twins/mlb

Yeh I'll bet they lose 100 and win 62. No way they don't lose atleast 90 and Justin will be gone by the all-star break. I predict he lands in California with the A's.

I'm going to say they win 71. Twenty games under. The FO will say they battled their tails off to make this team better and, by golly, it worked. Ok, maybe that's a bit too cynical (the part about the FO claiming victory, not the lose 91 part), but this offseason was definitely not about getting better in 2013.

Don't kid yourself, Las Vegas is USUALLY very close on their projections. I predicted 93 loses two years ago (they lost 99), last year I predicted 93 loses (they lost 96). Why change now I say 66-96 this season

Funny. I have the Twins winning exactly 67.5 games after a game with the Astros is cancelled by MLB after neither team scores for 43 innings straight.

The starting pitching has been revamped and I think the Twins will be a pleasant surprise this year. They are going to be improved in a number of areas and should hit a good number of taters to boot !

"I predicted 93 loses two years ago (they lost 99), last year I predicted 93 loses (they lost 96)." Most fans that predicted 93 losses two yaers ago also predicted 93 losses the 10 years before that as well.

65 wins, my Morneau jersey inaccurate by mid-season and Mauer moved to first base.

"Yeh I'll bet they lose 100 and win 62. No way they don't lose atleast 90 and Justin will be gone by the all-star break" If that happens I am hoping that he at least had a great 1st half and that instead of the coast we get one of the good shortstops from Texas.

I have a great respect for the Las Vegas betting lines but baseball really isn't that predictable as evidenced by the article. I do know that the betting lines in 87 and 91 were over 100-1 against them winning the world series. I am guessing that with Viola's 4.51 ERA, Blyleven's 4.01 ERA at age 35 in 1986 to go along with a pretty bad 3,4 and 5 in the rotation the over/under would have beeen only slightly better than the 67.5 for this year. In 1990 we took last place. We got Jack Morris who had a 4.51 ERA at age 36 to go along with a young unimpressive rotation and a rookie 2nd baseman who skipped AAA. I would guess the over/under would have been little better than 70 wins. I am definitely not saying the Twins will buck the odds this year. Odds are what they are and I don't expect a lot out of these Twins but I will be watching in case they surprise people.

The differences between 87, 91 and now are huge, though. In 87 and 91 they went out and added some actual names like Reardon, Morris was a name even though he had an off season in 90, Chili Davis, Knobby was brought up etc. What they picked up this off season is pretty much garbage. One solid pitcher who is at best a number three elsewhere and a bunch of injury prone pitchers. They still have holes in the middle infield and two of the outfield spots are question marks. This team maybe wins 75 at the most and that is if they don't decide to go full rebuild as they should and deal Morneau and Hammer after the break for pitching and middle infield prospects.