Minnesota Twins Whatnot: June 25

Do you think Gardy did the right thing Friday afternoon when he had Redmond in the game as the DH and Mauer in as catcher? Would you have rather had Mauer DH to save his knees, or Redmond DH so you could save the DH position when pinch-running?

Dan Wade: With the off-day coming on Monday, I don’t see this being a huge issue. Mauer gets to rest his knees and that’s what matters. Going forward, I’d try to DH Mauer once a week or so, to save his knees, but I see no reason he shouldn’t be in the lineup everyday. No more of this “no day games after night games” junk.

Marty Andrade: As one of the biggest Mike Redmond fans out there, I really appreciate watching him play. The way he hits, the punishment he takes behind the plate, all of it put together makes him one of the best backup catchers in the majors. But, Red ain't no DH. He doesn't have the bat to DH and there's no reason why, if he's in the lineup, that he shouldn't be catching. His value comes from the fact he's catcher.

Joe Mauer also gets a lot of value from being a catcher, but his bat is so good he could easily spend time as a DH once in a while. Mauer is one of the best hitters on the team, one of the best in the league, if you're going to risk having both catchers in the lineup at the same time, you might as well put the less valuable player at the highest risk. This means it was a mistake to DH Redmond over Mauer.

But, we should appreciate the fact that Gardy is no longer afraid of putting both his catchers into the lineup at the same time to increase offensive production at the risk of losing the DH spot. To me, it's an emotional wash.

Belthezar Bumperdingle: Yeah, it's more than clear why there's such a risk involved when both Redmond AND Mauer are in the game. If Mauer gets injured, we lose the DH. But we've done that twice in the last two years, and both situations turned out fine.

I think one thing to remember is this underlying rule of thumb that Mauer always plays the home games. There just seems to be so many fans that are there to watch Mauer—and Gardy feels an obligation to always have him in. So I'd rather see Mauer DH'ing when he wants a break to save his knees. But again, seeing Redmond and Mauer both in the lineup got a chuckle outta me, not a concerned gasp.

Andrew Kneeland: I think that putting both players in was an unneeded risk. If Redmond gets hurt, we're in tizzy, aren't we? I'm sure Gardy had his reasons, though, so I'm not too concerned.

What potential trade are you most interested in and why?

Dan Wade: I haven’t heard any names that really knock me over, mostly because it isn’t really clear what this team really needs. I’d like to add a top-notch set-up guy, but trading for one is foolish; it’s just a matter of who the best call-up is, and that’s probably Korecky.

Kevin Kouzmanoff might be a good fit, but right now Brian Buscher looks just fine at third, and it isn’t clear if he’s even available. Any deal the Twins do will go down closer to the deadline, when teams know if they are buyers or seller, and when the Twins have a clearer picture of who they need to replace to really make a run at a pennant.

If Melky Cabrera is really available, I have my doubt as to this, he might be a DH worth pursuing, but that crowds an already very full OF/DH situation.

Marty Andrade: Looking at Denard Span and Darnell McDonald sitting in AAA right now, I wonder if Carlos Gomez couldn't get shopped around. Considering the stolen bases, the speed, the defense, his age, and the popularity he brings, the Twins could get some really high value for him. I wouldn't be surprised if we could get three or four top-level prospects from somebody for Gomez.

It might seem very controversial, and it would be. But, often the best time to trade a player is when you least want to get rid of him. This is when his value is the highest.

Belthezar Bumperdingle: During the Rockies' series, I think I remember Dazzle throwing out an idea during one of the games. Matt Holiday is in his final year of his contract out in Colorado, and the Rockies have pretty much given up trying to sign him.

This was around the time that Cuddyer was in a bit of a slump. So a Cuddy+some other guys for Matt Holiday sounded really good at the time, and I think it's still a good idea. It was mostly speculation, no real indication that Bill Smith actually had this on his mind.

Also, it seems we have a bit of an overload in the infield. Between 2B, SS, and 3B we have Casilla, Lamb, Everett (on the DL...), Macri, Harris, and Punto (also on DL). All of them (except for maybe Everett) have effectively played well enough to hold their spot.

I think Macri could be the long-term answer at third, and Casilla at either second or short. That leaves out the three guys we acquired in the offseason. I would be just fine with Brendan Harris sticking around, but any one of them (are they all on contract for just this season? Oops, looks like Lamb is on for next year too...) could be good bait for a trade. I think this is the year we should be LOOKING for pitching prospects and not dealing them away like we have been for years, but I'm open to more than that too.

Andrew Kneeland: Livan Hernandez for anybody else.

When would you bring up Francisco Liriano?

Dan Wade: Short Answer: When he’s needed.

Long Answer: When someone in the rotation clearly can’t cut it. If the FO finds a buyer for Livan, or if Glen Perkins can’t find consistency, that’s when it makes the most sense for him to be called up. Failing an obvious hole, I don’t really know.

There’s a lot of talk about avoiding Super-Two status for Liriano, and while I think that is a TERRIBLE reason to keep him down if there is a need for him, it is an ancillary benefit to his time in AAA.

Perkins is the real question here. I almost feel bad for him; he has to be looking over his shoulder every time Liriano starts. If Perk struggles, even slightly, in his next outing against the Pads, I think you’ll hear cries for Liriano to come up for the next spate of very tough games (DET, CLE, BOS).

There is some wisdom here if, and I stress IF, Liriano is ready. If he isn’t, we’ll see his ERA stay near 11 or whatever it is now.

My fear with Liriano (see I told you this was long) is Matt Garza Syndrome. If he stays down longer than necessary, I fear we will see a drop in stats that looks like he doesn’t have his stuff back, but is actually due to the fact that he doesn’t care anymore. He needs to be back up before the end of July, but how much before then is up in the air.

Marty Andrade: Now. Livan Hernandez would be out of my organization were I in charge.

Belthezar Bumperdingle: I haven't really analyzed Liriano's performance down in Rochester, but all of his starts (that I heard about) were somewhere around 6 IP, 2-3 ERs, 5-7 Ks. He's solid and might be able to hold his own in a starting role. The problem is that it's hard to pick out one guy in our current rotation that deserves to get the boot.

My thought has been lately that Perkins could move to the rotation—the thought of three lefties in the bullpen is quite interesting—and put Liriano in the starting role. The question there, of course, lies with who would be sent down in such a case, but what happens, happens. At this point, my thought is to wait for one of our starters to tank before making the move on Liriano.

Andrew Kneeland: As soon as we find a buyer for Livan Hernandez. One could argue that this trade would create a lack of pitchers in the organization, and that alone might be enough to keep Smith from doing anything with Livan.

If Livan stays, Perkins has to go. He has been the most inconsistent of the bunch.

Has the Mike Lamb investment been worth it? Minnesota owes Lamp $3 million this season, and $3.5 million next year. He was brought in to provide an offensive upgrade over Punto, but with poorer defense. He is hitting only .224/.263/.302. What should be done with him?

Dan Wade: Has he been worth it? Um...there’s not really a polite way to stress no enough, so I’m just going to go with: Bear Stern stocks would have been a better investment.

Lamb was brought in because Little Nicky P was so bad last year. Smith was forced to do something, by the fans, by the media, even by Johan Santana’s comments at the deadline last year, about how the team never improves. Lamb was a decent gamble for the money, but the Twins lost. Snake eyes, if you will.

If the Twins can find a buyer for him, sell him off; like Jeff Cirillo last year, and Bret Boone the year before. Lamb was a gamble that failed. Cut bait and move on.

If they can’t find a sucker, MLB's clone of Kevin McHale, a willing partner, it might be time to just to stash Lamb on the bench, since he does have some value as a bench bat.  

Marty Andrade: For a very long time now, teams have been signing and paying over-30 veterans coming off of good years a lot of money. They then act surprised over being disappointed in the player's performance and offer excuses to diehard fans.

The reality is that veterans often have similar production over age 30 that under-25 players have. And veterans are very expensive.

Going into this year, Matt Macri and Brian Buscher both looked like they could platoon at third base successfully. Now, of course, Buscher and Macri are platooning at third base. The difference is the Twins are now out over $6 million.

The argument in favor of the Mike Lamb signing is that he was coming off a pair of good seasons with above-average offensive numbers. I got it. I understand that Bill Smith thought he wasn't taking a huge risk. But the fundamental truth of baseball is that players who are over thirty tend to fall very far, very fast, and with little warning.

Signing players over thirty isn't always a bad idea, but it must be done in a disciplined manner. Not a lot of money should be in play, and neither should a huge portion of the starting lineup be put at risk. Most importantly, don't sign mediocre veterans to multi-year deals if you can't afford it.

And the Twins can't afford it. $6 million spent elsewhere could mean a lot to a small time team like the Twins, and it is being thrown away on Mike Lamb, even when the team had younger and cheaper players to do the job.

Lamb should be shopped around for a trade, and if there are no takers he should probably be let go. His salary is a sunk cost, and the Twins need to accept the fact that his removal will mean addition by subtraction.

Belthezar Bumperdingle: I really don't know. Third base has been a circus for the Twins since Koskie left anyway, so it's no surprise that we have questions yet again. Between Lamb and Macri, I take Macri.

As I said earlier, Macri has some potential. He already has a dinger and is batting around .360 in just over a month's worth of off-and-on playing time. No jitters at all for him hitting against the Big Unit last night. I know this is probably jumping to conclusions too early, but the Twins could groom him to be their long-term guy at 3B.

As far as Lamb goes, it's important to note that he has held his own, defensively, and hasn't been the biggest disappointment offensively (Everett has, remember him?). He's best suited as a backup to Macri/Punto, but is that what we want to spend $3.5 million on? Maybe not.

The investment has been less-than-satisfactory, but this batch of new players the Twins got in the offseason are collectively a disappointment, with exception (most of the time...) to Harris and Hernandez.

Andrew Kneeland: No, Lamb has not been worth $6 million. I'm sure he is riding on cloud nine right now, as he believes he has the easiest job in the world.

I am not overly worried, though. Minnesota has Macri available to them full-time as soon as next year, and I think that is the route they need to go. If not a full-time shortstop, maybe splitting the duty with Lamb, who would become the utility infielder.

Third base is no longer a question for Minnesota. Brian Buscher has shown that he wants the job, and I think everyone is willing to give it to him.