Mr. Brooks

Hypothetically, what should they have done with Curtiss if they are already convinced he's not an MLB caliber player?

I may have misunderstood. I thought you were saying there was no data that younger players were less of a risk to break down.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't need to see data to know that a 26 year old is less likely to break down than a 36 year old is.

Why does it have to be a success or a failure though? I don't think anyone said it's a failure if every prospect doesn't make it to MLB. I think some take issue calling AAA a success though. I just don't see how it can be called a success for the team, unless said player is traded for an MLB asset. As Thrylos said, every dollar and every hour the team spends on development is with the goal of helping the MLB team, not as a community service. In the case of a 16 year old signee, or later draft pick topping out at AAA, I'd say it's in a gray area. Not a failure, because they weren't expected to make it, but not a success for the team either.

Maybe you are missing all the other stats besides HR's? His OPS in August and September were basically the same as April: April: .986 August: 958 Sept.: .959 He had a twinkle June, but every other month was over 800.

Why would they regret this? They DFA'd him to clear a roster spot. They were willing to lose him for nothing. Anything they got is a freebie.

How many teams have GM's that are from the state that their team plays in? Derek Falvey is from Massachusetts, not Ohio. So wouldn't he actually be trying to sabotage us AND Cleveland, for Boston's benefit? I wonder how long he's been doing this? Probably his whole career, I'd imagine. Crazy part is that he'd probably have gotten away with it too, if you hadn't figured it out.

Not sure I've ever seen any evidence that pitchers pitch better with a lead. Do you have any theories on why that'd be the case?

Correct. And that's likely one of the reasons why less teams are interested in him.

I thought he actually officially declared on Friday, it just wasn't announced until Monday? Either way, it doesn't matter. All he has to do is tweet that he won't sign an NFL deal and teams will take him off their draft board, which is effectively the same thing as withdrawing.

But the FO has to consider future years when they make moves, not just this year or next year. So I don't think it's fair to say that the Pressley trade was bad just because those prospects won't help us now. As fans we say all the time, "nobody should be off limits for the right price". Someone offered the right price, they felt it was worth the short term loss to gain the long term assets they did. Is it common to give an extension to a good, but not elite relief pitcher? I'd have to see some examples of that before I factor "they could have extended him" into the equation of short vs. long term asset management.

With only 40 roster spots, it's impossible to be certain about these types of fringe 40 man guys. Every team eventually has to lose one of their fringe guys before they know for sure what they are capable of.

It's literally the job of the FO to have a short, medium, and long term financial blueprint. Every signing they make has to consider those blueprints. It would be gross negligence for any FO to just wing it. That's the whole reason franchises in all sports have gone away from one guy running the whole operation. The method you suggest is how the manager/ head coach would assemble a team- win now, worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. The FO has to worry about today, and tomorrow, today.

That type of money is also the exception in the NFL. The average salary in MLB is nearly double the average salary in the NFL. NFL contracts are rarely guaranteed. And, the average career is shorter in the NFL. It's also much easier to get pension and lifetime health coverage in MLB. Combining all of that, I disagree about the floor. In fact, I don't think it's close. He could get a mostly non guaranteed first contract, suffer a career threatening injury like Teddy or Alex Smith, and never recover enough to play EITHER sport, and have to walk away with no pension and no health coverage. MLB has the higher floor, median, and ceiling, IMO, and it's not close.

It wouldn't necessarily be reflected league wide, as most teams accounted that money as capital and not revenue. I believe the Pohlad's told the FO that they would throw them a bone, and let them spend 50% of that money, even though it was technically capital and not revenue. I applaud them for doing that, however it doesn't disprove my argument. We have 10 years of payroll data since the kids took over for Carl. You point to one season of higher spending to make your argument. What about the other 9 years? Last year was the first time the FO ever considered that there might be benefits of spending more money? You don't know that is the reason payroll increased by $25 million. You are theorizing, just like I am.

These are your words: Our social and economic problems are caused by whites, full stop. Are you suggesting that your use of "our" meant your household, not our country?

See, your argument here involves nuance. This is a realistic debate to be had. I agree with much, though not all of what you say. That child may have had few choices, but it sounds like the people who should have been raising him were making poor choices along the way somewhere. A statement with no nuance though, like every single problem is the fault of whites. Nope. That's shockingly racist, and leaves no room for resolution, let alone discussion.

I can't read your mind. I can only respond to what you posted, which is that all of our social and financial problems are caused by the white race. You being white, or posting your background doesn't make that any less racist. Nor does suggesting that I just don't understand. It's not only racist towards whites, it's equally racist towards minorities. The soft bigotry of low expectations. If they make poor choices, it's not their fault, it's the white man's fault. Give me a break. White privilege is real, but you destroy any chance of facing it or overcoming it with statements like everything is the fault of white people.

I read somewhere that most teams were accounting the BamTec money as capital, not revenue (a sneaky good try by them, though I doubt that'll get past the players come CBA time), so it won't have affected listed revenues.

$115 is more realistic. It's only $6 million more than my estimated "cap". So, if that's what you're going with, I'm not sure what we are debating. I think confusion might have come from your posting of the league average payrolls along with your statement that they have plenty of money to spend. That led me (and I think at least one other poster) to believe you were theorizing that they'd continue to spend league average, as they did last year.

Words are often hollow. What has actual spending looked like in the 10 years since that quote? Maybe they were being deceptive, maybe they changed their mind, maybe they begged the FO to spend more money and the FO refused (bizarre and unlikely, but maybe), maybe Forbes revenue estimates are way off. I don't know the reason that the actual data is not consistent with their statement, I just know that it's not.

It's not any less substantiated than your theory that last year is the start of a new trend, and they are going to continue to spend that much on payroll. I just posted several years of data. Are you asking me to believe that Ryan had 25 million more available to spend every year, and chose not to utilize that? Even as poor records (that could presumably be improved by spending more money) threatened, and ultimately cost him his job? That makes no sense. The simplest, and most direct answer is usually the right one. The simplest answer that follows the data we have is this: The team has continually been capped, by ownership, and have spent what they were budgeted. Last year, the ownership threw them a one time bonus, half of the money from BamTec. Here are the facts that fit that theory: 1) Several years of historical data that I posted before, showing payroll being very consistently about 25 million below league average, only exception being last year. 2) The team has said that payroll is roughly 50% of revenue. Last year they received $50 million from BamTec. Half of that is $25 million. Are you suggesting it's purely a coincidence that payroll just happened to increase by exactly half of the BamTec payment? It's possible, but that is quite the coincidence. 3) Most of our increased spending last year were one year deals. Again, pure coincidence? Possible, but any good detective is skeptical of multiple coincidences being needed to fit an explanation. If we start the season in the $106-$109 million range, as I've said we will for a year, what will your response be? Will you acknowledge I might be right, or will you say they just chose not to spend the remaining $25 million? Just like a year ago, when I responded to an article you posted, by opining that it was nonsense for both you and the team to suggest that Ervin Santana would be ready by May 1st. You ripped me a new one saying the team wouldn't be dishonest. You then refused to answer later when I tried to revisit it. EDIT: This post originated while I was under the impression you were suggesting they'd spend to league average. Please see future post regarding that point along with this.

A second contract alone is hardly more money than he could ever make in baseball. Harper and Machado are both looking at 250 million dollar contracts.

Cruz, Parker, Schoop, that's at least 3 free agents the Twins have signed.

Yeah I don't understand the fascination with fringe MLB relief "prospects" on this board. Curtiss, Burdi, Chargois, Reed, I'll be quite surprised if anyone of these guys puts so much as a 1 WAR season up in their careers. These are all very flawed pitchers, all of whom will likely wash out of the league within 3 or 4 years.