PseudoSABR

I'll be over by the body armor...

A Span like extension makes a lot of sense. Part of why Span netted a prospect like Meyer was because his affordability was locked in over several seasons. Even if 2014 establishes Dozier's ceiling, he's still likely a trade asset if the contract follows Span's.

Correlation doesn't substantiate the viability of the metric unfortunately (that precision v. accuracy distinction). Correlation, I guess, means something. For me, quantifying defense sounds a whole lot like the eye-test embedded in statistical puffery. Of course, whatever errors exist in the metric would continue to consistently show up, hence the correlation of an individual metric with itself.

I'd like to see where this has actually been substantiated, and by whom. I tend to disregard stats that reaffirm themselves by using statistics that are supposedly irrelevant (e.g. using the difference between FIP and ERA to substantiate DRS (as the article seems to do)) (or using Runs to substantiate the importance of walks).

If Pelfrey is healthy, I assume he'd have to be on the 25-man roster, or DFA'd; I can't see the Twins doing that. I think Pelfrey and Milone make the roster one in the bullpen and the other in the rotation. Perhaps if Meyer or May blow everyone away, the Twins may go with the youngster out of the gate, but that's not their typical MO. Does Milone actually have options left?

Phil Hughes ‏@PJHughes45 16m16 minutes ago So pumped to call Minnesota home for the next 5 years! Thank you to the @Twins organization and fans for all the support! #TwinsTerritory

The construction of Opening Day's lineup probably can be swayed by sentiment and nostalgia than any other. So this is my guess, though its hardly the optimal lineup I'd prefer. Dozier 2B Mauer 1B Hunter RF Plouffe 3B Arcia LF Vargas DH Suzuki C Santana SS Veteran yet to be acquired CF* *If this player ends up being a viable leadoff option or a 'name' player the lineup will shuffle.

I think this is a short sighted way to run any kind of organization. Pino didn't get called up because of fairness or sentimentality; he got called up because he was 1) the most ready and 2) he had earned it. What you don't want is to pass people over who have earned a promotion for a golden boy who might have more value someday, but clearly less ready at the time of the promotion. I also reject the idea that prospects overall growth is necessarily deterred by keeping them in the minors, of course growth could be stunted if they are held back wihtout reason, but those aren't the facts we have here. There's some kind of notion that if pitching prospects can get up to the majors quicker, they can learn quicker, take their lumps sooner, and be ready quicker. Prospects aren't baked goods, throwing them in the oven at a sooner time, does not mean they'll rise to their ceiling more quickly. I imagine the evidence of players ability to learn at the ML level might be in part found by their habits, discipline, and attitude at lower levels; box score success doesn't speak to this. I just reject the idea that Twins promotion of Pino or whoever somehow prevented May or Meyer from achieving success sooner; there's no evidence of that, and it's completely speculative. (Goes back to the ole Pitching Promotion Paradox: if promoted pitcher succeeds at ML level right away, conclusion: should have promoted him sooner; if promoted pitcher fails at ML level right away, conclusion: should have promoted him sooner!) You don't only foster your grade A assets, you foster all of your assets; you don't pass over a potential minor part of success just because you have more invested in particular player. The team will eventually need aging minor league veterans to contribute on the bench, in the bullpen, at the back end of the rotation, and in place of injury. If you don't reward those kind players with meaningful promotions on a consistent basis, you might find you lack such players when the organization is closer to success. Those quality minor league vets will sign else where teams will give them opportunities, eventually the nice-shining prospects will run out or fail, as we begin to win again.

How many of those teams purchased their Ace through Free Agency?

Looks like the Royals will add Volquez at 2/20; an affordable, if not approximate, replacement for Sheilds.

The Royals seem to be following the Twins model, by supplementing the club with aging wonders like Rondell White, Roman Ortiz and the like. They are getting better players, but they are paying more.

So anything short of spending 150 million is disrespecting the fans? Exactly one team has spent that kind of money this offseason; a lot of unhappy baseball fans out there. And 55 million dollar smoke screen? They already had ten-million dollar smoke screen in Hunter...

Good for the Twins. Yeah, he comes with some risks, but it's nice to see the Twins spend money on pitching even though Nolasco hasn't worked out yet; they also gave a pick. I hope Santana can keep last years K rate (8.3 K/9), as it was a three year high. His BABIP was unusually high last year as well...

Jeff Passan ‏@JeffPassan 7s8 seconds ago Source: Ervin Santana finalizing a four-year deal for around $54 million with Minnesota.

LEN3 with a pseudo-report about the Twins continued efforts to sign Ervin Santana, here's a bit of actual news: Well, it certainly seems like they are willing to go higher than 50M.

Ervin Santana ‏@ErvinSantana_54 11m11 minutes ago I was told I would never make it because I'm too short...It doesn't matter what your height is, it's what's in your heart. #KirbyPuckett

Terry Ryan recruitment posturing, obviously.

I expect Joe to be much improved. My guess is there were more lingering concerns of concussion symptoms than publicly known.

This is all fair. There might not be a more symbolic forum for such a question to be asked, and for enough pressure to be answered (all be it poorly). But certainly, Berardino will interact with Hunter throughout the season, perhaps even amiably, and yes he might pose the question at the side of Hunter's locker, and Hunter might, thoughtfully, reply, "No comment." But that's my essentially point, if everyone's behaving appropriately there'd probably be no story. For Berardino to test Torii's appropriateness seems like an overstep to me; and any inappropriateness on Berardino's part speaks for itself.

I guess if you really think that Hunter was capable or likely to answer as you have suggested, and that Berardino really believed he was going to get such an answer, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. While athletes should be held to high rhetorical standard; I'm not sure it's realistic for them to respond in such a way, when both the media and the fans of insulated them from standards as a matter of course, for like always. Again, what should happen and what realistically could happen are two different things; and for my part, I think Berardino knew which was which.

Hunter, for all his obvious faults, is not a professional answerer of press conference questions, though that is an aspect that the job requires and Hunter doesn't shy from. It's difficult for me to impugn Hunter's baseball professionalism or his capacity mentor based on his mishandling of Berardino's question (an result, really, we'd all expect from Hunter, and a result Berardino certainly risked by asking the question). It is unfortunate that professional athletes become so insulated from the world at large that they need not be responsible for their beliefs, but it is result of the profession and the fame and wealth that comes with it, and it is commonplace. It's really not so strange that any athlete may curdle at difficult political questions. (In a different state, imagine an athlete being asked baout his pro-choice beliefs or whether he's Christian enough). Berardino on the other hand is a professional asker of questions. I have a hard time believing that Berardino actually believed he'd get a thoughtful response from his question given the format. That he couched his question in rhetoric that seemingly related to free agency, for me, signals the tenuous relevance of the question in the first place. It's disguising grandstanding in a cloak of relevance. While Hunter shouldn't have called him a prick; was there really ever any thoughtful response to be had here. This answer would never happen: (1) "Why yes Mike, my religious and political views did affect my free agency, and you know I've learned a lot about how my political views affect the public at large, as a result I find myself being more open to other people's views." The answer that should have happened: (2) "No, Mike, my political views did not affect my free agency whatsoever, thank you for question. I don't really think Berardino really believed he'd get a thoughtful response like (1) nor would he seek a non -story answer like (2). So what kind of response did Berardino think he'd get? Probably the same one he sought--a response that might make his non-relevant question story worthy. Whether it was Torii being rude, or reiterating bigoted beliefs; either outcome cuts against the ethic standards in journalism, which seeks the truth and not the story. This is precisely the kind of question if you're seeking a thoughtful response, that you ask in a intimate interview. At press conference, it smells too much like gotcha journalism.

Heh. Torii has an attitude? Who knew? That's probably why the Twins brought him in.

I'm not sure where you are really getting this. He's media darling, a spotlight whore, but I can't extrapolate his behavior in front of camera to an assessment of his leadership/mentorship ability or his contribution to a positive culture at the workplace. Again, I'm not sure leadership is the right word; but that fieriness that led Hunter to swing at Morneau (another fiery personality) certainly is something the clubhouse had missed; that kind of player-on-player accountability, even if wrongheaded, matters. Professionalism isn't the issue; there's plenty of lead-by-example guys. I just think a guy like Hicks, and other young guys, might benefit from Hunter's attitude, even if Hunter may not pick all the right fights or present the most sound ideas.

Culture matters in all organizations that have people working closely together. Whether you want to call that leadership or not, I'm not sure; but it's clear Hunter will bring a strong personality to clubhouse. And it's also pretty clear he's invested. That some here would impugn Hunter's character because they dislike his personality and antics, seems pretty extreme given that our only access to him is through the media, as opposed to instances when leadership might actually matter. If Torii really is a jerk; and the Twins executives really are empty-headed sentimentalists, why come to Minnesota? There are reports that Texas offered more and clearly present a better chance to win. Why come to Minnesota? So he can bilk Minnesota fans who unwittingly adore him? Because losing isn't bad if you're well-liked? The answers to these questions seem awfully cynical and specious, if we discount the reasons Hunter actually says he came here.

What can I say, I'm sentimental. For my part, I like what this says about the Twins as an organization (in so far as a worthwhile place to work). It's hard to imagine that a contender wouldn't match what the Twins offered. It's cool Torii wanted to come back, probably when he didn't have to, and he will have few, if any more opportunities to compete. While I'd prefer to watch meaningful baseball in 2015, the notion was always only at the edge of realism. If 2015 is about development, I don't see why Hunter doesn't make sense. Sure, he showboats, but from what I know about the player is that he's passionate (Morneau-swing/Punto hit, etc.) and has faced real-life adversity (his father). Again, this is sentimental, but this deal is as much about Hicks, Rosario, Buxton and the others as it is Hunter's actual production and liability.