Darius

What exactly makes it "not worth it?" It's better to have no chance of deep playoff run and save ownership the money? What's the end game? What's the money being saved for? Will it be any less risky in the future? Really trying to understand this "spending money on good players is bad," paradigm that has taken hold.

Gibson was our best stater in the second half last year. We wouldn't have made the playoffs without him in the rotation. Would it really be a good idea to give him a bunch of meaningless innings in blowout losses just to save Taylor Rodgers and Ryan Presley for the following night? You wouldn't give him a chance to build off of last year and see if he has turned a corner? Considering we're likely not bringing in a free agent starter of note, Gibson is integral to this team's success.

The thing about this is most of them aren't really that good. Who can you point to and definitively say, "that guy will be lights out." Maybe Reed? Otherwise, everyone has question marks and maybes associated with them. The bullpen has gone from awful to average. They have a lot of mediocre depth that turn into some "if."

It's not even a question. Of course Darvish makes you a better baseball team than Cobb and Lynn. What other goal is there? A frontline to starter to slip in front of Santana and Berrios in the rotation makes this team a legit contender. Cobb and Lynn don't do that. In the end, this is along the lines of me trying to decide whether I'd rather marry Katy Perry or Beyoncé. Sure if fun to think about, but no way is it actually going to happen in any of the infinite parallel universes.

This should absolutely be done if you want to win over/keep fans as we progress further down the rabbit hole of instant gratification and the need for action at all times. You already hear from most people under 25-30 that baseball is "just so boring." At some point, just like anything else in this world, you have get over the nostalgic past and move forward if you want to keep up. The NFL and NBA do it all the time. You think as many people would watch those if they were still wearing leather helmets minus the forward pass, or they were still shooting baskets through a peach basket without a shot clock or 3-point line?

Gibson was pretty excellent for an extended period of time last year. I think we saw that step forward. Also, I don't think he ever really "teased" anyone prior to that. He was just bad. Just my opinion on the matter.

The obvious candidate is Kepler. I think he'll have a good year. I think Gibson finally turned a corner in the second half, and will put together a good season. Garver is another candidate, assuming he gets a good number of innings as the second catcher/DH/1B. As far as Hildenberger goes, I think he already "broke out." He was the team's best reliever last year, IMO, and it wasn't really close. I think what we saw out of him is about as good as it'll get....which is pretty good. Maybe a guy like Chagrois gets healthy and puts some things together in a role similar to Presley's last year, My top breakout candidate that I haven't seen mentioned much: Duffey. That hammer has already proven to be an asset, just needs to find consistency. I think that'll come. If he can put it together, Duffey, May, Hildenberger, Rodgers, and Rodney could make a high quality group to lead into Reed in the back end.

I'm not sure I can buy into these measurements a whole lot. Sprint speed for example. How is that measured? A high water mark, or a composite of some arbitrary number of measurements? At what point do they measure? Again, the high water mark, or an average of the speed throughout that run, or some arbitrary point in time? Clearly, there's some flaw in something's meauring Grossman's sprint speed as an equivalent to Kepler's. Also, I'm not sure sprint speed really has much bearing on Rosario's game. Given the nature of left field (playing close to the wall, playing angles/bounces), I just don't see speed as something that separates a good LF from a poor one. What are the league averages? We're seeing baseball trend towards speed and athleticism. We're also seeing a trends if getting young talented players to the major sports faster (it seems, no data there). Every year, faster more athletic players are coming in at age 20-22, and the slow sluggers (Thome, Fielder, etc) are being phased out. Roasario may have been in the 98th percentile in 1990, and would be in the bottom quarter in 2028. I'm not sure the necessarily mean he isn't detrimentally slow. I just can't say his ranking drop in relation the league is alarmingly without more context/data. When it comes to his arm, which a lot are taking issue with, I don't think the perception of a "drop off" is being adequately discounted for the luck factor. I'm guessing he had fewer "easy" opportunities (aka, tested frequently one year, and not the next after proving yourself). Accuracy can have luck involved (which side of the base you end up on in relation to the runner). Bounces can involve luck. Maybe based were overslid. Considering that there doesn't appear to be a huge regression in his arm strength, it's not something I can definitively say is a problem with Rosario and not a statistical anomole of some kind (on either end of the spectrum in each respective year). I know the new thing is forcing data. We've arrived at this place where we think any number is better than nothing, and that's simply not he case. People love to throw stuff against the wall before it's properly vetted. Data can be skewed, and can create bad analysis/decision making. I'd like to see this played out longer. Long story short, I'm not ready to say this isn't a statistical issue (sample size, skewed by outliers) or a measurement issue (flawed techniques, searching for patterns in an inadequate range of data, apples vs oranges, etc). I'm not ready to say Roasario can't play LF. I think we'll have a better idea as this upcoming season progresses.

Yeah, my first thought when Insaw this was that Yu narrowed his list and let us know we aren't on it.

Ah, I missed that his kid wasn't in the organization anymore. But, yeah...Not a serious comment/question in the first place.

Do you think promoting Pudge's son to the bullpen would be enough to lure him out of retirement?

Where's Bryce Harper?

Not real optimistic on Darvish. This is one of those "I'll believe it when Insee it" things. There is nothing outside of hope to indicate that the Twins would the commit the resources necessary to sign him, or any other high-impact free agent.

I don't know if you call what Doogie does "reporting." Guy throws crap against the wall on Twitter constantly to see what sticks. He spends 8 hours per day going off on people trolling him on Twitter. Funny, he claims to have all these sources but never breaks a damn story. I can recall more stories broken by Meatsauce from KFAN.

Just about every pitcher drafted this year (Enlow, Leach, Barns, Sammons). We really need to get a good class of SPs moving through the system.

I think Berrios is worth more than Lewis, currently. Young starting pitcher, with elite stuff and has shown elite results in the MLB for stretches, and in the high minors for years vs an 18-year old unknown who may or may not stick at short stop? Is there a GM in their right mind who would take Lewis if given the choice between the two today for nothing? Think of it this way, if there were an expansion draft tomorrow, and the team had its choice of Lewis and Berrios, they'd take Berrios every time. I can't think of any scenario where a team would give up Berrios straight up for Lewis. Maybe the Marlins, because their FO makes ridiculous moves all the time.

I can't recall a more entertaining player to watch than Rosario on his massive hot streak in July/August. That was about as good as it gets.

I'd let him test the market. Gordon should be ready to take over soon and will be cheaper. Since pennies are pinched so tightly opportunity cost is a big consideration. The contract he'll command would be better served if it were put towards starting pitching next year.

The thing with the Twins payroll, is it's actually gone down since 2010-2011, even though various revenue streams and players salaries have increased drastically. Frankly, it's a joke. The Pohlads groveled, swore up and down to the taxpayers of Minneapolis, and the baseball fans of Minnesota, that they needed a stadium to compete for free agents. They eventually sunk to what basically amounts to extortion IMO (contraction, move the team, etc). They got the stadium, and the payroll decreased for over half a decade. The excuses were always made that it's not the right time to spend (which is total BS, IMO). Well, now that excuse has dried up. I keep hoping that the Pohlad family will hold their word, and spend some GD money. But, deep down I know they won't. The apologists will continue to make excuses. The asinine narrative that signing free agents is bad, and moneyball is the way to go will persist (spoiler, the A's don't win the World Series). The team will burn up this short, once in 25 year, window to compete once some of these guys hit FA, we'll all pat them on the back for making the playoffs and getting bounced immediately 3-4 times, and we'll start this process all over again, for all eternity. This is the life (or purgatory) of a Twins fan.

I still find it hard to believe that ownership would open their wallet to the tune of $150-$200 million if Falvine asked for it.

You do realize that 3-4 million per year over a few years in the MLB is almost nothing, right? That's a ho-hum middle reliever contract. Brian Duening signed for $2 million last year. Signing Park is having absolutely zero negative impact on the Twins.

I think Jay and Stewart should probably be higher, but nothing unreasonable given the injuries.

I think it's pretty clear that the Twins "overachieved" the most. Won the most games per unit of talent, in other words. They had a patchwork bullpen and rotation (Belisle was the closer and Colon was starting games at one point late in the season). There were some significant injuries (Sano, Buxton, Hughes, May, even Burdi, Chagrois, etc). And, honestly, the roster didn't look very good before the injuries. Molitor took that team to nearly 90 wins and a Wild Card spot. Whether that is directly attributable to him in any way is debatable. But, the fact is, managers get credit for their team's performance in relation to expectations. Molitor's team did more with less than any other team in the American League.

. I've been interested in, and a supporter of, unconventional approaches to managing a pitching staff. For example, with a mountain of data out there demonstrating that pitchers generally get worse the second and third time through the order, why do managers allow pitchers to throw to the same batter twice? "Bullpen games" all the time make a lot of sense to me. There are obviously exceptions like Kershaw and Kluber that you may be able to statistically justify running out there multiple times. But, outside of that, it seems to me that you'll get more outs (higher out to batters faced ratio) by using pitchers more often with fewer innings in a "start,". But, maybe my logic is all wrong.

I don't they need anyone spectacular. A decent bench bat should do it. If Kepler can take a step forward, Rosario, Polanco, and Buxton maintain a fraction of their second half performances, and Sano gets/stays healthy, this could be one of the top 3 offenses in Major League Baseball. This all assuming we don't see Rooker at some point.