Sssuperdave

Meh. If you add in his three starts in Rochester from 2010 his AAA ERA goes down to 4.41, and he was hurt for some of that, so I don't think he has anything to prove. Why spend time in Rochester if all signs point to him being ready to contribute with the big club? I actually do think he should start in Rochester, but not because he needs to prove himself. Rather, if they're going to limit his innings this year I'd rather he get cranked up slowly down in Rochester, then brought up to MN in mid May with no restrictions.

This. In fact, make Butera the 5th starter.

Seems like this could be incorporated into the Adopt-A-Prospect forums. In fact, a lot of the information is probably already there.

I can think of three scenarios, and in 2 of the 3 he makes the hall of fame. Scenario #1 (most likely in my opinion): Mauer has another productive 5-10 years, no more MVPs or 1000+ OPS's like 2009, but quite a few years over .300, and maybe another batting title, evenutally changes positions. I think he's a hall-of-fame lock under this scenario. Scenario #2: The wheels fall off.. for some reason or other, perhaps injury, his number revert to 2011 levels permanently. He makes it another 5 - 8 years, but isn't very good. I don't think he has quite enough to make the hall under this scenario, and fans are incensed at his contract. Scenario #3: He has a tragic career ending injury ala Puckett. Like Puckett, I think he makes the hall of fame under this scenario. Yes, he doesn't quite have Puckett's slugging/power numbers, but he has a stretch of 9 years that is arguably the best 9-year offensive stretch for any catcher in history. I think voters would give him the benefit of the doubt that scenario #1 would have happened, and he gets in.

I think the multiple redundant threads is just a function of online message boards. Any other active message boards I've ever used have the same problem. In the case of the Pelfry signing, it makes perfect sense to me that there are two threads. Seth started one to break the news, and Nick started one (or did he write an article?) with more analysis of the move. Yes, the comments may morph them into general reactions to the Pelfry signing, but it makes perfect sense to me that when one of the major content contributors what to write an article or post on something, they should be able to do so even if the comments move to something more general than the actual article content. In fact, if Seth (or Parker, or whoever) wants to make another post/article with another angle on the signing, he should be able to do that too even if it means a third thread that morphs into general Pelfry reactions.

According to page three of this report: http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2012/2012%20MLB%20RGRC.pdf 61.2% of the players on the opening day rosters at the start of 2012 were white. If you assume the races are spread evenly across teams, positions, and starters/non-starters, the probability of an all-white outfield is (.61)^3 = 22.9%. Taken a step further, if you assume this distribution doesn't change year-over-year, you'd expect an all-white outfield to start opening day once every four or five years. I'm not trying to prove anything here regarding race - I'm just trying to put some perspective into whether an all-white outfield should be unusual given the current racial makeup of the game, not just of the Twins.

I'm sure this isn't the most heartbreaking one, but I'll never forget May 17, 2002. I was in college at the time and had stayed up way too late watching this game... The Twins were playing the Yankees in New York and were down 8 to 3 after 5 innings. They came back with 6 runs in the 6th to take a 9-8 lead through a pirhanna-like combo of singles, doubles, and sacrifice flies. Then in the bottom of the 9th Bernie William hit a homerun off Eddie Guardado to tie it at 9. That was heartbreaking enough but was just a taste of what was to come. The game went into extra innings and there was no scoring until the 14th, but the Yankees left the bases loaded in both the 11th and the 13th. Then in the 14th inning the Twins broke through with three runs. I remember thinking I would finally get to go to bed with a Twins win. But, the Twins had used up all their relievers and had only Mike Trombley left, who was clinging on to the end of his career. He came in for the bottom of the 14th and promptly gave up 2 singles and a walk, followed by a grand slam by Jason Giambi. Just like that, after 14 innings, the Yankees won. I remember the look on Trombley's face as Gimabi rounded the bases - it was like he was disoriented, in too much shock to even be frustrated, just dazed and confused at what just happened. He had a couple more garbage-time outings but was released at the end of the month and his career was over. Pretty sad ending to a workman-like career.

Around the same time they did that 5 yr deal with Span they did a simialr deal with Nick Blackburn. One turned into a team-friendly contract, the other - well, you know how that turned out. Locking in the salary for players like this is kind of a high risk/medium reward scenario that I don't think is a particulary good gamble, despite how well it worked with Span. Although the potential reward gets better if you can lock in a couple years of free agency.

I agree with this. As has already been pointed out the last few times there was a spring training "competition" for a spot, the player that played the best in spring training didn't get the spot. In my opinion, this is as it should be. It makes more sense to rely on a multiple year body of work (including minor leagues) than a few weeks in March when making these decisions. Based on that I do think Hendricks has a spot sown up. It might seem silly since he struggled last year, but he is more of a long term solution that Deduno, Devries, Walters, etc, and doesn't really need any more seasoning. Of course, if he continues struggling in April and May he should probably go back down to AAA the tune things up, but coming out of the gate I think it's his job to lose.

I know there's another thread discussion how the Marlins may be employing an unorthodox strategy that could still result in economic profit, but I'm wondering if this unorthodox strategy could be part of a long-term plan for winning in cycles. Isn't this a reasonable plan?(it's a cycle, so step 1 = step 5): 1. Win the World Series (or at least be really good) 2. Trade anyone making any money for top prospects 3. Wait a couple years for the top propects (and other drafted prospects) to form a solid core 4. Supplement the solid core by signing some top dollar free agents 5. Win the World Series (or at least be really good) It seems to me that what I've outlined is really a simplified rebuilding strategy that any smaller market team follows, but the Marlins are just more extreme, expecially in steps 2 and 4. There's pretty much no chance of stringing together division championships like the Twins did in the 00s, but it does give you a real shot at the World Series every five years or so. I recognize the Marlins just did step 2 without doing step1, but you've got to expect that the cycle won't always work.

I had also noted the gap between the top 5 and bottom 5. It's evident in the voting as every single voter except 1 has Carew, Oliva, Killebrew, Puckett, and Mauer as the top 5 in some order.

1. Harmon Killebrew 2. Rod Carew 3. Kirby Puckett 4. Tony Oliva 5. Joe Mauer 6. Kent Hrbek 7. Bob Allison 8. Justin Morneau 9. Chuck Knoblauch 10. Gary Gaetti

I just found this interesting article from 2011 on Meche's retirement. It also mentions Ryne Sandberg and Mark McGuire as guys that walked away from big guaranteed paychecks to retire. Of course, all those situations are completely different than Nishi's. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/sports/baseball/27meche.html?_r=0

Wow is all I can say. Very interesting development. Nick mentioned that there aren't many examples of athletes walking away from guaranteed money, and I actually can't think of a single one. Does anyone know of other times athletes have walked away from guaranteed money like this?

It seems to me like there is some counting chickens before they're hatched going on here. Seth had a post not so long ago that showed players the Twins had in the Baseball America top 100, over the past 10 years or so, and it seemed like half of them ended up not being impact players in the big leagus - guys like Michael Restovich and Adam Johnson. I would be surprised if more than half of Hicks, Arica, Benson, Roberts, Keplar, Morales, Sano, Rosario and Walker pan out as above average big league regulars. Luckily though all we need is half of them in order to field a good OF + DH.

I definitely disagree with this article. It starts by saying "It's one thing for a division to have a down year and produce a champion with a record just over .500. Such anomalies happen," then lambastes the 2 wild card system for supposedly rewarding mediocrity. But under the current structure, I think you are much more likely to have a near or sub .500 division winner than a near or sub .500 wild card winner. I get that teams with poor records are still in the wild card hunt, but they haven't actually won it. That's what matters - winning it. Having more teams in the hunt makes for interesting baseball in my opinion, and just because the Phillies were 57-67 at one point doesn't mean they don't deserve the playoffs if they can pull off 85 wins and pass the Cardinals . When we actually have a wild card winner with 80 victories, then I'll agree with the article. But of course that won't happen because it would require 11 out of 15 teams to have a losing record. If you want to complain about rewarding mediocrity, the complaint should be that there are 6 divisions instead of 4. Having a division with only 4 teams is begging for a sub .500 team to make the playoffs. Of course, baseball is taking a step to avoid that by moving Houston to the AL West. If anything, the addition of the 2nd wild card and 1 game playoff is rewarding mediocrity less - not more, as there is a greater incentive to win the division. Now, all that winning the top wild card spot guarantees you is 1 more game instead of a five game series. And, if the winner of the 2nd wild card spot can win the 1 game playoff, then go on to beat the team with the best record in the league in a 5 game series (though 7 would be better)without homefield advantage, they deserve to be there.

I love the round-up and the rosters/salaries. It's great to see all that roster information in one place. I particularly like the ages compared to the league average, the rule V eligibility info, and when/how each player was acquired. One question though - can an indicator or something be added for players currently on the 40 man roster? On your list, is everyone ineligible for rule V on the 40 man? If so, that would probably do it.

Very interesting article - thanks for posting. He seems very confident yet down to earth and open to constructive criticism. Of course, I'm just trying to read between the lines and don't actually know what I'm talking about. He says he sees himself as a Josh Hamilton type hitter, or at least wants to model himself after Hamilton. Perhaps he is striving for more power than the initial scouting reports would have suggested. At one point he relays that the coaches say regarding his development: "... I'm doing good. I just need to get bigger, stronger, and maintain my speed..." Could he really maintain his speed from 175 pounds at 240 pounds? I'll take a Josh Hamilton type at any speed, but doesn't 240 sound a little bulky? At least from a speed perspective? I'm really looking forward to watching his development. As has been stated before, he could be anything from an A-ball flameout to a big league regular (even superstar??). Even with success, he could be anything from a high average speedster to a middle-of-the-order slugger. Very fascinating.

Sweet - a grand slam tonight! http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=g_box&gid=2012_07_16_blurok_elirok_1 I was getting a little concerned about his lack of power - I believe this is only his 2nd home run in 2+ years. Obviously one home run isn't enough to quell any concerns, but it's still nice to see. Given that he's only 19, is there plenty of time for him to develop more power, or is his like of home runs a concern to others?

At risk of hijacking this thread - I'm wondering why Butera hasn't been tried at pitcher. Wasn't he hitting the low 90s when he pitched a few weeks ago? With coaching, couldn't he hit the mid 90s? If he can control it, would he have the makings of a big league pitcher? Unlike Hicks, it seems like his ceiling as a position player isn't anything above replacement level. Obviously I don't know much about this stuff - is it common for position players to be able to throw 90 mph?

Wow, that was a great article. As others have said, I was definitely not planning on spending that much time reading an article, but I couldn't stop.

I've seen a lot of talk about his makeup, mental state etc. but very little about his actuall stuff. I recall Gleeman made a post a couple of months ago noting that his velocity was down a bit. How does his raw stuff compare to other pitchers? Has it indeed diminished? If he can get the mental side figured out, what can people reasonably expect? I'm guessing it's not very close to the dominance of his rookie year, but could he get back to his 2010 performance with his current stuff?