Does that mean that IF the situations were reversed and Nathan was yet to give up a run and Capps had imploded a couple of times, you would be advocating for Capps to be the closer while the stronger performing Nathan became the set up man? I kind of doubt it and, if not, then I think you’re scrambling for some kind of justification to keep Nathan as the closer.

There’s certainly a valid theory that managers should use their best reliever in the most critical situation, regardless of inning, rather than always saving him for the 9th. That was even put in to practice much of last year by the way Gardy used Jesse Crain. If that’s what you advocate, OK, I accept that. But you’d better be consistent if/when the trends reverse. Otherwise, you’re basically just saying “I want Nathan to close and I don’t care who the best pitcher in the bullpen is.”

I too would like to see Hughes get a shot right out of the gate this year. We’ve pretty much seen what Tolbert has to offer, so I guess the intrigue of Hughes is what makes me lean towards giving him a chance.

If Nathan can hold down the closer’s job, the bullpen becomes much deeper. Capps can then be the setup man, and in theory the game becomes one inning shorter for the opposition. I’m not saying Capps hasn’t been better so far, my point is in the big picture the Twins are better off if Nathan can successfully close.

I think Gardy and Anderson have banked enough credit in years past that we should give them some time to piece the 2011 bully together. Pretty good track record of grooming guys from within or finding low-profile guys to fill meaningful spots (see Rincon, Reyes, Guerrier, Nathan, Crain at times, e.g.).