ashbury

??? Does not the word "steroid" ring a bell? For example Erickson's 1996 ERA was 5.02 - but the league as a whole was 4.99, so he was basically average that season, even before taking into account that relievers generally have lower ERA than starters (4.67 vs 5.17 respectively). This year's AL inflated ERA was 4.32, for reference. Starting in 2000 he was bad, sure. He showed seven years of stick-to-itiveness which I find difficult to fathom but give him great credit for.

Hosmer is by now established as a well-below average player at a defensive position where you like to have flexibility; he hurts the team each inning he plays. And you'd be stuck with him for 4 years. If you take him off the Padres hands, you might as well just cut him, eating $60M of total salary, You'd better be getting back an absolute stud of a prospect, maybe two, for your $60M. I'm not convinced a team really will let go of a prized top-tier prospect just for money. A couple of second-tier guys, yes. The salary floor is a factor, and I like the creative thinking, but some of the guys being discussed are pretty extreme.

Just when I was thinking, nope, no Spring Training for me this time around either, not even if the greedy owners open things back up in time, a photo like this melts my cold, cold heart.

Oof. I just got done looking at this idea posed in another thread, and when you get down to actual names it looks scary. Is there a definitive list of who is available in the Rule 5? Or, if you have some specific players to propose then it could be worth discussing. But guys with good gloves who spent their 2021 hitting .220 at high-A could be a disaster in the majors in 2022.

No further drying up will occur during the lockout.

Hurrah! Let the game continue to find ways to celebrate its distinguished players.

It's the teams' collective responsibility to do what's best for the fans, and for the long-term health of the game. Each player has just one life to live. The franchise lives on for generations, if run successfully. When the game is healthy and a player retires, the baseball world gives him a hearty handshake and its thanks - maybe even a HoF nod eventually . When the game is healthy and an owner "retires", he (or his heirs) gets significant capital gains. So, who has the real incentive and responsibility? Propaganda equating the two sides is deceptive and pernicious, and comes mainly from the ownership side. There's a lockout on, and gee whiz, look at which side of the line the majority of PR people stand.

A nice picnic breakfast at Loring Park followed by a leisurely stroll to the ballpark to watch the afternoon's game?

Trevor Story has never OPSed .800 on the road in any season. Get him away from Coors, and he's not a top-tier offensive player. He's still a solid major league hitter, and very valuable because he's a good shortstop, but I'm afraid he will be underappreciated by whichever fan base gets him. He might end up like Greg Gagne, a very underrated member of the Twins championship teams, or probably a notch higher. There's a shortage of such players, thus an "overpay" - but that's the Stupidity Tax for not having developed a player of this caliber for ourselves.

Revenue sharing was billed one way, and has turned out to be just another variation on collusion. "You don't spend, I don't spend, and we solidify our profit margins." From the players' perspective, better to just let the large market teams spend those sums on player contracts. I expect this negotiation point to be one the players association lets go of first, because indeed the big-time free agents are being paid well anyway. I'm ready for another try at the 1890 Players League. So I'm not feeling too immersed in this present negotiation.

"Know your place." Always sage advice in life.

HOF is for celebrating the game's best and most beloved players. I would love for a Hall big enough to include Justin. Sadly I don't think he gets there, and he probably falls off the ballot quickly.

You've described the intended role of a bottom feeder team, to a tee. It's not even as if the contract can't work out. It can. Bundy surely won't reach the heights, for the Twins, expected when he was younger. But he may have a productive and successful season. But this is the type of deal the Dodgers or Yankees are pleased to farm out. If Bundy pans out but the 2022 Twins don't, they'll make a nice trade deadline offer. For true contenders, the 40-man roster and the 26-man roster are the constraining factors. For us farm teams, money is always the constraint, but there is room on the roster for low cost investments that possibly will pay off.

Now what kind of ticker tape parade is that? I ask you.

Came here to pump the brakes a little on the ticker tape parade forming over the signing of a sore-shouldered pitcher with a name familiar to certain strata of fans. Looks instead like the parade is stalled in the fairgrounds parking lot. My services will not be required today, after all.

Good luck if they can do that, but pitching is the coin of the realm and I will be surprised if they can pull off a trade of any substance without giving up pitching in return. Which... as we both probably agree, is the dilemma.

Trevor Megill, claimed when he hit the waiver wire: as expected. Trevor Megill, non-tendered a day later: as expected. I really wish I understood what our FO thinks they are doing with these waiver claims. I know teams make similar moves all the time, but these don't seem to have any rhyme or reason. Their one success I can recall in this realm was Matt Wisler who put up numbers that looked lucky and unsustainable, and whom they released after that one year. "We see something we like", apparently from analytics on spin rates or whatnot, and yet as far as I can tell all they do is ask the pitcher, "have you tried throwing strikes?" Wait, Wisler's walk rate with the Twins was far higher than his MLB numbers before or after - I guess Wes asked him, "have you tried just throwing as hard as you can? Here's how that's done, you probably haven't been shown." I should train myself to just ignore these moves of no consequence. But then I say this each time.

Megill, A Gorilla.

"How much? For how many years? Uffda, too rich for our blood. Still, we'll let it be known we're 'linked' to your client if that's okay - helps you, helps us. And if none of the other teams gives you what you're asking, remember to circle back later on - we're super, super interested."

I think the deal is written to say that if the team pays him $25M, the league has to name him MVP. I could have gotten some of the details wrong.

Rat and roadkill possum also can not be completely ruled out.

And some others at the opposite extreme saying they wouldn't pay $10M a year for the man, and at least one "non-tender him" if I recall. Still, my sense was that the majority who weighed in will look at the actual contract details and say, "yeah." As crowd sourcing, I think we done good. At the end of the day, maybe there is as much latitude and disagreement on what is meant by "consensus" as for the word "mediocre".

MVP details are a little outside the box. But basically in line with consensus at this site. Posters, give yourselves a round of applause!

This team roster has hardening of the arteries. Corner bats vying for too few spots. Relievers who are out of minor league options. Acquiring such players is the path of least resistance*, because surprise surprise they are the ones found on the waiver wire and are too tempting not to snap up. And now here we are. with arbitration decisions to make, and with players a little too good to cut ties with but lacking roster flexibility for a long season. It's not the arbitration decisions per se that are hard - you have to pick a roster you think can compete, and the salary decisions make themselves. Just say goodbye to two or more of the relievers in this arbitration list. Other than Rogers and Duffey, I don't really care who among Cotton/Coulombe/Minaya/Thielbar - all can have their moments in the regular season against so-so competition, none would be more than fodder in a postseason run, which is a longshot so actually I really don't care which. (Edit: I took a look at Minaya's game log for 2021, and for some reason all his earned runs were against Det/Cle/KC/Bal, all of whom were below average offenses. That means his impressive ERA was built on outings against some good-hitting teams like the White Sox and Jays. Maybe he's the keeper in this bunch.) Whoever you non-tender will catch on with someone else, and will have their moments in 2022, at which point we'll say "look who we let slip away!" but that's the nature of the roster crunch this FO has backed themselves into. * Okay, one of several paths of least resistance. You can also trade pitching for hitting, any day of the week - for instance Gil for Cave. I'm sure the list of n00b roster pitfalls is lengthy.

Yeah, I really am rethinking my Spring Training plans. It's fun, and I'm not usually too focused on the big-league roster when I am there, but still my enthusiasm overall is at such a low ebb.