wsnydes

Fair question. Firing Ryan was on the top of the list. Say what you will about Gardy, but the talent on that team was atrocious. That being said, a manager change would be on the list. I do trade Perkins and Willingham. At that point, trading Dozier wouldn't have been high on the list but I certainly would have listened. I go after younger players in their mid to late 20s that maybe have injury plagued careers thus far to try to find some gems that may provide either value or someone to try to build around. I stay away from backside of peak type players that not only come very cheap but also provide no real production. Other than that, I'm trying to build from within. Given the lackluster farm system, I'm looking at how and who I'm drafting and where I'm going wrong. Alter development programs. My minor league coaches staff's hammer fundamentals into everyone because those require no real skill. Playing smart baseball can win you games. From there, you build on what you've started and begin filling holes in the organization. Drafts and minor league signings have to be more fruitful. I freely admit that it is not a quick process and the timing has its impacts regarding FA classes, but it is a process that needs to actually start at some point. In my opinion, even if you believe that it's started with the regime change, that is at least three years too late. Edit: I also would definitely NOT hire a manager that had zero manager experience at any level and very little coaching experience in total.

You're correct that they didn't keep Plouffe for a rebuilding year...they haven't started yet. Plouffe could have been traded or let go, allowing Sano (the supposed future at 3B) to play 3B instead of RF. Arcia was not allowed to play. I'm no Arcia fan, but I don't feel that he got a fair shake either. Polanco had his options nearly exhausted before he got real playing time. All of his callups prior to last season were largely spent on the bench. Kepler was up and down between AAA and sat when he was with the big club until June I believe. Instead of continuing to allow May to develop as a starter (which he was excelling at) they moved him to the bullpen. I understood the why, but still thought it was shortsighted. Correia and Pelfrey may not have been blocking anyone, but they were signings filling a role (back of rotation starter) that this team had a plethora of. The second Pelfrey signing was blocking prospects if I recall correctly. The fallout of continuing to sign worthless veterans is that you don't have any pieces of value in which to trade. It's not necessarily that they are blocking someone, its that they have no value in order to acquire someone who may help down the road. They doubled down on that by not trading the few that they did have.

Huh? You're putting words into my mouth. I've never said any of that. Signing guys like Correia, Nolasco, Pelfrey (twice), not trading Willingham, Perkins, holding on to Plouffe an extra year, continuing to sign backside of peak aging veterans holding onto their career type guys and continue to lose while doing it. At no point does that look like a team that is accepting reality and trying to get younger and improve. It's made worse by the fact that they haven't hit on their draft picks. None of those things has to do with money. For the record, I liked the Span deal at the time. But that is one player. One player does not make a rotation or bullpen. Holding on to mediocre players past their usefulness was a constant problem in the old regime. Flipping vets on a losing team to one that could use them is how you build an organization. Even things as simple as allowing the kids to play and learn instead of blocking them or calling them up to sit on the bench is a sign of not understanding where the organization is at. Losing 90 games in three consecutive seasons should be a sign of what the reality is. Another 90 loss season, one fluke season, and a 100 loss season later and things are just now starting to change. That's at least three years too late and we're still having to wait. I'm willing to give the new FO time to get organized, but a rebuild needs to start before a team can emerge from it.

This is part of the issue though. The Twins first have to start to rebuild. I'm not sure that they've actually accepted their position and actually started the process. They've been treading water for 6 years.

Diminished value has to be considered with this as well. Regardless of how Dozier performs, he'll be older and less time remaining on a team friendly deal. He could still be desirable to other teams, but the value they get in Dozier will play into what they're willing to pay to acquire him. That being said, that can go either way depending on a team's particular situation. I do think that a team looking short term is less likely to pay on the higher end than a team that's more desperate for long term solutions.

This is an important observation in my view. I want Dozier traded as much as anyone, but I respect the new braintrusts ability to walk away and allow the Dodgers to sniff around. They know the market as well as the Dodgers do. In the end, they're confident that Dodgers will see the light and come back and hopefully sweeten the pot a bit. In the meantime, Twins fans are here stewing about what to do with a roster log jam that wasn't dealt with. We are still about 3 weeks out before pitchers and catchers report, so there is still time to wheel and deal. More on topic, as long as Polanco is playing every day, I'll be somewhat happy. He needs to play, but assuming SS or a utility role is temporary, I can live with a little chaos and uncertainty. It's if we're still talking about this in July that I'll be bothered by it. Unfortunately, I believe if Dozier isn't dealt before Spring Training, talking about this in July is exactly what we'll be doing. I'm still a bit concerned about the two remaining log jams on the right side of the infield. I think those impact more than the 25 man roster.

I don't disagree with any of that and I don't fault you for your line of logic. I think it's reasonable. To my knowledge, the list and affiliated BALCO evidence is still sealed by the courts. If there wasn't anything damaging to anybody, I find it odd that that would be the case. In fact, I'd find it odd that it was ever sealed to begin with, though I'm not a lawyer. Regarding Bonds, there are multiple reports and links made between Bonds and BALCO that I feel comfortable with my opinion. Keep in mind that I'm not condemning everyone on that list because I do realize that it hasn't been completely confirmed beyond a handful of names. However, in the case of Bonds, enough other evidence has surfaced that I do feel that he cheated while playing. Some players on the list have gone on to be punished so that removes any doubt others have not. I continue to waffle on Clemens. This is simply my opinion on the matter. I'm not asking you to agree with it, I'm simply throwing it out there.

That depends on whether you include the 2003 "anonymous" testing done by MLB leading up to the Mitchell Report, which I do. That survey was done with approval of MLB and the MLBPA. Bonds appears on that list, along with the aforementioned Manny. In my opinion, there's plenty of evidence to support the notion that he used them whether baseball punished him or not. I do agree with you on Schilling though. I do tend to agree that anything done outside of the game should not necessarily be taken into account. However, in Bonds' case, the 2003 list and other evidence and circumstances is enough for me. If it isn't for you, I find that to be reasonable.

My take on Bonds has been that he was a legit HoF player before it is believed that his PED use started. However, the actual use of PEDs violates the integrity clause in my view. That's the reason that I'm against known users being inducted. I like the small hall stance. I think other major sport HoF tend to be too inclusive diminishing the honor, in my opinion. As such, I'd vote for in no particular order Bagwell, Vlad, Raines, and Walker. I'm very torn on Hoffman and Martinez but would put them on my ballot. Closers and DH are legitimate positions and they were clearly dominant at those positions.

The bullpen is probably where he should be, at least to start the season. Can he regain that top half of the rotation ability? Sure, why not? Do I think it's likely? No. I still wish and hope for the best though.

I agree with your assessment completely. Considering that he's likely guessing more and more, it's fairly remarkable to me that his walk totals have remained pretty steady and even increased last season. In my mind, that seems little counter-intuitive. I also predict a continued decline. I hope that he does retire after his contract is up. I hate seeing aging former stars hang on too long.

As someone who pays more attention to the top 20 prospects and little else, I'm finding the first to parts of your list pretty informative. Thanks for putting these out!

That's what I mean when I say that Bill Smith made multiple poor trades or decisions. I see him as being in over his head. He didn't make poor decisions because he made other previous poor decisions. He made them because he simply made poor decisions. I don't think there was any connection between them at all aside from being made by the same person. I think we might be saying the same thing in a different way. I agree with your basic point. Trading Dozier for the sake of trading him is dangerous, but so is not trading him at peak value. I don't think we truly know what is on table. As much as I want Dozier traded, with what I've seen reported, I have no idea what I'd do. I think it's good that the braintrust isn't folding, but at the same time I hope that they know what they're doing. The one thing I do know is that I'm glad TR or BS aren't the ones at the negotiating table for this one. This is an important move/non-move.

I agree with what you're saying, but I think there's a difference between a guy making multiple unrelated poor decisions/trades and a guy that makes poor decisions because he made a poor decision before. I would put Bill Smith in the former category. Even the best GM's/Managers/etc have things go astray now and then. I've said multiple times that the hallmark of a good manager is how they deal with errors. Do they compound them by continuing to double down on it or do they admit to their mistakes and take corrective measures to correct the error and learn from it.

I think that's a pretty good o/u number. I'd also take the under and feel pretty good about my odds. That being said, it's a pretty disheartening realization even for somebody that feels that's where this team is still at.

This is along the lines of how I'm looking at this. I'm not looking to replace Dozier's output with Polanco, I feel that Polanco's bat fills a different need for this team. This team hasn't had a table setter in a long time. This team has power, but nobody that can reliably get on in front of that power. In my view, Polanco's bat fits the makeup of this team better than Dozier's does. I'll take the decrease in power output if it means scoring more runs with the power that remains.

Just let me hear some of that rock'n'roll music, any old way you choose it.

Veronica Vaughn...so hot! Want to touch the heinie!

Jinx!

Cellfie?

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/AyQ0/mastercard-world-geography-expert-featuring-ian-poulter

Go by way of Ventura Highway?

That joke doesn't work as well in type, but I couldn't resist the urge to use this.

But having a single base number for everything is hard. Our way makes so much more sense...