by jiminy

I respect the decision to get something rather than nothing for a pending free agent. But I don't agree that there's no downside because we can still sign him next year anyway. He's not coming back. If they wanted to sign him, it would have made much more sense to extend him in the off season, or even midseason, than to pay peak market rate in an auction. I So I see the logic in this decision, but that doesn't mean it was not the only option. It may be the right choice now that his contineud elite performance has pushed him out of our price range. But it looks like extending him for three years at the end of last season might have been a very wise investment. If he regresses to a utility infielder again, they gambled and won. If his league-leading doubles are not a mirage, it was a missed opportunity to add a real building block. People say we can just swap in Nick Gordon, but if Nick Gordon turns into a league average player, he will have beaten the odds. Who has the better chance to lead the league in doubles, Nick Gordon, or a guy who's actually done it before? Gordon will cost less, but that's his only superior attribute. I would not have been at all sad to see the Twins spend some money and keep them both. Even if Sano's hitting rebounds he will probably move DH or 1B. So there is room in the infield for Escobar, Polanco, and Gordon to all start. Imagine having Escobar locked up for three more years. That would have some value, too. And if done a year or more ago, would have been a steal. If they had no intention of signing Escobar anyway, this trade was obviously the right thing to do. Just don't get your hopes up that he's coming back this off-season. He'll be getting starter money somewhere, unless he turns back into a pumpkin. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he'll continue to rake, and the Twins will sign him back anyway, at market rate for an elite starting infielder. But realistically, I think the time to resign him has passed. If they wanted him, they would have done so already, not waited to get in a bidding war. Given that he was gone at the end of the year anyway, this trade was the right choice. But the decision not to resign him when he was cheaper may turn out to be a huge missed opportunity. It also might not. Maybe this is a classic sell-high move. But he sure looks pretty good to me. I know I'll miss him, whether he becomes a star or not. Sorry if this is coming out too negative. I am not knocking Falvey and Levine. I think they handled this very well. There was no time I was shouting at my computer for them to do something else. I didn't know Escobar would do this either. I'm just in mourning a little. I agree with all the sound arguments why this was a smart move, exept one -- that we can still sign him back this offseason. I think it's over, and I'm in mourning over that. But they need to make the tough calls, and stocking the farm is the right thing to do. I'm just sad, and fear we could really miss the little guy for years to come.

I just want to step back a second from the assumption that the season is over, and the games are meaningless, once we are out of the playoff hunt. You know what? They are all meaningless! It's a game! And games are for fun! You don't have to win the World Series to enjoy baseball. It's also fun to win GAMES! Every game counts! If the Twins' young hitters rebounded in the second half, and we won more games than we lost the rest of the way out, I would not say, who cares, it's too late, these games give me no joy because we are too far out of it for them to mean anything. I would go, yeah! We are winning again, and I like it! I'd have happy thoughts, like, I knew it! This team isn't as bad as looked. The awesome young core is back! Maybe we are not as far off as we thought! Maybe we were right all along -- this team could make some noise, once people get back from injuries, and live up to their potential! What would be bad about that??? No question, it was much more fun last year when those games were part of a pennant race. The chance to knock the Yankees out of the playoffs gave them ten times more awesomeness. But was last year a failure because we flopped in the playoffs? It sucked, but we had a good ride! Remember how astonishing it was to have all our players hitting at once? That's why it was so hard this year when it stopped (except for the Eds). It would be a huge relief to me to see that wasn't a flash in a pan, and all that hitting talent is still there, waiting to explode! Personally I would be thrilled to watch Buxton, Sano, Kepler, and Polanco tear it up in the second half again, even in "meaningless games." Which is not to say, don't ditch the veterans who won't be here next year anyway, they are just clogging the way for the young people from reaching their potential. Is Litell, Mejia, Slegers, or Gonsalves more likely to make it into a playoff rotation? Maybe now is the time to find out! (As long as you don't short-circuit the development needed to reach their potential, of course.) But Belisle and LoMo wouldn't be missed. Same for the good rentals, like Lynn, Rodney, Duke -- I have no sentimental attachment to them, so by all means, trade them for someone who might help next year, and see what the AAA guys got. But unless we got something of real, significant value for Dozier and Escobar, I'd rather see them play out the string, and maybe help the team have a second half worthy of our pre-season expectations. Wouldn't it be fun to finally see that lineup of Mauer, Dozier, Polanco, Rosario, Escobar, Buxton, and Sano firing on all cylindars? I agree there's no point watching old guys who won't be here next year win an occasional game. But trading off every veteran for pennies on the dollar, and slogging through a depressing second half with AAAA players, would not be fun either. I'd still like to see a good team, based on a core of players we can imagine growing into a contender. So if keeping a half dozen veterans around puts them over .500 in the second half, I'm fine with that, too. I'm just saying, every win between now and October is a real, live win, a genuine victory. You have every right to celebrate winning GAMES, not just championships. Let's not lose sight of that. I'm all for dreaming about the potential of a glorious future, too--that's part of what makes little successes fun. I just don't think we should devalue good things that happen this year because we won't also win a championship. Take what you can get. The first half sucked -- but maybe the second half won't!

I read this article with great interest. Trading Gibson was not even on my radar. You're right that the pros and cons should be objectively weighed. Where I disagree, though, is that our pitching staff in 2019 would be fine without him. Every single pitcher after Berrios has a LOT of question marks. I also disagree that saving maybe $10 million should be a factor. The team already has a below-average payroll and most of the current contracts are set to expire. That money would not come close to matching Gibson's production on the free agent market. I'm just not ready to throw in the towel on 2019. And that's what such a trade would mean, IMO. If you have given up on Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Rosario, and Polanco ever being the core of a contender, sure, trade everybody. But I haven't. In which case, If this latest version of Gibson keeps it up for the next year and a half, they should not only keep but extend him. If he's good enough to pitch for a contender, why shouldn't that contender be us? Same applies to Escobar. If Buxton and Sano flop convincingly and irreversibly, and the foundation has obviously crumbled, then sure, trade anyone and anything for a reboot. But if they regain their previous peaks, they'll need all the pitching they can get. If a young, almost ready prospect with playoff quality upside was dangled in exchange, sure, of course I'd trade him. I just don't think the prospects he'd bring would be elite enough to improve the team in the near term. We've been waiting a long time for the playoff window to open, and when it does, there is plenty of revenue to pay for the players needed to fill out the roster. But I still see Gibby as playing on the next Twins playoff team, and I'd want to see equivalent talent in return.

In the podcast you discuss the seemingly baffling inconsistency in treatment of Byron Buxton. First, they rushed him back when he is still injured, without any rehab. The second time they send him down, they gave him an extended stay in the minor leagues, even after his foot is seemingly healed. Here's one possible explanation. Earlier in the year, they considered themselves to be in a pennant race. So their priority was putting the best possible team on the field any given day to keep pace with the Indians in a winnable division. They had good reason to do anything they could to hang in there, even if it meant Buxton manning centerfield at less than 100%. They couldn't afford to rest him. Cleveland had not run away with the division, and they had reinforcements coming in Santana and Polanco, Dozier could realistically explode at any time, and they still weren't sure what they might get from Sano and Buxton. Now, the pennant race is basically over. It makes a lot more sense to look ahead to next year. There is no reason to squeeze whatever production you can out of Buxton. So their priorities have changed. Sano can spend as long as it takes to master the strike zone again. Buxton can be given as long as it takes to get his offensive game back. Why not? What's the rush? I don't find these decisions inconsistent at all. Six weeks ago, they had a realistic chance to win the division. Now they don't. I think it's as simple as that. Personally I am in no hurry to watch Buxton and Sano flailing at sliders outside the zone. I'd much rather wait for them to return until they are ready to lay off those pitches, and knock the next one out of the park.

I am okay with sending Romero down. He wasn't winning us a pennant and his secondary pitches need work. He was holding his own which is great but I do not believe what we were seeing was his ceiling. Extending his service time is a bonus but not the real benefit here. I think he should be focusing on his weaknesses now not his strengths. You can't do that in the big leagues because you have to focus on getting guys out. I think a little more work in the minors is more likely to improve his performance next year and beyond than struggling to hold his own for the rest of this year instead of polishing his secondary pitches.

If they're not in a pennant race, why rush up a prospect, who probably does have more to learn, and start his service time early, rather than saving his arrival for later, when it will be more useful, and he'll be playing at a higher level? What's the downside? Why watch his growing pains in MLB, when he'll have to prioritize immediate production over working on weaknesses, when every day up here literally comes at the expense of a day later, when he's at peak value, for literally the same price? We get six years either way. Each day earlier he starts, each day as a fumbling rookie, puts him one day closer to free agency. I would argue that the only reason to justify that trade off is if you think his nearly formed talent is urgently needed to win a pennant race. I think that case could be made, actually -- they're not that far out, and could get back in it. If you want to win now, and he's your best shot at it, by all means prioritize that over service time concerns. But if you think a pennant is a pipe dream, what's the rush?

I would suggest keeping Buxton and Sano in mind when people get impatient about promoting Gordon, or Gonsalves, or whoever the savior du jour is. I never understood it when people rag on the Twins for taking their time with development. I've seen many cases where people were rushed for what looked to me like marketing reasons, to placate fans who didn't have much reason to buy a ticket otherwise during the down years. And I have seen it backfire. Gomez was brought up too early to placate people angry for losing Santana. Hicks was brought up too early. Then they traded Hicks and Revere and committed to playing Buxton whether he was ready or not. Was that wise? I don't see it. Best case, we've burned through his service time with poor production, sending him to free agency when he gets good. Worst case, we're derailed his development and he may never recover. I'm not saying he won't! But it might not be till he's about to become very expensive. Personally I'd rather have Sano and Buxton in the minors, learning to recognize and lay off outside curve balls, than watch them struggle up here. It's lose-lose-lose: the Twins' present is worse, their future is more expensive or worse because they leave; and their development seems to be being harmed by it. My guess is Gordon has plenty to learn still, too. And Gonsalves. I wouldn't mind seeing Romero work on a changeup in the minors a little more, too. I just don't see the harm in playing the long game. That way, every player plays better when he gets here, AND stays here for more of his prime. Is it really more fun to watch young players looking overmatched, while knowing that even if they do reach their potential, you just traded a year of peak value down the road for a year of AAA-quality play now? To do that, you have to be pretty damn sure their development will proceed much faster in the majors than in AAA. And I totally concede that might be the case. So If I see someone struggling in the majors, I try to give the coaches the benefit of the doubt. The coaches know much better than I what helps a young player learn. But I would not join the clamor to bring up someone too early, just to mollify fans of a losing team. If they do rush people because of public pressure, just to sell tickets, we all lose. I'm not saying I know when a player should be brought up. Who knows, maybe there isn't a single decent curveball in AAA, and the only way Sano and Buxton can learn to lay off them is to face them in MLB. But I highly doubt that. I think it's much more likely that the team was judged in win-now mode, and a potential stud who wasn't quite ready was seen as having more to contribute right now, even with unfinished development, than the alternatives. I'm not saying that's wrong, either. But if you trade the future for the present, and you don't win in the present, it's lose-lose. You lose games now, because they can't hit an outside curveball. You lose games in the future, because they are playing for the Yankees a year early, or you're tying up a quarter of your payroll in them a year early. Or, worst case, you stunt their development and they never figure it out. A mid-market team needs to maximize its assets. Imagine Sano and Buxton were arriving now, with perfectly honed plate discipline, and six years of cheap stardom ahead. Would the past three and a half years have been worth that sacrifice? You could make a case that last year, yes -- they would not have made the playoffs without Sano's first half and Buxton's second half. But man, wouldn't it be nice to see them starting out now, at their peak? Not getting promoted till they proved they could lay off an outside curveball? And learning to do it? What if Carlos Gomez had not skipped AAA, and instead spent two full learning his craft and earning his promotions by demonstrating consistent plate discipline? What would his career have been like? Are we doing that to Byron Buxton? It's always nerve-wracking, and you never know what's right: are they waiting too long? Are you bringing them up to early? I think, from afar, there's no way to really know. We don't know what the coaches are working with them on in the minors. We don't know if a plea from a major league manager for help made them grab someone too early. I'm sure that happens. Just as commitment to veterans probably holds back a young player who is ready. Of the two, the second error has less cost to the team, though, as you still retain their full six years of service time, while milking last remaining value out of the veteran's contract, whereas bringing the up early you sacrifice both the unused value of veteran option, and the best years of the young player's service time on the back end. But my main point is, no one knows for sure, and the people who have the best idea are the ones who work with them every day, not us. So I just don't ever get it when people express contempt for a team holding someone back too long. How could it be more obvious to us than an actual coach? And what's the downside of erring on the conservative side? You have better odds of making their six affordable years be at a consistently higher level. Sure, you may get additional years from them. But once they're in free agency, you're paying market value. Whether you pay them, or someone else, it's fungible. The way to outperform other teams with the same money (or in our case, with less money) is to get more than market value production. And that means maximizing the years you have players at below cost. Below-market-rate production is the key to a winning team. And calling up players too early is the single biggest way to blow that. It's almost never a long-term win. If you're in a playoff race, and you bring up your stud pitcher early from the minors to fortify your bullpen, absolutely! But if you're early in a rebuild, and your fans are getting impatient, no. If Romero has a major league fastball and can get people out now, and you're in a playoff race, sure. But if the cost is, his command could be better, and his changeup could be better, and one more year of tutelage could be the difference between a guy who can hold his own and a guy who is lights out, bringing him up early has a cost. I'm not saying don't bring him up, when you're a handful of games back of the Indians and the alternative is Phil Hughes. Just, there's a cost. So don't yell at the Twins for developing their talent slowly if it's too maximize their potential. That could simultaneously give us more years at their peak performance AND make their peak higher. It was worth it last year to go for it -- beating they Yankees in a one-game playoff would have made my decade. But if they continue to fall out of the race, Sano and Buxton are back in AAA in three weeks, I for one would have no problem with that. I'd rather see them later, looking unstoppable, than watch their service time wear down while they're clearly overmatched. And if Romero starts to get hammered once he gets scouted thoroughly, send him back down, too. Play veterans like May and Duffey and Pineda this year, and bring Gonsalves and Romero and Rooker and Gordon up when their flaws are polished away. If Gordon has nothing left to learn, fantastic. But don't get impatient and grab him just because we're frustrated with the alternatives. So why do people curse slow development so vehemently? Who are these players who were called up too late from the minors and it ruined a season or destroyed their careers? I'm not being sarcasting, or questioning that it happens. I just honestly can't think of any. I remember getting really impatient for Anthony Slama, who seemed to have nothing left to prove in the minors. The coaches thought his stuff wouldn't play against major league hitters, and apparently the were right. I remember calls to free Johan Santana, but that was from the bullpen -- and I agree, once you've started his service time, then use him! You can't argue that working him in slowly from the bullpen harmed Santana's development -- clearly he turned out alright! But you could make a case that we gave up a year or two of Cy Young level Santana because he WASN'T still in the minors during those bullpen years. I would sure love to have had him around in 2008 and 2009! I remember people getting impatient for people like Adam Brett Walker, who never panned out. And I remember stunningly early promotions for people like Mauer, Kubel, and Morneau, who did. So my feeling is, they probably know what they are doing. And they CERTAINLY know better than me. So my conclusion is, be patient, and don't demand your gardeners harvest fruit before it's ripe.

Hell yeah, 9th is vastly improved! You're forgetting that two years ago they were the worst pitching team in the league, by a full run. There was as big a distance between them and the second worst team as between the second worst team and the best. They were awful, and had a long, long way to go to reach mediocre. Making that big an improvement in two years is nothing short of amazing. And yes, average pitching is enough to win a division, if your hitting is the best in the league, as it was for the entire second half last year! They led the league in runs scored for the second half, and if memory serves were fifth for the entire year. And they had all the players from last year returning, plus Morrison and a full season of Sano. The pitching is fine. If they were hitting like last year they would be in first place. The reason for their crash this year is that the run-scoring has cratered. And while many players have underperformed compared to last year's second half, I would agree that the most worrisome are Buxton and Sano. If a championship team is going to emerge from this group it's going to be built around them. The supporting players are in place. But those two are the potential superstars. Their regression is very troubling. They are young enough and talented that they can still do it. They've done it before. But unless and until they reach their potential, this team is a building without a foundation.

I still think there's hope. The pitching has improved significantly. And with the offense performing like they did in last year's second half, they would be a legit playoff quality team. Could that happen? Yes! They still have all the key players from last year's offensive breakout, plus Morrison. Why not? Is it a huge surprise they haven't? Not really -- subtract Polanco, and significant stretches of Mauer, Sano, Buxton and Santana to injury, and it's exactly what you'd expect! The real question is whether their performance last year can be replicated. And all those guys could rebound. We don't even need all of them at once; just take turns getting hot like last year, and we'll be fine. But I have to admit it's looking less and less like something to count on. What if Buxton and Sano really have incurable problems with pitch recognition? What if Mauer's concussion symptoms return long term? What if Polanco's offensive surge was chemically enhanced? It might be that last year was the illusion, not this one. Still, it happened before, for three whole months, so it's not total fantasy to imagine it happening again. The potential is there. Maybe Buxton's slow spring was really about migraines he wasn't mentioning, even before his broken foot. Maybe Sano's legs are still bothering him but he'll be back. Maybe Mauer will pick up where he left off with a .400 OBP. Maybe Polanco, Morrison, Dozier, and Kepler will surge again. The good thing is, they don't need all of these to happen -- just any three, on any given day, and their offense will be right back where they were last year. And that would be fun to watch. If it turns out Buxton and Sano just can't hit big league pitching, then I'll be very, very bummed. But I've despaired about them both before -- which only made their hot streaks even more exciting! They have it in them, somewhere. If they finished strong, think how good that would feel. Just seeing them get back on an upward trend would be a huge weight off, and make every game fun to see. But add a few other players getting hot as well, and a few key injuries to Cleveland, and it could still happen this year. Think back on the past six years, and then to the end of last year; we're a lot closer than it seems.

For me, it's Berrios. His curve and fastball would look good on that stage. He may not have the consistency yet to really deserve it, but he has the talent. He can stand up to anybody. But considering that it is still seven weeks away, I think two other contenders have a good chance, if they have a hot streak. If Dozier bangs out 15 homers in the next 7 weeks, he'd be an obvious choice, and he'd deserve it. And he has the talent to make that a real possibility. And if Romero keeps up what he's been doing for seven more weeks, so would he. Managers would be drooling to call his name as a reliever. Anyone else (barring a similar hot streak of course) could feel a bit forced, frankly, like a pity pick. Yes, Rosario is carrying the team offensively. But is he really one of the best outfielders in the game? Is Escobar really one of the best infielders in the game? Just doesn't feel right, to me. But Berrios, Dozier, and Romero are all capable of dominating the league for weeks at a time. And I think there's a good chance one of them will, which would make the pick easy. But if I was picking someone right now, I'd send Berrios. I'd love seeing him make an All-Star freeze or flail at his curveball. And I believe he could do it.

Knowing what I know about Falvey and Levine (they're smart) and the Pohlads (they're cheap), my guess is that this deal was made to fulfill a condition the Pohlads put on a deal Falvey and Levine wanted to make but the Pohlads wouldn't pay for. Probably one of two things. 1) Falvine wanted to eat Hughes's salary to clear a place on the 40 man roster for someone more productive, and Pohlads said no, only if you get someone to take on some of his contract. Which of course no one wanted to do, so they had to throw in a draft choice. 2) Falvine told Pohlad, We really need another catcher, and we can get one by trading for an overpaid veteran and taking on some salary. Pohlad said no, your budget isn't going up. They said, okay, what about if we pay for it ourselves? Pohlad said sure, as long as I'm not paying for it do what you want. So it's a creative way to trade the 74 pick for someone like Wilson Ramos, as someone mentioned above. If they take on additional payroll this year, I'd guess #2. If they just pocket the money, I'd guess #1. I'm sure there is a #3, but I can't even imagine what it might be.

I agree they're really not doing that bad considering they have been playing without Santana, Buxton, Sano, Mauer, and Polanco. Those guys were a huge part of their success last year. The problem is, we don't know if any of them will ever be what they were last year again. Buxton and Sano are not on a predictable trajectory. Mauer's concussion symptoms may have recurred. Castro is out for the year. Santana could come back as good as ever but that's far from guaranteed, and could take a while if he does. Polanco at least wasn't injured, but was his surge last year sustainable? Who knows. I'm not saying they sky is falling. They're only 3.5 back, even without those guys for so long. And the pitching depth is better than I've ever seen. Rosario, Kepler, and Escobar are doing their part. If the hitters get hot like they did last year, they could play with anybody. Add a rejuvenated Santana and Berrios and sustained success from Romero and they could be really good. It's definitely not over yet. I'm just thankful that Cleveland has struggled so far. It would be hard to be 12 games out right now, knowing the Twins could have a long, sustained hot streak and still never catch up. But as it is, the season could get very exciting up till the very end. The Twins could finish below .500, if things break the wrong way. But what happened last year could happen again. I guess I'm not saying anything that isn't obvious to everyone. It's just that I agree with both the person who marveled at how bad our offense has been, and the person who said we got through a lot of injuries pretty well, all things considered. I have no idea what's going to happen. And that's kind of interesting.

Actually I think that might be the problem: He thinks he can rely on his immense talent and that will be enough.

I think Lynn will very likely return to form at some point, I just wish he wasn't trying to figure things out in games that count. If he hasn't gotten back on track when May is available, my preference would be to give his rotation spot to May, and send him on an injury rehab assignment in the minor leagues. I think it would greatly improve Lynn's free agency prospects to attribute his current failures to some phantom injury. And it would clean up his stats to wait till his command returned instead of digging a hole he won't be able to get out of. Once he's pitched three or four weeks without walking so many people, bring him back up, and let him finish the season strong. You can always move May to the bullpen then. Or if he's noticeably better than Lynn, leave him in the rotation and put Lynn in the bullpen. One benefit of a one-year contract is it's not our problem. But at this point, I think the team's needs (to win games, now) and Lynn's (to enter free agency with decent statistics) might both be served by getting him out of the rotation till he stops stinking things up.

I expect the team to fail to win the world series, as 31 of 32 teams do each year. But I also expect them to win it all ...someday! Sure, their odds of going to the playoffs this year took a hit -- but far from a fatal one. Even in this season of woe, I am not convinced they are a bad team. Lynn and Lomo missed spring training; they'll be back. Buxton, Sano, Santana, and Polanco -- four key players from last year's surprise team -- will all be back. Hughes is out of the rotation, and Romero is in. Max Kepler is hitting left-handers. The Eds are hitting everything. Gonsalves is knocking at the door. The team is on a three-game winning streak. The Indians are losing. Things are looking up! (Cue wailing and teeth-gnashing next time they lose two games in a row...)

Thanks for focusing on a happy story! It's true, he's been a huge lift. I have a question about launch angles. I've always accepted the standard argument that increasing your launch angle by a few degrees increases doubles and homers. But that's not the only way to increase your average. If you hit 90 percent of balls exactly the same, but eliminated some grounders, it would look on paper like a slight increase in average launch angle. It's great to stop hitting nubbers, maybe even better than hitting more flies. Replacing some groundouts with line drives is wonderful. But it's not a whole new strategy. In Escobar's case, becoming a league leader in doubles, and all the homers he started hitting last year, implies he's launching more long flies. But in general, I wonder how often an uptick in average launch angle is really that, or something else?

I'm excited -- I just added him to my fantasy team. But I have one nagging worry. I read he's still working on his changeup. Right now it is 89 mph, and they need it to be slower to separate from his fastball. At 89, I'm worried people will just tee off on it like a weak fastball. But without it he is a two pitch pitcher. Given that the playoffs are looking doubtful, I might rather have him focus this year on improving his changeup than trying to get past major league batters with two pitches. Maybe it's almost there and he'll perfect it with the big league coaches between starts? If not, they can always use him in relief. But my ultimate goal is for him to perfect a changeup and become truly dominant.

Remember they're stretching out Duffey, too, so he's also on the list of potential AAA reinforcements.

"It's important to keep in mind that he was extremely limited in his ability to condition this past offseason. To pin the lack of weight loss on disinterest would be ignorant." So that's why Teddy Bridgewater and Adrian Peterson managed to stay in shape despite leg injuries -- they were ignorant? What does your shin have to do with how much you eat? Apparently I am ignorant too.

I recall a post showing that Dozier's home runs were the least productive of any player in the league. Hitting a home run with the bases empty will score 1 run. He had the highest percentage of solo homers in the league. Why would you do that? Why would you put your best home run hitter lead off? I also recall that Dozier's argument was he wouldn't hit as many homers if he didn't. Something about seeing more fastballs. Maybe it's true that you can't just decide to hit 40 homers in the 4 spot instead of the 1 spot because there are variables I don't understand. I don't buy it but who knows. If I was managing he would not be leading off, Mauer would. He takes a lot of pitches -- which everyone says is good in a lead off hitter because it lets his teammates time the pitcher -- and he has an unbelievable on-base percentage. I'm all for challenging orthodoxy with statistical evidence. But if someone has read a great rebuttal against the standard idea of putting your best OBP guy in front of your best SLG guy, I'd love to hear it. Why wouldn't you want to optimize the number of guys on base in front of your best sluggers? Mauer in front of Dozier will produce a lot more 2 run homers than Dozier in front of Mauer. Right?

I remember when he was drafted that some scouts were worried he had a long swing, or slow bat speed, which would limit his upside. Their take on his extremely well-coached approach was that he might already be maxing out his upside and have little room for improvement. I haven't heard any discussion about this since. Has anyone heard anything since then about whether his bat is quick enough to hit major league pitching?

My favorite thing is reading comment after comment, each of them convincing, and having my mind changed, or at least opened a little, to new points of view, in such a collegial and friendly manner. I love that differing opinions are not an occasion to bluster and get huffy, but are mutually considered the very thing we come here to seek out. That open-minded curiosity creates a sense of community, intellectual stimulation, and shared fun. It feels like a warm hearth to gather around and chat, in what can be a cold, cruel world. So, thanks to literally everyone! But especially to the moderators, who make it all happen so seamlessly you don't even know they're there. Well done indeed.

Bard and Reed were names I've looked forward to seeing in the majors a long time -- high draft picks with mid-90s fastballs. I guess this means they didn't pan out. Not protecting them means you either don't think they're good enough to get selected, or you don't care if they do. Fortunately less famous names like Busenitz and Curtiss came through instead. But I still had hopes for a deep bullpen populated by Bard, Reed, Burdi, Melotakis, Chargois and Jay, based purely on what I've read. Not second-guessing Falvine; they're not going by words on a page like I am. Just disappointed those guys didn't work out.

In an average payroll Mauer's salary would only be a sixth of the total. If we had an average payroll we could be competitive. Until we do, we won't be. The problem is not Mauer, it's the missing pitchers.

I just saw him sac bunt in the second inning or son. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong. If you're tied in the 9th, sure, sacrifice. You only need one run. If it's the second, you need more than one. Sacrifices kill big innings.