PseudoSABR

Someone said "5.5 guaranteed is excessive" I can post more if you can't remember what you said. Many on this board were borderline laughing at the Cubs for overspending on Feldman and Baker. We guaranteed Correia almost as much money as they did for both of those players. Or as one high and mighty poster said here....25% of our available FA money for this year plus a guaranteed chunk for next year. As always, you are the master of context. This is what I said: I'm so out of line. To clarify, I hope that Correia pitches well enough to have trade value (either at midseason or offseason), just as I assumed that the Cubs signed Baker for a midseason deal. That's not an inconsistency, Levi. I'm still not sure how much good that Baker deal does the Twins though, because I think he might take a minute to get back to productivity.

So you defended the take that Baker was overpaid at 5.5M for one year and now defend 2yrs and 10M to Marquis Part II as not too bad? You call what I said a defense? My problem with the Baker deal was that there was NO second year. The amount paid was not the issue.

Meh. 2013 looks like a punt more and more. Hopefully, the guy becomes a tradeable asset because the contract isn't that bad.

****. I had him in the second round. Ugh.

Pfft....I see you're still in denial. I think we need to look into length redistribution. BYTO sounds like an interesting place. I sometimes wonder why the site was abandoned. We had a congeniality problem (I know hard to figure).

If Davis doesn't start, I don't really like this deal for the Royals. But it's good to see them actually going for it.

Pfft....I see you're still in denial. I think we need to look into length redistribution.

I had a long response to this, but I lost it somehow ugh. The short of it: 1) Life really isn't that diverse. We share basic cellular biology with all life on Earth, that makes up a huge part of our genome. That cell process is totally complex and as a result we share a majority of the same genome. I had a good Lego metaphor here, but I'm not going to recreate it. Oh well. 2) I'm not sure that evolution attempts to explain how amino acids surfaced from primordial soup, or how primordial soup arose at all. It hardly matters whether we use evolution, gods snapping fingers, or a dissolving alien as an explanation... 3) How accurate can history be about anything that predates records? Your problem seems more with humans capacity to know the past, than with evolution. In fact your questions are more philosophical than scientific imo. 4) The lack of an equally evidential alternative.

There's quite a bit wrong with what you said. Yes, my financial philosphy is very much akin to social Darwinism (though I think there's a moral component to letting people keep what they earn and spend it how they'd like). That said, I have no issue with the Biological process of Darwinism. The problem I have is that his does not reasonably explain the theory of evolution. The tenant behind Darwinism is that nature essentially breeds out the bad genes. I have no issue with this, as Darwinism does an excellent job of explaining how nature can form selection from existing genetic material. What Darwinism doesn't adequately expain is how new genetic material gets added to the pool. It also does a lousy job explaining how life can arise from non-life. Your example contains the same flaw. A gene mutation has to be passed on before it can be selected (where your example assumes the opposite), which is the first major problem with Darwinism/evolution. Reproductive cells are formed at birth, and they contain a separate copy of your genetic profile. If I aquire a mutation later in life, it does absolutly nothing for me as I cannot pass it on. I have to aquire that mutation in my reproductive cells, which is done before that gene can be selected. Likewise, mutations tend to be changes to existing genetic materials, not the addition of new genetic material which is another problem. Your example assumes that I already have the mutation and can pass it on. Like Darwinism, however, it fails to show how exactly I aquired it. As you point out, to pass on mutations so that they become part of a species, those mutations must happen in gamete cells. The sex cells are a great place for DNA to mess up (or do unintended good). Mutated gamete cells that harm a genome never develop into a zygote (a fertilized cell), or that zygote never develops into an adult, etc.. Meaningful mutations need to happen pre-fertilization, fertilization or during the zygote's differentiation. When the mutations happen to be good, the beast lives! Evolution is NOT breeding. There is no active invisible hand guiding cells to know what mutations are advantageous. New genetic material is added in the form of viruses for one (cool ****), but it's also added through the process of mutation. A change of one nucleotide will result in a whole different protein. In my opinion, a lot of your problems is a misunderstanding of cellular biology. How DNA gets copied, how RNA is transcribed and than made into amino acids, how sex cells differ from other cells.

Others have mentioned it, but many enjoy discussions more with a bit of snark and pushy banter. If this place enforced congeniality I'd find it totally lame. As far as message board communities, the tone here is pretty standard. Welcome to the internet.

not as much as you'd like... the K rate dropped pretty significantly, and while that could just be SSS, it doesn't hurt to let him get some time in there. He'll be in AA this year no doubt, the question is whether he starts there or gets promoted... The Twins aren't shy to move a guy if needed. Garza went from A+ to AAA in one year. Meyer can do it too if he's good. Or he can skip AAA altogether, if he's good. AAA houses depth more than it ever does prospects; so we should discount the weight of AAA in terms of progression, I think. Let him start in Ft. Myers and pitch in New Britain most of the year. That still puts him on track for possible significant ML time in 2014.

Quit being lazy, and copy and paste the entire thread here.

john manuel was asked this question in his b.a. twins chat about our system and i believe he said we're one of the most improved systems and that he'd guess we were somewhere in the 6-8 range. that was before the additions of meyer and may so we may be flirting with a top five ranking, especially considering that we're addressing our glaring weakness. Verve, what's your take on May, how much did his down year at double A damage his overall stock?

Unfortunately, you have to factor the trade into the totality of all the moves thus far, the loss of Span, plus Revere, is crushing to the top of the lineup and to the OF defense. Again, Worley pitches one in five games, Span and Revere played virtually every day of the week. Well if we are factoring the Span trade, we'll have to factor in the remaining moves too, before we can make a determination about our competitiveness in 2013. In short, trading Revere for Worley+ makes the Twins better in 2013, and that seemed to be the current argument.

Can't argue with that logic.

The distance between Worley and PJ Waters (or whomever he's replacing in the rotation) is greater than the distance between Revere and Mastroianni/Benson/Hicks. Our pitching is that gawdawful. Worley >>>>> Waters ; Revere >> Mastro This trade makes the Twins better in 2013 and beyond.

Hot Damn, my friends.

Dove tailing with kab... The Twins should be in the business of acquiring assets whether they are competitive or not in 2013. Any players in acquired during this free agency can be used to acquire additional assets for when we actually are competitive. To simply hold onto our money or spend it in another year misses myriad opportunities this offseason. The Twins should be thinking about what players that are available now will have inflated values during the trade deadline or the next offseason if they truly are punting 2013. The myth of competing in 2013 can lead to real assets moving forward, but that myth probably needs to be maintained to acquire such players (at least through FA).

My my is Baker's deal looking better by the day. I guess. The Twins probably wanted Baker on a second year, and would not want Blanton on a second year, esp. at that price. Market or not, the Twins need to acquire assets they can at least trade while they tread water, Blanton on this deal is not it.

Gawd yes.

Brad Radke has had some time off...

Right.

80 runs. The answer is 80 runs.

Totally disingenuous comparison, and yet another reason not to take you seriously.

Fangraphs likes the trade a lot more for the Nats, however. Span for a top 50 prospect seems totally reasonable; I can't imagine the Twins acquiring Meyer if they don't he will start.