All-Star Issues

On Sunday afternoon the 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star rosters were released, which brings up the yearly exercise of complaining about guys who made the roster but shouldn’t have, guys who didn’t make the roster but should have, one team having too many players, etc. It gave me an opportunity to bemoan the fact that pitching wins are incredibly useless, but still used as a barometer for success and play way too big of a factor in determining things like All-Star roster spots (which would explain why Nick Blackburn wasn’t even considered for the team). However, today I’m going with a different approach. I have a couple of issues with the MLB All-Star game format and festivities that I want to get off my chest.

ISSUE #1
I am not the first, nor will I be the last, to have a problem with the Mid-Summer Classic, but the problems need to be voiced as often as possible until they get it figured out at least a little bit. The main issue I have is that Major League Baseball is the only professional sports league that doesn’t view its all-star game as an exhibition. Every other league uses this game as a way to showcase their best players (or 5th best players in the NFL’s Pro Bowl) in an entertaining, fan-friendly format. Not baseball.

First, let’s start with the fact that the rosters aren’t even made up of the best players from each league. Oh sure, they want you to believe that they are, but that’s definitely not the case thanks to the rule that every team has to be represented. Why? If your team is so bad that not one player is deserving of a spot on a 30 man roster of the best players from your league, then so be it Maybe this will cause more outrage among fans to pressure their owner to spend more money or for MLB to impose a much needed salary cap. Sure, this could lead to a team of 15 Yankees and 15 Red Sox, (again, a salary cap issue) but if those are the best players in the league, then they should be the ones playing in the game.

The “every team gets a guy” rule is like the “every player has to play 3 innings” rule in Little League, only the latter one makes sense because you’re talking about small children, not (supposedly) the best players on the planet. This rule is why you can start a sentence “Former All-Star Ron Coomer…” and have it be factual, rather than sarcastic like it should be.


That's MR. Former All-Star to you, buddy

Is Major League Baseball really that naïve as to think that fans in Atlanta are only watching the All-Star Game because they’ll get a chance to see Brian McCaan get one at bat in the 6th inning, only to be replaced by a pinch runner? C’mon.

As I said before, this exhibition is, by definition, supposed to be an entertaining showcase of the best of the best from your sport. It should look more like the NHL and NBA all-star games, which usually feature tons of highlight reel plays and little or no defense. This game should always finish with a score like 17-14, not 3-2. Of course that kind of thing would never happen because Bud Selig’s brain trust decided that it would be a great idea to make the game “count” and give the winner home field advantage in the World Series. Yes, how your league fairs in this game could determine whether or not you win the ultimate title in the sport. Brilliant.

As it stands now, you hurt the game with this rule on so many levels. First, you’re giving fans the opportunity to alter the final outcome of your sport: if they vote in terrible players, that league loses home field, which is HUGE in baseball. Second, you make being the All-Star Game manager the least enviable position, when it should be considered an honor. With so much on the line, those guys are under a ton of scrutiny. Did they overuse some team’s star pitcher? Did they play someone out of position and cause an injury or shake their confidence? Manager of an all-star game should be an honorary title, and not an actual job.


Not it to be the AL All-Star Manager

So how do we fix all of this? Pretty easily, actually. First, get rid of the rule that every team needs to be represented. You can still have fan voting determine the starters, though. They may not get it right all of the time, but this game is supposed to be for them, so let them watch who they want. Then you still have the managers and players decide who should fill in the rest of the roster spots. The second thing you do is have home field advantage in the World Series go to the team with the best overall record at the end of the year. I know this may sound shocking, but it’s actually a good idea to reward a team for being the best over a 162 game season. Those two very simple changes would make the game twice as good instantly.

ISSUE #2
Ok, so admittedly this isn’t as big of a deal as the problems with the actual game, but why isn’t there some sort of skills competition during the all-star break? I know, I know: there’s the Home Run Derby, possibly the most hyped skill competition this side of the Slam Dunk Contest. But should there be more? Aren’t you trying to showcase all of the talented players in your sport? What about the guys who don’t hit for a ton of power (or those who don’t hit at all)? Where is their chance to show off?


It doesn't look like much, but at least he gets a chance to show off his skills

In the NHL and NBA, they have a day where all different types of players have a chance to show the world what they do best. Hockey has events like fastest skater, hardest slapshot, shoot accuracy, and so on. The NBA has contests for point guards skills, three-point shooting, and the aforementioned dunking ability. Why not have a skills competition on the Monday of the All-Star Break (yes, MLB, you can even televise it and make money)? You could have competitions for speed (fastest around the bases), pitching accuracy, outfield throwing accuracy, etc. and still cap it all of with the HR Derby. You can even make it open to all players, not just All-Stars. That way when Pittsburgh doesn’t get a player in the actual game, the organization can still take solace in the fact that Andrew McCutchen wins the title of fastest player in the league.

This all seems so simple to me. Can someone explain why any of these things are even issues still? Am I just that much more intelligent than the people running Major League Baseball? Figure it out.

Read More......

Don't Let the Doorknob Hit You...

Wednesday was the first day of free agency for both the NBA and NHL and—if you’re a regular reader of TK, you’ll be surprised where this is going—it was a very big day…for the Wild. Yes, even with my limited knowledge (and interest for that matter) of hockey I realized that Wednesday was a symbolic day in the transformation of the Team of 18,000.

For the first time in the franchise’s short history, there will be a new general manager and coach for the Minnesota Wild. Add to that a new owner who has only owned the team for just over a year, and you have a complete regime change over at the Xcel Energy Center. However, the overhaul wasn’t fully complete until Wednesday. That’s when Marion Gaborik, the team’s last original member and the only superstar in franchise history, bolted to New York with a 5 year, $37.5 million deal.


There is a 90% chance that Gabby injured his groin on this play

At first I was a bit perturbed about the signing (not being a true fan, I couldn’t actually be angry or even mildly upset about it). I naively thought that we actually had a decent chance of retaining him. All of the reports I had read said that he had a problem with the way management had treated him, especially during his most recent injury. Well, with everyone who was once in power gone, I thought we could convince him to stay with the team that drafted him and buy into the new high octane offense that new GM Chuck Fletcher and Coach Todd Richards have promised.

But that was not to be. As soon as it was legally possibly, Gabby got on his horse and got the eff out of dodge. The hastiness with which he signed, along with the price rubbed me the wrong way. Here was the franchise leader in just about every offensive category bolting town for $7.5 million per, when less than a year ago he turned down the Wild’s offer of 10 years, $78.5 million (that’s $7.85 million per for the math majors out there).

Well you know what? We don’t need ya.

No rebuilding project is complete without completely gutting everything and everyone (just ask the Wolves). That includes oft-injured (he played in only 207 games in his Wild career, while missing 121), overrated (frustration), whiny ass wingers. It’s time for a change and we don’t need that kind of attitude on our squad or in our clubhouse. Besides, we’ve got Pierre Marc-Bouchard, Mikko Koivu (and likely his brother Saku soon), Josh Harding, and newly signed Martin Havlat to lead the charge into the new era of Wild hockey.


It's the dawn of a new era in the State of Hockey

So, as the old saying goes, don’t let the doorknob hit you on the ass on your way out, Marian (isn’t that a girl’s name anyways?).

Read More......

What Now?

It’s been almost a week since the NBA draft. In that time, I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around everything that went down and, to be honest, I (like many others) am still thoroughly confused with the Timberwolves picks. Coming into the night, I was extremely optimistic and downright giddy. We had rid ourselves of the perceived cancer and draft destroyer, Kevin McHale. We had six picks to infuse talent into a completely overhauled roster and take a giant step in the makeover that new VP of Basketball Operations David Kahn had promised. Then, in the course of about two hours, I went from optimistic to…well, I don’t know what I feel. Some combination of shocked, confused, disappointed, and angry.

The biggest reason for optimism started at the top of the draft. The Wolves held two of the top six picks in the draft. Depending on how picks 2-4 played out (with Griffin the obvious #1), we were going to have a lot of options to possibly rebuild our now nonexistent backcourt. I know everyone was saying that this was one of the weaker draft classes in recent history, but you have to like your team’s odds when they have picks five and 6—unless your team is the Minnesota Timberwolves.

In true Minnesota fashion, the draft could not have unfolded worse prior to our picks. In my personal best case scenario, the Wolves would have been able to select Tyreke Evans and their choice of point guard from Jonny Flynn, Ty Lawson, Jrue Holiday, etc. I figured that even in the worst case scenario we’d be able to take one of those guards with James Harden and at least fill a need. But then, in the bat of an eye, Thabeet, Harden, and Evans were all gone and the Wolves were left standing with a horde of point guards available—and not much else. The best available player was Ricky Rubio. Despite my personal concerns about the hype surrounding him, the pick made sense (although I had no idea just how much he didn’t want to play here).


Minnesota's first superstar since KG or yet another draft blunder?

Sitting on the clock at 6, I had to assume we were in multiple trade talks. Whether it was to trade Rubio, whom many teams coveted, and take a different point guard, or to trade the 6 pick, I assumed we were making a deal. I was wrong. The Wolves went with Jonny Flynn, the point guard out of Syracuse. We had just taken two point guards with top 6 picks. Everyone in the house, on the radio, on ESPN, hell, just everyone was confused. Surely a trade was coming now.

Then Mr. Kahn got on the radio and told all of the Timberwolves faithful (both of them) that we were in fact keeping both players. He saw Flynn as more of a scoring guard with Rubio being the orchestra conductor and believed they would fit in and play together nicely. All of that is well and good except for the fact that our new “scoring” guard is 5’11”. I thought this had to all be smoke while he worked out a deal. You know, not giving away anything while the details were still being worked out. Yet here we are a week later and nothing has happened.


Great pick, but is he a "scoring" guard?

Well, I shouldn’t say nothing has happened. We have learned that young Mr. Rubio wants absolutely nothing to do with this state or this franchise. Awesome. The first correct, promising, talented draft pick we’ve had since Kevin Garnett thinks it’s too cold in Minnesota (someone’s been talking to Stephon Marbury apparently). Now the rumors are flying around: he’s going to stay in Spain for at least 1-2 more years, he’s going to sign with a team in Turkey, he’s going to get traded, and so on. Well, this sucks. I mean, if we have to trade him, then so be it; just as long as we get equal value for him. That doesn’t seem likely to happen as the only team rumored to be talking to the Wolves are the New York Knicks. The deal I hear most often has David Lee and Nate Robinson coming here (possibly with a pick) for Ricky. Um, no thanks. We already have a 5’11” shooting guard, we don’t need a 5’7” point guard (Robinson). I, like most Minnesota fans, assume that this is going to end badly.

Let’s not focus on the negative anymore. There was some good that came from the 2009 Draft. With the 18th overall pick, the Wolves selected Ty Lawson from North Carolina. And before everyone could get too worried about us drafting a third point guard, we quickly traded him to Denver for a first round draft pick in 2010 (originally belonging to Charlotte). This really didn’t strike me as a great move until I read Kahn’s open letter to the fans in the next day’s paper. In his page long rant, he explained that the team didn’t really see anyone they liked at that spot, especially not anyone they wanted to give guaranteed money to, so they shopped and eventually traded the pick to continue to stock up for the future. I loved the honesty in that statement, and it restored a little bit of hope in me that Kahn might actually have a small clue what he is doing.


Ellington couldn't have fallen into a better situation

With our fourth and final pick in the first round, the Wolves selected Wayne Ellington, also of North Carolina fame. I like this pick. He has a very good chance to be a solid NBA player—most likely a role player (shooter), but a good player nonetheless—even if I am wary of UNC players after the Rashad McCants Experiment. The second round went off in fairly uneventful fashion. We selected Nick Calathes out of Florida (a player I really like), and then promptly traded him to Dallas. Then we took one of Rubio’s teammates from Spain (a guy named Henk), who will probably never see a minute of NBA action.

So where do we go from here? Unfortunately, that question will go unanswered for some time. Until the Rubio situation gets settled, it’s tough to grade out the Wolves draft. We did get two solid players (Flynn and Ellington), as well as a 2010 first round pick, along with saving some money. I know people don’t want to hear this now, but stockpiling for next year’s draft isn’t the worst idea. As of right now, we are very likely to have three first round picks once again, with two second rounders again. Now I can’t promise we’ll do anything good with those picks, but many NBA experts are predicting that the ’10 draft class will be one of the better ones of late (depending on underclassmen that come out, obviously). When you’re a team in major rebuilding mode like the Timberwolves, potentially stocking up on young talent is the best way to try and contend once again.

As far as Rubio goes, I’m going to stay optimistic. If you’ll recall, two years ago Yi Jianlian from China did not want to play for Milwaukee. Then the two sides sat down, talked it out rationally, and negotiated a deal (Sure, he was traded a year later, but that's beside the point). I’m not sold on the two point guard system, but I’ll take our chances and hope that at least one of them turns out to be a legit pro. That said, this story is definitely “To Be Continued…”

Read More......

6-18-28-45-47

If you are familiar with the television show Lost, you know that there is a series of numbers (4-8-15-16-23-42) that continually show up in various situations that seem to hold the key to all of the craziness that happens on and around that island. Similarly, there are a series of numbers that hold the key to the future of the Minnesota Timberwolves: 6-18-28-45-47. These are the five draft picks that the Wolves currently hold for Thursday’s NBA Draft.


5 picks in this year's draft could be the beginning of a new regime

As a team that has missed the playoffs for four consecutive years (a streak likely to continue for at least one more season), has only 2 consistent assets (Love and Jefferson), and has been quickly losing its fan base, the 2009 draft is easily the most important draft in the history of the franchise thus far. Five picks in one draft can bring in a wealth of talent to a ballclub, especially when three of those are first rounders. What follows is a breakdown of potential picks at each of the five positions we currently hold. Obviously this is extremely subject to change, as it seems incredibly unlikely that the Wolves will hold on to all five.

The Wolves first selection is the 6th overall pick in the draft. Obviously this is the most important one, as it is likely to involve the most talented, NBA-ready player of the five picks. There has been much discussion lately about whether the team will try to move up in the draft, or sit tight at 6. Rumors surrounding this pick have been rampant: Al Jeff and the 6 for Amare Stoudemire (terrible idea), Kevin Love and the 6 for the 2 pick (awful), and so on. Rather than try to guess what kind of wheeling and dealing new VP David Kahn will do, let’s break down some of the players who might be available.


Not only the Best Available, but possibly just The Best

In a perfect world, UCONN’s Hasheem Thabeet would fall into the Wolves’ lap at 6. He is the perfect shot-blocking, defensive-minded compliment to Jefferson. Plus, there is a wealth of guards available in this draft, and the Wolves could theoretically use their next two picks on guards to compliment Corey Brewer, Randy Foye, and company. Of course, we don’t live in a perfect world, so barring a trade, this will never happen. If I had my choice of guys who are likely to be available at 6, I’d take Tyreke Evans out of Memphis. A 6-5 shooting guard who can absolutely fill it up is exactly the kind of player the Wolves need (and have never had). Unfortunately, his stock seems to be rising quickly, and it is likely that he’ll be gone by the time we pick (or worse, we’ll pass over him for someone else).


The 6th pick in the draft, or will he be gone?

There are three players who have been slotted to the Wolves in various mock drafts more than any others leading up to Thursday night: James Harden (Arizona State), Demar DeRozen (USC), and Stephen Curry (Davidson). Personally, I want nothing to do with any of them. Harden was a streaky player (at best) at ASU and a lack of work ethic is something that follows you to any level you play at, and won’t cut it in the League. DeRozen is a poor man’s OJ Mayo who, after being the consensus #1 high school player in the country, showed very little of that brilliance as a freshman for the Trojans. USC is notorious for developing shoot-first, stat-driven guards (Mayo, Harold Miner, etc.) who do very little to improve NBA teams. Everyone sucks Curry’s Popsicle because of all the hype he and ESPN created. Yes, he had a great tournament two years ago. Yes, he’s a fantastic college shooter. However, can he handle the rock in the League? Can he create his own shot? Can he play a lick of defense? I don’t have an answer for those very important questions, which is why I’m very wary of him and would not be ecstatic if the Wolves took him at 6. Two other names to look for in this spot: Ty Lawson (UNC)—a poor man’s Ray Felton, who would be a ridiculous reach here, and Jonny Flynn (Syracuse)—in my opinion, a tough PG with a lot of potential; risk-reward type pick.

The 18 pick is far more subjective and far less easy to project. Whereas with the 6 pick, you know that you’ll be getting one of the top ten prospects, 18 is much more difficult to predict. As you start to move through the middle of the draft, there are many surprises that shake everything up. A team might really covet a player and draft him 5 or 6 spots earlier than he was projected, thus changing the way the following teams will pick. There are many more trades in this area of the draft as well. All of this leads to quite a bit of uncertainty about the Wolves second first-round pick.


A sight hopefully coming to Target Center soon

The other contributing factor is the 6 pick. The guy drafted there will greatly affect who gets taken at 18 (and for the rest of the picks as well). For instance, if the Wolves move up and grab a guy like Thabeet, then 18 HAS to be a guard, preferably of the point variety. If they take Evans at 6, then 18 is a bit of a crap shoot. You could still go after a talented point guard if one that you like falls to you. You could also go after a hybrid 3 guard such as Austin Daye (Gonzaga), Earl Clark (Louisville), or Sam Young (Pittsburgh). It would also make sense to look at any potential centers in this situation as well. Of course if we take BJ Mullens (Ohio St.) here, a McHale-like move, I will set my hair on fire. Then again, if you take a point with the 6, then 18 should be a big man, unless you like one of the aforementioned swing guards.

Personally, I’d like to see us take Evans at 6, and then go after a guy like Young at 18. I feel like there will be some quality point guards available at the end of the first round (more on that in a second), and you have your scorer, plus a project, risk-reward type talent at the 3, just in case Brewer turns out to be a bust (likely). Sure, that means that you don’t get the big man that you covet/need, but you can always look at free agency or a trade (such at the rumored Mike Miller for Chris Kaman or Marcus Camby deal).

Much like the 18 pick, 28 also depends a lot on what moves other teams make, who falls to you, and what positions/players you have already drafted. There can be gems found in the latter part of the first round if you scout well enough, especially overseas. Though it’s highly unlikely that the Wolves hold on to both 18 and 28, we’ll look at some possibilities with this pick, just for argument’s sake.


NBL--Natural Born Leader

It is my belief that the Timberwolves should wait until the end of the first round (this pick) to go after a point guard. I know that guys like Lawson and Flynn are projected to go much higher, but I think there is talent available in this position, and there isn’t that much of a drop off in talent from those higher picks. The two guys I especially like that are projected to be available at 28 are Darren Collison (UCLA) and Patty Mills (St. Mary’s). Collison has been a leader and distributor on the last few UCLA teams, which have had a great deal of success. He has always seemed to understand exactly what the role of a point guard is—distribute the ball to your teammates in spaces where they can create/score, and occasionally keep the defense honest by taking it to the tin or hitting an open jump shot. He just strikes me as a natural leader who would fit perfectly with the other pieces of the puzzle we are trying to put together.

Mills, on the other hand, is a bit of an unknown commodity. First of all, he played at a school that does not get a lot of national media hype. Second, he injured his wrist and missed a large portion of the season last year. Nevertheless, from the times I have seen him, he looks like a natural scorer with an incredible touch from the outside. To me, he is a better, less heralded version of Steph Curry (who got more love than he deserved based on his dad and one tournament run). I’m not completely sold on his ability to run a team (which is why I like Collison better), but he’d be a great value pick at 28.

There is one other scenario for many teams picking at the end of the first round/beginning of the second: drafting a player from overseas and “stashing” him away for a couple years. There are some incredibly talented players over in Europe that could come in and contribute on an NBA team right away. Unfortunately, many of them are locked into unbreakable contracts for the next few years. They can, however, be drafted and have a team own their rights once they are able to sign. Many teams, especially those with cap problems, love this idea. They get a prospect that probably is just as likely to pan out as any college kid they could take, but they don’t have to pay any money until a couple years later. Under the McHale regime, this would be an absolute certainty to happen with the 28th pick this year. Now that most of the Country Club is gone, though, no one can be sure what will happen.

The second round of the NBA draft is a complete crapshoot. Not only to players taken in the second round rarely make a significant impact on teams, most of them won’t even make it out of training camp. The more intelligent and successful franchises use these picks to take a chance on an established college player who has already proven himself at that level. Teams like the Wolves usually use these picks to continue to take chances on “project” guys that have a very low probability of working out.


A guy that does this to Duke can play for the Wolves any day

If we still have picks 45 and 47 late Thursday night, I’d like to see us go after a couple of guys with established college careers. Preferably, it would be one post and one guard. Here are some guys that I like that are projected to be available at this point in the draft:
Danny Green—6’6” SF (North Carolina)
Dante Cunningham—6’8” SF (Villanova)
Jeff Adrien—6’7” PF (UCONN)
Curtis Jerrells—6’1” PG (Baylor)
Nick Calethes—6’5” G (Florida)

As I patiently wait for Thursday night (even I, a hardcore baseball fan, crave some variety in my sports watching during this time of year), I will constantly be listening to KFAN and reading all of the various sports, and especially basketball-heavy, websites to see if the Wolves have brokered some kind of deal to move up early in the draft, package pick together to move up in the middle of the draft, or made some other sort of deal with members of the current team: there’s nothing sports fans like more than speculation and rumors.

I’ll leave you with my Best Case draft list and my Worst Case draft list (assuming we keep and use all five picks):

Best Case Scenario: 6—Tyreke Evans, 18—Sam Young, 28—Darren Collison, 45—Curtis Jerrells, 47—Danny Green

Worst Case Scenario: 6—James Harden, 18—BJ Mullens, 28—European, 45—Jerel McNeal, 47—Wesley Matthews

***UPDATE: The Wolves have reportedly traded Randy Foye and Mike Miller to Washington for the 5th pick, Etan Thomas, Darius Songaila, and Oleksiy Pecherov (who?). My guess? We'll trade either the 5 or 6 pick, packaged with the 18 pick, to move up to #2 and grab Thabeet. Oh, and at least two, if not all three, of the throw in players will be cut. Regardless, this definitely solidifies my belief that this draft will make or break our franchise for the next 10 years.

Read More......

Things Ron Gardenhire and I Don't Agree On

For a very long time my baseball philosophy has clashed drastically with that of Twins manager Ron Gardenhire. His idea of how to use the players on my favorite team is very different than my idea (which matters a lot seeing as he’s the one with the job and I’m the one blogging about it). Some of these things have been mentioned on this site before, but I wanted to get everything into one list to finally air all of my grievances about the way the Twins are managed on a day to day basis.

1. Gardenhire’s love affair with Nick Punto.


Someone's getting a BIG hug in the dugout...

My dislike for Punto is well documented, so I won’t go into too much detail here. I just don’t understand how you can consistently put a player on the field that hits .200 and is average defensively night in and night out. It’s gotten to the point where I get physically angry when I see the man now.

2. The Lefty vs. Lefty thing.


Guaranteed this was off of a righty

Hey, I get it. Hitters fair much better when they face a pitcher of the opposite hand. But when you constantly alter your lineup when facing a left-handed pitcher, you do three things to hurt the team. One, you take some of your better hitters out of the game. Two, you hurt the confidence of the younger players. Three, you stunt the growth/maturation of your hitters. How is a left-handed hitter supposed to get any better against left-handed pitching when he’s never allowed to face it? Do you ever wonder why it has taken so long for Kubel to finally start to live up to the hype he got in the minors (other than the obvious knee injuries)? Or why our record against lefty pitchers is so terrible? Or why opposing teams can completely shut us down late in ballgames? It all comes back to the fear of allowing our left-handed hitters to consistently get at-bats against their southpaw brethren.

3. His late inning use of starting pitchers.


It's ok Bake--I would have taken you out sooner

I firmly believe there is no manager in the league who is worse at deciding when to pull his starting pitcher than Ron Gardenhire. Did you know (sponsored by Sports Center circa 2007) that the Twins have the 3rd longest active streak without a complete game from their starter? It’s almost as if Gardy has absolutely no feel for how well/poorly a guy is pitching. The only time he’ll let someone try to finish a game is when they have a shutout going. Blackburn could have given up 2 first inning runs and been lights out the rest of the game, but he’s coming out in the 8th (if not sooner) to give way to our vaunted bullpen. Conversely, Baker could be laboring through 8 innings, but if he hasn’t given up a run, Gardy will send him out there to get shelled in the 9th. For a guy who’s been in and around baseball as much as Ron has, you’d think at some point he’d develop a sense for how his starter is throwing that isn’t based on pitch count or runs given up.

4. His apparent ignorance of fielding statistics.


You gotta keep a glove like this in the lineup

Nick Punto’s fielding percentage this year is .971—good for 15th among American League shortstops who’ve played at least 15 games at the position. His Range Factor (putouts + assists/innings) is 4.39—that would be 13th among AL shortstops with at least 15 games. His Zone Rating (number of plays made/number of balls hit into his zone—compared to the average among all players for a plus/minus number) was 5.629—that puts him at 16th among all AL SS’s with at least 15 games played. Keep in mind that there are 14 teams in the American League…

5. The use/overuse of our bullpen.


The MOST common sight at Twins games for the last 3 years

Pat Neshek was really good—until he pitched every other day, blew his arm out, and has been out for two years. Matt Guerrier pitched in 149 games over the last two seasons and is currently the league leader in appearances for 2009. Jesse Crain, despite having an 8.51 ERA and allowing 11.2 hits per 9 innings, has appeared in 23 games this year. Luis Ayala has a 1.432 WHIP and a 10.7 H/9, yet he’s been in 26 games this year. The latter three guys are all in the top 20 for appearances this year (as is Joe Nathan).

6. His consistency (or lack thereof) of playing younger guys.


I don't care how far that ball goes, you're not playing tomorrow

Typical Gardy formula: call up a guy from the minors (usually a utility infielder), start him on his first day with the team, bat him second, bench him for the next week (other than pinch hitting or running) regardless of his performance, and send him back down. And people wonder why our prospects haven’t been panning out for the last number of years.

7. He finds Nick Punto attractive.


This is actually framed and hanging in Gardy's office

I mean, that’s the only way to explain his playing time, right?

8. His batting orders.


This is a far more common sight when he's hitting second in the order

For the last few years, Gardy has insisted on batting one of our 6 utility infielders in the 2 hole. He has decided that placing a .240 hitter in the middle of the few guys who actually hit well consistently is a great idea. I know this may come as a shock, but it has not worked. I realize that we have a number of light-hitting (to put it nicely) players most days, but I’d rather have them all get out in a row than have one of them kill any kind of rally that our best hitters could generate. Never has this been more obvious than this year. For a bulk of the year, Span, Mauer, Morneau, and Kubel have been hitting at least .300 (with Cuddyer close behind). And guess when we were hitting our best and having our most success of this young season? When they batted in that exact order. When it was happening, I was both amazed and confused. Could it be that Gardy had finally figured it out? Of course not. He reverted back to his old ways just a couple of weeks later and now, surprise, we’re struggling to hit consistently again.

9. His love of utility infielders.


There's nothing better than a light hitting infielder

The following is the list of infielders who have played for the Minnesota Twins since 2007 (2 + years) not named Justin Morneau: Alexi Casilla, Nick Punto, Brendan Harris, Joe Crede, Matt Tolbert, Brian Buscher, Mike Lamb, Adam Everett, Michael Cuddyer, Randy Ruiz, Matt Macri, Howie Clark, Luis Castillo, Jason Bartlett, Jason Tyner, Luis Rodriguez, Garrett Jones, Tommy Watkins, Josh Rabe, and Matt LeCroy. That’s 21 guys for four positions in a little over 2 years. Cool.

10. He thinks Nick Punto is good at baseball.


I am so tired of seeing this...

Read More......

NBA Notes

Ok, so with TK 2.0 starting up at the very end of the NBA season, there isn’t a whole ton of topics to cover that aren’t already covered by more mainstream media outlets. However, as I sit here watching Game 2 of the NBA Finals, I realized that I do have a few takes on some smaller League-related topics. So I give to you “Random Thoughts About Basketball—Mostly From The National Basketball Association Finals Playoffs Series, But Also Including Other Players Who Have Already Been Eliminated From Contention” (which is way too long, hence the shortened title above).

*Game 2 of the Finals is two days after Game 1, which is completely and utterly ridiculous. Everyone knows that the NBA Playoffs drag on and on, but the one smart thing they’ve done in recent years is to team ESPN and TNT together to bring us at least one game every single night from the beginning of the first round through the end of the Conference Finals. Then the Finals come around and we have two full days in between games when the teams aren’t traveling? Do they really think this is a good idea? I know that the company line will be that they want the highest level of basketball being played on its most important stage, so they want everyone rested and in peak physical condition for each game. But that line of thinking is extremely flawed for two very important reasons: first, your league is based on fans and television ratings. After giving the people “40 Games in 40 Nights” leading up to the Finals, you give them “(Maximum) 7 Games in 40 Nights” for what is supposed to be the most important part of your year.



That’s a great way to lose viewers in a hurry if I’ve ever seen one. A perfect example of this came earlier today. I was talking to Fuzz about Lakers-Magic and he wanted to know who won the night before. I explained that they were playing tonight (Sunday), not yesterday (Saturday). His immediate response was, “Oh, Game 3 is tonight?” This from a guy who is a very dialed in and informed sports fan. He, like most others I assume, was floored at the idea that two days of rest were needed between games with no travel involved.
The second reason why this makes no sense is because you have conditioned the players throughout the playoffs that the only days off they get is on a travel day (singular) and in between series.



Now for the crown jewel of your sport, the schedule changes completely and you expect them to benefit from this? Athletes thrive on things like rhythm and adrenaline. How are you supposed to get into any kind of rhythm or build any momentum when no one can even remember what happened in the previous game because it took place so long ago? The NBA needs to stop believing that they have to show games in prime time on Sunday (which could still have easily happened had they played Game 2 on Friday and then Game 3 on Sunday—you know, like the playoff schedule has been until now). It’s things like this that are causing the League to become less and less popular.



*One of the most talked about subplots (which tend to get focused on more than the actual games at this point in the year) is how this year’s Finals will define Kobe Bryant’s legacy. It is said that he needs to win a ring without Shaq in order to vault him into elite company as far as NBA history goes. This seems completely irrational to me. Just because he’s not playing with a Hall of Fame counterpart shouldn’t affect his perceived legacy one way or another. If anything, this current Lakers team might be more balanced because they aren’t so reliant on two guys to do absolutely everything. Not to mention that no teams with the Finals with one amazing player and virtually nothing else: Jordan had Pippen, Duncan had Robinson and later Parker/Ginobili, Magic had Kareem/Worthy etc., Bird had Parrish/McHale, LeBron has…well I guess that kind of proves the point. Would a title bolster Kobe’s resume? Of course it would. But would not winning one without Shaq tarnish his legacy? Definitely not. At the very least, Kobe will have 3 rings and 6 Finals appearances at the age of 30. That in itself should define how great of a player he is, not who has or has not won with.



*On a quick and semi-related note, has there ever been a more overrated player than Dwight Howard? I get it, he’s funny, likeable, and looks like a cartoon character with his massive arms and tiny head. But the guy can basically do two things—block shots and dunk. Please don’t try to sell me on the fact that he’s one of the top superstars in the League.



*On the other hand, everyone knows that LeBron James is possibly the most uniquely gifted basketball player of all time. He has the fame and scrutiny that naturally goes along with it as well. But could his whole “storming” off the court at the end of the Eastern Conference Finals been more overblown? I read articles stating that he forever tarnished his reputation and set a poor example for sportsmanship for children all over the country. Since when did pretending to be happy about losing get confused with sportsmanship? Kevin Garnett used the F word 789 times on live television during the Bulls-Celtics series (in which he did not play) and no one said a word about him ruining his reputation or setting a bad example. If you ask me, that’s much worse than what LeBron did (especially the times he would yell at guys like Ben Gordon as the game was going down—as illustrated below).



Look, I’m not saying that what James did was right, but it’s also not the end of the world that the sports media would have you believe. The kid (he is only 24 years old after all) made a mistake—by all accounts the first one he’s made in his career. People need to quit making news on unimportant issues.



*Speaking of the media hype machine, much was made earlier this week about the possible return of Jameer Nelson to the Orlando Magic after being hurt for most of the second half of the season. I get that this is a big story given that they were pretty big underdogs and getting back your All-Star point guard could help in winning a title. The problem I have is that I never saw an article anywhere about how this could be a very bad idea. I mean, even a network like ESPN, which thrives on contrasting viewpoints (see: Around the Horn, PTI, First Take, Cold Pizza (is that even on the air still?), and any NBA/MLB/NHL/NFL/NASCAR/Golf/Soccer segment on Sports Center) never went with the “Jameer Nelson will mess up the momentum that Orlando has gained throughout this playoff run” angle? Very disappointing.



*There will be an NBA Draft article coming in the next couple weeks. It will be mostly focused on the Wolves, but will include a Mock Draft—just in case you cared.

Read More......

Twins Roundtable

If there’s one thing that will forever be true about the founding members of TK on Toast, it’s that we love to talk/argue about the Twins. The Hometown 9 causes more excitement and frustration simultaneously than any of the other local franchises. This has never been more evident than with the 2009 version of Gardy’s boys. So I figured there was no better way to start TK 2.0 than with an old school Twins roundtable. You know the drill: the members of this exclusive club all took this fabulous Friday off to meet at an undisclosed location where whiskey, Budweiser, and Grizzly flowed freely throughout the smoked filled room. What follows is the transcript of the conversation.

Fuzz: The Twins had 20 hits yesterday and Punto was 0-5. Wow, I can't defend him anymore. He couldn’t get a hit in a slow pitch softball game right now. By the way, how bad is that Bartlett/Garza for Delmon Young trade? Holy shit that is bad right now. Bartlett is third in the whole damn league in average right now at .379 and Garza has a 3.4 ERA with four wins. I know Delmon has been gone on personal leave but he has a total of two extra base hits, and having another arm like Garza would be really nice about now.


A sickening sight for the Twins faithful

Dogg: We got Harris as well in that trade, and he will be our every day SS soon if Gardy pulls his head out and will hit .280+--just as good as Bartlett will end up.

Nic: Look, Garza needed a fresh start, but why the hell we included Bartlett and Garza in the deal instead of insisting on Blackburn or Perkins is beyond me.

Dogg: True, we haven't had a good SS here forever and he had played well enough to not trade him.

Fuzz: Bartlett is still a better fielder and hitter than Harris. Bartlett will come down from the .379 but he's still better. He also has more range. At the time, I wasn't that pissed but I'm also not a GM or a talent evaluator and Billy Boy Smith deserves to get ripped for this trade. It has turned out awful for us. The Santana trade is different in the sense that only a few teams could sign him with his salary and they were semi forced, but it's still a god awful trade. That youngen pitcher better be the f-ing deal or we just traded one of the best left handed pitchers in the last 30 years for a "poo-poo platter," copyright Bill Simmons. So far, Billy Boy is 0-2 on the trade shit. Besides Crede he hasn't brought in anyone worth dick either. Needless to say, I'm not too happy with the Bill Smith era right now.

Dogg: Blame Gardy for not knowing exactly what we have in Harris….


Should this man be the starting SS?

Fuzz: Fine, I blame Gardy. I blame them all! I'm so fucking pissed off at our organization right now, I can't stand it. We're so bleeping cheap all the god damn time.

How does a Span, Hunter, and Cuddyer outfield sound with a Crede, Bartlett, Casilla/Punto, Morneau and Mauer infield? I'll throw in Kubes for our DH for shits & giggles. Want to get a hit on us? How about a Santana, Garza, Baker, Liriano and pick from one: Slowey, Blackburn and Perkins rotation? Throw the two odd men out in the pen with Nathan and copyright Nate Williams....let's fucking roll!!!!!!Fuck us!

Dogg: Wow, I’ve never looked at it like that but your team listed there is unreal….F our organization is right!!!

Nic: First, if we would have just kept Johan Santana last year we would have made the playoffs. He still would have walked last winter, but we would be receiving 2 first round draft picks for him. Obviously, it’s easy to see it now but that scenario would have been better.Second, what fantasy land is Fuzz living in where we could have the team he threw out there. If we would have kept Hunter and Santana, there's 0 chance we sign Crede. Because those two players would have eaten up 30% of the payroll, we would have had a hard time extending Mauer and Morneau the first time and we definitely could not afford to keep them after their current deals are up.

Also, Span was a bust until something clicked last year. I'm not advocating that Bill Smith is doing even an average job; I'm just saying we made the right call on Hunter and Santana would have been tough to keep.

Finally, every small market team could play that game. What if the Royals were able to keep Carlos Beltran, Jermaine Dye, and Johnny Damon? They would be the team to beat in the central. What if the A's could have afforded to keep Tim Hudson, Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, and Eric Chavez? They would have been the team to beat for several seasons earlier this decade. This could go on and on with more teams.


Imagine the possibilities...

Fuzz: I guess I'm in "fantasy land." If your case is that we couldn't sign Crede if we had Hunter and Santana....big f*cking deal! Yes, he has 6 bombs but he's only batting .220. I could live with TKOT's boy Buscher there. I could live with that.

In Carl Pohlad's history, you're right, that team could never happen. But, if he would have looked at Ziggy Wilf and how he spends money like a drunken Irishman, we could have had that team. He never once went above & beyond with his own money. He always stayed right around where they needed to be to break even. He wanted to contract our asses! If he would have took a risk before he passed away (RIP), and said, "Screw it, lock up Hunter, Santana, Mauer & Morneau" and we didn't do that Young trade, that's the team we would have had. Yes, that's a fantasy land thought, and would have never happened but he had all the money in the world to do SOMETHING like that one time in his tenure as the Twins owner. And, he never did!!!!!!!!!! One roll of the dice like that and we would have been the favorite right now to win the Series. Our scouts/talent evaluators/Terry Ryan found the talent we needed to win a world series. We didn't have a lack of talent. It was up to Pohlad to keep that talent and make a run. He never did it that cheap bastard!

Q: Ok, so I've been quiet long enough--a few points:

1) Punto sucks. I've been saying it for years. His crow-hopping, looping throws from short make me want to vomit and he's once again hitting below the Punto Line this year.

2) Mauer hits a Granny and 2 doubles with 6 RBI yesterday. Guess where he was hitting in the lineup? That's right--2 hole. Amazing. What are the odds that he's still at that spot tonight? Effin Gardy.

3) Fuzz, I know you're an angry man these days (see Wolves, Timber and Twins, Minnesota), but your rants are extremely off base right now. Hunter had no desire to stay here--he even said so in the media. Santana was quieter in the media, but his agent made it very clear that he had little desire to be here as well. And if you think Garza wasn't leaving the second he became a free agent, you're kidding yourself.

Bartlett's range is very average, though it is much better than Punto/Harris/Tolbert. Also, everyone always complained that we never make a trade or that we have too much pitching and should trade for some hitting (specifically right-handed power). Well that's exactly what we did. Delmon was coming off of a rookie year where he hit .300 with 20 bombs at the age of 21. Was it a roll of the dice? Absolutely. Did it work out for us? Not at all. I think we became too accustomed to TR ripping everyone off for years and so we have one bad trade and everyone bitches about it.

Lastly, when you're an owner of a professional sports team, you have to treat it like a business, even if the fans don't like it. Otherwise you end up in a major hole where you have to do something like sell the team and risk them being moved. With the lack of money the Twins have coming in (no private network like the big market teams have, low merchandise sales, horrible stadium, etc.), there's no way you can even offer Hunter 20 mil a year and Santana 30 mil a year--you would absolutely hemorrhage money. I too bitch about this way too often myself, but when you step back and look at it, I think we've done a pretty good job of staying competitive, especially recently, when many, many other teams in similar situations (Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, etc.) have not.

Dogg: I think our point was that if our owner would’ve spent any amount of money what so ever we actually would have a shot at winning a title. Realistically, those playoff teams we had had about a 1% chance of winning the WS and that’s just because it’s baseball.

Fuzz: All fair points. Hunter would have stayed here if the money was right. Garza would have too, money talks. Santana seemed like he wanted to leave but you never know, I guess. Delmon hit .288 with 13 bombs his rookie year. You were close but that is still a little bit of a difference off of the .300/20 HR's and to give up Garza & Bartlett for that was a HUGE risk. And, we're getting burned by it now. All fair/legit points though.

However...

Your last comment that we've stayed competitive regardless of our small market status is true, but in my mind, unless you take some risks financially with higher paid players, we'll be stuck where we are for a long time. Christ, we have been stuck for a long time! We'll be competitive, maybe win a division title like we have and then get bounced in the playoffs. We had one year since '91 that we advanced beyond round one. And, we got handled by a better Angels team in five games. And, you win with dominant pitching and overpaying guys like Santana and keeping Garza would have given us a much better chance than our current team. We don't have a true #1 right now. So yes, we're competitive and we hang in there year to year, but we'll need to get extremely lucky to advance to the Series with this current philosophy.

Dogg: We hang in there because our division is terrible…If Peavy signed with Chicago, we could’ve kissed this season goodbye.

Nic: If you are going to argue anybody, please make it someone else other than Torii Hunter. While he is a fine player, we could already see his abilities start to slip and he was never a middle of the order bat. There's no way we would want to be nor could we afford paying him $15 million a season the last 3 years of his current contract when he will probably be even less of a hitter and have to be moved to a corner outfield position.


Cash Rules Everything Around Me

Fuzz: That's fair, I could live without him. Santana is such a stud that we should have been throwing whatever we had at him. Maybe he wouldn't have taken it, but he is the deal.

Q: Great points on Hunter, Nic.
I'm pretty sure the Twins "threw everything we had" at Santana. We offered him a $100 million deal that he and his agent quickly rejected. I seriously doubt this franchise could offer anything more, which kind of sucks, but it’s the reality we live in.

Read More......