made the decision on Walker were not even hired at that time.

You are suggesting 1 of 2 things, both of which are disturbing.

Either the Twins used a time machine or psychic to consult Falvey and Levine regarding Walker in September. Or

Or, Falvey and Levine are just puppets and are not actually making any decisions.

Edited December 1, 20169 yr by Mr. Brooks

 

The guys who made the decision on Walker were not even hired at that time.
You are suggesting 1 of 2 things, both of which are disturbing.
Either the Twins used a time machine or psychic to consult Falvey and Levine regarding Walker in September. Or
Or, Falvey and Levine are just puppets and are not actually making any decisions.

 

Falvey has been hired, he just had not officially started yet.

Very likely they are relying at least a little bit on opinions from the staff beneath them.  If Molitor does not like a guy, I doubt they would force anyone upon him, and it would not be difficult for Molitor to argue convincingly against a flawed player like Walker. 

Edited December 1, 20169 yr by Doomtints

Falvey has been hired, he just had not officially started yet.

 

Very likely they are relying at least a little bit on opinions from the staff beneath them. If Molitor does not like a guy, I doubt they would force anyone upon him, and it would not be difficult for Molitor to argue convincingly against a flawed player like Walker.

The decision not to call up Walker when rosters expand was 3 full weeks before they settled on Falvey.

If they would never make a roster move that Molitor would disagree with, then why not just make Molitor the GM?

Molitor is the field manager. He didn't make the call on Walker. On what basis would he? Googling his stats?

 

Here is the link to his most recent podcast.  The Twins stuff is from 50:40 to about 54:20 and no mention of that.  Can you point to a time mark?

Good point.  Wolfson said on Twitter that the podcast would mention a "Big name FA #MNTwins have expressed interest in" but it does not appear to have been Napoli. The only MLB free agent mentioned was Edinson Volquez (who had already signed elsewhere by the time of the podcast).

 

https://twitter.com/DWolfsonKSTP/status/803800347517091840

Edited December 1, 20169 yr by spycake

Eh this thread's still not close to pointless by TD standards.

 

Not even top 10.

 

Eh this thread's still not close to pointless by TD standards.

 

Not even top 10.

The top 1..... Zack Jones thread last off-season. 

 

The top 1..... Zack Jones thread last off-season. 

 

Don't forget anything about rule 5 drafts, and Joe Benson.....

Don't forget anything about rule 5 drafts, and Joe Benson.....

or Adam Brett Walker :-)

 

or Adam Brett Walker :-)

Or lawyers. Zing!

Joe Benson in a landslide.

 

And if you believe Hunter's veteran leadership was the reason we did so well in 2015, why didn't it have 'a lasting impact for even this year'?  

 

Please don't take these posts as attacks, I'm just asking questions.  I respect your opinion, and agree to a point, just not to the degree you do.

 

I guess my opinion is that the veteran leadership "could" rub off, not that it was a guarentee.  Maybe it didn't help in 2016 because players didn't buy into it.  Now that they saw they 2016 results, maybe they'll be more open to it.  Maybe its all hoey.

 

If the front office is thinks Park and Vargas may have a future with the Twins, signing Napoli makes no sense.  However, if they think one or both of them has no future with the Twins, what does it hurt?

 

Purely speculation, lets say that the front office has no future plans for Vargas.  Heck, maybe he is waived to make room on the 40 man for a Rule 5 pick.  Then lets say the Twins sign Napoli to a 1 year deal.

 

Mauer plays 1B against righties.  Napoli plays 1B against lefties.

Napoli plays DH against righties.  Park plays DH against lefties.

Park probably also gets some DH against righties.  Sano probably gets some DH days as well.

 

Plenty of space for everyone.

 

Now if they believe in Vargas, he either takes Napoli's spot or Park's spot (if they don't believe in Park).

 

 

 

And if you believe Hunter's veteran leadership was the reason we did so well in 2015, why didn't it have 'a lasting impact for even this year'?  

 

Please don't take these posts as attacks, I'm just asking questions.  I respect your opinion, and agree to a point, just not to the degree you do.

 

No attack at all.  I love a good debate.

 

No, I am arguing you can't show causation. Correlation and post hoc analysis doesn't prove anything. Not. One. Thing.

 

Just like we can't "Prove" Hunter's influence, you can't "Prove" he didn't have that kind of influence.  Its perfectly reasonable to have opinions on both sides of it.

 

Just like we can't "Prove" Hunter's influence, you can't "Prove" he didn't have that kind of influence.  Its perfectly reasonable to have opinions on both sides of it.

 

The onus isn't on me, though....people are saying they should hire him because his leadership will help the team....

 

and yes, it is perfectly reasonable to have an opinion and a theory. But, it is a logical fallacy to say "it happened after, therefore because".....which was the argument made.

 

Huh? 

 

What is the cause, how does he make players better, which players did he make better, and how? 

 

I am not arguing leadership has no value, I'm asking what he does, and how, and to whom....because to argue that he does make a 10-20 game difference for a team is a darn large claim....

 

From the sounds of it, he kept the team loose in the locker room.  His advice to any player may have pulled a player out of a slump sooner.  Players could come to him for advice.  Maybe pitchers were less nervous because of this.  Maybe Hunter spoke up if he saw someone slacking off.  Maybe younger players spent 5 extra minutes hitting off a tee or in the cage trying to take Hunter's advice.

 

Maybe in 2016, the players thought "Hey, we made a jump in 2015, we're going to make another jump in 2016" and just thought it would happen by itself without the extra hard work.  Maybe the players listened more to a 9 time gold glove winner, and multi year all star that they grew up idolizing as kids than they were to old coaches who played before their time.

 

By the way, if any of this is true, it does not bode well for the coaching staff.

 

The onus isn't on me, though....people are saying they should hire him because his leadership will help the team....

 

and yes, it is perfectly reasonable to have an opinion and a theory. But, it is a logical fallacy to say "it happened after, therefore because".....which was the argument made.

 

Yes, it is on you.  People are saying they can understand singing Napoli because of his leadership, not that it is imperative that they sign him or that it should be a huge priority.  We just understand the thought process of signing him.

 

You on the other hand are saying there is absolutely no possible reason for the Twins to sign Mike Napoli.

Edited December 1, 20169 yr by clone52

 

From the sounds of it, he kept the team loose in the locker room.  His advice to any player may have pulled a player out of a slump sooner.  Players could come to him for advice.  Maybe pitchers were less nervous because of this.  Maybe Hunter spoke up if he saw someone slacking off.  Maybe younger players spent 5 extra minutes hitting off a tee or in the cage trying to take Hunter's advice.

 

Maybe in 2016, the players thought "Hey, we made a jump in 2015, we're going to make another jump in 2016" and just thought it would happen by itself without the extra hard work.  Maybe the players listened more to a 9 time gold glove winner, and multi year all star that they grew up idolizing as kids than they were to old coaches who played before their time.

 

By the way, if any of this is true, it does not bode well for the coaching staff.

 

good post, thanks

 

and yes, yes it does say a lot

I guess my opinion is that the veteran leadership "could" rub off, not that it was a guarentee. Maybe it didn't help in 2016 because players didn't buy into it. Now that they saw they 2016 results, maybe they'll be more open to it. Maybe its all hoey.

 

If the front office is thinks Park and Vargas may have a future with the Twins, signing Napoli makes no sense. However, if they think one or both of them has no future with the Twins, what does it hurt?

 

Purely speculation, lets say that the front office has no future plans for Vargas. Heck, maybe he is waived to make room on the 40 man for a Rule 5 pick. Then lets say the Twins sign Napoli to a 1 year deal.

 

Mauer plays 1B against righties. Napoli plays 1B against lefties.

Napoli plays DH against righties. Park plays DH against lefties.

Park probably also gets some DH against righties. Sano probably gets some DH days as well.

 

Plenty of space for everyone.

 

Now if they believe in Vargas, he either takes Napoli's spot or Park's spot (if they don't believe in Park).

I don't think they can waive a player to make room for a Rule V pick anymore.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a deadline for those moves affecting the Rule V draft, which is why they released Plouffe the day they did.

good post, thanks

 

and yes, yes it does say a lot

It also says a lot about the other veterans on the team.

 

I don't think they can waive a player to make room for a Rule V pick anymore.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a deadline for those moves affecting the Rule V draft, which is why they released Plouffe the day they did.

I believe they can still waive players, except for those added to the 40 man just in the past couple weeks.

I believe they can still waive players, except for those added to the 40 man just in the past couple weeks.

Right, but I don't think they are allowed to use those spots on Rule V picks.