Kelly Vance

"While it may be morally wrong, how much would the Twins care about ruining the arm of a guy they have no intention of keeping long term?" You should walk that back. It was morally wrong to say something like that.

I'd pass. Spend money extending our core guys.

Nick comments like this are unfair: "After returning from his mid-season minor-league banishment, Sano was barely an improvement over the whiffing mess that had earned a demotion." Sano was not banished or punished. He had a bad leg injury and a surgery and needed more conditioning. It was a move taken for his own good, not as punishment or banishment. And portraying the move the way you did is unnecessary to the entire story. You don't need to do that. Players coming off injury often over compensate by trying too hard. That is what Sano did. His heart was in the right place but he didn't make the right adjustments. That happens with young players. I think his showing up slimmed down answer all of the questions about his attitude.

I remember when the Twins signed Reardon I told my brother that they were going to win the Series. I was a Montreal Expos fan (my NL team because of Raines, Hawk and Wallach) and knew what he could do. His numbers didn't say superstar, but he steadied the BP more than the numbers indicate. But he had lost a little by the time he came over to the Twins. Nathan is the obvious choice, but I can't get that "deer in the headlights" image against the Yankees out of my mind. If it came down to who was the best pitcher, I'd go with Aggie. He was money and reminded me of Dennis Eckersley. If it came down to swagger, Ron Peranoski had all that and more. I just loved watching him stare down hitters. Bedrock was like that too. Eddie was durable and dependable. Hard to say Worthington is simply underrated on this list, coming in at 3, but he was steady as a rock before closers were en vogue.

Nope. That is not the kind of risk we are talking about. And it is not a risk like an owner takes in ongoing operations. I suppose you could say there are risks in everything, even crossing the street, but that is not the kind of risk we are talking about either. In the minors, 3500 people is a good crowd and tickets are $ 5. No reasonable person would say that a MLB owner should have to guarantee a big salary to someone who is still unproven. In any field of endeavor, new hires do not get paid as much as senior management. Nobody makes anyone play baseball instead of pursuing a different career. If you want to take your shot, fine with me, but I don't see why anyone else should guarantee you big bucks just because you participated. In the real world, you get paid for results. It has always been that way.

Deserving has nothing to do with it. If you inherit grandpa's farm, good for you. I don't covet your inheritance. Its none of my business how rich you get, and its none of our business how rich Jim gets.

OK, have it your way. But name a single owner that levies a dollar is taxes on anyone? Not charges, taxes... But according to you, I am out of touch and immune to facts. OK fine. I'm funny looking too.

Owners don't charge taxes, cities and states do. Owners set prices to pass expenses off to the consumer. Higher payroll means higher ticket prices. Yeah, THAT IS capitalism. I don't mind owners showing a profit. It has always been that way.

I don't mind owners making money. Whether they are Gates, or Buffett or Pohlad. As for taxes, the elected representatives decided to chip in. Blame them, if you have to blame anyone. The Twins bring in a lot of business to the Cities. Hotels, restaurants, parking, merchandise. Don't be so damn grumpy.

Sorry, no sale. Players don't take the kinds of risks owners do ... not even close. Owners have payroll, minor league operations, scouting departments, major league operations, advertising, promotional expenses, and tons of other expenses and costs. Players have their gear and they get paid even if they don't produce. And whether minor leaguers make the show or not is a red herring. That is no "risk" but an opportunity. Your market value is set by your skills and abilities, same as everywhere . There is no guarantee anyone will want to hire you in any sport, any business, any industry. If you aren't good enough, find something else to do. You don't have a right to a big money contract if you can't play the game. Like I said, in the real world we don't give participation trophies. The Apostle Paul said "A worker is worth his wage." He didn't say "A worker should own part of the business." That is a commie concept Who told you owners don't lose money? Teams may appreciate in value, over time, but a down season can cost a team millions.

Everything gets magnified because its been such a long off season. What if it was a hamstring pull? They can take 2 weeks. And very subject to re-injury. If it is a cut close to the achilles, they may be worried about a tendon rupture

The idea of Buck leading off is not so surprising. He is the fastest guy on the team and the best base stealer. Those guys should hit first. Except that, he needs to raise his OBP. You can't steal if you ain't on base. But its more than that. The guys at the top of the order usually get an extra at bat as the order rolls around during a game. You want your best hitters getting more at bats. So there is a trade off. I think Mollie always wanted to hit Buck first, but the second consideration outweighed the first for him.

I assume that by "Pampered billionaires" you are talking about public funding of a stadium. But that is not socialism,in fact, its sort of the opposite. Socialism takes from the wealthy to "spread the wealth" around. It suppresses the risk--reward aspects of capitalism. It rewards those who do nothing at the expense of those who work and build and create wealth. Public funding of stadiums is different. And I don't think that those who question why ballplayers should get a share of revenue are out of touch with the dynamics of this. In fact, they are bringing it out of the lofty clouds and hero worship by questioning why pampered athletes, many of whom make millions for playing a game, should get more more more. For me, I am saying this is absurd and out of control when a single mom can't afford to take her 10 year old son to a ballgame without coughing up $100

The "entertainers" don't own the team. They don't take any risks, including the risk the entertainer sucks this year or gets hurt or fails in some way, which may cost the owner money. This is the real world. We don't give out participation trophies.

Nobody said any of that, including me. Its not about labor making gains... its about labor wanting to take management's money. I'm saying no to profit sharing. MLB Ballplayers play for good wages and I don't feel sorry for millionaires ..... pampered millionaires at that ..... who want millions to play a game. I'd rather watch women's softball.

Honest questions deserve an honest answer. Socialists and communists are similar in that they demand that they control the means of production. Not management. With communists, they foster this illusion on the laborers (Workers of the World Unite) with Socialists it is more about government being in control of the means of production. Again, not management. But show me an OAC that wants someone ELSE to be in charge, not her. These people just want control. In short, I am saying that players are not entitled to profit sharing because they don't assume the risks. They want GUARANTEED contracts. They get what the market sets for their value. That is Capitalism. Redistributing wealth is NOT

The idea that players deserve a share of profits is a socialist concept that has no place in a capitalist industry. It is naive and simplistic, as are most socialistic notions. I have yet to see anyone advocating these socialist concepts say that a player should return some of his salary if he sucked one year, or is sick, lame or lazy. Nobody says a manager should return a paycheck if he has a bad two weeks. Players have only themselves to think about. Owners have risks and expenses that stretch far beyond even the big league club. There are hundreds of expenses that players are never concerned with. Minor league affiliates cost money, as do facilities, coaches, scouting and administration costs at all levels. There is payroll for employees, groundskeepers, bookkeepers, and a bad year can be caused by players and cost a franchise millions. And ownership takes the risk of all the possible downside. Players share none of the risk and none of the expenses. That is how capitalism works. With great risk, there is a reward. It is the way it has always been and for good reason. Without the possibility of a big reward, nobody would ever take the risk. It is basic economics. When baseball began, it was never anticipated that ballplayers would someday be instant millionaires. That is a sad distortion of a great game and the fans are the ones who pay the price. In 1969, the minimum big league salary was $ 23,500. That would buy a modest house back then. You could take the family to the ball park without sacrificing something else. Ticket costs rise, more than any other single reason, to pay the players outrageous salaries. We get stuck with the tab.Same thing when the lefties say "lets tax corporations." Sounds good to some, but it is ignorant of the reality that corporations don't pay the higher taxes, we do. Corporations pass the cost on to consumers. We pay those taxes by paying more for the product. Major league baseball has lost all fiscal discipline. And I don't feel a bit sorry for millionaires who play a game for a living.

Not even close, Pedro in a landslide

Yeah, I'm with PDX. You used to be able to take a family to the ball park without it costing $200. You want a beer and a hot dog and you get almost nothing back from a $20. Nobody is worth $350 million

Its Cron's job to lose for sure. They didn't sign him to $4.5 million just to exercise an option to cut him and buy him out at $1.2. I think picking up Duda shows more doubt about Austin than it does Cron.

Jim wants to buy Fox. That is where his money is going

So this is what Falvey has been doing with his time instead of finding more good players for the Twins.

Most teams build with power at the corner IF and corner OF positions, even at the expense of defense. Most teams think defense first up the middle. Keps has plus defense in RF and Rosario (when he is not throwing to the wrong base) has a killer OF arm. He started off his career gunning down runners who ran on the rookie, and then seemed to get careless. Both of our corner OF can hit HRs, although 20, not 30. Sano, if he hits the pitch sends it screaming to the wall. He is not a star defender, but he is surprisingly agile for a big man. Cron and Austin are power bats too.So I guess we kinda fit the mold. I am thinking that Buck and Sano got wake up calls last year. I think they will be motivated to rise to the next level. Hitting is a contagion (you catch it from your teammates). I am guardedly optimistic. And I think Ricco will manage differently than Molitor, who seemed like a stick in the mud most of his tenure. I know it is fashionable to say that managers don't matter that much, but again, I am guardedly optimistic. Polanco to me is a key. If he continues to rake and plays steady D, and we get decent numbers out of Schoop, I see no reason why we cannot contend if the pitching is above average. And THERE it is. It looks like the Twins are going with internal candidates for the BP. OK. But if that fails it will be another lost season. This "wait to see what we got" approach is a loser's bet. Contending teams make their move when the opportunity presents itself. Losers and also rans play out the string and go through the motions. Is the FO doing that? Many are saying so. So I am not that guardedly optimistic about the BP. I am cringing at the risky way the FO is playing "toe in the water." Small market teams have to put it ALL together to contend. We seem to be flying into the wind.

If it were my team, I would say to Berrios and Rosario and Polanco that they figure in loooooong term. I''d extend them 4 years with increasing pay. I would project a best case scenario and buy in. That sends a message down the line. I'd say to Gibby, "Look you have proven yourself. Stay with us for 4 more years at market. And stay cool. Sorry about that arbitration thing." Then I'd say to Buck and Miggie, "Look guys, everyone says you have something to prove. But I am betting on you doing that. We have a 4 year window here. You are still young. Sign for 4 more yrears, and make good. Then go FA if you want to. By then you will have security and a track record for the big payday." I would extend Rogers for, you guessed it, 4 years. Then I'd look around for anyone else that wants to extend for 4 years. Maybe Nick, Tom, Seth... what do ya say guys? And for God's sake, give Jake Reed a chance. He was lights out at the end of last year.

Its not just learning to lay down a bunt, but Buck has the leg speed to give him a better than average shot to beat it out most times. That's why we all want to see him develop that skill. Then steal second. I think with fielding and hitting, improvement shows, sure, but I think it might be easier for him to add 25 hits by bunt than by some other hitting adjustment. I could be wrong. But I once had a .350 hitter in school ball that I taught to bunt. He was fast, so he bunted .500. Bunting has become a lost art and bunting once a game is too much. It is supposed to be a surprise. You do it too much and they are expecting it. But 30 times over 500 PAs is not too much. I guess I look at it as 20 bonus hits he may otherwise not get. And he could make other improvements, like learning to be a spray hitter. With his speed, he should be trying to lead the league in triples (to right field) instead of trying to pull everything.