ashbury

Firefox. I just tried IE10 with the same result. (Brock will now tell me that IE 10 doesn't even exist. ) I don't keep a variety of browsers on my machine for doing QA.

I would use it if I saw the Member Title above the My Birthday field, but unfortunately in my profile it's not the case, and I presume it's the same for the other members who keep asking this.

In fairness, he was apparently the 41st best player for the Braves. Might that be an upgrade for our 25-man?

Under 'Edit my About Me Page' is birthdate. I don't see an entry for Member Title. (Or, if you mean click on 'Edit my About Me Page', that just brings up a large empty field to type in, and putting something there doesn't change my member title.)

I'm hoping to get Parker's take on this, too.

At least one user is having trouble finding the interface to change one's own Member Title. I can't find it, except under the moderator's control panel which has a different interface I believe.

I appreciate Correia's professional approach and his contribution to bridging to the young players, but this move is overdue.

Leaving room for improvement in later games as he settles in to the major league routine, eh?

And Koufax. Sandy Koufax was good too. / so long as we're talking about anyone but Trever May, and all...

From Rochester's airport? I don't think you could infer much from his boarding a plane to Ohare or other hub. / edit - or Indianapolis, or whatever AAA city he happened to be in.

IMO not many roster decisions should be made on spring numbers or "hunches" either.

A problem I see with evaluating 40-man talent in August/September as part of a 6-man rotation, is that you learn what they can do in the context of 6 or 7 days between starts, which is not the context you care about.

That's why I view it as a priority.

In terms of major league performance there is no urgency, but when considering the stewardship of team resources I believe the urgency is high. Duensing could be a prime non-tender candidate this off-season, so if you get nothing for him now, you may get nothing at all. 40-man issues plague this team and whatever is the best non-Rule-5-eligible prospect that can be obtained should be accepted ASAP.

No villains here, IMO. The discomfort a pitcher goes through isn't as simple as Go No-Go. I'd prefer to give Nolasco the benefit of the doubt for courage to try to pitch through a period of time where he didn't know for sure where the end of the tunnel really is. New team and not being "that guy" and all that, it rings true. And from the other side, manager and coach treating a new and veteran guy with dignity and respect, not peppering him with questions that will sound like second guessing over a bad stretch of results, also rings true to me. It's part of an equilibrium that, in the big picture, works.

Oddly, with the starters going well, it's recently been the late innings that have given much of the heartburn.

It's impossible to completely eliminate all the tells, once and for all, which is what makes the cat and mouse game fun for serious fans, even if they're hard to spot. Kudos if what you spotted holds up - although now that it's in the open like this (who doesn't read TD?) it's immediately changed.

"Advocacy" and "push an agenda" had me thinking you were against Caple's remarks, but the rest of what you said leaves me unsure. A "dialog" is desirable but nobody should have a particular position on the topic already?

(Indeed.)

A few years ago I heard Terry Ryan give a broad ranging talk, and one point he made was that if professional baseball wasn't played every day, there were dozens of guys who could hit .400. An interesting POV that I think ties in to what you are suggesting.

What if it's Colabello who continues at the present pace but Nolasco is the one who comes back to his career norms?

Apparently my satire of the glass-is-always-half-empty outlook didn't work so good. Oh well, live and (not) learn.

Uncle.

After watching the Twins today in Cleveland, several impressions come to the forefront. First, the pitching seems to be no better than last year, and quite possibly even worse. The starter, Nolasco, stunk it up with 5 runs in only 4 innings, and could not seem to locate his pitches to save his life. The bullpen quickly coughed up two more runs, a performance that could put a game essentially out of reach by the halfway mark. The defense was also laughable, with somebody inexperienced manning left field, after Willingham departed the game with an injury (thankfully the diagnosis was no broken bone, just day-to-day), unable to make the simplest plays. The team was fortunate to have no unearned runs to tack onto the tally against them. And the hitting? Florimon, the afore-mentioned Bartlett, Hicks and Escobar combined for 0-for-7 with runners in scoring position through the game. Factor that in with an aggregate o-fer by the 2B, LF, CF, and SS positions, and you would hardly be surprised to be told that the Twins were shut out again. I believe it was the Orioles in 1988 who established a major league record by losing their first 21 games to start the season. Though it's early, are the Twins in danger of eclipsing that mark in 2014? Based on this account of this game one would be hard pressed to say no. It would be easy to assume that this debacle in Cleveland was the nadir of the Twins 2014 season, but with 156 games to go I am not confident in predicting that this will even be their worst game this year. Yes, I am giving fair warning: IT COULD BE WORSE. Go Twins.

Please alert the moderators if you need assistance.