Leaderboard

1. His sprint speed is still plenty fast. Aggressiveness is a possible explanation. 2. I'm not a UZR Guy. I don't believe the story it tells is accurate. The Inclusion of UZR makes me not a WAR guy either. 3. He used to be a Kamikaze base runner in his younger days. He might be getting smarter.

Personally, Anything Tom writes... he has my full attention. He could write an article on the importance of radishes and I'll read it because Tom has earned my full respect. It may not change my mind on radishes since I don't care for them and I am locked in. There is a reason why I'm not sold on radishes and it's probably more complicated than "I simply don't like the way they taste". To break down the complicated answer would take some time and energy so it is much easier to say "I don't like the way they taste". Radishes and UZR are pretty much the same thing for me.

Sprint speed is measuring speed in terms of feet per second in a player's fastest one-second window. From a Mike Petriello article: "Of course, there are so many plays where a runner is merely jogging to first after having popped up, or trots home easily from third base when a teammate doubles, and those non-competitive plays don't exactly tell us anything about speed, so we had to find a way to exclude those plays and include only plays where maximum effort could be expected. To account for that, we took all batted balls (excluding over-the-fence home runs), and looked at plays where a runner or hitter attempted to advance two or more bases (excluding runners who started on second base and the batted ball was an extra-base hit, as they can often jog home). Of the remaining runs, we'll sort them from slowest to fastest, and take the average of the fastest half. If that sounds complicated, it needs to be, but the results are extremely satisfying." Let's just forget the numbers for a second. In terms of your own evaluation/eye test, would you say Eddie's defense and base running has gotten worse the past two seasons? I would, and given his age, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So that's why I threw out the theory that he may have struggled through some injuries we were never made aware of. There were multiple times in the game recaps where I'd point out Rosie taking a really inefficient route to a ball. Could that be because he was missing that top gear and didn't properly account for it when he initially broke to the ball? I think it's possible.

He’s also got Byron Buxton for 137 games next to him in 2017, vs 92 and 44. No Oswaldo Arica or Danny Santana either, which has to help. If he doesn’t “have” to get to everything, he might not push it quite so hard, so he can stay healthier throughout the season. Man those outfields were bad!

The Twins made an unexpected addition to their burgeoning bullpen over the weekend, adding former Mets and Red Sox reliever Addison Reed on a two-year pact worth $16.75 million. The deal profiles well for the Twins on a number of fronts. At 29, Reed is at the younger end of a relief pitching market deep in high quality back end bullpen arms. Reed represents the first multi-year deal the Twins have ever signed with an outside reliever in free agency. In spite of this, the Twins locked Reed up on a short contract, at a price which they undoubtedly would have had to surpass had they signed him earlier in free agency. Reed joins a Twins bullpen shaping up to be vastly different, and potentially much improved over its 2017 iteration. In addition to returning standout Trevor Hildenberger, the Twins have added Fernando Rodney, presumably filling the vacant ninth inning role, and Zach Duke, returning from an injury-plagued 2017 season. In the former trio, the Twins seemed to have established a penchant for the traits they are pursuing in improving their bullpen; inducing ground balls and a lot of strikeouts, hardly a pioneering recipe for success. In Reed however, they have added a pitcher who generates more fly balls, so what about Reed has made him such a consistent a reliable late inning reliever? There’s no real intricacy in Reed’s pitch mix. He throws a four seem fastball around 66% of the time, a slider 33% of the time, and a changeup about as often as Byron Buxton gets caught stealing a base. Reed has excellent control, posting a walk rate of 1.51 BB/9 in 2016 and 1.78 BB/9 in 2017. Reed’s 2017 BB/9 was good for 11th among relievers who pitched at least 50 innings. This level of control was not always a staple of Reed’s pitching. In his first 3 seasons in MLB his BB/9 oscillated between 2.90 and 3.05. While this may seem like a trivial difference, this is a difference of around 10-11 walks over a 75 inning sample, a big deal when you’re constantly pitching in high leverage situations. So what is at the root of Reed’s improved control since the beginning of the 2016 season? In 2016, Reed produced a dramatic improvement in his overall numbers. In addition to refining his control, Reed stranded around 5% more baserunners, increased his K/9 from 8.2 to 10.55 and dropped his xFIP from 4.04 to 2.09. Reed has never had elite velocity. While some have commented on a dip in velocity throughout the past two seasons, his average four seam fastball velocity has remained fairly consistent, dropping from 93.66 mph in April of 2015 to 92.72 mph in October of 2017. So if Reed isn’t blowing hitters away, how did his K/9 improve and stick above 9.0 in his last two seasons? The number that jumps out in Reed’s improvement from 2015 to 2016 is his F-Strike% (percentage of the time Reed is throwing a first pitch strike). In 2015 Reed’s F-Strike% was around 56%. In 2016, it jumped to 70%. For the sake of comparison, old friend Pat Neshek had an F-Strike% of 71.1% in 2017 and had an incredible BB/9 of 0.87. This is a dramatic improvement from Reed which is even more impressive when visualized. Here’s a look at Reed’s heat map from 2015. This charts the percentage a pitch falls within a sub-location of the strike zone. For all three of these searches I looked at heat maps representing the first pitch of a plate appearance, exclusively when Reed threw his four seem fastball. You’ll immediately notice a stark contrast between 2015 and 2016. Reed improved in two notable areas, pounding the strike zone with a greater level of consistency, and using a greater portion of the strike zone when throwing first pitch strikes. We see a similar performance in 2017 (although not quite as impressive). Interestingly, Reed’s obvious trend in locating his first pitch strikes higher in the zone in resulted in opposing batters OPS increasing from .587 in 2016, to .862 in 2017. So where does Reed fit in the back end of a Twins bullpen which has been dramatically upgraded from a year ago? Initially, there was contention that adding Reed might create a closer controversy in Minnesota. The Twins had recently added Fernando Rodney to the pen on a one year deal. It seems as if the Twins will stick with Rodney as their primary ninth inning option. Since taking on his role with the Twins, Paul Molitor has been criticized in his bullpen management for traditionalism, a tendency to use each of his relievers in a pre-determined role. Intractably funneling Rodney into save situations may allow Molitor the luxury of using both Reed and Trevor Hildenberger as more flexible relievers, whose appearances are dictated by the leverage of a given situation, rather than the inning they are pitching in. In addition to providing Molitor with another quality arm, Reed may provide the impetus for Molitor to get more creative in facilitating the evolution of the Twins bullpen, maximizing the potential of a vastly upgraded group.

I'm not even so sure about that, Chief. They seem to like the whole "keep our options open and stay nimble" thing. Although from a different perspective, it's easy you conclude that they sometimes have a tendency to be indecisive or fickle. Without knowing for sure, I'm inclined to think they made the calls on Burdi and Bard to free up space for whatever opportunities came along and not specifically with a Rule V addition in mind. The scouts submitted their reports on the Rule V guys after that. Falvey studied the scouting reports and concluded, what the heck, we're so sharp, lets try to fix this guy Kinley. I accuse them of premeditated idiocy regarding Burdi. I accuse them of second degree idiocy regarding Kinley. In both cases, however, we'll have to wait to see what comes out at trial. Maybe there's a not guilty verdict in store because Burdi's development is impeded by something we don't see, or because Kinley is fixable. But I'm relieved they signed Reed, that's for sure.

not me. He was returned to the Sox in late July, meaning he took up a 25 man spot (or DL spot) and a 40 man spot for almost 2/3ds of the season. For 18 innings of 6 ERA and a fight started in Detroit. An objective look at Twins management should be able to recognize both th good AND the bad. It was a waste of a roster spot, and gave the manager a 24 man team instead of 25 for a good chunk of a season spent clawing for a playoff spot.

Or maybe... the selection of Burdi and Bard made them think. "****... We lost two... better grab somebody... who ya got."

Eddie Rosario had a huge breakout year in 2017, posting career highs in virtually every offensive category, but he also saw his defensive and base running metrics take a dip for the second-straight season. Is it possible we’re already seeing the decline of Rosario’s athleticism, or could there be something else going on?When Rosario came up to the big leagues in 2015, he was raw as a hitter but both his speed and defense stood out. Fast forward two years, and it appears Rosario has turned a complete 180. Here is Rosario’s three-year trend in sprint speed, UZR/150 and BsR. Everything is trending the wrong direction. Download attachment: RosarioTrend.JPG In terms of sprint speed, Rosario has gone from the 32nd-fastest player in baseball in 2015 to 150th last season. That’s a drop from comfortably inside the top 10 percent to outside the upper third of all players. He’s lost exactly one foot per second on average over the past two seasons, which can be a huge difference when you’re tracking down fly balls in the outfield. Below is a look at Rosario’s sprint speed the past three seasons compared to some of his teammates. He went from easily being the second-fastest player in this group to slipping down to fourth. Download attachment: TwinsGraph.JPG And here’s a look at Rosario’s numbers in relation to a handful of other players around his same age. Download attachment: MLBSpeed.JPG So what do we make of all of this? Well, the pessimistic approach would be to conclude that Rosario’s athleticism is already eroding. But he’s still only 26-years-old, so I find that a little hard to believe. Is it possible that Rosario has played big parts of the past two seasons with undisclosed minor leg injuries that have sapped him of some of that speed? The only time Rosario has been on the DL was when he fractured his thumb in late 2016, but he’s surely played through a few scratches and strains. What do you make of Rosario’s defensive and base running declines? Related: Minnesota’s Base Running Resurgence Eddie Rosario And The Battle For Plate Discipline Click here to view the article

Agreed. Just read in the fangraphs chat how teams are really using this kind of data a lot to assess players. From a guy that was recently in a front office....

Almost surely it wasn't specifically Kinley they targeted, but almost as surely Burdi/Bard were left off the 40 man with the idea that the team would make a rule 5 pick. So they are related, at least partially.

I think they have a plan (or an idea of one) to "fix" Kinley that could make him ML ready; they'll use spring training to figure that out. I'm sure they went to the add process for Rule 5 purposes differently than the Rule 5 draft. That is, the decision/process to not add Burdi and Bard were separate from the decision/process to draft Kinley.

I'm not sure I can buy into these measurements a whole lot. Sprint speed for example. How is that measured? A high water mark, or a composite of some arbitrary number of measurements? At what point do they measure? Again, the high water mark, or an average of the speed throughout that run, or some arbitrary point in time? Clearly, there's some flaw in something's meauring Grossman's sprint speed as an equivalent to Kepler's. Also, I'm not sure sprint speed really has much bearing on Rosario's game. Given the nature of left field (playing close to the wall, playing angles/bounces), I just don't see speed as something that separates a good LF from a poor one. What are the league averages? We're seeing baseball trend towards speed and athleticism. We're also seeing a trends if getting young talented players to the major sports faster (it seems, no data there). Every year, faster more athletic players are coming in at age 20-22, and the slow sluggers (Thome, Fielder, etc) are being phased out. Roasario may have been in the 98th percentile in 1990, and would be in the bottom quarter in 2028. I'm not sure the necessarily mean he isn't detrimentally slow. I just can't say his ranking drop in relation the league is alarmingly without more context/data. When it comes to his arm, which a lot are taking issue with, I don't think the perception of a "drop off" is being adequately discounted for the luck factor. I'm guessing he had fewer "easy" opportunities (aka, tested frequently one year, and not the next after proving yourself). Accuracy can have luck involved (which side of the base you end up on in relation to the runner). Bounces can involve luck. Maybe based were overslid. Considering that there doesn't appear to be a huge regression in his arm strength, it's not something I can definitively say is a problem with Rosario and not a statistical anomole of some kind (on either end of the spectrum in each respective year). I know the new thing is forcing data. We've arrived at this place where we think any number is better than nothing, and that's simply not he case. People love to throw stuff against the wall before it's properly vetted. Data can be skewed, and can create bad analysis/decision making. I'd like to see this played out longer. Long story short, I'm not ready to say this isn't a statistical issue (sample size, skewed by outliers) or a measurement issue (flawed techniques, searching for patterns in an inadequate range of data, apples vs oranges, etc). I'm not ready to say Roasario can't play LF. I think we'll have a better idea as this upcoming season progresses.

We could get Souhan to write another hatchet job and investigate the eating habits of Rosario by using his insider's access. Or, possibly, these are typical fluctuations and Rosario hasn't really lost a step. The other players his age have also seen fluctuations, this is simply a statistical anomaly and Rosario will probably bounce back.

Great stuff A. Got to be mentioned that, on the other hand, Rosario had a career high on every single offensive measurement. B. Three data points is a very small sample size. Would love to see monthly averages instead of seasonal. That will tell you whether he had months that dragged his seasonal performance down. For sure the first half he had more ground balls than fly balls (1.5x), a trend reversed the second half, and I wonder whether that had something to do with it. C. would love to see where the other Twins' OFs (Kepler & Grossman) are in the same principles.

I love it. A staff full of decent arms with decent replacement options stashed in Rochester. It’s what every team wants.

I've had the same problem ever since radishes said Josh Willingham was a better fielder than Torii Hunter.

Just a quibble, but it was set up by Dan Gladden's insane* dash to second base on a broken-bat single into short left-center. I was yelling at the TV screen, "no! No! NO! NO! Y....Yes!!!!! A by-the-book bunt, followed by two intentional walks, ensued. * Players do this now and then - pressure the defense to make the play. It still took huge cojones to go for it, in that situation.

Where was that even discussed? I would consider trading him in a package, if high end pitching came back, but that has nothing to do with this at all.

Agreed, it is a really good article. It seems like some of defensive metrics need additional data points, or context. It’s absolutely right to ask the question. Is Rosario losing a step? Coming to a conclusion is tricky, and prescribing a solution, harder yet. I don’t argue the data or questions posed by them, just looking for context.

I'd be interested to see how much things like sprint speed fluctuate from year to year, but it's something that should be a little concerning. Unless Rosario starts taking better routes to the ball and tracking things better, a loss of high-end speed will end up hurting him. Here's a question: would he be better off in RF? He's got the arm to play out there effectively and as I recall the alignment at Target Field makes LF a bigger space to cover than RF. Much as I like Kepler in RF, we may have to consider flip-flopping those two if Rosario can't get his giddyup back in gear. If Rosario can make an incremental improvement on last year's offense while getting back some of his defensive value, he's going to be a real asset. If he slides back further on D or starts swinging at anything thrown in the vicinity of 1st Ave again, he's not going to have a lengthy career.

On a technical level, all transactions are separate, of course. But that doesn't mean they're not related. I'd say fringe 40-man guys who have the same position/profile and whose roster status has to be considered within a few weeks of each other in November/December are going to be inextricably related.

2017 sprint speed 28.2 Kepler 28.1 Grossman 27.7 Rosario 2017 UZR/150 (all outfield positions combined) 0.8 Kepler -0.1 Rosario -9.3 Grossamn 2017 BsR 3.1 Kepler 0.1 Grossman -0.6 Rosario

This is a pretty deep statistical dive into 31IP. Busenitz is a complete question mark and we have no idea how he will perform. He does throw 95+ and he did have reasonable K rates in the minors as a RP. One thing I cannot understand is the amount of angst (not necessarily by Thrylos) regarding a Rule V pick. The Twins are taking a shot on a guy with a 95+ FB with 11+ K/9 rates (and awful BB rates). Most likely it doesn't work out but these are the kind of risks (minimal to zero risk) that you should take. I will reserve my angst for the time that he is kept on the MLB roster for too long after it is incredibly obvious that he isn't a MLB caliber pitcher. It is January now so it doesn't matter.

That sounds right. Rodney starts the year as the closer, and Reed is the fireman coming in at any high leverage situation. Hildenberger/Rogers are the other 7th/8th inning guys, and the rest will fill in at other times.

If you’re like a lot of Minnesota sports fans, your adrenaline might still be pumping from the Vikings’ thrilling last second win on Sunday. Fans of the purple and gold have been tormented by heartbreak throughout the franchise’s history. The “Minneapolis Miracle” might be the first stop as the team tries to break what some have called a “curse.” There have certainly been some other dramatic moments in Minnesota sports history. For some of the franchises, it was tough to narrow down the list. Here are the moments I picked out. Feel free to disagree in the comments section below.Vikings Moment: Stefon Diggs’ Catch Blair Walsh’s shanked field goal. Brett Farve’s interception. Gary Anderson’s missed field goal. It looked like Sunday would be another addition to the Vikings run of poor postseason luck. With one tremendous catch and scamper into the end zone, Diggs might have rewritten Vikings lore. There are still multiple games left before the organization can fully reverse the curse but this was certainly the first step in the right direction. Twins Moment: Kirby Puckett’s Home Run There have certainly been some dramatic moments throughout Twins history: Jack Morris tossing 10 shutout innings in Game 7 of 1991, the up-and-down moments of Game 163 in 2009, and the last out of Minnesota’s first World Series in 1987. All of those moments are great but Puckett’s walk-off home run was certainly the franchise’s greatest finish. It was an iconic moment that allowed Morris to have his magical Game 7. Timberwolves Moment: Webber’s Missed Three-Pointer The Timberwolves’ playoff history has been almost non-existent. However, the 2004 season saw the club go on a run all the way to the Western Conference Finals. Minnesota matched up with Sacramento in the semifinals and the series went to Game 7. Kevin Garnett and the rest of the T-Puppies were headed where no Timberwolves team had been before and where no team has since returned. Wild Moment: Brunette’s Game 7 Overtime Winner Much like the Timberwolves, there hasn’t been much playoff success in Wild history. The 2002-2003 club went on a run all the way to the Western Conference Finals before falling to the Ducks. The Wild went to the brink of elimination in both the quarterfinals and semifinals. Without this goal, Minnesota might never have made it out of the first round. Lynx Moment: Moore’s Game 3 Buzzer Beater While the Wild and Timberwolves have struggled to find playoff success, the Lynx have been dominant in postseason play. Minnesota has won the WBNA title in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017. They’ve also lost two finals during that same stretch. The Lynx would need five games to finish off the Indiana Fever but it was still a shot that will go down in Minnesota sports history. How would you rank these moments? Did I miss any along the way? Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion. Click here to view the article

Larkin's walkoff single Game 7 1991 needs a mention here. Yeah it was setup by an intentional walk to load the bases but he went up there hurt and got the job done.

And, the Dodgers made significant use of the new 10 day "disabled" list to essentially expand the size of their pitching staff. I would not be surprised if the Twins pick up on this and we see a lot of relievers developing "twinges" after pitching, say, in 3 of 4 or 4 of 5 games and being placed on the 10-day DL.

Great article. All of the disagreements appear to be of the fake news variety. Don't like the data, so the data must be wrong, with no counter evidence offered. Nice work, Tom.

Kind of. Players with less than 3 years service time who are added to the 40-man roster between August 15th and the Rule 5 draft are called "draft-excluded players" and can't be outrighted off the 40-man roster between the end of the World Series until 20 days before spring training, even if they clear waivers: https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3520 So if you want to remove that player from the 40-man roster during that time, you can't keep them in your organization -- they must be lost on waivers, traded, or released. (On an individual level, it doesn't much matter -- a player worthy of Rule 5 consideration would probably get claimed on waivers anyway. But in the absence of such a rule, if a lot of teams did this with 2-3-4 players a year, there probably wouldn't enough roster spots for all of them to get claimed, allowing teams to effectively protect more than 40 guys from Rule 5. Hence the rule, I guess.) Among current Twins, this "draft-excluded" group consists of Curtiss, Gonsalves, Littell, Moya, Slegers, and Thorpe. That's why I was a little worried when we added Slegers (and why I really disliked adding Pat Dean a couple years ago). Of course, we basically locked ourselves into a similar situation by drafting Kinley -- while he can technically be returned at any time, I don't think any Rule 5 pick in the modern era has ever been returned before March, so unless we plan to buck ~20 years of history, he's just as much locked in until March as Burdi or Bard would have been.

He certainly seems to have the right mind set to be successful. I really liked the scouting report on Bechtold. I thought that the Twins got good value in picking Bechtold and Del Le Tora at 5 and 6. I am hoping they prove they can make it.

Counterpoint: Rosario is learning to "play within himself," defining that vague phrase however you want

But they didn't know that Burdi would get taken and we still don't know if he will be returned. If he makes it through Rule V then the Twins have a big advantage in offseason 40 man roster flexibility for this offseason (and possibly next offseason). The Twins also didn't know who would be available at pick #20 in Rule V. I do prefer Burdi to Kinley though but after signing 3 FA RP's this offseason I don't think Kinley's leash is too long and he might not even make it through the offseason if the Twins need to open up a couple more 40 man spots.

I've always been a big believer in Burdi's arm and think he'll be a stud reliever in the majors pretty quickly if he gets his health straightened out, so maybe I'm irrational on this topic. Perhaps the Twins have real reason to believe he'll never get fully healthy, I dunno.

There is no connection between what the FO thinks of Burdi or Bard and what they think of Kinley. They did not swap these guys! Disagree with the decision not to protect them by handing them roster spots, but let's please stop conflating the three decisions. That's not how it went down.

I'd rather see Buesnitz than Kinley, for two reasons: 1. He was good in the majors, Kinley was barely good in the minors 2. Buesnitz has options....Kinley does not, effectively.

If May begins the season healthy, I would hope he's 5th starter and Mejia starting in Rochester 2 TOS surgeries for Hughes, I doubt he starts the season active, most likely 60 day DL. there's no log jam

I'm not sure a grievance would work. I would say though that Darvish is going to be the victim of demand in this case. That usually isn't the case with SPs, but with the major players all out, there's no one to drive up the price... Side note, if the Cubs were serious, I think they'd have signed him already. That team can print money. I know a extra couple mil per year is a lot of money, but it's pocket change to these guys. They would have signed him if they really wanted him. I think Brian is right. The Twins probably have the best offer on the field, and the only reason why Darvish hasn't signed is that it is significantly less than what he was hoping for.

I think there's more than a small possibility that Hughes starts the season on the DL, and then needs rehab time in the minors to get himself into pitching shape. I love Chargois, but he's got to prove that he's healthy and I'm not betting on him at the start of the season either. I'm not even a little worried about Kinley; we're at a point where a Rule V guy has to show they can contribute or we won't hold a roster spot for them and if he goes I'm not shedding any tears. the heat loss in missing on a Rule V pick is pretty low. Rodney's contract is one where if he's not pitching well we can dump him and roll with a different guy from Rochester and I think that's healthy. And as much as i hate it, there's a better than even chance we come north with an 8-man 'pen. Rodney Reed Duke Hildenburger Rogers Pressly (who has earned the skepticism) Duffey Busenitz That looks like the first cut. May is going to be tossed in the starter pool (good!). Enns, Kinley, Curtiss, and Moya are fighting for spots. Moya has options, and has never pitched at AAA; he starts there unless Duke or Rogers falters/gets hurt and we need another lefty. Duffey could get dealt (he's exactly the sort of pitcher who gets thrown into a deal so that a team isn't getting all prospects for a legit MLB player/star) but otherwise he's potentially the swingman in the bullpen and needs to fight off Enns or Kinley. Curtiss is going to push Pressly. Those are my guesses right now. Regardless, there's a lot more depth than there was and Reed sure looks like the impact bullpen arm people were complaining the twins weren't gonna sign.

Well, this FO showed last year how they will manipulate the 40-man roster to keep BP arms fresh. They may break camp with 7 relievers, but we all know we'll see a large number of these guys at some point. Who comes north may come down to how many options different pitchers have. The two guys I'm curious about are Hughes and May. Are they starters? Relievers? Where will they be? This FO has no ties to Hughes...would they dare just release him and eat the $$?

We've reached the inevitable gray areas of the subject. Given how difficult interactions can be among humans, it's impossible for there not to be any. None of the nuance, though, changes the essential message of the #metoo movement: make the default be to believe that the accuser has a story to tell. Notice that Ansari immediately confirmed the essence of the accusation. Actual false allegations appear to be very rare at this time; hopefully, that does not change. It's clear that many men need to change their behavior. I don't think it's off the table, such as in the responses like Caitlin Flanagan's and Ashleigh Banfield's, to ask whether women should consider some corresponding tweaks to their social conventions too. But again, introducing nuance into the discussion doesn't change the underlying determination to make widespread hurting stop.

It could be that the Addison Reed signing was like one of those "bluebirds" the sales guys talk about - not on their radar at Rule-5 time because they figured he would get a 4-year deal that they would not want to compete for. It's OK to change plans when something good comes along. It doesn't inherently mean that the original plan was not "justified". Not that I claim to know what the FO sees in Kinley, myself. A low ceiling with not a very high floor wouldn't have been my cup of tea.

Looks like the Twins will be ripe for playing games with the 10-day DL the way the Dodgers do ... Keep everyone fresh over the course of the season

It seems to me that Falvey has taken what was a really suspect pen at the beginning of last year and made it a potential strength. Obviously the starting 7 will not all stay healthy, but with guys at AAA that deserve to be in the majors if anyone struggles they won’t need to churn through waiver wire suspects. A healthy Chargois, Moya, Busenitz waiting with Jay and Curtis a step away gives the Twins a chance at an elite level pen soon. We have been waiting for some good pitching, I for one am excited by the possibilities. Now the question of bullpen management comes into play. Molitor has in my mind improved on this since he started managing, in part through having better options to use than he did when he first took the helm. Now we wait for one Starter…I hope

Boshers is waiver wire fodder..... Presley has bullpen stuff.... not game stuff. Kind of like batting practice power... nice to watch but when it is game time he misses in the middle of the plate.... not good. I would move him in an instance for a decent prospect or in combination for decent prospect. Much rather have Alan Busenitz in the 7th inning roll with Reed in the 8th and old man river finishing it up.

They have to be planning for 8 relievers, or a trade, or something.

To the earlier comments that the Twins have too many bullpen arms, remember there are always injuries. They tend to occur in bunches. Last year, it was minor league relievers (and Chargois) who looked like they would be up by midseason. We will see if all eight or nine or ten who would figure to have a good chance to make the team stay healthy.

if Lewis/Javier work out, also having Buxton would be a fantastic problem to have. If Lewis/Javier don't work out, NOT having Buxton becomes a huge issue. In short, Javier/Lewis have zero to do with signing Buxton.

Multi year lurker here, just upgrading to part time commentator. The request for help has spurred me to do my part and create a membership to help grow the community. Your website is fantastic. I have seem my appetite for your content grow. Twins Daily has turned me into a fan of the minor league system, draft, and advanced stats. I would enjoying seeing blog posts about MLB ex-Twins players and how/what they are doing. Seth's piece earlier in the year on Josh Rabe was great, more like these would be great. I can imagine the spirited dialogue in the forums. Call it "Old Friends". Yes, I stole that from Mike Berardino. I look forwarded to future commenting and hope other lurkers make the same jump.

I think the "unmentioned" is that someone -- some-bodies -- are doing a lot of work and, though the site was started with an idea that this could be sustainable, reality is, like a lot of start-ups, it just isn't. So, we started a business, it had a framework for self-perpetuation, but, to get it going and keep it going, we-had-to-do-what-we-had-to-do, the original model has not proven out, and now we need to face up to how to make this work or consider letting it all go. Maybe this is close? Some reading between the lines, but that's what I get. Most Blogs and websites and even internet companies, even large and successful ones, do not have a business model to start with. They don't. They either do it out of passion and because someone is crazy, or they just have a really good idea in a particular area, and hope that, over time, a business model emerges. The ones that survive remain open to possibility and are nimble and adjust as circumstances dictate. But, push comes to shove, you start an internet website, low barrier to entry, now you have readers, now it's a couple years on, no one is making money, everyone is donating time, but there's no way to monetize and people are getting frazzled. From the outside, I like to stop by, everyday, see what's going on. But, no idea you were fundamentally looking to incubate writers. Not for a moment would I have thought that. As an English teacher, I can say, you aren't going to incubate writers readily. Writers who are good are already working and busy. The ones who are motivated are already working and busy. The ones who are passionate are working and busy and willing to help out or to try their hand. The others.... well, there are a lot of other writers on the Internet and they won't get you anywhere. The best way to advance a business is to do it yourself. Countless hours of work. It's yours, you created it, take pride in it, etc. People only care about things they create; they do not care about things that others have created. The best reason for an outsider like me to write is not money. It's more about having a forum to put ideas and quality writing out that is going to draw eye-balls and create a reason for me to put more effort into baseball writing. There's a lot of things to write about, and baseball is profound, but, for me, only in a kind of semi-spiritual way, which takes time to tease out. Statistics are great and I'm glad to have a window on that world, but in the final analysis, I don't love baseball because of statistics. I love it because of the human drama. The best reason for me to write is as a prelude to assembling essays into a book to publish. But I have no idea that anything I wrote here would ever get kicked up to the front page. And I think that is what people are saying. You want open-source, you gotta live with open-source. You want curation, you guys gotta do that and it isn't self-managing. I mean, your moderators are hyper-vigilant about even a hint of controversy, but you want open-source on articles? I'm not seeing internal consistency on that. But still love the site and hope you figure it out.