Jocko87

We went from no longer an option at third base to get in there kid, real quick. Really hope he can hold his own, if he can be a solid stick and functional at third its great for the Twins and Jose.

Agree with this completely, as an active umpire myself. I'm all for permanently throwing out anyone who can be proven to do it on purpose. Unfortunately, the human element is undefeated and game conditions can sometimes effect us without even being aware. It's something I'm always reminding myself, don't make a second mistake to correct the first mistake. As a coaching point, it's probably a fair strategy, knowing the reality of the situations. Before I get anywhere near support for robots, I need to see a couple things first. Nevermind that I have my doubts about the technology. The first and most important item is to get everyone looking at the same thing. The Fox box is different from the ESPN box is different from the Ballys box is different from the MLB official box is different from the umpire scorecards box. Our current view is so skewed by a random square a guy in the production truck drew that it's basically impossible to know how accurate the edges are. Gross misses are obvious but that's part of my second point. I, and many others have shared the umpire scorecard from the Cleveland game. It's fun to talk about but means absolutely nothing when evaluating that umpire. Just the fact that we think a square drawn on paper gives us an idea of how the ump performed is an indicator of how distorted our view is. Jose Ramirez is 5'9, Matt Wallner 6'4. Their boxes are far different but here we are, damn ump was outside the box. Do any TV feeds adjust the box for Altuve or Judge? Not that I'm aware of. We can't discuss this reasonably without looking at the correct information. My second thing is we need to know there is a performance review standard happening. I'm the first to say discipline should be private but the longer Angel Hernandez working playoff games the more we can assume the discipline is lacking. We should be seeing young new guys all the time, with young fresh eyes. The human element is valuable, even if it let's us down from time to time.

Missed our chance to trade for him. Darn Falvey doesn't do anything right.

Kwan lol

No.

Careful with your fancy psychology terms, if a moderator bothers to look them up up you'll be suspended until the All-Star break. That blows through the terms of service with the tailpipe on fire. If you truly knew anything about such terms you would know the folly, or malpractice, of using them in internet conversations. It's called the Goldwater rule, and you should know it if you know these other terms. When the whole internet has decided what happened in a highly published court case, and the verdict stuns everyone, which side do you find yourself on? I've got good idea but I dare not assume. The reason for that is that words matter. They have specific definitions, regardless of what the internets say. It a different context or setting, what @chpettit19 said would be libelous. This being a message board, I gave him a gentle pushback with hopes he would see the error of his certainty but here we are. Again. Based on your stated interpretation of my take, which you would have to manufacture from thin air, I'm running up a hill here. My working assumption, for which there is no way to prove, is that Falvey is actively pursuing a starting pitcher every single day of the week. I would bet significant amounts that the very day he made that quote he also made calls on starting pitching. I would bet that he made a call or had an internal meeting about acquiring starting pitching today and will think about it again tomorrow. Not one word of that quote says that he is not still looking for starters. That's the Occam's razor explanation. To think Falvey would ever say something like was claimed, considering all we know about him, might be a complexity or confirmation bias.

Someone make sure Manny knows this is seething, flaming ticked off Rocco, to say this in public.

Its a gamble to play 5 innings with no bench.

The article on platoons is focused on the long term, and I think everyone is pretty much on that same page. The effect is more significant on starting lineup construction than pinch hitting where it should be a game choice of two hitters for one spot. In choosing to make it so early, Rocco is making it about at least two additional at bats without knowing anything about what those at bats will mean. The three man bench means chose your spots wisely. He obviously wants to break the game open there but I have no doubt AK was coming out too if the inning continues. I'd hate to be a manager with no moves left after the 4th inning but I'm an aviation guy who doesn't single point of failure anything. I'm sure Joe Ryan can play a mean little league left field but I'm not looking to see it.

Like what I'm seeing from AK, stay healthy young man. Pitching feels, nibblish? That's a full season observation but I saw it again today. Paddack velo dropped off steadily, wondering if that was expected or concerning. Hate the pinch hit, mainly that it was the 4th inning. I do understand the limited opportunities to break open a game but it wasn't exactly Nelly Cruz for Ben Revere, as an obscene example. In the 4th inning, even with platoon advantage Margot is at best a very slight upgrade over Julien and game theory would tell me there is a long way to go. As mentioned, a guy who feels like a bunt is the way to go makes it even worse. The odds of Julien working a walk have to be similar to a successful bunt. Then, say the bunt is successful? Has Rocco committed to hitting for AK with Martin? Just let the game breathe a bit. I'm well aware of Juliens numbers against lefties but I think you just have to sit on your clipboard there. Love seeing healthy, unsausaged, Buxton. Do also enjoy sneaking a bit of advertising in on the caretakers as well. Oh well, was fun while it lasted.

Do not like it, not in the 4th inning. No sir, let the game come to you.

Does look like its tailing off a bit. 4th inning will be interesting.

You coulda just sat and watched, but if you want in, I'm your huckleberry. Feel free to tag me next time. The specific statements that @chpettit19 made that I challenged are as follows. They came out and said...were done looking for starting pitchers. they were only ever going to bring in 1 MLB starter announcing they were done with rotation moves. They told us that was their rotation move. There is no evidence that anyone affiliated with the Twins has said anything close to these statements. At best, the interpretations of the "I think our focus might turn more to the position player route" with think and might doing heavy lifting would indicate they thought the Buxton insurance/RH bat is a higher priority at that time but certainly doesn't support these declarative statements. Pettit and I will disagree on that, and that's fine. I'm not doing this to convince him, I'm fighting against the setting of a narrative for the benefit of others. It's the same reason I rail against the forced "self-imposed" modifier that is being inserted in every article, after a paragraph is forced in about payroll. Many writers, here and other sites, are hell-bent on driving the self imposed narrative for whatever reason. In a league where all payroll limitations are self-imposed, forcing that phase down our throats is nothing but pushing a narrative. It doesn't add anything to a discussion. Worst case, I take a little flak to help someone not take these inaccuracies forward as facts. Meh, do your worst.

Careful, this is a family friendly thread.

I'm feeling out a new system this year. I had it down pat syncing radio and TV last year but cant always use the TV.

Agreed, but also a couple times he needs to get the glove turned.

Jeffers having a rough day so far.

1:28 not 1:48 which is what you are referring too. I gave a specific time stamp to call attention to specific statement and you blow right through it to hear something not related to anything. Then, as if in an overt bid to make my point, you start with an article that doesn't even quote him but indicates he's working on something else right now. The references don't get any closer after that. Certainty nothing that supports the malicious malquotes I called out, not even in the same ballpark. And yes, I had already read all those prior to posting originally and was well aware of the same quote used in four separate articles. If you could address the specific statement by Falvey between 1:28 and 1:45 of the link, I'd appreciate it. It gets right to the heart of the discussion and deserves to be viewed next to your statements. I figured out how to do a transcript from a video, yay tech me, so here it is. Q: Do you have enough starting pitching depth? Falvey: There's no such thing. I think it's a, it's a misnomer to think that you have enough starting pitching at any moment in time, because the second you think you do maybe there's an injury or setback or something else that happened. So we focus on just building out as much as we can, you're going to need some guys from the minor leagues to step up for you. There's young kids, like David Festa, like Simeon Woods Richardson guys that are in AAA that are going to need to step up and help. My opinion is that man is never not looking for pitching. He's looking for pitching in his Christmas stocking, under the bed, Seattle, you name it. But that's one observers opinion only.

Rather than a long post explaining revisionist history and how it works, I've highlighted a few things I'm going to need you to support with some links. That's right, I'm going to be source? guy. This post particularly got my attention as none of these statements look like anything like I've ever heard Falvey say, what with his mastery of media deflection. He, and the organization are particularity good at never saying anything so firm and brash as how you've presented. That's part of why Joe got so much attention just saying no. So I did a really dumb thing. Research. I know, I know, what in the world can that doing something so stupid bring to an internet #%$&ing contest? Not only could I not find the statements you've claimed, I found quite the opposite as I would have expected from Falvey. Here's a good one pre-disco injury (publicly known anyway), relevant part at 1:28. https://kstp.com/minnesota-sports/twins-derek-falvey-joe-schmit-spring-training-interview/ Falvey etal just don't say things like you've presented here. We all know that as I type it out loud but its quite easy for disingenuous interpretations to be posted and accepted as fact as folks scroll by. I completely understand being upset about the Twins not making a single high impact pitching move this offseason but that doesn't justify putting words in peoples mouths. The other takeaway from my reading is that the Twins didn't make a single high impact pitching move all year. This trade was not it, but absent a big move, the human condition will insert the next best move in that place. Re-reading everything I could find from the trade react, Disco was very lowly regarded in all serious discussions. Whole lotta compete for a 5th spot, maybe a bullpen piece. Three teams teamed up to get rid of an aardvark of a contract. Certainly not the headliner and as I said, in the Brent Headrick range. My expectations were fulfilled, mostly because I was realistic in setting them. Hoped to get some quality innings but won't. Shucks.

I guess up to 6m with incentives makes it about right compared to Lorenzen whom he was better than last year. The off-field stuff probably plays a small factor but the White Sox know him. Lots of teams probably passed multiple times. So much of the story of this offseason will take a few years to understand. Boras was on MLB network Sunday and all but admitted that the Nola and Yamamoto deals skewed the actual pitching market. If you are a team like the Twins, you start to weigh the innings and experience your guys lose by bringing in someone like this who is a mostly known factor.

If they would have traded for a Burnes nobody would care about poor Disco, that's just basics. They would have erased that "ink" an half a second. He would have Sands role in the pen and nobody would bat an eye. I do suppose we would have 17 articles about a 6 man rotation but that's a different issue. It's not even a remotely controversial or hot take.

The only reason he was penciled as the 5th starter is he didn't have options. If he had options all the discussion would have been where he fits on the depth spectrum around Brent Headricks neighborhood. He could have just as easily ended up in the bullpen. He was just one of approximately 437 low voltage pitching moves from this offseason. The lack of any other starter moves makes it seem like a bigger deal than it is. The most important question is, does he still get a ring? Does he get 33% of a ring to match his salary? Or 3 different chances at a third of a ring? These are the important questions while we ponder the water under the bridge.

Any NBA fans out there will instantly recognize the mechanism. Taking on the $4m probably gets a borderline top 100 instead of a borderline top 250 prospect. I'm sure they wanted some meaningful minutes for Desclafani but for $4m they couldn't have been expecting much. Lottery ticket.

Umm, 292 innings at a 3.63 ERA* He's a good major league pitcher. (*entering today)

Was going to check in to say how annoying it is to be blacked out all of opening weekend but I'm good now. Headed to the golf course with the radio.