IndianaTwin

How about this one -- sign me! For the league minimum, I'll gladly be the 4th outfielder and endure the wrath of Twins Daily posters.

I don't think I'm selling them short. And I don't think I've said that they NEED extended inactivity to get familiar. Rather, I've tried to say that I think they should have the freedom to jump into the pond at the time they are ready. Rather than selling them short, I give them props for making what they think is an educated judgment on what is best for the organization and not trading him if they haven't gotten what they think he's worth. I also give them credit for not jumping to an assumption that many of us on this Web site (and many in the national media) are making -- an assumption that says, "I've got to trade Brian Dozier for whatever I can get by the start of spring training, because there's no other way forward." Sorry if "Can anyone think of someone who came in as a GM (particularly a first-time GM) from outside the organization and made a good move in trading away the team's best player within three (or even five) months?" feels too specific to be helpful. It's intended to be pretty general. I'm fine if you prefer it as "How often do rookie GMs come to an organization and win a blockbuster trade early in their tenure?" I stuck in 3-5 months because they've been on the job about three months and it will be roughly five months into their tenure when the season starts. Some of us on this site probably think waiting a week was too long, and some of us probably think waiting 9 months is too long, so I was trying to emphasize our current situation. Similarly, I said "best player" because we've been talking about Dozier. If you want to expand that to "guys as good as Dozier or Santana," I'm fine with that too. My underlying points still stand: 1. I think it's human nature to be pretty cautious in a new job. 1.1 That may be even more the case when you're new to the organization. 1.1.1. And even more so when it's your first job at that level. 2. They're still early in their job. 3. Given 1 and its subpoints and given 2, I'm cool with the fact that they haven't traded Dozier (or Santana) yet. I also heard someone say recently that we should pay attention to the anomalies, because it's in the anomalies that we are typically pushed into new and better ways of thinking. I was asking for a little help in finding the anomalies. The best possible anomaly I've heard so far is Matt Klentak trading Ken Giles. Probably too early to tell if he won the trade, but we'll see. Even if it was anomaly in coming early in his tenure, he did seem to follow conventional wisdom in forcing both quality and quantity by making it a 2 for 5 trade, something that for what we know, the Dodgers haven't offered. That we don't have others swarming to mind makes me think that it probably is pretty common for new GMs to be cautious, and I'll continue not getting too worked up about the fact that he hasn't been traded yet. And if they make a trade tomorrow, I'll either give them credit for making a good trade or say, "Hmm -- they must know something I don't."

I don't, but that's sorta my point. I think most new GMs from outside an organization are naturally cautious, and that may generally be for the better. Talent's hard to come by, but it seems that 1) a bad trade can generally hamstring a team more than a good trade can help it; and 2) the likelihood of a bad trade increases when you're playing short-handed by not having a complete understanding of the value of your assets. I don't have a way of quantifying statement 1, but statement 2 seems pretty clear to me.

Okay, although there's also a pretty significant difference in that Coppolella was in the Atlanta system for at least eight years, including two years as assistant GM. I probably should have phrased the question as "Can anyone think of someone who came in as a GM (particularly a first-time GM) from outside the organization and made a good move in trading away the team's best player within three (or even five) months?"

There are plenty of reasons to trade Dozier. I won't summarize, but they seem to center around "We're bad, and his value will never be higher." There are at least a few reasons not to trade Dozier. These are harder to summarize, but the sentiment seems to be, "We're not saying we can't trade Dozier, but we need to get more than what seems to be on the table." I have another possible reason for not trading Dozier that I'm not sure has been discussed much, at least not in these terms. I'll get at it by asking a question: "What is the best pattern for a new President/GM?" When I'm new in a job, the first thing I want to do (other than find the best local lunch spots; oh, and "Where's the crapper?") is get a really good handle on the situation. If my boss (or my first hire, depending on whether we're thinking of Falvey or Levine) is also new, I especially want to get a handle on the situation before making any major changes. Now, I know that it's easy to say that getting a handle on our current situation is saying, "We suck." More specifically, "Our pitching sucks." But that doesn't seem complete enough for what I'd want. I'd want to know the degree of suckitude at each position, from our best player to our 100th, from our big-league manager to our lowest-level scout. I want to know which asset has potential to be great and which has the likelihood of continued suckitude. And that takes time. Thus my question above. The only example I looked at was The Mighty Theo (hereafter, TMT), who was signed in October 2011. Here's what appears to be the extent of TMT's first offseason: Signed Reed Johnson as a free agent.Traded Sean Marshall for two guys I don't remember and Travis Wood.Traded Andrew Cashner and a nobody for Anthony Rizzo and a nobody.Signed Paul Maholm. That's three moves that classify as "tinkering" to me, plus hitting the jackpot with Rizzo. But even Rizzo has a pretty big asterisk. TMT had drafted him with the Red Sox and had a very good handle on what he was getting. TMT had a much better handle on what he was getting in Rizzo than FalVine would have in trading for DeLeon or probably anyone else in the Dodger's system. In general, TMT's moves didn't begin in earnest until mid-2012 (the draft, primarily, followed by a couple deadline deals). In his first offseason, the only potential assets he traded away were a combined 86.1 previous-season innings from Marshall and Cashner. He seemed to take a much more patient approach than we are suggesting in trading Dozier. So, back to my first question: What's the best pattern for a new President/GM? I'll show my bias toward patience by asking another honest question. Can anyone think of someone who came in as a GM (particularly a first-time GM) and made a good move in trading away the team's best player within three (or even five) months?

This could be fun. Is there an AB/IP minimum to qualify? I was always a Paul Thormodsgard fan myself, though it's hard to argue with Dave McKay either.

More than that, actually. Last year 153 guys started a game in the AL. That's an average of more than 10 per team. Of those 121 started at least 5. Among rookies, only three started more than 15 games and none more than 26. And as you note, there may be even more with the shortened DL period. I'm with you. No need to try pushing an entire MLB season out of Berrios. Odds are slim that he'd make it through unscathed -- he still hasn't gone beyond 170 innings. He was great in Rochester but struggled in Minnesota. Spend April/May in Rochester, maxing out at 80-90 pitches and working out the details of what he learned in the majors. Then bring him up around June 1, looking for a time when his first several starts could slot against weaker teams. He could get still get another 22 or so starts in the majors. That would also keep him fresher for the meaningful October games. Oh wait. Ignore that last sentence.

Being 400 miles away from Target Field, and stuck with the White Sox on our cable channel, this site has been so helpful in following the team I've been blessed/cursed with supporting for more than 40 years. Thanks to the moderators and all who contribute. And speaking of contributors, a huge shout-out to the rest of you as well. I often read insightful columns on some other news or fan site (whether sports, politics, or faith -- all important to me). But typically by the time I get five or so posts deep in the comments section, I am reminded of the dark side of Interweb conversation, and I and remember again what a gift it is that both the moderators and posters at TwinsDaily are committed to civility. Sure, every once in a while the edges get pushed, but all-in-all the discourse here is a welcome gift in the middle of the crud that gets posted below the "Add Comments" line on other sites. Thank you, thank you, thank you. And thank you.

Suzuki: Gone. And good riddance, as I understand it. Centeno: Gone. And good riddance, as I understand it. In 2015 AL, the top catcher on each team averaged 87.2 starts. The No. 2 guy averaged 44.8 starts and the No. 3 guy 21.8. The No. 4 and beyond guys averaged 8.2 starts. I don't know if those are typical breakdowns, but they seem typical. Only KC used just two catchers, but Salvador Perezes don't come along very often. So, you need three catchers. Meaning that unless we are satisfied with 132 starts out of Murphy and Garver and 30 more out of people even further down the depth chart, we need another body. In that context, Castro seems the best of what's available.

Cool -- I wasn't the only who thought of Lenny. Are they related? Can't be that many Faedos (Faedoes?) (okay, guys named Faedo) out there.

#18: Because the alternative is watching the White Sox.

JHam, I was among the softball players yelling at the screen when he uncorked it, but you've convinced me. I'd even highlight a point you hinted at. Dyson is an 86 percent career stealer. You can argue that the throw only cost the Twins a base for one pitch. And the KC batter is not going to swing at the first pitch. Could one even suggest that a good OF is saying, "If I have any chance at all, I'm going home because a single is the same as a double with Dyson as the batter/runner"?

I didn't see this anywhere, but maybe I missed it -- not that I'm looking forward to the winter of 20whatever, but was Berrios kept in the minors long enough to get the extra year of team control?

Really? I thought they all turned into "Nolasco stinks." Did I miss the memo? In seriousness, I am willing to be an optimistic in thinking that Ricky could still be a serviceable part. I know it was against minor leaguers yesterday, but for those who have seen him on several occasions, has he done enough to pass the eye test of being at a different point than the past couple seasons?

1) There would be several. We still have the ticket stub from my son's first minor league game, a 1996 contest of the Fort Wayne Wizards starring (don't throw anything at me) A.J. Pierzynski. When the same son was 11, we did a seven-games-and-four-Halls-of-Fame-in-eight-days trip. Afterward, we sent gobs of photographs to players and a large number of them autographed and returned. It's a great keepsake photo album. On said trip, we were standing along the foul line at Comerica Park with a ball my son had gotten. We politely waited until a player finished his conversation, not quite sure who it was. Given his size and the several references to Notre Dame, I deciphered an ID and instructed my son to say, "May I have your autograph, Mr. (Craig) Counsel?" The guy looked a little perplexed, which made sense when he signed his name "Andy Green." Turns out that Counsel had gotten traded from the Diamondbacks that winter and was no longer with the team, but it makes for a good story in our family.

Though Joe Nathan didn't come over until 2004, I clump him in with that group. My kids were at the autograph-seeking age, and we went to a lot of games around the country. I'm sure I was biased, but I thought the Twins (especially the bullpen guys) were particularly gracious signers for my kids, and I thought Nathan set the tone for that. He and Juan Rincon.

While we're at it, what's the latest on a 37-year-old Johan, who said in June that he wanted to take a shot at 2016 after shutting down due to a toe infection? That's a reunion tour I think I could support on a minor league contract.

I'm on board with the non-much-more-needed. I'm a fan of having lots of possibilities available, so I'm most interested in free agent signings over giving up minor league (or Plouffish-type) talent. Following your logic on someone like Fister, what about Lackey? In the three years since Tommy John, the ERA+ has been 117, 102, and 143 this year. Winner personality, veteran leadership. Not quite a Grienke, but better than than what Santana, Hughes, or Nolasco showed up with. Supposedly a two-year deal will get it done, which allows the Millone/Duffey/Berrios/May/Meyer/Nolasco... situations to sort themselves out. I use the same "quantity" argument on not trading Plouffe. Only 110 guys had 500+ at bats in the majors last year, which is less than four per team. Between Plouffe, Sano, Maurer, and Park, there's a good likelihood that at least one will miss time. I'm cool with having the four guys to cover 1B, 3B, and DH, and for the perhaps 25 games in which they are all healthy, figure out which one is best to stick in LF. I'd also be cool with a Span-type to serve as Buxton insurance/place holder. Again, I'd rather add by FA than trade talent at this point.

Pujols (6-3, 230) played a bunch of OF after virtually no OF in the minors. Miguel Cabrera (6-4, 240) played a bunch of OF after virtually no OF in the minors. And Jim Rice (6-2, 200) was a toadstool. Seems like it's at least a possibility for Sano. Going there for a time doesn't put him in the OF for the rest of his career.

Evans pick off was a defining moment in my marriage. Married just over a year, my wife went to bed in our tiny mobile home in the middle of the eighth, saying "keep it down out there." When he got nabbed I instinctively leaped off the couch and let out a yell that probably woke the neighbors. I immediately raced to the bedroom and asked for forgiveness. I'm so lucky to have married her.

Hope to on Friday night.

"Giggle. Gawd, I love playing the White Sox. Here's the play of the game. Also, your moment of zen: "http://m.mlb.com/vid...?game_pk=415617" I've commented before, and others join me in this. The painful part about living near Chicago is that we have to put up with Hawk Harrelson doing games. But in this case, watching that play was even more enjoyable listening to him. Or should l say, "not listening." I'll bet the mute button is still in pain from how hard Hawk had to have been squeezing it for about 10 seconds. Then he went off blubbering about their misplays. Ah.... the sound of silence.

Great article, great comments. Let me summarize what I'm hearing and offer a new option... 1-Berrios has continued to be lights out throughout his 155.1 innings, but he has nothing left to prove in the minors. 2-He could help the big club make the playoffs by getting up to 7 or starts and then ostensibly would get a few more when we go on a Royals-type run. 3-He could help the big club by joining the bullpen as a lights-out setup guy and then ostensibly (I like that word) would get a few more when we go on a Royals-type run. 4-To be eligible for the postseason roster, he has to be promoted by Aug. 31. 5-Ostensibly (see point 3), a primary reason to skip points 2 and 3 is to keep the clock from starting on his arbitration/free agent clock. 6-Because he has nothing left to prove in the minors, he is a given to start 2016 in the rotation. 7-There is no No. 7, at least not yet. Let me now spin out a scenario in a different direction... 1-I like the first part of No. 1, but I think he does have something to prove. Namely, that he can pitch 200-230 innings, which is where I think we see him headed in the future. He only pitched 103.2 in 2013, 140 in 2014, and is at 155.1 this year. Study or no study, going from 140 IP to 200 IP as a 21-year-old scares me. 2-Which is why I don't like No. 2 above. Seems like the injury risk is too great. 3-One could argue (and I think someone did) that he would upgrade the bullpen more than he would upgrade the rotation. At the least, in the bullpen, his innings could be managed well. He would never pitch in a game when the Twins are up or down more than three runs. One could argue that having him start a game when the Twins score six runs, for example, is a wasted start, because even the worst starter ought to keep them in the game (especially when backed up by Berrios himself if the schmuck gives up five). So, I like the idea of bringing Berrios up to the bullpen and giving him the opportunity to pitch up to 15 or so innings out of the bullpen on days when he's rested and on days when his innings have the potential to make a difference between a win and a loss. The moment they are deemed out of the playoff chase, shut him down and let him live the good life and learn the MLB process. This approach keeps him at about 170 innings, which feels much better coming on the heels of last year's 140. 4-Make the promotion by the 31st so that he can help us in the ostensible playoff run. Keep him in the pen in the playoffs to help manage innings, but feel free to bring him in a bit earlier if the game is getting away, etc. If he ends up getting a little past 170 innings, at least it was spread over a longer time span. 5-Help me if I'm understanding incorrectly. To pull a Kris Bryant, the thought is to keep him off the MLB roster until a couple weeks into season, say April 20 or whatever the magic day is, right? but can't we accomplish thing by using him for a month now and waiting to bring him up until about May 20? But, you say, that's a dumb idea because of No. 6. 6-But I wonder. Again, I don't think he's proven that he's ready for the jump to 200-230 innings. And if we're talking about a long playoff run in 2016, it's probably going to include Berrios getting us there and Berrios carrying us through the early rounds, getting him to 230 innings or more. I'd love to see that happen, but I'm really skeptical about a progression of 103.6-140-170-230. But bring him up on May 20 and he can get to late October on 200 innings in healthy fashion. 7-But how do we get to May 20 without the mighty Berrios? Don't forget that we've got Santana, Hughes, and Nolasco under contract for 2016. One can argue that Berrios is better than at least one of them, but realistically, with the kind of money they are getting, they are going to be in the rotation if healthy. And then you've got Gibson, who's pretty much a lock. And Milone's pitched well enough to be viable, particularly at the time of year when a No. 5 starter isn't needed every time through. And I don't think we've given up on May, Meyer, and now Duffey. If Berrios wasn't in the picture, I suspect most of us would feel pretty good about the Santana-Hughes-Nolasco-Gibson-Milone-May-Meyer-Duffey octet fighting for five spots to go along with the Sano-Buxton-Dozier, et al. lineup. Let those eight guys sort themselves into the foursome that is joined by Berrios when the next opening appears after May 20. Let Berrios stay sharp by pitching about 75 pitches every five-six days in Rochester. (Besides, maybe I'll get lucky and one of those games will be in Toledo so I can see him, but I digress.) 7a-And if Berrios comes in and lights things up spring training, perhaps you say, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." But I will also say that I live in northern Indiana where all my Cub-fan friends were flipping out about Bryant getting sent down. They'll be singing a different tune in a couple winters when they've got him locked up for an extra year. If you've survived this far, is there any wisdom here?

Agree that it depends on situation. I think they give May and Meyer at least a month or so in Rochester. If they need someone because of injury in the first few weeks, Pelfrey is probably still stretched out and would get the nod. If it goes much beyond that, Pelfrey will either have 1) pitched too poorly in the bullpen to be considered for the rotation; or 2) pitched well enough in the bullpen to be deemed too valuable to take out of that role. I'd be glad to have option 2 work itself out. I still think it could happen.

Loved this recounting, Tom. There is so much similarity to my own story as an 11-year-old farm boy making his first and only trip to the Met. I say “trip” because we had actually gone to the game the day before as well. To add to the Glenn Adams story, he had gotten booed pretty badly during Saturday’s game, a disappointing 7-1 loss on a similarly hot and muggy day. He had misplayed a ball in right field, though no error was charged, so getting eight RBIs the next day was no doubt extra sweet. Another memory from the day is that the game was halted at one point because a drunk fan had climbed part way up the left field foul pole. It seemed like they were announcing a new team record every inning, and each time I see a copy of a Twins media guide I check to see how many records still stand from that day. One of the announced records was the crowd of 46,463. I know for a fact, however, that the crowd was at least two less than that. The t-shirt giveaway was only for kids under a certain age, and the brother-in-law who had taken me to the game wanted one of his own. He bought an extra two tickets for the cheap seats in left. We went in, I got my t-shirt, and we exited. Then, we went to the first-base side, where our other tickets were, and went in again so that we could get a second shirt. And like you, I didn’t get back to see the Twins until they were in the Dome. It was the spring of 1985, when I went to visit my then-girlfriend, now wife, near the end of her first year at a small college in the Twin Cities.