bird

If you take an early withdrawal from your 401k you are not breaching a contractual agreement. There's nothing in your 401k documentation where you promise not to make an early withdrawal. The CBA agreement, which I read, contained language, albeit poorly worded, whereby every team agreed to abide by the pool. The clear intent, from the beginning, was that every team would abide by the pool. Does anyone disagree with this premise? The more important concept is this: if you withdraw your retirement funds and share it with your spouse, perhaps you've cheated no one. If you bust the IFA pool, it has a deleterious effect on those participants to the agreement who were counting on you to not breach the agreement. The penalties are completely irrelevant to the ethical argument about what constitutes a wrongful breach of a contract and what doesn't. Knowing you're going to get caught is also irrelevant. Why is it so difficult to see that, if you breach an agreement and it's harmful to other parties to the agreement, that a vast majority in our society would view the behavior as wrong, as unethical? I'm perfectly fine with any of you having zero ethical problems with what teams who busted the pool did. Just don't cast dispersion upon those who decided against doing so if you're unclear as to whether their ethics played a role in the decision, okay?

It's a preposterous fallacy IMO. It's happenstance that those were four opportunities that overlapped part of Smith's time in the GM's chair. There's nothing nonsensical about it. You choose to use a few examples and ignore that other IFA signings took place both before and after Smith, a number of which involved more money than the examples you argue are proof of Smith's independent largesse. And again, it's mostly this illogical and nonsensical notion of Smith's role that I find so perplexing. Neither Ryan or Smith ever set the budget for spending. Neither Ryan or Smith ever signed a major IFA contract without many people weighing in. Neither ever had the authority to do it. Period. And again, you act as if no large contract spending has ever taken place outside of your four examples, of your beloved Smith Era, Levi. That defies the truth of the matter.

This illustrates my point about judging a team for NOT breaking the rules. In the home I grew up in breaking the rules was called cheating. We didn't call it something else based on the punishment. The teams that did not break the rules were cheated by the teams that did, period. I like the word a lot. You see, Mike, you're a lot like my mom was. My brothers and I were assigned new bike riding boundaries every year. My two brothers followed the rules to the T. I rode all the way down to the railroad tracks with my friends and threw stuff at the trains and came home feeling guilty, But ah, the lure of the trains... Years later, when I asked my mom if she knew I had cheated on my boundaries, she said, "Hell yeah. That's why the boundaries were so damn strict, son." So, in that regard, I see your point. I mean, some might think my two brothers were stupid. But yeah, my brothers still think I cheated.

To be fair, let's be more detailed with our facts. They have had a pick in the top third of the draft order four out of the past five years. The consensus is that Buxton has star power, perhaps even super star power. The grade isn't in. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that none of Kiriloff, Gordon, or Jay will never be stars. Stewart, I'll fold my hand. BTW, they DID garner a top-rated farm system as a result in great part of the selection of Buxton, supplemented by Sano and other IFA sucess, etc. So you're right, the lack of current perceived star power, usually generated by two or three prospects, has caused the opinions of the system to plummet in the same way the star power of Buxton and Sano propelled opinions earlier. In both cases, I'd suggest the opinions are slightly exaggerated by this emphasis on star power. They had a pick in the bottom third of the draft order four out of the five years previous. Gibson is the best of that lot. Not to defend them, but to add a fair context to these selections, I believe in four out of five cases, those selections have outperformed almost all the selections made five slots before and after they were selected. I think you define "aggressively spending" in IFA markets as deciding to bust the pool. You opined that the Twins didn't cheat because they weren't as smart as other teams. Others speculate that it's because they're cheap. A minority, myself included, speculate that it is in large part an ethical decision, a view I hold because of some of my own personal experiences with the Pohlads. I think it's accurate to say they're suffering a bit in the rankings because the cheaters gained ground at the expense of the non-cheaters. But I think we should be careful about criticizing them without knowing the circumstances here.

We DON'T know that they were more aggressive one year under Smith. It's like people think the sole determinant was Smith, taking a risk in his mind, agreeing to an amount, hanging up the phone, and faxing out a contract. It's ridiculous IMO to conclude what you conclude. It completely ignores all that we actually DO know about the IFA process leading up to the contract. The years of scouting and following prospects, establishing relationships with handlers and families, the importance of the area scout's opinion about the prospect, the importance of that scout in agreeing to a general contract range. All of this stuff does in fact take place. Smith in fact never had a damn thing to do with any of it. And yes, I absolutely believe that, if those same handful of opportunities arose during Ryan's tenure, the results would have been exactly the same, and I mean exactly. No contract decision has ever been made like the one Kepler signed, or Javier signed, or Ynoa signed, or Sano signed, without a lot of people weighing in. And I'm absolutely sure that, in the case of Sano's contract and others, that Smith's opinion was by far the LEAST credible to Pohlad. Smith probably didn't even offer an opinion as to whether Sano or Kepler were worth the financial risk. And let's not act like no contract risk was ever taken before or after Smith's tenure. There's a difference between what we actually know about the IFA process and what people THINK they know about what the GM's role is in the process.

To write this really serves only to obscure gunarthor's point. There are comments in this thread lamenting the fact that the Twins could possibly have a top 10 overall selection that isn't included in a top 100 list. Meaning, in the commenter's view, the prospect didn't "hit", right? Now, take a look at a list of all the pitchers selected as top 10 overall over the past five years, and you'll see that it's not exactly uncommon for those prospects to miss the top 100 lists. That's the point.

That they determined to spend more aggressively under Smith is a fallacy that gets constantly promoted here. The spending you and others see as proof, Sano in particular, was a product of opportunity, not some change in attitude or strategy. Sano would have been signed under Ryan. I'd love to bet my entire net worth on that and double it. No Twins owner or official has ever explained why the Twins elected to avoid busting the IFA pool. That doesn't stop people from thinking they know why, but they're speculating.

I was about to mention this. For those who want to see a top third or top quartile ranking in a year or two, the emergence of a lot of those IFA signees will be the challenge and the main competition. But, given this year's draft order, they might make it with just an average amount of good fortune. The Kirilloff news doesn't signal a change in that however.

Suggesting any fall-off in production is due to his attitude calls into question his professionalism. Better than labeling him a selfish whiner I guess, but still...

Anyone know the character from "Orange is the New Black" named Suzanne "Crazy Eyes" Warren? After reading this thread, I can't seem to get her out of my mind.

The only evidence you're producing is evidence of your own subjectivity. Dozier is certainly not the first player you've decided to assign unsavory personal traits to (see Cuddyer), but it would be really nice if it were the last, for your own credibility.

Um, I can think of a couple of people that actually DON'T know that...

I see Mejia as a solid option for the relief corps myself. The scouts say he's maxed out his development and has little or no projection left. That puts him squarely in the 5th starter long relief category, and it'd be wonderful if we had five better options than him for the rotation all year long.

I'm not terribly concerned about that one instance of inflexibility. Frankly, I'm practically hoping for a 4-pitcher shuttle from Rochester to the rotation, and hope it would be a one-way ticket most of the time. This team is caught in a bad spot IMO. While they won't compete on a sustained basis until they upgrade the ceilings of their top three starters, they don't have prospects who appear ready to reach their better ceilings for a couple of years. In the meantime Falvey has a delicate dance ahead of him. I'm hoping he has the option to accept a big overpay for Santana at the deadline because it's offered and because Berrios, May, and one or two others now in the minors (Romero or Jay?) are shining. If the relief staff isn't on a shuttle system, we're in trouble. We absolutely have to get at least two real gems out of that group that includes Shaggy, Burdi, Melo, Reed, etc.

You're absolutely spot on. I see little immediate hope myself. The hope will be for the most part in Chattanooga's rotation, in the quick insertion of Berrios into the rotation, in a fast and steady progression at the MLB level by May and Berrios, and in the readiness of Mejia, Duffey, and/or Gonsalves to step in and acceptably fill the role of back-end starter. I think anyone investing a great deal of hope in the resurgence of Hughes or even positive regression (let alone improvement) from Gibson is risking disappointment. Santiago? Blah.

To be fair, though, we have to acknowledge that the talent level has been underwhelming since the pool was shrunk. We're not seeing the Darren O'Days and Hector Rodons with regularity, and this type would represent our highest hopes. The last two Rule 5 pitchers to stick for a season were named Joe Biagini and Matt Bowman. So maybe Justin Haley is as good as it gets these days?

Those WERE interesting. I especially appreciated the comments of Williams from the Reds and Zaidi from the Dodgers, because both guys spoke about what a FO can't control. So much of what dictates the course for these teams is unpredictable, especially the sustainability of performance of players. Mauer and Morneau as examples in the case of the Twins.

Yeah, but they also wear the same filthy shirt under their jersey, eat chickens on game day, and hop over chalk lines.

Yeah, this always puzzles me. The guy's going to be the first one up once each game, maybe twice. When he's the second guy to bat in a half-inning, does he need a quick sit-down with a sports shrink?

Almost impossibly unlucky, this organization.

Editor: "Say, LaVelle, did you see that excellent piece on this kid, um, Fernando something, over at Twins Daily? Maybe you should put something out about him. We'd hate to lose more readers to them." LaVelle: "I'll get right on that. I'm heading over to Hammond Field today right after lunch."

Good point.

The risks of taking a HS kid are well-known. I don't see how the Brien Taylor example is any more instructive than a hundred other examples since his selection. None of these kids makes it on talent alone, and no one goes 1-1 if there are any serious questions about their talent. The really talented kids who fail do so because of factors that are extremely difficult or even impossible to predict. That's why it's so important for teams to thoroughly study the prospect's background, and even then, every organization is going to draft kids that get distracted by their own demons and never made it despite their prodigious talent. So, any hesitation in taking Greene over one of the college pitchers will come down first to an assessment of talent, then the risk factor related to age will be appropriately considered as always, but I'd suggest that if it is a close call, they'll take the prospect who displays those intangibles that get categorized as "makeup".

Two questions: 1. What specific actions do you believe Smith took regarding Romero, other than to pull into his parking spot a good portion of the time during which Romero and his handlers were courted? 2. If someone other than Smith pulled into the parking spot with the interim GM title, and like Smith, was completely oblivious as to who this Fernando kid was, would Romero have signed elsewhere as a result? I'm sorry, but you're arguing about things that never ever took place and that have zero relevance regarding the success or failings of the IFA efforts. Any difference in success from the times Ryan pulled into the parking spot and when Smith did is pure happenstance, period. And that includes any notion of how much a GM influenced ownership to write a big check. Even Sano's check had much much more to do with Guerrero's influence and a collective understanding of the opportunity and much less to do with anything Billy Smith did. Talking about the Smith era versus the Ryan era is a bunch of nonsense, frankly. Let's give both men credit for their actual accomplishments in building and leading the IFA efforts and stop trying to give them credit for these individual prospects they had so little to do with. Who do you think had the most to do with Thorpe? Or Kepler? Try Howard Norsetter perhaps, but scratch both Ryan and Smith off the list.

Bilaterally?