ashbury

Plan 9 had a plot hole or two, as well. I suppose I could have summarized that I liked the Science that was portrayed in the movie, as did many reviewers, but I was bothered by the Engineering, as well as the Law attributed to Murphy.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, but the plot required a ton of things going right and no single life-snuffing thing going wrong, and midway through the movie it started to bother me. Yes, there was a major thing that went wrong (foreshadowed of course by some nitwit at mission control observing that things were going well ) which nearly killed him. And of course the major major thing at the beginning, coupled with the minor major thing that saved his life. But I'm talking about the day to day things that go wrong. A door gets stuck and then when you forget and force it it's off its tracks, and you can't open it. Something falls over that requires two people to set it right. The Mars Rover gets a flat tire or breaks an axle - for that matter, is the Rover so maintenance free that a botanist can keep it in running order? Movies require suspension of disbelief and somewhere along the line they lost me in that regard. Getting him home safely required a sequence of correctly executed maneuvers that made Gravity look like a simple parachute ride down for Sandra Bullock. Nonetheless, as I said, I liked the movie overall. My wife was a biology major in college before switching to math, and when we go for walks she's always commenting on the flora along the way - and after this movie I was able to say the next day "you're botanying the sh*t out of this, aren't you?". Also, as a novice trail builder in mountain/desert terrain, I couldn't help thinking about my more experienced friends' reactions to seeing the challenging terrain in the movie. "Wow, you could put a great trail right there, and another one there, and there...". I guess I'm saying, they REALLY succeeded in making me feel I was there.

Problem solved. It was careless of them to photoshoop the same carefree moppet into two renderings, however. SHOOP DA WHOOP.

I don't see why. Every list is constructed differently, but if in the back of an analyst's mind is hypothetical trade value, that value (for a very young and raw prospect) may remain top-10 for years, without necessarily ever being top-1 or top-2.

Milwaukee has also always (at least according to my selective memory) loved their big poor-fielding strikeout-prone oafs who hit just enough homers to keep Bernie Brewer from collecting cobwebs. Great fit for a trade of a spare part here.

I've only been to TF a couple of times, and my memory is poor in any case: is it currently possible to walk the entire perimeter inside the ballpark, and will this new arrangement change that? That's a feature I love, at any ballpark that has it. Parks like Fenway annoy me - they don't even let you stroll around in the Green Monster anymore.

Yeah, though it might cost us an extra C-graded prospect for them to take him off our hands.

Agreed, you don't want too little (or too much) variation of fastball to change. I also wouldn't read too much into a single game's radar readings; might be some kind of work-in-progress thing that already has been ironed out. It's one of the things the AFL is for.

Can't bring myself to click Like on any of the posts, so I'll just say it's terrible to hear this news.

Ay caramba. None of these guys have much of a chance of being pried away. Even going further down the list into the 30s and it's tough to imagine... until I come to the name Sonny Gray. Shades of another TD thread.

OK, you got me to take a closer look. A 30-year old as the #2 prospect? Personally I'd just call him a Cuban free agent and move on to the next youngster. But I'm not sure how other prospect rankers deal with veterans new to MLB. (Certainly in MLB age and experience is no bar to RoY awards, but I'm still not sure someone is a prospect at such a level.) But you asked about methodology, so there it is.

I'll take the Under. Oops, wrong pool. Royals in 7 or fewer. OK, OK. Royals in 7.

Unless yours is a top-40 of journalism prospects, you might want to remove this name. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/17937-mat-batts-2015/?p=414994

Yah, I looked up somebody too, while doing a tiny amount of context-checking before my last post. You thought of one guy, I thought of the other. So now I'm poking around some more. Washington and St Louis were head and shoulders above the rest of the NL teams in preventing base-theft attempts, 85 and 83 respectively, while no other team was below 99. Atlanta was about in the middle of the pack with 117, and there were teams like Pit and San Diego with 187 and 182. These are team numbers of course - individual catchers will vary within teams, but somebody on the Bucs and Pads was getting a lot of practice throwing to second and I'm not taking the time to point fingers individually for this discussion. So no, I wouldn't embarrass AJ by comparing him to Ramos or Molina. I wasn't saying he was the best. He's not even average - backup catchers for Atlanta helped salvage their total numbers (which of course pretty much negates the WHIP argument). But if teams were running wild on him (someone else's term for it, not necessarily yours), we need a stronger adjective for several other catchers who logged a lot of innings in the league.

Or it could be that in a bad season Atlanta pitchers were putting a few more men on base. WHIP of 1.414 in a league with an average of 1.299. Would need to know the baserunning opportunities before judging that a counting stat like SB+CS tells the story.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=polanc001jor In the minors: SS 339 games 2898 innings 2B 136 games 1124 innings

To all: The purpose of this special thread being completed, it is now closed to further posts. Discussion of the side issue can continue if desired, but in the About MinnCentric forum where it belongs.

It just sounds bad bad bad. Puerto Vallarta to be hard hit?

One should not go out of one's way to be an irritant, no. Oh, and welcome to the site. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/8228-twins-daily-comment-policy-latest-revision-september-2013/

First, it's a strawman that if Sano isn't playing 3B every day then Plouffe must be playing 3B every day. Playing time can be shared, and the ratio need not be static. Second, you are right that Sano's missed time due to injury was costly to the process. Third, what "they don't know" isn't some static thing - what they want to see is whether he is making progress, because what we saw on the field from him was sometimes intriguing (stellar looking plays coming in on slow rollers and throwing off-balance) but too often inadequate (matador moves on hot smashes, poor tracking of popups). They know he's young and progress is expected, but adequacy must be demonstrated. Fourth, infield drills and spring games will go a long way toward determining the amount of his playing time once the games count (and of course the drills continue). If he looks reliable in the games he plays in-season, Plouffe will soon be riding the pine (or DHing/1Bing) full time. And then it's time for a trade. Profit!

Moderator's note: folks, this is one of those threads where we'd like to keep to the topic. I've removed a few posts that weren't. Thanks.

If by midseason Sano is playing in the field only a couple times a week, it will mean the on-field staff sees a big problem, in which case we'll be glad Plouffe is still with us, allowing us to come up with some kind of Plan B for Sano. Conversely, midseason will be a practical time to trade Plouffe if he's truly expendable.

The right situation being, he turns 24 years of age? (Despite my posts elsewhere casting doubt about his readiness to step in as a starter for 2016, I remain very high on him.)

Probably. Guys who look like eventual utility infielders or fourth outfielders, or starting pitchers who will likely have to accept bullpen duty if they want to be in the majors, litter top-20s, even strong lists. Think of it this way. How immensely strong would a farm system be, if the entire top 20 was entirely made up of "this guy projects as a starting first baseman, this guy projects as a starting second baseman, this guy projects as a front line starting pitcher, this guy..."? Practically a whole new competitive 25-man roster, including a few apparently qualified players riding the pine, if you'll just wait a few years. Top 10, I'm probably with you, regarding backup catchers.

Weasel words from a guy who doesn't want to be judged by how many World Series titles he wins.