Radke prognosis
After the last few outings, in which Brad Radke's velocity has slipped like a car with clogged fuel injectors, we are all wondering whether Brad will return to form. And, if so, when? So I thought it a good topic for discussion.
The problem is, the shoulder joint is the most complicated joint in the human body. It's an intricate system of muscles, tendons, ligaments, labrums connecting a ball and socket joint with the largest range of motion in the body. Any one of these things goes wrong and the whole system goes haywire, particularly for pitchers. So I did a little research on Radke's particular injury, and this is what I found. I interspersed what I've read in the papers and heard ad nauseum from the booth, and combined that with the research to do some analysis. Feel free to chime in if my info is off (the Internet being what it is) or if you have anything to add.
Here are my questions:
What is a torn labrum?
There are two major labrums in the shoulder. They both act like the meniscus in the knee: shock absorbers for the joint. The inner labrum cushions the ball and socket, the outer labrum is more like a spring for the biceps tendon and rotator cuff. The inner labrum is typically only injured through extreme shock. The outer labrum is injured through overuse. That is the injury that Radke suffers from.
What are the symptoms?
Basically, the tear causes friction and pain near the point of the shoulder. Every time Radke moves his arm, the tear rubs against the biceps tendon or rotator cuff ligaments, causing pain in the labrum itself and in the tendons or ligaments, depending on the location and severity of the tear. Many pitchers pitch through minor tears, but Radke's appears severe, and it appears to be getting worse the longer he pitches with it.
What are the treatments?
Barring an operation, the treatment is typically rehab and medication. The rehab involves strengthening the muscles around the shoulder to overcome the injury. Radke tried doing this, but he found the pain was too great, especially when he pitched. So he tried to back off all inter-start work. He basically doesn't even use his arm except when he pitches, so his arm is getting progressively weaker, and the injury's effects are getting progressively worse. The pain and anti-inflammatory meds are not doing enough to allow him to rehab, so it's a slow decline. Unless he can somehow get strength back in the critical muscles in the shouler through throwing and exercising between starts, he will not improve.
What is the prognosis?
The only thing that can possibly bring him back is a cortisone shot, which drastically reduces painful inflammation around the tear and allows him to strengthen the arm with some throwing between starts. Cortisone has many side effects, so it can only be administered every six weeks, and then only a few times a year. The last time he had one, in July, it allowed him to do some throwing on the side and he came back strong. But on July 29th, he had a major setback and stopped all side pieces. He's battled through valiantly, but he can't continue losing strength in the shoulder, particularly in the rotator cuff muscles, and pitch through this. He will have a cortisone shot today, and see if it allows him to do some long tossing and perhaps a bullpen or two before his next start. If he still can't work through the pain to get some strength back before his next start, he could be scratched.
Meanwhile his next start is scheduled for the New York series. Because of the off day Monday, Gardy is able to move the other pitchers up one game and put Radke at the end of the rotation. Assuming he can do some side work or weight work, he will give it another shot, but if he performs like he did last night, my hunch is that will be the end of his career. They might try to shut him down and get him some rehab work in hopes for a playoff appearance. But that is unlikely.
What are the options?
It's interesting that Liriano's injury is minor relative to Radke's, but Radkes pitches without side work and Liriano must basically start from scratch with a rehab and throwing program. Such is the state of their respective careers: Radke's done one way or another after this year; hopefully Liriano has a long career ahead of him. Liriano is making progress and I expect him to throw off a mound before the end of this month, pitch a simulated game in early September; do a rehab start or two in minor league playoff games; and come back strong on September 15 or so. But, if Radke can't go after the New York start, the Twins will have a gaping hole in their rotation for three or four turns before Liriano returns.
So that leaves Scott Baker or Dave Gassner as alternatives. The Twins can't bring both up until after Rochester is eliminated or wins the International League championship. So they will try to pick one. I think Baker is the better of the two, but the Twins brass might give Gassner another chance because they feel Baker is not making enough strides in keeping the ball down and sharpening his breaking ball. A lot depends on how they both start this week.
Another alternative is to promote Matt Guerrier to the rotation. Perhaps you get him up early in the Radke start in New York and insert him at the first sign of trouble, as they did last night against Chicago. In the likely event that Radke has another short start, you give Guerrier four innings, building up his arm to take over for Radke in the rotation.
Of all the options, I like this last one the best. Guerrier has paid his dues in the bullpen and has been consistently effective in his role. He has four pitches that he throws for strikes and he has shown that he can get good major league hitters out. He even pitches like Radke, or like Radke did when he was healthy anyway. Meanwhile Willie Eyre has of late shown that he can take over for Matt in the long role. And the Twins can probably call up a reliever from Rochester on September 1 to take Willie's mop-up innings without putting as big a dent in Rochester's playoff hopes as they would if they called up Gassner or Baker. I would nominate Beau Kemp for that job (you could make room for him on the 40 man by putting Radke on the 60-day DL). But Kevin Cameron and Bobby Korecky are also good candidates.
Don't fret. The Twins depth will be tested, once again. But as I wrote at the start of the year (Jesse, a little help with the archives please), the Twins depth will get them through another injury crisis. And at least Twins fans will know one way or another when the Twins face the Yankees next weekend what will become of the rotation without our beloved Bradke.
0 recs |
43 comments
Comments
Brad
World Series OR BUST Go Twins
by FrozenTed9 on Aug 26, 2006 1:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks...
by Batgirl on Aug 26, 2006 2:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Radke
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 26, 2006 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Guerrier
Guerrier has one good pitch, his curveball. It's a really nice curveball, but good teams are either going to look curveball and start hitting in the second/third time through the lineup or they're going to tee off on his mediocre fastball. I really don't like Guerrier's chances of being a successful starter.
by ubelmann on Aug 26, 2006 2:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
Campared to the other alternatives: Baker has no above-average pitch right now. Gassner has an above-average change. Niether has shown the ability to consistently get major league hitters out in at least a year.
Look at it this way, Radke had several starts in which all his pitches were below average. Yet he spotted the fastball, pitched hard inside, and kept the ball down well enough to be effective. Guerrier is no Radke, but he does have good enough control to be effective, at least as a bridge until Liriano gets back (three or four starts).
by cmathewson on Aug 26, 2006 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right...
Guerrier is no Radke, but he does have good enough control to be effective, at least as a bridge until Liriano gets back (three or four starts).
Guerrier is no Radke, that's for sure. The list of pitchers who can succeed with Radke's approach is very, very short. When you put the ball in play that much, then the margin for error is very small, so it's a slippery slope. In order to succeed you have to be absolutely relentless with your control, like Radke, Moyer, and Maddux. That we can say Guerrier is no Radke ought to make us pretty worried about his chances for success if he's trying to emulate Radke.
Also, considering Guerrier has the worst walk rate on the team, I'm not crazy about his control.
by ubelmann on Aug 26, 2006 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine
Guerrier has consistently gotten major league hitters out for nearly two years now, mostly in two- or three-ining stints. He has the best chance of success, unless Baker has returned to the form he had last year, when he was consistent pitch by pitch and inning by inning. I still think Baker will be a good pitcher when he gains more consistency. But I'm not keen on finding out in a pennant race.
by cmathewson on Aug 26, 2006 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't Buy
That being said, decent success in 2 or three, or ecen four innings doesn't neccesarily mean you can start. I woul dbe very wary of giving Guerrier starts, and i'd much rather see Baker be given a prolonged chance to work himself back in shape. i think Baker would be AT LEAST as good as Guerrier would, with a good chance of beign much better.
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 26, 2006 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matt....
Guerrier is still a once thru the order guy. Maybe repeat for a couple of batters, but would hate to see him line-up again against the ehart of an order in later innings.
Someday...he'll get that victory!
by twintown on Aug 26, 2006 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lohse and Other Thoughts
My hope is that Bonser and Garza have really turned the corner and that their most recent performances are indicative of the way they will pitch the remainder of the year. If not, it will be an uphill climb to the playoffs. Then again, it's been an uphill climb all year, and we've found a way to hang around -- that's why you have to love the Twins. This season has been so unexpected and amazing that, for some reason, I still have faith that, even without Radke, the Twins can make it to the playoffs and contend for the WS.
We can only hope and pray that Brad is able to keep pitching and contribute to this amazing run, if for no other reason than to receive the appreciation and fanfare he deserves from Twins fans as the season, and his career, come to a close. Of course, a World Series ring would be nice also.
by MauerPower on Aug 26, 2006 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
C'mon.....
The question is, who will come west this week when rosters can expand. The joy of September is that you can do a game start by committee if you get the right guys out there. Adding a lefty like Gassner who can go three innings could be complemented nicely with Baker and/or Kemp (who I'm in favor of giving a chance in the majors).
The Twins should do good. The real question mark is -- Carlos Silva. Sometimes he brilliant for 4-5 innings, other times, wish he was the 2-3 inning guy to bring in from the bullpen to get some outs with a great sinker (yes).
by twintown on Aug 26, 2006 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reply
Given that none of the other options in AAA are too appealing, I wouldn't mind having Lohse as an insurance policy. Plus, as ubelman has pointed out several times, Lohse's numbers with the Twins were not necessarily a completely accurate representation of what his performance could have been with an adequate defense behind him. Either way, he's not here anymore so we'll have to make due with what we have.
by MauerPower on Aug 26, 2006 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Twins Defense
That is a totally ludicrous statement. The Twins have gold gloves at three positions up the middle. And Castro was at least a major league average defensive shortstop.
Lohse's problem was neither poor defense nor bad luck. He was just inconsistent and what consistency he had was mostly poor quality pitches.
He has definitely pitched better than Silva, Garza or Bonser since going to Cincinatti. That may be the change of scenary or weaker competition. But he was much better for the Twins after he came back from Rochester.
by TT on Aug 26, 2006 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
The left side was a defensive disaster. Batista has no range whatsoever at third abse, and let almost everything get by him. Juan castro may have once been a good defender, and he has a smooth release, but he has lost much speed and was taking circular routes to balls. THose two things combined for a pretty pathetic range, which added to a weak throwing arm weren't a good combination for the D. Meanwhile, Shannon Stewart was being his usual self out in left - every fly ball is an adventure.
Meanwhile, Luis castillo isn't the gold glvoer he once was. He still makes some nice plays, but his range is, and was, also diminished and alltogether subpar. Add that to a Cuddyer who struggled som early on in the season defensivly in right, and we had a very, VERY poor defense. Ground balls rolled by our slow-ranging infielders with impunity, and extra bases were ceeded by or corner infielders on a regular basis.
Many of our pitchers weren't doing very well, but none were doing nearly as poorly as thier ERA's showed. In fact, until the Twins started skipping his starts, excaserbating his problems, thre was significant evidence is perphrial umbers that the primary difference between Scott Baker and jason Verlander was defense (the Tigers did, adn still do, boast baseball's finest defensive efficiancy, which has been the key to their success).
It is alwways said that defense is undervalued, but you have to watch a lot of baseball to really see how much. Highlight reel plays are often displayed as the marks of great players, and errors are touted as the final number, but range, determining how many balls a player can reach in the first place, is a far more important, and more often overlooked, factor in determining defensive success.
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 26, 2006 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
More nonsense
Which is to say their pitching was terrible.
It is alwways said that defense is undervalued, but you have to watch a lot of baseball to really see how much.
Which is why American League managers ranked Castillo as the best second baseman in the league. The problem isn't that baseball is undervalued its that people have a hammer called statistics and are busy pounding in screws with it.
by TT on Aug 26, 2006 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not nonsense
I believe that AdamOnFirst was just trying to make the point that our infield defense wasn't very good at all (in fact, it was far below average) until Punto and Bartlett entered the starting lineup. Of course the poor pitching had something to do with our poor defensive efficiency, but to say that the pitching was entirely responsible is completely unfounded. In baseball, there is an inherent interplay between pitching and defense--one has a direct bearing on the other. You don't even need statistics to understand that.
Defensive statistics are not perfect, but they do represent some quantifiable analysis of how well (or how poorly) a team's defense actually is, and to some extent, how well the team is pitching. I don't claim to be a great statistician, but I do know that the statistics cited by some of the more thoughtful posters on this website have been created and verified by very smart people who not only understand baseball, but understand it in a way that is much different than the average fan. Baseball is such a complex and nuanced game that it certainly seems as though what you see (or think you see) may not actually be complete reality. Statistics just give us some way of verifying that what we see with our eyes is indeed true. For instance, we may think that a player is a great (or poor) hitter or defender, but we certainly want to know HOW great (or poor) he is, and how he stacks up against his peers. As a result, I must respectfully disagree with your statement that "people have a hammer called statistics and are busy pounding in screws with it."
Finally, there's no need to turn your posts into a personal attack on somebody. Just say you disagree and offer some defensible reason why you hold that opinion. You don't need to call statements ludicrous or nonsense, particularly if there is evidence to back up the claims that you disagree with.
by MauerPower on Aug 26, 2006 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fielding or Pitching
There was one hole on the left side - at third base and even Batista wasn't the worst defensive player in the league. Frankly the defense wasn't up to Twins past standards, but it was hardly the cause of the Twins struggles. As for the pitching, all you have to do is look at the results for various pitchers. Nathan and Rincon somehow avoided the effects of that poor fielding.
There were times when Lohse was giving up almost twice as many hits as guys who pitched a similar number of innings with a similar number of strikeouts. His problem was his pitching, not the fielding behind him. That's why he was sent to Rochester.
by TT on Aug 26, 2006 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Think
You logic falters.
Furthermore, I don' treally care what the AL managers said. Note they are <u>AL</u> managers. Castillo hasn't played in teh AL ever in his career. Most of those guys have only seen him a few times. Many of them probobly saw hi several years ago, when he was an elite defender. As often happens, he was judged on reputation, not on fact. That is why it took a long time for Twins management to see the light on Castro's damaging defense. His reputation made it difficult to concede he wasnt the player he once was.
As far as Lohse giving up more hits compared to other gys with other comparable numbers, that exactly serves my point! A defense doesn't etermine how many strikeouts or walks a pitcher gives up, nor how many home runs they give up. What the do determine is how many of the balls that go in play go for hits. Lohse's, and the rest of the pitching staff's, obscene number of hits allowed were, largely, a result of poor defense. That little 5% I mentioned? That comes out to about 2 hits a games worse than av average team. That will REALLY hurt your pitchers.
To be fair, Lohse's hit types in play weren't very good, but not nearly as poor as his ERA and H/9 would suggest.
You have to think about things before you say them. If Lohse is giving up more hits despite his strikeouts, consider that strikeouts are something he is in control of, and hits are largely affected by defense. Cause and effect.
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 26, 2006 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tags
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 26, 2006 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pounding Screws
So the Twins had the worst defense in the history of baseball? I don't believe that and I doubt you can find a single professional obeservor that woudl agree with you. What that ought to tell you is that whatever "defensive efficiency" measures, it isn't defense.
Furthermore, I don' treally care what the AL managers said.
Which explains why you have the beliefs you do. If don't care about the opinions of people who watch 162 games of baseball every year and have for most of their lives, who have been chosen from among hundreds of others with similar experience for their ability to evaluate players play, it would seem you have no interest in really understanding the game.
hits are largely affected by defense.
But they quite clearly aren't effected just by defense. How hard balls are hit matters a lot and from the defenses point of view that is largely a question of the pitcher. And that is obvious from observation. You can see pitchers get hit "hard" and that its not just bloop hits falling in.
by TT on Aug 26, 2006 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In parts
Well something has to explain their terrible defensive efficiancy. It is a raw number and very simple. What percentage of all balls in play go for outs. That is it. While the number was exacerbated by their poor pitching, many other teams were getting worse pitching this year, and in other years. You have yet to actually argue with that point.
Part the second;
As I've said, most of these guys havn't seen Castillo recently. These guys spend 162 games and 180 days keeping track of their own clubs. They don't exactly get kick their feet up very often and watch highlight reels of Luis castillo and marvel how good his defense is. They are left with reputation alone. A reputation built largely when Castillo was one of the best one or two defenders in the league.
If ESPN has taught us anything, it should be to never take the so called experts for their word without reason to do so. Baseball is a big time old boys club, and old habbits, schools, patterns, and tastes die hard.
Part the third:
I agree, which is why I'e mentioned the hit types in play. Lohse was giving up a relativly high number of line drives, but not so many that his ERA should have been where it was. While he was pitching poorly, a LARGE portion of his struggles were because of a mind-bogglingly pourous defense.
Why am I repeating myself? You didn't actually say anything new in that post or present any new arguments! Stop toting the company line, put down the cool aid, turn off ESPN, close the star-trib, and think and learn for yourself!
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 27, 2006 4:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Explanations
Or more likely "somethings". Crappy pitching, hot hitting opponents, bad luck, the weather, ...
The Twins had a lousy record during that period of time, there must be some explanation for it. If you want to claim it was the poor defense you need something more than the poor record to prove it. The same goes for attributing the Twins poor pitching results to their defense.
While the number was exacerbated by their poor pitching, many other teams were getting worse pitching this year, and in other years.
By what measure? The Twins pitchers really struggled to start the year, even Santana was having trouble.
They don't exactly get kick their feet up very often and watch highlight reels of Luis castillo
Exactly. Unlike fans who base their judgements on TV highlights, they see every play. An opposing manager saw every game Castillo played and every play in every game. They also saw every other second baseman. They collectively decided Castillo was the best player. Your argument is that he was so bad the Twins pitching failures can be explained by that.
If ESPN has taught us anything,
That explains it, you think watching ESPN is a learning experience.
While he was pitching poorly, a LARGE portion of his struggles were because of a mind-bogglingly pourous defense.
That "mind-bogglingly pourous defense" suddenly tightened up when Joe Nathan and Juan Rincon stepped on the mound. It even tightened up for Boof Bonser and Matt Guerrier compared to Lohse.
Keep repeating that, but your evidence is imaginary. "Line drive" does not mean "hard hit". A ground ball can be hard hit, a line drive can be an easy fly out.
Stop toting the company line, put down the cool aid, turn off ESPN, close the star-trib, and think and learn for yourself!
Weren't you the one touting ESPN as a learning experience? You might try looking past the fancy names given to your favorite internet sites' statistics and see what they actually measure. Because most of those guys are more committed to having statistical measures for mathematical models than they are to understanding the game of baseball. Bill James didn't get rich selling baseball statistics by encouraging people to be sceptical of their value.
by TT on Aug 27, 2006 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
*Sigh
Okay, how about this. The Twins were converting outs of a pathetically low number of the balls put into play, causing more hits, and adding more bases. Oh wait, that is what defensive efficiency measures.
By what measure? The Twins pitchers really struggled to start the year, even Santana was having trouble.
That "mind-bogglingly porous defense" suddenly tightened up when Joe Nathan and Juan Rincon stepped on the mound. It even tightened up for Boof Bonser and Matt Guerrier compared to Lohse.
Actually, Santana had a very good start of the season for him, with a 4.45 ERA in April, and a 2.72 ERA in May. Which would hurt my point, but it makes perfect sense. Santana, along with Nathan and Rincon are high strikeout pitchers so aren't as dependant on their defense, because they get more people out on their own. Also, Santana had an even better June with a 1.05 ERA. That was when the team took off, and also when the team's defense was turned around by Bartlett, Punto, not-Stewart, and Cuddyer playing somewhat better. Santana's peripherals in that month actually got a bit worse (he struck out a few less and got a few less grounders) but he gave up two less hits per nine. Hey, wait. Isn't that the same amount we said the Twins were previously defensively deficient by? Hmmm...
As for Bonser, he didn't start pitching until the end of May when our defense was being renovated.
An opposing manager saw every game Castillo played and every play in every game.
Again no, let's consider your logic. An opposing manager watched every play of every game. No, he watches every play of only the few games when his team is playing Castillo. For AL guys, that is three games every three years, until this year, which was before they ranked him. With the amount of baseball I've watched this, and in previous years, I have seen probably literally 20 times the amount of Luis Castillo playing time than the AL managers at the time of the poll.
That explains it, you think watching ESPN is a learning experience.
You dolt, stop taking things out of context. You'll note what I actually said was "If ESPN has taught us anything, it should be to never take the so called experts for their word without reason to do so." As in, the overwhelming percentage of Idiots touted as experts on ESPN should teach you to beware of taking people's opinions automatically. In fact, that should go for you whole life, not just baseball. Always think for at least a moment before you take the "experts" opinion as fact. Otherwise, we'd all be thinking like John Kruk and Jim Souhan.
If you don't actually present a new argument in the next post, I'm not responding.
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 27, 2006 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Qualtiy Pitching versus Crappy Pitching
Its interesting how the opinions of major league managers should be ignored, the guys on ESPN are idiots and the guys in the newspaper don't know what they are talking about.
Actually, Santana had a very good start of the season for him
So Santana always starts badly? Is that the "pourous defense" behind him again?
That was when the team took off, and also when the team's defense was turned around by Bartlett, Punto
Except Bonser got better results withn Castro and Batista in the lineup than he did after Bartlett was called up in mid-June. And in Santana's first three starts in June he pitched 21 innings and gave up 3 runs - before Bartlett was called up.
What it comes down to is that there is absolutely no pattern that indicates it was the Twins defense that made the pitching bad or that turned it around. It was the pitchers who put it together.
Santana, along with Nathan and Rincon are high strikeout pitchers so aren't as dependant on their defense, because they get more people out on their own.
True enough, but that has nothing to do with your touted "defensive efficiency" does it? The fact is that the Twins "defensive efficiency" was fine depending on who was pitching. It was crappy when they had crappy pitching and good when they had quality pitching. Just like most people would expect.
by TT on Aug 27, 2006 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Try Agiain, wait, Don't
Yes there was, and I've explained it to you. The Twins were converting a pathetic number of balls in play into outs. Far less than even worse pitching teams.
True enough, but that has nothing to do with your touted "defensive efficiency" does it? The fact is that the Twins "defensive efficiency" was fine depending on who was pitching. It was crappy when they had crappy pitching and good when they had quality pitching. Just like most people would expect.
No, because then it would have averaged out to "average". Instead, it averaged out to historically terrible.
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 28, 2006 3:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Circles
Round and round the circles of your logic continue to go ...
I will just accept that faith requires not proof.
by TT on Aug 28, 2006 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kyle Lousey
He's just a aprt of that group that now includes such people as Boof, who can probably pitch an 8 win 10 moss season with a 4.50-5.50 ERA.
by twintown on Aug 28, 2006 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 28, 2006 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pounding in Screws
There is no evidence to support that claim. The conversion of balls in play to outs is just that - it measures the success of a combination of pitching and defense. The proportions of the two probably vary from pitcher to pitcher and team to team and certainly from play to play. It tells you nothing at all about their relative importance. Its that old statistical hammer pounding in screws.
by TT on Aug 26, 2006 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ludicrous nonsense
They weren't personal attacks. But you are right characterizing arguments as ludicrous or nonsense doesn't add anything. Sorry.
by TT on Aug 26, 2006 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No problem
I personally didn't like Lohse that much as a player or a person, nor do I think that he was a great pitcher that was solely hurt by poor defense. Of course he pitched poorly earlier in the season. I'm just not sure if he pitched as poorly as his ERA and W/L record would have us believe, particularly because he had at least been an adequate pitcher in the past. Either way, that's beside the point. Originally, I was just stating my belief that he would be a nice insurance policy right now. I think the team is much more stable than it was when he was struggling earlier in the season, and I find it hard to believe that he couldn't pitch just as well as Silva, Bonser, Garza, or any other AAA pitcher we may need down the stretch.
No matter what, we are all Twins fans here and it is a great time to be a fan. What a great win tonight! I'm beginning to believe that we may actually catch Detroit before this is all over.
by MauerPower on Aug 26, 2006 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Divisive...Not Decisive
by MauerPower on Aug 26, 2006 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lohse
And I agreed with you. I think Lohse has not pitched to his potential. If he does, he would have helped the Twins right now. But I think Gardy had really gotten tired of trying to manage him. He wasn't getting results and it was time to move on. I just hope that doesn't come back to bite them in the next few weeks. With Liriano out, Radke looking like he may be finished and Silva still scuffling at times the Twins could use another veteran on the staff.
by TT on Aug 26, 2006 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ever get the feeling?
If ever we needed Silva to step up and at least eat some innings, now is the time.
This has to be one of the great efforts of all time by a ball club who apparently doesn't realize it doesn't have enough moving parts to contend. With this year's offense and last year's Silva/Lohse (even accounting for some regression to the mean) we would have cruised to the playoff round. I fear Radke is indeed done. Maybe the cortisone and his iron will allow him to pitch until Liriano returns (if?). All I can say is what drama this season has provided. Win or lose, what a ride....
by HrbekIsMyHero on Aug 26, 2006 3:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Buster Olney
Hawk should be in the dictionary next to the word homer. He is the stereotypical homer. Worse yet, he has a mike in a large market, so we get him on national games. For him to say that about Radke tells you about the heart/balls of Bradke and why they should bronze his jock when the season is over.
If you have Insider, haven't check out Olney's blog - you should:
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster#20060826
by GACTwinFan on Aug 26, 2006 11:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bronze Jock
by wcooley on Aug 27, 2006 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure...
by ubelmann on Aug 27, 2006 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
uh-oh
by wcooley on Aug 27, 2006 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gun had...
by ubelmann on Aug 29, 2006 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Differential
Hopefully the cortisone shot will work this time and he can come back stronger on Saturday.
by cmathewson on Aug 29, 2006 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
replying to your previous comment
by cortalekanak on Dec 19, 2006 8:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
replying to previous comment
by cortalekanak on Jan 7, 2007 1:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
hello,
by cortalekanak on Jan 16, 2007 6:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 














