70charger

It's on the internet, so it must be true.

Why is everyone so down on Alex Burnett? I watched him all of last year, and it was only his inconsistency that bothered me. A stellar first half was backed up by a bad second half, but in the end, his stats are pretty good. Burnett 2012: 71.2 IP; 3.52 ERA; 116 ERA+. His strikeout numbers have been trending downwards, but so have his walks. I actually think there's room for improvement with Burnett. Am I the only one?

I'm telling ya, man, this is underrated. Granted, I'd rather be winning, but given that I live less than a mile from the field, if it's a nice night, I can just spend a few bucks and go in person. Better than the TV, and I can't tell you how many times I've ended up several rows up from the field for a very minor outlay.

This is a very reasonable list, although I cringed a little bit when I saw "bleacher report." And no, it's not just because of the absolutely infuriating way that they make everything a slideshow.

A relevant link: That's Called A Montage! - Video Clips - South Park Studios

(That was a joke, btw.)

Hey, shut up!!

This "game" isn't working well for you actually. See, I have literally never once said I liked the Correia signing or that I was "content." (Seriously. Go look.) On the other hand, you saying that all you really care about is the difference between what Terry Ryan said and what actually happened is all over this thread. And if that's all you care about, I'm afraid we won't see eye to eye here. Observe: I mean, damn, TheLeviathan. We get it already! If the front office had only said that they would bring in terrible players, you wouldn't be bitching so much. After all, it's all about expectations, right!? Still want to play this "game"?

Today I learned: In order to keep TheLeviathan happy, all Terry Ryan has to do is make a public statement to the effect of: "we will only be bringing in ****ty players this offseason." Then, when anything good happens, he'll be thrilled! Because it's really all about the expectations set right? Aim low. You might fail upward.

He did have an intern. After a single offseason of answering emails from TwinsDaily posters, he had to be sent to a place called Arkham Asylum. Last I heard, he was wearing a green suit and really into brainteasers.

Heh. Now I'm picturing a Unabomber type. jokin, are you writing this from you compound in Montana?

Locking your starters into a 9-and-3 rotation just as restrictive as the 5-man rotation; it suffers from the same flaw as the five-man starter rotation - it presumes that each "starter" or "primary" is roughly equivalent. They're obviously not, hence the push toward something more rational. However, this idea isn't any better, and depending on the rotation might be quite a bit worse. If you have Verlander, are you really going to give him 3 innings at a time? Only 9 innings over the course of 9 to 10 days? I wouldn't. And on top of that, this idea would have the added handicap that no current "starter" would ever want to do it. They like being "starters." If we can agree that the typical rotation doesn't work optimally because the idea behind it is reductive, then this sort of rotation wouldn't work because it's just as reductive. I'd prefer modifying the pitchers' roles based on the team dynamics, as I think this original article was proposing. The current Twins would consider a 6-man rotation because our crop of 6 or 7 "starters" are roughly interchangeable, and generally not very good. The current Tigers would be hobbled by this, because their crop of 5 "starters" are not interchangeable, and they're certainly better than our top 7. One day, I'd like to see a manager unafraid to actually use his players in an individually-optimal way. I would have no problem riding a guy like a 1984 Jack Morris to 250 innings a year. On the other hand, if I had someone like a 2008 Rich Harden, I'd absolutely want to find a way to limit his innings to protect the contract investment. And if my fifth guy was interchangeable with my 8th guy, then maybe the back of the rotation would be something in between relievers and starters and should be counted on in a hybrid role. Each pitcher is different. Why not use him like he is?

Seriously? We really need to complain about every free agent that signs somewhere else? Seriously? So either the Twins will sign nearly every free agent out there, or we will be complaining a lot. Given the general tone around here lately, I'll put my money on the latter.

9/10. Would lulz again.

That's an interesting question. If you average out Anibal Sanchez's last three years and compare them to Kevin Correia's last three years, Sanchez averages 3.1 WAR and 30 more innings pitched. Correia averages -0.7 WAR and 30 fewer innings pitched. Sanchez is paid $16 million per year, Correia an average of $5 million per year. I know better than to make a comment on this, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

My original question wasn't meant to be confrontational, although tones are filtered out on teh internets. I'm legitimately curious if the only evidence is "well, they haven't done it before!" or if there is some real evidence. You've mentioned that they've been on record saying this. Do you have a cite?

How do you know that? Is there some inside information you have that I'm not privy to?

This strikes me as an agenda-driven article. What has Jeremy Guthrie done to put him above Vance Worley at 34 years old? How do you put Trevor Bauer up there when he's pitched like 3 innings in the majors? And if Bauer's way up there, why ignore Meyer and May? Wade Davis? Maybe if you really like relievers. Hell, let's put Glen Perkins back in the rotation and call it a win. And if we can rank Wade Davis that high, why not Rich Harden? He's probably a reliever too. Seems like you started with the premise that the Twins are not up to par, and then everything you offered as evidence was designed to prove it, including some highly suspect rankings. Granted, I'm not expecting much out of the Twins in 2013, but it has far more to do with their relative lack of talent (as seen in 2012) than it does with any lack of moves in the offseason. I'm not expecting much out of the rest of the Central either - not even with this relatively ragtag group of signings. Only the top few are worth much, but you can't seriously be telling me you'd have made the kind of trade the Royals did to get Shields. Not worth it. Not one bit.

I'm not sure how calling him a possible stinker with a ceiling of a #5 is rosy. "Not the worst thing in the world" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. There's been a lot of bluster about Correia and how he's the worst thing since unsliced bread, but it really isn't the worst thing in the world. Two years is one too many, but it's still only two. And at an average of $5m/year, we're not breaking the bank, especially if you compare it to some of the other middle of the road pitchers who are getting $8-12 million per year on two to four year contracts. I'm not a huge fan of the signing, but let's not pretend that signing Correia has broken the seventh seal or anything.

I feel like I should respond, although I'm getting deeper and deeper into something I wanted to ignore in the first place. Ah well. I'm weak. My value system puts individual liberties over collective comfort. If someone wants to say something stupid, I won't stop him. Likewise, it is not inconsistent to say that the racism of the Jim Crow south should have been stopped, because that trampled the individual liberties of the southern blacks in the name of the comfort of the dominant majority of whites. Nor have I ever said that we aren't free to disagree, whether publicly or not. By all means, do so. Disagree with me, too, if you want. But I think public shaming tends to lead to mob mentalities that are ultimately destructive, and I also think it's likely counterproductive. Psychological studies show that people are more likely to dig in when presented with a strong contrary viewpoint. I disagree with Torii Hunter, but I doubt he cares, and even if he did, he'd respond negatively to my calling him a bigot, and he'd probably dig in his heels on the issue. It doesn't matter whether I disagree with him alone or with a pitchfork-wielding mob behind me. Society moves the way it wants to move, in an individual, bottom-up way. What's right to "society" today won't be right tomorrow. Imposing viewpoints from the top down is often counterproductive in both the short and long term.

Perhaps, but I am skeptical inside and outside of the legal system. If a non-governmental, non-legally-sanctioned collective says of an individual "let's publicly shame this person who disagrees with us until he agrees with us!" I'm not going to get behind that sentiment. I also wouldn't get behind it if it were done under the color of government or law. I think there's a slippery slope here. Feel free to disagree. (I would never try to stop you.)

Context, context, context.

That's a statement completely without substance. If the view is the problem, and no one is allowed to have a certain view, then any possible controversy over something stated has already been precluded and cannot exist. So in this world, where everyone agrees, of course it's true that the expression of a view isn't a problem. After all, everyone agrees. Unfortunately, real life doesn't follow our rules.

"We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death." -OWH Now that I can get behind. And to be fair, he was always quite good on the first amendment. Doesn't quite jive with a lot being said here though.

Oliver Wendell Holmes was godawful. I'm a lawyer. YMMV.