biggentleben

Basically, you're paying $22M for Kenny Lofton. No way would I do that.

I think Suzuki is undervalued. He's excellent behind the plate, and when he's right, he's a decent gap hitter at the plate. He went through some nasty injury stuff the last two years and kept playing, to the detriment of his offensive stats, but he's still young (by catcher standards). He could be a solid play for the Twins.

They could slot Smyly into the rotation as the lefty, but then that removes him from the bullpen where he was incredibly valuable in 2013.

Hudson wouldn't get a qualifying offer from the Braves. Simply doesn't fit into the organization's financial structure for 2014 to pay him $14M. Sad, but to an organization once bitten by offering arbitration to a free agent, offering it to a free agent that they couldn't afford to accept was not in the cards.

No word yet on return, but reported as official on MLBTR. Understandably soon to evaluate, but this certainly doesn't help the Tigers. Not sure what they could receive to make it better for the 2014 Tigers.

Can you, however, link the thread INCONVENIENTLY? That's what I'd pay good money to see!

Of course I don't want fan vote. We've seen what all star games look like, but it is highly hypocritical of the high majority of current HOF voters who were front and center and did nothing during that era. Unless someone was suspended, however, I do not feel you can use PED use against them. Assuming without MLB-backed testing is no different than if Willie Mays had been kept out because someone assumed he was using greenies or Nolan Ryan because someone assumed he was using cocaine. Both were drugs of major problem during their era and they were rumored to be inside circles that did it, so would it make sense to deny them entry? That's why I have issue with denying on assumption, especially with all-timers like Bonds and Clemens.

Entirely agreed, though he'll have a few things working against him. First, Yankee bias/overload in that many people actively vote against those who have their majority career with the Yankees. He was also often the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher in the Yankee rotation while he was on the team, so he ends up being overlooked as he wasn't the "ace" of his own staff. The major downfall for Mussina is the upcoming classes. Maddux/Glavine in this class, but then Randy Johnson, Pedro, and Smoltz next year as well. After that, there's maybe one pitcher a year that will get some consideration, so he might have more luck then. The tough part is the overall classes each season: 2015 - Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Gary Sheffield, John Smoltz (and everyday Eddie!) 2016 - Ken Griffey, Jr., Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner 2017 - Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Vlad Guerrero, Jorge Posada, Tim Wakefield 2018 - Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, Scott Rolen, Omar Vizquel 2019 - Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, Todd Helton

Then the writers should also exclude themselves from voting. They had more access than anyone but the players themselves to the activities of the clubhouse, and many writers have come out discussing the covering up that ALL writers did at that time because their readers didn't care about steroids originally because of the big numbers and then even when they turned against steroids, it was only on the players who had poor personality reputations that people wanted to hear about, not that a guy hit 30 home runs for 10 years with steroids, but the guy who hit 70 one season or hit 50+ five seasons and denied usage. The writers are as much to blame for the steroid era as the CBA, yet they now believe they hold some moral authority to keep out a guy like Jeff Bagwell or Mike Piazza because they MIGHT have used. Greenies are punishable (like steroids, they were always illegal, but they had no punishment associated with them), yet you don't hear anyone coming down on the careers of Hank, Willie, and the Mick because of their widely known use of greenies during their careers. It's a BS power trip the writers are pulling right now. You cannot assume one way or another, and if you didn't report it when you knew, you cannot base a vote on that. You have to simply vote based on the finality of the numbers and "fame" of the player in his own era. In an era where many hitters finished over 500 home runs, perhaps that's not the magic number. Perhaps it's sustained OPS+ and defensive reputation instead of the absurd counting numbers. Perhaps it's measuring something like WPA rather than counting numbers that became inflated in the era, but no matter what the method, because writers were too cowardly to report on who was using in the heyday of steroids, they have lost the ability to be revisionist and keep out anyone based on PED usage. You need to go by the player put in front of you, and PEDs, like greenies, need not be part of that evaluation.

And the true elitists would put Nolan Ryan nowhere near Mays and Williams.

You're misunderstanding my statement. My issue has nothing to do with those who vote 10 and still have more they'd like to vote in. I'm in the same boat. My issue is those who do not have a full 10 voted in and yet leave off some first-year guys because "they can't get in on the first year". That's what I have strong issues with. If you have 15 you want tovote in and only 10 spots, you vote for 10 this year, and if they all did get in, you'd vote for the other 5 next year.

It has nothing to do with Glavine, but thanks for assuming my baseball integrity is so shallow as to only be worried about my team (especially a guy who isn't exactly still on the best terms with the organization after things he said when leaving to the Braves' biggest rival). It has everything to do with a guy is either a hall of famer or he's not. The early ballots were making up for nearly a century of baseball having passed already, so there were many guys who didn't get in on first ballot because of that. As it stands currently, that should never be an issue. A guy is in or he's not. Not that tough. Slighting a guy for one year for some sort of "elite" principal is old guard useless.

McGwire hit 156 home runs with a 142 OPS+ in his first 4 full seasons in the league, along with a few as a September call-up. Who knows for sure when the roids started in Oakland, but he really was very good right away when he hit the majors, then got hurt for about 3 seasons right in the midst of his "prime years" before exploding back onto the scene in 1995. Yes, his final seasons are in question, but his numbers were above and beyond others in the league using many of the same substances at the time, and while tarnished, the home run chase of 1998 really brought baseball back from the horrid press it was still receiving over the 1994 strike. Yes, he's a cheater, yes, he's admitted to roids, but to say he wasn't one of the great power hitters in the league immediately upon arrival is untrue.

I will never understand this thinking. A guy is a hall of famer, or he's not. This determining which ballot to choose crap is complete BS. I truly think any writer who states such a comment should permanently lose his HOF vote and possibly his BBWAA membership.

I'm going to put mine in order: 1. Maddux 2. Bonds 3. Clemens 4. Thomas 5. Bagwell 6. Piazza 7. Biggio 8. Glavine 9. McGwire 10. Sosa Right now I just cannot see how you don't fill out a full ballot. I had a number of guys like Raines, Schilling, Edgar, and McGriff that I left off that should be in there as well.

[video=dailymotion;x7mo1k]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7mo1k_office-space-michael-bolton_fun

This is where sabermetricians are going to shake their finger at the "average" fan. Peralta has been a full-time, everyday shortstop for virtually his entire career, and the metrics have shown him to not only be an average to above average shortstop, but to be improving year by year. For what they paid, Peralta is certainly a "smart signing". The PED issue is a whole other issue with Peralta's signing and the reportedly hot market for Nelson Cruz. Last offseason, everyone was crowing about how PEDs killed Melky Cabrera's value, but perhaps teams simply care less about them than we thought and teams simply saw what most any Yankee/Braves fan could tell you about Melky - he just isn't that good.

Happened yesterday, but Sylvia Browne dead at 77. Unconfirmed reports that she saw this coming...

MLB Player's Union head Michael Weiner dead at 51

I understand that it isn't quantifiable, but I know that he was one guy I disliked seeing pitch against the Braves. I shouldn't have felt that way, based on the numbers, but it always felt like he kept the Braves off tempo all game and once he lost it, he was left in to take a beating. I know he's hit 200 innings only twice, but he has the feel of Javy Vazquez to me in his pitching - someone whose numbers don't match up to what you see game-to-game.

The bolded is simply not true. You say don't blame the players, but as evidence shows, there isn't evidence enough to blame the organization. Baseball giveth, and baseball taketh away. The best right handed power hitter of the last generation was a nobody that his own hometown team didn't select in the draft and fell to the 13th round, yet multiple #1 overall picks made it nowhere once they hit the minor leagues. Baseball is like that. Instead of attempting to blame the Twins for things completely out of their control, why not chalk it up to yet another baseball thing. RA Dickey was wanted by NO ONE on a major league deal when the Twins acquired him. David Ortiz was signed as a BACKUP DH by the Red Sox and couldn't get a starting job anywhere when the Twins let him go. Those are the two most often used cases against the Twins, and they're both easily debunked, as are many of the other ones used as "evidence" against the Twins.

Dickey in his own book says his time in Minnesota was about him still learning his craft as much as the team itself. I would take that more than speculation online. Nevermind that the Twins didn't "move" Dickey to Seattle. He was selected in the Rule 5 draft in 2007, and in order to keep him in spring 2008 without keeping him on the major league club, the Mariners had to offer the Twins something in exchange (or offer Dickey back). It's not as if the Twins were shopping Dickey in the trade market.

As someone who has taken that, I agree. I love listening to guys like Keith Law rip on the Braves' minor league system and then turn around and praise their "under-25" talent at the major league level. Heck, most of the big hitters that have come up from the minors for the Cardinals were not considered prospects at all, but they have produced in the majors. Just because the player isn't part of the Shiny New Toy Syndrome doesn't mean he won't be a productive major leaguer, and even and All-Star caliber one.

For the Twins, sure, but I'm saying in the market overall, Nolasco getting 5/75 or something similar would be around where he should be and not a terrible overpay.

[video=youtube;ozGNfNsnX6g]