The Great Hambino

This has cover but lose written all over it

Keep your head on a swivel for steamrollers

I don't see the field size ever changing - too many logistical issues with that kind of move (they're not paying for stadium remodels if they're not paying for grass fields), and that would be a much more foundational change that a typical rule change, and people don't like foundational change. More likely to me would be rule changes like adopting the college rule where offensive players can block downfield before the pass if it's caught behind the line of scrimmage. Give the offense a chance to attack more downhill. Or perhaps a return to more downhill, power-based run schemes as opposed to zone schemes configured within spread formations. Or more radically, an adoption of some A11-type principles that would use a defense's aggressiveness against them. Or in the opposite direction fun-wise, getting even more punitive on the defense in terms of who is deemed a defenseless player Who knows. It's fun to think about though. I just don't think they've exhausted all options scheme-wise and rule-wise where they'd have to resort to something as drastic as widening the field

I think it's more likely than not that Jeffers is retained at least through Opening Day. The move is just too low-wattage to truly be driving decisions in any direction. Just like attaching Dobnak's buyout to the Paddack trade (the only purpose of that was to pass the burden of his buyout off onto Detroit) wasn't proof that they're cutting costs as much as possible. They are not meaningfully worse off if they do ultimately decide to sell off anything of value in a true rebuild. If anything, it's a treading water move that doesn't preclude them from going in whatever direction ownership dictates with their budget. I also wonder if catcher might be a unique position in that it can aid in the development of others on the team (young pitchers in this case), which could potentially add value even if you're not caring about wins and losses. Most positions are kinda doing their own thing for the most part, but if they think Jackson is in a better position to do that then Rortvedt, Pareda, or anyone else available in the dumpster, then I can see that as plausible. I hadn't heard of Jackson before today so I have no idea if this is true, or if this is another miscalculation in player evaluation, but I think it could make some sense. I don't know if I'd feel the same way if they'd made the same kind of move for a 1B, for instance

If they trusted anyone else to be a backup CF for anything beyond an occasional fill-in, then I don't think he'd still be here. I don't think Martin is that guy, don't know about Roden. In theory, he eliminates the need to spend even a modest amount on a Michael A Taylor-type, which is not an area where they can afford to be burning resources given all their other needs. That's the best I can come up with, anyway. Hopefully Jenkins gives him the boot during the year at some point and becomes the primary backup in CF while starting in a corner

They're just presenting the status quo. If someone gets traded, they can easily replace him in the graphic with Keaschall or Jenkins or whomever else makes sense. Imagine the uproar if they'd left Ryan or Pablo off. It would be an unnecessary tipping of their hand, even if they do eventually get traded. Or put another way: it's much better to include them and replace them as they get traded than it would be to leave them off and then a trade doesn't materialize for whatever reason It also could very well be put together by MLB and not the Twins, and they're interested in presenting the best possible sales pitch for the game that they can. Shelton and the Saints doesn't sell from their perspective

I get what you're saying on the years of control piece, but I don't think it's all that relevant in this instance where neither player is going to be with the organization in three years anyway. So the real cost is in what you're paying Jackson beyond the league minimum. And if they think that it will be easier to evaluate and support their young pitchers with him as opposed to Rortvedt or Pareda or whomever else could be in his place - which arguably has value beyond wins and losses - then it's not much of a cost. I don't know if I fully agree with that, but I understand the logic. Without options, it's effectively a one year deal anyway. So to me, it doesn't really tip their hand as to the direction they're going. By that logic, attaching Dobnak to the Paddack trade was proof they're cutting salary to the bone because they chose take a lesser prospect to avoid paying his buyout. No reason to do that if you're not trying to cut costs everywhere you can. But both trades are too low-wattage to really dictate where they're going. What it tells me is they don't think Cardenas is ready to support a staff in a reserve role, don't think Pareda is a viable option at all beyond necessary organizational depth, and don't think Eeles is an asset of any kind. It's a low enough cost that they could cut bait with Jackson at any time if they think Cardenas becomes ready to fill that role. Related, I read that the Dodgers had come to terms with Rortvedt for $1.25MM before getting DFA'd. Does this mean that any team claiming him on waivers is is picking his contract up at that number? In other words, Rortvedt wouldn't have been available for the minimum unless he cleared waivers, which he didn't?

I'm following what you're saying, but I don't think the leap in athleticism is limited to the defensive side. I think defenses are trying to mirror the changes on offense, so in a way, Greenway-type linebackers getting replaced by safeties in big nickel or corners in regular nickel mirrors fullbacks becoming H-back type tight ends or slot receivers. There's a natural progression of athleticism that occurs over time across most sports, and football isn't any different. Take any era of football, and it's hard to envision most players fitting in 20 or 30 years later if you were to put them in a time machine. It's why Jim Brown is still my preferred answer to the greatest football player of all time - he still sized up well decades after his playing career was over because he was a mutant among his contemporaries. It'd be like if Patrick Ricard moved like Derrick Henry in today's terms. As to where guys like Greenway and Allen would play, it depends on how you're looking at it. If they were born later, would they have taken advantage of improved methods of training, nutrition, etc so that they'd be better versions of themselves? Or are they hopping in that proverbial time machine as they were? Regarding OL struggles, I think part of it is modern football strategy puts them on an island more often, and they're moving backward or laterally more often as opposed to driving off the ball. So even if they're bigger and more agile than they were before, it's not enough to stop a hard-charging Myles Garrett when you have to let him come to you out in space. Also, there was a period where the college game didn't prepare o linemen very well for the pro game, although I think that gap has been closing to a degree. Not exactly sure where I'm going with this, other than discussing the philosophy of football on a baseball forum sure beats the hell out of working

Based on the twitter handle he might be the hitting coach

Good call on McVay's pivot. Even if it's being done out of necessity, truly great coaches separate themselves by being able to adapt their systems to their personnel as well as to league trends. Part of the reason Belichick won for so long is that he allowed his offenses to evolve into whatever form was appropriate in the environment at the time. I think the rules are too tipped in the favor of passing for a team to have sustained success with a truly old school smashmouth attack, but being able to incorporate powerful elements within the modern game can really add value. One reason for the sustained success of the Eagles is having a QB that can moonlight as a fullback when necessary. Starting with what's effectively first and nine for every set of downs can really wear on a defense.

It's an interesting thought. My theory is that league philosophies are cyclical, and we're in a cycle where defenses are ahead of offenses unless you have an elite QB that can hero-ball their way through it. With the way offenses are constructed and defenses are matching up against them, I'd suggest that maybe it's harder for lower-end starters/higher-end backups to get by leaning on the run game and playing the field position game than it was in past generations. Defenses are way more exotic nowadays, and it seems like good defenses can defend the run well enough while staying in nickel. Fullbacks may be the new market inefficiency to exploit - at least I hope so. I don't want my kids to one day look at me confused when I tell them I played fullback the way I looked at my grandfather when he told me he played middle guard

Never heard of him, but he's been traded for guys I've heard of like Adam Duvall and Jose Trevino (and now Payton Eeles, I guess) Can't be mad at low-wattage, basically risk-free trade for a thin position. No options remaining and a non-minimum salary Best case scenario: he's the #2 catcher next season Worst case scenario: he's the #1 catcher next season

I suppose theoretically more IFAs get traded before they get to the big leagues than drafted players since, all else being equal, 16 year olds will spend more time in the minors than 18-21 year olds, and the longer you're in the minors, the better the chance you get traded before making your MLB debut. Maybe that at least partially accounts for the seemingly low # of homegrown IFAs on some teams?

I just don't understand why Manfred would willingly hand over their entire out-of-market package to a shrinking platform like ESPN

Manfred in the article, which is mostly about him hand-waving away the union getting pissed about MLB using a player agent as a mole to get info during the last CBA negotiations: "All I can tell you is that from the day I first set foot in Major League Baseball in 1986..." Also Manfred in the article: "There has never been a lost game since I became involved as an employee of baseball" He's nothing if not lawyerly. "I was an independent contractor, I'm technically correct!" I can't understand why the players don't trust him

Their failures in the international free agent market really don't get talked about enough. Emma Rodriguez is currently the only international free agent acquisition on the 40-man (not counting other teams' IFAs that they've acquired via trade). And per Fangraphs roster resource, there's no one else in that bucket even that close to knocking on the door. Their highest-ranked prospect other than Emma from their own IFA bucket is Jose Olivares at 16, and he just went unprotected in Rule 5. Next best is teenaged A-ball outfielder Eduardo Beltre at 20. Both are ranked lower by Pipeline. The Sano/Kepler/Polanco IFA class was a long time ago. Since then, who would even be considered their second-best acquisition from this path after Emma? For a team on their budget, they absolutely need to be better in this area. ETA: I forgot about Arraez. So there's one from the last 16 years. Still needs to be much better than that

I think it's too late in the process for Hunter to gain any real momentum for election. His time on the ballot is already half over and he hasn't gotten anywhere. Last year was actually his lowest vote total he's received thus far. The guys that have grown their way from low initial vote totals to eventual induction generally have shown yearly progress with their vote totals. I think the lack of frontline candidates just guarantees that he'll survive for another year. Beltran/Jones/Utley, on the other hand, have real shots at riding this effect to election - especially Beltran and Jones, who were within shouting distance of getting elected last year. Hunter will eventually be with a group of players (including Johan) that will be on some pretty strong Veterans/Eras/Old Timers/Whatevers Committe ballots created by the side effects of steroids era HOF voting trends. Back when Mauer was a HOF candidate, I actually thought this would be the year he got elected for the same reasons listed above. I thought he was a HOFer, but that his candidacy hinged on being viewed as a catcher from a national perspective as opposed to a C/1B. His numbers played a lot better as a C than as a 1B. I thought it would take some time for him to build enough support, and that the vacuum of slam dunk candidates this year would push him over the line. But I was pleasantly surprised by the initial support he got.

In addition, adding a player like Ward with only one year of control at that price point tells me the Orioles are still interested in competing, which means they are really on the lookout for quality, relatively cheap pitching. Can anyone think of a team in a position to potentially move some quality, relatively cheap pitching? I can think of one.

Funny how calling someone a piece of shizz is basically the same as calling someone shizz, but calling them a piece of azz is completely different from calling them azz How anyone ever learns English as an adult is completely beyond me

This feels like a move the Twins would make (taking on risky medicals to save money and bet on upside), minus the part where Arte Moreno eventually gives Rodriguez a nine-figure extension after six promising starts

It's not necessarily that they explicitly get a say in the payroll level - the Pohlads still have a controlling interest and ultimately can still unilaterally make the decisions. But the type of return the limited partners are entitled to could indirectly drive the decision to set payroll. Say they're set up as preferred equity stakeholders. Then they're entitled to a fixed % return on their investment, which the Pohlads would have to carve out of the budget before setting payroll. There are other similar technicalities that could affect payroll levels depending on how the agreement is structured. It's certainly possible that they just get their proportionate return of profits as a common equity stakeholder, or maybe they don't care about the short-term return at all and are in this for the asset appreciation down the line. But it doesn't seem likely to me that investors would just fork over $400MM to the Pohlads of all people without some sort of contractual guarantee that they'll get their return one way or another

I see two paths they could potentially go here if it's not Julien (cuz if it is Julien, what are we even doing here?): 1. Make a modest FA investment in a 1B to be the starter and make Clemens the backup 2. Make some low-wattage move like a minor league FA or a trade similar to the one just made for Orze to back up Clemens, ideally as a platoon partner Given the way they're operating and the amount of needs they need to cover with their limited resources, it would be pretty disappointing if they paid someone more than the minimum to back up Clemens A more unlikely move would be 3. convert an internal corner outfielder to first base to share time with Clemens, but this feels like something they already would've done by now if they were going to do it. Plus most of the potential candidates to make the switch - Wallner, Larnach, Mendez, Roden - bat lefthanded, which wouldn't platoon well with Clemens. Among non-corner outfielder internal options, Fedko an Sabato wouldn't be ready on opening day (and probably would've been added to the 40 man if they were in the running) and Gasper is ... yeah I have a feeling option 2 will be the way they go. But option 1 would be more fun

I don't see it as Falvey sending messages to ownership, more like sending messages to the public that it wasn't his desire to trade Lopez/Ryan if it eventually goes down. During the course of an up-and-down, largely disappointing tenure, he's managed to accumulate more power and responsibility. While seemingly everyone else around him got axed, he got promoted. If nothing else, Falvey has shown he knows how to maneuver his way around the C-suite. His messaging is intentional, even if not directed right at ownership

I'm going the other way: he can ONLY refer to himself by it from now on. He has to earn his Christian name back after going down the Russell "Mr Unlimited" Wilson cornball path. Giving yourself an alter ego is like giving yourself a tattoo: it's almost certainly a terrible idea, it takes a lot of time and pain to make it go away, and no one is going to let you forget that you did it even after you've gotten rid of it

Good point on Skubal. It's very possible that the starting pitcher trade market is on hold until teams know one way or the other if he's actually available. I know I'm not burning prospect capital on Ryan, Gore, etc if I think Skubal is a real possibility. That could buy the front office some time