ashbury

We have all the major league baseball Kodys in existence, and that is more than I can take as it is.

Among the various mischaracterizations, this is maybe the easiest to disprove. Gray went on record as saying that when the Twins informed him that they wouldn't have the money to re-sign him for 2024 and beyond, he instructed his agent "a couple of times" to take another run at finding some common ground. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/08/al-central-notes-baez-gray-correa-twins-moncada-soroka.html I'm gonna keep disputing it a long as this old fabrication keeps getting repeated.

I fact-checked on snopes.com, and "RandBalls Stu" is apparently an entirely fictitious name which is totally made up and probably bogus. Take that into account when assessing the truth of this article; it's probably a sting operation where they seek to lure a bunch of gullible people to the vicinity of Target Field where no baseball is being played and then deport them to the south side of Chicago where there is also no baseball being played.

Also for Keirsey. 🙃

Yeah, you'll have to ask someone else. I'm a cheapskate too. Maybe we can stage a Cheapskate Olympics. Run a series of cheap-offs.

Lotta good stuff in there. Walks Will Haunt... in reverse! 😄 I've been an Emmanuel Rodriguez skeptic for a long while now, even though I'm at the same time intrigued. Edouard Julien had a similar profile, and he did succeed when he reached the majors - until he didn't - so I don't think it's automatically a death knell. But it's necessary to speculate and figure out, "what happens when to the walks when they go a way? Because they will." Major leaguers can throw strikes when they want to. Will the walks turn into strikeouts-looking, or weak contact, or something better if the batter's eye really is elite and he isn't just selective but effective? In the latter case, those major league pitchers will continue to mix in a healthy ratio of walks. Players who walk a lot in the really young leagues might still have a wide range of abilities that will eventually come out (or not).

Since I nitpicked, I owe you an on-topic response, which is to say that the much maligned Baseball Trade Values website uses exactly this observation as part of its basic approach. The variability of performance once a prospect reaches the majors serves as a slight damper on a player's trade value (I THINK this is what you approximately mean by "value" in your post) versus the hindsight once he gets established, but there's no question that front offices are looking for "excess value" in any MLB contract and the artificial ceiling on salaries creates a ton of that for the right players. Yes, a contract like Soto's is nowhere near the maximum if true free agency were possible. Someday some MLB club is going to mess up the paperwork for a prized rookie, some court will declare the contract void, and we'll find out what the max could be like.

This amounts to nitpicking to the nth degree but I don't know whether the CBA says that. Article VI begins, "Individual Player salaries shall be those as agreed upon between a Player and a Club...." (my emphasis) and then it states what the minimum salaries are to be (increasing each season) and when arbitration becomes available (3 years as you say). It goes into infinite detail about what happens in split major/minor seasons, and meal money, and so forth. But I don't see where it says plainly that you can't "agree upon" more than the minimum. Indeed, b-r.com shows Royce Lewis being paid $745,000 in 2024. The CBA minimum for that season was $740,000. I somehow find this very interesting, even if totally unimportant. How in h-e-double-toothpicks did Lewis pick up an extra $5,000 from the Pohlads??? In his shoes, part of me would want to say, "keep your pity money, I'll get paid later in ways that will dwarf this pittance." The other part would want to crow, "look at me! I got SOMETHING." But more importantly, what dark magic does Scott Boras use to pry a few dollars from the Pohlads' cold spectral clutches? And why does he waste it to get a mere $5K? (I know, I know: it's to show everyone he CAN. Maybe most importantly, it seems to me that the players' association had to know this form of collusion among owners ("I don't have to pay you a penny more than the minimum, that's my 'negotiation' for you") would occur given the wording of the CBA, and chose not to include wording that either sanctifies the practice or somehow forbids it.

Ah, very true. Sorry for misunderstanding. Today's a Pablo day, but also Pablo Day, and I whiffed.

The Twins have completed 152 games. We're in a 10-man rotation now?

Trevor Larnach stayed healthy. Didn't matter much.

How many Gallos per Punto?

I Scouted Good, But Boy Did They Play Bad Or, if I feel like being less cryptic than referencing an old Jim Bouton book, let me say that losing series to the Jays and then the Yankees doesn't provide much evidence that the scouts made a difference (and I know that isn't what you were even saying). I think it would be very difficult to tell what does help and what does not - which is why this isn't a FO decision that I feel is worth all the verbiage expended.

So, no one's actually objecting to the move, it's just another opportunity for snide remarks and innuendo? "Everyone's moving in this direction but it's uniquely bad if our guys do it."

Article from the past: "Henry Ford says he's done with producing buggy whips, will concentrate on automobile manufacture." Do I have an independent opinion on the value of in person scouting of MLB games? No I do not. But I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt that it's harder than ever these days for an employee to justify their job doing it, by the benefits it brings to the team.

Or, an alternative POV for what happened to the guys still working in major league scouting until a few days ago: "Y'see, what we're trying to do here, we're just trying to get a feel for how people spend their day. So, if you would, would you just walk us through a typical day for you?"

I'm in basic agreement with your POV, though we're all just guessing. That's because the team itself is silent on the matter. I do not understand the team's approach to Public Relations in general. It's been so poor in the past, that now they may be in a pickle, and feel that "anything we say will be taken wrong so let's say nothing." If you give a group of employees their pink slips, you have to count on word getting out. So get ahead of the curve and get your own spin on the subject out there first - pink slips go out (and make sure they are received) just before a press release is put out. "We are reallocating resources," or something like that in this particular case. It's preposterous that they are "eliminating scouting," which is the spin some choose to put on this. But nature abhors a vacuum. (So did my cats.)

I enlisted the aid of ChatGPT. It gave me what it knew.

Puaf Ughh Puhh Blehhh Huuh Ogh Ackkk Eugh Ugh Blergh Uhh Tchh Pahh Ewww Beurkk Kchhh Fy Pfah Ack Ptuui Ock Echhh Meh Ew Ishh Bähh Blehh Arghh Unh Bleurgh Yuck Icky Erk Chehh Ech Guácala Mehh Tfuu Ackk Urghhh Blahh Bleughh Pfft Ughhh Uof Erkk Ockk Bleugh Bahh Argh Egh Beurk Ptuuii Ish Bäh Tch Fehhh Eghh Puajh Bah Blech Urghh Blah Uof Ew Cheh Kchh Pah Oghh Feh Blahhh Fyhh Yucky Pouah Ugh Blechh Puf Unhh Bleh Hmph Pfui Ew Arghhh Puaj Pouahh Bähh Ockk Pffft Eughh Ock Urgh Puajj Gahh Echh Ack Ighh Hu Pfahh Gah Bleurk Igh Tfui Hmmph

I'm starting to hate these articles. 😀

That's another good way to say it. If Kody Freaking Clemens is the difference between a 99-loss team and a 101-loss team, this is not a discussion I even wanted to have in the first place.

It is a lot. That's the crux of the problem. Modern rosters have 13 position players. You have nine spots in the batting order to fill each day. If there are 4 guys worse than Clemens, that's your bench - or if there's 5 then that's your bench plus a starter. Either way, Clemens is getting starters' minutes. It's more beneficial to the team to upgrade the starter, than to worry about exactly who among the scrubeenies is cut. The roster problem is deep, deep, deep, and Kody Clemens has us thinking about the wrong things.

When Clemens is not the big problem.... ... then you do have a big problem. I have no doubt that Kody Clemens could be a contributing player to a World Series winning team - probably as the next to last man on the bench but still seeing enough playing time to count. There are tons of players like that. Kiké Hernández for the Dodgers last year, say. Sometimes they have a career year, otherwise they don't lead the way but they don't kill you either - as long as you don't give them starters' minutes. I think that's the difference in what you and I are saying. You have in mind a nice orderly process: replace the 26th best player with someone better, and many if not most players move down in rank. Now repeat with the new 26th player. For me, if we forget about Clemens being some kind of important bar for measurement, then it doesn't matter if we accidentally replace the 21st best player too soon. The order isn't that important. There's a lot of players needing replacement (or rapid improvement) - if the goal is an actual contender. Clemens is a red herring for discussion.