ashbury

They get to protect additional players when the minor league phase begins, so I'm not worried about losing anyone promising.

"We don't have a center fielder. We just know a guy who would get really mad if he heard me say that." "We need to bring in a reliever, but I have my doubts about this Dr. Ake."

Keep in mind, though, that you'll probably want some room to add quality free agents. Having a full 40-man means doing something later on to make room. Losing a player is a lot bigger risk when you try to remove him via waivers (just there for the taking, by any team with room on their own 40-man), versus risking the Rule 5 (where a team has to keep the player on their 25-man all season).

You said that last year.

Catchy.

Don't say his name two more times, you might summon him.

Carnac: "Twins Manager" Ed McMahon: Twins Manager. I thought the Minnesota team had one. Carnac: Minnesota? They did. Ed: I see. Carnac: Until recently. Then they didn't. Ed: Ah. Carnac: Then they did again. Ed: I understand. Carnac: Unless you believe La Vell E. Neal III, in which case they don't again. Ed: We depend upon you, and your mystical ways, to bring us such clarity, your Magnificence. Carnac: Do I detect a touch of sarcasm in your response? Ed: Hardly, oh wise one, merely a dollop of it. Carnac: Wise guy. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your Willie Norwood jersey. Ed: Would you be so kind as to open the hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar, and reveal the question? Carnac: Name something Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen's mother is finally fed up with being.

Easy solution to that. Discard the PA threshold, and require 100+ strike outs. In fact, just declare the batter with the most strikeouts as the batting champ - after all, his manager must have had high faith in him to keep him in there despite such obstacles to production.

Yep, I remember seeing the article a while ago. Some kind of technical error inside their system, I would imagine.

Perhaps at a high level. Watching balls and strikes, I found games 4 and 5 very compelling. That 18-inning affair put a very different perspective on everything that came after. The entire WS felt like it hung in the balance for a few innings there every inning on Saturday in game 4. If you missed seeing Eduardo Rodriguez slam his glove to the ground, in real-time and not replay, after having pitched his heart out for five-plus good innings prior, you missed a lot. And then... the game took some further dramatic turns. I'm sure I could go back and dig up mediocre 7-game Series. This was a really good 5-gamer.

It's very possible. OTOH my understanding of management techniques is that there is more downside than upside to telling anybody anything until the moment the die becomes cast, no matter how well-meaning. But coaches aren't typical employees so I don't know.

We had a thread for items around the baseball world that were worth sharing but not worth a thread of their own. Now that the 2018 season is over, I'll start this new one for the off-season.

Now that the WS is over I expect we'll start hearing. It's a courtesy to those being let go to give them as much time as possible early in the off-season to find a new landing spot.

I like the choice of Pearce, though.

I'll guess Price.

I thought both teams showed a lot of heart, and the games were played for the most part at a high level. When I don't have a strong direct rooting interest, those pretty much check all the boxes for me.

No discussion here tonight. Whale of a game.

I've been trying to wrap my mind around this response from you, and I'm still not sure I've figured it out. See, I'm in favor of positional flexibility. Extremely so. Hugely so. Probably for at least as long as you have (I'm older, for one thing). Certainly for longer than the 4-23-16 date when you started the Club. When I play Out Of The Park (which makes no one an expert on being a GM, but hear me out), I force every decent infield prospect to become proficient at SS, 2B, and 3B. I force every decent outfield prospect to become proficient at CF, RF, and LF. If they have decent skills in both infield and outfield, I work to get them proficiency on all six. That way, the ones who reach the majors are ready for anything. The game makes it hard to develop catchers unless they already have the ability, and the game makes it quick to develop first basemen, so those are special cases. The game is just bits and bytes on the computer (and in particular it leaves out the human element of making players do all this), but whether I'm any good or not, what I'm saying is that I'm predisposed as GM to dictate players get good at a variety of roles, and then let the on-field manager choose whom to plug in where. I've done it that way for years. So I feel like you are disagreeing with a position I don't take. But, for some players, positional flexibility is (as an old boss of mine liked to say) "interesting, but irrelevant". Byron Buxton probably could become a quality first baseman, but that skill would rarely be called upon for the foreseeable future. Max Kepler is nowhere near that class, but still a good enough outfielder that I would personally not call upon the skill at 1B very much, in preference to just about anyone else on the current roster. What I'm saying here is, 1) I think Kepler is a very good outfielder, better by a lot than Cave in particular (even though Cave has some tools), 2) 1B defense pales in comparison to the importance of corner outfield defense (which of course pales in comparison to CF)., and 3) pretty much any athletic outfielder can master the necessary techniques at 1B such as scoops and foul pops without years of exclusive training. Those who disagree with me on any of the three points will put Kep at 1B far more than I would. That's defensible, but then the discussion shifts to those underlying opinions, and (except for point #1) away from Max himself. I don't remember exactly what I was responding to at the time, but it might have been the idea to move Kepler to 1B to make room for Cave in the outfield. But, positional flexibility applies to Jake Cave too. And I would use whatever skills he developed at 1B more frequently than Kepler's. You now bring up McCutchen. If we acquired him, you know what I'd want to do the first day of Spring Training if I were manager? I'd hand McCutchen a first-baseman's mitt, show him how it operates, and ask him to get proficient, along with his outfielding skills. I'd position it to him as in his own self-interest, as his career progresses into his 30s. But my real reason? I think Kepler is better than him in RF at the present moment. Positional flexibility applies to McCutchen too, and in my world it's even more important for him at this point in his career arc. Now, you didn't state it, but maybe your assumption is that McCutchen is too prideful to accept this assessment. That's quite possible. Putting Max at first base in that situation might be the right solution. McCutchen wasn't in the scenario I was discussing. Clubhouse chemistry factors into such decisions. I don't think anything I said before precludes that. OTOH, why doesn't Max get to have his pride hurt too? This is the manager's job, to sort out. In the meantime since I posted, someone else brought up the possibility of Pollock. That would be different. Pollock is better in the outfield than Kepler. In that case (Buxton being CF in all these scenarios) I'd be asking both Rosario and Kepler to increase their reps in the infield - Eddie at third moreso than first, Max at first base. I think I actually like Kepler in the third outfield spot better than Rosario, but it's a much closer decision than versus McCutchen, above. Someone else mentioned Adam Jones, who is also a rival to Kepler in skills, but with the additional age I'd still be inclined to hand Jones the funny looking mitt and tell him it's time to branch out some, if it comes down to him or Kepler in the outfield. Like I said, any lineup that has Max Kepler at first base almost certainly involves one heck of a defensive outfield. We do need to add a high-end talent to make that happen. That would be great. Injuries at 1B are a necessary part of the plan. But unless whoever is inserted in the lineup is a better defensive outfielder than Max, I start my thinking with the other guy being stationed at 1B - we're working on assuring that everyone is positionally flexible, right? Not just Maximilian? Finally, as for Travis Shaw, If we ever trade Kepler for him, I'll conduct my lineup analysis at that time. I'll say, though, that a good defensive third baseman who has never in his career been penciled into a lineup at SS is a less interesting guy to think about than a right fielder who sees some time in center field. I don't think it'll read the same at all. Shaw is less, dare I say, positionally-flexible.

He's standing on first base and his team is leading 1-0. You'd feel good too. / edit - ninja'd

Rich Hill is a baseball player. Eduardo Rodriguez... is a pitcher.

... against his own DNA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros : Soros was born in Budapest in the Kingdom of Hungary to a well-to-do non-observant Jewish family

Snowflakes.

i WiLl eNdeAVoR tO tYpE LesS nEaTLy GoInG fOrWaRd.