ashbury

I applaud creative ways to use $100M across four years in the here-and-now, if we think money above that for Darvish is "dead money", and if it turns out Darvish himself can't be signed even for more. In addition to the points already raised, I want to add a touchy subject: Greinke has moved around a lot. Most recently, the Dodgers, who can afford to sign anyone they want (they gave Kershaw-money to Kershaw), said "nah, we're good" when they had the chance to re-sign Greinke after a three Cy-candidate season tenure. I recall him being considered "aloof" early in his career; at age 34 he's probably a different guy by now, but I still have to wonder if he's thought to be not worth the trouble, if Arizona is now known to have him "available" in the right trade after a couple of years in close proximity to him. I don't overweight clubhouse chemistry, but it's a factor to consider.

Moderator's note: This tangent is turning into yet another referendum on the front office, and I'd like to ask that it not be pursued further here. Start a new thread, or get back to the topic at hand.

Well, that's the dilemma, isn't it? If he was willing to take 4/$100M, he'd already be signed. Probably not by the Twins, because 25-29 other front offices would likely take him at that price, and he'd get his pick of teams. Every team can make this same calculation and pull the trigger, if he'd accept. Yes, a longer contract for more money than this will almost surely be dead money. Why do I not care? In effect an overpay in free agency is the Failure Penalty* for not having developed a difference-maker at a given position. In the case of front-line starting pitchers, Berrios is still a Maybe, and only ESan really qualifies; you need more than one. We're in this position because Terry Ryan, a good baseball man, didn't deliver in this area. He did apparently deliver profits each and every year, even when the team was bad. To me, that is a false profit (pun intended, I guess). Pro sports aren't like the average business, and to me there should be no presumption that profits are guaranteed through thick and thin. Ownership needs to recognize that the cash they tucked away 2012-14, an era when paying more than they did for new players probably would indeed have been a waste, isn't really theirs to keep. I realize that "ashburynobody" presuming to tell billionaires how to spend their money carries no weight with them. And I'm not saying they should keep shelling out money for free agents without limit. All I'm saying is, by my bookkeeping, they are currently in arrears, and they aren't admitting it. Almost certainly, a deal for 3 years or more receives scrutiny from this (or any) ownership. That's assuming they are happy with the top guys in the front office; they won't be firing them for a couple of years, so they set a budget and then let their guys work within it, for 1- and 2-year deals. But a deal for many years may be an albatross for a future GM, if they need to fire the current one, and they won't be able to hire a good one with that albatross, so ownership has to be prepared to eat a bad contract and let the new GM start with a relatively clean slate, if they sign off on it. This is the moment when ownership needs to step up and make that commitment to taking on potentially dead money later on, in the interest of getting the best starting pitcher available. * Actually I would call it the Stupidity Tax, if a GM has a self-deprecating sense of humor and recognizes that everyone finds themselves in the unfortunate situation from time to time.

Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas, while you're at it.

Then you're saying, don't make an offer to Darvish? Because 3/100 is a waste of breath.

Dec 12, 2017: "General manager Thad Levine said the Twins plan to stretch May (elbow) out as a starter, Mike Berardino of the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports." https://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/baseball/news/twins-trevor-may-stretching-out-as-starter/

In the MLB.com ranking of shortstop prospects, there was this (slightly cringe-worthy?) nugget that seems to belong in this thread: "I'd love to be like Derek Jeter one day except for I just want to be Royce Lewis," Lewis said at TwinsFest last week. "I'm trying to change the game and set the standard someday." Change the game? OK, as long as you don't set your sights too high or anything.

All these 40-and-up types, pointing out how things aren't like they used to be. They didn't used to do that back when I was a kid.

You just made the best argument possible for getting off of dead-center and bringing in a free agent starter of note. For a FO to go into the season believing that Gibby is integral to your team's success would be a firing offense in my book - dereliction of duty, willful negligence, whatever you want to call it.

I'm wishing good luck in their present endeavors for Buxton, Berrios, Sano et al.

For me it comes down to, "what is our window of contention?" If you think it starts, in earnest, in 2019 or even 2020, then you'll make different decisions than if you believe we're already well into it, and in that case much depends on how long you think that window remains open. I say we're in that window now, and it will be a lengthy one, say five years. The latter half of the opinion means I wouldn't go all-in, in the usual sense (such as trading lots of prospects for MLB-ready talent), because that would make for a self-limiting outcome. But the first half means not taking steps that sacrifice the present too much, in hopes of "player development" or whatever. Moreover, human performance is fickle and unpredictable, so bad seasons can occur and still not change the overall window, ditto anomalous successes - the GM has to tack into the prevailing winds, each season. So with that preamble, no, I wouldn't promote a rookie to this year's starting rotation, unless I am convinced that it won't cost even one win in April while the kid gets his bearings. Let the best prospects develop at AAA, like God intended. Last spring would have been a different story.

Their seeing-eye dogs are remarkably talented however. The way I have umpires pigeonholed, they would take a comment like Trevor's and say "like hell you got any gifts, we called 'em right every bleepin' time", and then would double down this coming season with called strikes for him on every borderline pitch. (j/k, maybe)

Early in my career (not a burger box store, but whatever) I worked for companies that did little to disguise that they hired young engineering types and expected a high turnover. It still was apparent which were the managers who "thought young" and could relate to us young-uns without a lot of effort, and which were not. A couple of the former, I kept in contact with for decades afterward - and I think they drew the best out of me, as opposed to a very few who operated in a more obviously judgmental/strict/negative-feedback mode. There's nothing new under the sun.

I thought the parallel being offered was to your writing, but nevermind.

I dunno. Molitor sounds about one step from, "kids these days, I tell ya, with their boomboxes and their crazy haircuts and their smart attitudes, I just don't know," and two steps from "get off my lawn".

Then you haven't read Halsey before.

There have been various studies. Here is one: https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/1/29/7921283/baseball-game-length-visual-analysis Among his conclusions: the time between pitches has increased by 1.5 seconds since 2007, which amounts to almost eight minutes a game.game length has increased when holding constant the number of plate appearancesTake a look and see what you think.

Now that you remind me of it, that one didn't develop like the usual pick-6 you see on highlights. How many chances were there to stop that score? It was like our guys suddenly were all wading through molasses. Maybe the team meal was drugged and they were all in some kind of slow-motion mental fog, and they were doomed to defeat. Yeah, I'm going with that.

Those two get mixed up for each other all the time.

Rodney's no great shakes, on that we can easily agree.

The visits to the mound don't account for very much of the growth in time over the years. Stepping out of the box is a problem, but that's often done in response to the pitcher taking a long time. The cat-and-mouse game between the two adversaries needs to be addressed equally, by limits on both of them. If you restrict the batter from stepping out, you need to restrict the reason for it, which comes down to time. Enforcing the present rules seems like the right idea.

Kintzler is an asset, but he's an awkward combination of a closer mentality without closer stuff. My take is that he gets you through the regular season, but is just another guy when the post-season comes, confirmed this past October when he gave up runs in two of the three games he appeared in. Of course, the Twins are not yet in a position to take the regular season for granted.

Oh great. So we get to hear him pontificate for years and years after his career is over, about the human element or whatever it was that Dilfer was always blathering about?

Hooray for Google Translate, which completely clarified Darvish's tweet which was in Japanese: "Brewers participating in full-scale participation in winning Darvish pitcher who is FA from Dodgers. There is also the possibility that the fighting battle where "interdigitation" has continued with six teams such as old-fashioned Dodgers, can progress at a stretch."

You'll be fine. Two minutes and thirty seconds for Orville Redenbacher Microwave Popcorn is the same in Metric.