one_eyed_jack

I'm more interested in WHY Mauer isn't hitting like he once was and how we get him going again. There's a lot of focus on his salary, but not re-signing him was not a realistic option at that point. Beloved local boy coming off an MVP year, new ballpark opening soon - can you imagine the reaction if the Twins had refused to pay up for Mauer? Also, it's not like if he were making half of what he is now that anyone would find his performance acceptable. Is he hurt? Sometimes it takes guys more than a season to get back to where they were after an injury. Are pitchers approaching him differently? Is it a mental thing? I understand why there is so much ire directed at Mauer, even apart from the contract 1) The lack of candor regarding his injury last year created an image of softness 2) He's finally back and playing, but still not producing 3) He's not an emotional guy, and that creates the impression of indifference. He doesn't react to much of anything on the field, and he's a cliche machine in interviews. And while we don't know what goes on in the clubhouse, it sure doesn't seem like he embraces the role of team leader the way an MVP/Gold Glove/Silver Slugger/Batting Champion usually does. Is it just going to take time for him to find a groove again? A new hitting coach? A new manager? Another teammate to get on his case? Or has he really already worn down to the point where this is really the best he can do?

Don't know why you think you made a mistake. This is a great site, and I think there's a healthy range of viewpoints represented. And as for the "rose colored glasses" thing, I don't know that anyone feels that way. We all know the team has stunk it up, but it's a lot more fun to think about possibilities for renewal than to find new ways to pee on everyone in the organization. And don't take it personally on the lack of blog comments. I read them, as did many others. But I find, as many others do, that the amount of stuff worth commenting on far exceeds the amount of time I have to devote to commenting.

All good points, FDG. I think a lot of fans tend to overrate and overestimate prospects; they are eternally convinced the solution to everything is to bring of a bunch of guys from AAA. Some of them even want to move every veteran off the team and basically make this Rochester West. I'm fine with giving young guys who have earned it a shot, but when you blow the whole thing to smithereens and go in full-scale rebuild mode, it can be hard to get out of. Look at Kansas City, they've been the team of the future for 10 years now.

After a close game decided by a questionable call, the conversation often turns to the topic of Instant Replay. This time, I’ll start it. I’m not interested in rehashing the pros and cons of instant replay, which have been debated for years. The expansion of replay seems inevitable at this point. But as with most issues, the devil is in the details, and there does not seem to be a consensus on how expanded replay will work. Who can initiate replay review? If managers can, do they get a certain number of challenges like in football? What calls can be reviewed? What happens when certain calls are overturned (e.g. a ball hit down the line with runners on base called foul that was actually fair)? It's an interesting topic which I confess I haven't given a ton of thought to, but here's an initial stab. I'd be interested in hearing others' ideas on the subject. Calls subject to review (at least the biggies, I know I’m missing some obscure ones here) Should be subject to replay review: fair/foul, safe/out on any base, retouch, catch/trap, fan interference, whether run scored before third out Should not subject to replay review: ball/strike, balk, catcher’s interference Not sure how I feel about replay review: foul tip on strike 3, hit-by-pitch Who can initiate review Each manager gets 2 challenges, plus 1 additional if game goes into extra innings For non-scoring plays, there is a time limit of 3 minutes for video review. If they cannot find conclusive evidence to overturn it in that time, the call on the field stands Umpires can order review on scoring plays Overturning a call Put things where they would have been had the call been correct in the first instance. This will sometimes require umpire judgment (e.g. on overturned foul ball or catch calls). This is a tough one, but there could be general guidelines (e.g. ball in the corner – all runners get 2 bases, shallow outfield trap = 1 base). There will always be situations where this won’t be completely fair (e.g. Revere may be only allowed to go from first to third on a ball he would have scored easily on), but it’s better than getting the call completely wrong.

After a close game decided by a questionable call, the conversation often turns to the topic of Instant Replay. This time, I’ll start it. I’m not interested in rehashing the pros and cons of instant replay, which have been debated for years. The expansion of replay seems inevitable at this point. But as with most issues, the devil is in the details, and there does not seem to be a consensus on how expanded replay will work. Who can initiate replay review? If managers can, do they get a certain number of challenges like in football? What calls can be reviewed? What happens when certain calls are overturned (e.g. a ball hit down the line with runners on base called foul that was actually fair)? It's an interesting topic which I confess I haven't given a ton of thought to, but here's an initial stab. I'd be interested in hearing others' ideas on the subject. Calls subject to review (at least the biggies, I know I’m missing some obscure ones here) Should be subject to replay review: fair/foul, safe/out on any base, retouch, catch/trap, fan interference, whether run scored before third out Should not subject to replay review: ball/strike, balk, catcher’s interference Not sure how I feel about replay review: foul tip on strike 3, hit-by-pitch Who can initiate review Each manager gets 2 challenges, plus 1 additional if game goes into extra innings For non-scoring plays, there is a time limit of 3 minutes for video review. If they cannot find conclusive evidence to overturn it in that time, the call on the field stands Umpires can order review on scoring plays Overturning a call Put things where they would have been had the call been correct in the first instance. This will sometimes require umpire judgment (e.g. on overturned foul ball or catch calls). This is a tough one, but there could be general guidelines (e.g. ball in the corner – all runners get 2 bases, shallow outfield trap = 1 base). There will always be situations where this won’t be completely fair (e.g. Revere may be only allowed to go from first to third on a ball he would have scored easily on), but it’s better than getting the call completely wrong.

Great post, FDG. For me, it's much more about the ride, but I see both perspectives. If you're going to consider every season that doesn't end with a parade a complete failure, you're not to going to have a lot of fun. And it's baseball, it's supposed to be fun. It was fun watching the low-budget Twins beat out much more heavily-funded teams for playoff spots, even if those postseason runs fizzled early. When I think back to 2009, I think of the Twins piecing together an improbable late season comeback with a bunch of September callups, that culminated in an unforgettable game 163 more than I do another frustrating defeat at the hands of the Evil Empire. But by 2010, the whole "little team that could" thing had gotten old and a divison title seemed a lot less satisfying. That team was good enough to beat the Yankees, but the Bombers barely had to break a sweat.

I'm sorry, but it's hard not to be condescending when you go with the "fire everyone and replace them with guys from the glory days" cry. It's a ridiculously common fantasy of frustrated Twins fans - the team has a "we're getting the band back together" press conference to announce that heroes of yore are back in the fold. Then Hrbek, Gladden and Co. march into the locker room wearing their World Series rings and fiercely re-tell a bunch of war stories while the current Twins sit half-scared, half-amazed as they absorb the lessons of what it takes to win in the big leagues. Then, inspired, they go out and trounce everyone in sight en route to a World Series crown. I hate to burst your bubble, but it's not going to happen. I'm open to regime change if this disaster continues, but there needs to be something more than "they played good for the Twins 25 years ago" on their resume to convince me that they are the right guys hire.

That was directed at the author of the post, not your comment, but I appreciate your concern.

Is there something is particuar you are responding to here, or do you just enjoy restating the obvious?

Most teams have gone longer than that without winning a championship. 11 teams have won a Championship since the Twins last did. That leaves more than half the league with a longer drought than the Twins. I guess they should all clean house whenever they get off to a slow start? That list of replacements is amusing. Apparently your only criteria there is that the guy was one of your boyhood heroes. I'm surprised Luke Skywalker and Indiana Jones weren't mentioned.

I have never seen the release of a fringe MLB player spun into such a melodramatic tale of conspiracy, abuse of power, deceit and betrayal. Oh the humanity! Luke Hughes is a guy who has played in 102 major league games, during which he it .224, was mediocre at best defensively. He's going to be 28 in a few months, so I think it's pretty unlikely that the Twins are sitting on a gold mine of untapped potential here, don't you? And in terms of the Souhan thing, I don't know if that's true or not but it's not like this is the first we've heard about the lack of dedication from some players last year. There was much talk of it in the local media after the season. Cuddyer said right after he signed with Colorado that he felt like he was fighting a one-man battle last year. Was Hughes a part of the problem? I don't know, but I suspect nobody else does here either. So saying he wasn't is just assuming facts to fit your theory. Maybe you're right, maybe Gardenhire forced the next Jeff Kent out of town so he could bring up his pet third catcher that he has an irrational attachment to. But don't you think it could also be that this was just a simple case of him wanting to cut ties with a marginal player with a bad attitude? Tell you what - I'll make you a deal. If someone else picks up Hughes and he turns out to be an asset to their team, I'll eat my words. But if his career goes nowhere, you eat yours. Deal?

Agree with Paul. What should they have done, kept sending the same message even though it obviously wasn't getting through to him? Liriano has never really gotten it. He just doesn't seem to have the mental toughness. His demeanor and body language when things don't go his way are terrible. He pouts like a toddler whose older brother just took his favorite toy away from him.

I'm little perplexed about the amount of attention and gushing praise that Hughes has received the last couple of days. He had a few nice moments and seemed like a quality guy. But to read some of the stuff that's been written about him, Jesus Christmas, you'd think the Twins just gave up on the second coming of Lou Whitaker from down under.

Heyman's piece is ridiculous. He's honestly suggesting that the '03 and '04 Twins were evenly matched with the Yankee teams of those years? Please. Compare the records, rosters, and payrolls. It's not even close. And I find it hard to believe that what happened to them in the playoffs those years would somehow be the heads of an almost completely different roster of guys 5 years later. There were a lot of close games between the teams, and you can't point to a lot of reasons the Yankees won. They had more talent and more experience. The Twins caught some bad breaks (Koskie's double, Cuzzi's foul ball call, Morneau out in '09 and '10) and made some dumb base-running mistakes. But the east coast centric national media loves the storyline of a "Yankee mystique" so powerful that the mere sight of Yankee uniforms has small-market teams like the Twins quivering with fear. So they keep hyping that. But it's silly. Bear in mind Heyman is the guy who thinks Morris should be in the HOF but not Blyleven, so that should tell you a bit about his knowledge level of baseball in general and the Twins in particular.