Minnesota Twins: Offseason Outlook
The Twins need to add pitching and stabilize their offense this winter if they are to rebound from an awful 2011.
Guaranteed Contracts
Contract Options
- Joe Nathan, RP: $12.5MM club option with a $2MM buyout
Arbitration Eligible Players (estimated salaries)
Free Agents
They couldn’t score, they couldn’t prevent runs and they couldn’t stay healthy. The story of the 2011 Twins was unpleasant and unexpected for a franchise that finished in last place for the first time since 2000.
Fortunately for Twins fans, the team plays in the winnable AL Central. Two years into the Target Field era, the team is averaging $105MM in payroll in its new open-air facility. They were second in the American League in attendance this year, despite a 63-99 record (their worst regular season mark since 1982, the year before Joe Mauer was born). Owner Jim Pohlad says payroll will be “right up there” again, so the Twins aren’t exactly the small market team they once were. In fact, if payroll stays in the $100MM range and they retain Perkins, Casilla, and Liriano through arbitration, GM Bill Smith could have $25-$30MM to commit to 2012 salaries.
He’ll need it. Uncertainty prevails in the outfield, the middle infield, the rotation and the bullpen. There’s also first base and catcher, where Mauer and Justin Morneau were supposed to provide stability. Mauer spent time on the DL with bilateral leg weakness and pneumonia, while Morneau missed most of the season with concussion symptoms. In the end, the Twins paid the pair $37MM for seven total home runs in 151 total games.
More than anything else, the Twins need the two former MVPs to stay reasonably healthy in 2012. Since the Twins’ offseason plans depend on the health of Mauer and Morneau, it makes sense for them to monitor the players’ health and adapt their offseason wish list accordingly.
That doesn’t mean Smith’s completely at the mercy of his stars’ recoveries. Two other fixtures in the lineup, Michael Cuddyer and Jason Kubel are eligible for free agency. There are arguments in favor of offering both arbitration, though the Twins won’t necessarily be prepared to guarantee them raises. The Twins say they’d like Cuddyer back and they’ve made him an offer, but it appears likely that he’ll explore free agency, where he’s sure to see many offers.
To establish their interest in DH and corner outfield options like Cuddyer and Kubel, the Twins will have to determine their level of confidence in the likes of Joe Benson, Rene Tosoni, Brian Dinkelman and Chris Parmelee (who showed promising power during the season’s final three weeks). Despite their internal options, it seems likely that the Twins will look to sign a corner outfielder if Cuddyer leaves as a free agent.
The Twins could target outfielders with good gloves and match them with defensive stalwarts Ben Revere (say what you will about his arm) and Denard Span to give their pitchers a much-needed edge. Or, the Twins could rely more heavily on the defense of Revere and Span and add a below-average defender who can hit.
The positional uncertainty extends to the Twins’ infield. Tsuyoshi Nishioka wasn’t at his best in 2011 and the Twins have to determine how he, Alexi Casilla, Trevor Plouffe and non-tender candidate Matt Tolbert fit into their plans. Smith, who traded J.J. Hardy to Baltimore last offseason, will consider adding shortstops from outside the organization and an addition seems likely.
Given their need for pitching and likely interest in outfield bats, a major expenditure at shortstop would be a surprise. Instead, Smith and his front office could browse second-tier free agent options such as Alex Gonzalez at short or stand pat. Another need exists at backup catcher, as Drew Butera’s .449 OPS won’t be enough in 2012, especially if Mauer spends even less time behind the plate. Jose Molina, 36, is coming off of a strong offensive and defensive season, so he’s one relatively affordable option for the Twins to consider.
If the Twins’ rotation had met expectations, the team wouldn’t have lost 99 games. They ranked 26th in the Majors in rotation ERA (4.64) and still can’t strike opponents out (5.8 K/9). They’ll look for a bounce-back season from Francisco Liriano, who will slot into the rotation along with Carl Pavano and Scott Baker. The back of the rotation remains unsettled and Smith suggested some starters could pitch out of the ‘pen in 2012 (Brian Duensing appears to be one such candidate).
Top prospect Kyle Gibson is out with Tommy John surgery, and alternatives such as Liam Hendriks, Scott Diamond and Anthony Swarzak don’t appear to have equal upside. It’s hard to imagine a turnaround without an improved rotation, so the Twins will want to consider ways of obtaining starting pitching this offseason.
Minnesota’s bullpen never recovered from the losses of Matt Guerrier, Jesse Crain and Jon Rauch and was the worst in baseball by many measures. Twins relievers posted 6.3 K/9 (30th in MLB) and a 4.51 ERA (30th in MLB). They were also last in xFIP and SIERA, so this doesn’t appear to be a case of bad luck. They’ll decline Joe Nathan’s option but could bring him back on a one-year deal. Matt Capps’ Type A ranking and decline in performance should prevent the Twins from offering arbitration (he would obtain a raise from $7.15MM). Glen Perkins’ emergence out of the bullpen, a positive for the Twins in 2011, puts Jose Mijares and Phil Dumatrait in non-tender limbo.
One way or another, the Twins need to obtain a shutdown reliever to pair with Perkins in late innings. The D’Backs, now an inspiration to so many of baseball’s last-place teams, turned their bullpen around in one season. It can be done and the Twins must do it to improve upon the dismal results of 2011.
While an arbitration offer to Capps seems unlikely, the Twins could have up to three extra draft picks in 2012. They already have the second overall selection, and scouting director Deron Johnson could have extra picks if Minnesota offers arbitration to Kubel and Cuddyer and they decline.
The Twins need pitching - and lots of it - to be a better team in 2012. They’ll probably add a starter and they should add multiple big league relievers. As for position players, it makes sense to offer arbitration to Kubel and Cuddyer before turning to external options. They could use a new shortstop and would do well to pursue a backup catcher who can hit. That’s it, you say? Not quite, as the unanswerable question of how much Mauer and Morneau will produce in 2012 remains, and that variable could make the difference between a winning season and further disappointment for Twins fans.
“What the fuck is wrong with that guy? … He’s an Iraq vet.”
I understand why some people might enjoy war, but I don’t. I don’t like seeing people getting hurt and I don’t like to admit that I was directly at hand hurting people. It’s just not in my nature normally. I’m put in that situation and no matter how I try to rationalize it, it still is me out there with the gun pulling the trigger. I don’t want other people to see me as that person, either. I know it’s ridiculous because I was a sniper in Iraq, and the first thing anybody is going to assume is that you’ve killed people. But I don’t like to think that I did.
It takes a lot of complicated, intricate pieces of American life to motivate a country to go to war, and it goes right down to the very people who live in that country that are responsible for it. If I’m going to start pointing fingers I’m not going to stop at myself and at the army. It’s everybody’s fault.
We’re all to blame that this war is going on. I see that reflection in everything that’s American, in every Wal-Mart that I drive by, every SUV parked on the side of the road, every gas station that I see, every McDonald’s, you know; every fat, obese person I encounter is just a product of that.
The “Support the Troops” ribbons on vehicles begin to look like swastikas because it’s really “Support the War”, not “Support the Troops.” It’s like a guilt-free way of saying, “I’ve done my duty. I support the troops. Look, I’ve got the sticker,” when it’s a bunch of bullshit. If I really, really get into it, I don’t think that I’m going to come back out of it for a long while. America might have to change before I can change.
I could have been a conscientious objector and bowed out. I could have gone to prison. I could have run away. You make a conscious choice to kill people. Even though the alternatives aren’t very pretty, you could still take those alternatives. You could take that harder road. But I was a coward. I was too afraid to say, “I’m not going to Iraq; fuck you guys. Fuck you, I’m not going. Do what you need to do to me. I don’t ever have to see my daughter again. Lock me up. I’ll run away to the farthest corner of the world and never see my family again. But I’m not going to go to war.” In the end, I couldn’t stand up to my convictions and I went. I did the things that I did on a daily basis because I was afraid of being punished. I don’t think it’s going to be anytime soon that I can just let myself off the hook. You’ve got to be accountable for your actions. I don’t think I’ll ever find 100 percent redemption, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to stop looking.
When one Iraq vet is balled up outside a bar crying his guts out, it doesn’t help to have two of them balled up outside the bar crying their guts out. I try to stay as strong as I can so I can be the one that tries to pick people back up off the ground and get them into the car and drive them home. The average American is not going to do that. They just look at you like, What the fuck is wrong with that guy? You know. He’s an Iraq vet. They just look at you like, What planet are you from? What the hell’s wrong with him? Get him the fuck out of my bar. Get him the fuck out of my country. Put him away somewhere where I can’t see him. People are ashamed to even see veterans messed up like that. You want to turn and tell them: You did this to him.
- Garrett Reppenhagen, Calvary Sniper/Scout, 2-63 Armored, 1st Infantry
- Interview by Trish Wood
2011: A Brave New Dystopia
Posted on Dec 27, 2010
By Chris Hedges
The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second.
We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from “Brave New World” to “1984.” The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy. It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley’s feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. We are moving from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.
Orwell warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission. But Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement. Orwell understood the enslavement. Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless. We are beginning to understand, as Karl Marx knew, that unfettered and unregulated capitalism is a brutal and revolutionary force that exploits human beings and the natural world until exhaustion or collapse.
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake,” Orwell wrote in “1984.” “We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin uses the term “inverted totalitarianism” in his book “Democracy Incorporated” to describe our political system. It is a term that would make sense to Huxley. In inverted totalitarianism, the sophisticated technologies of corporate control, intimidation and mass manipulation, which far surpass those employed by previous totalitarian states, are effectively masked by the glitter, noise and abundance of a consumer society. Political participation and civil liberties are gradually surrendered. The corporation state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the tawdry materialism of a consumer society, devours us from the inside out. It owes no allegiance to us or the nation. It feasts upon our carcass.
The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation. Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in “Brave New World,” they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, “block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression.”
The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. The culture, under the tutelage of these corporate courtiers, becomes, as Huxley noted, a world of cheerful conformity, as well as an endless and finally fatal optimism. We busy ourselves buying products that promise to change our lives, make us more beautiful, confident or successful as we are steadily stripped of rights, money and influence. All messages we receive through these systems of communication, whether on the nightly news or talk shows like “Oprah,” promise a brighter, happier tomorrow. And this, as Wolin points out, is “the same ideology that invites corporate executives to exaggerate profits and conceal losses, but always with a sunny face.” We have been entranced, as Wolin writes, by “continuous technological advances” that “encourage elaborate fantasies of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, actions measured in nanoseconds: a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose denizens are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge.”
Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks.
Attitudes and temperament have been cleverly engineered by the corporate state, as with Huxley’s pliant characters in “Brave New World.” The book’s protagonist, Bernard Marx, turns in frustration to his girlfriend Lenina:
“Don’t you wish you were free, Lenina?” he asks.
“I don’t know that you mean. I am free, free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody’s happy nowadays.”
He laughed, “Yes, ‘Everybody’s happy nowadays.’ We have been giving the children that at five. But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else’s way.”
“I don’t know what you mean,” she repeated.
The façade is crumbling. And as more and more people realize that they have been used and robbed, we will move swiftly from Huxley’s “Brave New World” to Orwell’s “1984.” The public, at some point, will have to face some very unpleasant truths. The good-paying jobs are not coming back. The largest deficits in human history mean that we are trapped in a debt peonage system that will be used by the corporate state to eradicate the last vestiges of social protection for citizens, including Social Security. The state has devolved from a capitalist democracy to neo-feudalism. And when these truths become apparent, anger will replace the corporate-imposed cheerful conformity. The bleakness of our post-industrial pockets, where some 40 million Americans live in a state of poverty and tens of millions in a category called “near poverty,” coupled with the lack of credit to save families from foreclosures, bank repossessions and bankruptcy from medical bills, means that inverted totalitarianism will no longer work.
We increasingly live in Orwell’s Oceania, not Huxley’s The World State. Osama bin Laden plays the role assumed by Emmanuel Goldstein in “1984.” Goldstein, in the novel, is the public face of terror. His evil machinations and clandestine acts of violence dominate the nightly news. Goldstein’s image appears each day on Oceania’s television screens as part of the nation’s “Two Minutes of Hate” daily ritual. And without the intervention of the state, Goldstein, like bin Laden, will kill you. All excesses are justified in the titanic fight against evil personified.
The psychological torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning—who has now been imprisoned for seven months without being convicted of any crime—mirrors the breaking of the dissident Winston Smith at the end of “1984.” Manning is being held as a “maximum custody detainee” in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. He spends 23 of every 24 hours alone. He is denied exercise. He cannot have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Army doctors have been plying him with antidepressants. The cruder forms of torture of the Gestapo have been replaced with refined Orwellian techniques, largely developed by government psychologists, to turn dissidents like Manning into vegetables. We break souls as well as bodies. It is more effective. Now we can all be taken to Orwell’s dreaded Room 101 to become compliant and harmless. These “special administrative measures” are regularly imposed on our dissidents, including Syed Fahad Hashmi, who was imprisoned under similar conditions for three years before going to trial. The techniques have psychologically maimed thousands of detainees in our black sites around the globe. They are the staple form of control in our maximum security prisons where the corporate state makes war on our most politically astute underclass—African-Americans. It all presages the shift from Huxley to Orwell.
“Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling,” Winston Smith’s torturer tells him in “1984.” “Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”
The noose is tightening. The era of amusement is being replaced by the era of repression. Tens of millions of citizens have had their e-mails and phone records turned over to the government. We are the most monitored and spied-on citizenry in human history. Many of us have our daily routine caught on dozens of security cameras. Our proclivities and habits are recorded on the Internet. Our profiles are electronically generated. Our bodies are patted down at airports and filmed by scanners. And public service announcements, car inspection stickers, and public transportation posters constantly urge us to report suspicious activity. The enemy is everywhere.
Those who do not comply with the dictates of the war on terror, a war which, as Orwell noted, is endless, are brutally silenced. The draconian security measures used to cripple protests at the G-20 gatherings in Pittsburgh and Toronto were wildly disproportionate for the level of street activity. But they sent a clear message—DO NOT TRY THIS. The FBI’s targeting of antiwar and Palestinian activists, which in late September saw agents raid homes in Minneapolis and Chicago, is a harbinger of what is to come for all who dare defy the state’s official Newspeak. The agents—our Thought Police—seized phones, computers, documents and other personal belongings. Subpoenas to appear before a grand jury have since been served on 26 people. The subpoenas cite federal law prohibiting “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.” Terror, even for those who have nothing to do with terror, becomes the blunt instrument used by Big Brother to protect us from ourselves.
“Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?” Orwell wrote. “It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.”
Chris Hedges is a senior fellow at The Nation Institute.“Death of the Liberal Class.”
America Has Gone Away
by Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan administration and is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that the US is an incipient fascist state needs only to consult the latest assault on civil liberty by Fox News (sic). Instead of informing citizens, Fox News (sic) informs on citizens. Jason Ditz reports (antiwar.com Dec. 28) that Fox News (sic) “no longer content to simply shill for a growing police state,” turned in a grandmother to the Department of Homeland Security for making “anti-American comments.”
The media have segued into the police attitude, which regards insistence on civil liberties and references to the Constitution as signs of extremism, especially when the Constitution is invoked in defense of dissent or privacy or placarded on a bumper sticker. President George W. Bush set the scene when he declared: “you are with us or against us.”
Bush’s words demonstrate a frightening decline in our government’s respect for dissent since the presidency of John F. Kennedy. In a speech to the Newspaper Publishers Association in 1961, President Kennedy said:
“No president should fear public scrutiny of his program, for from that scrutiny comes understanding, and from that understanding comes support or opposition; and both are necessary… . Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law makers once decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment.”
The press is not protected, Kennedy told the newspaper publishers, in order that it can amuse and entertain, emphasize the trivial, or simply tell the public what it wants to hear. The press is protected so that it can find and report facts and, thus, inform, arouse “and sometimes even anger public opinion.”
In a statement unlikely to be repeated by an American president, Kennedy told the newspaper publishers: “I’m not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, for I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.”
The America of Kennedy’s day and the America of today are two different worlds. In America today the media are expected to lie for the government in order to prevent the people from finding out what the government is up to. If polls can be believed, Americans brainwashed and programmed by O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh want Bradley Manning and Julian Assange torn limb from limb for informing Americans of the criminal acts of their government. Politicians and journalists are screeching for their execution.
President Kennedy told the Newspaper Publishers Association that “it is to the printing press, the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news, that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: Free and Independent.” Who can imagine a Bill Clinton, a George W. Bush, or a Barack Obama saying such a thing today?
Today the press is a propaganda ministry for the government. Any member who departs from his duty to lie and spin the news is expelled from the fraternity. A public increasingly unemployed, broke and homeless is told that they have vast enemies plotting to destroy them in the absence of annual trillion dollar expenditures for the military/security complex, wars lasting decades, no-fly lists, unlimited spying and collecting of dossiers on citizens supplemented by neighbors reporting on neighbors, full body scanners at airports, shopping centers, metro and train stations, traffic checks, and the equivalence of treason with the uttering of a truth.
Two years ago when he came into office President Obama admitted that no one knew what the military mission was in Afghanistan, including the president himself, but that he would find a mission and define it. On his recent trip to Afghanistan, Obama came up with the mission: to make the families of the troops safe in America, his version of Bush’s “we have to kill them over there before they kill us over here.”
No one snorted with derision or even mildly giggled. Neither the New York Times nor Fox News (sic) dared to wonder if perhaps, maybe, murdering and displacing large numbers of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen and US support for Israel’s similar treatment of Lebanese and Palestinians might be creating a hostile environment that could breed terrorists. If there still is such a thing as the Newspaper Publishers Association, its members are incapable of such an unpatriotic thought.
Today no one believes that our country’s success depends on an informed public and a free press. America’s success depends on its financial and military hegemony over the world. Any information inconsistent with the indispensable people’s god-given right to dominate the world must be suppressed and the messenger discredited and destroyed.
Now that the press has voluntarily shed its First Amendment rights, the government is working to redefine free speech as a privilege limited to the media, not a right of citizens. Thus, the insistence that WikiLeaks is not a media organization and Fox News (sic) turning in a citizen for exercising free speech. Washington’s assault on Assange and WikiLeaks is an assault on what remains of the US Constitution. When we cheer for WikiLeaks’ demise, we are cheering for our own.
December 30, 2010
“Happy ridiculous imposition of human temporal conception on the infinite field of awareness day!”
Duncan Trussell
