Twinstalker

What's happened in one year in Twinstalker poker?

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 06:37:00 +0000

Let's face it. This was turning into a poker blog. As an anonymous blogger and just an okay poker player, it was really easy to write about what happens in the Minnesota poker world. It appears, however, that the past year has shown I am no longer an average poker player, and relating my experiences would basically give my identity away. This website should continue and perhaps eventually be something of interest, but I wouldn't expect anything to be updated. Thanks, and happy 2011!

The Keys to Winning Poker

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:03:00 +0000

As I've experienced more success with tournament Texas Hold'em, quite a few friends and others have asked how they might become successful poker players. How did you do it, they ask. Because, after all, I'm filthy rich and famous and grace multiple TV networks with my mug. And I'm not just struggling to keep my total winnings high than my buy-ins. Really...I swear. Okay, you got me. Perhaps I'm only barely keeping my head above water, but I'm making money, if not yet a living.

And there's the rub. A successful poker player is not defined as only the player that makes hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. With the vast majority of players losing money, poker success probably is best defined as actually making money, whether one dollar or one million. My path toward relative success follows, and while I recommend ignoring it completely, it is my story.

The Twinstalker Way

1. Remember how you were born to play poker. Selective memory plays a big part of getting started in the poker world, as well as justifying your poker playing to your mom and/or girlfriend. Everybody remembers constantly beating your relatives at "guts" or "in-between" or "baseball." The losses fade from memory, and the wins stand out. As do the compliments from Aunt Marion about how good of poker player you were. He's such a good little player, Barbara, you must be so proud.

2. Play the game. After learning how to play your favorite game, in my case no-limit Texas Hold'em, forget studying strategy and just dive right in. I decided to get an online account and started losing right away. It's fixed, after all.

3. Determine that the only thing that matters is your gut feel. When to bet, when to call, when to check...it's all a gut feel.

4. Learn the game. After excessive losing and having your wins packaged with chat room derision from your online competitor's, it might be time to learn how to play the game with a little. I went out and found a Phil Gordon book that explained the game to me at a very high level. It was the first time I'd learned the relative value of starting hands and heard of pot odds and implied odds. Awesome, I can use my math major.

5. Find a live game. I found this a great way to leave the internet derision behind and receive live chiding and denigration from a number of living, breathing, poker players. My wild-ass, non-strategic betting confused people enough to make my new cash game a winning proposition. At this point, I started to implement my new understanding of "odds" and proceeded to lose $800 on a Monday, $800 on a Thursday, and nearly my life on the Friday when the game was, um, interrupted. I didn't like cash games, really, so at this time I decided to switch to live tournaments, my favorite poker genre.

6. Realize it's not bad luck you're experiencing. This is actually the one piece of advice I give to anyone who asks. I started playing live tournaments in the fall of 2008, my improvement at it has been steady, and one aspect has stood out for me. Almost every tournament you play in, you lose. I won somewhere between five and eight live tournaments in 2009, probably twice the rate someone would expect to win if all players were equal, but it still meant that I lost 95% of the time.

The first time I lost, somebody told me I experienced a bad beat. I thought about it for a moment. Yeah, but what was I doing risking all my chips when I didn't have to. It occurred to me that I made a mistake by allowing someone to get lucky and knock me out. From that time on, I took note of the mistakes I made and realized that I could trace every loss back to those mistakes. Instead of attributing losses to bad beats or claiming to be card-dead, I learned from my mistakes and tended not to make them the next time. This led to much-improved play, better results, and, eventually, gruding recognition from my peers that I've made the transition from dangerous donkey to pretty good poker player.

How to Lose $1100 in Thirty Minutes

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:17:00 +0000

Saturday was the poker celebration of the one year anniversary of Running Aces, and the casino hosted an $1100 event that drew seventy-three buy-ins. My success recently had me pretty confident I'd contend for what I assumed would be close to a $20k first prize. Add to that my intent to improve my third-place standing in the Deep Stack Player of the Year Standings, the winner of which wins a place in the 2010 WSOP Main Event, and I surrendered the entry fee without blinking.

There are a couple strategies to choose from for the start of a big tournament like this (deep stack, 20,000 starting chips). Either play extremely tightly and hope for monster hands or push the pace and create a loose table image to use to trap people. I decided to let the table help determine which I would choose. As I walked to my starting table, I noticed a lot of the better players from Canterbury were there, as expected. I started on a table I knew would be broken quickly, and given that, I should have abandoned the second strategy--a table image would have been of little use.

I sat in the 10 seat and during the first orbit noticed the table's very tight play. I let play go round again and then woke up in the cut-off with pocket 7s, all folding before me. The big blind I knew well as a loose player and calling machine with decent hands...someone I'd seen get very lucky when sticking in hands. Not a bad player, but definitely a known quantity. I bet 3x the BB (3 x $100), fold, fold, and the big blind called as expected.

The flop came A, K, T rainbow. My 7s were likely beat, but since I was possibly representing an Ace, I needed to bet if given the chance. The big blind checked, and I bet 500 into the 700 pot. BB called. He had something, either a pair or a draw. I was pretty sure he didn't have an ace. The turn was a 6. He checked again, and I fired 1000. He called. He had a pair. The river was a 3.

This was where I made my first mistake. BB checked, and I realized I probably had him if I bet enough. At the same time, if I bet too much, he was likely to see my bluff. The main problem came with the player himself. If he had a king, he would call almost anything in the normal range, thinking he might be good. Most players wouldn't. Too big a bet on my part depicted a bluff. I was stuck. I decided to cut my losses and check as well. He had a king. So what should I have done? I should have checked the turn and saved myself 1000. I was down to 17,500 instead of 18,500. Every chip is valuable, even early, even in a deep stack.

Next time around on the button, I looked down at A5s with one limp before me. I raised to 400 (4x), and the limper called. An ace flopped, and I played it carefully, but the limper showed pocket aces. I felt lucky to be left with a 16,000 chip stack. Eight hands later, I woke up in the big blind with AQ and called the cut-off's 3x raise. An ace came again on the flop, I check called the flop and turn, and checked down the flush scare card on the river. My opponent again had pocket aces, and I was left now with 11,800.

This was not how I had anticipated the day would go.

A few hands later I called a raise with ATs, not my normal play. My opponent checked the J, T, 5 flop, so I bet 1200, which he called. If he had a jack or an overpair, he likely would have bet. I put him on AK or AQ, or possibly a pair under the Ten. Worst case scenario would be his checking a made set, but I figured I just couldn't keep running into monster hands, and if so, then so be it. The turn came Ten and gave me three of a kind. Only a made set on the flop could beat me, and so after his check I bet $2200. He called. I now decided he slow played a big pocket pair after the flop or had played poorly the whole way with KQ. Either way, I was good. The river came K, he checked, and I bet $2800. My opponent then went all-in.

Was he just plain stupid with AK and now thought he was good with Kings? Not likely. My KQ scenario was not likely, either. His all-in indicated he was good. What else could I beat? I could beat KJ, but I didn't think it was likely he would raise pre-flop or that he would check the flop. There really wasn't anything else beside another pocket aces or pocket queens I could beat. I realized he had either stupidly stayed in with AQ and now had caught a straight or had slowed played a set turned full house, in which case it just wasn't my day.

I just couldn't put him on a made hand prior to his check raise, and I figured if he were playing it stupidly, he could just as well think two pair was good as he could bet a straight. I called with my last 5000, and he showed Broadway.

It was pretty much the ugliest, worst-luck sequence of poker I remember playing, and it happened on an $1100 buy-in event. To top it off, I took my last $200 to the blackjack table, grew it to $700, and lost it all systematically with $25 bets over the course of another forty minutes. I never play blackjack...

I have no idea who won, and after a tourney like that, I figured I would ask after taking off a few days! My play was not good, and that happens every once in a while. Focus and discipline were not there for me. I could have continued to play and wait for a big hand with the 5000 chips I instead donated at the end. I could have saved 1000 on the first hand I played, and I could have folded my A5. All these actions were simple plays a rookie might make, and when I start making those mistakes in a tournament, it's time to take some days off. I'll likely play Wednesday again after three days rest.

Poker, Poker, the World Series of Poker

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:45:00 +0000

The Twins are suffering the effects of horrible management, both on-field and general, and the Gophers football and basketball are a ways away from newsworthy. And given this "blogger's" apparent inability to write about his favorite frustrating teams, maybe his severe interest in poker is enough to jump start this blog. So I'll write about poker.

The main question an aspiring poker player needs to ask is: how good am I really? There are three certainties in life, namely death, taxes, and you thinking you're a better poker player than you really are. A general misconception of one's abilities shouldn't be too surprising, given the tendency of players to blame their losses on anything but themselves. Heard any bad beat stories lately?

Actually, one measure of how good you are might be how long it's been since you bored someone with a bad beat story.

So where do I stand in line for future poker superstardom? It's a tough call. My results indicate I'm probably in the top ten percent of Minnesota no-limit Texas hold 'em tournament players. I am average at best at no-limit cash, and once the topic becomes limit hold 'em or any games besides hold'em, I would be considered bad at this time. For that reason, any discussion of "poker" in this blog means by default No Limit Texas Hold'em.

2009 Results
While I would like to brag mightily about my success, you can probably understand why I will provide limited information here. I will give a little background information prior to 2009 sometime soon, but suffice it to say the profit was always negative, and I generally look at pre-2009 as strictly a learning experience.

I will brag about my biggest win of the year, which the government is eagerly waiting to get its hands on. Mind you, I'm all about paying lots of taxes, but it still hurts. It seems I spend all my time collecting poker receipts these days. Back to the success. Running Aces started a new deep-stack tournament this calendar year (1st, 3rd, and 5th Saturdays of the month). At the time the buy-in was $550, and in my first attempt, I took down first place. It was a tournament where I was severely short-stacked with blinds getting big, so when I went all-in four times in a row and got called twice, I found myself with maybe the average chip stack, and I pretty much was in the zone thereafter. I played strongly, withstood the temper tantrum of a poker diva whose main characteristic is nastily chastising those who knock her out, and eventually found myself heads-up against Everett.

Everett is another top 10% player in the state, I have come to find. We played in the same World Series event last week, though his results I don't yet know--he told me he was short-stacked during our first break. Heads-up at Running Aces, I had passed him in chip count, and it wasn't long into our match that I threw out the standard raise--three times the big blind--with pocket sixes, he raised all-in with A7s, and we had a showdown. The flop yielded a 7, but I turned a 6, and I won my first ever poker tournament championship, nearly $8k.

That started a winning stretch for me, and I started to believe I was good and knew what I was doing. But as any seasoned poker player knows, success comes in streaks, and "running bad" is soon to follow. My bad streak culminated in late April at Canterbury during a $340 satellite to the Minnesota Poker Championship when I went all-in with fives, got called with Aces, and threw my cards so hard they landed face down on the floor. As I left, I told the tournament director Eddie to not let me play again that week. I no longer knew what I was doing at the poker table.

Daniel Negreanu is the one I credit with pulling me out of my slump a mere ten days later. I decided to join a poker internet site, one that taught the game, to see if it could help me. I chose Negreanu's PokerVT.com. It helped immediately, and I haven't looked back since, cashing in nearly every local tournament I've played. With the exception of some horrible luck at the World Series of Poker, I'm still going strong. I flew in from Vegas at 5:30 am this past Saturday, entered the Running Aces deep-stack tourney at 2pm, and took first place at around 1am Sunday morning. Since then I've had a non-cash at Canterbury and a 4th place at Running Aces.

So that's a summary of my 2009, and many of the items I mention in brief here, I'll expound on in future postings, including the WSOP, my recent win, chopping tournament money, running bad, and Poker Bitch. Maybe that's sexist...she seems nice otherwise, and trust me, there a lot of guys with issues, too.

The One from my Hotel Room

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:10:00 +0000

I have 48 minutes to shower and get to the noon tournament at the Venetian, so this has to be short. So far:

Arrive Monday night at 7pm, cab to Harrah's, check in, and go right over to the Venetian for their 9pm tourney. Only it is a 7pm tourney. I sit down at their $1/$2 NL Hold'em cash game, knowing that the cash game is not my strong suit. I just want to bide my time until the 11pm tourney at Caesar's (um, it was at 12am), but for the first time ever in a Vegas cash game, I win ($200). Between the rake, dealer tips, and drink tips, I am pretty proud to clear this much in ninety minutes.

10:50pm, arrive at Caesar's and discover I need to wait a while. I buy in to the 1/3 NL game and win another $186 before the tourney starts. The midnight tourney (cost is $70) there is small and only worthwhile because it's one of the few options at that time. I am playing extremely well, doubling my chips while risking very few. Then someone I identify as a poor player goes all in pre-flop against my KK. She has A8s and well, we all know that means aces will flop, and they do here, too. I lose my edge, and I'm soon going all in with 77 as overcards to a flop, only to lose to QQ. Sorry, I can't recall the betting (I'm taking a notepad to the Venetian this Wed noon). I place 20 of 32. I walk back to the cash game and win $170. It's late, and I go to bed, up $486.

Noon, Tuesday, and I enter the Venetian tournament ($150) as one of 139 participants. I am mostly short-stacked, because I learn the hard way that the play in Vegas is different than the play in Minnesota. I basically lose my chips to two limpers, one limping with KK (I had QQ), and one limping with JJ (I had 99). These two losses make me play short stack poker, and I lose all in A10s to the chip leader's AQ. Place 50 out of 139.

Tuesday 4:30, I head to the Bellagio to see baseball people. I don't have a clue who's who, and only recognize that people are wearing media passes. I look for Aaron Gleeman and don't see him, so I go play poker. I buy in for $200 for a cash game when I learn that there is a Sit and Go for $130. Top 2 of 10 get into the $540 Bellagio 7:15pm tourney (and $30 in cash). I get third, of course. On the way out, I pass a blackjack table and decide to put my remaining $70 down for one bet. I get 73 and the dealer has an 8 showing. Of course, with your one and only bet or your last bet, you always get a double down situation! I have four twenties and get $80, $70 of which I use to double. I get a 2, dealer turns over a King, and there goes $140. I bet the extra 10, get QQ, and the dealer gets three cards to 21. Yuck.

Tuesday 7:35pm, I arrive late to the Venetian and pay $120 for the evening tourney. I play the short stack the whole night, surviving by risking the stack and having the table fold. I finally have AJs and get two players to call me. Flop is AK6, turn is 6, river is 2. I think I've won, but the chip leader and hottest player happens to have a 6. Place 18 of 85. Go to bed. Down $550 for the day, $64 for the trip.

Noon Wednesday, Venetian. I'll keep better notes so that I can give some analysis of the interesting hands. I'll try to update before bedtime.

Update: I had zero hands, once going 18 hands with no card higher than a 10. I played one of these tens and made top pair on the flop, only to be bet of the hand by a player who flopped a set. I got blinded down, and my limps all got raised, so I was short stacked immediately, finally went all in with A9 and got caught by AQ. I lasted ninety minutes and decided basically I didn't want to play short stacked all day again. Down $150 on the day, $216 for the trip.

The One Where I Email Bill Smith

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:50:00 +0000

I just sent off an email to Bill Smith. It's not my first. The problem with sending Bill Smith, general manager of the Minnesota Twins, an email is that one has so much to say, so much to, well, tell him.

I mostly got that email out of the way on Friday, so today, as I prepare for my trip to the winter meetings, I thought maybe I better send Mr. Smith one very succinct email, titled: Garret Atkins' numbers.

I mean, how could he resist opening that email from his hotel room at the Bellagio? If he doesn't recognize my name, it could be contact information for Atkins. And if he has interest in that, then I know I did the right thing by sending Atkins' contact numbers of a different kind.

While Aaron Gleeman is very comprehensive in his analysis of players like Atkins, I broke down the basics of what Smith needed to know about the Rockies' 3Bman:

Garret Atkins, career away from Coors: .260, .328, .424 (avg, obp, slg)
Brian Buscher, vs rhp in 2008: .316, .368, .437
Brendan Harris, career vs lhp: .295, .360, .440

How can anybody look at these numbers and make a trade for the poor fielder who's enjoyed the fruits of hitting at Coors Field? I don't think even Bill Smith can ignore this...if he opens it. Perhaps I should have shown more restraint and less rambling in my email on Friday, though, for now I fear he will see my name and dismiss it without opening. Oh, the humanity!

The One That Got Away

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:11:00 +0000

As I depart for Las Vegas this afternoon, I thought I'd briefly update all on the recent poker tournament I played in at Running Aces. There's not much to say, other than I again made my biggest mistake in poker--I assumed my opponent was bluffing or clueless. More on that some other time. This time with AK and a flop of A, 9, 2 rainbow, I disbelieved that the Big Blind, who made a pot-sized bet, had hit a set. His call of a preflop raise had me pretty sure he didn't have two pair, and I just couldn't put him on pocked deuces or nines. I went all in, and he insta-called with deuces.

To provide you all with the number one rule in all of poker: If you assume your opponent is bluffing or just trying to steal with a medium hand, you had better be able to rule out the hands that can beat you. In this case, I could rule out AA and 92 pretty easily, but what if the BB had stayed rather foolishly with A2 or A9 suited? It was possible, as were 22 and to a lesser extent 99, which he would more likely re-rasie with. My bad.

On Wednesday, I got away with one mistake in the $100 noon tourney at Running Aces and proceeded to make it to the final two, heads up. I played very well overall with good cards, a combination that has unfortunately been lacking in my game. My opponent had a 3:2 chip lead, and I went all-in with K5o. He had A8, called, and it held up.

Upon reflection, I became furious at my decision. I had about 110,000 chips with the blinds 6k/12k. I was on the small blind. While a king looked good, afterward I tried to imagine the scenarios, given the various hands he might have had:

Any pair: he calls, and I'm behind.
Ace mid or better, such as he had: he calls, and I'm behind
K9-KQ: he calls, and I'm dominated
Q9 or worse: he folds, and I pick up 12k, or about 4% of the total chips

That leaves QJ, Q10, J10, Ace low, and King mid or low as the only hands where he has to think. Given his conservative play and nice chip lead, he probably folds all the hands here where I'm in the lead, knowing I have those beat. The only positive impact of my going all in was to possibly push him off Ace low or King mid, meaning I'd pick up a few chips I shouldn't have.

To sum, he would fold all hands where I had him beat, and there were only a few hands he would fold where he had me beat. I was in a Big Lose, tiny win situation. Very stupid play on my part. Most times, he won't have a hand, so I'd get away with it, and truthfully, I'd probably already gotten away with one or two of those.

Tonight I play the Venetian tournament. Assuming I can get online, expect an update in the morning. If I can keep pumping out the blog material, my plan is to keep a running summary of tournaments I play in, starting today. Mind you, for 2008, I would have to win a big tournament to get into positive $$$, so a tax man need only be concerned with my 2009 running tally.

The One about the Vikings

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:31:00 +0000

I'll readily admit to being a fair-weather Viking fan...maybe a bit more, since I'll watch them if I'm not doing anything else at home, even if they stink. As the NFL years go by, I know less because I care less, but I still have some wisdom about the sport. I was a football nut and played it (poorly) in college, and that basis never really leaves a person. So as I sit around the poker table and listen to the virtually unanimous opinion that Brad Childress is a horrible coach, I ask why and never really get a coherent answer. Play-calling and "should be winning" are the best the poker table can muster, and frankly, I just haven't bought it.

So I ask about the one Childress decision that, to me, was crucial and perhaps displayed poor judgment: don't you think, I ask the big and small blinds, that after just two games removing a young quarterback who's shown some promise, who went 8-4 as a starter last year, who provides an extra athletic dimension...and replacing him with a competent career backup, a never-was, never-will-be, and certainly an ehh QB who's about fifty was a basic poor decision for a coach who needs to make the playoffs and maybe win a game?

The button usually chimes in at this point, stating the obvious, that Tarvaris Jackson sucked in the Vikings' first two games this year. Fair enough, say I, he did pretty much suck. But then I remind the folks that Jackson got hurt in his 2nd preseason game, didn't play until the opener, and maybe he wasn't quite ready to start the season. I translate the "Jackson sucks" and "Gus Frerotte's 5-3" type responses that follow to "I'm a stupid white trash hick" and/or "ok, you caught me, deep down I don't want a black quarterback" and proceed to folding my hand.

At the time of Jackson's demotion, I balked, stating the above. But I also added this: if Childress keeps Jackson on the bench for a few games, it may well help the kid. The learning curve for an NFL quarterback is steep, and when one is expected to both learn and concentrate on performing, the difficulty is another order. I was happy to let Jackson, well familiar with playing NFL games, actually sit on the bench, soak up knowledge that is suddenly pertinent, and gain vision for what's happening on the field. I thought this would take two, maybe three games, and Jackson would be ready to come back and be a decent NFL starting QB.

The problem was, Brad Childress apparently didn't have this plan. He was happy to let Frerotte be his very mediocre self every week with this apparent strategy in mind: the Vikings have a lot of talent, the division is very weak, and a young QB who may or may not be ready will not decide the fate of a coach who only needs to make the playoffs to secure his job.

As a fan, intense or not, I was put off by this decision, and it was the only one I could think of as to why Childress should be fired. I certainly don't want anyone anywhere to get hurt, but I've found myself secretly happy every time Frerotte has gone to the ground with injury. I wanted Jackson back in there, and it appeared that injury (hopefully minor) would be the only way that Childress would allow that.

Today it happened. Jackson, not having played for twelve weeks, came in when Frerotte went down and immediately looked better than Frerotte has in his three months as the starter. Granted, the playbook was short, the actual number of drives was only two, and the opposition hadn't prepared for Jackson. But he performed and performed well. Hopefully, that's the last we'll see of Frerotte as a starter, and we in Minnesota can actually start to think about winning a playoff game.

Oh, and one more thing, Childress should have gone for two against Detroit back on October 12.

The Return of Twinstalker

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:39:00 +0000

Originally I had intended to talk about poker along with opining about the Twins, Gophers, etc. Between never finding a good voice, not have the time to commit to a blog, and general laziness, I sort of let the blog go. Now, however, I am playing a lot of poker and getting better at it. I realized the time has come to keep a log or a diary of hands I've played. What better place to do this than a blog? Twinstalker lives!

In a few minutes I will be leaving to play in a poker tournament at Running Aces near Forest Lake. I think the buy-in is $550, so I'm going to try to win a satellite entry. I'm leaving on Monday for Las Vegas and need all the cash I can muster. Tomorrow I will report on my tourney results for all to read. "All," heh, that's funny.

Initial Reaction to the Santana Trade Report

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:21:00 +0000

Puke.

Defeating Evil

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:07:00 +0000

Sign Johan Santana to a 6yr, $126 million extension. Limited no-trade clause, escalator clause if traded.That's what the Twins should do.

Unless they get Martinez, Gomez, Guerra, and a close pitcher, they're going to lose big to the Mets. Let's face it, the Red Sox are only in it to make the Yankees pay. They themselves won't cross the line. The Yankees are smarter now with a triumverate of power, so they're not crossing that line either.

I guarantee the Yankees would pony up if Santana were signed by the Twins, even with an escalator clause. Right now they just figure they can outspend everybody next year for him, and as long as they dangle Hughes, no team can really beat them in a trade. It's pure evil all-around, and the only way to defeat it is to sign Santana.

Too Much for Two Men?

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:33:00 +0000

This past Friday the Twins announced the signings of Justin Morneau (6 yrs, $80 million) and Michael Cuddyer (3 yrs, $24 million) with the hope it would appease the Minnesota Twins fandom. It appears to have worked. Whether or not the signing were good ones and how they affect the Johan Santana situation are, as always, very well reviewed by Aaron Gleeman.

My reaction to the deals, as usual, was spot on with Aaron's, at least objectively speaking. I sense that Morneau will be special, and that the money he got won't be overkill, but I'm taking a risk with that assessment. Cuddyer I know was flat-out overpaid. He had two more years of arbitration, from which he would have "only" totaled around $12-$13 million. He is white, though, lest we forget.

I'm only sort of kidding...he's average, he's now hit the backside of his peak age, and he plays a position a normal team should have plenty of options at...I can't figure out why the Twins wouldn't go year to year with him. My only guess is that he's a typical Twin and the typical Minnesotan can identify with his race, his decent work ethic, his laid back, no-waves manner, and his staying out of trouble. Boy Next Door get $24 million...stay tuned.

Oh, and did anyone notice that the Twins spent $8.75 million of this year's payroll in bonuses for these two guys? I had wondered whether the money that seemed available was going toward paying a new 3B or CF, and it obviously could have been used for that purpose. It now appears now we can be pretty assured the names Monroe, Pridie, Lamb, Harris, and Punto will cover those two positions and 2B, barring a CF returning in any Santana deal.

Twins Avoid Arbitration with Lefty Bats

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:10:00 +0000

Yesterday the Twins avoided arbitration with LF/DH Jason Kubel, agreeing to a one-year, $1.3 million contract. They followed that up with the signing today of 2006 AL MVP Justin Morneau to a one-year, $7.4 million deal.

It's clear the Twins want to avoid last year's rather ugly situation where they couldn't come to agreements with their top three hitters prior to figures being submitted. While they successfully avoided arbitration with all three, the Twins spent a lot of energy on the tasks, and ultimately didn't make any headway on extending soon-to-be free agents Johan Santana, Joe Nathan, and Torii Hunter. That may have had more to do with former GM Terry Ryan's conservative approach to spending his boss' money, but it's pretty obvious that new GM Billy Smith does not want a few hundred thousand dollars to occupy his time and energy when he needs to spend it all on determing the constitution of his club for 2008 and beyond.

Right now, Santana is the priority, and it should be. It's been debated endlessly what the best option is with Santana, but Smith seems determined to treat the issue appropriately: as the deal that most likely will define his tenure with the Minnesota Twins. So he's not messing around with the fact that Morneau might only deserve $7 million.

Kubel's deal might seem light these days for an improving hitter with three years service time, but while the arbitration process usually favors undeserved money for mediocre play, in this case the arbitrators would be looking at a player whose first year of service time was spent on the DL. Kubel's nasty knee injury, incurred in the 2004 Arizona Fall League season, probably actually prevented the pure hitter from any decent production until the finals 3-4 months of the 2007 season. $1.3 million seems right for Kubel, but my opinion is that by the end of 2008, Smith will wish he had signed Kubel long-term. Stay tuned.

The feeling here is that Morneau's deal is just a prelude to a long-term deal that will be dealt with after Santana's situation is resolved. The Twins still have to reach an agreement with RF Michael Cuddyer, and we'll address this next week. Others Twins eligible for arbitration are relievers Matt Guerrier and Juan Rincon.

What I like about Al Nolen

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:02:00 +0000

People who know me are pretty sure I'm not high on Gopher freshman point guard Al Nolen, but the opposite is actually true...I just don't think he's a star player, and as a fan I want the Gophers to have all star players in their starting lineup like most big-time programs do. It's a case of setting my expectations high. I want a team that is obviously the best team in the Big 10 prior to the season because we've recruited so well. Great, good, average or bad I'll cheer like hell for (and criticize) them once the season starts. And then the most important thing, infinitely more important than what they look like on paper, I want the Gophers to win the Big Ten and have a shot at the national title.

I've always held those expectations, because I believe without them, you allow yourself to slide into taking what recruits you can get. And that's what has happened with previous Gophers coach Dan Monson and what I thought happened with his recruiting in 2007. I thought Blake Hoffarber was a great shooter in high school and a very good player. I didn't see that translating well necessarily to college, at least not early, though I never doubted his talent. Of course, I didn't expect the Gophers would have Tubby Smith coaching him.

As for Nolen, I was pretty sure (along with many) that he wasn't Big Ten caliber, though I almost always qualified that I hadn't seen him play. It was someone Monson could get. He didn't score in high school, and who doesn't score? A Big Ten quality player is going to score at will in HS. When I finally got a chance to watch him play, it quickly became obvious that the Gophers were better with Nolen on the floor. But I also noticed he wasn't ready for the Big Ten right then. His great plays were at the expense of some pretty bad competition, including the guards Iowa State put out there. I thought quality guards would shut him down and make his play inconsequential and ugly, and the Florida State game seemingly proved me right. At that point I still wasn't sure if he could be a positive impact against good teams once the Big 10 season started.

What I started to notice after FSU is that I was most comfortable with Nolen and Hoffarber on the floor. Nolen's basketball IQ is extremely high, so much higher than anyone Monson coached. We haven't seen a true point guard in these parts for a long time. He is truly selfless on the floor, and it occurs to me that's why he wasn't scoring in high school. When Al Nolen is ready to play in the B10 against the top teams and top guards, I have no doubt that the team will play on a high level, relatively, because of him. Is that now? We'll find out here quickly as the Gophers play the Indiana Hoosiers in just a few hours.

Nolen is a good ball-handler, a hard-working defensive player with quick hands, a good passer who will get better when he understands he can't get away with every fancy pass against better competition, and he creates a sense of calm on the floor. I think he has a soft shot that will eventually be a dangerous weapon on the rare occasions when needed. He has the ability to penetrate somewhat, though we still need to see whether he can take top guards and finish. I don't see it right now, but there is potential. I'm unsure of his half-court defense on the ball, whether he can guard a guy like Indiana's Eric Gordon and his penetration, but I have no doubts that part of his defense will develop if it's not there already.

I'm of the belief, though, that there is no reason we can't recruit great players, including a great PG. I have no doubt that if Nolen is the primary PG for a very good squad that the Gophers can possibly win the Big 10 in 2-3 years. But he'll only really be a star in our memories, much as Arriel McDonald. A 5-star PG recruit who is an amazing threat when he has the ball can be the ultimate weapon. And an experience Nolen teamed with someone like that will be a perfect combo to lead the Gophers to the promised land.

Some people have compared Nolen to 1994 recruit and Final Four PG Eric Harris. I agree, except I think Nolen might be even better as a freshman. Of course, not as much was needed from Harris on that year's NCAA tourney team. The talent on this Gophers version is spotty, and there is no way this team dances without Nolen. I think Nolen is solid now and will end up being very good, but I just don't see him ever being a star, the definition of which is the ability to completely take over a game and change its outcome on his own. He'll always be a solid piece, though.

Tonight we have an opportunity to evaluate where he is on the ladder toward becoming a quality Big Ten point guard.

Looking at the Current Santana Trade Possibilities

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:42:00 +0000

I've been analyzing the Twins for years, and I've been reasonably on the mark, including getting most excited about stealing Francisco Liriano in the AJP deal, decrying the possibility of non-tendering David Ortiz, and calling for Jacque Jones' to be dealt after his breakout 2002 season (it was a career year, I was positive). So since I think so much of myself, I feel it only right that I should evaluate, in a very cursory way, the various options the Twins have in dealing the best pitcher in baseball.

Today we hear again the Yankees have pulled their latest offer for Johan Santana. ESPN's report was that the Yankees had offered pitcher Philip Hughes, outfielder Melky Cabrera, pitching prospect Jeff Marquez and another prospect. I'm neither sure who the prospect was nor aware that was Marquez' first name, which, along with my lukewarm feeling about Melky, leads me to exclaim, "heh?". Who knows what to think of the permanency of this decision, but for now this leave the Red Sox and Mets as the only known suitors with offers on the table.

And while the Yankees offered was pulled, it doesn't mean talks can't continue, so I'll examine the current offers the Twins have, including that of the Yankees. What strikes me as I go out and read message boards and comments from articles (like that linked above) is that fans of the teams in the Santana sweepstakes are afraid of giving up their prospects as if they're undoubtedly going to be star players.

As some Twins fans here have mentioned, the prospects being offered up by various teams are just that, prospects. Realistically, unless you're watching a David Wright hit his way up to the Mets, there are hardly any "can't miss" prospects. To give up three "top" prospects is only a bad idea in the sense that a team doing so losing some trading chips. It's a no-brainer, otherwise, when talking Santana.

The Twins can afford Santana. It would have been tougher to do so had they signed Hunter, but they were smart there. Scoping out Santana deals is a move by the Twins to bring efficiency to their organization. Signing Santana is good, but are they better served by grabbing prospects (including a can't miss), immensely lowering payroll, and using that money to lock up young studs? Let's look at what's out there in trade, both in reality and in theory. We'll go team by team.

Red Sox: Ellsbury, Lowrie, Masterson, and prospect or Lester and Crisp in place of Ellsbury. While Ellsbury, Lowrie, Lester, and Crisp will be major leaguers, only Ellsbury and Lester have a chance to be real good, and neither has a chance to be a real star. Ellsbury should be good in a few years, but the Twins don't like dealing with Scott Boras. Lester is a 3 or 4, and the Twins are looking for someone with a 1 ceiling. I would rather sign Santana than do either configuration of this deal.

Yankees: Hughes, M. Cabrera, Marquez, and a prospect. The Twins like this better because they like Hughes. He's not a sure thing, and his motion induces thoughts of injury, but he does have a 1 or 2 upside, and we think he's nearly there now. Cabrera is a filler who won't hurt the Twins, but neither of the other prospects will sway the Twins unless the Yankees give up Jackson or Tabata or possibly Horne as the TBD. The Twins will do this, possibly. They will especially do this if Cano is thrown in there, though I'm not at all high on the 2B who's had the luxury of hacking in the middle of a star-studded lineup. And that's part of the problem with Melky, too. Personally, I think the Twins are just trying to get the best deal from the Yankees so that they can bring it to the other teams.

Mets: Gomez, Martinez, Pelfrey, Humber, Mulvey. If the Mets want Santana, they'd have to give up a package like this. I'm not sure they really want him, though. Frankly, none of these players is anywhere close to a sure thing to be at least average in the major leagues. They all have baseball defects, and only the Mets being in the NL and the mass quantity of bodies here would entice the Twins. Mets fans should wake up and support this type of deal, because their team can replace the worst two of the pitchers with average (or below) veterans, and Santana will be worth far more than the best pitcher and the OFers.

And now the team who might be under the radar:

Mariners: A. Jones, Morrow, Clement, Balentin. The Twins, assuming Santana would extend with Seattle, should do this, and they shouldn't care whether Balentin is involved. Jones is a star just waiting to happen, while Morrow and Clement show extreme promise. The Twins don't get the "ready" pitcher back here, but they don't with the Mets, either.

Angels: E. Santana, Wood, Willits. Not as good as the Mariners' package, but Santana can be special, Wood can be good and dangerous, and Willits would be filler. Weaver may be substituted for E. Santana. I expect the Angels to have secretly contacted the Twins, who are very discreet about these things, and told them they will top any offer.

Dodgers: Kemp, LaRoche, Billingsley/Kershaw. This would be equal or better the Mariners offer, but the Dodgers don't seem to be interested. If it's there, take it.

Locking Up the Johan

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:48:00 +0000

At the end of his column today the NY Times' Murray Chass posed the (probably) rhetorical question about whether the Twins don't have the money to extend Johan Santana. They do have the money, of course, and it's very perplexing to those of us following the team. So I decided to give the question my normal thirty second thought to determine if I could convince myself of what has happened, is happening, and will happen.

We in Minnesota understand the general Twins philosophies that (a) the Twins don't sign a pitcher for more than four years and (b) the Twins don't pay a player 25% of their payroll. What those of us never understood about Terry Ryan is why he couldn't see the trap he'd put himself into by not fully appreciating the reasons for locking up your star players, namely that inflation is always going to be ugly and when a star smells free agency, the chance to sign him reasonably is all but done.

The easy example would appear to be Torii Hunter, and to some extent that's true. However, when the Twins signed Hunter after the 2002 season, I was cautious about the money relative to Hunter's ability and actually thought there would be another CF in place after 2006. The Twins, after all, had drafted Denard Span in June, 2002 and all outlets labeled him the heir apparent to Hunter. The Twins were smart enough to include a club option for 2007, just in case Span wasn't quite ready yet. Little did we know that Span wouldn't Pan (out), and that the Twins would probably had been smart to try to get multiple club options in Hunter's contract.

But let's go back to the fall of 2006, the time at which it became clear to the Twins that Span wasn't close to ready and would very possibly never be a starting CF. The Twins exercised their club option on Hunter for 2007 and had the ability to sign him to what can now be called a reasonable extension, in light of Hunter's five year, $90 million contract with the Angels. The Twins in all likelihood could have signed Hunter for four years and $60 million or even slightly less.

The problem, though, and I hope the Twins saw this and weren't just being their cheap selves, was that Hunter was going to be 33 midway through his first season of his contract, five years older than the hitter's prime age of 27-28. Throw in the constant lack of plate discipline and declining fielding skills, and at the very most Hunter's worth to the Twins was somewhat close to $15 million a year for only 2008 and 2009. In other words, this was not about locking up young talent.

No, where I wanted the Twins to lock up young talent was when their best hitter was an overweight 1B/DH. The Twins, in all their wisdom, non-tendered David Ortiz instead. I wish I had blogged back then to prove it to the doubters, but instead you'll have to go to the archives of the Twins Dickie Thon forum and look for someone with "stat" in the name who hated Ryan, Ron Gardenhire, Jacque Jones, and wasn't totally sold on Hunter. Under whatever Statman or Statguy nickname I had, there is an embarrassing amount of screaming and crying about the possibility of Ortiz being released.

Today it seems obvious that a Twins team looking to lock up its young talent would be signing Justin Morneau, not Michael Cuddyer (age/prime again), and looking closely at Francisco Liriano, Scott Baker, Delmon Young, and even Joe Mauer, whose contract will be ending in three years. Hey, Bill Smith, you've got to be looking at it now, not later.

Where the Twins got themselves in trouble with Santana is waiting far too long. After the 2006 season, Santana had shown himself to be the best pitcher in baseball each of the past three years. He had two years left on his contract, and he would be barely 30 by the time his new contract started in 2009. Age 30 for a pitcher is like age 27 for a hitter, so in essence the Twins in dealing with Santana would be locking up a player six years younger than Hunter.

The Twins ended up offering Hunter a three year contract and were willing to pay $15 million a year for ages 33, 34, and 35. Are they not willing to pay a much, much better player--perhaps the best player in baseball--$20 million dollars a year for comparative (think pitchers relative to hitters) age 27 through 33 seasons? Then consider that the value of the $20 million would be affected greatly, baseball inflation-wise, by the fact that the Hunter contract would have run from 2008-2010, while the Santana contract might run from 2009-2015. Add in there that the Twins would be generating new revenue starting with the 2010 season, that Santana has past the injury nexus that most pitchers deal with, and that $20 million would be a much smaller portion of the payroll in 2015 than it would be in 2009, and you see why it's perplexing that the Twins don't make an honest effort to sign Santana long-term.

The very fact that Carlos Silva just got paid $50 million for four years should tell you that the Twins could go at least 7 and 140 for Santana. I mean, what will $20 million mean in 2015? Will it be enough money for some team like the Rangers to sign Boof Bonser? Meanwhile, the Twins likely would be paying a highly possible Hall of Fame pitcher for the last year of his (pitching) prime.

It makes you wonder. Do the Twins see something, or are they afraid of a dropoff in Santana's effectiveness? It's a lot easier to tell yourself a guy's tipping pitches, losing bite, not throwing the slider, or might get injured when you're asked to pony up $140 million.

Oh, and that number is the minimum, folks.

Twins add filler

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:53:00 +0000

The Twins signed 1B Mike Lamb late last week and told us he would be the Twins starting 3B. It's hard to know how to feel about this. If you're in the camp that believes the Twins might compete this year, then the Lamb move should be an intermediate one. He's a nice lefty stick who can play a little third, a little first, and DH some.

The Twins are in need of one more infielder--someone who can play either 2B or 3B. Brendan Harris' versatility allows the Twins more options than they're used to. Unfortunately, the option they are mostly likely to take is "no one." The Twins imply they're done, and that's too bad, but of course there's a decent chance they'll fill that spot in spite of themselves.

Any deal with Boston appears to include 2B Jed Lowrie, the Stanford product the Red Sox stole with a sandwich pick in 2005. Lowrie is close to ready, though it's possible he needs a little more AAA time. If the Twins deal Johan Santana to the Sox, it's likely that Lowrie would get a chance to take over 2B at some point this year. Between AA and AAA this past year, Lowrie put up great offensive numbers: .298/.393/.503 and played a limited shortstop.

What Boston had in mind for this 2B by putting him at SS is anyone's guess. I've heard it mentioned that at SS he'd be more attractive in trade. Perhaps the SS experience would provide needed depth in case of a big-league emergency. Whatever the reason, be assured Lowrie is unlikely to ever play SS in the major leagues. Should he make it to Boston to eventually pair with Dustin Pedroia, put your money on Pedroia to make the move across the bag.

So the Twins, if they deal Santana to the Red Sox for Jacoby Ellsbury, will constitute their 14 position player roster as such:

C: Mauer, Redmond
1B: Morneau
2B: Harris
3B: Lamb (Lowrie)
SS: Everett
UT: Punto, Machado
OF: Cuddyer, Ellsbury, Young, backup CF vs lhp TBD
DH: Kubel, Monroe

Lowrie would replace Machado or otherwise injured infielder, with Harris moving to 3B. Lamb is Ron Gardenhire's emergency catching, and thank god for that. The Twins still need a CF to bat versus tough lefties and spot Ellsbury...it will be interesting to see who's out there prior to spring training. Should the Twins deal Santana to the Yankees, Melky Cabrera would substitute for Ellsbury, and Lowrie would simply disappear.

Adam Everett, your Twins Savior

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:31:00 +0000

The Twins announced today they have agreed to a one year, $2.8 million deal with former Astro Adam Everett. Everett is a slick-fielding shortstop with a career batting line of .249/.299/.357 playing in a hitter's part.

Um, note to Bill Smith: nobody has every complained about Nick Punto's fielding. Two point eight million. Enough said.

Monroe, Tyner, and all things Santana

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:56:00 +0000

Yesterday the Minnesota Twins apparently completed their recent mission of solidifying the corner OF/DH block of their lineup with the signing of OF Craig Monroe to a one-year, $3.82 million contract. The price was the minimum the Twins could offer the former anti-Twin, and about $1-2 million more than Monroe would have made on the open market had the Twins non-tendered him today.

Chances are negotiations went something like this for Bill Smith:

Twins: We'd like to have you for 2008 at half your 2007 salary.
CM: I made $4.8 in 2007, you have to offer $3.82.
Twins: True, but if we don't, how much do you think a team will give you?
CM: We'll find out, but since I have no ties whatsoever to the Twins, I doubt that I'll end up with you.
Twins: (Blink)

It's the second time in weeks that Smith has blinked and been bluffed into giving up a lot more than he planned to. Tampa Bay hooked the new GM with Delmon Young and by the end of the negotiations not only got Smith to remove the erratic and expensive Juan Rincon from the equation, but convinced our young pup to give up a top five Twins prospect in Eduardo Morlan.

So now the Twins pay too much for a limited Monroe. Fortunately, Monroe has an upside, and that is his reasonable success against left handed pitchers. His downside, of course, is his horridness against righties. Other than the price, this would seem a perfect move for the Twins. Young and Michael Cuddyer will play full-time, and Jason Kubel should only play against righthanders, leaving Monroe to pick up Kubel's ABs against lefties.

Unfortunately, the Twins have shown themselves under Ron Gardenhire to not fully understand their players' limitations, and to play players in situations with higher risk of failure. Whereas 200-250 (expensive) Monroe ABs against mostly lefty pitching would optimize the Twins hitting and run production, Smith gives Gardy the go-ahead to continue to sabotage the offense by saying:

“We wouldn’t have signed Craig Monroe if we didn’t think he would get enough at-bats,” Smith said.

And so it goes.

--News is leaking out that the Twins are non-tendering Jason Tyner. It's understandable, but it's hard to know how to feel about this. As a starting corner OF or especially a DH, Tyner can't come close to providing the necessary offense. As a fifth OF sort who can run, steal, play all three positions, and get a timely basehit against a righthander, Tyner has some value. It will be interesting to see if the Twins re-sign Tyner, perhaps to a minor league contract.

--Rumors are the Twins are getting closer to a Johan Santana deal with the Red Sox, particularly a deal including Jacoby Ellsbury, Jed Lowrie, Justin Masterson, and another prospect. While this is not a deal the Twins should be accepting at this time, let's not forget the alternatives. It can be worse. Ellsubury is a sure thing to be at least a solid AL CF. Lowrie, if he can play defense well enough, will get on base as well as Justin Morneau does, probably better. There's a Todd Walker similarity there for me. Each of these players will be under the Twins control for at least six seasons.

In terms of this deal, here's how I rank the alternatives:

1. Sign Santana. The Twins have the money. It's more about whether they can build around the $22 million man.

2. Insist on Jon Lester with Ellsbury. It's not like the Twins couldn't sweeten the pot here. If Santana goes to the Red Sox, that pushes Lester back anyway. Maybe throw them back Brian Duensing, who's close yet doesn't need to be protected?

3. Wait for an offer out of nowhere. I would rather have Adam Jones or Philip Hughes as the centerpiece, but the extras added thus far have not impressed me. If the Angels offer Jerod Weaver, Brandon Wood, and Reggie Willits, the Twins have to do this. Likewise, if the Dodgers offer Chad Billingsley, Andy LaRoche, and Matt Kemp. I certainly don't expect the latter, but the former doesn't seem that out of whack for the Angels.

4. Take the deal as offered. Ellsbury himself is a haul, though he may currently be the most overrated player out there. I would not expect him to be more than adequate in 2008. Lowrie has a chance to be a very solid player for years, and the deeper prospects may also turn into useful pieces or even starters. That's a huge bounty compared to:

5. Get two picks as compensation at the end of 2008. The two picks would likely cost $2 million and probably won't ever be key pieces to the Twins. If they are, it will be 5-8 years from now.

There's a vast difference between 4 and 5, bridged only slightly by the unlikely shot Santana gives the Twins of making the playoffs.

Sign him for his name.

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:28:00 +0000

Come on, Twins.

Fukudome is your man.

Golden Gopher Point Guard Depth

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:25:00 +0000

Today at the Star Tribune site, blogger Myron Medcalf ponders the Golden Gopher point guard situation going forward. It's funny that a number of the comments were such that Medcalf shouldn't even be worried about something so far in the future. I guess a lot of people see freshman Al Nolen and sophomore Kevin Payton as enough talent to hold down the position for the next few years. And hope, of course, that some gifted PG comes to the Gophers in 2010.

I don't think that's a situation that takes care of itself, and it's worth addressing.

Don't get me wrong. I think Al Nolen is a decent ballplayer who will improve enough to be adequate for a middle of the road Minnesota team. But as a fan I've never strived for mediocrity in my favorite sports teams, even when they've hit rock bottom. My thoughts on the issue of the Gophers point guard situation going forward:

1. Nolen will be okay/decent/good but never an impact player for a top team. He should play major minutes until an impact PG can come in to run the show. Nolen, once he gets a couple of years under his belt, is talented enough to play an effective 15-20 per game for a top team, which should be the goal for Minnesota: to be a top Big Ten team in 2-3 years.

2. Incoming recruit Devoe Joseph probably is not a PG and therefore might not make sense there. That he wants to play it is understandable, because he knows that's his best ticket to the NBA. But that's not something you just switch to post-HS. We'll see if he has aptitude there, and if he does, the problem is actually solved. I highly doubt he'll be a better point than Nolen, though.

3. Washington PG Adrian Oliver has expressed some interest in playing for the coach who tried to recruit him to Kentucky. Oliver has no chance of being a Gopher. First, the reports make me think he simply isn't any better than Nolen. Add to that his lack of production, some injury history, and a transfer year (he could play in January, 2009), and this California kid who wants to stay close to home doesn't appear a good fit in any way.

4. Payton isn't good enough. He's clearly shown that he doesn't have the talent to be a decent PG, much less an impactful one. Payton actually would be an ideal candidate to transfer, except that he's already used up his redshirt year. Transferring to another D1 school would leave him with only one year of competition. Transferring to a D2 program, where his talent would make him potentially a big fish, could solve the problem if a top PG were to replace him.

5. As stated, for the Gophers to rise to an elite level 2-3 years from now, Nolen will need to share time with a very good/great PG. One of the most common themes for an elite team is that when its point guard has the ball, the probability of team scoring quickly goes up considerably. That means the PG is a threat to knock down the jumper, drive the lane, pull up from the dribble, get to the basket, finish, and get the ball to his teammates in a position for them to score more easily than if he hadn't touched the ball.

Nolen right now displays all these traits at a very low level for a BCS point guard. He does seem to possess them all, however, and the expectation is that he will improve each of them with experience and confidence. I just don't see that he can improve enough to be more than average, which is fine as a starter for a middling team or as a backup for a top team. I prefer thinking in terms of a top team, and filling the holes necessary under such an expectation.

6. Unfortunately, there are currently only three scholarships available between 2008 and 2009, the Gophers probably need a big man (maybe still this coming year), and the other two scholarships are waiting for local products Royce White and Rodney Williams (both 3's). So I would expect Unknown BigMan, White, and Williams to get the offers. And as we've seen, Tubby Smith can be very enticing with his charm and his quick elevation of the program from the rock bottom to something worth talking about, so I actually expect the the three openings to be filled by these three commodities.

Note that the reason the Gophers need a big guy is that two years from now they will only have then-sophs Ralph Sampson and Colton Iverson, with then-senior Damian Johnson playing a smaller 4 . They need depth up front, and then-junior Paul Carter is definitely not a 4. A team needs at least four 4's and 5's to compete.

So unless we give up on or lose White or Williams (both rated in Rivals top 50), or unless there is a transfer (unlikely, it seems), there is no room for a PG until 2010, and that's troublesome. What's the plan, Tubby?

Off to Vegas

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:20:00 +0000

I have a marathon to run this Sunday, and then I am testing my poker skills at the MGM Grand through Thursday this week. Thus far my tournament finishes (with # of participants) are 3rd (60), 3rd (70), 75th (150), 17th (150). Unfortunately, the money I won in the first two tourneys only paid for my participation in the 3rd and 4th.

This means I will not be blogging for a while, but I will try to address the Johan Santana deal that is sure to happen as soon as I can. Let's hope the Twins can pull the equivalent of Kemp, LaRoche, Billingsley or Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lowrie. Have a great week!

Twins trade Garza for Delmon Young

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:18:00 +0000

Twins receive: Delmon Young (rh), Brendan Harris (rh), Jason Pridie (lh)
Rays receive: Matt Garza, Jason Bartlett, Eduardo Morlan (rhp)

Overall this trade does not have me doing cartwheels. I still have no idea how GM Billy Smith goes from giving up inneffectual Juan Rincon to giving up top prospect Eduardo Morlan. That was the last piece to the trade, and it was a blunder by Smith. I will not analyze the trade other than to say I agree with everything Aaron Gleeman writes on the subject.

One thing I will add is that by replacing Rincon with Morlan, the Twins acquired an extra player (in Pridie) who needs to be protected on their 40-man roster. While that may seem harmless enough, there are only so many spots the Twins have available. Morlan is not just a great prospect, but he is a year away from having to be protected. So in essence, the last part of the deal to be completed cost the Twins this:

1) a top five system prospect
2) a player to be determined who will be exposed to the Rule V draft
3) $2.5 million projected difference between Rincon's salary and his replacement's salary.
4) a couple of games in 2008, if Rincon is pitching.

Santana should bring a lot in trade...sorry Joe

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:14:00 +0000

In today's Minneapolis Star Tribune Joe Christensen write that Johan Santana's value is not nearly what the Minnesota public perceives it to be:

In any Santana trade, the Twins might want an established star, such as Robinson Cano or Jose Reyes, along with multiple prospects. But that is a pipe dream.

Christensen blogged today that he's been getting nasty emails and such from people disagreeing with him. He defends his column by noting that he's repeating what some major league execs have said: that Santana's pending free agency after 2008 places him in less demand because the team acquiring Santana could lose him after a year. Christensen goes on to say that other pitchers who've been mentioned as available, especially 2007 breakouts Eric Bedard of Baltimore and Dan Haren of Oakland, are not pending free agents and would therefore be more attractive to teams willing to give up prospects for a top pitcher.

The logic is flawed, though Haren/Bedard make it less so. In an attempt to dismiss Haren/Bedard, let me just say that neither has nearly the track record of Santana, nor has either proven to be over the injury nexus that all pitchers must endure. Bedard was shut down this past year, albeit with an oblique injury, and Haren tired considerably in 2007. Santana is through the injury nexus and has proven he can put up amazing numbers all season for five consecutive seasons. They are different products.

As far as the haul made by the Twins and how it's affected by pending free agency, the point is that the Twins are not trading a 2008 FA to be. They are trading a pitcher who will have agreed to a contract extension, and the money, at least for the teams in the hunt, is not all that out of whack for the product.

If the Twins can't make a haul, then there is no reason to trade him. What is wrong with giving Santana the money he's asking for? If the Twins can extend him four years at $20 million per, then they can extend him for six, where that money is even less at the end of the contract (inflation). Who's to say the Twins can't work out a deal that gets rid of the strictest "no-trade" clauses?

Seriously, what risk do the Twins have by adding six years, $126 million without the strict no-trade clause (perhaps have a salary enhancer if dealt)? The risk is an injury risk, and Santana really is past that point, unlike where Joe Mays was when the Twins gave him "big" money.
I see no reason the Twins shouldn't get whatever they ask for.

Oh, and Joe C. keeps mentioning Robinson Cano as a star the Twins might get in trade. He looks good for the Yankees, but anybody who's watch Cano knows that he's a guess hitter who can only hit straight fastballs, unless of course he guesses right. He's hardly a star. Put him in the Twins lineup not surrounded by stars up and down, and you have a different hitter.

Random Friday

noreply@blogger.com (Twinstalker) — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:53:00 +0000

Go shopping, eat leftovers. Seriously, it's Black Friday.

Tom Powers, columnist for the St. Paul Pioneer Press, is an idiot. Speaking about Torii Hunter leaving the Twins, Powers states
For the first time, the organization lost a player it didn't want to lose. For the first time, it couldn't come up with a way to keep a key component...(the Twins) clearly wanted to keep Hunter. If they didn't, they wouldn't have offered him $45 million toward the end of last season.
The Twins did not want Hunter. In fact, they only needed him for another season or two.
If the Twins really wanted Torii Hunter they would have offered him five years. They offered the right amount of money per season, and offering it for two more seasons would actually have been cheaper, given inflation and accounting for the extra revenue they'll have then. Their three-year offer they knew had no chance of being accepted. And given that, no, Tom, they didn't want Hunter.

Congratulations to Tubby Smith on a very nice initial recruiting class. Rivals.com ranks incoming freshmen Ralph Sampson #74, Devoe Joseph #82, and Colton Iverson #136. Junior-to-be Devron Bostic is rated the #4 Juco player, while Paul Carter is not rated due to his current freshman status. The class is by no means a top ten class but could rank in the top 25 when all is said and done. Tubby got off to a late start for the 2008 class, but he quickly made the state of Minnesota notice that big-time college basketball is on its way back to Williams Arena and that the Monson era is so, so over.
Remember Nate Garth, Tubby's first commitment? I will admit to watching video on the kid after he committed, and it was so obvious that he would be overmatched at point guard in the Big 10, I prepared myself to wait until 2009 for the first quality Gopher recruits. Tubby must have also noticed, because Garth's offer was quickly yanked.
The Gopher football recruiting has gone extremely well so far. Currently Rivals ranks Minnesota as having the #27 class, right between Penn St. at 26 and Wisconsin at 28. While the Gophers are unlikely to catch Penn St., they are also unlikely to fall behind Wisconsin, giving Minnesota the 5th best class in the Big 10 after Ohio St. (9), Michigan (12), Illinois (17) and Penn St. Wisconsin has only one more scholarship to offer, while the Gophers have five left. Rivals uses the highest rated 22 recruits to determine class rankings.