TheLeviathan

I came to the comments to make this joke. Hat tip good sir.

I've defended Sano for awhile, but this team's best future is probably not going to include him. Not at 1B or DH and that's all I think he can play. They need to decide what Gordon's best future position is and play him there every day. Every day, I don't care who has to sit.

If Buxton is healthy: trade him. This team burned the extension bridge with him and, even if they didn't, I want no part of it. If he could play 120 games I'd give him the farm, but he can't. Get what you can and start making sure Gordon or Lewis or someone else is the CFer of the future for this team. Disclaimer: I do not love this conclusion, it's just the only reasonable one left.

No, no we don't.

TROLPO ate him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/sports/baseball/mlb-injuries-soft-tissue.html https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/09/baseball-injuries-mlb-rise-reasons-covid Lots of articles out there confirming a large spike in baseball injuries. These are just two of a trove that arent hard to find. Nothing to do with the Twins sucking, just one more sweet ingredient to MLB's rapid decline into irrelevancy.

I don't believe you're reading that right. The 2021 data is for 40% of the season and the other seasons are for the entire year. At least that's how I'm reading it. Is that right @Tom Froemming? If so, not only are injuries up, but they are up at a ridiculously high rate both for the Twins and the league as a whole. (Which jives with other articles I've read)

All future Weeks In Review can be summarized thusly:

The driver who taxis our guys from the Saints to the Twins. He's handled a meteoric rise in volume like a champ.

Satire about them isn't even able to match the actual silliness of these rules. Good try though.

Listen to CC preach. (Lots of language, but the point is there)

A few things stand out to me: 1. The first affront to the game of baseball was putting Austidillo on the mound. I can't think of a more "defiling" act towards professional baseball than some catcher throwing 40 mph "heaters" in a professional game. Hockey teams don't put their wings in at goalie. Football teams don't play their third QB at safety. Basketball teams don't play their equipment guy at center. It seems odd to me that we're aghast that a professional hitter took a professional swing in a professional game and not what the Twins did on the mound. This kind of mind-numbing logic is the root of unwritten rules. 2. What do you want hitters facing guys like Austidillo to do? Stand there and get walked? Stand there and take strikes? I'm sure that will help the ol' pace of play. 3. I'm going to let Lisa Simpson handle the "but it stopz so much stuffz from happening" argument. 4. I've never understood why "old school" and "integrity" and other words are so tightly associated with a vague, randomly enforced set of rules designed to cover a bunch of butthurt cry baby professionals who complain mostly because they're getting beat. If you don't like things happening......stop them. What's more old school than that? 5. I commend the NHL and NBA for their steps to stop player policing. (The NFL is a sport that basically requires you to play people correctly or risk serious injury) They haven't fixed all their problems, but both their sports are better for it and continue to improve because of it. Don't worry, baseball will dinosaur itself long before you have to worry about whether some team who puts their third string infield in at pitcher can whine about being down 16-0 rather than 15-0 cuz some evil scumbag *gasp* swung his bat! I know I can't wait until we get that sweet, sweet inning of Kyle Garlick on the mound just so we can salivate at the chance to stomp our feet and be angry someone tried to swing on him!

There are no fun ways to lose, but there may be no more frustrating way in all of sports than a baseball team and a bad bullpen.

If he goes 0-30 will it then magically switch to an "obviously great decision" with no debate? Doesn't your framing seem a bit too aggressive given Badoo couldn't trade a plate appearance for an egg and fill a carton?

I believe in the young man's talent and determination and grit. I am a skeptic of his ability to stay on the field to dazzle us with it. I hope this year calms that skepticism.

Signing in late February certainly indicates there wasnt a rush to sign him. It's also safe to assume in a year with a more normal bidding season and less financial uncertainty could have led to more money. 12M AAV seems like a Buxton floor. I dont see any reason he would ink a deal for a penny less than that.

I think these are good talking point benchmarks. I could do 5/50. I'd do 5/60 for the chance at lightning in a bottle. But past that you start to lose me in the risk vs. reward. Jackie Bradley Jr. is an informative comp for him. A player with no durability issues, but otherwise similarly up and down offensive profile with good defense. Dude got 12M in a year where the pandemic wrecked FA. I think we've come to a point where clubs are paying a premium for defense. I'm not sure we can get his name inked on a contract for less than 15 AAV.

I think there is too much speculation here. Yes, he seems to be really good at reading the ball, but it's hard to know how good that skill is independent of his speed for obvious reasons. We've seen a lot of other speedy players decline markedly after their speed goes from elite to just "good". Perhaps Byron is an exception, but that isn't the sort of thing you bet extensions on. I don't feel comfortable with any speculation on vision/migraines/concussions either. That can effect people so differently. I'd accept just having him take a bit more care not to freight train any OF walls. That sort of thing at age 31 isn't the same as 25.

He won't get signed for 10M. If this happens it will have to be 12-13M at minimum given what Jackie Bradley got. I'm guessing it'll actually have to be closer to 15M. 15M for a backup OF is not a terribly good use of resources. Van is right that his speed is going to wane and right now almost all of his defensive and offensive value is tied up in that. Couple that with the fact that age is rarely kind to durability and we have a problem. His body is in the prime of his life and he still can't stay on the field. That isn't going to get better. I can talk myself into the gamble because the talent is obvious, but we need to walk into it eyes wide open. He is a bit of a reckless player, the upside might be worth it, but the downside is seriously real.

Yeah I'm not in this heavy at all. I find the stock market slimy and gross. But a few hundred bucks to help this movement stick it to these guys? Hell yeah. I'm in. I bought AMC and I'll ride it out for a week or two. Worst case I'm out a few hundred bucks for a few weeks of fun. Make no mistake, even if all these guys lose their shirts in the end, they've made a difference. This is the first true blow to cronyism in our government in as long as I can remember.

This is an amazing effort by people to stick it to wall street. I'm in on it. I expect more nonsense like we saw today, but even if we all lose our investments....the spotlight on this BS became crystal clear. We're uniting the country one demolished hedge fund at a time!

No mention of Roger Clemens MVP Baseball? Those goofy name mutations to avoid paying a license were incredible! Plus it was a fun game....

For 2021? A tie, both. However, Buxton is seen as a player the Twins could/would have for quite some time. His inability to stay available to the team is a far bigger concern.

Buxton is heating up and getting in a groove! Awesome! *Watches Luplow triple where Buxton needlessly overruns a ball and crashes awkwardly into a wall* There it is. Buxton in a nutshell.

I have reread the original post and I don't think your interpretation is accurate because it is incomplete. The poster said that the players chose to stop playing for a day because something in the world is unjust and they wanted to raise awareness and add their voice/clout to the conversation. By you limiting the initial clause to a simplified version, you've essentially conducted a strawman argument. Your version: If everything is not ok, players choose not to play as scheduled What the poster actually said and better reflects the players: If everything is not ok and the players think their platform can be used to help reverse this injustice and support their teammates who feel strongly, they will choose not to play to make a statement and then continue to fight the injustice in other ways. Those extra conditionals significantly alter the simplicity of the logic you tried to use and explain why it went so far astray at even the most basic analysis. The players who feel strongly may have needed that show of unity. They may have needed to exercise their platform to get people talking and paying attention for future actions. Let's use a simple analogy to show the difference: 9/11 responders experience(d) significant PTSD and a host of other issues because of their bravery that day. Many of them suffer daily from it. Yet I would imagine, no matter how passionately you feel about honoring their sacrifice, you don't stop daily to remember it. Or donate daily. Or personally thank each of them daily. Or make some grand display daily. Those men and women are still there every day, but you effort isn't the same day in and day out. Does that, in any way, minimize the complications? Or minimize your genuine appreciation of those people? The simple truth is human beings don't have the capacity to be constantly, actively engaged in everything. We commemorate and honor on particular days, we raise awareness, we throw our full weight behind things for short bursts and then back down to work at it daily. We simply cannot do much more than that for all the injustices in the world. Your attempt at logic only works because you ignore what is realistically possible and removes all the complexity that is actually part of the situation. Which makes it appear easy to poke a hole in, but that's only because you've deliberately chosen to narrow the field to your convenience.