ashbury

That may be because you're not, to my recollection, someone we've needed to remind about the TD Comments Policy, where it is explained in a little more detail. To buttress glunn's post above, here is a link to it: http://twinsdaily.com/minnesota-twins-talk/8837-revised-comment-policy-september-2013-a.html

It's been like this forever.

Splendid taste in women, my friend. I believe my wife and I raised our daughter to be a similar catch.

A pretty darn good amount.

The Yankees won the WS in 2009 after losing game 1 by a 6-1 score. But this year the Cards lost 8-1. There's no coming back from something like that.

Just downloaded mine. Woo hoo!

Which is, to be fair, something that is normally of very keen interest to a GM.

A little web searching reveals that renowned bad boy Aaron Gleeman posted this quip in 2006: My own take is that perhaps her parents had one tee many Destoonis when they named her.

What old people say.

You think that's bad. I'm older than USAFChief.

That treatment pertains to bonuses, which go to the player. (Well, minus the agent's fee, and so forth.) I think the intent is to cut down on financial game playing in how the player is compensated - to make it all the same under tax law, whether lump sums are paid or not. Since a posting fee goes to a third party, I'm not certain that the same logic applies - it's not financial gamesmanship, and it could be treated as a cost of doing business that year. There's no option (to my knowledge) to spread out the actual cash payment of the posting fee to the same number of years as the player contract. IANAL but if I were I'd probably want to pursue that a bit further with the IRS.

Fair enough, and I guess your post is at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But the linked article is IMO pretty readable. "Amortize" was the hardest word in it that I couldn't just skip over, and anyone who's ever signed for a mortgage probably has an inkling about that.

If this has been brought up already, I missed it: Molitor is 57 years old. A year older than Gardy. It's not against the rules to replace a manager with someone older, but 57 is pretty long in the tooth to be getting one's first managing gig. I took a look at the 30 current managers, and most got their first managing job in their 40s, if not their 30s. The ones who were in their 50s were: Bud Black - 50 Don Mattingly - 50 Kirk Gibson - 53 Ron Roenicke - 54 Ron Washington - 55 Charley Manuel - 56 The first three seem the closest match for Molitor - stars (or at least a long and good MLB career in the case of Black) who hadn't necessarily paid a couple of decades of minor-league, bus-ridin' dues as coaches, as far as I recall. Realistically, Molitor would be 58 or 59 if he ever got the call, almost a full decade older than these three were. The other three were more in the "organizational man" mold, I think, which may or may not have bearing on Molitor. But even they were a few years younger than Molitor is now. Jim Leyland just retired at 68. But he wasn't born old. His first managing job was at age 41. Jack McKeon was older than dirt when he came back to the Marlins, but he started with the Royals at 42. This is kind of typical of successful managers, such as Maddon and Girardi, and I would expect (no, I hope) the Twins to aim similarly. I'm sure it wouldn't be unprecedented for somebody Molly's age to get a first managerial job (I found it surprisingly difficult to look this up). But it would be highly against the trend. / edit - the same reason applies to why I've never looked at Gene Glynn as a manager-in-waiting at Rochester, except as an interim in case of some dire emergency.

Seems like a fresh new 2-year contract for Gardy would be circumstantial evidence in the opposite direction. Depends on what you mean by "soon", I guess.

Seems to me that by hanging on to Asche the Phils already have essentially what Plouffe can bring, with perhaps some additional upside due to youth.

A quick tip, for you and others who find this has happened: when you click "Edit Post", you'll find a button allowing you delete the post if that's your preference.

Moderator's note: we can discuss even controversial topics without taking (ahem) shots at each others' character. It's one thing to rebut an argument by describing it as a cheap shot; but trying to link it to past discussions ("another") becomes more about the other poster than about the discussion. Avoid that, please.

They did that last off-season. Correia.

More seriously, though, he was born, raised, and went to collitch there. That's not the same as having an inside scoop, but it seems like an obvious plus for the team he grew up presumably rooting for. / edit - scooped by Shane's post 3 minutes earlier!

In another five years, you'll look back and say, "hey, I wasn't three or anything - when ten year olds cry it's only about the *important* things".

Almost? What's the point of being ten years old if you can't cry when they trade your ace?

Moderator's note: Thanks for the observation. Not my intention to derail the thread, but as you could infer from Glunn's intro to this thread, the moderation team actually takes very seriously exactly the atmosphere you allude to. Indeed from time to time a few of the "bar's patrons" have been shown the door - some with more regret than with others - not specifically for negativity but for making it difficult for other patrons to enjoy their time at the site. Now back to the thread.

Extricate them. You can do eet.

Moderator's note: Please avoid turning a thread about a possible FA acquisition into a debate on front office motives and so forth. Review the TD Comments Policy if necessary: http://twinsdaily.com/minnesota-twins-talk/8837-revised-comment-policy-september-2013-a.html