This is the first time I've seen Gardy say he was definitely not for that trade:

"When we lost Bartlett, that was the most frustrating thing for me," Gardenhire said. "I thought we had Bartlett where we wanted him. So when we made the trade with Bartlett, then I was frustrated. But it is what it is. I wanted Bartlett to stay here. I thought we had gotten him to the point where we wanted, so I was not on the Bartlett side of the trade."

This caught my eye because it's been speculated on a number of occasions here that Gardenhire was behind the Bartlett trade. He'd publicly questioned Bartlett's attitude and leadership among other things, and went out of his way to start aging veterans in front of him, so we assumed Bartlett was run out of town because Gardy didn't like him. But now Gardy is saying it was all Smith. It's very rare for him to break ranks. Is it possible that Smith was just tired of hearing all Gardy's complaining about Bartlett and thought he was doing him a favo?. Did the Rays just insist on Bartlett, and did Smith cave?

I wish La Velle had asked him, Did you tell Smith that? And what did you think about trading Hardy? But if you asked him explicitly to criticize a GM, even a former GM, he would clam up. This might be all we get.

Say what you will about Gardy, but I can't see him lying about something like this. I have never heard him accused of making excuses or rewriting history. I can't imagine him questioning a trade years later that he actually was for. I'm surprised to see him discussing any trade. It had to be an unguarded moment.

Whoa. This doesn't sound good. 

From the Pi-Press:

http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_14905598

"Nick Blackburn lasted just five innings because of a throbbing right shoulder that might push back his next start....Blackburn went to pitching coach Rick Anderson and said his shoulder hurt too much and...his day, after five runs allowed on seven hits, was over. The starter said he deals with this particular shoulder pain often, that it comes and goes and that team doctors told him it is not concerning. The pain, Blackburn said, is throbbing, not sharp. On Saturday it kept him from effectively throwing his slider, changeup and curveball and limited the sink on his sinker."

"Not concerning?" This strikes me as kind of a big deal.

The article also says the condition is chronic and that he's been taking anti-inflammatory drugs for quite some time.

How's that long-term contract looking now?

I'm hesitant to even post this in case some of you believe in jinxes. I hope this isn't bad form. But when the news spread about Nathan feeling sore, a fantasy-baseball playing friend asked me who I thought would be next in line if Nathan couldn't close, and I realized I had no idea. You could make a case for quite a lot of them. Guerrier, because he's the primary setup guy? Neshek, because he used to be a dominant setup guy, and if he's healthy he's filthy? Rauch, because he's a big intimidating veteran? Liriano, in case he can't handle starting? Crain? Mijares? Duensing? Perkins? Slama? Delaney? Manship? Swarzak? If you had to pick one of those guys to back up Nathan, who would it be?

Joe Posnanski did a lovely parody of Brett Favre cliches (thanks to Ubelmann for posting the link on stick and ball guy)

http://stickandballguy.com/blog/2009/12/09/my-favorite-one-paragraph-brett-favre-summary-to-date/

which made me try to come up with a similar string of cliches about the Twins. But there's no way I could remember all the good ones. Want to help?

Here's a start:

They battle their tails off, getting their uniforms dirty, and doing all the little things, playing the game the right way, playing Twins baseball, small ball, with hustle and grit, like a bunch of savvy, veteran piranhas.

What have I left out?

An interesting article on baseballanalysts.com

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/01/2008_leaders_an.php

argues pretty convincingly that K/9 is not the best way to measure strikeouts. Strikeouts per inning lets you give up a ton of walks and hits, possibly even giving you more chances to strike someone out. Strikeouts per batter faced improves on this by focusing on exactly how likely you are to strikeout a batter. But even better, he says, is strikeouts per pitch (or per hundred pitches), which punishes you for walks and hits and and for generally running up your pitch counts, basically everything except strikeouts. If you're measuring how likely you are to strike someone out, why not measure how many pitches it takes you to do that?

All of this fuzzy interpretation aside, the more significant thing is that it actually does correlate better to runs allowed than the other strikeout metrics. So it really is a more reliable predictor of success than k/9.

The reason I bring it up here, however, is that he lists the top 30 and bottom 30 performers in the league in this metric. The bottom is Livan Hernandez, no surprise. Ponson was third, and Silva was fourth. It is gaining credibility, right?

So it's slightly troublesome to see Blackburn coming in at 22nd worst. Obviously this metric will undervalue sinkerball pitchers, who can be quite effective when they're on. But on the other hand, that's what they said about Silva, and look how long that lasted. Double plays are great, and Blackburn's better than Silva, but this stat is still a minor red flag.

Now look who's 14th from the bottom: Glen Perkins. Ugh. Based on this stat at least, perhaps one should not expect a sudden drop in ERA from him this year..

Jamie Moyer was not offered arbitration by the Phillies, which suddenly makes him a lot more interesting. It would be hard to give up a first round pick for one year of an aging veteran (and the proper adjective is probably aged, not aging). But if the Twins want to do their annual we-need-a-veteran-in-the-rotation thing, they could do a lot worse. He's still effective. He's someone a young pitcher really could learn from. Wiley veterans who frustrate better athletes with guile are fun to watch. And while he's older than many rocks,  since he doesn't rely on velocity anyway, does that even matter? 

This very interesting article by Josh Calk in the Hardball Times got my attention and convinced me that he has a good chance to keep confounding hitters:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/being-jamie-moyer/

And check out his stats last year: 123 strikeouts, 62 walks, and an ERA of 3.71. Sure it's the NL, so there'd be some dropoff. And he had an ERA of 5.01 the year before (basically the same Ks and BBs but he gave up ten more HRs). So homers are an issue. Could he keep the ball in the park in the Metrodome? I'm not sure. But he's no Livan Hernandez. The two years before 2007 his ERA was in the low fours. He can still get people out on a regular basis and there's no sign of collapse. He won game 3 of the World Series. Playoff experience might be a plus on a young team.

If you hate watching young, undisciplined Twins' hitters get outsmarted by crafty veterans, maybe having Moyer around would take away some of the sting. We could watch the other team's arrogant young athletes make fools of themselves instead.

I have always loved watching control pitchers work, especially ones with good movement. This guy has superb control and just drives hitters crazy with his tantalizing stuff. Wouldn't you love to have him around for Slowey and Baker and all the other youngsters to chat with? And if the Twins want to trade a young arm for a bat, having a guy like Moyer would make that loss much easier to absorb.

I don't know that the Metrodome is the right park for him, but hell, he managed a 4.5 ERA in Fenway one year (in, ahem, 1996). I don't know how much he would cost, or whether it would take more than one year to land him. But if he could be had for 4-5 million per year, fine, give him two. That's still less than one year of Michael Cuddyer.

Okay, I admit it. I just like the guy, always have. He's the one guy I almost enjoyed watching the Twins lose to. But his stats are pretty solid too, and now there's no draft pick penalty. Maybe it only makes sense if they're trading a young pitcher. But if that's the case, and they want a veteran arm, I hope it's him.

There have been a lot of stories about Bill James's upcoming analysis of young mlb talent; the longest quote I've seen is here:

http://diamondbacks.scout.com/2/803961.html?refid=400

"James lists the Minnesota Twins as the #1 team in all of baseball for young talent, even though they don’t have a single young player in the top 25: “But they have 6 players in the top 100, 8 in the top 120, and 10 in the top 150. The average team has 5 players in the top 150; the Twins have 10—Joe Mauer, Delmon Young, Justin Morneau, Kevin Slowey, Scott Baker, Carlos Gomez, Nick Blackburn, Jason Kubel, Denard Span and Glen Perkins. And then they have Michael Cuddyer, and Francisco Liriano, and Boof Bonser, and Craig Breslow, and then they have a bunch of other guys. The Twins rank seventh in the majors in young pitching talent, and first in non-pitching talent. The Twins ranked 11th on this list last year, and moved forward basically because of the development of the young pitchers. They’re loaded.”

What's odd to me is that neither Mauer nor Morneau crack his top 25. What do these ratings mean, exactly, when Joey Votto is ranked higher than Justin Morneau, and Brian McCann is ranked higher than Joe Mauer? Obviously he's looking at more than just their 2008 performance, since they're both legitimate mvp candidates. The article above says:

"To achieve his inventory, James first eliminates from the list all players who were 30 years old or older in 2008. He employs two widely used statistics—“Runs Created” for position players and “Runs Allowed” for pitchers—as the basis for comparison. He makes several adjustments, including for injuries suffered during the year and the differences in predictability between pitchers and position players, and then takes into account the number of years the player should be at his peak performance."

I guess that means you get extra points for being younger. We'll know more when the book comes out November 1.

But until then, being told by Bill James that you have the best collection of young talent in the major leagues is very nice indeed, and cause for some serious celebration -- the future looks bright!

nice article about Bartlett here

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/article513298.ece

They point out his zone rating is 3rd in the AL, compared to last for their shortstops last year. They love how balls that used to get through are now becoming double plays. They even say he has "brought calm to the infield and confidence to the pitching staff." Glad someone appreciates him. Good luck down there...

In contrast, did you see this article about Delmon Young? It's the ultimate read-between-the-lines article, or damning-with-faint-praise if you prefer:

http://www.twincities.com/ci_9250301?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

So does Young come to Vavra for help? "Oh, no, no, no, no, no," the hitting coach said. So you have to go to him with suggestions? "Well, you can try," Vavra said. "He's just kind of got his mind made up about what he's trying to get done, and I'm totally in agreement with it. It's just a matter of, there's maybe more efficient ways to get it done."

I don't know what's more depressing about this, that Young is so uninterested in taking advice, or that the coaching staff has to tiptoe around him so much and say they're totally in agreement with his lame approach. Young really does sound like a jerk.

I think he's motivated enough that eventually he'll stop beating himself; no one could enjoy making himself into such an easy out. But he is apparently just too arrogant to listen, so I guess we'll have to wait for him to figure it out himself. No sign of that happening yet, unfortunately

from http://www.twincities.com/ci_8722836?source=rss

"I'm going to go by matchups," Gardenhire said Thursday. "One guy might not handle changeups very well. The other guy (might be) not very good on a real good slider. So I'm going to start looking at pitchers like that, kind of decide on who I think has a better chance that night."

So which one can't hit sliders, and which can't hit changeups?

(No comment needed about the following)

It's not a strictly left-right decision, either, Gardenhire said.

"I don't like the word 'platoon' with those guys," he said. "I'm not big on that."

A friend who is a Yankee fan (not an oxymoron, really) sent me this email after the Twins signed Joe Nathan to his huge contract extension:

"Frankly, this move baffles me. If Nathan were 24, I'd understand. Even 28.
But he's what, 33? How can you trade the best pitcher in baseball for
long-term prospects, but sign one of the top relievers to a long term deal?
How can you simultaneously start a player in centerfield that even his own
manager/GM agree is NOT READY and sign a high-profile reliever? That would
be like the Marlins signing Arod, but then trading Cabrera and Willis
anyway."

It took me a while to figure out why I disagreed. If the only legitimate goal is winning a world series, then maybe everyone should dismantle their team, time all their prospects to peak at one time, put all their eggs in one basket and make a run for it. (You're welcome, fans of the mixed metaphor.) But there's something about that that's just wrong. It's hard to put your finger on, but this is what I came up with -- if someone can explain why the Twins' way is better better, please post!

Here's one other perspective you might not have thought of, since you are a Yankee fan. It's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking there's one successful team and all the others as failures. Each game counts, in and of itself, not just as a meaningless steppingstone to the World Series. Winning more games than you lose means you had a winning season. You're better than most other teams! You don't have to win the world series to enjoy winning. A win's a win.

The Twins couldn't afford Santana or Hunter, but they could afford Nathan, who will provide their fans with much satisfaction and pleasure and help secure many real, honest to god wins. They may never win the world series again. So what. Their fans are still allowed to be happy about winning individual games. And that happiness counts. It matters.

Each time we go into the ninth with a lead over the Yankees and Nathan shuts those blowhards down we will be quite happy, believe me. We may not win the other two games of the series, and may even gripe about how it was unfair to have to face a team of all-stars. But even in a loss we'll enjoy a stolen home run by our fleet center fielder, or Liriano striking out Arod with the bases loaded, or Mauer throwing out Abreu or Damon.

You New Yorkers just don't know how to appreciate the little things sometimes. World series victories are kind of gauche, really. Those parades -- tacky. Hustle and never-say-die positive attitudes, that's what we admire. That stuff is worth a lot more than just buying a championship.

And the possibility remains that the hometown boys will rise up and climb to the top of the heap in spite of it all. I'd rather dream of that and not achieve it than celebrate a corrupt and hollow victory. Heck, it even happened -- twice! -- in 1987 and 1981. Our cup runneth over! Go Twins!

Be forewarned, our up and coming minor league pitchers stand at the ready in waves and waves. Our top five could all flop and we've got five more ready, and five more behind them. We will never go away! Baker, Bonser, Liriano, Slowey, Blackburn...Perkins, Duensing, Humber, Mulvey, Guerra...Robertson, Manship, Pino, Rainville, Swarzak..and that's not even counting Kyle Waldrop! And after that, there will be five more. Always.

Nothing you can say can make us go away. We're like gnats. Pests. A swarm of children that cannot, will not, ever be convinced by grownups to stop believing in the preposterous. You can stomp out our present, but you can't stomp out our future.

The Yankees and their fans alone are doomed to year after year of failure every time they do not win the World Series. So despite their grand resources, they fail more than any other city, because they do not understand that small victories are all around, all the time, for all of us to enjoy and savor. You would never think to envy us, the small, the meek, but you should, you should. We are truly the chosen people.

I talked to a friend who was at Yankee Stadium the other day when Garza pitched. He was not impressed. He said Garza's delivery on his curveball looked so different from his fastball that he started announcing what the pitch would be before his release, and he was always right. He said the Yankees were sitting on his fastball and hammering it.

Does this ring true to you all? I didn't see the game. But considering all the Twins' concerns about Garza needing better off-speed pitches for his fastball to be effective, this was disturbing. It's a rare fastball that's unhittable when people know it's coming.

Pardon me if you already know this but I've been wondering about it all year, and espn finally cleared it up:

"Bonser, for the record, legally changed his given name, John, to his childhood nickname, Boof, in 2001."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=260909109

p.s. The Twins are within 3 of the division lead! And Liriano pitched three perfect innings in AAA! Woo-hoo!

Oakland just signed Frank Thomas for just $500K guaranteed, and $1.4M more if his ankle is healthy all season. He has to get 550 PA's to make a final $1.2M.

Wow. That, to me, is a classic low-risk, high-reward scenario.

Anyone else feeling a little envious right now?

And a little less excited about facing the A's in the playoffs?

Let's put it this way: Would you trade Nick Punto for Frank Thomas? Okay, if he stays healthy all year, you have to throw in Juan Castro as a ptbnl. And if he plays really great for an entire year -- the Frank Thomas of old -- then you're out a whopping 1.2 million cash. But he has to start all year to get it.

Don't get me wrong, I like the White signing. I'm not saying I prefer Thomas to White. But wouldn't you feel a lot more confident we'd have a DH all year if we had both? And if by some chance they both worked out, you could put White in the outfield. Imagine a 3-4-5 of Mauer-White-Thomas.

Sure, the odds are small that Thomas will ever be Thomas again. But at that price, so is the risk.

One caveat: only his ankle  has a warranty, so if the Hurt hurts his back, you're out all $1.9M. Still, this looks to me like a good gamble by Billy Beane.