52 thoughts on “Do the Twins Lack Passion?”

1. I hadn't thought about this but it is a valid concern.

   At my new job I work with someone who played college basketball at a prominent Division I program. When discussing sports with him and a couple of co-workers recently the topic of athletes taking plays off came up. I went on a tangent on how at a pro level athletes don't take plays off, how they have worked too hard, are too competitive, to just give up on plays. It took the former hoops player all of about 1 second to correct me. "Dudes take plays off all of the time. Especially if they are losing. Playing on a losing team [stinks] and become infectious".

   Let's hope 2011 is a motivation tool for next season and Twins realize how much this season stunk and correct themselves. Then again, maybe they are just using injuries as an excuse and are in for a real surprise next season.

   But yeah, I'd like to see someone step up and take responsibility for the season-- even if it is Cuddy.

2. Nice guys finish last.

   --Leo Durocher

3. I'm only convinced, so far, that they aren't very good. I'm sure Tolbot, Nishioka, Butera, etc., are passionate about the game. But passion doesn't put wood on the ball.

   Is Nick Blackburn passionate? Yea, I think so. He's just not very good. Statcorner.com puts his performance at more than -20 pRAA. Even worse, the offense is at -63.7 bRAA. This is a bad team.

4. Well, didn't Pavano trash a Gatorade cooler earlier in the year, and didn't Morneau bust something up, too? I agree with JeffA a bit here- it's all well and good to stay under control, but sometimes the players, especially the veterans, have to let the rest of the team know that they are pissed about not playing as well as they want to be. It's not going to make Tolbert into a .300 hitter if someone gets into his face about a missed play, but I'd like to see a little more vocal, demonstrative leadership coming from the players.

   1. someone just needs to punch punto.

      1. [raises hand]

         1. I second strategery, he has sufficient disguise to get away with it sans assault charges.

   2. The reason for Morneau's sore wrist was because he busted something.

      1. Corey should have stuck around longer in order to pass more wisdom onto his younger countryman.

         1. I will always have a hard time accepting Canadians as aggressive.

            1. Have you ever seen a hockey game?

               1. Most recent memory of hockey is the Wild. Nothing aggressive about that.

                  1. Minnesota Nice Hockey.

            2. I submit this photo of Canadian special forces commandos for your review.

               1. Brendan Gleeson is Canadian? 😉 I was expecting John Candy, honestly.

               2. Those are awfully aggressive beards.

                  1. That explains our singles hitting pussy...all sideburns.

5. I think it's easier to be "passionate" when you have a team that is good but underperforming. If you instead have a team that isn't good because half the team is on the DL, well, what can you do? Write a passionate letter to the GM*? Personally, I'm not into "passion" in baseball as such. I'd be more than happy with 9 robots taking it out on a baseball than taking angry swings at each other or the manager's door.

   But I also haven't seen Gardy tossed from a game lately.

   *That might not be a bad idea

   1. recommended by his physician I'm sure

6. I was actually thinking this morning that I wish they had a couple of guys who aren't the prototypical "Twins guy" on the team. Obviously I don't mean someone like Milton Bradley, but someone who can play who's got a bit of a cocky streak. It would be good for the team I think to have someone who's intense like that, and it would be good for Gardenhire to learn to deal with differing personalities.

7. Gardenhire said there are times when a manager needs to scream and yell at his team, and times when he needs to be careful not to kick them when they're down. Sunday's postgame talk could have gone either way. "Honestly, I went in there, in the mind that I was going to scream and yell, but there were some guys in there that took [the loss] pretty hard, so I decided I didn’t need to kick them, and I backed away from them."

   I have a hard time questioning the passion of players, especially baseball players. People react outwardly in different ways, especially in public. I think Morneau tends to be too passionate. He gets down on himself and doesn't trust his own talents and starts to swing at bad pitches and/or tries to pull everything. This team has essentially the same makeup as last year's team that won 94 games. Did they have a personality transplant? I don't think so. Revere is openly pointed out as a sparkplug for the team. Valencia is chastised for being too cocky. Tolbert has been known as a guy that works too much on his swing. Jason Kubel is known as the team's most laid-back personality and has been its most consistent hitter throughout the season. If anything, this team has lost confidence and its hard to look very passionate when you're getting the crap kicked out of you every day.

   1. Also, when you're winning, you're a team of professionals that goes about their business in a professional way, when you're losing, you lack passion.

      1. history is determined by the winners, eh?

      2. There's a lot of truth to that- so much of this discussion is truly about semantics and perspective. Is Valencia cocky, or is he over-confident? Is Casilla streaky, or is he undependable? I think overall, Rhu put it very well up above- if you're good but under-performing, then is when you should be trying to get the rest of the team going. For this team, I don't think it would help the situation much. There's no way you can give a balky elbow or a concussion a pep talk.

8. Another point, how many times has this team been counted out only to come back and win the division? How many other teams would have packed it in once they got to 20 games under .500 and 16 1/2 games out and yet this team had us believing they were back in the race and were going to make a run at it. Just because you don't slam a bat on the ground after a strikeout or throw at batters after a home run doesn't mean you lack passion.

9. The lack of outwardly passionate players may be the symptom of a problem more than it is a problem in and of itself. It's one thing to keep in mind that chemistry matters, and having the right mix of personalities in a ballclub can play a role in its success. But you can't lose sight of the fact that it's awfully hard to find good ballplayers in the first place. The Twins seem to be in the business of looking for five-tool athletes who can play baseball and have five-tool personalities, when other teams are just looking for five-tool athletes who can play baseball.

   Consider a brief list of what I perceive to be personality-related moves (not with personality as the driving factor, but at least as a secondary one) by the Twins in the last few years:

   AJ Pierzynski traded for Nathan/Bonser/Liriano. Pierzynski was a damn good catcher, and even though Mauer was coming up (the primary motivation for the trade), I imagine it made it easier for TR to make this move knowing that not everyone gets along with "Anthony." And this move could really have blown up in his face. It's not hard to envision an alternate scenario where Liriano's arm blows up in the minors, Nathan is the rough equivalent of LaTroy Hawkins, and AJP became a league average catcher for the Giants.

   Kyle Lohse traded for magic beans. Obviously Lohse had worn out his welcome, but he was about to get more expensive. I thought he was underappreciated, but his escalating salary made him less valuable to the team, so it was less important to mend this relationship.

   Bartlett/Garza for Delmon. I think the main motivation behind this trade was that BS really wanted a right-handed hitter to drive in runs, and he liked that Delmon would be under control and presumably nearing his peak when the new stadium was built. But secondarily, it's hard to get around all of the public complaints the Twins had about Bartlett and Garza.

   Ramos for Capps. Again, I think the primary motivation here was a real concern for the state of last year's bullpen and a "win now" mentality. But I've also read that the Twins had concerns about Ramos' attitude, which probably made it easier (in their mind) to let him go.

   It seems like we've headed more in a direction where players are barely even allowed to wear out their welcome. Even with personality concerns, the Twins ought to have been more protective of some of this younger, salary-controlled players, especially when they are so close to contributing.

   1. That doesn't even include some non-moves recently: Rauch wasn't resigned/pursued because of his personality. Hudson wasn't resigned because he grated on everyone. This one sounds like it was clubhouse wide rather than just Gardy's thin skin. Neshek was put on waivers, presumably to clear space on the 40-man. I can't help but think it was because he was critical of the team.

      1. of course, there have been a LOT of other moves and non-moves as well. Crain and Guerrier spring immediately to mind.

         1. But because of personality? Both were signed to multi-year deals, whereas Rauch signed a one-year deal with a team option.

            1. fans are rarely happy when a player leaves, so there usually has to be a narrative to explain the departure.

               1. I'm a little confused at this point. The personalities of Rauch and Hudson were both talked about negatively in the Strib and mentioned as reasons for letting them leave. I have seen nothing like that about Guerrier and Crain. Still could be the case, but they both lasted six plus years in the organization, makes me think the Twins thought they were okay.

                  1. I'm just saying that I've seen a lot of post-hoc explanations for player departures -- "makeup" or personality problems, too expensive, whatever. I take them all with big grains of salt. Particularly the personality driven ones.

                     I've also seen a lot of post-hoc explanations for movements in the stock market. I don't take those at face value either.

                     1. Some post-hoc explanations make more sense than others. Hudson seems to be one of those guys it's great to have a beer with but terrible to be roommates with. I've heard plenty of nice things said about him, but he's also jumped from team to team a fair bit, even though he doesn't really wind up getting paid a whole lot. I could believe that there's some kind of personality issue there.

                        The Neshak move I think was just a 40-man thing and the Twins not believing in his health. I don't think they were ever really entirely comfortable with his unconventional delivery, so the injury was enough for them to make room for someone else.

                        The Ramos thing I haven't heard from the Twins themselves, but (I think) through something Mandelero wrote. So I am making a bit of a leap there, but I don't think it's so unreasonable to infer that if Ramos was as well-liked personally as, say, Revere, he'd still be around.

                        Not sure about Rauch. In terms of Bartlett, Garza, Lohse, and Pierzynski, I think there's plenty of evidence that they rub some of their superiors the wrong way.

                        1. It didn't help that Neshek liked to Tweeter and fire it out to the internet a lot, as well.

   2. This isn't new, though. Tom Kelly had a large doghouse back in the day, too. Todd Walker. Tom Herr (good riddance!). etc. Although back then, they were just as easy to cut bait for lack of fundamentals as they were for chemistry matches. Not so much now, eh?

      1. But how good was TK in terms of building up a team, though? Gardy's had the benefit of an increasing payroll that TK didn't have, but I'd imagine TK was a little less picky about personality when he first got the job (was too young to really know from back then.) You can only afford to have so many players on your feces list.

   3. Slowey's next in line. (You'd think it'd be Mijares, but it's not.)

      This team has basically taken on the personality of Delmon Young.

      1. Also, Moss is willing to reconsider this issue -- was Punto more valuable than most of the Nation gave him credit for? Did he bring some of the missing ingredients to the table?

         1. not at $4 million per season.

            1. Right, but the point wasn't whether he was worth it or whether he should have been resigned. Just, did he bring more to the table than was on the surface? And are they missing that now?

               1. Punto lost his value when he stopped making Mt. Dew slushee's for Morneau.

            2. Disagree. $4M is pretty piddling in the terms of the Twins' budget. In his last contract with the Twins, Punto was worth 1.8 fWAR in '09 and 1.3 fWAR in '10, for 3.1 fWAR total. The Twins paid him $9.5M for that, which works out to a little over $3M/win. Pretty fair overall.

               Going into '09, Punto was coming off of a run of 3.4, 0.5, and 2.7 fWAR. Weighting that 1-3-5, you get a rough expectation of 2 fWAR going into '09.

               In their careers, Punto has 12.4 fWAR and Cuddyer has 14.4 fWAR, and you can chalk most of that difference up to this year's difference (1.4 vs. 3.0).

               1. The numbers work out, but it seems like it sure would be easier to find a young player with Punto's skills to play for the minimum than a player than can actually hit, even if he is just a 1B/DH type.

                  1. It seems like it sometimes, but then you wind up with Matt Tolbert, who is really much worse than Punto.

                     One of the reasons I think that last Punto contract made sense for the Twins was their middle infield depth was so bad. Punto's not someone you're happy about having in the starting lineup, but he's also pretty adequate as the guy you put in the middle infield after one of your starting middle infielders goes on the DL.

         2. Punto, especially with his headfirst sliding into first base, was more annoying than he was harmful to the team. I don't know that he brought any missing ingredients, but he played his role well, and to the extent that he was a problem on the team, it was more a matter of the team not being able to develop/identify a really solid regular at some of the positions he played.

            I get caught up in the praise-to-value ratio of players some, though, and Punto's praise-to-value ratio was through the roof, which made him a little more annoying, too.

            1. I wasn't so much bothered by Punto as I was by Gardy not recognizing his proper role. He SHOULD have been a Repko for the infield.

               1. It didn't seem like Gardy had too much choice most of the time.

                  1. That was also the impression I got most of the time. He may have blocked Bartlett for a time, but other than blocking Bartlett, I'm not really sure who Punto was pushing to the bench most of the time. His first big year, he was displacing the mighty Tony Batista at third base.

                     1. I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but what was really so horrific about Cuddyer as a 3b?

                        In 2005 he played 95 games at 3b. That also happens to be his best season in the field, according to b-f (+0.7 dWAR; Fangraphs has him at -4.7 UZR/150 at 3b that year).

                        I'm still not convinced that the acquisition of Castillo in the 2005-06 off-season made sense, when they could have just left Cuddy at 3b and Punto at 2b. That would have left a hole in RF, to be sure....

                        1. I think that Cuddyer himself was uncomfortable playing third base because of his difficulties hearing out of his left ear. Could he do it? Sure, but then he would have to man up and not be such a p***y about it. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

                           I think that the Castillo acquisition made sense because all we gave up was a minor league reliever and the Marlins were in fire sale mode at that point in time (IIRC).

                           Also, I think there's a good deal of information out there that Cuddyer's just not a very good infielder, or well, I guess he's not a very good fielder at all in general. He's been below average at first base, and 2B/3B are more demanding positions. Moving him to the outfield was probably the right decision.

                           1. It certainly wasn't a patently awful decision to move Cuddy to RF. And of course you are right that the post-hoc analysis on Castillo is that we won on both the incoming and the outgoing transactions. (I thought Bowyer had a chance to Be Somebody, before he blew out his arm)

                              For me, the real dominos were moving Punto from 2b and then trading Bartlett (and Garza) for magic beans. While I have some appreciation for the nature of the gamble in trading for _elm_n, I was an original hater on that trade. Two productive players under club control at key positions, for one "potential" and [redacted]?

                              Punto, as you and others have pointed out, was a reasonable value as a middle infielder/sometime starter. Sadly, the club wasn't able to develop a viable replacement for Koskie at 3b (and the book is still open on Valencha), despite several draft efforts (Jose Morales, drafted as a SS in the 3rd round in 2001; Matt Moses, 1st round in 2003; David Winfree, 13th rd in 2003; Plouffe in 2004; Paul Kelly in the 2nd round in 2005)

                           2. Even at the time, I wasn't super high on Bowyer. Huge walk rate and didn't start above A-ball. (I really, really value minor league starters over minor league relievers, maybe to a fault.) Most days I'll be pretty happy trading a minor league relief pitcher with walk issues for a league-average second baseman.

                              I was also an original hater on the Delmon trade. Three up-the-middle players (if you include Morlan) for two corner players? Just generally a bad idea, even if Delmon was an average defender in the corner.

                              I wonder what position most major league third basemen were drafted at. I'd guess shortstop, but maybe most third basemen were drafted as third basemen.

Comments are closed.