drjim

I personally am in favor of using HGH, especially to recover from an injury. Historic numbers don't mean a whole lot to mean outside of the context there are produced in, and I want to see the best players play the most games possible.

Who could have ever foreseen the Republican primary turning into a clown show?

Sure they deserve a second chance. Doesn't have to be with the Twins.

Worse now than I did when he played. But I try to avoid speaking too much ill will of the dead.

I can accept the Twins not going after people with credible accusations of domestic violence, even if they are really good.

My favorite scene was Chewbacca going beast mode after Han dies. I wonder how big his role will be going forward. And where was Lando? Clearly setting up the Finn reunion.

I wasn't asking that and I don't think it is a coincidence either. But I do think revenues were starting to rise as Boras became more well known - there was certainly a market for agents that would advocate strongly for their clients. And yes the Royals and Twins were at one point handing out the biggest contracts, but that was very short lived and was in the brief window when attendance was the primary driver of revenue amd they were simultaneously the highest drawing teams (at least the Twins were). Very soon revenue started to be driven by tv contracts, luxury boxes, corporate sponsorship and other ways those franchises couldn't keep up. And I would still argue that players get those contracts because of publicly funded stadiums and tv contracts, those two items don't exist because of big player contracts. And let's not pretend like this is a totally bad thing either. Target Field is much more enjoyable place to watch a game than the Metrodome, and we are fortunate that we can now watch every Twins game of the season from basically anywhere in the world. These are good things. And I also don't buy minor leaguers and international players and fans are getting screwed. While the relative slice is dropping, they are getting more money than they have ever gotten. This will continue, with the possible exception of Cubans). Perhaps they should be getting more, but I reject the idea they are getting screwed. And fans now have more access to more games and more information and more enjoyable facilities than they ever have. And they get to watch better players from more places around the world. This all strikes me as positive developments. And it's only going to get better and better.

So you think owners wouldn't try to maximize revenues if they didn't have to pay as high of player salaries? I think they always want to maximize revenues and minimize costs. The difference is that baseball has turned more into a business from what it may have been in the past. It probably took more buy in from players to get to that point. I see Boras, etc as a product of that shift, not the cause.

I'm skeptical of the tone of the article. I don't know whywe should root for Arte Moreno instead of Mike Trout going forward. I understand some of the frustration against the players union for not standing up more for minor league players and aome other baseball employees but that really isn't their job. If the players union refused to do even the little that they do minor leaguers would have it even worse. Owners aren't going to suddenly treat other sources of expense better. As far as the specific points you made, I'll say the following. I agree the minimum salary will likely rise, there will some sort of international draft, decent chance for an expanded roster. Free agent compensation will be tweaked. I wish they would do something similar as the nfl, take the net free agents lost amd give comp picks. Not sure the plan. For the draft I think trading picks might be on the table. I'm also not super concerned about the draft causing a talent drain, no evidence of it now and the draft pool keeps increasing. No chance there is a shortening of service time before free agency. Not sure where that comes from. I actually think the bigger fight will be between big and small market, involving revenue sharing and luxury tax, then between players and owners. Overall money will move around but there won't be that significant of a change that drastically changes competitive balance. I understand some of the concern for minor leagues, but the current situation seems too mutually beneficial to significantly change anytime soon.

This is my list too, though the top three might be in a slightly different order. I think in general people are way too optimistic about the ability of young pitchers to make it through a full season in the rotation. I'm very high on Berrios, but he still needs to limit his innings. And I want to see Duffey do it for 3 months before I'm fully convinced. I have no problem keeping Nolasco around as long man and ready to move in for one more try. I would also be supportive of trying to move Milone for a reliever and signing one of the guys out there available on a 2 year deal.

I generally am in favor of markets, but health care is a terrible good to provide strictly through the market for the following reasons (and others): -Inelastic demand - you covered this well, but if you have a serious health problem, you either get it fixed or potentially die. -Lack of information - Goods and services provided in health care are not generally openly priced. People don't know what it costs and what it should cost, no frame of reference. -Assymetrical information - People generally are and should be deferential to the expertise of medical providers in a way that is not really comparable in other goods -Public good - health care is a public good in that the value of a healthy population has positive value to a society as a whole that is not perfectly captured in the individual price point -True market behavior would lead to undesirable outcomes - This is something of an opinion, but I don't think it is ideal if a health insurance company is able to remove people from the rolls that get sick and cost money, or that people with pre-existing conditions are not able to enter into our health care system

I'm curious what you mean by violence and near revolution. I generally have the opinion that our country, due to relatively competent state and (especially) local governance can survive dysfunctional federal governance. I don't see the space for near revolution*. This is especially true because despite the rhetoric, basically every social indicator is trending in the right direction, and our country has the natural escape hatch of elections every 4 years. *The one exception I would grant is following a catastrophic war. I think it is quite possible that we could elect a President/Congress that would lead us to a ill-advised war, but I don't see Revolution coming from primarily domestic concerns.

My response to this is fix it how and to what end? Part of the problem, in addition to the systemic issues that are constantly mentioned, are that the problems our country faces right now are really hard to fix and there are not easy solutions and there are multiple thoughts on how to address them. This doesn't lead to the easiest of working conditions or fertile ground for working together. Congress, after huffing and puffing, does eventually make small deals to keep things running. But they big movements happen pretty rarely, perhaps for the better.

I personally am as fully on board with this article as I was adamantly against your plan last offseason.

Does seem it is kind of assumed in the context of all the other posts.

Only 20 to 30? Why such a pessimist?

Detroit has 4.2 mil, Twin Cities has 3.2 mil. Michigan has about 10 mil residents, Minnesota has about 5.5 mil, and adding Dakotas and other parts of "Twins Territory" don't make up the difference. Detroit, by any measure, is a bigger market by a pretty significant margin. This goes beyond just an individual owner willing to overspend the market. So I would say the point still stands.

He can't, and the way he is running his campaign suggests he knows as much.

Always a great point. "Working together" usually means the other side doing what I want.

Could be worse. I'm not sure how a significantly "better" candidate can emerge from this process. I would actually argue Clinton is one of the two best qualified people in this country to be president right now, along with Romney. And Rubio and Cruz are quite similar to Obama c. 2008, with Cruz probably being even more experienced.

Which lines? Do tell. And I'll take it a step further. I understand being critical of the team, not agreeing with the direction they take, pleading for more aggressiveness, wanting certain free agents/trades, wanting younger players to play over supposed mediocrity, wanting people fired, hoping for new ownership, etc. Millage on these issues will and should vary over a population of fans. But if you honestly think the team would go to such conspiratorial lengths to avoid spending money and adding talent, how can you possibly support them?

I suspect it is more years than money. They are (potentially) trading some value this season for more risk certainty going forward. It is certainly fair to criticize this tradeoff but to merely say they don't care is false.

Having said that, good to see Cameron's piece showing some options for the Dodgers being part of a blockbuster involving McGee. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/proposing-a-dodgers-trade-for-chris-archer/ I still think Polanco and an arm are about equivalent to what was proposed here (for the McGee side obviously).

I'm an eternal optimist, but I have a sense that Jake McGee gets traded to the Twins. Polanco and an arm. Nothing more than reading between the lines a little. My other sense, of which I have even less confidence, is that there still might be a San Diego trade out there.

This "problem" is greatly overstated. I would expect a good 4th OF to get 400ish pa. If a young player struggles they don't have to keep playing.