Nine of twelve

Today's game will only last 5 innings. Both teams agreed to this in advance. It's due to a shortage of minor league players available.

If I were running a major league franchise I would make Spanish language classes a mandatory part of the job, with pay, for all employees who are not able to communicate in Spanish. The goal would be to have almost every employee able to communicate in Spanish, but at the very least there should be someone in every department who is fluent. This applies not just to baseball operations. It would benefit the organization to have fluent Spanish users in the legal department, in the sales and marketing department, in the public relations department, and so on.

And he could start with Dan Gladden.

Betting lines are not reliable indicators of the strength of teams. Betting lines are set based on how the entity setting the lines evaluates the bets placed on a team and the lines change with the ongoing placement of bets. The entity will set an O/U for internal use but that's not the same as the public betting line. If bets on a given team start to come in strongly on one side or the other this internal O/U the public betting line will shift because the entity will decide they are more likely to make more money if they move the line. For example, if a team is assigned an internal O/U of 80.5 but the entity can get a lot of people to bet on the over at 85.5 that's where the public betting line will be set. In the case of the White Sox, they have been one of the most active teams in trades and free agent signings. That has made their fan base more optimistic, and in such a situation the optimism is usually stronger than is realistic. That in turn makes it more likely that their fan base will place bets for them to have a higher level of success than is truly indicated. That in turn causes the O/U betting line to shift upward. So the high number on the White Sox O/U is based in large part on how likely it is for White Sox fans to make intelligent, realistic analyses of their team's chances. I won't comment on whether this is related: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/white-sox-fans-drink-the-most-of-any-mlb-fan-base-study-shows/2453770/#:~:text=Chicago%20White%20Sox%20fans%20were,%22Booziest%20Baseball%20Fans%22%20list.

Teams could very easily get around it anyway. All they have to do is list a pitcher as an outfielder on the roster.

The Marx brothers were all supremely talented, but none more so than Arthur.

There has to be someone to enter all the data, someone paid by MLB and/or the teams involved. My guess is that there wasn't such a someone today.

I just found out the Red Sox have a player named Jeter. Is that even legal in Massachusetts?

No need to risk an injury if it would be a close play. The score doesn't matter.

Read this: https://www.startribune.com/twins-early-spring-training-games-will-be-going-easy-on-the-rules/600028400/ The Red Sox pitcher had thrown 21 pitches if I count correctly. Hence, inning over. Spring training baseball this year will be even more unlike real baseball than is usually the case.

As I have said in other threads, LF is the least important defensive position, with the possible exception of pitcher. In relatively recent Twins history we've had Delmon Young and Josh Willingham playing there. Need I say more? As I have also said in other threads, limiting the discussion to Kiriloff is not how I would look at it. The ideal outfield situation is to have four players, each of whom can play at least two positions, and to have at least two players who can play each position. In addition, a team should have a utility player who can play outfield as well. From there, depending on who has the day off, you put the three starters into the best defensive alignment.

This had better be Cruz' last year with the Twins. Now that he's on the roster I hope he has a great season but it's time to move forward with the young'uns.

While I hope for the best this year for Happ it would certainly be great to see Thorpe blossom into a legitimate MLB starter. Very few teams win a world championship without at least one lefty in the rotation.

I agree with this post, but I'll nitpick and say that Boras isn't the one who moves a player. His client, the player, makes the final decision about whether to stay or go. However, Boras has deservedly acquired the reputation of being more aggressive about negotiating for his clients than most agents, presumably because a larger contract for his client gets him a larger cut. Also, I suspect that a player who puts the dollar amount of his contract as his highest priority is one who is more likely to choose Boras as his agent, which in turn makes it more likely Boras will be involved in these situations. It's kind of like a feedback loop. That said, in these situations Boras and the player are not being unethical. They are simply playing by the rules, exploiting the (inequitable) system. I think more extensive revenue sharing would benefit not only the majority of fans but also the majority of players. When only a few teams have much greater power to pay large contracts it means the few players getting those contracts benefit at the expense of other players. Giving all teams similar financial wherewithal would mean that player salaries will be more equitable, not just within a given team but within MLB as a whole. It also would mean players in one team's system have similar chances of succeeding as a player in another team's system, both in terms of on-field performance and in terms of salary. Think of it this way--compare a utility player for Kansas City to a utility player for the Dodgers. The two probably have similar performance profiles and so forth but which player will be more likely to have a higher salary and chance of postseason success? Which borderline minor league player will have a greater chance to be promoted to the majors, one in the KC system or one in the Dodger system?

Shouldn't there be a separate thread for how your contributors are ranked?

He should never have gotten this deal at the time it was signed. It is totally absurd that any team would have done this. Check it out, and don't miss the fifth bullet point. https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/los-angeles-angels/albert-pujols-795/

This is the name that must never be spoken. (Or written.)

Someone else alluded to the matter of whether there will be any grandfathering regarding any speculated changes in the service time provisions of the next CBA. The FO seems smart enough to take this into account. In any case it seems apparent that their philosophy is to do what they think is best for the franchise as a whole, and I expect they will make decisions on Kirilloff and the rest of the roster based on that.

The key to this theoretically-correct scenario is the last two words. Right now 5 or so teams have hardly any restrictions and 5 or so teams have restrictions that are so formidable that it's very difficult to succeed. The only way I can see to reduce restrictions to a fair level is far more extensive revenue sharing. Otherwise it's like Sielk said.

Tampa Bay and Oakland have shown that lower-revenue teams can stay competitive enough consistently enough to challenge for the postseason almost every year. We can also do it with the right scouting and player development people, but it certainly would help to have a better revenue sharing program in place.

Rather than limiting the discussion strictly to LF I think the team should probably look at the outfield as a whole. Ideally there would be four players, each of whom can play at least two positions, with at least two players able to play at each position. Moreover, it would be best to have two LH batters and two RH batters. SH batters would be a bonus. Also a bonus is having Arraez available as an occasional fifth outfielder when it's necessary to get him in the batting order, especially against right-handed pitching. Looking ahead to the second half of 2021 and to 2022 it appears that Kiriloff has a good chance of playing a lot. Assuming that Buxton and Kepler are locks, that leaves one spot open. Cave is not a bad fourth outfielder but it would be better to have a right-handed batter. Even after trading Wade we still have a surplus of left handed bats in our outfield depth. I think Cave will be a strong candidate to be traded during spring training. My hope is that Rooker has a strong spring and is one of the 26 players going north.

Maybe, but it would be unfair if a team and player both want a long term contract. I suppose they could sign a series of one-year contracts years in advance.

Isn't this how it should be? How does this not make sense? Shouldn't players be paid for what they are expected to produce rather than for what they have produced in the past?

I concur with this part. I think it would be better for baseball as a whole if players with less experience are paid more than they are now and if players with more experience are paid less than they are now.

I do not concur with this part. While the owners may not agree with complete revenue sharing I think there needs to be far more than is done now. If this happens item 1 above is not necessary. If all teams have similar budgets to work with it will ultimately benefit the best players no matter which team they happen to play for.