Squirrel

Lol ... you've been pulling for him all year ... who comes off the 40-man? I mean ... that's such a tough choice!

Well ... so much for my thought that Baldelli should have used Thornburg last night instead of Pagan ... sigh. Frustrated.

Shaddup Lol

I'm not bashing him for bringing in Pagan ... but I am sorely disappointed because Pagan in his last 3 appearances has blown it. Yeah, this is the on the FO for not having better options in the BP ... 95%. But ... Rocco made the choice and I, personally, who knows nothing, would have at least gone with someone else because ... why not try something that's different when the same has blown it several times in a row recently? Frankly, I would have had ALL of them up and ready because, yeah. I've 'complained' about our offense not coming through when needed, and here they did just that, came through and came through BIG. We should not be losing it in the 10th that way, giving up 4 runs. I'm just frustrated, and I'm not directing that frustration at anyone else because I own my own emotions, but sheesh, that was the toughest loss for me. FRONT OFFICE, ARE YOU LISTENIN'?

Yeah ... I don't think Sands is the right choice, either ... but we have Ryan, Gray, Ober (IL), Archer, Bundy, Winder, Smeltzer ... we can figure out something there.

Or ... as was suggested the other day ... make Archer and Bundy the tandem ... I mean, there ARE options for having so many starters that are still young, and not having a capable enough BP. Doing the stacking thing would save the BP at least that one day. (I'm not in favor of stacking more than that, but for one 'start', let's try that.)

He can be a swing man. He can be a starter when we are down a starter, but be part of a stacking team with either Bundy or Archer when Ober gets back. Or, Smeltzer does this. There are options. Winder doesn't *have* to be a starter.

I agree he didn’t have much choice, and that’s the most maddening thing about it. But, given Pagan’s most recent outings, I’d have gone with one of the other bad choices just because of that. It couldn’t be worse, and just maybe a bit better

It’s overheated from reading too much here

Well, actually, I think it was Duffey a time or two, too

Uh, Rocco isn't the one who makes these trades ... or is that the joke?

Well, let’s see … 249 wins, 208 losses, that calculates to +41 WAR. Did I get that right?

I actually missed it ... just tuning in now ... and now I don't want to watch ... because ...

I am SO GLAD!!!!!! that Baldelli had the foresight to rest these two so they could come in fresh late in the game to make something happen ... that's managin'!

I just enjoy watching each of them play, especially in the same game ?

Well, if they are going to sit on the same night, better it's an away game than the hometown crowd. But yeah ... (which means 'no comment')

I was more referring to the starts lately that Bundy has given us and Archer has been strong in his outings over all ... that is great production from the 4-5-6 starters on any team that isn't the Yankees or Dodgers. Of course, if they can't hold it together, of course, decisions need to be made, but if they are doing well, I don't know if I'd move them. What @chpettit19 suggested, stacking Archer and Bundy might be an option. We'll have to let it go another month, I think, and make whatever moves need to be by then at the latest, and before if the situation calls for it.

Ah, okay ... I misunderstood what you were saying ... I also didn't watch the game, but still, following on gameday, I wouldn't have used Pagan there

I will preface this by saying, I was not a fan of bringing in Pagan where they did. But I'm also not sure I'm in favor of a set 'formula' of this, either. So, when do you use that order ... every game, close games only? What if the meat of the order comes up in the 8th, and that 'meat' has been hitting the ball really well this game, in a 1-run game, you still bring in Jax or should you bring in your most trusted, best reliever to face the best of the other team? Again, I was not in favor of Pagan in the situation yesterday, but I can think of at least one or two reasons why. But I don't think having a set formula as you laid out is the best answer, either, and I think would result in as many losses. Having set 7th, 8th, 9th inning pitchers just doesn't work for me, and, isn't how the game is really played today. (Which, yes, is yet another discussion with much disagreement with the posters here.) But, just because there isn't a 'set' formula, I do think it can also be over-thought, too. So ... put me somewhere in the vast middle between you and Baldelli

I wonder if maybe they stack Archer and who? Winder was the initial plan for that, but maybe Smeltzer moves to that long relief role?

I agree. But if they aren’t going full Happ/Shoemaker, wouldn’t that mean we are getting production in the 4-5 position? If Bundy and Archer can continue on their good paths, I guess I’m not moving them.

I still think it’s an opinion, though, and not a done deal. It’s the most likely outcome, I admit, but unless Boras or Correa has said that, specifically, to a journalist, which would be all kinds of improper, imo, I think it’s a NY journalist telling Minnesotans they just aren’t going to win.

That reads like an opinion piece, and we all knew the likelihood that that's what was going to be.

Here we Twinkies, here we go! ???

Good! Here’s to a speedy recovery!