sploorp

Why would he do something like that for? Who would want him even with the Twins picking up a big chunk of his salary. Unless he has a career ending injury, he's a Twin at least until the end of his contract. I think the bigger question is if he gets another deal after this contract ends.

Dozier's numbers have improved each year in spite of large portions of each season where he slumped badly. At 29 I'd hardly call him over the hill and beginning his decline into geezerdom. I'm also not buying into the notion that he'll decline because he's an infielder and infielders just don't hit 42 homers. To those posters I ask, "what if the team moved him to 3rd base or the outfield instead of 2nd?" Would you be making different predictions because outfielders and 3rd basemen naturally hit more homers then middle infielders and it's expected? I say Dozier is an outfielder or 3rd baseman trapped in a middle infielder's body. He's 29 and healthy and I think his natural decline is still a few years off. I've also heard him talk about batters needing to figure out what kind of hitter they are and work towards that. He's already figured that out: he's a pull hitter with pop and that's what he keeps working to perfect. I have no idea why people keep thinking he's suddenly going to start lining balls into the gap for doubles. I say he keeps hitting the same way he has been all along. And based on the fact that he has gotten better in each season he plays, I see no reason why he can't hit another 40 plus taters while hitting around .250 or so. My biggest question is why the team keeps batting him lead off. He should be farther back where his power could translate into more RBIs. Since it's looking like the team is making the Grossman their regular DH, why not make him the lead off hitter too? If Buxton's going to be batting 3rd, it makes much more sense than Dozier.

Amen to that.

I'm hoping that if Hughes doesn't improve his velocity soon, he's the one that moves to the bullpen with Hughes and Mejia both going north as part of the rotation.

I'm the exact opposite, I guess you could call me giddy happy.

Twins Daily is my number one distraction and productivity drain while at work!

Woo hoo!!! (toot blow out & twirl noise maker) Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years! Five more years ... !!!

And "who's" on first.

Funny stuff!!

The most alarming part of the whole trading Dozier thing is how many fans think the team has to trade Dozier or they've failed. Personally, I feel that couldn't be more wrong. Trading Dozier means the team gets to move Polanco to 2nd. They even say it's his "natural" position. I have no idea what that means. Maybe it's just a nice way of saying failed short stop. If that's the case, then I guess that makes Dozier a natural 2nd basemen too. It probably also means that the majors are already loaded with natural second basemen and could be why it has been so difficult pulling off a trade. The net gain defensively is a push and we lose Dozier's power bat. Even if Dozier never comes close to hitting 42 again, 20-25 isn't an unreasonable expectation and would still make him one of the most productive 2nd basemen in baseball. For me the big burning question of a Dozier trade becomes who will replace Polanco at short? Please don't say Escobar or Santana because if they were so good, they would already be playing it instead of Polanco. It would be one thing if Gordon or some other total stud SS was chomping at the bit and ready to come up. If that were the case, I could look at a deal as paving the way for the team's short stop of the future and would be much more receptive to trading Dozier. As is though, I see the team taking two steps backwards and they'll need a huge return just to break even. No deal is better than a bad deal and this is a bad deal no matter how you try to sell it. Right now, the very real result of trading could be watching Dozier in the playoffs or even the world series while De Leon recovers from Tommy John surgery. Kudos to the new management team for not caving. If the Dodgers don't want to pony up, just wait until the deadline and see a better deal can be made. Maybe Gordon will be ready move up by then. Heck, I wouldn't even mind seeing the team extend Dozier a few more years - especially if he has a slow start. He says he wants to stay in Minnesota, let's find out how bad.

Trading Dozier is two steps back. The infield is better now than it would be if they traded Dozier. It's just not possible to sell it any other way. What's there not to get about De Leon? I agree you have to give up something to get something, but my point is are the Dodgers really giving up something? I can't help but think they may be unloading a potential problem (there goes that smell again). Once again, sometimes the best trades are the ones you don't make. Who's that prospect the Dodgers had that came up and did so well this year? That would be somebody I could get behind. That guy and a higher risk decent arm from the lower minors as a slight sweetener is a trade I would go for with no reservations. The Dodgers won't do that, all they keep offering is the guy with the suspect shoulder and flinch whenever any other names are mentioned. This has bad deal written all over it and I don't know how anybody can possibly see it any other way. All I keep picturing in my mind is Dozier and the Dodgers marching into the playoffs and possibly the world series and us speculating how long De Leon's Tommy John rehab will take. This team wasn't a 103 loss team last year. A lot went wrong that is unlikely to go wrong this year. They also won't be a 90 loss team next year regardless of what happens with Dozier. The Dodgers clearly don't want to step up and give us what a player like Dozier is worth, so screw 'em. We show them what our middle fingers look like and move on. If we're really talking about a move with long lasting implications, in the long term, it really doesn't matter if we do the trade now or at the trade deadline or even next year. Is it really so hard to imagine there being at least one contending team in need of infield help at the trade deadline? Or maybe somebody willing to give up more next off season? That's the team we want to be dealing with. That's the team that's going to give us the keys to their farm system. The Dodgers keep making it clear they are not that team. All that matters is the haul. We get the deal we can't say no to or we say no. It really is that simple. So many Twins fans seem to think not trading Dozier is somehow a failure. At worst, it's a disappointment. A bad trade would be a disaster. If there is even a hint of a problem with what you're trading for, just walk away. A package centered around a prospect with a potentially bad shoulder is a HUGE problem. Thinking otherwise is just not being realistic about the situation. I say don't just walk away, run as fast as you can! Are you sure you're not smelling that smell? It's really strong and coming from the general direction of Los Angeles.

Okay, let's say the team trades Dozier. They move Polanco over to second to replace one of the best 2nd basemen in all of baseball, that's one step back. Now, they have a hole at short. Gordon isn't ready, who do you put there? Benji Gonzalez has the position at AAA. I'll be honest, I have no idea who the hell Benji Gonzalez is, but after eight years in the minors, I have a sneaky suspicion that he won't be making anybody forget the team's woes at short. Polonco can at least hit major league pitching, so that's more than likely another step backwards. It would be one thing if Gordon was ready to go and chomping at the bit, but that isn't the case. At this point, it's still not even 100% certain he would be the answer at short either. I just don't see how trading Dozier solves any of the current infield problems whatsoever. And now for the return. Not only is there never any guarantees with prospects, but the only player for certain in a trade is pitcher who's had some shoulder problems. Hmmm? The Dodgers don't seem to have a problem giving that one up, but ask for somebody else and all we hear is crickets. Why do you suppose that is? Why do we want a pitcher the Dodgers seem so eager to give up? And what's that God awful smell that seems to be coming from the southwest? I think there are way too many people sold on the idea that the team absolutely has to give up Dozier. I disagree. Sometimes the best trades are the ones you don't make and the longer it takes for this one to play out, the more I begin to think this is one of those times. I have no problem staying pat whatsoever.

Kudos to you and your keen sense of intuition and interpretation. I agree with you 100% on both points. A much more serviceable song choice might have been something like "Anticipation" by Carly Simon. The writer's weak pop culture reference almost ruined the whole article for me.

I wonder if it's possible that Diaz or one of the other San Diego picks could become the PTBNL. It's likely that none of the three San Diego picked will stay on the roster all year. Why not not name them as the player to be named, then work out your own deal with the original team?

All the management is probably back no matter how badly they do. Might as well hope for the best.

If there is one thing every team has no shortage of, it's mid-level prospects. Why would any team want even more? Trading Santana without (or even before) trading Milone and Nolasto seems like a dumb idea to me. Those guys I would definitely trade for lesser prospects and cheer the front office if they went down. If Santana stays hot, a team in win now mode desperate for pitching, will give up a top prospect or two.

I've always liked this clip of Berrios crying his eyes out when he finds out he is being drafted. It reminds me of Miss America getting crowned.

I had throwback '60 Senators TC Twins hats that I used to wear all the time, but I was wearing my M hat when Gladden jumped on home plate with both feet to win the 1991 World Series. I still have that hat and I still wear it from time to time even though it's pretty ratty looking these days.

There too many decent teams in the AL right now. I think they'll beat up on each other and nobody will run away with anything. I say under. Now, if they were still in the NL ...

Hurrah for box scores!!

For me the most exciting thing about this discussion isn't whether or not the team actually hits 200 homers, it's the thought we are actually seriously having the discussion. It's been a long time since I took part in a discussion of Twins power that wasn't lack there of. And the prospect of hitting 200 homers? I don't think I've had that conversation before the start of a season ever. I'm so stoked for this season to finally get started. Is it opening day yet?

Two thumbs way up! Fascinating article.

Nice job. You should do one every year!

Very thought provoking stuff, though I'm not sure how much PEDs were extending careers. I'm also not sure how much can be placed on college baseball. It may have become popular, but it also enabled players to come to MLB with more advanced skills which, in turn, enabled them move faster through a team's system. I personally think the correct answer is MONEY. If you go back and look at the transactions teams were making then, compared to now, through a lens of cost versus value, I think you will get a much clearer picture of what really forced ages up and down. The average age will go back up when arbitration forces youth's salaries past the point where they stop being a cost effective alternative.

I was a big believer in Hicks. I still think he has the potential to get it together - though the longer we wait, the less likely that will be. More than anything, I will miss an outfield of Rosario, Buxton and Hicks. We didn't get to see that trio too often this season, but when we did is was pretty damn impressive. Nothing dropped in for a hit. For that, I feel nothing but remorse. Now, when I think on back on the deal and events over the past season, a couple of things keep popping up in my mind. The Yankees tried to do this trade earlier during the season, but Ryan said no. After the season, Ryan suddenly had a change of heart and made the trade. Hicks hit a little better before having one stellar month, then finished the season in a slump. Posters throw all kinds of numbers and stats around on here, but the one thing they don't have is unfettered access to the players. On a daily basis, Ryan and the coaches see the player's approach, their work ethic and attitudes. In other words, they get to see all the flaws that numbers alone miss. The more I think about this trade, the more I think Ryan was dumping Hicks as much (maybe even more) than he was acquiring a catcher. I think the trade was initially fair for both sides, but will become more lopsided in favor of Ryan and the Twins as time goes by. Especially, if Hicks doesn't hit right away. That obnoxious fan base and the New York media circus will eat him alive.