ashbury

Seems like a day for the manager to have thrown caution and the computer printout to the wind after the fourth inning, and let this prospect go nuts and toss 52 or even 53 pitches.

Sorry to hear that. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you. But I can try a different way: life is impermanent.

He was not. MLB publishes its rules of conduct. You can read them here. Nowhere in the rules is found the word "lifetime" in regard to a ban or anything else. The phrase you are thinking of, stated in a few places throughout Rule 21 regarding Misconduct, is "shall be declared permanently ineligible." It is pointless to play semantic games about Rose or Jackson's life being over; that is nowhere stated as a criterion.

What shortround81 was getting at is people are asking to know the unknowable. The "concussion protocol" is a process spelled out in excruciating detail in the collective bargaining agreement between the players and the league. The CBA is available online at https://www.mlbplayers.com/_files/ugd/4d23dc_d6dfc2344d2042de973e37de62484da5.pdf Here is an excerpt from it, just to give you an idea of the steps in the process. It is simply impossible to know this soon whether either player will miss any games at all, or have to miss enough games to be put on the special 7-day injured list just for concussions, or need to go on the regular injured list. (I was Today Years Old when i learned that players have a "baseline" neurological test done before the season, so that the medical staff has something to compare to when these situations arise during the season.) That's just the summary; you can go to the CBA to see the full details and forms that must be filled out. Do you think anyone in the organization from Derek Falvey on down is going to be able to tell us how this is going to play out?

If there's a teardown it needs to be with a new front office. If a new one comes anyway with new ownership, I would not saddle them with the old regime's decision. Come on Pohlads, quit fighting for the last dollar and sell to the current high bidder.

I imagine there were some pointed conversations among the umpiring fraternity the next day.

My doctor ordered me to cut down on saliency. I've had to give up game threads as a result.

Starting pitcher not as good as we needed, offense not as good as we thought, bullpen capable of giving up late runs.... I hope this isn't a synopsis of the season come October.

Rocco looks so small when he's answering questions from the press after the game. He's always looking up at them from his seated position; he needs to knock that off. i would have guessed him just a shade below 6', and not 6'4".

Probably should just go find some of your other recent posts, but for this topic, which two of the four do you think bring the more wins to the team if given playing time? I can think of ways Martin and Julien can bring needless losses.

Selecting two of four is Rocco's job. There are warts on all four players and I'd be hard pressed to have to select two of them as backups I would ride with. Any combination won't really surprise me; I can't read Rocco's mind. I think I'd keep Gasper and Keirsey on the grounds that they have annoyed me the least at the major league level, but that's mainly a function of opportunity, not skill or accomplishment.

That is not what you said before. Again, no one is saying build a team with strictly free agents.

Who has said this?

Lot of teams have good prospects. It would be an anomaly for someone drafted where Jenkins was to turn out near the top of all in that draft class, not to mention number five among all the other draft classes and international prospects. I look forward to finding out just how good he can be, but I'm not too worked up about exact prospect rankings.

I was gonna type that Lee has to hit if he's to be the third baseman of the future, regardless of the glove, otherwise he's only a stopgap at the position. But by waiting I get to add that he also needs to demonstrate durability, or else he's either an afterthought or else at best another roster headache.

Did you take my reference to Chief as some kind of appeal to authority fallacy? I was crediting him. His argument on the present subject is persuasive, unlike a pointless exaggeration of some other thing he may have said about something else.

If your take is that Julien has untapped potential, and is not a lost cause, your position on Lee is easier to understand.

A "Julien with a worse bat" is a pretty bold stance. Lee hit at high-A as a 21-year old, he hit at AA at 22, he hit at AAA at 23. His debut in the majors at 23 was a little worrisome and I would prefer he start the season at St. Paul again, but his track record suggests not selling him quite so short at age 24. And I am much less nervous about Lee's glove than Julien's for that matter.

The problem with planning to use a guy for "low-leverage" innings is that those innings will come at inconvenient times. Say your starter has a bad game and you're behind 6-0 before he can even get out of the second inning. It'll be low-leverage from here through the ninth, unless your hitters have some kind of outburst of their own. You bring in your mop-up/long reliever, and he goes 3 1/3, say. No big rally, so you're still down 7-2 after five, say, with three or four innings to go (away vs home). Those innings will be low-leverage too. But the guy you tagged for those is done. Now you bring in a sequence of your one-inning guys, presumably in reverse order of ability and seeing if you can squeeze an additional inning out of one, but by this point it's not going the way your low-leverage plan envisioned. And then the next day, you're winning 8-3 in the eighth, and your long-man low-leverage guy isn't available to mop up because he's resting. And then you have an open date on the schedule, and then you encounter a string of five close games in which you wind up bringing in your low-leverage guy to face the #7 batter to start the inning and he walks a guy or two and suddenly he's facing the top of the order and you grit your teeth and you hold your breath and then possibly wind up taking him out anyway and burning another arm you didn't want to. There exist low-leverage situations - plenty of them during a season in fact - but as Chief says, there are no low-leverage relievers anymore. More precisely, no low-leverage roster spots in a major-league bullpen. The usage of starters has changed since I was a youth, and this is a consequence. I still wanna keep Castellano, but he has to perform at least as well as the waiver-wire dreck that is available.

The Twins have a path to 100 wins. Or if things break badly they could lose 90+. You can't say the first about a few of the bottom-dweller franchises, nor the second about the richest teams. Probably a lot of the teams in the middle could be described like that. This edition of the Twins seems a little more extreme than past years, though. I have 'em pegged at just below .500.

The magician/comedian Teller, in a speaking role? I'll have to give this movie a chance!

Good to know I'll always be immune to injury, then.

If I conveniently forgot that this is Spring Training, an article examining the ins and outs of an 87-pitch start would be the most 2025 thing ever.

If he winds up being the first man up after someone suffers an injury, then I suspect the Twins had higher expectations than just that.

Here's a free idea for RandBalls Stu: Something, something, something else, hangnail, diagnosed as "moderate," expected back around Memorial Day, expected back around July 4, expected back around Labor Day, fan in Blaine explodes in rage. You're welcome.