IndianaTwin

After writing the previous, I'll add that I concur. I'd keep it simpler and have him only play 3B and CF in the minors, unless they put him at SS from time to time to stay sharp.

It's fun to speculate on the different scenarios, but the reality is they all change as injuries happen, etc. Urshela hasn't actually played 1B this year. Only three games in the majors, two in 2017 and one in 2019. But the reality is that with Miranda's struggles, 1B is the position that has by far the least flexibility right now in terms of demonstrated ML games. Best I can tell, Arraez is the team leader (11) in career games played at 1B in the majors, followed by Miranda's 8, with a .348 OPS. No one has played significant games in the minors either, unless you count Miranda. So, my .02 worth. They play today and tomorrow, followed by an off day and then a stretch of 18 games in 17 days. That will require particular flexibility on the pitching side, so they may be hard-pressed to keep just 13 pitchers. Right now, there are 12 hitters active. Rocco was quoted as saying Correa won't be back today, but "I think we could see him out there this series." Gee, that leaves Wednesday. Miranda is the obvious send-down in performance, but that leaves only Arraez at 1B, with others as the emergency backup. If you don't like that, you have to keep Miranda, so your options are to send down Lewis or Garlick. Doing the latter means that you only have Buxton, Kepler, Gordon and Celestino in the OF, and you're committed to giving Buxton days off. Or you could send down a pitcher and play a few days with 13 pitchers. But in the upcoming stretch, even in full health, my hunch is that Correa would have gotten at least two days off in the 18 games in 17 day stretch. Coming back from injury, perhaps more. If activated, he'll play Thursday, but perhaps two out of three over the weekend, in which case you want Lewis around. Oh, and how close is Larnach? In my mind, a lot of it comes down to 1B and the comfort level of having only Arraez and an emergency back-up 1B there. I personally take my chances and send Miranda down. In the four days after today, I plan on four days of Arraez at 1B, three days of Correa and one of Lewis at SS. Lewis gets that day at SS, two as DH and a day off. By that time, another IL move will happen -- it just does. If so, Miranda's likely back up, even with the hitting struggles. In the meantime, Urshela's getting ground balls at 1B. I don't see them using Lewis there. Long-term, there's no chance he spends significant time at 1B, so if you're going to get him in the lineup at another defensive spot, make it be one he could conceivably play with regularity if Correa stays around another year. To me, that's only 3B. We mention LF, but we've got other options there and it's next on the defensive scale of easyness, so you don't waste his talent there. Lewis's only real experience is at 3b was in Arizona, but by all accounts, that went well. If he's even close to Urshela defensively and you have to play someone out of position as the backup at 1B, make it be the rental. Oh, and hope Miranda or Kirilloff regroups enough to be able to play 1B. But assuming no one gets hurt today, we'll know soon and then can resume bashing Rocco on how he handles the pitching staff. (Sarcasm alert on the prior phrase.)

Oh, I completely agree -- I just look for any excuse to pull out that clip. Watching it again, I realized that while I thought the "It's real hard" line was the best one, the "Maybe I can teach one of (the fans)" is also pretty awesome.

Don't tell that to Ron Washington.

I'm going to create about 17 different profiles, so I can keep clicking "like."

Being newly introduced to Betteridge a week or so ago, "No."

But you gotta admit, he sure spiced up the offense.

Very accurate on the distrust in institutions as a part of this conversation!

And the thing is, I didn't particularly for Stone in the previous incarnation, but since he's been paired with Benetti, I've started to like him a lot. And the difference is Benetti, who sets up Stone to do what he does best. They have a great camaraderie that suggests they really enjoy being together, and it shows. As opposed to the previous setting, where it appeared Stone didn't enjoy his partner any more than most of us did. And now to do what I said I didn't want to do and name favorites elsewhere I'll also say that, in my opinion, you've got the runners-up nearby, Chief. I don't know how they're perceived locally, but on the few times I get to hear them, I enjoy Steve Berthiaume and Bob Brenley on D'backs games.

Between being too cheap to purchase a package (compounded by the reality that I’m in a horrible black-out area — wouldn’t be able to get White Sox, Detroit and several other games), I see very little of Bremer. But you’ve captured one of the vastly under-rated aspects of good PBP people. I don’t want to turn this into a “what we like/don’t like about other announcers” thread, but if you haven’t had opportunity to watch Jason Benetti of the AL Central team several hundred miles to the southeast but that shall remain nameless, know that he is particularly outstanding in that regard. It pains me to compliment anything about this particular franchise, but Benetti is really, really good, probably the announcer I most enjoy listening to these days. After the pain of the previous regime on that network (who shall also remain nameless), it is actually a joy to watch games Benetti and Steve Stone do (and I’ll do it this weekend). They have a camaraderie I have rarely seen elsewhere.

I appreciate what you’re saying — a “formational” approach to faith very similar to what others have named/implied.

Very valid critique of the church, Sconnie, and a perspective that I don’t think is limited to being held by youth. (Unless I get to count myself, a 56-year-old, as a “youth.”?)

You can join Dantal and me as well, Nate! (As can anyone else. ?)

I’ve held off in responding, in part because I was one who posted the original article. My sense is that we’re very much coming at this from the same perspective. Part of the challenge when I see articles like this is that we all have different understandings of what it means to “be relevant” and to “change.” If by “relevant,” we’re talking about the ability to walk alongside people (and society) in their deepest pain, you’re right — being “relevant” doesn’t “change.” At its core, loving God and loving neighbor don’t change. Yet “relevant” does “change” in other ways. Some of that is the recognition that our deepest pains (as individuals and in our society) do change, In some aspects of the faith, we can also gain different understandings of scripture over time. In my tradition, for example, there is a different understanding of the place of women in leadership compared to decades ago. When I was a child, the inability of women to use their gifts in certain areas of ministry brought pain, for example, both to them and to those who appreciated their gifts. Amidst a broader society that was reshaping gender roles, that’s a “change” that brough “relevance” to some. I recognize as well that not all strands of the faith are at the same point on this particular topic, but there are other examples I could name from my tradition, ranging from some that feel quite significant to other examples that feel pretty insignificant now, but at one point in time, were quite significant to those involved in the conversations. Perhaps there are examples of those in your tradition as well. But you’ve captured the challenge in identifying the tendency to define “relevant” as the need to “adapt to what our members want.” In a denominational magazine a few years ago, a pastor wrote to the effect of “Find a church that you don’t like, and stay.” His premise was that our tendency to go “church shopping” for the church with the hippest this and coolest that turns us into “consumers” of church rather than being committed to our local worshipping community. Another friend compared “church shopping” to that of a buffet, reminding me that in the line at Pizza Ranch/Ponderosa/China Buffet, our tendency is to take more of the stuff we don’t need and less of the stuff that we do need. I’m not suggesting that it should be our goal to take part in the church that makes us the most miserable. And you’re exactly right in that it’s our task as a church to talk about the “why” in why we do what we do, shaping people in faith along the way, whether that shaping is in how we worship on Sunday (or other day) or how we live out our faith seven days a week. Unfortunately, in the world of the sound bite and bumper sticker, we often feel we don’t have the time for that shaping, and we compare ourselves to the church down the street with flasheier programming and watch it get bigger and bigger while ours gets smaller and smaller. And yet, there’s an element of truth in that we as a church probably do need to “change” in some ways to become more “relevant.” I confess that I cringe when the church in town has a drawing for a motorcycle on Father’s Day to try attracting men. I don’t think I could do that as a pastor. But I also have to confess that this church is indeed ministering to the men who end up coming as a result. From the field I work with (financial stewardship), I lament no longer passing the offering plate. I miss feeling the tangible act of worship in putting my offering in the basket each week. I worry about how we will model generosity to our children, recognizing that I learned to give by watching the weekly model of my parents. But I also know that my congregation received 47 percent of its giving electronically last year, plus more that came in through Qualified Charitable Distributions or Donor Advised Fund gifts. How we “do” the offering needed to change to become relevant to people’s giving patterns. I gotta stop now. I think it’s wrestling with some of these questions has also contributed to the tiredness many of us in ministry are feeling. (I’ve also named in other settings that brevity is not one of my spiritual gifts, so I need to stop for that reason as well!) I think it would be great enjoyable to pick up this conversation as we watch a game together sometime, Dantal!

You're underestimating me. I'm pretty sure I've shared way more than one truly terrible opinion. ?

Don't know if the number of pastor posters is disproportionate to the number of pastors in the general population. If it is, perhaps it's because being a Twins fan sometimes often requires being willing to spend a significant amount of time in prayer! ?

I found it a thought-provoking article on a number of levels. For context, as I mentioned, I'm an ordained minister. I no longer serve in congregational ministry, but serve as a denominational consultant in one particular area of ministry, where I relate to several hundred congregations, primarily through their pastors. The article barely mentions COVID, but my sense from conversations with these pastors is that many of them are struggling. Already facing the challenge of how to be "relevant" in a highly polarized world, in the last couple of years pastors have needed to face that challenge in a new context that they felt woefully ill-prepared to navigate. The cultural/political/social polarity they were working amidst was compounded by strong polarities on if, how, and when to worship in a gathered fashion amidst COVID, when worshipping in a gathered fashion is seen as a central premise of the faith they are seeking to promote. I spoke with a congregational leader this week who spoke articulately about how the nature of worship in his denominational tradition, which places a particularly high value on "community," is dramatically different when worshiping via Zoom compared to worshiping in a gathered space. Additionally, while the church has always sought to be "relevant" to the issues of the day, whether in the time of the early church, the Reformation, or any significant movement, the reality is that the church's central narrative is a story that's 2000 years old and its central writings are more than 1900 years old. (Note: I'm referencing the tradition Johnson is a part of, which is also the one I'm part of -- I can't speak to other faith traditions.) Added to that, my experience with pastors is that we are often a group that values tradition -- we're committed to that centuries-old story told through centuries-old writings, after all. Unfortunately, those of us who value tradition in this way (and I count myself among them) often don't have the "agility" Sconnie references among our primary skill sets as leaders. And, we're leading in an institution (the church) not known for its agility. A greater ability to be agile is probably a primary reason that the churches which ARE growing tend to be non-denominational churches.

I'm an ordained minister and this is Good Friday, but this is intended as a sociological post, not a theological one. Tom Johnson was a favorite relief pitcher for me as a kid, though he had a pretty meteoric rise and a similarly quick fall, perhaps at least in part to Gene Mauch using him for 146.2 innings in relief in 1977. He was also the winning pitcher in the most exciting game I've ever been to, the "Rod Carew game" on June 26, 1977, when he threw 6.2 innings in relief (really!) in a 19-12 Twins win. I didn't realize that Johnson had entered the ministry following retirement, but he has a really interesting perspective on the challenges facing both baseball and organized religion in today's culture. https://julieroys.com/if-you-build-it-they-will-come-no-longer-works-baseball-organized-religion/

So what you’re saying is that we might want to wait unto see if there is more information and even take into account that if there was a minor injury, today’s day off actually created nearly 72 hours of recovery? Or recognize that even if there IS more to the story, we may not be privy to that info? But, but this is the internet. We can’t do that. We have to jump in and proclaim ourselves smarter than people who do this stuff full time.

Following the recent death of C.W. McCall, it’s nice to get a big 10-4 with the win.

1. I'm guessing that there are very few union reps who haven't already reached arbitration eligibility. Not because that's a requirement, but just because it would be the rare player who's seen as that kind of a leader only a couple years into a career. If I was in a union, I'd certainly be voting for my reps to be those who have been around the block a time or two. 2. I don't know union law, but I'd think that if there was any hint of a team taking revenge on a player rep, the team would be in deep doo-doo. And if not from a legal standpoint, the team would surely suffer significant blowback in future negotiations with players. 3. By contrast, if you put any stock in the intangibles, I'd think that a team would like to have players on their team that are highly respected by their peers. If they're leaders on the couple weeks every few years when they're dealing with contract issues, they're likely leaders in the clubhouse on other days as well.

My understanding is that the PTBNL has to close within 6 months. It’s often sooner than that. In a case like this, it’s common that the two teams have agreed on a pool of several players and the Twins will have a bit of time to do their remaining due diligence to determine which one they want.

This looks like a great addition to Target Field. My wife is a retired special education teacher and current board member of an advocacy group supporting those with disabilities in churches (shameless plug: anabaptistdisabilitiesnetwork.org). For those who are neuroatypical, the many stimuli at a game that help make it enjoyable for many of make it a challenging to be. I’m especially excited to see this space be in a prominent location, rather than tucked away in a corner. I am hoping to go to the game next Wednesday and I will plan to stop by afterwards to see if they’ll let me take a peek. It’s easy to get cynical at big organizations, but one truly does get a sense that the Twins are good corporate citizens.

The reclamation project I hope they'll still take a chance on is Sidd Finch.

Don't go there, or the David Arias commenters will come out of the woodwork.