Wasting Mauer and Morneau in their primes

[notoriousgod71]

We are going to waste having two of the best players in the game because of Smith's unwillingness to build a contending team around them. These types of talents do not come around very often and for the Twins to have these two at the same time is pretty amazing. It is a crime that they will never win anything with the Twins because of our front office's ineptness and blatant refusal to give them a chance in the postseason.

One way or the other, Smith has to get his shit together and put some talent on this team. I would gladly take four or five years of mediocrity if it meant giving us a two or three year window to actually do some major damage in the postseason.

[GROG]

Preaching to the choir my friend

[DPJ]

Well I'm sure the Twins will only be wasting Morneau's prime in the end.

[Pseudofool]

I'm tired of this narrow-minded bitchy bullshit that comes out every year as we near the deadline. We arguably have the best lineup we've had in ten or more years; and nearly all those guys are homegrown. We have a young, inconsistent rotation but there's both talent and a past history of success for each pitcher, nearly all of them are homegrown. (As has been mentioned, the Soriano trade we didn't make a couple years ago, looks quite good now.) The team is 2.5 out, despite two horrible recent losses. And neither competitor has yet to make a move (well, Chisox did get Tony Pena!). There's still a week left, and than waiver-wire August as well. Statfreaking on July 23rd just makes you look like a rube.

The time to be adding key pieces around Mauer and Morneua isn't the deadline; it's probably in the offseason--if you're looking for acquisitions at the deadline, they should be affordable role players that we won't have to shell both cash in prospects for.

I mean who do you want Freddy Sanchez? Does that change the context of "wasting Mauer and Morneau in their primes" by anything other than minimal amount. Short of acquiring Halladay, there's no move that's going to change the context of the team.

[FrodaddyG]

I mean who do you want Freddy Sanchez? Does that change the context of "wasting Mauer and Morneau in their primes" by anything other than minimal amount. Short of acquiring Halladay, there's no move that's going to change the context of the team.

Would it really take a groundbreaking move to noticeably upgrade the middle infield, or now third if Buscher's going to be seeing the lion's share of ABs there? Even getting league average production there would be a pretty big step forward for the team's competitiveness.

[Pseudofool]

I mean who do you want Freddy Sanchez? Does that change the context of "wasting Mauer and Morneau in their primes" by anything other than minimal amount. Short of acquiring Halladay, there's no move that's going to change the context of the team.

Would it really take a groundbreaking move to noticeably upgrade the middle infield, or now third if Buscher's going to be seeing the lion's share of ABs there? Even getting league average production there would be a pretty big step forward for the team's competitiveness.

Grudzy could be that option, but maybe not. We've been connected to OCab, and I wouldn't be thrilled w/him beyond that he's just so mcuh better than in house options; so I'll give BS the week, and probably some of August to get it addressed. The conversation changes some in a week, but even if nothing more happens I'm not going to get on the M&M-are-wasted band-wagon. I still think we end up wining the division, even w/o a trade.

[howeda7]

I don't think BS is a terrible GM and I don't think the Pohlads are terrible owners (anymore.) But I think they might be a bad combination. The Twins always say they will spend 52% of revenue on payroll and to my knowledge have approved going over that whenever they've been asked (they've rarely been asked.)

But it honestly seems like BS and to an extent Jerry Ryan are afraid to even approach the 'salary cap' let alone go over it. Jim Pohlad is not Mark Cuban, he's never going to tell the GM to spend money. The GM has to be willing to just go out and do it. I certainly hope that with the additional revenue coming in they will quit treating FA's like they are the plague and actually address a hole when they have one instead waiting and hoping to fall into a cheaper Crede-like solution.

[argentrans37]

I'm tired of this narrow-minded bitchy bullshit that comes out every year as we near the deadline. We arguably have the best lineup we've had in ten or more years; and nearly all those guys are homegrown. We have a young, inconsistent rotation but there's both talent and a past history of success for each pitcher, nearly all of them are homegrown. (As has been mentioned, the Soriano trade we didn't make a couple years ago, looks quite good now.) The team is 2.5 out, despite two horrible recent losses. And neither competitor has yet to make a move (well, Chisox did get Tony Pena!). There's still a week left, and than waiver-wire August as well. Statfreaking on July 23rd just makes you look like a rube.

The time to be adding key pieces around Mauer and Morneua isn't the deadline; it's probably in the offseason--if you're looking for acquisitions at the deadline, they should be affordable role players that we won't have to shell both cash in prospects for.

I mean who do you want Freddy Sanchez? Does that change the context of "wasting Mauer and Morneau in their primes" by anything other than minimal amount. Short of acquiring Halladay, there's no move that's going to change the context of the team.

Bingo bango. Deadline deals make sense for the Yankees and Red Sox, they have the money to eat a $10-million contract, and the loss of prospects doesn't hurt them either when they can just buy new ones. The simple fact of the matter is, we don't bring in that much money, so we have to do business in an entirely different way. If you don't like it, buy a ticket.

[username]

I'm tired of this narrow-minded bitchy bullshit that comes out every year as we near the deadline. We arguably have the best lineup we've had in ten or more years; and nearly all those guys are homegrown. We have a young, inconsistent rotation but there's both talent and a past history of success for each pitcher, nearly all of them are homegrown. (As has been mentioned, the Soriano trade we didn't make a couple years ago, looks quite good now.) The team is 2.5 out, despite two horrible recent losses. And neither competitor has yet to make a move (well, Chisox did get Tony Pena!). There's still a week left, and than waiver-wire August as well. Statfreaking on July 23rd just makes you look like a rube.

The time to be adding key pieces around Mauer and Morneua isn't the deadline; it's probably in the offseason--if you're looking for acquisitions at the deadline, they should be affordable role players that we won't have to shell both cash in prospects for.

I mean who do you want Freddy Sanchez? Does that change the context of "wasting Mauer and Morneau in their primes" by anything other than minimal amount. Short of acquiring Halladay, there's no move that's going to change the context of the team.

Bingo bango. Deadline deals make sense for the Yankees and Red Sox, they have the money to eat a $10-million contract, and the loss of prospects doesn't hurt them either when they can just buy new ones. The simple fact of the matter is, we don't bring in that much money, so we have to do business in an entirely different way. If you don't like it, buy a ticket.

i'm pretty sure everyone on this forum realizes that we can't throw money around like the Yankees. but there's no justification for a lot of the blunders that this FO makes. they signed punto to a contract that probably could have landed either bobby abreu or miguel sano. they wait until the last fucking second to trade our best assets (santana, hunter, silva, and eventually mauer). they invariably bring in low-risk/zero upside guys in lieu of taking a flyer on a high upside guy. the list goes on and on.

[snepp]

they invariably bring in low-risk/zero upside guys in lieu of taking a flyer on a high upside guy.

High upside guys either strike out too much, walk too many, or like to sleep with multiple women. That's simply not acceptable.

[Pseudofool]

they invariably bring in low-risk/zero upside guys in lieu of taking a flyer on a high upside guy.

High upside guys

Snark aside, there are no affordable high upside guys. It shouldn't be any conundrum why the Twins don't acquire them regularly.

[username]

they invariably bring in low-risk/zero upside guys in lieu of taking a flyer on a high upside guy.

High upside guys

Snark aside, there are no affordable high upside guys. It shouldn't be any conundrum why the Twins don't acquire them regularly.

sure there are. well, at least relative to the shit they haul in every offseason. i'm not even talking about guys like baldelli or saito. but what about someone like dallas mcpherson? i think young international players should be in this category as well.

[Pseudofool]

but what about someone like dallas mcpherson?

[jewscott]

Snark aside, there are no affordable high upside guys. It shouldn't be any conundrum why the Twins don't acquire them regularly.

Everyone knows that making cheap trades like the Tigers did for Edwin Jackson never work out, doncha know. It's much better to bring in all that VP with the Livan Hernandezes and Ramon Ortizes of the world. Hundreds of poorly-pitched innings have their value, you know.

Insert insidious Pseduofool rant that scores high points on the homerism scale in three...two...one...

[VodkaDave]

but what about someone like dallas mcpherson?

I would be all for giving Dallas McPherson a shot.

Two Words: Garrett Jones X2

[howeda7]

McPherson couldn't beat out the Marlins version of 2011 Twins' Opening Day Second Baseman Nick Punto. Best-case scenario, he's a butcher with the glove which would mean he'd either lose AB's directly to LNP, or at the least that Brendan Harris would not be allowed to play SS with him on the left side, leading him permenently to the bench since he also can't play 2nd. Even if Crede's out for the year, there are worse 3B solutions then Placenta and/or Harrischer. The focus still needs to be on the middle infield. Best-case Crede-less line-up is Harrischer/Placenta at 3B, Orlando Cabrerror at SS and Grudzy at 2B with LNP as a super-sub 'only' starting 4 days a week or so.

[Pseudofool]

Snark aside, there are no affordable high upside guys. It shouldn't be any conundrum why the Twins don't acquire them regularly.

Everyone knows that making cheap trades like the Tigers did for Edwin Jackson never work out, doncha know. It's much better to bring in all that VP with the Livan Hernandezes and Ramon Ortizes of the world. Hundreds of poorly-pitched innings have their value, you know.

Insert insidious Pseduofool rant that scores high points on the homerism scale in three...two...one...

I like how you've framed the argument. Option A: Ramon Ortiz, Option B: Edwin Jackson. /hattip

[username]

Snark aside, there are no affordable high upside guys. It shouldn't be any conundrum why the Twins don't acquire them regularly.

Everyone knows that making cheap trades like the Tigers did for Edwin Jackson never work out, doncha know. It's much better to bring in all that VP with the Livan Hernandezes and Ramon Ortizes of the world. Hundreds of poorly-pitched innings have their value, you know.

Insert insidious Pseduofool rant that scores high points on the homerism scale in three...two...one...

I like how you've framed the argument. Option A: Ramon Ortiz, Option B: Edwin Jackson. /hattip

the point is that ramon ortiz signings will always produce complete shit. if only 10% of your edwin jackson-type signings pan out, then you're in fairly good shape. small market teams like the twins shouldn't foreclose avenues by which they may obtain top caliber talent which is precisely what you do when you spend your entire FA budget on livan/ortiz/ponson/punto.

[Pseudofool]

Everyone knows that making cheap trades like the Tigers did for Edwin Jackson never work out, doncha know. It's much better to bring in all that VP with the Livan Hernandezes and Ramon Ortizes of the world. Hundreds of poorly-pitched innings have their value, you know.

Insert insidious Pseduofool rant that scores high points on the homerism scale in three...two...one...

I like how you've framed the argument. Option A: Ramon Ortiz, Option B: Edwin Jackson. /hattip

the point is that ramon ortiz signings will always produce complete shit. if only 10% of your edwin jackson-type signings pan out, then you're in fairly good shape. small market teams like the twins shouldn't foreclose avenues by which they may obtain top caliber talent which is precisely what you do when you spend your entire FA budget on livan/ortiz/ponson/punto.

I just don't think there's a lot of high upside guys out there that are available cheaply. Sure, we can point to a few, but I'm not convinced the Twins are missing out on vein of talent because they signed Livan or Ortiz, and that's the disingenuous binary choice being peddled as an argument.

[jewscott]

Snark aside, there are no affordable high upside guys. It shouldn't be any conundrum why the Twins don't acquire them regularly.

Everyone knows that making cheap trades like the Tigers did for Edwin Jackson never work out, doncha know. It's much better to bring in all that VP with the Livan Hernandezes and Ramon Ortizes of the world. Hundreds of poorly-pitched innings have their value, you know.

Insert insidious Pseduofool rant that scores high points on the homerism scale in three...two...one...

I like how you've framed the argument. Option A: Ramon Ortiz, Option B: Edwin Jackson. /hattip

Edwin Jackson could very well have continued to be the mediocre pitcher he's been for years. For every one of them who finds his full potential, there's several who don't. But the worst case scenario was that he provided lots of the bad innings that you praised Ortiz and Hernandez for providing. The best case scenario was that he was 25, had great stuff and the potential for more. It didn't take more than a glance at Fangraphs to see Ortiz and Hernandez didn't have much left in their arms and a look at the statline to see that what was there wasn't working. The odds against one of them working out are a lot longer. Young players have a tendency to struggle at the begining of their career. The reward is that every now and then a Delmonto Youngmente or a Señor Excitemento gets it when they're 25-26-27.

When you can't go out and sign C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett, you have to take your chances with upside. Poo poohing the idea of Dallas McPherson outright seems a little shortsighted. He may be nothing more than the next Russ Branyan. But that can be useful (look at the year Russ Branyan is having after all). Signing a Tony Batista and expecting him to magically drop 50 pounds and recapture his youth is a much longer shot. That you haven't gotten that point after three years of witnessing it firsthand is a little disconcerting.

[username]

@pseudo- well, i think you're underestimating the availability of cheap, high-upside talent. but even if you're right and the free agent pool is nothing but a barren wasteland of craig monroes, wouldn't you rather see 5mil spent on international signings (like sano, mateo, sanchez, etc.) than sidney ponson?

[jewscott]

I just don't think there's a lot of high upside guys out there that are available cheaply. Sure, we can point to a few, but I'm not convinced the Twins are missing out on vein of talent because they signed Livan or Ortiz, and that's the disingenuous binary choice being peddled as an argument.

It is out there though. And the homeristic argument that not just anyone can give you 100 bad innings the way an Ortiz or Hernandez can is a poor excuse to not dig for it. At least with Delmonto Youngmente, you can say there's hope...even if you don't really believe it's there.

[Pseudofool]

@pseudo- well, i think you're underestimating the availability of cheap, high-upside talent. but even if you're right and the free agent pool is nothing but a barren wasteland of craig monroes, wouldn't you rather see 5mil spent on international signings (like sano, mateo, sanchez, etc.) than sidney ponson?

No, I agree w/ your point on signing intl. guys; but it seems we might be moving in the right direction given the signings so far this summer.

[Pseudofool]

...Jackson: Good; Ortiz: Bad...

Look, if you don't get why those are poor choices to have genuine discussion; we're just going to have to move on. I mean you really can't be saying that signing Ortiz demonstrates the organizational wisdom that would have precluded them from trading for Jackson, can you?

It is out there though. And the homeristic argument that not just anyone can give you 100 bad innings the way an Ortiz or Hernandez can is a poor excuse to not dig for it. At least with Delmonto Youngmente, you can say there's hope...even if you don't really believe it's there.

Yeah, nothing like using arguments from two years ago to afix the homerism label. /salute

I think reliable mediocrity has value. You don't. I think everybody gets it.

[TheLeviathan]

Everyone knows that making cheap trades like the Tigers did for Edwin Jackson never work out, doncha know. It's much better to bring in all that VP with the Livan Hernandezes and Ramon Ortizes of the world. Hundreds of poorly-pitched innings have their value, you know.

Cheap in what sense? Yes, Edwin Jackson had upside when he was traded and certainly had more than Ramon Ortiz, but you're acting as if the Tigers gave up nothing at the time. They gave up Matt Joyce - a good fielder who had just got done posting an .831 OPS in his rookie season and was considered a pretty good prospect.

It met the Rays need at the time and was not a throwaway player. The problem when you suggest a name is that in order to hold Smith and the Twins at fault for not making a move - we had to have a comparable player to deal. Are you saying you wish we would've dealt Span for Jackson? Surely you're not suggesting they would have taken Young back? Gomez?

The sad thing is - the trade market is heavy on pitching when what we need is infield help. While I certainly would be an advocate of making a move for Halladay, we have more pressing concerns. Then again, Pittsburgh seems to have odd trade demands as they took very little for Laroche but are demanding Colorado, Chicago, and ourselves to pay a premium for Wilson or Sanchez.

I can't fault Smith if Pitt is being ridiculous. I will, however, fault them again this offseason if we let the Hudson's and DeRosa's slip away from us again in the name of draft picks.

[snepp]

I think reliable mediocrity has value.

So do the Twins, and they put it on display year after year.

[snepp]

I will, however, fault them again this offseason if we let the Hudson's and DeRosa's slip away from us again in the name of draft picks and lousy middle infielders.

fify

[Nick N.]

I think reliable mediocrity has value. You don't. I think everybody gets it.

Ortiz and Hernandez were neither reliable nor mediocre. They were awful.

[batista4goldglove]

I think reliable mediocrity has value. You don't. I think everybody gets it.

Ortiz and Hernandez were neither reliable nor mediocre. They were awful.

But they were very instrumental in teaching the younger pitchers.

[howeda7]

I think reliable mediocrity has value. You don't. I think everybody gets it.

Ortiz and Hernandez were neither reliable nor mediocre. They were awful.

While they negated some of his value by sticking with him too long, if you think having Livan during the first two months of 2008 when Baker and Slowey were both injured and Liriano was not ready was not valuable, you're being naive. If the Twins had not signed Livan, or someone at least as good, they would have finished more then 1 game out of first, that's for sure. That said, if they'd cut him and gotten Liriano in there 4 or 5 starts sooner they probably would have won the divion by 2-3 games.

As for Ortiz, he gave us 5 or 6 good starts and 5 or 6 bad starts during a period we needed him. After that, he was harmlessly in the bullpen and eventually traded for a decent prospect.

The only argument against either player was that we spent 'too much' on them. But as we can see, any savings from lower payrolls the last two years is not being re-invested anyway.

[jewscott]

I think reliable mediocrity has value. You don't. I think everybody gets it.

No. To win a division you're going to have to have some "reliable mediocrity." Unless you're Nostradamus, not every move is going to work out. The problem I have is limiting yourself to reliable mediocrity, and the reason why the organization is right now is because this is a big problem. It goes beyond Ortiz and Hernandez even. When you look at the problems with the pitching staff this year, the big problem has been that the goal has been to find the next Radke almost exclusively when finding young pitchers, instead of taking the risk that the hard-throwing kid could at least turn into the next LaTroy Hawkins if he doesn't become the next Johan Santana. This hasn't changed as corporate policy. When you take a look at the 2009 Twins draft crop, there's not a lot of upside to it outside of maybe Ben Tootle. The young Dominican shortstop we spent $700,000 was labeled "scrappy" and an "overachiever" by those who follow Dominican teenagers. Outside of Aaron Hicks, there isn't one prospect in the system who you can point to and say "That's a superstar in the making" right now. The best part is how pitchers like Shooter Hunt and Delois Guerra who come to the system with plus stuff get encouraged to tone down their mechanics and pitch to contact. If they don't, they get bad mouthed in the press by their managers and potentially run out of town the way Matt Garza was.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the problem with this team is that there's too many holes. Mauer and Nathan are great, Morneau is solidly above average and Cuddyer, Span, Kuddubel, Baker and Slowey aren't bad when they're healthy. Liriano, Gomez and Young have some upside to them. After that, you've got a lot of player who you're hoping play average baseball, and in any given year a percentage of them are going to fail you. Contending teams are going to have a lot more players solidly in the Cuddyer through Slowey group, and hopefully a starting pitcher who's better than that.

The real problem is that Bill Smith and the Twins brass seem to think like you. They need to be a little more creative if they're going to fix this problem on the fly. If they don't, we're going to be having the same debates until the current core of the team rots out and leaves us in the same position we were in 1998 all over again.

[USAFChief]

While they negated some of his value by sticking with him too long, if you think having Livan during the first two months of 2008 when Baker and Slowey were both injured and Liriano was not ready was not valuable, you're being naive. If the Twins had not signed Livan, or someone at least as good, they would have finished more then 1 game out of first, that's for sure. That said, if they'd cut him and gotten Liriano in there 4 or 5 starts sooner they probably would have won the divion by 2-3 games.

Spot on. I don't know about the 'won the division by 2-3 games' part, but the rest is spot on.

Urban myths die hard, I guess.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm tired of this narrow-minded bitchy bullshit that comes out every year as we near the deadline. We arguably have the best lineup we've had in ten or more years; and nearly all those guys are homegrown. We have a young, inconsistent rotation but there's both talent and a past history of success for each pitcher, nearly all of them are homegrown. (As has been mentioned, the Soriano trade we didn't make a couple years ago, looks quite good now.) The team is 2.5 out, despite two horrible recent losses. And neither competitor has yet to make a move (well, Chisox did get Tony Pena!). There's still a week left, and than waiver-wire August as well. Statfreaking on July 23rd just makes you look like a rube.

The time to be adding key pieces around Mauer and Morneua isn't the deadline; it's probably in the offseason--if you're looking for acquisitions at the deadline, they should be affordable role players that we won't have to shell both cash in prospects for.

I mean who do you want Freddy Sanchez? Does that change the context of "wasting Mauer and Morneau in their primes" by anything other than minimal amount. Short of acquiring Halladay, there's no move that's going to change the context of the team.

Bingo bango. Deadline deals make sense for the Yankees and Red Sox, they have the money to eat a $10-million contract, and the loss of prospects doesn't hurt them either when they can just buy new ones. The simple fact of the matter is, we don't bring in that much money, so we have to do business in an entirely different way. If you don't like it, buy a ticket.

i'm pretty sure everyone on this forum realizes that we can't throw money around like the Yankees. but there's no justification for a lot of the blunders that this FO makes. they signed punto to a contract that probably could have landed either bobby abreu or miguel sano. they wait until the last fucking second to trade our best assets (santana, hunter, silva, and eventually mauer). they invariably bring in low-risk/zero upside guys in lieu of taking a flyer on a high upside guy. the list goes on and on.

Not to be a nit picker (and I haven't read the rest of this thread), but All-Star third baseman Joe Crede is the definition of a high upside signing. There's no way this team is going to ink a guy like Texiera on the FA market. Crede is about as close as you can get to a high upside deal.

[Etspaceman]

I don't really get this argument.

Bill Smith should look to build a contending team around Mauer and Morneau, and he should do so by adding players with 'upside'.

In his first year, he makes two huge trades, in order to net players with tons of 'upside' (Gomez, Guerra, Young, Harris). This year, he signs the best 3B that this team has had since Koskie (granted, that isn't saying much, however, the point stands), and while it was a generally uneventful offseason, it does show that he is, at the very least, trying to solve the issues on the team with some of the better FA options on the current market. The only thing that I could see as a viable argument against Smith is his inability to sign Juan Cruz, but shy of that, you can't really yell at him for "not doing anything" to build a contending team.


Really, outside of Juan Cruz, what would you have done differently that would've built a contending team? You guys talk about it like it's as easy as it is for Punto to "pick it".

[VodkaDave]

can you please tell me when Harris had a ton of upside?

[Etspaceman]

can you please tell me when Harris had a ton of upside?

At the time, his bat had far more upside than Bartlett's, considering the power advantage.

[Pseudofool]

I think reliable mediocrity has value. You don't. I think everybody gets it.

No. To win a division you're going to have to have some "reliable mediocrity." Unless you're Nostradamus, not every move is going to work out. The problem I have is limiting yourself to reliable mediocrity, and the reason why the organization is right now is because this is a big problem. It goes beyond Ortiz and Hernandez even. When you look at the problems with the pitching staff this year, the big problem has been that the goal has been to find the next Radke almost exclusively when finding young pitchers, instead of taking the risk that the hard-throwing kid could at least turn into the next LaTroy Hawkins if he doesn't become the next Johan Santana. This hasn't changed as corporate policy. When you take a look at the 2009 Twins draft crop, there's not a lot of upside to it outside of maybe Ben Tootle. The young Dominican shortstop we spent $700,000 was labeled "scrappy" and an "overachiever" by those who follow Dominican teenagers. Outside of Aaron Hicks, there isn't one prospect in the system who you can point to and say "That's a superstar in the making" right now. The best part is how pitchers like Shooter Hunt and Delois Guerra who come to the system with plus stuff get encouraged to tone down their mechanics and pitch to contact. If they don't, they get bad mouthed in the press by their managers and potentially run out of town the way Matt Garza was.

Just a couple of broad observations. Nothing precludes the Twins from going after high-upside talent (Eric Munson! Ha.) if they acquire some reliable mediocrity. Part the reason the Twins acquire such mediocrity, I think, is the Twins often have a muhc higher upside guys waiting in the wings; and while you might not agree with the development curve of young players, it's hard to argue with the success the Twins have had with players who came up through our system. I get the frustration with not bring in enough high-upside guys through the draft and intl. signings, that's totally fair; the Twins are frustratingly risk-adverse. But when the Twins do draft high upside guys, they just haven't tended to work out recently, esp. on the pitching side. So we don't have much to show for it; I think that colors the notion of anti-upside-Twins.

As for Guerra, I understood his mechanics were changed to get more movement on his fastball (which evidently had none); I think that might help with missing bats. And you can't possible be insinuating it's the Twins philosophy of pitching to contact that's messed up Hunt's ability to throw over the plate. This is another example where you're mishandling examples to illuminate some great Twins conspiracy. In this case, you think the Twins conspire to shed the organization of power pitchers (by trade or making them all sinkerballers). Which is insane. I can accept the notion that the Twins may have messed with a few of their pitchers too much, and maybe traded Garza away hastily, but I just can't generalize that to the point where I believe Twins are adverse to superstar talent or will always mess it up.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the problem with this team is that there's too many holes. Mauer and Nathan are great, Morneau is solidly above average and Cuddyer, Span, Kuddubel, Baker and Slowey aren't bad when they're healthy. Liriano, Gomez and Young have some upside to them. After that, you've got a lot of player who you're hoping play average baseball, and in any given year a percentage of them are going to fail you. Contending teams are going to have a lot more players solidly in the Cuddyer through Slowey group, and hopefully a starting pitcher who's better than that.

Again, I just can't accept your rankings--they are totally colored by the argument you're about to make, and have none the objectivity of a 'rocket scientist.' Morneau solidly above average? Ha! The reality is the Twins are just a few reliably mediocre players from winning the Central; of course, getting some good players to fill in the middle infield and the bullpen would be better, but if we can simply plug a -20 Vorp hole with a 0 Vorp player, we have a significant net gain. The Twins chances in the playoffs totally relies on our pitchers ability to consistently find their stuff. Outside of trading for Halladay, I'm not sure what you expect of the Twins in this specific moment.

The real problem is that Bill Smith and the Twins brass seem to think like you. They need to be a little more creative if they're going to fix this problem on the fly. If they don't, we're going to be having the same debates until the current core of the team rots out and leaves us in the same position we were in 1998 all over again.

Who heck is against getting creative? I'm not. (Trading for Delmon was creative, afterall.) Again, I'm not really sure what you expect the Twins to do, outside of drafting more power arms and not mucking with their mechanics. It's fine and good to suggest the team get creative, but that's a moralized abstraction which isn't very compelling much less convincing.

[notoriousgod71]

Who cares about "reliably mediocre" players?

We need to acquire a few proven good players to complement the two great ones that we have. Otherwise we will remember their years here like we remember Garnett's years here.

[Pseudofool]

Who cares about "reliably mediocre" players?

We need to acquire a few proven good players to complement the two great ones that we have. Otherwise we will remember their years here like we remember Garnett's years here.

I think you guys are really being myopic about how you are viewing the rest of the team. Slowey, Baker, Kuddubel, Cuddyer, Span are better than 'not bad;' they are pretty fucking good, much better than many of the players who were in our core, say five years ago.

My point is that the team can compete by making some minimal upgrades right now (bullpen, 2ndbase); the longer term problems about bringing in more talent sounds like offseason stuff to me, and I tend to agree the Twins need to bring a premium player next offseason (preferably a starting pitcher).

[amjgt]

The Twins made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. For years, it was "small market" this and "low revenue" that, when they had to answer for not spending money or trading for top tier talent. And that was fine. We were fairly low revenue.

We were not the ones that in 2007 (when our payroll was at 70mil) told an interviewer that payroll was projected to go up to 80, then 90, then 100mil when we got the new stadium. That was Captain Billy Smith.

Since then, we've had had guys win MVPs and Batting Titles, we've signed some nice extensions for players and somehow our payroll managed to drop to 60 mil (not the 90mil B.S. projected in 2007).

Outside of Nathan, our entire pitching staff costs 6.5mil. 6.5 mil

Nobody is saying "get Halladay or I'm jumping ship", but some fans aren't as stupid as they seem to think we are.

Bill, for years you've been given a "low revenue" pass. Not any more, Bill. Not any more. You've got your revenue, now show us a glimmer of wanting to compete in the playoffs. Not compete FOR the playoffs. Compete IN the playoffs.

[Pseudofool]

If not Halladay, who did you have in mind; and what would you give up for them? I mean in theory, everyone is going to agree with what you said.

[notoriousgod71]

If not Halladay, who did you have in mind; and what would you give up for them? I mean in theory, everyone is going to agree with what you said.

Seriously what is wrong with getting Halladay? We certainly have pieces better than what Ricciardi offered the Mets.

Then in the offseason get another piece or two (without trading anyone). Eventually we're going to have to make a legitimate run at it or we're going to be sitting in mediocrity for the next decade anyway (or at least until Mauer leaves).

[Pseudofool]

If not Halladay, who did you have in mind; and what would you give up for them? I mean in theory, everyone is going to agree with what you said.

Seriously what is wrong with getting Halladay? We certainly have pieces better than what Ricciardi offered the Mets.

Then in the offseason get another piece or two (without trading anyone). Eventually we're going to have to make a legitimate run at it or we're going to be sitting in mediocrity for the next decade anyway (or at least until Mauer leaves).

I'm an advocate of getting Halladay; if we're going to spend in terms of prospects and money, I've always thought we should get a pitcher. Given that he wants to be somewhere quiet, it's possible he'd want to come here. And I don't buy the Mets rumor for one second. But, beyond Halladay, whom every team is chasing and face it, our farm isn't that deep, what other players should we be targeting that we aren't?

[amjgt]

If not Halladay, who did you have in mind; and what would you give up for them? I mean in theory, everyone is going to agree with what you said.

I'm not saying DON'T get Halladay, or even that I, personally, need to see The Glimmer within the next week, but I damn sure better see something before next March 1st.

[notoriousgod71]

If not Halladay, who did you have in mind; and what would you give up for them? I mean in theory, everyone is going to agree with what you said.

Seriously what is wrong with getting Halladay? We certainly have pieces better than what Ricciardi offered the Mets.

Then in the offseason get another piece or two (without trading anyone). Eventually we're going to have to make a legitimate run at it or we're going to be sitting in mediocrity for the next decade anyway (or at least until Mauer leaves).

I'm an advocate of getting Halladay; if we're going to spend in terms of prospects and money, I've always thought we should get a pitcher. Given that he wants to be somewhere quiet, it's possible he'd want to come here. And I don't buy the Mets rumor for one second. But, beyond Halladay, whom every team is chasing and face it, our farm isn't that deep, what other players should we be targeting that we aren't?

Halladay would obviously be the only guy at the deadline. All I am asking is for the Twins to add pieces on occasion instead of trading away our players and hoping that our prospects are more than fillers. There's absolutely nothing wrong with refusing to deal a guy you consider untouchable (like Mauer or Morneau or whoever when they were prospects) but when "Moon Shot" T. Scott Baker or Olympic Bronze Medalist Brian Duensing appear to be untouchable that is a bit ridiculous.

[snepp]

Seriously what is wrong with getting Halladay? We certainly have pieces better than what Ricciardi offered the Mets.

Ricciardi didn't offer anything, that was Heyman douchebag moment #7,522.

[username]

Because Halladay would definitely waive his NTC to be traded from the 5th worst team in the league to the 6th worst team in the league.

[FrodaddyG]

Because Halladay would definitely waive his NTC to be traded from the 5th worst team in the league to the 6th worst team in the league.

Yeah, because the difference between the team 11 1/2 back and the team 2 1/2 back in their respective divisions shows nothing of the immediate competitiveness or playoff chances of the teams.

[a-wan]

Let us all just rejoice at the fact the Twins aren't wasting Johan Santana too. We can thank the Mets for doing that.

[jewscott]

Cutting and pasting to address issues as I see fit.

The reality is the Twins are just a few reliably mediocre players from winning the Central; of course, getting some good players to fill in the middle infield and the bullpen would be better...The Twins chances in the playoffs totally relies on our pitchers ability to consistently find their stuff.

True. But winning the Central this year is like winning the Northern Arizona College Bowl Tournament. It simply earns you the right to get squashed in the next round by the team from Cal, UCLA or Stanford.

but if we can simply plug a -20 Vorp hole with a 0 Vorp player, we have a significant net gain.

Maybe. But is that net gain going to be enough to make you competitive against the Yankees? The Red Sox? The Devil Rays? Are you really happy shooting for 90 wins in a weak division? Do you not think this team could be something more?

Winning a weak division isn't really all that big of an accomplishment. That Tampa, Boston and New York have basically crushed us this year isn't really surprising. They each have their stars too. But where they one-up is is that they have a lot more in the middle tier that's right above "acceptable mediocrity."

Nothing precludes the Twins from going after high-upside talent (Eric Munson! Ha.) if they acquire some reliable mediocrity.

The problem is they haven't. Lest we forget it was the formerly freely available Jack Cust who cast the sinking stone on Monday. Ha!

And it's far better to have reliable mediocrity with upside than just plain-old reliable mediocrity.

Who heck is against getting creative? I'm not. (Trading for Delmon was creative, afterall.)

Trading a shortstop who had been average to slightly above average and a starter with promise for a corner outfielder with promise is "creative"? We have different definitions of the word, I guess.

quote]Morneau solidly above average? [/quote]

Wrong choice of words. But no one is going to deny that he's not Pujols. In most years, he won't even be Hyannisport Captain Nick Brophy. He's a very good first baseman. But he's not elite. In a best case scenario, he's the Hrbek to Mauer's Puckett.

And you can't possible be insinuating it's the Twins philosophy of pitching to contact that's messed up Hunt's ability to throw over the plate.

What else would you say it was? The Twins readily admit to monkeying with his mechanics in Instructional League. They admitted it in the BA Top Prospect Blurb.

[quote=BA]Weaknesses: Command has vexed Hunt since he became a full-time pitcher as a high school senior. He improved his strike-throwing ability in instructional league by moving his feet closer together, which aided in maintaining his load in his delivery and providing better balance. He lacks confidence and consistency with his changeup, but it does have potential.[/quote]

Suddenly in the Midwest League, Hunt's control gets worse and his fastball suddenly doesn't hit 90 on the gun consistently any more? Is this really coincidence? Do you really think it's coincidentally that when you slow down a pitcher's delivery, his velocity suffers from it? What effect did it have in say Fragile Frankie Liriano and his inability to sit 95 anymore?

Let's face simple facts, from Ryan Mills to present the Twins have shown a lack of fear in tampering with the way their young pitchers throw the ball. What role has that played in the number of pitchers who lose velocity in the system, would you say?

As for Guerra, I understood his mechanics were changed to get more movement on his fastball (which evidently had none); I think that might help with missing bats.

The same way Nick Blackburn and Carlos Silva miss bats? If Guerra's fastball is really straight at 95, does it meet the organizational needs to turn him into another potential back-end starter? Or is it better to let him continue along throwing gas knowing full well that in a worst case scenario LaTroy Hawkins was often accused of throwing a fastball as straight as a Montana Highway at 95 miles an hour, and boy would it be nice to have a guy like him setting up in the bullpen again? Do we really need to create a clone army of pitchers with underwhelming velocity?

Outside of trading for Halladay, I'm not sure what you expect of the Twins in this specific moment.

My first suggestion would be to stop thinking about the team in terms of "this specific moment" and start thinking long term. A Hallyday trade isn't really feasible, since the reason Toronto would do it now is to get a Haren package in return over a Santana one, and we don't have the potential impact player in Rochester or New Britain that they'll be looking for. Real answers aren't going to be that simplistic.

It's fine and good to suggest the team get creative, but that's a moralized abstraction which isn't very compelling much less convincing.

Fair enough.

Creative thinking is considering whether or not you should trade off say Nick Blackburn this offseason, knowing that his trade value will be superficially high, he's fairly replaceable in the long term scheme of things and he's the starter most likely to fall off a cliff in 2010

Creative thinking is do you throw up a white flag right now, knowing that there's not a lot to be had on the market right now and pieces like Cuddyer or Blackburn are at a premium because there aren't a lot of sellers on the market. It puts a crimp in 2009, but it might set you up for a better 2010. Again, Cuddyer has proven he can slug over .500 when he's healthy. But he's also been an injury risk through most of his career. Do you move him to try and solve two or more problems or take the risk of what the 2010 season may bring? What will Liriano bring in return for trade? Do you think you'd regret trading him long-term if he somehow finds his velocity again?

Given the state of the minor league system, there aren't a lot of answers there, and that's a big part of the problem. Second base seems the easiest to solve internally (if its not Casilla, it could be Tolleson or Hughes), but shortstop right now is Trevor Plouffe or bust and third base is Danny Placenta or bust. On top of which, there isn't really a power arm on any pitching staff outside of Morillo, who may or may not be usable.

How do you replace Perkins with a harder thrower with more upisde in the back of the rotation? How do you find your long term answers in the middle infield? What players can you give trade on the current roster who would A) bring value and B) won't affect the long-term outlook?

If you think that's a lot of tough questions, you're damn skippy. And I know I don't know the answer to most of them. But then again, the process of actually making a change requires asking a lot of questions and answering them as honestly impossible. Tackling actual analytical issues is a lot harder than bashing Statfreak, though, so you'll be forgiven if you just want to go back to being the smarmy Kevin Bacon character in our Animal House that you've become.