Jham

No, but the right side may still shift with the entire infield playing back at double play depth. You can use Ken Griffey Jr or Bryce Harper if it helps. And since it's all hypothetical, we can also assume some of the infielders are giant penguins. It makes me smile to think about and it still drives home the idea that at some time, you reach a tipping point where the smart play is to bunt. To me, for most players in most situations, the tipping point is 2 or more penguins in the infield.* (not supported by data, very sss)

What if it's extra innings at Target Field with a runners on the corners 1 out? "Those idiots gave up a chance at more runs!"

The nice thing about stats is that it can simply very complex analysis. It's drawback is that it can simplify very complex analysis. The stats regarding shifting and bunting are all based on historical data that may or may not apply to the evolving game. "never bunt" (based on run production) evolved into sometimes bunt, even sacrifice, when it's late and close (based on win %)... Further analysis showed that very successful bunters or perhaps poor sluggers may make the bunt a good play. But the historical data doesn't take shifts into account. and counts bunting for hits the same way as sacrificing. And a lot of the data is pitchers I'd imagine. Anyway, there's a tipping point for every player where bunting becomes a good play which also happens to be situation dependent. Bottom line, nothing is absolute. People can argue all they want because they're both right.

I'm not sure if you actually believe what you're saying or just spouting talking points. I'm not the one claiming that inheriting wealth entitles one to not only a larger share of the pie, but also the knife that cuts it.

Carl Pohlad was beloved owner and business man who built a banking empire, won 2 world series, kept Puckett by making him the highest paid player in the sport. What exactly has Jim Pohlad done or accomplished to deserve to be one of 32 MLB owners in the world? Free market is driven by 2 simple principles: supply and demand. MLB isn't a free market because demand is somewhat fixed on the production side: 32 teams x 25 roster spots. Also, Lux tax pulling down large contracts and cost control over 3 with team control for 6. And supply is fixed on the consumption side: 30 teams in the league. Demand has sky rocketed because of the availability of content (tv and internet). Everyone is making money. Still 30 teams. Baseball is (pro sports are) actually a good example of why the free market has limitations. The market suggests that more teams should enter the market until profit is sufficiently depleted. But at that point, the product becomes watered down as talent is stretched over more teams. Eventually you'll have a cheaper less profitable product that people will stop watching. The owners even recognize the need for some level of competitive balance to ensure the viability of the resource for all interested parties. So they agree to share profits to keep the whole league strong. A redistribution of wealth for the common benefit of all. But it's only socialism if the players want a share, right? The owners don't have to share their books during negotiations. That should be your first ref flag.

Pretty sure this makes us a better team, just not sure how or why. He's an upgrade over somebody...

Pitch is in a different spot, but his first swing shows the bat leading the way. Classic keep the bat in the zone contact swing. The 2nd shows lower hands and better swing trajectory. He's trusting his wrists and eyes to make contact and throwing his hands at the ball creating a noticeably crisper snap and more power. Just as importantly, his teammates love him. His fans love him. He begs into games when heat waves was causing others to pull themselves out. That goes a LONG way in a 162 game season with inevitable losing skids.

My only trepidation is that to me, it seemed that his spot is maybe the most easily replaced (would Cave be a definite step down?) and more importantly one of the easiest spots to upgrade if your team tops out. This FO will not upgrade above contracts it already possesses.

I mean, you guys are both right. There's a different scale for Free Agents than extensions. There are opposite pressures. Bidding in the FA market and team control on the extension side. One pulls up, the other drags down. The cost per WAR on the FA market is skewed because less valuable players drop out the bottom. The guys with positive WAR who aren't signed don't get count as zeros. Players of Kepler's production level are virtually worthless at a certain age because almost every organization has guys with upside who can do what he has done for league min. Or you can sign a retread to a minor league deal or even an ML deal which boosts the number since they're counting the guys who sign and not the ones who don't. Kepler got his money because he's youngish with upside. If his same production were available but he was 31 when most players hit FA the market for him along with the perception of him would probably be platoon or 4th outfielder. League is changing. Skewing toward super stars and rookie deals.

I know. I'm just frustrated because I think many of us sense that this core is running out of time. If they fail, we're waiting on the next core with only the remnants of a failed core to build upon. We have no franchise player to build around. 2 players who are already who we were hoping Mauer would be are out there. We have little tied up in future salary. Adding a key stone player gives flexibility, a back up plan, and solidifies plan A all at the same time. With most of the big shooters struggling with cap issues and 2 superstars watering down each other's market, this opportunity just might not come around again. Even if it Josh Hamilton's out, We aren't otherwise over-committed and have a deep enough farm system to weather it if we are smart about it. Now is the time.

You don't "have" to do anything. You can expand payroll with a pretty darn good excuse: Harper's aren't available for just cash almost ever. Big dogs not hard in pursuit. Controlled core still cheap with another wave coming. Having Harper for 2 waves rather than 1 isn't bad. Imagine if we traded Buxton Rosie AND Kep for prospects. And we started Harper, Cave, and Garver. (for example) Conceivably we upgrade 3 different line up spots. (lose some on d). Then next year we add in AK and Rooker on Rookie deals. And remember, we probably got 5 ot 6 future big leaguers waiting from trading the current OF. Also, we don't have to do all these moves now. We can keep Buxton or Rosie or Kep for another year and You can try to do the math on cost. But which outfield do you like best out of those options?

Personally, I don't think Kepler's defense (metrics a product of sss) is sustainable even if his offense improves. Maybe I'm wrong, but i think a full season of Cf would expose him as an adequate to good corner outfielder. That's just my opinion.

Evidently we believe in this core afterall. Time to bring in Bryce Harper and put the boot on the AL Central's neck for not 1, not 2, not 3...

Not a fan of extending a player a positive test away from maybe never playing again. I always like polanco because he swims hard but doesn't have contact issues. But until I can see his slugging isn't PED related (took him 2 months to go yard after his recall) I wouldn't have offered. price was right though.

Not a fan of extending a player a positive test away from maybe never playing again. I always like polanco because he swims hard but doesn't have contact issues. But until I can see his slugging isn't PED related (took him 2 months to go yard after his recall) I wouldn't have offered. price was right though.

I'd personally have AK 1 at this point. He's got the pedigree to go with the gaudy numbers. His bat plays more than Lewis's I think. That said, his Babip was really pretty high last season. He probably needs a few more walks, to turn on a few more pitches, and to turn more of those doubles into HR in order to sustain his momentum. If his value is peaking and we see him as Kepler 2.0, well we've got a lot of tough decisions coming up.

Maybe I'm overly cautious. Or maybe I'm frustrated that we never trade any of our prospects for MLB talent. If more of our guys panned out, perhaps I'd be less cynical. But I've gone on the record that I have reservations on Lewis and Kirolff as well. They're both awesome prospects. Both will have MLB careers if not injured. Both have a shot at stardom. Seth calls AK the most advanced hitter he's ever seen at that stage. Still, it's he a top 12 outfielder in baseball? Is lewis a top 6 ss? That's how fis you have to be to get to all star level. Buxton and Sano didn't hit like MLB Trout and Cabrera in the minors, let alone MiLB versions. Lewis looks like an adequate to good MLB hitter, Kiroloff looks like a good to great MLB hitter which at their positions make them fringe all stars. Not necessarily corner stones. Maybe there's no such thing as "can't miss", but just for example, look at what Vlad Jr has done before 20: https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=guerre002vla and tell me Lewis or AK deserve to be in that category.

Why can't we ever have a Vlad or Tatis? Wander is an ok prospect but I haven't exactly understood the national hype. He signed for big money, so scouts were on him early. They give opinions for a living and aren't likely to change their minds for no reason so it makes sense that everyone is still on him. As I recall he got off to an incredible start then cooled significantly? I was also confused about the projections so early that he'd stay at ss. I haven't heard that he's vizquel or anything. And his frame, age, and bat suggest a possible bulk up power hitter corner type future if he wants it/ grows more. Our writers are all pretty high not only of his abilities and health but of a progression and break out. I'm going to have to see it first, personally.

Good pitchers are good pitchers. Failed starters frequently make good relievers. Failed relievers NEVER make goods starters. Start him in the pen. If he dominates and you need rotation help, stretch him out. He'll have more time to develop pitches ot of the pen anyway.

How does adding a "last piece" that would require an 8 year deal make any sense? Now is certainly the time to add a super star. If your window is opening, then why waste half of it waiting to peak? Fling those shudders open and worry about keeping it open down the line. This team's about to get expensive anyway. For years we looked to 2019. No Mauer. No Hughes. No Santana. No Nolasco. Sano, Buck, Rosie, Kep, JO, Polanco, Romero... Come on! Make a move at the deadline? You mean over pay for 2 months of a player? Get guys for a full year and play it out from day 1. Who wants to miss the playoffs by 2 games after taking away prospects when investing in February may have made up those games without losing the future? If you won't get Harper get Kimbrel. This is how we [perpetually rebuild].

awesome

I need to read more carefully? You didn't even address my post. Just said it was wrong. This is not your normal business where if your margins aren't high enough people lose their jobs and families and investors suffer. The mission of an MLB club in some fashion, is to win games. Bottom line just isn't the concern it is in other industries because they're part of a monopoly where every business is almost automatically profitable. As for market disparity, there are revenue sharing agreements and especially escalating luxury tax penalties that seem to be helping to curb that. Now we need a floor. One thing I agreed with Steinbrenner on was the unfairness of having to pay into a sharing system without requiring the Twins and Pirates to reinvest into the product. You can disagree and keep suggesting they operate like Delta or Best Buy, but there's no need for condescension. We're arguing about how one of the richest families in the world should spend its "going out" money.

I agree as well. They're in one of the world's great investments. incredibly profitable. Exclusive, almost monopoly exclusive. Popular, fun, and generating both income and growth. That said, what is their primary objective?

I agree as well. They're in one of the world's great investments. incredibly profitable. Exclusive, almost monopoly exclusive. Popular, fun, and generating both income and growth.

But it is just money. Savings aren't carried over. The team isn't in financial trouble. You talk about the team like it's a normal business which it isn't. It's closer to a non-profit. If you've ever served on a church or charity board you'd understand that the mission guides what you are doing. If you can't fiscally follow your mission, then your organization has no purpose and you dissolve. The Twins have ever stated that their mission is sustainable success, not necessarily championships. But it seems that their real mission is to make money. If that's the case, they aren't good for the sport and they should pick a new business.