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......

A New Day is Coming...

Dear TK on Toast readers,

Many of you have expressed your displeasure in the disappearance of this website. Fear not Toastians (as I've heard you all call yourselves), for TK 2.0 is coming this spring. Beginning in May of 2009, this site will be back up and running with 2-3 new posts each week. Seeing as I'll be doing most of the writing myself, you may notice a slight change in the format of how this wealth of sports knowledge is presented: posts may be a bit shorter than they used to be, there will be fewer round table discussions, etc. Not to worry though. I have a vast knowledge of sports and enough opinions to fill a blog (convenient, I know). Plus, I'm working on contracts with some of your favorite bloggers from TK's original run (Fuzz, Nic, etc.) to come in and do some guest spots.

I know the anticipation is going to kill you, but 2.0 will be here sooner than you think. Until that time, feel free to get your sports fix from any of the various websites and blogs that exist on the internets--I hear there are quite a few these days. Then when this spring/summer rolls around, come on back to the only sports blog that ever mattered--TK on Toast. See ya soon.

Love,

Q

Read More......

Breaking News...

There is some major news in the world of TK...

Sources close to the University of St. Thomas have confirmed that TK has been relieved of his position at The Grill. Terms of his release have not been disclosed. As a cultural icon in the student population as well as the creator of the greatest sandwich of all time (pictured above), it is safe to say that his presence will be missed. For those that don't know him, Tony was UST's version of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi. He's a hilarious guy and a fantastic short order cook who was not afraid to yell at you and embarrass you at the drop of a hat. The Grill won't be the same place without him.

Tony, thank you for the food, the laughs, and the namesake of this site.

Read More......

Confessions of a Sports Snob

You see them in every type of social setting: That Guy. The one who thinks they know more or are better than you and let’s you know it—either directly or indirectly. It could be the wine aficionado snidely smiling at your Franzia box purchase at the liquor store. It might be the car guy who openly mocks your “cute little foreign car”, or the fashion expert who can’t believe that you’re wearing a t-shirt and jeans again. It could be the guy at the gym who shakes his head as you attempt to curl 20 lbs. It might be the hair stylist telling you that you have a “neat” haircut, or the teacher who believes that their style is the only acceptable way to educate kids (sorry, personal pet peeve). No matter where you are, people like this are always around. I’ve always hated these people. Then I realized that I was one of them…

When it comes to sports, I’m That Guy. I’m not the super competitive-D League-slow-pitch-softball Guy, but rather the I-can’t-be-bothered-with-this-conversation-because-I-know-so-much-more-than-you Guy.


I may be That Guy, but I'm definitely not This Guy

I’ve been That Guy for a long time now, and I didn’t realize it until just recently. If I’m involved in any kind of sports conversation, I constantly find myself silently judging and usually mocking the others involved. “Oh you watched the Twins game last night? How cute. Do you know the batting averages and ERA’s of every player on the team within a hundredth of a point? Can you not only name, but speak intelligently about all the guys on the opposing team? Do you know the rosters of all of our minor league teams by heart? No? Then don’t try to talk to me about last night’s game." I can’t seem to hold a polite conversation with these people. I can’t even stand there nodding and smiling. I have to leave; I have to get away so I can get on my high horse. It’s incredibly rude and smug, even if these comments are only occurring in my mind. Yet some version of that goes through my head any time someone I deem “unworthy” makes any sort of sports-related comment. Hell, I often silently mock people if they’re simply wearing a Twins or Vikings t-shirt.


There's no way I'm the only one judging/mocking this guy.

Those who know me are probably not surprised by this revelation. I might have a bit of a reputation for openly and outwardly mocking people on a whim. But this self-realization about the level of my sports snobbery is a big step. I feel like I should start going to meetings:
Q: “Hello, my name is Adam and I’m a sports snob.”
Group: “Hi, Adam.”
Q: “Ah, I guess I’ve always had this problem, but I didn’t realize it until just recently.”
Facilitator: “That’s very common, Adam. The important thing is that you recognize it now and you’re getting help.”
Q: “Shut up. You’re probably the guy who loves Joe Mauer simply because he’s from St. Paul and has those stupid sideburns.”
Facilitator: “Now see, this is what we need to work on…”


You like sideburns? Me too! I wonder if there's a club we could join?

Before this article gets too self-deprecating, allow me to validate myself. I got this way through a lot of hard work. I can sense your skepticism, but hear me out. For as long as I can remember, sports have been my only hobby. Virtually every minute of free time I have is spent looking at or doing something sports-related. When people ask me “What’d you do this weekend?” or “What’ve you been up to lately?” my answer is almost always “Nothing much.” I say that because I’m embarrassed to admit that last night I spent two hours on the internet looking up statistics and batting trends of the New Britain Rock Cats (the Twins AA team) or analyzing the remaining schedules of every team in the AL Central. I don’t want to tell them that over the last two weeks I’ve been researching and reading books about the history of the Duke-North Carolina basketball rivalry. But that’s what I do and it’s hard, intense “work”.


This is research. I'm kind of like a scientist...

Yet I hesitate to take pride in my “work”. I do so because sports are viewed as recreation and thus not worthy of this extreme amount of time consumption. If someone told you that they spent their Saturday weeding their garden, most people would not view this as a waste of time. They might even praise them for being outside.


Really, this is acceptable?

However, those same people would likely look down on the fact that I spent my Saturday looking at the contract status’ of potential NBA free agents in 2010. Well gardening is as much of a recreational type of hobby (if not more so) as sports, yet time spent on this activity is not viewed as wasteful.

Maybe that’s why I’ve developed such an elitist attitude when it comes to sports. If everyone is going to degrade my passion, then I’m going to gravitate towards it even more. That’s gotta be it. That’s why the first hour and a half I’m home from work every day is spent on Deadspin.com, TheBigLead.com, etc. while ESPN blares in the background. That’s why I have the Twins game on the TV while my computer has multiple windows open tracking the Angels-Red Sox, Cubs-Brewers, and Rays-Blue Jays games.


I'd call it multi-tasking

It’s not my fault; it’s everyone else’s. It all makes sense now.

My name is Adam, and I know more about sports than you do.

Read More......