DocBauer

In regard to milb, IF there will not be fan attendance, or none for a portion of the season, why not follow the original AZ/FL proposal that was brought up for MLB? I hate the idea of cities/towns losing out on their team's season's for a variety of reasons, whether it be for the entire shortened season or a portion of it. And I have no idea what kind of facilities the other 29 teams have at their ST complexes, but unless I'm grossly mistaken, don't they all have multiple fields and living facilities to accommodate their milb ST? Let them play there for 70-80 games or so and play the teams in their respective states.

Not afraid of the Twins playing anyone and I'm sure they aren't either. But this re-alignment proposal makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless they propose to only play the teams within your division?? No trips to the coasts, if you're the Twins, no playing any team within the other divisions is the only way you save money here. Even in an abbreviated season, you think the Twins, and other teams, don't want to see the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc, come to town? Now if there are no fans at any point, then the hoopla of different teams goes away, and you might as well just play your own division. Then, yes, you save expenses. If you want something at least resembling a normal, though abbreviated season, you avoid such things as a quick 6 game trip out of town. You have slightly longer road trips where you "sneak in" 2 game series against different division or league opponents. Example: Twins head out west to play the A's and Angels, maybe finishing with the Mariners, before you come home. While out west, you play a couple 2 games with the Giants and Dodgers mixed in. How about going old school and for one year there are no league cross over games? Eliminates any DH controversy like this proposal inherits. We're going to have a shorter season that will always have an asterisk beside it. But why make it even stranger and harder of a season with an even larger asterisk? Just keep things the way they are aligned, play fewer games, mix in a few double headers, play a few 2 game series, and organize road trips to be more efficient. And again, you could just eliminate cross-league games for a season if it makes sense. Doesn't that just make a lot more sense? *and yeah, the Atlanta thing just boggles the mind.

I think there is an easy arguement between Nathan and Aggie. It's not just numbers, but also relative to the quality of the teams they pitched for. In that context, not sure Perkins doesn't make the list and bump someone else. Glad to see mention of Corbett. As well as Rincon and Gurrier at the end. For a short time, let's not forget what Berenguer meant. He only pitched for the Twins, in reality, for 2 full seasons. But for those 2 seasons he was OUTSTANDING. Mike Marshall has to have an honorary mention.

Anything that allows for baseball in 2020 is fine by me. But divisional re-alingment like this is ridiculous! I get a shorter season. I get holding down travel costs due to revenue shortfalls. But for the most part, divisional opponents are already in relatively close proximity. Just skip some of the crazy 6 game series on a coast. You can even keep cross league games...or go old school and not do it for a year...by having slightly longer on the road trips. Twins can go play Oakland, Angels, hit Dodgers and Giants for even a 2 game series, finish with the Mariners, and then return home. You might have some longer road trips, but you would probably have some longer home stands as well. Not appreciably longer, but a little longer. Braves in the same division with the Twins is nuts. Similarly, they make a Midwestern run, they can slide over to KC, Minnesota, play the Dirty Sox right after they play the Cubs, etc. Come on MLB! Use your brain or find someone who has a better one!

Been trying to keep up but been busy. Really appreciate your efforts! Couple things that have surprised me...and I've bad a hard time believing...is that in all the various simulations Donaldson and Berrios all seem to have under performed.

I'm not a big fan of Bauer, though I clearly don't know him, only because I've heard different whispers and innuendo that he's really not that nice of a guy. Then there are incidents like the launched ball. Now, maybe he's a swell guy and all his teammates have love him. I could care less about his politics or anything of that nature as long as he is good in the clubhouse and not disruptive in it or out of it affecting the team. Period. As a ballplayer, my one concern is his determination to only sign year to year deals. Does that work for the Twins? You get one year, hopefully a great one, but then you're back to bidding again or looking to fill. That is my concern.

Nice shout out to Morris and Smiley for their seasons. Erickson remains one of my biggest disappointments to this day. He just looked like he was going to be a stud! I want to say he developed a bum shoulder? Does that sound right to anyone?

My surprise alteration? Replace Buxton's defense with Arraez's. Because if I could have a player that had all those other abilities, I want to find a spot on the infield for him.

Not a knock on Leius, who was a sound player overall, but if I could improve at 3B and run with the rest of that lineup for most of the 90's I'd actually be happy. Now, that lineup would only take you so far, the majority of the pitching....

My biggest takeaway is 6 guys with an OPS of .800+. NICE!

Really not surprising a pitcher starts to really learn his craft around 29-30yo. We've seen it many, many times before. There are those rare SP that come up and just dominate early on. And some of them continue to do so. But how many start to flame out? I have always argued that so many top starters...from my years watching baseball...really hit their peak in their late 20's and early 30's where talent and experience meet. (Why I also keep arguing that the best of Berrios has yet to be seen). I'm not saying Oddo is going to evolve in to an ACE caliber pitcher, but he's right on the precipice of his best 3-5yrs of production. I'm still hoping for an extension and remain disappointed it hasn't happened yet, as I felt it was a good time to work one out before all this covid 19 crap disrupted things. Hoping it still happens.

BTW, there is something wrong (or unfair) with the system when Arraez, no matter how good, leads this lineup in OPS. Just saying.

Wait, Hill and Pineda aren't on the 40 man??? I know this isn't real, but no the McMahon kid. Let's keep it as real as we can. Why do we have to make a single choice here? I vote to send down Rooker and Balazovic both and bring up Cave and Hill/Pineda. Not only does it make sense, but I'm betting the simulation will support both moves. Sidenote: If those 5 Pensacola players were producing in real life as the simulation, I'd be ecstatic. Especially in the case of Javier. Guessing Jeffers is at Rochester? Shouldn't Clay also be there?

Been on this kid's bandwagon for a while now. His stuff is electric. Someone, please, find him a 3rd pitch that works. I have no idea how he has slipped through rankings and prospectus. Just because he's not 6' plus? He finds a decent 3rd pitch he's a SP. Without, or a weak 3rd offering just to keep hitters honest, he's got real potential in the pen.

There are those prospects, like Mauer for instance, where everyone just KNOWS the guy is special and going to be good. And for those guys, you usually just make room for them when needed. But it seems to me, even for top prospects, often the best course of action often turns out to be a cautious approach. In more specific terms, guys get their shot organically. Think of Arraez coming up last year due to injury. They may or may not stick immediately for a variety of reasons; less than spectacular first step, injured player is now healthy, etc. Now, if you are a winning ballclub vs a rebuilding one, your course of action is probably different. If you're the current Detroit or Baltimore franchises, for example, you probably just promote and live with bumps in the road and growing pains. One of the DUMBEST things MLB has done recently is change the September expanded roster. Why did they do this? Apparently out of some misguided idea that there would be "throwaway games" in September where lesser teams play mostly prospects instead of established MLers in order to tank and possibly skew tight division and WC races. I ask you, if a contending team is playing a cellar dweller in September, would said cellar dwelling team really provide less of a competitive game that would make any difference? In fact, it could have the opposite effect as auditioning prospects could provide a spark. It's a ridiculous change. Competing and non-competing teams have always used September to audition players get them their first ML experience, even rest veteran players for the stretch run and the playoffs. This rule change could easily have a negative effect on all clubs and the integrity of the game by restricting development of young players. The obvious point of this entire OP, as it pertains to the current Twins, is in regard to Rosario and Kirilloff and Larnach. We could also include Rooker in the conversation. Forgetting the entire "will there be or not be a milb season" scenario for a moment, the ideal situation is for September play, promotion due to injury, and then make moves as necessary when the prospect(s) themselves force the situation.

So you're saying there was a reason the Twins couldn't get over the hump in the early '00's? Thanks for the bummer trip on a national sports holiday Matt. Lol But seriously, there are some good players and memories there. 2006 might be my biggest bummer year listed. I really, really had high hopes for both Parmalee and Valencia. Shouldn't 2005 be rated higher because, you know, Duensing?

Tossing in one of my all time favorite utility players, Denny Hocking in the 52nd round, which doesn't even exist anymore.

Funny how memory works. For years now I had forgotten Allan Anderson had TWO really good years, a mediocre one and then a poor 4th. I kept thinking he only had the one really good year. I had such high hopes for him and what might have been. Unfortunately, to long time followers of the system, the 80's are as much about ML pitching struggles as well as further what might have been in regard to the milb system. I can't recall top 100 lists or anything of that nature, but the Twins had half a dozen highly regarded young arms with velocity that were really expected to augment that very good lineup. There was a time when the foundation of that '87 team was expected to contend yet again when a couple of those young arms rose up. Sadly, most never even sniffed the majors.

Agree on Gladden. He was a spark plug for the team that got things going and seemed to often be involved in big moments. And he absolutely brought an edge to the team and a fire, and those things, as you stated, can't be measured. Hatcher did a lot of things OK, but was never great at anything. But he was professional and kept things loose, as I remember. IIRC he primary hit in the 2 hole, so some of his production was undoubtedly limited as a result. He also played on some bad teams. Ward remains, probably, the ideal choice. I remember being very disappointed when be was traded, though the move turned out great for that first year. Had Smithson and Butcher been able to maintain for a couple more years, it would have been a much better trade.

Not going to lie, I had forgotten about Al Williams. Maybe that was deliberate on my part, lol. The 80's left a lot to desire on the mound. If Butcher had had a little better 2nd season I think I would have selected him over Williams even with only 2yrs Twins time. Nice to see Atherton mentioned. Guy wasn't great but he was solid.

Not going to replace Ward as he was very good. He is deserving. But it is really hard not to argue Hatcher and Gladden as good as or better options for their contributions and time frame.

Some of the dumbest ideas turn out to be great in the end. Lots of fun! Love the Ueker...err, Harry Doyle... overtones in the broadcast. Purposeful I'm sure.

Arguing with the simulator and not you. 1] I don't buy Cleveland's 11 game losing streak, but didn't buy their 11 game winning streak either. So balance. 2] Don't buy the Dirty Sox being that good. 3] I think the sim is being unfair to Cruz's age, but slumps do happen. 4] Love what Oddo is doing, don't agree with the results from Berrios. One interesting thing I've noted from all the various sims is Cleveland getting off to a hot start. Don't know if that is the algorithm looking at past performance, rotation pieces or early season opponents. But...interesting. I also believe in drafting the BPA and voted as such. The draft is such a crapshoot and wait and see that I hate to draft for need. Especially considering the system is pretty well stocked overall at this point. And the FO seems to gravitate towards pure upside and look at developmental arms beyond the 1st round. HOWEVER, my final decision could change quickly when presented with options on both sides. Love to see a HS/college list of 3-4 guys available at our pick, however unfair that option might be to ask.

Hey, curious about your comment on the Twins needing to cut payroll next year. Is that based on existing payroll and arbitration numbers for 2021 etc, or is it based on current payroll and loses from an abbreviated 2020 season? Different sites I glance at have the 2020 payroll between $131-137M. They all seem to calculate slightly differently, but I don't believe any of the numbers I saw factor in the $10M from the Dodgers for this season. So just curious as to your thoughts.

I had missed the arbitration arrangement Matthew states for 2021 if there is no season. Makes sense. Regardless of that fact: 1] Rosario had an OK year and was on pace for a really nice year until injury. We've all been down this arguement already. And what is the new statistic that was just written about here a month or so ago? I want to say it was weighted RBI? A measurement not just of RBI but taking advantage of said opportunities successfully, and it indicated he had a very good year, injury slide notwithstanding. 2] Even if arbitration $ weren't "frozen" for 2021 if no season, the budget could surely allow for another approximately $3M to keep Rosario for at least another season. (Even with $ possibly coming off the books, even though that's not guaranteed due to possible re-signings). 3] Even if Rooker, Larnach and Kirilloff had complete 2020 seasons, that certainly doesn't guarantee any of them are ready to step in for Rosario, though it seems highly likely. They still have to have healthy and productive seasons to seize opportunity. And Marwin is part of the fall back option and there is no guarantee he is re-signed. And at this point, we don't even know if milb will exist in any format even if MLB gets in an abbreviated season. I will be shocked if Rosario isn't with the Twins through 2021.