ThePuck

It's definitely arguable, Glavine has the two Cy Youngs (with two 2nd place finishes and two 3rd place finishes). Mussina never got one, and only finished in the top 3 once (he finished 2nd, and I don't know how that happened that year) Additionally, although I'm not much of a wins equals greatness kind of guy, the voters will point to Glavine leading the league in wins 5 times. He also led the league in ERA+ once. I'm a fan of Mussina...I hope he gets in..and I think he will. I'm pretty darn positive Glavine will.

One writer said he won't ever vote for a player who played in the steroid ERA, period. By saying that, he should have his HOF voting rights revoked.

I actually debated a guy today on another site and he thinks the Correia signing is a good signing. Trending up, he says. In fact, here's a direct quote that almost made me lose my lunch: 'Honestly, I don't think Correia was a bad signing. In fact, I think he was a decent one.'

Well, the poster said he was a HOF member before they were outlawed, and they were outlawed in '91. At that time, he wasn't a HOFer. And are we really supposed to believe 'His closest friends and advisers that have stated that he did use all say that it was in response to 1998's attention to two guys who were obviously bending rules.' Aren't these the same guys that said, at the beginning, he didn't use it ever? So it's like, we have evidence to suggest he used it from X date. Oh, okay, you ahve that huh? Hmm, well, he didn't use it before. It's like the Pettite admission that he gets praised for. he was caught, so he admitted what was already known, but only during that time..you know, the time they already knew for sure about. It's like a wife catching her husband in bed with another woman doing it. Well, yeah honey, I was cheating...but it's the first time. Is that an admission? I'm not going to claim I know when he did what...

I'm glad Bernie Williams isn't staying on the ballot...

Holy carp. How many times do I have to say I wasn't referring to how you were talking to ME in your response to my post where I gave the scenario? 4, maybe 5 more times? Do you have comprehension issues? Where did I say you were talking badly to me in that post? I was talking, in general, that you have quite a history in insulting people around here but you have issues when people do the same to you. I was not saying you did it to me in your response to my scenario post. Get it now. Is it clear? I'm not avoiding anything. 2010 was just a scenario. A season where we won. Cause, you know, that's the only time decent pitchers would want to sign with a club. If you need to have names, how about Kuroda, Harang,...Westbrook. So, now, why is it okay for you to insult people, but you call foul when someone insults you?

I get that, and that's cool, but I don't think we should say it's okay just cause they weren't testing for it. Right is right, wrong is wrong, legal is legal, illegal is illegal. I don't think there's a grey area just because it was banned but not tested for. So while semantically you're correct, I wouldn't say he was a HOFer after 5 or 6 seasons just because they hadn't started testing for the banned stuff he was taking yet. Heck, it was still illegal.

No, I don't think your last post to me was an insult at all..did I say it was? My post just now was about you complaining about USAFChief insulting you. That's why I quoted your complaint to him instead of your post to me. My post to you was also about all the other times you've complained about people insulting you. You insult people all the time, you talk poorly to people all the time, but get all ticked when someone does it to you.

You constantly do it to others, bu then complain when others do it to you. Wow, speaking of stuff said that never gets responded to, I've said that to you many times and it's always gone unanswered by you...

There's a difference between faith and blind faith. We're talking about the huge difference between what we were told and what is being done. Additionally, your assumption that we're on the verge of some great teams with complete control of those players for some time is nothing but assumption. There are teams that have had high ranked systems for years that never did anything. That is because prospects are just that, prospects. All of our high ranked prospects would have to all work out for us to have a chance to have great teams, cause we won't be supplementing them with any top notch talent from outside. What are the odds that even 75% of our prospects turn out to even be starter material? I'm glad you're an optimist, but I don't think you need to rail on people having discussion in the negative about how things are going as if you know for sure how things will be in a few years to come.

Did I say 'in 2010', or did I say 'if we have a season like 2010.' It's just a scenario put out there. Is 2010 the only time we've had where we won the division and did nothing to address deficiencies? No. I could have used most any of our division winning teams and made the same point. 2010 just happened to be the first time it happened at TF. And don't think for a second I go out of my way to avoid answering your questions as if you've ever asked me something that stumped me or hurt my argument. Most of the time I just ignore you cause of the way you talk to people.

There will always be excuse to defend the FOs lack of ability. -If we have a season like 2010, no need to 'waste money' because we won 94 games and ran away with the division. Those guys are surely good enough to repeat, no need to worry about improving a good club. Injuries NEVER happen. -If we have seasons like we've had the last two, well, no one wants to come here, so we can't give the money away. You can't pay good players to come here cause we're so bad. -Before that, it was bad revenue from the Metrodome. Wha will be the excuse when we finish with a winning record in 2-3 three years and it turns out we STILL don't go get quality FAs to help? The defenders have their bases covered...just insert new excuse...

From Feb 10 interview with Jim Pohlad, Owner Jim Pohlad reiterates Minnesota Twins' desire to retain catcher Joe Mauer - ESPN "I think Target Field puts us in better position to make sure that we have a competitive team from year to year," Pohlad said Monday. "Names will come and names will go, but overall the objective is always to have the best team on the field." The Pohlad family has consistently followed a model of keeping the annual player payroll pegged to 50 percent of team revenue, though in rebuilding years it's fallen well below that. At the Metrodome, there wasn't as much money coming in. This year, though, the payroll will rise by roughly $30 million to a team record above $95 million. "All new ballparks have their peaks, and I'm sure the initial years will be very good to the Twins," Pohlad said. "Then it'll be up to us to sustain it after that, but the ballpark itself I think can sustain it for a long time." In a question-and-answer session with reporters in a conference room overlooking a snow-covered Target Field, Pohlad dismissed the notion that the team has been trying to disprove a tightfisted reputation. "We're not trying to show people," he said. "We're trying to do what we said we're going to do."' So, we're sitting at around 80M. did the Twins only take in 160M last year? Only project to take in 160M this year? Or was last year and this year rebuilding years where they justify dropping payroll like a stone, and make even more money? They pocket a higher percentage of money in rebuilding years. It's right there. We've had three years in TF, the worst record in the AL the last two, dropped payroll after the 2nd season by 18M, dropped payroll by 14M after the 3rd season. Three questions: 1. What happened to: 'I'm sure the initial years will be very good for the Twins'? 2. What happened to: 'the objective is always to have the best team on the field."? 3. What happened to: '"We're trying to do what we said we're going to do."?

Our payroll in 2007 was a 71.4M...regular inflation makes that just under 80M today. That's where our current payroll sits. And players salaries have gone up at a higher rate than standard inflation.

The Angels won 89 games in the toughest division in baseball last year, winning more games than our division winner, and that somehow equates to the Twins having the worst record in baseball just because neither team made the playoffs?

Morris' postseason: ERA: 3.80 Mussina's postseason: ERA 3.42 Morris' career ERA is 3.90 Mussina's career ERA is 3.68 Morris' career ERA+: 105 Mussina's career ERA+: 123 Mussina had more Ks, better K/BB ratio, better K/9, better BB/9, a better WHIP, more Ks, less HR allowed...and for those who care about the win stat, and most Morris' HOF backers hang their hat on that stat, more wins as well. All that in a more hitter friendly time. They don't seem too close, IMO

In '91, Vincent's memorandum outlawed all illegal and controlled substances (so that covers greenies and steroids). At that point, Bonds had only played 5, 6 seasons. How was he already an easy HOF choice?

That 1996 vote wasn't because of an agenda though...

'First, amphetamines weren't "cheating" when Aaron used them, because they weren't banned by MLB until 2006, 15 years AFTER steroids.' How long have Amphetamines been illegal in the US? In 1991, Vincent sent a groundbreaking memorandum to all MLB clubs regarding the use of steroids, although he really did not consider steroids to be a major problem at the time. Vincent merely wanted to lay the groundwork for an attempt to control the entire drug and potential steroid problem, i.e., he was being proactive with regard to steroids. In his memorandum, Vincent emphasized, "There is no place for illegal drugs in baseball. Their use by players and others in baseball can neither be condoned nor tolerated. Baseball players and personnel cannot be permitted to give even the slightest suggestion that illegal drug use is either acceptable or safe. It is the responsibility of all baseball players and personnel to see to it that the use of illegal drugs does not occur, and if it does, to put a stop to it." Commissioner Vincent's memorandum contained the following provisions: • The possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by major league players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Those involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. • In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the uniform player's contract. This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription. • MLB recognizes that illegal drug use has become a national problem, and that some players and baseball personnel may fall victim to drugs. Baseball will not hesitate to permanently remove from the game those players and personnel who, despite our efforts to treat and rehabilitate, refuse to accept responsibility for the problem and continue to use illegal drugs. If any club covers up or otherwise fails to disclose to this office any information concerning drug use by a player, that club will be fined $250,000, the highest allowable amount under the Major League Agreement. • MLB believes that its testing program is the most effective means available to deter and detect drug use. For admitted or detected drug users, testing will be a component of that individual's after-care program for the balance of his or her professional baseball career. • This office will continue to search for positive and constructive methods of dealing with drug use. While baseball will attempt to treat and rehabilitate any player or personnel who falls victim to a drug problem, we will not hesitate to impose discipline, especially in those cases involving repeated offenses or refusals to participate in a recommended and appropriate course of treatment. • If any club has a question about any aspect of the drug use program, please contact Louis Melendez, Associate Counsel, Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee. Sincerely, Francis T. Vincent Jr. It does seem Aaron was fine, seeing as how he last played in '76, but we'd have to see if there was any other rules regarding illegal substances during that time. And, of course, Amphetamines were illegal, period. 'After decades of reported abuse, the FDA banned Benzedrine inhalers, and limited amphetamine to prescription use in 1965, but non-medical use remained common. Amphetamine became a schedule II drug in the USA under the Controlled Substances Act in 1971.'

2015 isn't realistic. We're building for 2015 to have a chunk of our prospects come up, but not to be competitive. That's a pipe dream really, especially if it's almost all coming from players currently in the minors. They'll still need time in the majors to take their lumps, get their feet wet and gel as a team. The '87 team took about 5 years and even then, they made some key acquisitions from the outside to help. If the majority of the prospects we have high hopes come up in 2014/2015, and almost all end up being the type of players we're hopign they'll be, we're looking at 2018, 2019 before we're competitive.

How are the Twins are a small market team? The aren't a LARGE market team, but they aren't a small one either.

Since the team seems determined on on building 100% from within, in order for this team to be truly competitive by 2015, we pretty much have to have everything go right, IMO. May and Meyer both have to be as good as we hope they are, Sano, Rosario, Hicks and Arcia all have to be what we hope they are. Parmelee has to be the real deal. Worley has to be decent, Gibson has to be at least a #3 starter. IMO, all of that has to happen...practically everything needs to work out. AND they have to be very good right away...all of them. Some act as if it's a foregone conclusion...just wait a year or two, we'll be truly competitive then. What are the odds all of these players ends up being as good at the MLB level as they've been hyped to be? I'm truly optimistic a majority of them will eventually, but I sure won't say we should put all of our eggs in one basket, that basket being our farm system...and 2015 isn't realistic. We're building for 2015 to have a chunk of our prospects come up, but not to be competitive. That's a pipe dream really, especially if it's almost all coming from players currently in the minors. They'll still need time in the majors to take their lumps, get their feet wet and gel as a team. The '87 team took about 5 years and even then, they made some key acquisitions from the outside to help.

Sorry for misinterpreting the ribbing :-) My assumption on him is based on what I read...and I read it quite a few time. That's how it read to me...but I can see your point.

Doesn't seem like it's true at all, the results so far certainly don't seem to jive with the statement, but we can't know for 100% certain if it's the truth or an outright lie. I guess it depends on what he defines as 'trying harder.' To him, does that mean make an offer, but not above what HE thinks they are worth? If that's what he means, he could be telling the truth in the strictest sense. Question is, is that how others would define trying harder than any other team?

I apologize...I went from the results after the 7th game, not the 8th game...that is totally my bad. I stand by the rest of what I had written though. Still don't see it as wilting. Still don't think he felt the pressure