Fire Gardy

Mismanaging games since 2002


One of the posters on LEN3’s blog suggested that instead of trading Johan away we should trade for Eric Bedard.  He claimed that since the going rate was only an Adam Jones (not Pacman) type player. Great. Where are we going to get one of those first off. And secondly, if we had any elite hitting prospects, why would we want to surrender them to get a pitcher we won’t be able to afford in two years?  Yes, we would have a fearsome rotation headed by Santana and Bedard, but it is a very, very shortsighted idea that would hurt the team for years to come.  Some people are just plain dumb.

In other news it sounds like the twins have asked all parties involved in the Santana talks to make their final offer. These teams, of course, are the Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets.  There is a link on saying the Dodgers are creeping in. There isn’t really a source, so I don’t believe it.


8 Comments so far

  1. sirsean January 29th, 2008 10:39 am

    I wouldn’t put any stock in the ramblings on that bastion of Mets fans.

    1) He claims that the Twins are trying to get a third team involved for a multi-team deal. LEN3 asked the team about this yesterday, and they said “no.” 2) He claims the Dodgers are back in it. This would be the best thing in the world for the Twins, but it’s become apparent that it’s not happening. The Dodgers have shown no indication of being interested.

    Okay. I tried not to dignify the Bedard idea with a response. And I just couldn’t do it. Here goes:

    That’s idiotic. We’d have a stacked rotation this year, with three dominant lefties (although two of them have significant injury history). We’d also have an average offense, minus whatever MLB-ready player we’d have to give up to get Bedard. We’d also completely gut the farm system, leaving us impotent for the next 5 years. Santana leaves after this year. Bedard leaves after next year. In 2010, to open the stadium, we have one good pitcher, just a couple good position players, and a completely empty farm system.

    An idea like the is born in the minds of the impatient. He wants to win NOW, in 2008, and damn the torpedoes!!! But you have to look ahead, and if you do that, you’ll see the folly in this. I think it goes without saying that if this deal were to happen, this same guy would be the first person in line with torches and pitchforks outside the new stadium, demanding an explanation for why the team is so bad all of a sudden.

    And no, I don’t think adding Bedard suddenly puts us ahead of Detroit and Cleveland. A solid hitter (like Adam Jones, Matt Kemp, LaRoche, Melky, or someone else) MIGHT do it. But if there’s anything that 2007 taught us, it’s that pitching can’t do it alone.

  2. FunBobby January 29th, 2008 10:45 am

    Exactly. I now understand why you stopped reading the comments on the various Star Tribune blogs. Most of those people are idiots. Apparently LEN3 already banned two of them. I think the team would be more frustrating with Bedard. We would be unable to score and get solid pitching performances at least 3 out of 5 times, and finish around .500 at best.

  3. sirsean January 29th, 2008 11:13 am

    I cracked a little bit and went back to look at the comment section the day after I stopped reading it. It was a little gratifying to see everyone on there begging Joe C to ban the guys I was arguing with.

    But not quite gratifying enough to subject myself to that any more.

    Good point about being frustrating. But it would certainly be exciting to have the three best lefties in the game, and the three top strikeout artists in the AL right now. But that doesn’t make the team better.

  4. Grizz January 29th, 2008 2:51 pm

    I agree, it would be incredibly frustrating to have another year full of 2-1 losses. I think it has to be blamed partially on Gardy’s inabivilty to teach the fundamentals of moving runners over, and getting them in. The Twins have shown the ability to be an effective team while not having a powerful offense. I am convinced that this was just a hold-over from the Tom Kelly regime which stressed baserunning and the art of the sacrafice. By sacrafice I not only mean sacrafice flies and bunts, but also the 4-3 groundout with a runner on second and no outs. While this does not show up in the box score, it is in my opinion a better play than a sac bunt, because it has a half-decent chance of turning into an rbi single, while a bunt or fly ball have much smaller chances of that happening, if any. Over the past couple of years we have had higher power numbers and better averages from a few of our players(Morneau, Hunter, Cuddyer, Mauer), but have almost seemed to be less productive at scoring runs. Many of our 1 run innings over the past couple of years could have easily turned into a three or four run inning if we were more effective with our outs. Gardy needs to work on the fundamentals with the Twins and turn us back into the old Twins, who were one of the most fundamentally sound teams in the league(as evidenced with a solid record from a team with zero talent).

  5. sirsean January 29th, 2008 2:55 pm

    The team definitely doesn’t seem as fundamentally sound as it used to, and the guys on the team who are supposed to “move the runners over” (ie, the bad ones) aren’t getting that done.

    However, I don’t think that’s our biggest problem. The reason we had 3-4 run innings in the past was not because of sacrifices. (You can only have so many of those in an inning.)

    Rather, it was because guys were getting on base. Over and over again. And running around the bases.

    I wish I had a link for this, but one of the players complained about this during the last couple of years. He said something like: “The coaches here always say a walk is the worst thing in the world, and scream at our pitchers not to do it because they’ll give up runs. But then they don’t teach the hitters how to take a walk! Which is it?”

  6. Grizz January 29th, 2008 3:54 pm

    I agree that there are only so many sacrafices needed in an inning, i.e. one, but how many times do you remember last season when the Twins had runners on first and second with no outs, and they pop out, strike out, or hit into a double play. I don’t know exact numbers, but it felt like a lot. Those type of results absolutely kill a potentially great inning, and give pitchers the upperhand for the next AB. If we could have our terrible players who make outs anyway at least make productive ones it could allow our less terrible players to drive in runs and give us a big inning. Ideally, I would like to have a team that could give consistently good ABs, but when you don’t have even close to 9 guys who can do that, you have to make adjustments. National League teams have generally been great at this, due to the fact they always have someone hitting ninth who swings a bat like Punto. I am not saying that every inning that starts with runners at first and second will be a 3-4 run inning, but it has the potential. The sad thing is, it seems like when (insert terrible player’s name here) comes up to bat in any kind of situation like that, they try to hit a home run. That happens so rarely for most of our team, it is just an absolute waste of an out.

  7. sirsean January 29th, 2008 4:04 pm

    True, that did happen a lot.

    And Punto was swinging for the fences all season. That’s why he had so many easy fly balls to left. He was hitting it as hard as he could. (Ouch.)

    Point taken on the productive outs. We definitely need them. It would of course be BETTER to have 9 guys who could actually hit … but since we don’t, the bottom half of the lineup is going to have start manufacturing.

  8. Grizz January 29th, 2008 5:56 pm

    Yeah, the future strategy of the team shouldn’t surround playing small ball, but when you suck in the present, you have to be able to get that done to at least have a chance

Leave a reply