Otto von Ballpark

This is what I saw: The NFL rule book states in Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1," A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete." There's apparently more in the rule book too. I am sure they aren't perfect at applying it, but I don't get the impression that inconsistency is the biggest problem, it is just that the rule itself sets a too-high, unnatural burden on receivers.

I don't think so. The rules, as much as we don't like them, are fairly clear about the receiver going to the ground, and I don't think they are frequently misapplied as you describe. Of course, anywhere else on the field, with the clear goal line as his target, the receiver likely goes to the ground first, protecting the ball, before turning/extending. And anywhere else on the field, it's not an automatic review either -- keep in mind the refs on the field initially ruled this play exactly as you describe too. Both of those factors might be coloring our interpretation here. Given the same level of review, I don't think you'd see much disparity in such calls with truly equivalent circumstances. (Not to say that it's a good rule. Would be nice to see a looser possession standard for receptions.)

Say what you will about the rule, but I think it is pretty universally enforced. It is just that you don't see receivers lunging like that at other parts of the field (the first down line is a lot harder for a receiver to guage, for example). You do see some incompletes along the sideline where the receiver doesn't maintain possession through the process of the catch. Also, scoring plays are automatically reviewed, so the receiver's every move is going to get thoroughly analyzed around the end zone. If it happens midfield in the third quarter, it is going to come down to whether the team sees enough in a replay before the next snap, and considers it important enough to risk a timeout to challenge. Not that I care for the challenge replay system either, but I don't get the sense that officials are particularly inconsistent in these type of calls, accounting for these other factors.

Correct. Ball never hit the ground there.

Interesting. Archer's worst opponent is CLE, 0-7 in 7 starts with a 5.87 ERA. Next worse is BOS, 2-12 in 19 GS with a 5.45 ERA. Baltimore has been tough on him too. But as you note, he's been good against the Yankees (and also Toronto), so I'm not sure his division is an excuse for the results we've seen to date. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=archech01&year=Career&t=p#oppon_extra::5 His most preferred AL opponent, to date, might be the Twins. 6-1, 1.84 ERA in 7 starts.

Here's a take that didn't like the application of the rule: https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/12/17/16788458/jesse-james-touchdown-replay-overturned-steelers-patriots

Perhaps a more palatable example of deferred money is Max Scherzer: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/max-scherzer-and-when-210-million-isnt-210-million/ Or even Zack Greinke: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/12/09/greinkes-d-backs-deal-includes-62-5m-in-deferred-salaries/77077480/

To be fair to Archer, the quality of the Tampa squads behind him have probably affected him a bit. Not trying to make excuses, but his best season so far (2015), he wound up with a 12-13 record. I could see a pitcher like that trying to be more aggressive and seeing some of his results suffer. Not that I'd bet on him finally becoming a true elite ace, which is probably why he hasn't been dealt so far. But the Rays are betting on his abilities either helping them, or combining with the market to fetch an elite ace return. As it is, with his abilities, age, and contract, the Rays should have no trouble moving him for a solid-but-not-elite package anytime in the next year or two if they ever decide to do so.

That's fair, and I guess that speaks to whether the Twins *should* acquire him. But for the purposes of whether the Twins *could* acquire him, or what price it would take, your last sentence is going to be the instructive one. Looking at the market, I have a feeling that if Archer were genuinely made available, there would be no shortage of potential suitors, and the resulting bidding war would have to reach ace-level prices before he was moved. The Rays have zero incentive to trade him right now for some mix of Kepler, Gordon, Gonsalves.

All evidence suggests that Archer isn't going for a quantity of prospects, but rather quality. Like at least one elite prospect headliner, just like the Quintana and Sale deals. Yeah, Archer may not be as good as those guys, but with his ability and his contract, it certainly appears that Tampa is valuing him that way, or he would have already been dealt. And given that, it's pretty clear that Gordon or Kepler couldn't lead that package. I know Gordon was climbing some lists earlier this year, but then he posted a .221/.304/.305, .609 OPS line in the second half at AA. He's a good prospect, but he's not elite. Kepler wasn't even an elite prospect when he was in the minors, and now he's got a MLB resumé of only "solid regular" and he's only a year away from arbitration salary, which is a concern for a franchise like Tampa. A good player, and a good piece of a potential deal, but he couldn't headline it. If Archer were truly available, we'd basically have to win a bidding war, and it's virtually impossible to do that starting from a Gordon or Kepler led package. We'd have to put Lewis on the table, or one of our recently graduated elite prospects (Sano, Buxton, or perhaps Berrios). And since that won't happen, it's safe to say the Twins have no shot at Archer. Cole is the more realistic target because the Pirates have to move him sooner / can't ask as much -- Cole only has 2 years of control left, versus potentially 4 for Archer. And Cole's salaries will be higher the next 2 years too thanks to arbitration. If you want one of these guys, the only realistic route is to stay in the conversation for Cole and hope the Pirates decide to pull the trigger.

Wouldn't it just be a signal they want an elite prospect?

Unless I missed something, Melotakis is still in the org, he is just off the 40-man roster.

FWIW, as a 2013 college draftee, it appears Kinley was eligible for Rule 5 last winter but was not selected. Of course, Luke Bard had been eligible twice previously. (Burdi was a first time eligible this winter)

And with Dickey, we actually signed him a season later anyway. Stuart Turner, Sean Gilmartin, Kevin Cameron, and Levale Speigner are the other players we lost in Rule 5. A nifty resource: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_5_draft_results

Worth noting that Burdi debuted in AA in his age 22 season, versus age 25 for Kinley, so for the purposes of this stat comparison, the difference is more like 3 years. And of course Burdi went to AA with 20 pro innings under his belt, versus ~100 for Kinley. And small sample, but Burdi's AA numbers were trending up.

In my experience, even if a specific Democrat is anti-abortion, those groups and voters still oppose them because of the risk they will be pressured to vote with the national party, even on issues only tangentially related to abortion. And of course, even if the anti-abortion litmus test was perceived as fully met, they just move on to the next issue. Gay marriage, immigration, etc. There are really very few voters who subscribe to broad Democratic views except on abortion alone.

Did the 20-30 congresspeople share the same "4 sexual harrassments"? Seriously, didn't Twitter increase their character limit? Breaking news shouldn't have to look like a Prince song title anymore.

Did you see me citing TD posters as a data point?

Except thanks to MLB rules, only a few of the other 29 teams could even offer him that much right now. I'm not sure the lack of a deal for Marte at the moment is all that meaningful of a data point.

Well, I don't know how long Marte has been available -- when exactly was the contract voided? And the international market has shrunk/slowed considerably this time of year , so perhaps Marte can take his time deciding. I mean, if he just had a $3 mil deal voided, he may not have much incentive to jump on the first $1 mil offer. (In theory, could he even take his chances next July?)

Anybody know when it was voided? The Twins signed him back in July, and international cap numbers were discussed throughout the rest of the season. Marte did need to get a visa after that before the physical, not sure when that happened. It was pretty clear Otani was trying to come stateside a month ago, I am not sure Marte's deal could have been voided for "months" prior to that with no announcement. I am not accusing them of anything, but it does seem weird to void the contract of your top international signee and just not tell anyone, even if only for a couple weeks. (Even weirder if it was really a couple months.)

She commented on the incident, contemporaneously, on Facebook. 2 other women have reported similar incidents with Franken now too.

I did the exact same thing today! And feel the exact same regret...

Or even before they switched leagues, for an AL East team. Don't think there was ever any kind of rivalry between the Twins and Brewers, was there? Now, at best it is a proxy for some lighthearted Minnesota vs. Wisconsin ribbing.

Correction: they *were* a playoff team. Hard to believe it was only 8 days ago though...