nicksaviking

I guess I don't see the similarities between Fleck and Brewster unless people are just thinking of the energy. Brewster hadn't been a head coach, in fact he was basically just a recruiter for Mack Brown who left for one year to go to the NFL for the sole purpose of learning the game. Fleck got a HC job at the age of 32 and did something with it. Plenty of head coaches are fiery and energetic so I think the only reason to compare him to Brewster would be because the Gophers tend to pick conservative Midwest demeanors. Fleck seems to have substance while Brewster clearly didn't. The first thing this guy did when he got the WM was piss a lot of people off by rescinding a ton of scholarship offers, it didn't sit well but it meant he knew how he wanted his team to look; he had a vision, Brewster never had a vision or any kind of organizational plan. I think you guys might have got lucky with this one, this guy looks like he knows what he's doing to me.

The team has different talent evaluators now. And for the record, I think a lot of May still. Either way, just because you struck out last at bat it doesn't mean you should keep it on your shoulder the rest of your career. You got to keep taking hacks, it'll payoff eventually.

Just pretend you don't see the ensuing edits to the posts previous to yours.

Had Mussina wanted the 300 wins he would have gotten it. He was only 30 shy and only 39-years-old. I think the baseball community pretty rightfully recognized that Blyleven had been an overlooked pitcher so I don't know why you would look at either of these pitchers and say they shouldn't be in because they weren't as good as Blyleven. After Clemens, Mussina and Schilling are the highest pitchers in terms of WAR that aren't in the HOF. I think Mussina is pretty close to a lock to get in eventually, he was top 6 in Cy Young voting 9 times and one of the best fielding pitchers ever. If Schilling doesn't make it, it likely will have more to do with him being a lunatic. Not that I think that should necessarily keep him out, but it's not going to help him.

I $%^& you not, I simply googled ChiTownTwinsFan and Marcos. This was the third option from the top. I was pretty sure I remembered something about you and a shoe issue. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/11880-article-welcome-to-the-new-twins-daily/page-9

I'm not sure what caused his down year and I agree that he still has potential, but I'm of the mind that most of his problems are self-inflicted. Perhaps he doubts his secondary pitches but he shouldn't and I'm not sure that's the case. I have a hard time thinking of Gibson without getting frustrated with this direct quote he gave to Fangraphs: “I have this debate with Glen quite a bit: How effective an out on two or three pitches is as opposed to a strikeout. For me, a soft ground ball is just as effective if it’s within the first two or three pitches. If I’m able to keep my hard contact rate low, ground balls are almost automatic outs for me. “When hitters puts balls in play, they’re going to get a hit sooner or later. But if I get five ground balls in a row, I’m more than likely going to get out of the inning. Offensive numbers will tell you that. If they only get a hit three out of every ten times they put the ball in play, that’s less than two out of five, so I like my chances.” http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kyle-gibson-on-pitching-to-contact/ 1) He isn't getting outs on two or three pitches. 2) He's not getting soft contact on his sinker or four-seamer. 3) He isn't likely to get five groundballs in a row as evidenced by the fact that he only had a 54% GB rate on his sinker (!) last year. Meanwhile if softly hit groundballs are so important, his Changeup and Slider both had a nearly 48% GB rate, with his change actually getting more GB than his sinker in 2014 AND 2015. The offspeed pitches also had wiff rates of 32% and 43% while the sinker only got wiffs 7% of the time. http://www.brooksbaseball.net/outcome.php?player=502043&b_hand=-1&gFilt=&pFilt=FA|SI|FC|CU|SL|CS|KN|CH|FS|SB&time=year&minmax=ci&var=gb&s_type=2&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=01/03/2017 4) Listen to Glen, he's been around longer and probably has some good insight into the value of the strikeout. Gibson is stubborn and/or is listening to the wrong people about how to use his pitches. If that's truly the problem that should be fixable with the right superior telling him he's got to change his approach. Gibson's best pitch is his changeup, I'm hopeful Falvey/Lavine/Allen tell him he's not a sinkerball pitcher, he's just a pitcher who has a sinker he can use from time to time.

I'm more than willing to include Kintzler to gain any kind of increased return. But after two consecutive posts denouncing it I should probably come clean and admit that I'm unreasonably in favor of banning the sinker from the Twins clubhouse.

Both of those are because of his sinker usage. He gets plenty of swings and misses on his change and slider; if only he'd use them to put guys away. But I agree, no GM would give the Twins value for him based on what he could do if he pitched correctly. He'll have to pitch correctly and show results first to gain any value.

I don't usually check out the message boards on MLBTR but I was curious about this topic. Perhaps there is an inordinate amount of Braves fans who comment on that site, or Braves fans are more interested in a Dozier trade than we might think. Anyway, most of the comments were from that fanbase.

I agree. Now if we're talking about a team like the Pirates, the inexpensive Gibson who has bounceback potential might be of extreme curiosity to them. Team's like the Dodgers tend to value a more certain commodity as price is of less consequence.

If course the difference between Wall Street and the Dodgers is that a successful morning involves waking up to a championship parade, which is often not compatible with maximizing his assets.

It's getting frustrating and "I Need to Know", but poor Dozier right about now is probably feeling like a "Refugee", this kind of stress can easily lead to an all too common holiday "Breakdown". The Dodgers are probably only offering De Leon plus parts while Falvey understandably is saying "Don't Do Me Like that", "I Won't Back Down" from needing Bellinger or Alvarez in the deal as well. "Even the Losers" need to be tossed a bone once in awhile. Trading Dozier is the team's best chance of "Running Down a Dream" and they can't squander it. I'm optimistic though, I think come this time next year we're going to be looking at the haul Falvey got and say "You Got Lucky". I don't like the alternative, if Dozier stays I think his value almost certainly starts "Freefalling".

Welcome to the site. Keep posting these quality takes!

Great post, but no, still not excited. Kiriloff is the only addition that looks like an improvement to the original post to me. The only guys outside of Kiriloff that look exciting are the guys already at the MLB level. This team needs better bats in the minors. Right now these are best case scenario kind of projections based on what we have now. There are a couple of "exciting high ceiling" kind of guys (but again, almost all are already in the majors) and lots of "maybe they can be pretty good" kind of guys. For most of the past two decades we used to be able to play this game filling nearly every position with "exciting high ceiling" kind of guys with enough left over to battle for the DH spot.

It sounds like you may have been tricked into getting excited about a mathematics. My condolences.

Are Robbie Grossman and Kurt Suzuki? You're going to have to play who you have available to you. Seeing this spelled out, I'm thinking everyone's pitcher heavy Dozier trade proposals perhaps should shift to include at least one bat who may contribute here. I thought I would be more excited to see this projection, gosh almighty this team needs to restock.

I guess I don't understand how getting other prospects would be under-selling Dozier. The ceiling of a second "MLB-ready" pitcher is going to be much lower than a guy who still needs a year or two. I mean Pat Dean is MLB ready.

It is not like that, these guys weren't declared innocent in a court of law. The court of law didn't weigh in on the situation because the accuser didn't press charges. What it IS like is a school going through a thorough review process and deciding that these guys should not be allowed to go to school there, which is a denial of service of the same magnitude as when they deny admission to folks who carry the far lesser offense of having bad grades in high school.

They aren't enforcing criminal law, and if that's what you're going with you haven't followed any of these proceedings. You know they aren't and you're only trying to twist a point. I'm also not saying the criminal justice system is broken in this situation, that's your claim. If a victim of sexual assault doesn't want to press charges or comes to an arrangement with the accused the law can't and won't do anything. But you're here trying to claim that simply because no charges are pressed, the school should let suspected rapists wander around their campus full of young adults who could be victims. Universities have issues, but kicking people out for suspected sexual assault is not one of them.

Not good enough? How because we still have sexual assaults? Now you're just being stubborn if you're trying to imply that there is actually some solution that would forever eradicate them. What exactly are you wanting the U to do? They are compelled by Title IX and the VAWA to investigate the situation, they are further compelled by FERPA to protect the identities of the accused. I don't even know what you are taking issue with anymore, because again if it's the rights of the accused, your beef is with the Star Tribune for illegally publishing information that was supposed to be protected by FERPA, not the U. Even the players dropped their protest once they saw the report and understood the school followed protocol.

They did address this problem, it's called Title IX and the added way, way too late VAWA or Violence Against Women Act. They also addressed the issue of how to protect the accused with FERPA or Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

If your workplace has a history of murder problems that is difficult for authorities to enforce but is causing your work environment to become unsafe. Then yes, yes they should.

I really can't believe that is a position anybody would logically take. Schools can make rules about alcohol but not sexual assault, frankly I'm pretty disturbed that this is a position anyone would get behind.

Most colleges do ban booze even while the legal system may have no power to back them which means the school is solely responsible for enforcement. So colleges making their own rules and enforcing their own infractions regarding booze is OK but making their own rules and enforcing their own infractions over sexual misbehavior is not? That's completely contradictory.

I'm not looking for justice, I'm looking for my children's safety, both of them. Considering we never hear parents of victims sexual assault rally for justice for the accused, I'm guessing the idea of justice coming before safety is more of an idyllic thought until it actually affects one's family. But again, I'm all for safeguarding the rights of the accused, if there isn't legal backing in the form of criminal charges, names shouldn't be released. I'm more than accepting of accusations without proof not stigmatizing these guys for life. That's on the media though. Unless the school released these names that's not on them. If they did and I'm just not aware, then yes, I'd find the school culpable in that regard.