70charger

Silent evidence problem. QED. Of course I have a problem with the people who claim that the only reason we're not signing certain people is because they don't want to come here. Not only is that ridiculous (I love it here in June), but there's no way of knowing unless you're able to ask the player. The fact that I didn't mention it doesn't mean that I don't have a problem with it. If it makes you feel better, I'll call it out in the future.

jokin, I doubt we're actually that far apart either. I will address one final point, in your #3. I am absolutely speculating. I never said that speculating was bad, I would just prefer it to be called out as speculation. If you want to guess what's happening or what will happen, feel free, but call it a guess. I despise the posts that are nothing more than "Terry Ryan is a joke," or "the Twins are clearly punting," or "the front office isn't even trying to go after free agents." I despise them because they presume to know things that aren't actually known. They're guesses gussied up as factual statements. Remember that every good free agent that isn't signed does not prove that the Twins won't sign a good free agent, but only a single good free agent signed would disprove the idea that the Twins won't sign free agents. Empirical proof is funny that way.

What players are paid is important on a year-to-year level, and I agree that it's important to how the team accumulates wins. On the other hand, how often have you heard about the contract terms of a player who has been retired long enough to be eligible for hall consideration, much less whether those contract terms were reasonable under the circumstances? Never? Heck, given salary inflation, the "exorbitant" amounts paid to some of the top free agents of even 15 to 20 years ago look pretty quaint. I doubt it becomes a consideration for hall voters. But perhaps more importantly, let's consider what would happen if it were a consideration. Not only would the Yankees' free publicity put many more Yankees in the hall of fame than is warranted, but that fact that enormous contracts burden the Yankees less than the Twins would mean that any Twin with an enormous contract would be hobbled while any Yankee with the same contract would receive fair consideration. And God forbid you spent your career with the Rays (I'm looking at you, Mr. Longoria). It wouldn't be the Hall of Fame, it would be the Hall of Yankees (and now maybe Sox and Dodgers). Contract terms should not be a consideration. Thankfully, I don't think they really are.

Let me reiterate. I'm not attempting to cover for the front office or give them credit for things they're doing or not doing. I'm just objecting to the conclusive (read: conclusory) statements being thrown around about the front office's actions in the absence of silent evidence. Again, my thoguht is that they're likely trying to save money for addition of free agents when their talented core of cost-controlled current-minor leaguers hits the big leagues in 2014-15. I may yet be proven wrong. But many of the posters here may yet be proven wrong when they say things like "TR isn't trying," or "the Pohlads are greedy," or "the Twins cannot be competitive next year." I think there's too much confidence in people's presumed knowledge of what is actually unknown. If anyone has real evidence, by all means let's hear it. If you don't, and you're speculating, say as much. That way, when you're wrong, we'll know why. Now, to answer your questions: 1. Still absence of evidence; we don't know if he tried to get the throw-in. Certainly given the actual situation, there is a high likelihood that he didn't try for Lannan, and let's assume that he didn't for argument's sake. I still maintain that we don't know why, but I posit that perhaps Terry Ryan didn't want Lannan. Isn't that at least as likely as the idea that he's cheap? (Or more likely, since Lannan wasn't expensive at all?) In any case, he is in a better position to evaluate these things than you or I. 2. We don't know. How would we know that? Claiming that we know this for sure one way or another is incorrect and a little arrogant. Speculate all you want, but don't tell me you know unless you can back it up. 3. The actual evidence doesn't give "the club license to shout a unifying rallying cry to all the fans in Twinsland," and I think you already acknowledged that I never said anything like that. Of course, the PR department is going to do their job, and Terry Ryan will never tell you that he is anything but optimistic for next season. But like I said, given the evidence presented, I find it likely that they're going to field a below-average team, hope for some luck, and save their money for the future. Feel free to disagree.

I'm going to try this one more time, and perhaps I'll get a better response. Let me go back to that ever-flowing cancer-analogy well. If you go into the doctor and have a biopsy, and the biopsy comes back negative, you do not not have cancer. You have an absence of evidence of cancer (i.e., you didn't find any in the biopsy). On the other hand, the biopsy may have missed a small cancer cell cluster that could turn into a major problem. Until all is known, there is not evidence of absence of any cancer cells. Note the difference - and it is a crucial difference. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let's again extend the point. That which is currently known is that the Twins haven't signed anyone of note. There is an absence of evidence that they have attempted to sign or will sign someone that TD can agree is good. On the other hand, without something more substantial than speculation, there is no actual knowledge that we have not tried. We have absence of evidence. We do not have evidence of absence. I'm not "giving the front office credit." I'm simply not excoriating them for something that we don't know that they haven't done.

I think perhaps you're missing the point. I don't think it's likely that he offered $140 million for Greinke, but my point wasn't whether that was likely (or anything that is known is likely), but that what is unknown is more powerful than many are giving it credit for, as they only focus on the known and, more specifically, the known negative. And I'm on record saying that I find it likely that they are "saving as much money as possible while attempting to field a <100 loss team, intending to spend more on free agents when free agent spending will actually matter." Which of course is the smart thing to do.

I don't have to be a psychologist to tell that you're projecting.

Holy crap. That was ...unexpected. By the way, this...: ...I love. Because it takes great conviction and courage to look at a lot of evidence and say "I still don't know." It's far too easy to make predictions - and it's far too easy to be right with the benefit of hindsight - and this has made many armchair GMs here overly confident that they know what's best. Baseball doesn't work that way. (On a less important note, neither does life.)

My point on speculation is that, without some sort of direct line to the top level of Twins' discussions, nobody here knows a darn thing, but we're all too eager to pontificate about what we do "know." For all we "know," Terry Ryan offered $140 million to Greinke and got beat out by the Dodgers. I don't know. I doubt you do, unless you were on the phone call with his agent. I think there's a lot of speculation going on that ignores that which is called "silent evidence" (by a scholar that I'm particularly fond of). Silent evidence is that which we do not know because we cannot see it and therefore ignore in favor of what we can see, which may not actually be representative. To illustrate silent evidence, I posit this [fake] conversation: Me: "How do you know that you've cured cancer, doctor?" Doctor: "Well, nobody that I've given my cure to has come back to tell me that it didn't work." To extend the point, all of the blind speculators here are pointing at the people we didn't sign and assuming that this is proof positive that we didn't try, that we didn't care, that Terry Ryan is one of the three stooges, that the Pohlads are actually descendants of Hitler, that the general management of the club is full of functional retards, that the Twins are pure evil incarnate... It doesn't add up. Here's my thought. The Twins are doing the best they can, and it is likely that budget constraints (despite Target Field, we're not the Yankees) as well as general frugality are keeping the general management from splurging on the top of the order free agents. What I cannot accept is the idea that they don't care/hate the fans/are idiots. Until we know for sure, all we can do is speculate. Why would we speculate that the Twins' staff want us to suffer? Isn't it more likely that they're saving as much money as possible while attempting to field a <100 loss team, intending to spend more on free agents when free agent spending will actually matter? I think so.

a) Much of that was Bill Smith For the rest of it, we were dealing with Metrodome dollars c) (most important) It's still all speculation with absolutely no proof.

I hate the offseason.

If we're planning on pitching Gibson from day 1 and limiting his innings, it might not be a bad idea. It might also have the added benefit of ensuring that someone with upside like Hendriks isn't languishing in the minors so that somebody equally crappy buy on a major league contract like Correia can get innings. Just spitballing. (Pun intended.)

Out of sight, out of mind: http://twinsdaily.com/twins-talk/4471-twins-history-free-agent-starting-pitcher-acquisitions.html

Then stop. And next time, come up with something original. This is a TD "best of" compilation, except using only the worst posters.

That's pretty great stuff.

Do they charge for the autographs? Will they autograph anything? Do you have to get there hours in advance? I'm wondering, if someone wanted to go to Twinsfest for, say, a Carew autograph, if it would be less of a hassle just to drive the hour out to Willmar and do it there...

I'm kind of a city person (I live something like 6 or 7 blocks from Target Field). What goes on at these things, anyway? Meet and greet? Autographs? Photos? Gawking?

Just to further clarify, the Twins had, by my count, 11 starters last year. One of them is objectively the worst, but the parlance doesn't allow for calling a pitcher a "#11." Unless it's purely derogatory, I suppose. A true #3 is above average, despite the fact that the terminology allows for 5 starters only.

Teams usually have more than 5 people start for them per year. No new math here.

League average tends to be right around a 4.10 ERA. Or, right about where a #4 starter tends to be. (Of course, that depends on your definition of the "numbers," but the average #4 starter on a team tends to be around a 4.00 - 4.10 ERA.) So Marcum at 3.55 is pretty much exactly a #3. Scott Diamond was a 3.54 last year, which is also a #3 and also above average compared to the league's average ERA. Vance Worley was at 4.20 last year, or #4 caliber on a normal team, although the year before, he was at 3.01, or right between where an average #1 and #2 are. We may be nitpicking here, but Marcum is a #3 (which is not equivalent to average), and Diamond and Worley have also both shown that they can be above average, although the jury is out on sustainability. Gibson is a big question mark at this juncture, but I think we all agree he's got the talent. These aren't mutually exclusive positions.

I think you're right about the Frank Viola comp. His first two MLB seasons, he was something like 5.5 ERA/1.5 WHIP, and then 5.5 ERA/1.6 WHIP. In Liam Hendriks first MLB season (not quite a full season, but ~20 starts), he was at 5.5 ERA/1.55 WHIP. And I hope he gets out of the gate quickly too. The last thing we need is for him not to earn a chance. I think he could become a nice, cost-controlled #3 pitcher.

I was just thinking of starting this thread, and here it is. Good stuff. I've been on record saying that I'm a believer in Hendriks. His minor league track record is outstanding, and he got his first taste of the bigs at only 22 years old. Of course there are no sure things in baseball, but I'll take that. Besides, there were many pitchers who turned out well who struggled in their first taste of the show. Frank Viola ring a bell? He needs more time to put it all together, and we need more time to really know what we have. I think he should be making starts all year.

Oh totally. I'd do that in a heartbeat. Wait, how does addition work?