ashbury

Why isn't the runner on first declared offside if he arrives at second base before the catcher can throw the ball there and let the second baseman attempt the tag? That's how it is in soccer - the defense has to be given a chance to attempt the play, a rule that evolved in the spirit of fair play. One sport is not automatically a comp for another sport. You assert that it is, but it is not. You have to think about why each particular rule exists. The burden is on the person drawing a parallel between the sports and their rules, not on the person responding. So of course my connection of the offside rule in soccer is silly, for exactly the same reason. As for my dislike of the offside rule, I am invited to go root for a different sport, and recognize that a different spirit of fair play exists that I don't happen to subscribe to. And as with many rules, a spirit of fair play is behind allowing a smaller batter to have a smaller strike zone. That's a rule for no discernible reason I happen to like.

Once we have robot umpires, it won't be long until we're watching robot players, amirite. I realize some of you may think this to be a strawman argument. But this is the 21st century, and we have the technology: I have constructed a robotman argument.

This is not the Twins Daily I joined ten years ago.

Very good point.

There is nothing inherently wrong with 8 outfielders on the 40-man, so long as at least 3 and preferably 4 have minor league options so they can be sent down. I believe Celestino, Wallner, Larnach, and Kirilloff can all be sent to St Paul at will, with Buxton, Gallo, Kepler, and Gordon all rooted to the major league roster. So the current array of outfielders is viable, although a bit left-heavy as we all acknowledge. There is no absolute urgency to deal Kepler or anyone else, though it's an option. My one worry is that we have only 2 catchers on the 40-man. The first time one of the catchers gets an owie that requires multiple days of recuperation (Injured List or otherwise) someone from AAA will have to be added to the 40, and that will mean removing someone unless that injured catcher goes on the 60-day IL. Doubtful it would be a pitcher who gets jettisoned, so that means an outfielder would have to be moved somehow. That's a risk that is settled if one of the outfielders is himself injured first and put on the 60-day IL, but the timing could work the wrong way and cause an unwanted move. We ran out of outfielders in 2022 so having 8 gives some sense of comfort that a slate of 4 performing at a major league level can be cobbled together at any given time. I don't like trading away up-the-middle players or prospects, so I'm not interested in moving Celestino, even though at present he has his warts. About to turn 24, the 2023 season will be fish or cut bait time with him, I suspect.

I was saying "I was a hipster before it was cool," before it was cool, and I found this obscure little article about Alexy which you might find interesting reading.

Noah Miller has zero impact on current major league roster decisions. He just turned 20 a couple of months ago, and his single-A batting record was a BA in the low .200s with minimal power. Don't know what the scouting reports are on his progress with the glove but he's a long way away. That doesn't mean he isn't a good prospect.

You were sleeping in high school detention and dreamed you were in medical school.

Entertaining offers? How about $10, plus Brian Duensing as a sweetener?

Where can I score a sweet discount on a Giants or Mets jersey with Correa's name on it?

Not another medical condition to have team doctors check out, and then us worry about for six years!

The rumored Mets offer, half the years for half the dollars of their previous agreement, seems inexplicable. The value a player gives is highest in the early years of a long contract. If you trim off half the years, you need to trim less than half the money. That makes their offer nearly an insult.

Probably not a good idea to question the motives or mental states of others simply because they disagree with you. Where the topic of Bauer is concerned, returning the favor would seem like low-hanging fruit.

If he's (still) on a HoF track by that point in his career, an extra year of counting-stats could be appealing to him. As for the money, I think he already has set up a charitable foundation, and each additional year of earnings might in his eyes be "for the kids" or whatever way he directs his donations. Those strike me as a couple of good reasons he would put off retiring if he's physically capable, even though the earnings peak is long past.

The wording of the headline made me think you are ghostwriting Torii's autobiography.

Went to visit our son there at Thanksgiving. Couldn't have enjoyed the city more.

Okay, but you also put the word "elite" in there on purpose. "If" means you think it's possible, and I'm here to say that "elite" is unlikely in the extreme.

I don't believe this will ever come to pass. Unclear he can even play acceptable SS, and average CF looks like his ceiling to me.

Ortega is designated for assignment today. What was your favorite Oliver Ortega moment?

Home run hitters drive Cadillacs. Singles hitters drive Fords. This concept dates back to at least Ralph Kiner, making it three quarters of a century old. Babe Ruth figured it out, so let's call it a nice round 100 years. Luis Arraez is your quintessential "nice little player." I believe you can even win a World Series with him as a regular on your roster, but you can say the same about several hundred ballplayers. If Austin Martin wants to be more than a nice little player, he needs to display power.

I had thought there was a larger offer on the table than that. Apparently not, so he comes out a little behind, after "betting on himself" with the 2022 contract, but not that much behind. One year at $35.1M, plus this $200M guarantee for just six more years. So he's owed $35M less, but over fewer years. If he achieves the vesting option, so much the better for him (and for the Twins). I will choose to view this new contract (based on current details) as 10 years and $270M, with a "team option" after Year Six given that they have a great deal of say over whether he achieves his vesting numbers. Honestly, I feel as though ultra-long contracts should always contain some kind of vesting requirement for the second half of the term. It's fair to the player as well to the team.

Free Agency is the failure tax a contending team must pay for not developing an appropriately talented young controllable player for a particular position on the field. To not pay it amounts to saying either you're not contending or you're so set at every position that no further improvement is possible. This writeup is a pretty good analytic summary of how you have to look at roster construction; "where do wins come from" is the facts of life question for baseball, and the answer can't be 1 WAR each from 50 different mediocre players because the rosters aren't big enough.

Instead of focusing on the auxiliary verb, focus on the word "toxic." When does a manager use that word in regard to a player? Almost never. It amounts to throwing the player under the bus.

The player is never a commodity. But the contract for his services? A FO has to think in hardnosed terms. Every player with a long career acknowledges at some point, it's a business. For me the long-term commitment was always the biggest concern, and the 10-year offer previously on the table by the Twins looks unwise to me in light of the newer information. Knock 3 years at $20M per off of their offer, leading to a higher AAV, and invite him to take it or leave it if he's got a better total dollar offer somewhere else. Before, $285M total contract value was close to an insult given the reality that someone would offer $300+. Things change and now $225M seems like a legitimate offer, whether it wins or loses. Maybe the Mets fool me, but after this many days/weeks I doubt their disagreement is over a "mere" $50M relative to their previous winning offer.