Wookiee of the Year

I'm high enough on Garver to think he's worthy of a starting role. Would make a point of upgrading on Bobby Wilson, though. How about reaching out to the Cubs to see what it would take to acquire Chris Gimenez? He's languishing in AAA with June 1 opt-out date; I'd have to think we could get him for almost free. Not a high-powered move, and yeah, it's righty-righty with Garver, but it would stabilize the back-up catcher spot cheaply.

One entry in and this article series has already become Must Read material for me. Looking forward to having these throughout the season!

I see both of these moves as good moves in a vacuum; the question is what they mean in the context of this offseason. I agree with Nick's premise--this is a good test of Falvine's pitching evaluation. Sanchez is an extremely low-risk signing. The question will be what they do with him. If they cut him during spring training or he makes the rotation and pitches like a major league pitcher, it's a good move. It's only if they mis-evaluate him and give him a roster spot he doesn't deserve that this one haunts us. There's no question Odorizzi is worth more to this organization than Palacios. In many ways, this trade reminds me of the Aaron Hicks for John Ryan Murphy trade. As a trade, it's a good one. As a Twins fan, I'm underwhelmed that this is how the front office has chosen to fill a glaring hole. Overall, I'm trusting their evaluators to see something real there and find value if this is their solution. The Hicks deal obviously didn't work out. The Odorizzi deal makes me nervous in that the Rays are known for their pitching savvy, too. But I'm willing to see what comes of it.

I always liked this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4RtPSoFFJg

Bad--a full-season pace of 70-92. How much that matters depends on whether you think the second half surges from players like Buxton, Polanco, and Rosario represented young guys developing vs. guys punching way above their weight.

Really? In the second half, with 412 runs scored to 325 runs allowed, the Twins played at a 100-win pace by Pythagorean Record. That doesn't mean they'll win 100 games in 2018, but I certainly expect them to clear 85 wins.

About 1 minute in, they comment that they're having some audio issues, but they're hoping to resolve them by next week. But the bathroom suggestion seems just as likely. Gleeman's yelling from the toilet for the whole episode but hopes he's feeling better next week and can come to the mic.

Actually, according to FBI data and as reported by Stanford, "Only about 2% of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false, the same percentage as for other felonies (FBI)... Put another way, we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason." The data suggests the rate of false reports of sexual assault is the same as the rate of false reports for other crimes. Nothing astronomical about it.

Adorduan, I understand your point. It is certainly more effective for victims to accomplish change if they immediately report their crimes. However, can you see how your remarks could be construed as victim-blaming? No one wishes this upon themselves. No one plans for sexual assault to happen to them. When it does, they are confused and ashamed. In 2015, Ms. Bissen would certainly never have thought, "Yes! I now have a chance to accomplish something via the #metoo movement!" (In no small part because there was no #metoo movement and the cultural moment was quite different.) The point is, victims are wrestling with all sorts of emotions, including hoping they can just forget about what happened. When they can't--when it continues to haunt them--their willingness to become an advocate might change over time. I agree with you that this isn't the "best way" or the "best time" for Ms. Bissen to have shared her story. But our culture is hardwired to suppress these stories, to doubt the veracity of victims' claims, and to confront the victims with questions like, "Are you sure it happened exactly that way? Are you sure this is the best way for you to seek justice? Are you sure this is the best time for you to come forward with your story?" All of these factors make it even harder for victims to immediately react by seeking legal recourse. Part of recognizing the awful problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault and standing in solidarity with the victims is acknowledging their stories and their willingness to share those stories (including the timing of sharing them) doesn't always fall into our prescribed boxes of how and when to do so--and yet telling victims that we support them and will stand with them, anyway, because they didn't ask to have to make the hard decisions of what to go public with and when. They didn't ask for these crimes to be committed against them. They are victims, pure and simple. To think people who heard her story in advance didn't struggle with how and whether to share her story--and to what degree to push her to share her story--is unfair. The world is muddy, and a hard place to live, and I don't doubt people wrestled with these questions, but ultimately decided to leave the matter in Ms. Bissen's hands, as it's her story. We don't know what they privately encouraged her to do, but we do know they ultimately decided it was her story to share how she wanted, when she was ready. I don't see anything negligent in that decision.

A quick note to say I love the philosophy of this and have wondered why there aren't more lists like this out there, that include both major and minor leaguers and factor in remaining contract as opposed to just pure ability. Given this list is Twins-centric, I guess the framing is more, "Who would it hurt the Twins the most to lose?" as opposed to, "Who would have the highest value in a trade?" Makes me wonder how different those two lists would be. I'm sure they'd be substantially similar, but would be interesting to see where they'd differ.

The point isn't whether Ms. Bissen's claims can be validated--it's whether they're true. Sano's name is being smeared only to the degree that we are all aware of these claims. No one's saying he did anything better or worse than exactly what he's being accused of doing. As others have said, about 6% of allegations turn out to be false. People can interpret that as a lot or a little, but at the end of the day, it means knowing nothing except there was an allegation made, we should think there's a 94% chance Sano did what he's accused of doing.

Important to keep in mind the alternative wasn't free agent years, but arbitration years. He was going to be underpaid one way or another--the question is really how his contract compares to what he would've made via arbitration. It's still turned out to be a bargain for the Twins, but not the massive one you'd think from looking at his equivalent free agent value over that time. I also remember reports (or interpretations of reports) suggesting it was Dozier's side that was hesitant to sign on to additional years--though we don't know if those were pitched as contract years or team option years. Always tough to know exactly what the sticking points were and to what degree when you're not one of the ones at the negotiating table.

I don't have any interest in adding a back-of-the-rotation starter (if you're going to add to the rotation, add near the top), but Werth holds some appeal for me. It's simply not true that Grossman hits lefties better than Werth. In 2017, Werth's OPS against lefties was 124 points higher than Grossman's; across their careers, Werth is 89 points better. That's a real step up. Also, Werth's defense isn't quite as bad as you'd think. In 2017: by DRS, he and Rosario were comparable below-average left fielders; by FRAA, Werth was half a win better than Rosario; and by UZR, Rosario was half a win better. None of us see Rosario as unplayable in the outfield; overall, Werth looks like maybe a half-win below average defender as a full-time player, and not nearly that bad as the short side of a platoon. All that suggests Werth could be worthwhile as a corner outfielder platoon for Kepler and his .152/.213/.240 line against lefties.

Buxton obviously improved a lot over the course of the year, but much of that was about him realizing latent talent that we all knew was there. When I think about Most Improved, fairly or unfairly, I think, "Who raised my expectations the most as to what he is going to be over the rest of his career?" While there are a few other ways to interpret Most Improved, this one would seem to be the most relevant and indicate the largest change in outlook for long-term value (as opposed to recognizing a flash-in-the-pan fluky season, or rewarding someone who demonstrated minor league talent and finally showcased it at the major league level). That description probably telegraphs where my vote is headed, but my Most Improved selection would be Eddie Rosario. No player raised my opinion of him and what the rest of his career will hold for him more than Rosario this year.

"But it wasn't all good news for offensive speech..." may take the cake as my favorite Bonnes transition ever.

"The Twins are now 4-4 when Dozier homers (he had a two-homer game), but oddly enough they're 12-2 when Miguel Sano goes deep." I'm sure some of this is noise, but some of it could also be line-up construction. Dozier's home runs have been worth on average 1.1 runs--all but one have been solo shots. (They're not all lead-off home runs, but when you follow the bottom of the order, you're less likely to have base runners aboard.) In contrast, Sano's home runs have been worth on average 1.7 runs. Thrylos commented earlier showing Dozier's numbers are worse with men on than with the bases empty. If you think that's noise, you should move Dozier to a spot in the line-up where he'll get more opportunities to hit with men aboard. If you think he's just a worse hitter with men on, then I suppose you're best off leaving him in the lead-off spot.

Love the format and the insights. If you keep writing game recaps, I'll keep reading!

John was definitely right at the end: Aaron was the ornery one. John, of course, was the crazy one. Dare I say I actually enjoyed this one, though the frustrating part for me was the way both John and Aaron looked only at TR's tenure as a whole. I think it's perfectly fair to say that Ryan had a solid run in his first go-round, but that the new school game had passed him by by his second stint. I look at TR's moves from 2011-2016, and I don't see many decisions that can be labeled successes--and those that could have been were undercut by decisions to hold onto guys rather than sell high, decisions to extend guys, or both. This doesn't take anything away from TR's first tenure as GM, but I'm very comfortable saying that 16 years into the 21st century, he's not the guy I want running my baseball team.

If the line were 82.5, I'd be taking the under, but such as it is, Over.

Under. This one's tough--I'm expecting clear regression, but the line is also projecting clear regression. Still, I'll go under. The absence or presence of 1-2 key injuries could make all the difference.

I'll join the crowd with Over. They're my favorite to win the division.

Willihammer said it best. Under.

Right--and if my goal is to win a razor kit and I think 80.5 is a near-perfect over/under, then my best option is to bet against the crowd.

So many of you are taking the under, that I'll take the Over. (I expect they'll finish right around .500.)

All of Cody's busts are pretty reasonable. So are the suggestions of John Ryan Murphy, Kevin Jepsen, and Eddie Rosario. I'll toss out there Brian Dozier. If his 2016 looks more like his second half numbers last year, that would be a bust, and I don't think that's far-fetched at all.