DocBauer

Generally agree with you. Might be weird having not only 2 AAA teams 45 miles apart, but also ALC affiliates. But the Salt Dogs seem to do OK for themselves. Clearly a second choice, but fits the profile for a closer proximity AAA team for the Twins with great facilities and good track record. Of course, being that Twins fan in Omaha it wouldn't exactly stink either. Lol

Rochester has been pretty good to the Twins from everything I have ever seen and read, though I have read a few things here and there how the fan base hasn't exactly embraced the Twins organization due to geography. Swear I read somewhere how their store is filled with Yankee gear. (Ugh)! But I guess it makes sense. From the Twins perspective, a good fan base and connecting flights sounds good. Any maybe it's just being in the Midwest and loving a Midwestern team all my life, as well as watching the great partnership between the Royals and their Omaha affiliate, but I've always wanted the Twins AAA team to be closer. In all my almkst 50yrs following the Twins, I think Toledo has been the closest AAA affiliate they've had. The "conglomeration" of Ft Myers, Elizabethton, Pensacola and the GCL makes great sense for weather and proximity to one another and the Ft Myers facility. And the Kernels, despite distance, just seems like a perfect marriage you'd hate to breakup. I never realized until I read a few things and actually looked online just how great the Saints facility was. That is a beautiful ballpark! And there are obvious changes being put in place to re-structure milb and the number of affiliates. (A different discussion, a different time, but one I'm NOT fully behind). But all of these changes WILL affect various cities/towns across the country including independent ball. So change is absolutely on the horizon. With so much change in the air, and so many unknowns, it's very hard to speculate. But one thing that has to be asked: Do the Saints WANT to partner with the Twins and MLB? On one hand, they could reap huge benefits from an established fan base who would love to watch AAA baseball and current and future ML talent. On the other hand, would they see diminished returns because they lost a special niche no longer being "different" with a local fan base who will see those players with the Twins at some point down the road anyway? If the Saints don't work out, for whatever reason...and it would be very cool if it happened...I offer up a second proposal. The Lincoln NE are part of the same independent affiliate. They have had great success. They play at Haymarket Park, home of the Husker baseball team, which is one of the TOP facilities in all of college baseball. It has been host to many regional and super-regional playoffs over the years. And there are obvious ties to Omaha and the CWS 45 miles down the road. And this is a state and fan base that loves amateur and semi pro sports without having a pro team of it's own. If the Saints aren't interested, or don't trust being an affiliate just across the river from the ML team they would support, the Twins should look a little south to Lincoln and call the Salt Dogs their AAA home.

Not going to apologize to anyone when the Twins have a great season and win around 40 games. You play the games presented to you and you go out and win them! I fully appreciate how the Twins path is supposedly easier not facing the East or the West. I get it. But every season is fresh and has all its own unique surprises between health, development and career years. Cleveland is still good and shouldn't be taken lightly. I know this sounds crazy, but the Royals scare me more than the Dirty Sox because they always seem to play the Twins so tough. We could dominate Chicago and yet have a losing record to KC because...well...baseball. (shrug) With very few exceptions, the Cardinals are never bad. The Brewers were a playoff team in 2019. The Cubs still have the ability to run away with the NLC if they can figure out their pen and replace Quintana to some acceptable degree. (I had forgotten about his injury). I had dismissed the Reds early on this year when conversations started because it just felt to me they were treading water. I guess I didn't give them enough credit because after reading this. They have the potential be dangerous. Paraphrasing Cruz in a pre-workout speech he gave: "look around at the talent here and ask yourselves, why not us?" And I agree 100%. This team is even deeper and more talented than the 2019 version. I think any sort of "cake walk" to a division championship is misguided, especially in a short season where anything can happen. But if Rocco and the leadership on this team keep their focus, why on earth shouldn't 40 wins be the goal? It could be argued, and I mentioned it briefly in a different OP, that not playing certain other top teams over the course of this abbreviated season could be considered a negative when it comes playoff time. In sports, don't you tend to get better playing against the best? Or is that too much hyperbole, especially in a short season? After all, those other teams don't have to play the Twins! This team is one of the deepest and most talented in MLB, short season be damned. Once again, it's all about focus. Some say it's no longer a marathon season but a sprint. Maybe. Or maybe 60 games is a mini marathon filled with question marks and injury and the best and deepest team will prevail. Focus on 40 games, and then take on all challengers. As Cruz said, "why not us?"

Thanks Tom! I only caught the last couple of innings so it was nice to hear and see Thorpe threw well vs only hearing about the HR he allowed to Donaldson. I still think this kid is going to begin to be an important arm in the future, hopefully beginning this year. I don't have the same eye you and others have, but as I mentioned in another thread, I liked what I saw of Wisler. I had a hard time discerning between his FB and his slider at times, which I take as a positive. Would mean the batter had a hard time doing so as well. But it appeared to me his FB came in a little flat with late movement that impressed me. Who knows how good he could become, but I see why the Twins like him. Makes me think all the more if he had ANY kind of 3rd offering be could flash at even average ability he could advance from good to very good.

Agree with your list. Wondering due to age, injury and being a half season performer...no matter how good...is this Hill's swan song? Whatever luck, pull factors, etc, are involved, there is another level to Kepler's game if that BABIP can just rise up to normal levels. And Buxton just NEEDS to find a way to preserve his body, or find a rabbits foot that works, and just stay on the field. Even if he never achieves the Griffey and Mays kind of level projected for him, he is a stud and All Star caliber player as is as long as he is healthy. Were this a 162 game season I would have included Berrios. His second half issues are well known, though he rebounded late in 2019 to indicate growth and changes coming. And changes to his in-season routine were coming this year before the covid stop that I think would have paid big dividends. In a 60 game season, none of this should be a factor for 2020. But I would have included Sano on this list as a 4th. His 2019 was slowed initially due to his freakish injury in winter ball. He looked good, slumped, worked through it, and began to look like the hitter/ force we all thought he could be. I think he has really matured and is ready to step forward, though he may defer to Cruz and Donaldson in the lineup for a season or two. What I find so interesting about this team is something touched on in the last paragraph. The comment being no matter the success of the team in 2019 they still lacked that true top ML talent. (With the exception of Cruz, I would say). Of course, Donaldson on board raises that talent level. But it's easy to forget how young some of these guys really are, mostly because it just seems they've been around for so long. I don't have exact ages in front of me, but Sano, Arraez, Polanco, Kepler, Buxton and Berrios are all still around 27yo or younger. Just coming in to their prime. Despite fighting some injuries and various wild aspects to his game, Rosario has been highly productive and I believe won't turn 29 until late in the season. Garver is a late bloomer that doesn't have a ton of mileage on him. We could argue/debate Odorizzi, Rogers, May and Duffey all around 29-30yo, but especially for relievers, seems to me these guys are just entering their 3-5yr prime where stuff and experience will have them at the top of their game.

OK, here's the thing. Its really tough to predict what will happen over a 162 game season, much less a 60 game season. (Guessing Vegas is going nuts about now)! One thing to consider is, barring Covid, most teams are physically healthy right now, including the Twins. I have wondered at times about the short season and not playing top teams like the Yankees, Astros, Dodgers, etc. Does that make you less prepared for BIG BOY competition when the playoffs start? And then I not only remember how deep and good this roster is, but I also reflect how "easy" the Twins schedule is supposed to be. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy in to the Dirty Sox for 2020. Cleveland has enough talent to be scary. And even though the NL Central is supposed to be down/easy, and we play them far less than our own division, I find them to be a worry. When is the last time the Cardinals didn't field a competitive team? They always seem to have pitching and defense and enough offense to be dangerous. The Cubs have a lot of good talent on hand still. The Brewers were in the post season last year. The Reds are a mystery team, but could be dangerous if a few things break right. This is NOT some insurmountable gauntlet, to be sure. And on paper, the Twins should be the better team vs any Central team they play. But other than Cleveland, I'm more worried about the NLC than I am the ALC. Stumbling against the NLC could be disastrous. Not saying it will happen, only saying this "weak schedule" may not be as easy as some say. You still hàve to go out and play and win. But I keep thinking about the report of Cruz standing in front of his teammates and asking them to look around and asking, "why not us?"

In a short 60 game season, who knows what could happen. I would also take Hill over Keuchel at this point. I liked Cron and just wish he hadn't been hurt late in the season. But I will take Donaldson and Sano all day! Maybin would have been smart and nice. Never quite understood the Twins not making a move there. Or did they? Maybe they did and he just wanted a starting job? Or did the Twins just like what they had? I actually like Cave, but I would have gladly traded him for a season of Maybin were he interested. No reason to sign Smoak after Donaldson.

Went to my dad's to do our normal Thursday night thing. Totally forgot about the video thread! Only caught May and Wisler. May looked OK to me, but seemed to miss a little bit here and there. We both got distracted by the comment portion that we didn't actually watch Wisler as close as we should have! Lol. But what we both did see was a FB that seemed to come in straight and then seemed to have a sudden and late break down or a "hop" downward. If his reported slider is as good as advertised...SSS and we were distracted...and his FB can continue that late break, I can see why the Twins are so intrigued.

I've touched on this before, but will again. The FO has put together a 60 man group...OK, 59...that is AA and above to go all in for depth with prospects available that could conceivably produce, or at least not be embarrassed, if called upon. So A ball and lower are left out. Makes perfect sense to me. But the initial omission of Balazovic is a mystery, and could be related to visa, injury, illness, or some sort of "wait" scenario. He is every bit the prospect Duran is, though younger and no AA experience. But had 2020 been normal, he surely would have been at Pensacola for this year, with honest expectations of reaching Rochester at some point. Expectation and hope would have him making AT LEAST an appearance at the ML level in 2021. So the forwarding thinking, new age and aggressive FO is going to let one of their top 5 prospects sit for a year? I don't buy it. I have no clue if Balazovic is hurt or sick or anything else. But I'm betting when the smoke clears, and ST 2.0 is done, he comes on board at some point for instruction and development as part of the 60 man roster.

40 games started behind the plate. That's 66% of games caught. That equates to 107 games in a 162 game season. That shouldn't be an issue, even in a "sprint" season. He can be pulled the final couple ofinnjngs for any game out of hand. (Either way, but hopefully a Twins blowout). Even with a limited number of days off, Rocco is smart enough to put Avila in for a last game before a day off to give Garver 2 days off to re-fresh. And in a 4 game series? Most of the time you'd expect at least 1 LHSP to make an appearance to let Avila make the start.

He reminds me so much of two great Minnesota athletes a generation ago. (And sorry that I've stated this before). He reminds me of Robert Smith of the Vikings and Torri Hunter. Smith learned from Tony Dorsett that you have to preserve your body for a full season because your team needs you for that full season. And sometimes fighting for that extra yard just isn't worth what you give up later if you aren't out on the field. His career took off after that, co-incidence or not. Hunter learned to conserve his body after a few early injuries early on in his career as well. I may be wrong but after harping for some time now that I wished Hunter would work with Buxton to offer perspective and tutelage, I believe he did so at some point late last year, this last off-season or during ST 1.0. Buxton can be outstanding while still pulling up here and there. I know he loves being great defensively. But he can still be great 8 or 9 out of 10 plays by NOT risking himself physically. And I would gladly have him NOT make 4-5-6 outstanding plays over the course of a season to keep him on the field and in the lineup on a mostly daily basis. Offensively and defensively, a healthy and productive Buxton would more than make up for those handful of plays he "could have made" if he had risked injury.

I'm not so sure this isn't one of the most impressive thing I've heard about Johnson. He does "nothing" but remind a talented pitcher who and what he is and what he can do. Reminds me a bit of Viola back in the day when he was finally convinced how talented he was and that he was a power pitcher with good stuff and didn't have to be a nibbling LH. This is awesome.

Let me be perfectly clear that I am 100% for changing the Washington mascot name! I did a very poor job of stating my thoughts in my original thread! I only meant that to fans of the NFL, or football fans in general,who grew up with that name for decades and didn't see the the negativity associated with it, they saw the name as benign. It just was it was for DECADES. Just...accepted. No harm, no foul, it was just accepted. But especially in the last decade or so, we knew in the conscious mind what the subconscious knew all along. Its wrong and needs to change. Dan Snyder may end up reaping benefits from a name chance and new labels and whatnot. Fine! But what is right will be made right. I am simply not smart enough as to who should change what and what is offensive. But I DO KNOW that Redskins just NEEDS to change! I've believed that for years now.

I thank you for your response Brock...even though I said I was out of here after my response. LOL I have always respected you as an owner of TD, and I have always respected you for your Twins and baseball perspectives, even if we didn't always agree. (Though most times we have). And my respect for you only grew in other sensitive articles when you spoke about your family and their experiences. I tip my cap to you sir for being an intillegent and good man! You are amongst many that I truly hope I can meet one day at Twins Fest or other gathering. You are correct that my second post was more in keeping with my intent and my beliefs. In good conscious, I can't just say "I was wrong" with my first post simply, as I stated, I was simply TRYING to open up dialogue and asking questions I don't have the answers to. To me, asking honest questions is never wrong for those of us who want to know, and embrace knowledge and change. I HONESTLY offer apologies if my first post was simply done poorly! Again, I attempted to be more clear in my second post. I was just attempting to add and open dialogue for this important subject. And in no way was I attempting to be dismisivve of the topic or sensitivities regarding such. I ABHORE any sort of discrimation! It's not me, how I was raised, what I believe in, or what God and my Savior Jesus Christ believes in. (Yes, I'm a Christian). And I am a humble man. And while my intent was pure, it sure seems my intent was done poorly, though I swear I thought I was being clear. It sure appears my intent...at least the first try...was badly done. And again, if someone took offense or didn't understand my intent, man, I really, really apologize.

Agreed! We often hear about head coaches and managers being "players coaches." But I think sometimes that description CAN mean a negative. While their level of success varies, all coaches and managers were players at some point. The "negative" perspective of being a "players coach" is you are soft, or coddle players too much. Or, in some cases, you cater to the STAR players. But the positive side of such a coach/manager is he just GETS IT. Rocco was a top prospect, and for a short time, he was an elite player. While I'm sure he has always been a hard worker and smart guy, he then went out and re-invented himself as a coach and now manager. He can embrace analytics while also having the experience to relate to his players, having been one, and a good one, not that long ago. He seems to demand the right stuff from his players. He also understands...as part of the new direction of the FO and system...that players are individuals and not cookie cutter plug and play pieces. Yes, he had the basis of a great team and roster for his rookie season. But he and his staff did a great job of maximizing and utililizing the talent on hand. Despite a questionable bullpen early in 2019, he made the best of it. When thjngs changed, he and his staff continued to get the best out of who arrived. Injuries happened, but depth and smart usage still maximized. We shouldn't discount the FO, who appears to work in harmony with Rocco and his staff and for the moves they made. It's one thing to have talent, to bring in talent, and another thing to make it work together. And then we read and learn more and more about our skipper from articles like this and I become even more impressed. Just like a player, how much better can he and his staff be once they gain even more experience and really figure stuff out?

I should probably do what I had planned on doing and keep my fingers still and just leave the boards for a few more days. I even told someone who reached out to me that I was doing so. But it's also not my nature. So here I go, treading in the water when I should probably be quiet. I received several responses to my post that I didn't expect. Some filled with vitriol. Let's just say it was unexpected. I literally stated in my post at least a couple of times I wanted names of teams changed if they were offensive. I also stated more than once I was asking open questions for discussion sake. Period. (Re-read if you wish). When I made the statement "up until a few years ago..." my intent of context was related to DECADES of team names. For not being more obvious or clear in my comments, then I apologize. I was, again, attempting to speak in a historical context of time. And once again, I stated repeatedly about change if names were offensive. I also stated I was asking honest questions. I have been surprised by the personal accounts of posters here which have strong ties to Native Anericans in their lives. And that was really my intent. To simply ask questions and open discussion. Whether this discussion, the Griffith statue removal, or any other discussion thread, where have I ever stated intolerance or intent for status quo? I only meant historical perspective in regards to time frames and to have open discussion. If anyone read something different or interpreted something different from my post, then I am sorry we didn't connect on the level that was my intention. Other than that, I'm out of here.

We could argue yet again about financial agreements vs reported language that provided a provision to re-open discussion once more data became evident. Example: fans, no fans, length of season, etc. But the discussion is Manfred himself. As stated, he was hired due to past experience as a labor negotiator. Right now, he looks far less competent, IMO, than Selig. I dont know if he's incompetent, in over his head, or just a puppet of the owners. But I'm not impressed. To be fair, I'm not impressed with the union leadership either. Since a commissioner will always be hired by the owners, and generally work at the behest of the owners, I'm not sure where you turn. For the good of baseball, I wish the owners would bring in an intelligent, savvy individual with some clout and ego who actually loves baseball. Someone who would work for them but have the fortitude to stand up to them and just openly state: "Do you want baseball? Do you want your sport to have semblance of harmony and grow? Then listen to me!" I don't know if they would do that. But it sure would be healthy and productive if they would.

The quote is funny and appreciated. But it's also why I made the post I did. I'm asking questions for honest dialogue.

THANK YOU BBAM for your contribution! And that is heartfelt from me! I really hate to get serious here, but I am finding myself in a personal conundrum in regard to Cleveland and other mascots scattered across professional baseball and college athletics. To be 100% clear to everyone here and any future discussion involved the onky prejudice I have is against...ummm...lets's say anal holes to keep my perfect record in place. I am no history scholar, I have no PHD in anything. But I am a highly intelligent, Christian, loving, sensitive middle class white man who has grown up and lived in the Midwest my entire life. I grew up right and raised my children as good or even better than I was raised. But my perspective will always be tainted. It only takes an open minded and intelligent person to look at the history of this country to understand the place of Native Americans in historical perspective. And if anyone knkws anything about history, and the Native American culture, you would also know and understand that just as there were many differences between the European cultures, and others, that "settled" this continent, there were also many differences between the tribes native to this land. I have a TREMENDOUS respect for the culture of Native Americans at large and their place in history, as well as many of their philosophies regarding life And the world. And we all know the term "Indian" was established over 500yrs ago when explorers reached this continent thinking they had somehow circumferenced the world. Let us be 100% honest here. Until a few years ago, as sports fans, none of us really considered the Washington Redskins as being offensive. It was just the name of a pro football team. In fact, professionally speaking, they had a proud heritage and a pretty majestic looking mascot. I doubt any insult was originally intended. Reflection now tells us innocuous intent does not equal reality with a renewed consciousness and perspective. 500 yrs after the fact is "Indian" now considered offensive? I don't know. I'm white, Caucasian, European, I guess. I just figured I fit in to a certain category, even if it meant nothing at the end of the day. I'm also 3/4 German and 1/4 Norwegian. My kids are a larger mix. So are my friends and co-workers. My best friend and brother of 42yrs is 1/4 Cherokee. After 500yrs is the term "Indian" offensive or descriptive? I'm just asking. If offensive, I agree with changing the name. Do names like "Braves" or "Seminoles" really bring out negativity or racism? Again, I don't know. I'm asking. There may be some in history that don't like the "patriots" of early America or despise the history and culture of the "vikings" of Europe who have the name of a certain NFL franchise. Do we despise the USC "Trojan" name because history has taught us they were the greatest empire the world has ever know but also are guilty of perhaps some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever known? I never understood ND changing their name from the Fighting Sioux because I always thought they were paying homage to the proud Sioux Nation who roamed the plains as their home. Maybe my perspective was wrong, but I'm asking here. Am I rambling a bit the way I'm known to? Absolutely! But if you aren't paying attention then shame on you. Change for the sake of change means NOTHING. If "indians" is offensive, change it. I get it. I like the Rock angle. But before we re-write everything and knee jerk, can we at least converse and learn and gain perspective?

Let me begin by stating I love ALMOST everything about this lineup. I will also state that it's about impossible to put together a bad lineup with this team! As DannySD stated, 3 guys alone who could hit leadoff. A couple comments about this proposed lineup: A] Polanco sliding down to #5 is very interesting as he provides another table setting option while still producing RBI. B] A little torn on swapping Garver and Rosario between the 7 and 8 spots. Garver is probably the better hitter with equal power, though he won't play daily, giving away to Avila here and there which supposes an obvious swap. But I wonder if the better pure hitter and better contact of Garver at 8 between Rosario and Buxton doesn't make better sense? My proposed ideal lineup with notes: 1] Arraez 2] Polanco *I want these two, very tough outs and high contact who wear out pitchers are amongst the toughest hitters in the league, to set the table while still being productive themselves. 3] Cruz 4] Donaldson *Donaldson has been very productive in the 2 spot, he's also been very productive in the 3 and 4 spots as well. He and Cruz have TONS of RBI opportunity in these spots. 5] Kepler *I LOVE Rosario and am a fan. His RBI conversion percentage in 2019 was excellent, despite fighting injury the 2nd half of the season. I believe a portion of his overly aggressive nature was being in the 4 spot and told to make hard contact and make things happen and not worry too much about BB and the such. My opinion. But Kepler has just as much power and production capability and is the more disciplined hitter. 6] Sano. *Production wise, he may be as good or better than Cruz or Donaldson. But somebody has to slide down to balanice and stagger the lineup. The more experienced Cruz and Donaldson get the higher spots. 7] Rosario 8] Garver *As stated above, I can easily swap these 2 as Garver has the more compact swing and better eye with just as much power. But I am sandwiching in his better approach between Rosario and Buxton. 9] Buxton *Ultra talented and extremely dangerous if he ONLY duplicates what he did in 2019 and doesn't improve. He and Garver turn the lineup over and provide ample opportunity for Arraez and Polanco. Just my opinion for the most balanced #1 lineup choice.

Just my own personal opinion, FWIW. Management has basically brought back everyone from ST 1.0 for an extra look-see. Makes sense. And while there is tons of depth here and options available, I could see a cut or two and then an addition or two. My understanding is additions can still be made after a cut. Gearrin just doesn't interest me other than an emergency RP with some ML experience. But, I will give that he and a few other guys are here, even without a milb season to help Rochester, simply due to additional depth due to injury or illness outbreak. I think we all know this. Thielbar is the same. Including Chacin, there are 5 AAAA arms brought in for depth and to see if they could help. I would not be surprised to see a couple let get for other additions. Let us not forget the overall depth of the current 40 man in this discussion. Clay is interesting. He was a high draft choice from the previous FO who performed so-so. He was converted to reliever status when the new FO took over. He has still been so-so, but has shown a bit more life as a RP. They obviously see something worth investigating. 27yo? Who cares if he embraces and fits that role in a quality manner for 4-6yrs. Then again, he could be gone a year from now. But he's an interesting inclusion. I am so happy Colina was included! I get he's under 6'. But not every quality pitcher is 6' 3"+ and 220lbs with long arms and legs. Can you bring it? Can you pitch? This guy might not be tall, but he's built and he can bring it. He has produced at every level. Other than K per 9, which surprises me considering stuff, his milb numbers are good to great. The fantasy part of me wants the Twins to work with him and find SOME sort of change that works for him. Much like Chalmers, if they do, they have a legitimate rotation arm to work with. If they only partially succeed, they have another power arm to develop over the next season or so to add to a great bullpen.

Nick...jaded, pessimistic Minnesota fandom creeping in or what? Sheesh! And I thought I was bad! (Though my greatest angst is with the Vikings and remains so). I'm voting status quo for now as I just really see no reason to change what brought you this far. However, I haven't taken time to look up previous results for Oddo or "handedness" of the Rays lineup. Perhaps that would make Wood a better choice in a potential game 4? Regardless, with our lineup and bullpen, and a piggyback ootion like Oddo or Wood, I stick with what works and don't pitch anyone on short rest. You have to win today to play tomorrow when then playoffs come around...but...you can't be short-sighted. You want a strong and rested Berrios for the 2nd round unless the train comes off the rails.

Personally, I really like Gladden as the color guy. I think he understands what his role is and bounces off people very well. I find him interesting and fun. But I admit he is stretched when left alone in the booth. He is a PERSONALITY and needs others to work with. Whether someone else does the play be play for those middle innings, or just joins him for additional commentary, I'd like to see a 2nd voice brought in by SOMEONE.

And the point I've been making despite being deservedly bashed some on my rough, napkin scribbling math.