What If the Twins Were Like the Yankees?

I mean in a spending-tons-of-money way, not in an evil-empire way. Although, if old adage is true and money is the root of all evil, I'm not sure a team can spend tons of money and not be evil. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the Twins can spend and spend and still remain lovable.

So, if the Twins could spend a ton, how would I like the team to change? I mean other than offering Joe Mauer a "fill in the blanks with whatever money and years you want" contract.

Oh, and if you're looking for in-depth, stats-filled analysis of what really might be on Bill Smith's mind, you should know by now that you're visiting the wrong blog. And if you are looking for that kind of stuff, you should know by now which blogs to visit. These are just who I think would be super cool to have. And chances are pretty good that the reason I like a certain guy is that I like to look at him as much as I think he's a good player.

Ok, so first of all, where do we need help? Catcher and first-base are set and totally untouchable. DH is pretty well set too. And I'm even willing to leave short and 3rd as is.

So, what's left? 2nd, outfield, relief pitching, and starting pitching (not all starting pitching, just one).

Second-Base
Am I willing to give up on Casilla/Tolbert? Yup. They're both young and showing it. So maybe another year in the minors or a change of scenery might be beneficial.

Who do I really want? Ian Kinsler of the Rangers. Simply put, he's good. However, I'm pretty sure the Rangers want to keep him even more than I want to steal him. I'm also pretty sure it would cost nearly all our decent prospects to get him. And since the Rangers are still in contention in the West, they're not likely to trade him to anybody for any price.

What's reasonable? I've read plenty of rumors about the Twins being interested in Freddy Sanchez of the Pirates. I know that he just turned down a contract extension, so it's probable that he'll be traded. Other than that, I don't really know much else about him. That's because he's a Pirate, and I don't know anything about the Pirates. In fact I don't think I can name five Pirates -- hmm...Sanchez, and LaRoche (which is cheating because there are two of them), and.... Nope that's it. Wait...I almost forgot former Twin Garrett Jones -- how could I forget Garrett Jones? Other than that, that's all I can name. And the Twins played them this year.

Outfield
Who am I giving up? Delmon, and maybe even Go-Go (though I'd rather keep him). Again, they're both young and might do better in a different system -- especially Young.

Who do I really want? Matt Holliday of the A's. He's good and he's trade bait. Everyone knew when the A's acquired him, they'd trade him at the deadline if they were out of contention. And they are. I really expect them to move him for prospects.

What's really going to happen? While there is a tiny chance that the Twins might move one of their surplus outfielders, it's pretty unlikely that they'll add another one. Chances are that they'll do nothing in this department. Which would be ok.

Relief Pitching
Who's gone? Anyone but Nathan. Well Matt Guerrier can stay too. (Did you know that he's tied for the league lead in holds? He is.) Anyone else is fair game, mainly since it's been such a revolving door in the bull pen and I haven't really grown attached to any of them.

Who do I really want? Huston Street of the Rockies. Pretty much because he's cute. But he's also having a great year. But chances are that the Rockies won't move him; he's their closer, so he's pretty valuable.

What's reasonable? I've read that the Twins are interested in some pitchers in the Blue Jay bull pen. I don't remember their names, and I don't remember where I read it, so I won't bother to look it up. It probably won't happen anyway.

Starting Pitching
Who am I giving up? Liriano. I am probably one of about four people in Twins Territory who believes that Liriano is not as good as his hype. In fact, I kind of have a feeling that 2006 was more fluke than talent. And the Tommy John surgery just made things worse.

Who do I really want? Roy Halladay of the Blue Jays, duh! He's the best, and there's no doubt he will be traded. He'd be expensive though -- Johan Santana expensive.

What's reasonable? Well, doing nothing. I haven't heard a single whisper of a rumor of the Twins touching the starting rotation. They believe in Liriano and all the other starters. Only a (baseball gods forbid) serious injury would change that.

So that's it for my baseball shopping list. And yes, I do realize that my dream team would have players named Holliday and Halladay. That wouldn't confuse Dick'n'Bert or John'n'Dazzle in the least.

An Off-Day Ramble in Defense of Baseball and Blogging

Fair warning: I'm on my soap box and about to throw out some controversy. I'll return to my regularly scheduled nonsense next time.

I was listening to the Play Ball podcast that went online 6/17, and it got me thinking. They interviewed Christine Brennan, a columnist from USA Today, for about 30 minutes, and it was fantastic. She talked about her dad, Title IX, our need to support women's pro sports, covering the Olympics, discrimination in golf, and other issues.

While I enjoyed the interview, and agreed with a vast majority of what she said, I'm going to exercise my right to respectfully disagree with her on two points.

She is quite adamant regarding re-instating softball into the Olympics, and I would love to see that as well. However, I have to disagree with her assessment that baseball does not belong in the Olympics. She claims that, because if its association with performance enhancing drugs, it should not be included. Here's a direct quote from her blog:

"Baseball deserved the ax mostly due to a word you've probably heard: steroids."

What a slap in the face to the clean guys worldwide who've participated! And while it's true that softball has a perfect record so far regarding testing, she seems to imply that the likelihood of steroid use follows gender lines. I don't buy it. And if we're going to throw out entire sports because of the sins of a few participants, then Track and Field needs a closer look. Those athletes, from both genders, have had their fair share of issues with PEDs. (To be clear, I am not implying at all that Track and Field be tossed from the Olympics; I am merely using it as an example.)

So enough on that topic. The other topic that got my undies in a bunch was a 3 minute (more or less) rant regarding blogging. Apparently, some blogger somewhere accused some athlete of using performance enhancing drugs. (I am aware of the blog post in question, but I didn't really read it carefully; I pretty much started reading it, rolled my eyes, and closed it. I don't want to address it specifically because it doesn't really matter.) I believe the main-stream media may have ran with the story, or at least linked to the blog, but I'm not entirely sure.

The bunching-undies part comes when she asserts that we should only read blogs from "legitimate, trained journalists" and that we should never pay attention to "a guy or woman in their pajamas in their basement." (Hey, that's me!) She goes on to say, "they can certainly have an opinion, but do we want to waste one moment of our time on earth reading those opinions?"

Wow. Now I admit that no one is going to confuse this blog with a "real" sports blog -- I consider myself more of a "sport fan experience" blogger -- so I don't think she was really talking about me and my peers. But there are plenty of "real" sports blogs out there that I do read and enjoy. Some of them are from trained journalists and some of them are not. However, though I don't exactly know the backgrounds and experiences of some of the "untrained" bloggers, many of them have established pretty credible reputations - I can tell they do their due diligence with research and analysis. I applaud them and will continue to read them. Being "untrained" does not equate to being "un-valuable."

While I agree that it's very dangerous territory for someone to throw out unfounded, unresearched, and unsourced accusations, especially with such an explosive subject as steroid use, I am willing to say that 99.9% of blog readers understand the difference between a credible source and an opinion. And to imply that I shouldn't waste my time reading them is akin to saying that I shouldn't waste my time chatting about sports with my co-workers around the water cooler.

I believe people watch sports for two reasons: to be entertained while the game is on, and to talk about it afterwards. Blogging is really a sophisticated way to have that water-cooler chat with more thought and a wider audience. If it's acceptable to say "I think so-and-so sucks" around the water cooler, it's perfectly acceptable to say it in your blog. If people don't like it, they'll stop reading.

The danger comes in that once opinions are out there, that bell can't be unrung. So the good ones look up the numbers, think things through, and choose their works carefully. The bad ones throw the spaghetti on the wall to see if it'll stick. As readers, it's our responsibility to keep our B.S. meters on and working. If we come across something that's just there to get attention, or worse, outright wrong, we should just ignore it. And it's the main-stream media's responsibility to choose links to blogs with the same care they use for writing their own stories.

So, those are the opinions of a girl who's usually in her sweats in her basement saying whatever she feels like on her blog. And I hope no one takes it too seriously.

I want to re-iterate that I thought Ms. Brennan's interview was terrific. She really had some thought-provoking opinions.

I also want to heap tons of praise on the Play Ball podcast. It is "ESPN's podcast by women, for women and the men who want to understand their women better," and it is a blast to listen to. Amanda and Melissa conduct great interviews, talk sports with intelligence, and have a bunch of fun. I listen to it every week. You should too.

Get Away Day Blues

Saturday (1) Twins 12 - O's 2
Saturday (2) Twins 12 - O's 6
Sunday Twins 3 - O's 7

Twins take series 2-1

Another opportunity to sweep a team we should sweep, and another loss. As I was marching around the house and grumbling about the game, Dick-n-Bert were talking about the upcoming Cleveland series. Which got me thinking that it seems like they lose a lot of games where they have to head out to another city after they're done (known as "Get Away" days).

So I decided I'd figure it out to see if I was right. I've got nothing else to do between loads of laundry on a rainy, crappy Sunday afternoon.

First of all, I define Get Aways as games when the team travels right after them. And, I've read/heard from the newspaper and radio/TV guys that they travel right after the game even if the following day is an off-day, so I counted those too.

Here's what I came up with:



Ouch. It's worse than I thought.

So what's up with that? Are they too busy thinking of their next series to concentrate on their current game? Are they worrying if they forgot to pack their iPods? Are they suffering a collective bout of agoraphobia? Who knows?

The good news is that there are only two Get Away days left in the regular season (well, three if you count the last day of the season, which we may have to do if they need to play a tie-breaker). The bad news is that if they should happen to make the playoffs, Get Away days happen like every other game. They really, really, really need to reverse this trend if they make the playoffs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, adding to the feeling of someone sneezing in our face, it looks like the Bad Guys are going to win both their games today, putting the Good Guys 1 1/2 games back. Ick.

[Edit] I, currently, at this moment, ♥ Marcus Thames for tying the White Sox - Tigers game with a fat grand slam. It's a whole new ball game. Go Tigers!

[Edit 2] Scratch that. Dewayne Wise just hit a fat grand slam to go ahead again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

High-Five Goes To... Carlos Zambrano for tossing a no-hitter against the Houston Astros. Oddly, he did it in Milwaukee (thanks to Ike), so it must have felt more like a home game even though the Cubs were the visiting team.

Discombobulated Blogging

I have a lot on my mind today. Much stuff to say and many goings-on. And the game is on. So, I'm going to write things as they come to me, possibly flitting all over the place. Call this post a result of my inner butterfly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bert just circled three fans wearing baker's hats. Amusing. I instantly like those guys.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, it's the non-waiver trade deadline. I should welcome the new guys.

Taa Daa...Welcome.....Hey! Where did the new guys go? What? There are no new guys? We didn't make any trades? At all? Shocker.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Crappola. Baker just gave up a two-run dinger to Thome. And he's not locating very well. Maybe those hats aren't so funny after all. Settle down Scotty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Twins,
Remember before this series started, I asked nicely for a split or better? Please don't feel like you have to limit yourselves to the split -- go ahead and aim for the series win. K? NOW! Thanks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WAKE-UP, BATS! (seriously, mere seconds after I typed this, Justin kissed his 3-run tater.)

(trying it again for luck) WAKE-UP, BATS! (didn't work)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That was a HORRIBLE call!!! HORRIBLE!!!

But, I am NOT proud of the fans who are throwing stuff on the field. C'mon. Not Cool. Waaaay Not Cool. Embarrassing. Even more so because D-Span wound up walking so it was all pointless.

Now I notice that the strike zone got really big for the Twins hitters. Hmm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Woot. Thanks to Joey, it's a whole new ball game. My-Oh-My, I loves me my Jason Kubel (well, right this second, anyways).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Looks like Juan Uribe got his face into A.J.'s leftover Preference by L'Oreal Dream Blonde.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*ahem* Matt, get a stinking out, will you? Before you blow the lead!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and the final score: Twins 10 - White Sox 6. Sweet!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

k-bro's kwazy logic (this is long, and maybe a tad opinionated -- you've been warned):

Daymonster over at Alright Hamilton! posted an entry that has been making a buzz all over the blogosphere. Lines were drawn; pots were stirred; goats were got; ires were upped. All very interesting debate.

You'll see that I was the first commenter on the post. While I still stand by what I said at the time, I admit it was written a bit "in the heat of the moment". I would like to elaborate on my view.

First, let me outline my understanding of Day's point:

• Most Twins blogs (and their commenters) can be categorized into one of two groups (stats-centric and not stats-centric).
• He likes blogs from both groups.
• He believes that there is a underlying conflict between the two groups. Namely, he feels that the second group is accusing the first group of too much negativity and is questioning their Twins "fanness" because of said negativity.

I admit that I agree with him on all three of these points. I, too, have noticed a dichotomy between types blogs, but I've been oblivious to any true conflict between them until, well, his post. And I acknowledge that negativity isn't welcomed in many of the second group's blogs.

Just to be clear, I consider this blog part of the second group (admittedly, not as well done as the ones he mentions), but not with his definition. And that's what's got my ire up. While he says that he enjoys both groups of blogs, it's clear by the words, and the tone, he chose to describe them with, he doesn't respect the second group as much as the first.

When describing the first group, he uses intelligent, and even complimentary terms. He makes them out to be the Good Guys. However, notice the language he uses to describe the second group. Sounds like a shallow, bitchy, dumb bunch, doesn't it? And I don't think it's a coincedence that there is a clear gender line between his examples. The irony is that I personally would take the second group's assessment of the team based on instinct and observation over the first group's assessment based on stats and analysis. A balance of both techniques paints the most accurate picture.

Also, while a certain amount of negativity has its place when talking about sports (passion, good and bad, makes good fans), it's not necessarily appropriate in a blog meant to be fun. I myself have enough negativity in my everyday life; I don't need it in my hobby. And there are levels of negativity. Stating "Gomez has been struggling lately and might do better batting ninth," is a whole different attitude than stating over and over "Nick Punto sucks!" (whether or not he's actually struggling). One wonders if the folks who lean toward the extreme negativity are more fans of complaining than of baseball.

Funny, all this because he had a difference of opinion with one person's blog.

And finally, I'm going to subscribe to Lipgloss & Baseball's new slogan -- Have Boobs, Will Blog.

Yes! Yes! Oh! Yes!

Twins 7 - Tigers 6

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Oh! Yes! Yes! Oh! Yes! (Sorry if I'm being a little too much "I'll have what she's having" here, but that was exciting.)

---

I'm so giddy right now that I don't know where to start. First, a thousand apologies to Boof for all the awful, rotten things that I screamed at the TV during the first. But I have a big shout out to his intestinal fortitude for settling down, not giving up, and pitching very well the next five innings. And a hat-tip to the batters for also not giving up and scraping together hits and runs (and taking advantage of a little luck) to make this a big, big win. And to think, I almost turn the TV off; I'm really glad I didn't.

---

SWEEEEEP! Time for a broom. And a good broom too (no measly large paintbrush here). In fact, a special platinum-handled, blinged-out broom because they swept a good hitting team, in a regular three-game series, and had to work really hard to earn it.

---

The Twins are first in the division. The Twins are first in the division. Not the Tigers. Not the Indians. The Twins are first in the division. Yipee!

---

k-bro's kwazy logic: As I'm writing this, I'm watching the Mets / D-backs game. Johan is pitching, and he's doing all right, but not spectacular. At the moment, he has four wild pitches. Four! He's never done that before. He does have a bunch of strikeouts, but the pitches that aren't in the dirt are up in the zone. Now here's the kwazy logic part - could it be his catcher? I really think that Joey or Mike would have saved at least three of those wild pitches. And after the first couple wilds, maybe Johan didn't trust the catcher to handle the changeup anymore. Who knows, but maybe great pitchers can attribute some of their success to their catchers, and maybe the Twins are really fortunate to have two of the best.

---

And finally, the "Gee, I Hope They Make It To The Game On Time" moment of the day: I was running errands this morning, and on my way home I happened upon a school bus that was stranded at an intersection and a bunch of kids milling about on the sidewalk. As I got closer, I notice the kids all had Twins shirts on and were carrying signs. Aw man! They're on their way to the Twins game. I hope they got another bus and were able to go. More importantly, I hope they stayed for the whole thing.

---

Blog Note: No blogging the rest of this week. I'll be at a conference in Vancouver. If I happen to run into Mr. and Mrs. Morneau, I'll be sure to say "hi".