Brock Beauchamp

I think Mauer is almost a lock at this point. Two more very good seasons and he's in unless he's caught in a dog-fighting ring or something along those lines. Writers will be falling over themselves to vote in a guy who exudes professionalism, is quiet and humble, and played for his hometown team his entire career. New age SABR guys will love his WAR and OBP while traditionalists will vote him in for his batting championships and Silver Slugger awards.

This. The Twins can find #5 starters, often from within the organization (PJ Walters, Deduno, Hendriks, etc) and for the same amount of per-year money they've spent on huge question marks (though I like the Pelfrey signing), they could have Jackson.

Well, a few things (and remember that I'm not particularly high on Hendriks, either)... First, he's only 23 and is still sorting out his secondary pitches. He's a young guy who never faced much in the way of talent until a few years ago. Second, his fastball is more in the 90-ish range, not the high 80s. He's not a hard thrower but he's not Jaime Moyer, either. Third, when he stopped pitching scared last year and nibbling around batters, he had a couple of decent games. In August and September after his return, he pitched six games and posted an ERA around 4.3-4.4 (and there were a couple of disaster starts mixed in that inflated his overall numbers). Hell, if he can pitch like he did after his call-up, he's already a better pitcher than Kevin Correia. The more I watched Hendriks, the more I was convinced that his problem was one of confidence. He was twitchy, he nibbled at the plate, got behind batters, and was shelled for it. After his demotion/call-up, I saw less and less of that (and he finally got his first ML win). He's still 3-4 years from his prime and if he starts going after hitters and trusts his (somewhat meager) stuff, he'll be just fine as a #4/5 guy with a small chance of being another Scott Diamond with a few more strikeouts. Parker wrote an awesome write-up about Hendriks last summer. I suggest you take a look. Twins Daily - What's hindering Hendriks?

Damn. I clicked into this thread hoping that the new idea for the OF would be cardboard cutouts of the 2001 versions of Torii Hunter, Jacque Jones, and Matt Lawton.

Because 99% of peoples' problems with evolution do not stem from scientific issues with the theory... They don't believe it in because they don't want to believe in it. There's the key difference. What has always amused me about evolution nay-sayers is that to debunk the "theory", they have to apply their own faith-based logic to science. Instead of saying "I don't like the basic tenets of evolution because of scientific evidence A, B, or C", they apply "well, you're just using faith to believe in evolutionary theory". Wait, what? So, because I believe that science will ultimately come to the correct conclusion about evolution based on the evidence we have, the future evidence we will acquire, and the nature of scientific debate and its quest for following where the evidence leads, that it is therefore reduced to the equivalent of a book that has been translated dozens of times and was written by goat herders 3,000 years ago? Those same goat herders that thought stars were pinholes in the sky, rats were spawned from filth, and that internal disease was either a demon, magic, or both? No, man. No. That's not how this works. Just because you don't have 100% of the answers for everything does not mean both theories are equally sound. One is based on reason and evidence. The other, uh... Not so much. No one here is claiming that evolutionary theory is perfect... Hell, it changes pretty radically every ten years or so. But after over 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny and ridicule (incredible ridicule), it has yet to be toppled. All notable evidence points toward this singular genetic mechanism that allows us to change over time. Is it perfect? No, I'm sure we have some stuff wrong about it. But in time, we'll gather more evidence and 200 years from now, evolutionary debate will be viewed the same way we scoff at geocentrism.

Excellent. Thanks for the update. Still working on this.

I'm trying to remember if I've seen a Twins win in the past two years. I'm somewhere around 0-8 since Target Field's inaugural season. At least 1-6 or 0-7 at best. Lost track of how many games I watched because of a couple rain outs.

Agreed. I think Hendriks has a floor of a #5 and a ceiling of a solid #3. I'm not as high on him as some but I'm definitely not a hater. He's exactly the type of guy Anderson can work with and turn into a serviceable guy.

I don't blame them for the switch. Facebook's commenting system is slick. I've used it in the past and it works really well.

Ooh, say more sexy things. I like it.

WAR is based on math and sorcery, not necessarily in that order.

If you guys don't quit your whining, I'm going to change it to an animated GIF of Drew Butera.

Ugh. Those comments.

Are some of you still having this problem? The software company is not being very helpful so I'm going to have to figure this out by myself, I think.

Hilarious.

That's a good idea but the required coding would be pretty substantial. I'll poke around and see if there's anything available that recommends threads. As for shared threads for multiple front page articles, that is a limitation of the software. If I merged article threads, the software will automatically re-generate another thread for each article. It's how the entire comment structure is built... No way around that one.

Like I mentioned, if I catch it quickly enough, I just merge the existing thread into the article thread. The problem stems from when I check the board and when some of the writers post their articles (I'm an early riser, many of the writers post late). By the time I get around to seeing the threads in the morning, they're both going strong. At that point, closing one would prematurely end a conversation mid-stream and merging them would create a jumbled conversation... I may start merging a few anyway just to see how the board reacts. IMO, having two conversations on the same topic is no big deal... It's just a part of heavily-trafficked message boards. It happens. I usually don't message people if they create a duplicate thread. Honestly, it's more effort than it's worth. I usually merge the threads or just ignore it... One of the threads will usually drop off the first page in a day or so. Trying to chase down duplicate thread creators is like playing a pointless game of Whack-A-Mole. Nobody listens and somebody else will just do it the next time interesting news pops up... We'd be chasing our tails if we spent too much time doing that kind of thing. As for the mobile skin, I don't use Android (which I assume you do, having referenced a back button). Are you using the physical back key or the browser-based back key (is the back button on your phone or in your browser window)? I usually just use the built-in nav so I haven't noticed this issue at all. The vB mobile skin is kind of half-baked. I'm hoping that we'll see a more full-featured version with the install of the next release (which I'm hoping to do mid-season sometime).

We're definitely working on fixing it, folks... It's just taking longer than expected.

We try to merge forum posts quite often... You just don't see it. In the case of the Pelfrey signing (and other "big moves" by the team), it's just not a smart thing to do. By the time a moderator reaches these conversations, each thread will have 30+ entries in them and merging them would break both conversations and create a jumbled mess. If I can get to it quickly enough, I'll merge them. If both threads have become hydra heads going in two different directions, I leave them be and let both conversations continue. Is it annoying? Yes. Is it better than confusing active participants in both threads by merging their (usually quite different) conversations? I think so. As for articles not being listed in forum topics, that is an SEO thing. There are plug-ins to make the articles visible in the forums but I have chosen not to install/activate them for searching purposes. Sorry.

Given what JR has rounded up for a rotation in 2013, the Twins will need a productive Hendriks and Gibson sooner rather than later. This is how I view the rotation right now: 1. Worley (great pick-up, should be a #3-ish guy) 2. Diamond (a #3-ish guy that is probably due for regression) 3. Pelfrey (not a bad pick-up but a little baffling in the wake of passing on Baker) 4. Correia (I'm just going to skip watching these games) 5. Scrub/Hendriks/Gibson (sigh... Hendriks and Gibson will have to pitch their way beyond the #5 spot early in the season or we're looking at another 90+ loss season)

Well... 1. If we could count on De Vries to post those numbers again, he'd be pencilled into the rotation right now. 2. Jackson isn't a great pitcher. In my opinion, he's not a $16m pitcher. But he is a durable, league average pitcher in his prime. A guy that can be counted on (as much as any pitcher, anyway) to pitch 3-4 years and crank out 200 IP a year with a 100-ish ERA+. And that has value. At least $11-12m a year for 3-4 years. I wouldn't pay $16m for that (maybe if it was a two year deal, which he won't take) but I'd jump at the opportunity to sign him for 3/$36m.

Who want to do this? I haven't seen them. $16-17m is Anibal Sanchez money.

You can't say this: And then this: And then claim that you're not saying that average pitchers are worth the MLB median wage. And you're still using Jackson's career ERA in those quotes. His recent 4.10 ERA may not be much above his 4.4 career mark, but it is quite a bit better than the ~4.60 mark he was posting before he turned the corner at age 26. Using career stats of a guy in his late 20s is one of the worst forms of cherry picking. You're using rookie and early age seasons of a guy still in his prime. Just stop. You're weighting Jackson's age 20 season in 2004 the same as his age 28 season in 2012. If you're trying to use stats honestly to make a point, how do you justify that obvious miscalculation? I don't see anyone here arguing that Jackson isn't a league average pitcher... But I do see a lot of people arguing that he's worth a hell of a lot more than $7m. And you don't need stats to see that. You merely need to look around and see guys like Dan Haren getting $13m in 2013.

It has nothing to do with his AL vs NL ERA. It has everything to do with using a career ERA of a guy who is 28 and has pitched much better in the past three seasons and your assumption that an average pitcher is paid the average MLB wage. One is intentionally ignoring recent performance to cherry-pick stats and the other is a logical fallacy based on bad math. And I never used WAR to prove anything. I used it to point out the absurdity of claiming and "average" pitcher is worth $6m a year when WORSE and OLDER pitchers are earning DOUBLE that amount.

So now we're down to using ERA as the sole metric of worth with no distinguishing between leagues. I'm just gonna walk away from this thread now. Its baseball IQ dropped below my minimum threshold.