TheLeviathan

I also don't think that larger package works. But how close are we in a swap of: Mitch Garver for Max Meyer or Sixto Sanchez Is that sort of one for one a viable path? If so, I make that trade in a heartbeat.

My only gripe is that they aren't fair to regular season dominance which is a far better measure of a team. But that's not what the playoffs are for. If we want to crown the "most deserving" team the winner then the only logical thing to do is not have a playoffs at all. Since that ain't happening....embrace the whacky nature of do or die games.

If baseball were in better shape as a sport I'd be inclined to agree, but I think we're at "hit the panic button like a toddler rings a doorbell". Single game craziness it is for me.

Baseball playoffs will ALWAYS reduce the importance of the regular season. Nature of small sample sizes. Given that inherent cruelty.....might as well embrace the fun that comes with do or die games.

Huzzah!

I think the Athletic was a bold, fun idea.....I was never confident it would make it. That's not how people digest media anymore, no matter how high the quality is.

I guess my biggest takeaway, as of today and what Falvey said in that clip, is that the team is going to be aggressively remaking the 40 man. I'll reserve judgment until we start to see more of how that comes together.

Well....how do we see this thing going? Personally, I think the progressives and Biden find a way to get both through by Halloween, but it'll take some serious compromises to drag Manchin along. Whatever it takes though, these are fundamental societal changes in the right direction IMO.

And if we move on? Joe Woods the DC in Cleveland and Brian Daboll the OC in Buffalo are my first calls.

I think it will be Guenther. It would cause the least amount of disruption on the staff.

Buxton for CJ Abrams, Dinelson Lamet, Trent Grisham, and the Hosmer salary dump. Who says no? (I seriously don't know)

Well....technically the MLBPA negotiates on their behalf. Of course, since they aren't members or highly paid, that representation is mostly exploited for leverage.

I would say all three shows have a roughly similar level of horror to go with all the character drama.

My wife and I binged through Midnight Mass on Netflix. You get what you expect from a Mike Flanagan show, but we always seem to enjoy them.

For all that beef we do seem to allow the point of attack to move the wrong direction a lot.

Yes, I think some of his early injuries were a lack of caution or bad technique, but as I noted I think he has made changes. However, the injuries he has had are more extensive than just "reckless or bad luck". They are significantly diversified both in terms of how he is hurt and what parts of his body he injures. Meaning, you can't dismiss the risk that comes with that history merely by chalking it up to bad luck and recklessness. His rib cage injury, wrist injuries, and hip injury all don't fall in either category. Among others. Which means extensive amounts of time missed can't be dismissed so easily as you have tried. Now...what explains that? I don't know. My point was that some athletes ARE more injury prone. They can get hurt more often regardless of luck or recklessness because their muscles/bones are predisposed to injury. Is Buxton necessarily in that camp? No. I can't prove that. Likewise, you can't dismiss the possibility he is either. Neither of us have the necessary information for a conclusion. We are talking about the future so we are dealing in possibilities and probabilities. I have never dismissed the fact that he might be suddenly healthy. (Go ahead and check. I said that's why I gamble on the extension) You, however, did dismiss the alternative: that this is a case of an athlete who won't see this go away. We know this can and does happen. (The idea that "injury prone" isn't real, again, I demonstrably proved false) Take his current manager, such a diagnosis may come after years of injuries. To claim, as you did, that past injury history has no bearing on future ones is plainly false in MANY cases. Now, it isn't necessarily an indicator either, but that's where risk comes in. And our conversation was about risks and 7 year contracts into the future. It's plainly, scientifically true that he MAY have such risk and there is evidence it MAY be true of him considering the wide swath of injuries he has endured and his difficulties coming back from them. It is plainly false to dismiss the connection between past injuries and future ones because athletes CAN be predisposed to injury regardless of whether they seem connected at the time. Again, I proved this with scientific citation as well as the fact that it just makes sense from the "common sense" perspective. I don't think this is controversial. Could these half a thousand games he missed since his draft day be a series of crazy bad luck? Sure. Could it also be that for all Buxton's genetic gifts that got him here, he had some unfortunate genetics for durability and endurance? Sure. Time will tell, but when predicting the future we only have the past and what we know about age/human bodies/etc. to inform us. The Twins should recognize the risk and invest accordingly - give him a comfortable base, pay the man if he plays, but protect yourself in case this problem isn't going away - because it very well might not.

Isn't reading this as an emphasis on only bad luck a fair interpretation? That leads me (and most people) to conclude that his injuries are a statistical anomaly. In other words, bad luck. i don't think I'm twisting anything with a statement like that. Now, maybe this is the lack of clarity issue, but that was the statement I went off of. So...in the interest of you clarifying...if not luck....why has Buxton missed 2/3rds of the possible games the last four years?

Exactly! Pain tolerance, recovery, endurance all vary among a host of other discrepancies. The idea that X = Y where X is the unlucky event and Y is an injury is not how real life works. X sometimes leads to Y is reality where the sometimes is dependent on a whole host of factors beyond the luck of X. Including genetic predispositions to getting hurt by X. Guys takes swings, run bases, get hit by pitchers, foul off their foot, slide headfirst, and crash into walls and some guys walk away from those X's without any injuries. Buck? That dude does always walks away with Y. That isn't purely luck. His manager had the same. Anyone who played sports long enough knows a guy or gal like this. We also know that guy or gal who could have a house dropped on them and brush it off.

For sure there are elements that athletes can control. Technique, flexibility training, and awareness can help but to Buck's credit he has tried to address those elements from reports we have.

Your question is irrelevant. I am comparing HR workers at Tech Companies. Sure, Microsoft is totally different than Facebook, but comparable. As are minor league professional athletes. Your analogy is purposefully distracting and irrelevant and therefore not a challenge I need to meet. Comparing post college/HS prospects for professional sports is a completely valid comparison of peers. I owe you nothing until your argument isn't BS. And....I mentioned the MLBPA in my very first post. So try again. No 8 paragraphs necessary to see your BS on that one. You are basically preaching contempt for kids you see as irresponsible idiots in your own hypothetical. Preach away, but the rsst of us will only see your phony compassion and brazen contempt.

I would fire Zimmer on the basis that he dictated heavy investments to fix the run defense and has utterly failed at it. Either he can't utilize the talent he asked for or he's bad at choosing the talent. Either way the one defensive priority he set out to fix has been an utter failure. I can forgive a defensive coach who can't find OL. I can't forgive a defensive coach who gets run on for 150 yards a game.

A) I figured at the point where you think posting three paragraphs trying to argue that comparing minor league professional athletes is completely ridiculous, we are already well down the "obtuse" path. There simply no other way to describe the gymnastics you are pulling. So...when in Rome! B )requoting: Can you at least acknowledge that, or are you so committed to your vitriol for owners that you are blinded to truth? This is ascribing. So....yes, you did. Mike, myself, Van, and others have posted links full of data, anecdotes, and comparisons on this problem. Your entire argument is a hypothetical you invented in order to claim minor leaguers are doing great if they weren't such idiots. Sorry, but that sort of baseless tact deserves some condescension for just how, to borrow a phrase, obtuse it is.

The most hilarious thing is the still woefully inadequate pay came after a 40-70% pay bump.

Yes. Minor league professional baseball, hockey, and basketball players are peers. It's an easy thing to acknowledge when you aren't trying to justify the unjustifiable. FYI....and you can look this up on site....I have always stated minor league pay is due to leveraging by the MLBPA and Owners. They jointly own blame, though only one can unilaterally fix it. A point you wouldn't be falsely trying to make if, again, you weren't trying SO hard to justify this asinine approach by MLB.

4/110 best case scenario.