PseudoSABR

'We' is the grievance this time? Evidently this guy thinks he can have a public conversation with himself. There will be relevant topics to complain about the dearth of starting pitching, but this just isn't one of them. Bundy is a good low risk, back end signing. Suggesting that signing Bundy will be the FOs only move or that it's akin to the most historic Twins errors of the past (or as you do here, just throw in all the minor ones too), is just disingenuous (if you find 'phony' uncomfortable).

Why the heck are we still talking about the Johan Santana trade? The premise of this post in this thread is just totally phony. It's been 13 years. A different regime and a different owner. To restate, the Johan Santana trade has nothing to do with whether signing Dylan Bundy was a good idea.

Right. But he can be a stop gap to our pitching prospects if he implodes right away or down the line. I really like the option with that low buy out.

Steal. There's betting on yourself through incentives, then there's betting on yourself to be the MVP each and every season.

This is a thoughtful post, and careful effort. Appreciated. That said, it also is gunning for market inefficiencies, and part of last season's failure, was the Twins FO and coaching counting too much on maximizing underperforming pitchers. They can't be so arrogant again, and believe they can coach up what myth analytics may belie. I'd prefer them to focus so much more on known quantities/qualities, even if it means paying for (or over paying). They have lots of money to spend. I don't want any more of the core free agents signing being the wishful thinking of the bargain bin.

Why heck are you so in favor of putting burdens on employees (live in different town, have 8 adults in a 4 bedroom house, why doesn't everyone just sleep in a drawer in a large dresser--ok, the last one is Seinfeld), and not putting the burden on those who could most efficiently afford to absorb it, the owners/mlb?

You're just plain wrong here. The issue is the relative supplies of labor. Where there is near endless supply (as there is for minimum wage jobs), and here too, where there is ample amounts of misled athletes who would love the deluded chance to play minor league ball--again, where there is endless supply, employers have no reason to pay anything more than what is legally required, as they do. The only time employers are willing to add quality of life perks and pay is when the labor supply is limited. They are getting a return hand over fist, either way. And they wouldn't voluntarily get less of return when the backends of minor league rosters are so fungible. So the question is, would you rather further enrich MLB or improve the quality of life of minor league players? Paying minor league players more won't break the system, and that's hidden presumption in your argument.

What's the opposite of virtue-signaling? I mean if you're praying to the supply-side gods, or campaigning for a leadership role in Monsanto, or want to represent landlords in eviction causes, well you're signal is Batman bright for all to see. Sure, it's freaking possible to live on 20k: in a really depraved way where you have no privacy, no entertainment, no emergency funds, can't build for the future, can't have a family, probably can't go on dates. In other words your mental health is screwed, which would only likely increase your likelihood that you'd depend on public mental health services, or ignore it and cost society in some other way down the road (shall I enumerate?). But yeah, top notch point that's possible if they could only budget for their misery. I mean why is that standard? Why shouldn't we want quality of life for all who work? The market is notoriously awful at valuing employment (human beings, which should be the prize of the end game), hence government interference in such minor things like slavery, child labor, OSHA, and yes, minimum wage.

I literally was responding to the numbers you provided in your post. If you don't like the numbers you provided, you could always just move the goal posts... Just an idea.

You're presuming they make it to the point of success where those sacrifices pay off. Only 10% of minor leaguers make the majors. The success of the few who make it needs to spread among those who help hold the system up but will never make it. Demanding that they budget rather than have a good quality of life, is supply-side political nonsense. There's no apolitical reason they should have to make such choices.

Totally baseless statement. Frankly, this kind of misinformation and judgment of the poor shouldn't stand around these parts. So the only people who work for under $15/hr don't try? Can you even hear yourself.

This is whackadoodle thinking. It's recommended that people spend no more than 30% on rent. And you think 8 adult men living in a 4 bedroom house is reasonable? Maybe you should campaign on that slogan; don't raise the minimum wage, just get someone else to live in your actual bedroom.

So Gardy for pitching coach fixes everything?

So you intentionally lead with bullet points you knew may mislead people? Team performance is the exact same thing as saying poor results; the question is who is to blame for that. Is that another way of saying players are to blame or is that a way of avoiding saying players to blame? Or does player snafus only account for players (i.e. their mere mistakes, as opposed to ability or effort)? So what's team performance other than results?

Part of your consideration is blaming the results for the results??

Stop talking like a professional. Let's preserve the value of Mike's post.

Not to be rude; but how old are you? Clearly hitting them where they ain't isn't always a repeatable skill, right? That's luck. That's why we discount batting average, and prefer other statistics which measure repeatable skill, and a fuller representation of offensive output.

Literally no one. No one made those arguments. And if they did, plenty of people who supported Kaepernick would correct them. Did Kaepernick ever get his job back? Does Simmons still have one? Hmm.

You don't think Simmons is implying that the vaccine isn't effective? Because I can't read it any other way. What the heck is the antivax movement but mob thinking? (Reliance on other people agreeing with me, rather than expert opinion, science or peer reviewed research). Seriously. Kettle meet pot.

Had he simply stuck to this position, this thread would not exist. Some months later, he's not only not advocating for it, it seems he's advocating against it, which isn't at all a personal position.

The sentiment is largely correct; but the government can't censor nearly any speech save for some small carve outs--typically that which causes others dangers (hate speech, fire in a theater) or time and place (you can say that, but just not hear and not right now). As you suggest, one of the true safeguards of the first amendment is to ensure citizens can criticize the government.

Where's the post where you are telling Simmons to stick to sports?

Are August waiver wire trades still a thing? Pineda and Donaldson may be able to move that way.

There's just no room for Abrams in the long future of San Diego, add Weathers or Paddack and more, you have some thing. I drafted Abrams in my NL only league and traded him because of this precise scenario. Please come true.

Where will Donaldson play for the Padres? Are we getting Hosmer back (no thanks) in this scenario.