Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Scott K

Hawkins??

9 posts in this topic

Quote:
Twins interested in LaTroy Hawkins

Posted on July 28th, 2008 – 2:19 PM

By Joe Christensen

The Twins are interested in bringing back reliever LaTroy Hawkins, who was designated for assignment by the Yankees this past weekend, two persons with knowledge of the situation told the Star Tribune.

Hawkins, 35, went 1-1 with a 5.41 ERA in 33 appearances for the Yankees, who designated him after trading for Pittsburgh’s Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte.

Though Hawkins has struggled, the Twins apparently aren’t the only team interested in getting him, as several teams are searching for middle relief help.

Hawkins is making $3.5 million this season, and any team that trades for him would be on the hook for the remaining $1.25 million. The Yankees currently have 10 days to trade him or send him through waivers.

If the Yankees can’t work a trade, he’d become a free agent, and another team would be able to sign him for about $140,000, with the Yankees on the hook for the rest of his salary. But because several teams are looking for relief help, there’s a belief the Yankees will make a trade soon.

The Yankees might be willing to add cash toward Hawkins’ salary or take on another team’s unwanted contract.

One person close to Hawkins believes he would like to return to Minnesota, where he pitched from 1995 to 2003. Hawkins emerged as a dominant setup man, posting a 2.13 ERA in 2002 and 1.86 ERA in 2003.

Since then, Hawkins has struggled with the Cubs, Giants, Orioles and Yankees. But last year, he posted a 3.42 ERA in 62 appearances with the Rockies, helping them reach the World Series. There’s a belief that Hawkins is simply more comfortable when pitching for a smaller-market club.

When he faced the Twins on Wednesday, his fastball touched 95 miles per hour. With Pat Neshek injured, the Twins have been looking for help in getting the ball from their starters to closer Joe Nathan, just like Hawkins used to provide when the closer was Eddie Guardado.

We have plenty of pitchers, we just need to reorganize them, I think it would be a better idea to bring in some rh power at 3rd base!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I really liked him when he left the team. Had some nasty stuff in that setup role. Of course that was five years ago and I doubt he's got the same stuff.

Let's get the band back together! Has Koskie recoverd from his concussions yet? I like Buscher's progress. Of course as you pointed out he's another lefty in our lineup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Twins got rid of him because he couldn't get anyone out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no,no,no--- other than a lefty, no,no,no. I like Breslow better.

IF a ML hitter knows a 95mph heater is coming,, the ball will go a long ways sooner than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(shudder) this would be a move that could make me stop paying attention to my favorite team!!! OK I would still pay attention but just to see how bad Latroy Hawkins pitches!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always looking for the bargain and the cast offs. Scary. If that is what they plan on doing I am fine with the status quo. Let the kids finish what they started together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I screamed in horror when I saw this in the paper. My wife looked at me funny, & I read it to her, & she looked like someone dipped a rat in her coffee.

No Hawkins. He still sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Star Tribune this morning, Hawkins was traded to Houston. Lucky break for Minnesota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
    •  Come on.   The world, life is a bit more complicated then that.          Quit passing the blame. Your whole thesis is on choice and owning it.   Let me guess, you hate big banking also since they made it easy to refinance and purchase.   It just proves that general society is incapable of making the right decisions as a whole.   Sorry, you go down with the ship.    
  • Our Sponsors