Doomtints

He is only a top 20 hitter if you only look at one year. Heck, 1/2 to 3/4 of one year. No team in the MLB is going to look at him this way. Even the Twins don't look at him this way.

Since we are writing about good players signed after their primes who predictably weren't very good, when are we getting the 'Worst Twin: Jason Bartlett' article?

That's right. Some scouts have been writing funny things along these lines lately. There are no longer just prospects projected to be "#4 starters" in the league, but there are players projected to be "#4 starters for the Twins" which are of course not nearly as good as the typical #4 starter. The Twins pitching has been so bad, they inspired their own category. (To add some clarity, most starter prospects are pegged as #4 starters. This is the baseline until they start separating themselves from the pack).

All sources reporting this news have made it clear that Reyes is off the table. So, no, the Cardinals can't match what the Dodgers are reportedly willing to trade.

Right. The games in 2017 still need to be played and the Twins have one starting pitcher they can trust. At some point you have to stop digging the hole bigger and start filling it in. The Twins are coming from a weak position with pitching, not a strong one. Trading Dozier is the best way to replenish the pitching, not trading the one legit pitcher on the team.

Rondell White was Ryan's fault. One of many players he signed at the very tail end of their careers who failed miserably.

It's difficult to imagine that the Cardinals would part with anyone who would be better than De Leon + any other prospect. If this is just spin, the Dodgers aren't fooled. If it's not spin, the Twins are going down the path of getting ripped off. As the Twins like Dozier and aren't trying to dump off a toxic personality, a player past his prime, or a high salary, I think we can all agree that this is just spin. I'm sure the Cardinals would love to have Dozier. He would help them. But they just don't have the pieces to give the Twins the best offer unless this becomes a 3-team trade.

Johan Santana's fastball sat at just under 92 but he had the capability to toss it at 95 when he needed to. He also had a ridiculous low-80s changeup to go with his fastball. De Leon showed the same stuff in his limited number of starts. The problem is De Leon lived on his fastball during his so-far-short MLB career. If De Leon lets someone else call the pitches he will be fine. As for De Leon missing spots, heat maps show he was throwing strikes. But, if you toss the same 91-92 MPH fastball to the same spots in the strike zone for every pitch, you're going to get burned. De Leon definitely does not have the control issues we have seen with nearly every rookie Twins pitcher since 2011. His velocity is also not a problem. I imagine your argument is exactly the argument the Twins make when trying to negotiate with the Dodgers. I doubt the Dodgers are buying it.

True. The person who was running the analytics department is still running the analytics department. In fact, they gave him a new job title that suggests a raise and promotion. Though, to be fair, the analytics team should only be producing the numbers that their bosses tell them to.

The Twins should wisen up a bit. De Leon has better minor league numbers than Johan Santana with a fastball and changeup that are not far off. De Leon relies on his fastball too much which is a concern, but the Twins just need to get him to trust them to call the pitches. Regardless of his 2016, Dozier is B level talent and a simple 1-to-1 trade for De Leon has the Twins coming out winners. If the Twins are squabbling over the #2 player in the trade, they should just take whoever the Dodgers have on the table. The #2 person doesn't matter in this transaction as the Twins are already coming out ahead.

Would have loved to see Scott Erickson. In 1991 I would stay up late to listen to ESPN radio to hear how the Twins were doing. They kept winning and he kept winning. Fun times.

You all are listing players who made very memorable bad plays or weren't very good. Generally, players you all dislike for one reason or another. But let me offer a different perspective. Ron Davis is the only player I know of in Twins history who single-handedly destroyed a playoff run. He had 14 blown saves in 1984 including two in the final week of the season. The Twins finished the year 3 games back in the division. With any other closer, or even a closer by committee, the Twins go to the playoffs in 1984, which would have been just two years after a 60-102 season. And with a Hrbek, Puckett, Brunansky, and Viola all firing on all cylinders already, they would have actually won a couple of playoff games in the process. The Twins had the required 3 good starting pitchers for the playoffs -- something they didn't have in 1987. Buffalo 66 should have been written about Ron Davis. If you asked this question any time between 1985 and 2000, Ron Davis would be the unanimous answer. Some of you just don't know who he is. Most of the names being thrown out here are rather inconsequential players. They sucked but they did not destroy a season all on their own.

The Dodgers have something like ten available starting pitchers they could use which is why trading away De Leon makes sense for them. They have many pitchers close to ready in the minors. Insane. The Twins have somewhere between 1 and 4 starting pitchers available, depending on who you ask. And they've been stuck at this level for five years. Also insane. Spending money like the Dodgers do might not be so bad after all, no? The Dodgers managed not just to stockpile major league talent but minor league talent as well. The Dodgers changed ownership around 5 years ago and are already contending. The Twins....

Keith Law is usually wrong. I don't mean to disparage the guy -- almost everyone is wrong about prospects about half the time -- but instead I disparage his fans who take his word as gospel.

Starting pitching prospects work out about 20% of the time. We can expect one pitcher from your list to be a long term contributor. If this is all the Twins have in the pipeline, the future is not bright.

Yep. It's Ron Davis. No contest.

There has to be a documented medical reason for putting a player on the DL, so teams won't be able to stash a pitcher on the DL due to the shorter DL in an effort to be clever. The CBA states that putting a player on the DL is a "request" and requires paperwork with a doctor's signature to be sent to the commissioner's office. Within 20 days of the original request, the commissioner's office must receive a written second opinion for the team to avoid breaking the DL rules. Similar forms have to be filled out to remove a player from the DL. So really you are talking about 2 team doctors plus the commissioner's doctor all reviewing the documentation. If any party asks for a second opinion on top of the automatic one, then there are more doctors involved. Teams have been accused by the union and the commissioner of abusing the DL in the past. It's not easy to get away with it now.

True. This is why I don't do it constantly. But if I have $20k more in one stock than the others, it's time to redistribute that down into the other stocks that are in the black. This is what mutual funds do for you behind the scenes. For example, if a fund is investing 5% in Amazon but Amazon jumps, they'll sell some off and put the money into the other stocks in the fund so Amazon remains at 5% of the fund. This keeps all the money in play but mitigates risk. Also, you're not paying capital gains tax on it because you're reinvesting it. You're not profit taking.

True. The Twins are in a situation where quantity over quality is prudent. It would be better for them to get this step over with as soon as possible so that in future years they can focus on quality.

Telecom stocks have been good to me. They pay very nice dividends. Sure, you may look at AT&T stock and see it was mostly flat ... but you toss in their giant dividend and you've made quite a nice penny. Same goes with Verizon. When Obamacare first rolled out, some health care stocks really rolled, particularly Tenet. I kept a keen eye on Tenet and sold it when it appeared to peak and it worked out well. The stock fell back to earth quickly, but I got out of it before it did. Also, one would think that some of these companies that make everything consumers use would be great stocks to own. You know, P&G, Kraft/Heinz, Mondelez, Unilever, etc., but because these stocks make everything consumers use, they are very susceptible to market conditions. If you want to know how things truly are going, look at these stocks, but don't buy them. If they start falling reconsider all of your investments. These companies are the canaries in the coal mine. I left my 401k investments alone but I sold all of my stocks the day after the election and put the money into 6-month CDs. I am expecting a mini boom-and-bust. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but to be safe I decided to just get out of the market for 6 months. This is based on the recent performance of the stocks I mentioned in the previous paragraph. My strategy has been to keep 5 stocks on the burner and invested in even dollar amounts. If one stock starts getting much higher than the others, I sell it down and put the funds into the other stocks that are in the black so that they are all even again. I try not to sell anything that is in the red, sometimes it can take a year or more for a stock in the red to break even, but ride it out. Sell it when it finally breaks even if you're not bullish on its future. Also, stocks tend to run up a bit before quarterly earnings reports, but NEVER buy stocks during this time period because this is often followed by a big drop that can take a year to recover from. Buy stocks AFTER earnings reports after the stocks have corrected themselves. This usually takes about 2 weeks.

Those pesky youngins might have better luck finding him if they look up Maddux instead. (Though I imagine everyone knows who he is. He retired just 8 years ago). Maddux was truly great. 4 consecutive Cy Young awards on two different teams. Back when the Cubs were constantly struggling, they let Maddux go as he was about to peak and then re-signed him after his peak years were gone. Ryan's second stint seemed to emulate this model a bit but with even worse results.

The Twins changed their tune a bit and said they'd kind of like to keep Dozier. Of course, this was likely a bargaining tactic. I would have to give the Twins some kudos if they decided to walk away rather than rush into a deal that they felt wasn't good enough. This doesn't mean a trade still won't happen, but it's a good sign that the Twins are open to walking away from the table if the deal isn't to their liking yet. Though it of course must be brought up that there will be some roster problems to sort out if Dozier stays. Polanco gets blocked or Escobar goes away, and the Twins will still have the holes that could be shored up a bit through a Dozier trade. This reminds me a bit of the Santana trade, where it took a hell of a long time to get the deal done, though in that case the Twins still didn't get what they wanted.

I'm not understanding some of the disappointment. This is a rule 5 pick. In that context, this is a very good pick up. It's a guy who has a chance to contribute right away. And if he doesn't work out ... this was just a rule 5 pick....

I feel like the recent run is a bubble, but we'll find out soon enough.

Looks like a guy who has potential. We'll see if the Twin flip him for someone else.