Brock Beauchamp

Normally, I'd be loathe to predict a MiLB stat line to carry over to MLB but given how Kepler underperformed for years and then burst out last season, I think that MiLB line is a solid place to start. That stat line has been dragged way down by his early seasons.

And by the way, those numbers are just to get a good, but not spectacular, kinda upper end but not mind-blowing game out the door. There are many games that have cost well over $100,000,000 to develop in the past five years.

The biggest problem facing gaming - and it's been this way for a decade now - is spiraling costs of development. A top-shelf Playstation game (mid-90s) cost, say, $200,000 to build. A top-shelf Playstation 2 game (early 2000s) cost, say, $1,000,000 to build. A top-shelf Playstation 3 game (mid 2000s) cost, say, $10,000,000 to build. A top shelf Playstation 4 game (today) costs, say, $50,000,000 to build. You can see the problem here.

Hardcore gamers. And hardcore gamers are mostly mixed on VR. Hardcore gamers can't support a real market, either. It doesn't help that VR is currently in the midst of 3-4 companies all trying to push a proprietary format... That's going to stall out VR for at least half a decade, maybe forever. A small, dedicated market can't support 3-4 companies vying for attention with no interoperability. Whoever wins VR can turn a tidy profit but when companies like Facebook, Sony, and Microsoft are the players in question, I won't even wager a guess who wins that battle (though I think Facebook is currently positioned well).

Kepler saw drivlikejehu and swiped left.

Another thing to consider is that we don't even know what services Apple is working on right now. They play things so close to the vest that it appears they're doing nothing much of the time. For example, Google and Facebook are in the middle of a well-known deep learning battle. It's all over the news... But where's Apple? Dunno, but it's been mentioned (in a roundabout Apple sort of way) that they're also working on deep learning and have been for years... They're just not telling anyone about it. Apple only announces things when they work on Apple products. Unlike Google or Facebook, who want people to work with their deep learning systems and improve them, Apple only wants their deep learning project to work on Apple devices (again, they're a hardware company) so they have no reason to let anyone know about the project until Tim Cook is onstage, telling us how much better Software X makes This Gadget You Need To Buy.

I'd be more inclined to agree if Apple operated like Google or Microsoft: 1. Buy company 2. Integrate company into your services but allow them to continue operating (mostly) as-is 3. See (relatively small by comparison) profit! Apple doesn't do that. If they buy a company, they fold them into Apple as completely as possible. They often disband the company altogether, keeping only the pieces that will serve Apple's needs. It's how Apple lost out to Google during the bidding war for Waze. Beats is a good example of this. Beats was a hardware company, which fit Apple's strategy. So Beats headphones stayed and continued as-is... But Beats Music? No, Apple don't play that game. They took the pieces of Beats Music they liked, folded it into the company completely, and it reemerged as Apple Music.

Well, not really... Their margins are still best in the business. They saw a slight, temporary dip as they released the SE - a lower margin phone - but that should help buoy them in emerging markets where they need to entrench themselves (as they're attempting to do in India now and have already done in China). The biggest problem facing Apple is saturation and phone hardware... As the phone market matures, phones will continue to last longer and longer... So Apple needs to open new markets. The problem is that there aren't any significant markets to open, at least not as far as I can see. Watches are a hobby and unless something radical happens, will never be the "next big thing". TV is intriguing but it will never be a power player for Apple (or anyone, really) because the set-top boxes are cheap and last forever... Though the FCC's new strategy of forcing an open standard on all cable providers - allowing AppleTV, Roku, etc. to become the default box for all things TV - could really boost the market. Virtual reality is a lulz market. It has cool features and can do amazing things but it's going to be a niche for at least five years, probably more like a decade. Consumers are suffering gadget exhaustion and they're not going to drop a grand to strap a video game machine to their noggins. VR needs to step into "must have and affordable" territory and I don't see it happening. Apple's next big gain/loss will come from their auto project. Everything else will keep them raking in cash hand over fist but the cash flow will be mostly flat. Apple has several solid markets that will keep them very profitable: phones, tablets, Macs, watches, and TV boxes. I don't see big growth in any of those markets (and some will decline) but none of them are poised to fall off the Earth, either.

The Twins can't tank for three years so you're on the right track. Tank for three years and you're into arbitration for Sano and Buxton. That means you've narrowed your window to two, three years, tops. The Twins should only be trading from positions where the minors can fill the roster spot within the next 12-18 months. Thankfully, that means almost everyone over 25 is on the table. With guys like Polanco, Gordon, Stewart, Gonsalves, Burdi, Berrios, etc. all slated to appear by the 2018 season, the Twins have a lot of flexibility to trade away some valuable pieces in the short-term and not hamper their ability to compete in 2017-2018.

Heh. De Leon would be a great get for the Twins but no way does Ryan give up Dozier AND Stewart.

Good, glad to hear he's back and I hope he's in a better mental state to deal with his issues.

After watching that kid in the OF, first base seems like a real waste. I attended one of Kepler's first games this season and he was in center. I don't think he's a natural CF but he ran down a ball that was a good 60 ft from his starting point and he glided into it. I couldn't believe he covered that distance while looking so low-effort.

I'm also sticking with Apple. I've taken a hit in the past year but made quite a bit before then... Picked them up around $70/share. And they've been paying me dividends for 3+ years. I don't plan to reevaluate them until their auto project is closer to fruition.

Bingo. I'm not terribly upset about losing Arcia because it's likely Vargas, and possibly Park, are the same players. But the thinking behind the decision really bothers me. If you're going to demote Park, why not give Arcia a month? If he fails, DFA him on August 1st and give Vargas two months to show his stuff.

That'd be great but I think that's expecting too much from the kid. There are currently 28 MLB qualifying players with an OPS of .900 or better. And once you couple Kepler's defense with that OPS, he's one of the best players in baseball. Ryan Braun has a .912 OPS and is a butcher in the field. His WAR sits at 2.6... What would Kepler's WAR be with a .912 OPS? 3.0? 3.5? And now we're in the territory of Kepler being a 6-7 WAR player per season.

I just looked up his MiLB line and it's: .281/.363/.446 LOL.

I think Kepler is one of those players who has a chance to become sneaky-good (kind of what I hope Gordon becomes in time). No single trait will wow the public but he'll be above average at every aspect of the game... Which makes for an elite player, even if people don't realize it when perusing a stat line. .280/.360/.440 line with good defense from a corner spot. That's an outstanding player but no single line is that impressive.

I suspect that was the Twins' thinking. I still think they could have held on to Arcia for another month to see what happens but they needed to make a decision about Arcia vs. Vargas relatively soon either way.

Sure, his career numbers are certainly better but given Arcia's weird (lack of) development, I'm not sure we can rely on anything he has done in the past. It's almost a given he'll end up hitting righties better than lefties but I'm unconvinced he'll hit anyone adequately at this point. I mean, he got fired up and went on a 3-4 game tear for the Rays but then next thing we know, he's breaking bats and losing his **** again... And his production reverted back to nothing. Not that I'm putting too much stock in a handful of PA appearances with the Rays but that's a cycle we've seen Oswaldo go through quite a few times. He gets hot, stumbles a bit, and then gets so visibly frustrated that he starts throwing things. Rinse, repeat.

Yeah, that's an insane return rate. I was able to pull 25-30% for two years on my own but to sustain that kind of growth when the market isn't a bull is... Amazing, really.

I'm not trying to rail on Arcia because he has real talent. He also has some real flaws and we need to reel it in when talking about expectations of him as a player. For example, here are some telling stats about 2016. First slash is Byron Buxton, the second is Arcia. Swing % Outside Strike Zone: 36.2 / 35.9 Swing % All Pitches: 47.0 / 49.5 Contact % Strike Zone: 82.0 / 73.8 Contact % All Pitches: 67.0 / 64.5 We gnash our teeth over Buxton on a near-daily basis. Byron Buxton has 300 career MLB plate appearances and is 22 years old. Oswaldo Arcia has 1000 MLB plate appearances and is 25 years old. Letting go of Arcia was, in my opinion, stupid... But let's keep his recent performances in mind. He's an incredibly flawed hitter (with NO defensive value) who hasn't shown any kind of ability to learn from past mistakes and has actually regressed as he ages toward his prime. Sure, he can still turn into a useful player but he's a wild card, nothing more. He's a wild card the Twins should have kept because the Twins are an awful baseball team but that's another argument, really.

That's a decent idea in theory but Arcia has been horrible against RHP this season (.669). Yes, SSS... But we can't bank on Arcia being the righty masher he was early in his career. Of all the strange things to happen in baseball, the fact that Arcia's bad-but-not-horrible 2016 OPS has been buoyed by his stats against LHP (.795) ranks up there. I wanted to see the Twins keep Arcia because throwing away struggling talent when you're a bad baseball team is never a good idea... But, on the other hand, it's a mistake to think Arcia is guaranteed any kind of success in this league, either.

I have more than doubts, I'd put 3:1 odds they can't deliver 400,000 quality vehicles in a 24 month period, much less a 12 or 18 month period. I'm in Tesla for the long haul so I'm more interested in controlled growth than I am an explosion in their stock price... Because explosions are often followed by implosions as the company spirals out of control.

I have some serious reservations about Tesla and I'm glad I invested a moderate amount (about $3k). I fear they could easily fall prey to being a victim of their own success. I was hoping the Model 3 would garner about 100k, maybe 150k, preorders. That's a promising number that doesn't involve insane ramping of production... But 400k? Jesus, what's the likelihood of Tesla delivering that number in a timely fashion? What's the likelihood the cars will be QUALITY when they ship the first 50, or even 100, thousand? I'm nervous they've bitten off more than they can chew.

The more I think about it, the more likely it seems Santana is offseason trade bait. Not that he shouldn't be shopped at the deadline but given how the pitching market looks this offseason, Santana could be appealing to many teams. It doesn't hurt that Santana will be owed $6m less after the season and that he might be able to rebuild some value if he continues pitching well and ends the season with an ERA in the threes. Then again, I'm in no rush to be rid of Santana at all.