Alex

Johnny Bench on it: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/13/johnny-bench-is-a-big-fan-of-the-new-rule-eliminating-home-plate-collisions/

The reason baserunners can go harder into home is that oversliding the base doesn't matter, as long as they touch it. At every other base a slide has the additional effect of slowing momentum as much as it is about avoiding a tag (see also: Ron Gant?). I really like that they are looking at the play that is the highest risk of injury baseball. It's not about making sure no one gets hurt ever -- it's about taking out a play/plays that are high risk of injury and don't make a lot of sense within the context of the game.

I don't get it either. Like I said before, I've been critical of a lot of what the Twins seem to value in players but I don't see them completely being ignorant here. I think this is a case where we probably need to give them the benefit of the doubt. IE if Mauer would better defensive third baseman than other options, be they Sano, Plouffe or whatever, they've evaluated the risk reward. That is unless we really think they are complete idiots, which I don't. As to how much more you need at 3B than at 1B (a previous point), I think it's obviously significantly more. The most common 3B transition you see are previous SS. If it were that easy. I think you'd see a lot more good defensive 1B moved there. For example, Morneau was considered by many to be an excellent fielding 1B for a long time yet he never played 3B.

Jokin, I love the idea in principle, but do you legitimately think the Twins are completely ignorant of this possibility and haven't even discussed or evaluated it?

Absolutely agree.

Or at worst, 2015. Good point, too.

I really think that if the Twins thought Mauer had the range to play third, they'd have tried that out. Even though I'm critical of the Twins front office often, I do think they are aware of the idea of the defensive spectrum and that moving Mauer to third would have been far better than moving him to first.

To be fair to Ryan, I don't know that there was a great time to sell high on these players, unless you wanted to do so when they were performing well and the Twins were winning, which doesn't seem like a good idea either. The problem with the Doumit extension is that it was early (June - certainly not after a good season) in the first year of the contract and was for two years. This isn't hindsight and a lot of baseball analysts were saying it at the time. We now see the problem with it. He's clogging up the roster, and would be to some extent even if he catches. Just because the money doesn't mean anything doesn't mean it wasn't a bad move.

Probably true to some extent, but I also think it's that they try (tried?) to go for cost efficient pitchers as well and strikeout pitchers often don't fit that. As you point out, since they like control, strikeout pitchers who also have good control are going to be very expensive. The second part of that was they seemed to try and get college pitchers who could help them sooner in the majors rather than later and that may have limited their draft choices when they were picking later in the round.

A player should communicate his health issues and desires to his team. However, you're not wrong that they also need to accept the reality of such concerns. I wonder if we'll start to see contracts that have clauses regarding position played allowed?

As with Mauer, a player needs to do what is right for his health and future. The difference with Doumit is that it might mean he's no longer has much value, and unfortunately doesn't belong on the roster.

Looks like he is headed to the Marlins based on the latest there.

I understand your reason for calling it two different arguments, but I disagree. It's just incredibly selective to say people should somehow applaud the one move he made that was successful (in terms of money) while there were other moves (and lack thereof) that hurt the team.

We can' t have it both ways. We can't give Ryan credit for Correia, who was better than expected (but that topped out at about average) and then not be critical of the fact that he wasn't able to build anything but the worst rotation in baseball. I expected Correia to be worse, so I admit I was wrong. But many of us were correct about the results of the rotation as a whole. Correia was a success, but one in a season of many, many other failures, including a debacle at the CF position.

I added this caveat in a later edit, not as specifically, but I also pointed out that his 2010 numbers were very similar to 2013. 2011 there really wasn't much data. But the point was simply looking at it from RHB/LHB perspective isn't enough to say how Target Field would affect it.

I don't disagree about the OF defense, but giving up HR to RH/LH batters does not tell you where those HR went. Of his 24 HR last season, just six landed in the left field seats. Every other HR was from CF to RF. Now sadly, if you overlay Target Field, supposedly that only takes away one HR. Not sure how accurate that overlay is and it can't take into account the colder weather or other conditions --if there are any -- in Target Field (air currents) that may be more likely keeping balls in the park on that side of the park. And those numbers apply just to last year (2012 was more spread out where 2010 was similar to 2013). http://www.hittrackeronline.com/detail.php?id=2013_2643&type=pitcher

This is exactly why I think the a team should never ignore FA or punt seasons. If Nalasco pitches similar to what he did last year, the Twins are a better team. Add another good FA pitcher and some things go right (like Meyer is up and Gibson pitches better), you suddenly are a very competitive team still with plenty of money to spend.

If you want to argue that essentially one signing means an upgrade that's fine, but acting like re-signing Pelfry would be a component of that upgrade is odd.

Great stuff guys. Very much enjoyed this.

You obviously missed the irony in my post. I agree with you and there are plenty of other examples where Ryan's words don't match the result or effort. Whether that's because he over-promises and underperforms due to circumstances or because it's saying one thing to appease season ticket holders and really planning something different. As others have said, neither is good. Of course, I much appreciated Jeremy and Seth's podcast with Mike Bernadino where they mostly agreed that it doesn't make sense and this could just be a rumor and isn't coming from the Twins camp, so maybe this all didn't happen or is a very preliminary offer.

No. This would not a low risk/"decent" upside signing and is only comparable Liriano on the slimmest of of superficial elements. With Pelfrey, the best you can hope for is average to slightly above average, not unlike Correia. Liriano is the definition of low risk/high upside in that he's had some rough seasons but he's also had dominating ones and his stuff has the potential to have more. This would be a low risk/low upside signing. Which, as people have mentioned is fine if this isn't their top signing, but as many have pointed out, there's no real reason to go with a guy like this in late November/December.

You have to admire Ryan as a man of his word...this is definitely not a short cut. Maybe more worrisome is the possibility in the rumor that they are underwhelming Pelfrey. If he wants and expects more, how are they going to attract better pitchers?

I wish I could go to a different restaurant, like the one they have in St. Louis, but I don't think with the current local management they're going to figure out any short cuts for the cooks get those fries out faster.

While I like Gleeman and often agree with him, I've never appreciated nor worried his condescension for the site, especially when he spent time in the podcast and tweeting last week about one single poster that complained about the G+G podcast. Also ironically and more to the topic, it's funny you mention it as in this week's he would have fit right in this thread. He essentially said the Twins had no reason not to make better offers to three of the four pitchers Brock mentioned that had signed.

I agree that it's a bit early, but I'd love if my favorite team was out in front of and were addressing any of their many needs right away, especially as there are teams that have been doing that.