sdangus

I guess I have never heard of many players calling it quits. Seems like they all stick it out until they are cut. Some hang on until they are 30. So it can't be all bad.Most of these players take jobs in the off season and save up. They realize what is coming next season. And a lot of them receive help from home. I know it seems like these players are being abused. But at the same time, it's part of the process the teams use to sort the grain from the chaff. They don't want life to be too easy, they want to see if they have the fortitude to stick it out, to see how bad they really want it. I am old enough to have lived through the days when everybody started out with wages so low you could barely eat. A lot of young people, even family guys, would take a second job to make ends meet. Now everybody just sits and whines about the people that are making more than they do. My other thought on this is that the MLBPA seems to have no interest in trying to help their comrades. Maybe they should all donate a share of their millions to help out their lower brethren. After all, they should all know what it's like. But they don't even make mention of it. Maybe it's not so bad after all.

This is the stupidest rule change I have ever heard of. Change the integrity of the game just to shave a couple of minutes off a game? Are you kidding me? I agree that they need to attempt to eliminate the down time caused by pitching changes, like the mound visits, the warm up tosses on the mound after a new pitcher enters, the slow entrance in to the game by the relievers. But do not alter the integrity of the game. The strategy of the game should be dictated by the game situation, not by some ill conceived rule making devised to appease a generation of impatience that can't sit down and enjoy the game just for what it is, a game of strategy using all of your resources to the best effect. I have an idea. Maybe we should change the rules of chess to speed up the game. I can't understand why anyone would want to sit there and watch their opponent strategize for long periods of dead time in between moves. Or maybe I just shouldn't play chess, and not insist on changing the rules for all of those long time chess players who enjoy the game as it is. Maybe a better idea would be to actually promote the game to a bigger audience as the game currently exists. Maybe we should do something to keep the kids in the ballparks during games, instead of shuffling them to a play land somewhere away from the game so the parents don't have to deal with them. How are the kids going to become fans if they don't watch the game. Or maybe just do a better job of teaching the fans what strategy really is in the game. As far as the infield shifts go, leave it alone. Give the strategist time and they will figure out ways to contend with those shifts. And who knows, the strategies might even make the game more interesting.

I would do this: Palanco Kepler Cruz Rosario Cron Sano/Gonzalez Schoop Castro Buxton If Buxton continues to show power, I would slide him in front of Schoop and Castro. I don't think Buxton should be a leadoff hitter at this point. Not enogh OBP skills and the power plays for later in the lineup.

As far as the article goes, it is very interesting to know the background of some of these guys. Thanks for providing that.

At the same time, there are people working in all kinds of professions for less than desirable pay, and probably not earning any retirement benefits. Each person has different goals and aspires to different outcomes. My standard comparison is struggling artists, musicians and actors. They all pay the same kind of dues as they try to make a name for themselves. Many of them fail and move on to other professions that pay better. Really, it's no different than self employed people. Many of them struggles financially for many years trying to establish their trade or business, and many fail in the end. At some point they have to make a decision to move on. These guys are all young with many earning years ahead of them when they move on. They will be OK.

What I saw in Ryne Harper's outing is a guy that throws an unhittable curve ball WHEN he can get it over the plate. Looks to me like he has an awful time trying to control it. He has an extremely ackward pitching motion. Looks like he is trying to shove the ball toward home plate. If the spin happens on the pitch, it's awesome. If it doesn't it's not near the plate. Having said all that, I look at his stats then, and I don't see a guy that has walked a lot of guys, or given up a lot of hits or home runs. So I don't know why he hasn't gotten a chance to stick. He was briefly on the Mariners roster 2 years ago. His age keeps him from being a serious prospect at this point probably, but it doesn't matter if he can pitch. I think the Twins might have some open 40 man spots after the cuts start, so maybe he gets an opportunity if he can show that stuff some more.

It's called MLBPA for a reason. Because it represents MLB players, who have a total different set of priorities than minor league players. The difference between the NFL and MLB is the amount of time it takes to develop most baseball players. An NFL player spends 3 years in college and then most of them are ready to play in the NFL. Thank goodness for them, because a great majority of them only last for 3 or 4 years then. Baseball players can spend 3 or maybe even 4 years in college, and then still need another 4, 5, or 6 years to make it to the major leagues. This is why teams have to "blow it up" and cash in their chips to accumulate as many prospects as they can, because it takes so long and so many of them to build another contender. No team can simply buy enough talent to be a contender, unless by accident. The NFL teams on the other hand can a lot of times reload on the fly, especially if they have a few key players, such as a good quarterback.

Seems to me that the obsession with declaring all but the best teams as trying to fail is a bit of exaggeration. After all, only 5 teams can get a top 5 draft choice. And none of those are a sure fire guarantee, and the rest are a shot in the dark. The international bonus budgets are not determined solely on order of finish either. Did the old way of doing international really work. The rich teams just ignored the spending limits and paid huge fines just so they could dominate the signings. Look at all the international players in the Yankees system that are about to flood the top prospect lists if you don't believe me. And of course these teams that are "trying to fail" should eventually emerge as the top teams if their prospects pan out. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? I think we are blaming the wrong people for what is going on in free agency. When several players set at the top of the heap and refuse to sign all winter because of extreme demands, they put all of the players below them at risk. Those players wait for the others to sign so they can establish their place in the pecking order, but when a lot of teams are waiting out the players at the top in order to proceed with other options, nothing happens. The most vulnerable people in this scenario are the players near the bottom, who finally can't wait any longer and sell themselves short just to get a commitment from a team. I don't think the CBA is to blame for these behaviors. I think it is greed. Probably on everybody's behalf. One other thing. When it comes to so called service time manipulation, their is no manipulation at all. The players union negotiated that allowance into the agreement in exchange for the Super 2 arbitration arrangement. Do you suppose they would be willing to give up Super 2 in exchange for more leniency on the service time calculations? And in reality, that is probably a concession negotiated by the union anyway, since a player already doesn't have to play an entire year to get credit for an entire year of service, which is why there is this issue in the first place. The bottom line is that these rules were probably concessions gained by the union years ago, and now the teams are demonized for playing by the rules.

Not sure if this is the proper place to say this, but I have always been of the opinion that Terry Ryan wanted to fire Paul Molitor in the middle of 2016, and that's the reason he is no longer there. It should have been done then. We would be 2 years farther ahead. Not saying that I don't like what is happening with the current front office. I think they are doing a fine job.

As far a Luis Arraez goes, from everything I have ever read, the defense is adequate at 2B, he has very little speed or power. He has shown the ability to be able to play 3B and LF, although I am sure the jury is still out about how well. The only way he becomes a major leaguer is if his bat stays at that .300 plus level with an OBP about 50 points higher. He does seem to have some plate discipline. If that were true, he could be a poor man's DH if he can offer OBP. The added bonus would be that he could be a fill in at several positions on a short term basis.

In Castro's full season with the Twins, he had 5 passed balls and wildpitches during his catching time. In comparison JT Realmuto had 8 PB and 34 WP last year in similar # of games, Posey in his last complete season 1 PB and 32 WP, Yadier Molina last year 4 PB and 39 WP. Where do you see Castro out of line with the other top catchers?

Just the way you have them listed is the way I would go. Probably the best overall depth of any position ever for the Twins.

I, too, remember fondly 1987/1991 Twins teams. But you must also remember that those teams were also seriously flawed, but the Twins prevailed to win the WS. In 1991, the Twins brought in Chili Davis, who had been having less than stellar seasons leading up to 1991, and then turned in a career year. Jack Morris, too, had been less than stellar in the previous few seasons, but he also turned in a career year that season. They traded for Steve Bedrosian, but he was far from a major contributor. And lastly, of course, Chuck Knoblauch was a rookie that year at second base and turned in a key performance. What do you suppose the Twins were given as a chance to win the World Series either one of those 2 seasons when the season began? Probably not much.

Starting to see some trends from the front office. First they don't like players that are injury risks. They have shoved out players that have injury histories and ones who are starting to age. (Think Burdi, Chargois, J. Reed, Curtiss, Slegers, Dozier). They like to gather talent and wait for it to mature. Most of the young talent they have acquired in trades is a collection of players with skills that have yet to emerge. But there could be considerable upside in a lot of them. They like to have a lot of options for pitchers. Even if they are fringy, if they are still young enough to suddenly have a breakthrough, they are interested. Look at all the non roster pitchers they have stocked on Rochester's roster. And some of the signings they made during the season last year in the minors. And the continual flow of waiver claims that got shots during the season with the Twins. Some might even work (Magill for instance). I think they fully intend to use their entire 40 man roster during the season. They want to have enough good young optionable players that they can shuttle players back and forth as needs arise, injuries, refreshments for the bullpen, and giving young players time to play and adjust as they ride the shuttle to Rochester. Somewhere I remember I remember Levine saying something along these lines. They covet power, but also flexibility amongst their players(and even their coaches). Look for players to be tried at new positions to increase their value, look for pitchers to move to different positions on the staff. So far I haven't seen them show much desire for speed other than the 2 young center fielders they acquired last summer. Other than Lewis I haven't seen a lot of speed taken in the draft.

Yes, there is risk. You have to actually put him in games to find out. And how did that go last year? I think they lost every game he pitched. Being a contender makes it difficult to test out too many of these type of projects.

I have been saying all winter that they reason the Twins haven't invested in some of these expensive free agents has nothing to do with this season, but the affects on seasons moving forward. I sat down this morning and tried to envision what the Twins may look like next season, if the current roster performs to expectations and all the young players earn raises on arbitration, or sign long term contracts going forward. Here is what I came up with for next year. I did not put down a dollar amount for catcher yet, but Castro would be gone, so they may want to bring in an upgrade here as well if they don't think Garver an be the starter. I decided they could probably extend Gibson for a couple years at $12 million per. I assumed that Schoop would either be so bad that he wouldn't come back, or so good they couldn't afford him next year, so I plugged Gordon in at 2B. C- 1B - Cron 8,000,000 2B - Gordon 3B - Sano 6,000,000 SS - Polanceo 5,000,000 UT - Gonzalez 9,000,000 LF - Rosario 8,000,000 CF - Buxton 6,000,000 RF - Kepler 6,000,000 DH - Cruz 12,000,000 SP - Berrios 10,000,000 (Long term contract) SP - Gibson 12,000,000 (Extension) SP - Perez 7,000,000 RP - May 5,000,000 (extension) RP - Rodgers 6,000,000 (Extension) Total 100,000,000 Adding at least 12 other players at 600,000 per year adds another 7,200,000. So now you are at 107,200,000. And you still have not addressed and upgrade at catcher, brought in a top line starting pitcher, brought in a closer, or any other experienced bullpen options. This is the reason the Twins are being cautious this winter. They do not have endless flexibility in their budget as so many people keep harping about this winter. The budget is soon to get very tight.

I think it's great that we have 3 guys in the history of the Twins that are deserving of being the best 3B. I loved how both Gaetti and Koskie worked endlessly to improve their defense so that they could stick at the position. Their bats were their calling cards, but their defense became better over time, especially Koskie. There is no doubt that Killebrew is one of the best, if not THE best player, in Twins history. If he isn't going to be on the team as the best 1B, then he has to be the best 3B. 'Nuff said.

For me, Smalley was elite in his prime at both offense and defense. He gave the Twins 6 very good years as full time shortstop before he was traded. Gagne was also elite on defense. He was less so on offense, but he contributed some big moments for the Twins. While he was less than a star at base stealing, I do remember that he was an excellent base runner. Versalles was nearly before my time, but I think his contributions were highlighted by his offense. Cardenas was only there for 3 years, but I enjoyed watching him. But again, I think his offense was his highlight more than defense. Guzman was an exciting player, just probably not as consistently good as he could have been. I would rank them like this: Smalley/Versalles/Gagne/Cardenas/Guzman Finally, I think Casilla was such an exceptional talent. I was always disappointed that he could not ever seem to be consistent. If he could have played all the time like he did in some stretches, he could have been near the top of this list.

Cron is going to be on the team. I believe he signed a guaranteed contract before the tender deadline, so he is not under the rules where they can cut him in spring training and only pay part of his contract. Austin can also play outfield, and that would be the logical fit for him now, since all of the outfielder on this team bat left handed. He may be the 4th OF, or if they carry 4 bench players, the 5th OF.

I did not know that Billy Martin actually played for the Twins. But in checking on that, I discovered he was traded to the Twins part way through the 1961 season, so Billy Gardner actually started the 1961 season as the Twins second baseman. I agree with Carew/Knoblauch/Dozier probably in that order. I do think Alexi Casilla was an exciting player although he didn't play full time nor a lot of second base.

At the same time, 30 year olds aren't getting paid well either, so he may want to lock up a couple guaranteed years beyond arbitration.

A couple more points to add. On tanking, let's look at last year as a perfect example. The 2 worst records in baseball were the Baltimore Orioles and the Kansas City Royals. Yet both of those teams definitely started their seasons fully intending to compete. The Orioles signed a few high dollar free agents and held on to Machado and a few others that they could have gotten bigger trade haul from before the season. Kansas City brought back Moustakis and Escobar, and held on to Duffy. They tried. Now you want to take away their high draft picks? And then, nobody tried to tank more than Miami but they will pick fourth. So you want to put them in a draft lottery and give them a chance at number one anyway. I say leave it alone. Trying to play God with rules only makes things worse. As far as this thing about the players deserving bigger paychecks just because of higher revenues, I say foul. That's just a ploy that agents use to fill their pockets. How come we don't despise Scott Boras for his billions as much as we do the owners for theirs. It would be far more fair to distribute that extra revenue to the people working in the office, scouts traveling the country, ticket takers, hot dog vendors, yes to more for minor leaguers, the trainers, minor league coaches. Why don't we take the players salaries above a certain amount and redistribute that to all those people. Then we will find out what the players' version of fair really is, won't we? Just food for thought.

I haven't read all the comments here, so maybe some of these ideas have already been offered up. I would indeed make the DH universal. However, I would make the DH more robust. I would make the position interchangeable just like any other position. In other words, the DH could become the 2B for defense later, and the 2B would become the DH, or a different player could become the DH. Or The DH becomes the 2B, the 2B becomes the 3B and the 3B becomes the DH. And then, because of that flexibility, I would leave the roster at 25. At least until after this is tested. I would not be opposed to 26 players eventually though. Roster expansions in September do create some roster advantages, but the also ran teams do need to have an opportunity to test their younger players against stronger competition. What's the difference between that and that team fielding a whole team of rookies, because they traded off all the veterans they had at the trade deadline. Teams facing them after the selloff certainly have an advantage over the teams that faced them earlier definitely have an advantage. There is no real solution to this problem that works for all the teams. So leave it alone. Mandating that a team use a pitcher for 3 batters is also a bad idea. Because now you have a team that may have the benefit of having a balance of LH and RH batters in their lineup having a competitive advantage over the other team that now cannot use their pitching staff to combat that. At the same time the hitting team is free to pinch hit against that pitcher without the pitching team being able to counter that. Again, it will make the games less competitve. I think the better solutions are the ones that just try to take the wasted time out of the games, like not taking forever to make a pitching change. Like the idea of no additional warm up pitches on the mound. And figuring out how to get the pitcher in the game quicker. Make it mandatory to use a golf cart. Tanking is a big issue over nothing. Tanking has been going on for years. Somebody has to be the low man on the totem pole. And while teams may not see a need to spend needless money when they have no real chance of competing, I don't think the plan is to just stick extra money in the pockets of the owners. I am sure those teams would much rather be competing and turning the turn stiles. Why make a team that is clearly in a rebuild situation sign a couple of players that won't significantly help their situation anyway. Really? They are still not going to change the level of competition. Why not allow those teams to expedite their rebuild and return to competition. Is what Houston and San Diego and Atlanta and the Twins did really that bad? Or the Phillies? Maybe if the Yankees and Dodgers and Red Sox and Cubs and Nationals weren't still able to corner all the best players, there wouldn't be so many teams tanking. Teams that are perennially in the middle of the pack because they were always trying to compete but can't get over the hump are also perennially boring. Teams like the recent Giants, White Sox, the Brewers for many years, the Mets, the Cinncinnati Reds, and so forth. They should have tanked or should have tanked earlier. Personally, I would rather watch a team that is letting their young players play and develop than one with a bunch of washed up veterans trying to hang on just to force the owner to spend a little money. Wouldn't you?

About that, a couple of years ago I was at a game where the Twins played the Atlanta Braves. Duffy started against Mike Foltynewicz. I was in the left field stands, and both pitchers warmed up in the outfield right in front of me before they moved on to the bullpens. I can tell you that there was no comparison in the velocity those 2 exhibited there in front of me. It was before Foltynewicz really took off, but I could tell then that I would take him 10 times before I would think about Duffy. Until Duffy can develop a good changeup, or maybe a cutter to keep hitters off his fastball, they will lay off that curveball and hammer his fastball all day long, just like they did that day.

If I remember right, the Twins were also very high on both Turner and Nola before that draft. Looks like they settled on the wrong player at this point. But at the same point I would guess critics were saying the Twins erred in picking Mauer over Prior. I'm not going to say Gordon will turn into Mauer, but things may click to make him a servicable player. And who knows what the future holds for the others.