IndianaTwin

Being around .500 as a new manager may not be too bad if one considers that fired managers often have teams that were below .500. While it’s not controlling for a single variable, it would be interesting to know the number of games has fared better or worse than the previous manager.

If we can limit the bullpen to 15 pitches per game, it should be a pretty good season!

And let’s not forget that if Der Schlagger cracks 23 homers, he’ll become the career leader among those born in Germany.

So Pineda will have more time since the surgery than Lynn, Harvey, and Lackey, the three guys who threw 200+. That seems like a good sign. On the other hand, he will have less time than the three who threw less than 120. That seems like a bad sign. I prefer the good sign.

It will also be interesting going forward. Given the general skittishness of the market and the worry about the ability of a TJ survivor breaking down again, if he has a good year, I could see him having a tough time getting the long deal he probably will be seeking. Of course it only takes one team willing to take a chance. But at any rate, if he does indeed come back strong, I’d be inclined to reach out to him mid year about his willingness to extend a year.

Great article. I could look up the answer, but you probably already have the data. What month did each of these guys have their TJ surgery? One never hopes for an injury, but I’ve also wondered if the knee injury could be a blessing in disguise. He was able to rehab back to a point of near readiness and then forced to take a break, which allowed for what amounts to an extended offseason before resuming a normal preparation for this season.

Yeah, I was just using Rendon because he was the only infielder on the list of the top eight or so potential free agents. My point was more about the advantage of having half the season to know what your need REALLY is (and whether one person can make a difference), rather than having to make an educated guess.

Thanks -- either didn't know that or forgot it. Both of which happen frequently. But the point about not losing a pick with a rental still stands.

If they are that close to last year's payroll, I don't see him or Kimbrel happening. What I could still see is using $12 million to get a half-season of guys with $24 million in contracts if they are in the running in June/July. I understanding people saying, "Why not get a whole season's worth of a guy, rather than just a few months of a rental," but a real advantage of rentals is that it gives you the opportunity to see what the present need is. What if Pineda and Perez do pan out, but Sano doesn't come back and Marwin or Polanco blows out a knee and they are three games out on July 4? At that point, having budget to rent Anthony Rendon is probably more helpful than the extra starts of slight upgrade from Perez to Keuchel. Plus, with a rental, they actually PICK UP a draft pick with a QO next winter rather than losing one this year.

If all he does is get us a few days with unis as awesome as the one pictured, his contract will have been a success.

Harry Carey would have called him something like Merle Zelaznog.

“...Andrew Vasquez is also here to serve up sliders at a rate that would make White Castle jealous...” I suggested elsewhere that 2/36 with a mutual option for an additional 2/28 has a potential for 4/64 with an opportunity for either side to opt out. But aside from making that suggestion, my primary purpose in commenting is to say that amidst a bunch of good lines, your one on Vasquez is an early candidate for Post of the Year.

Out of curiousity, what was Oakland's projection a year ago? After winning 75 in 2017, their roster looks like the type that would have entered last season with "average" written all over it and they won 97.

Steve Rushin once wrote it as: Yu-ni-es-ki Bet-en-court, Luc-as Du-da.

And if it's not a sore spot for people, I'd even let him bat leadoff and play 2B if he so desires and if he puts up Yount-like numbers.

He can play wherever he wants if he ends up with 77.3 career WAR as a one-franchise (ours) player.

Yes -- 18.

Half a career at short. Half a career in center. If he wants to turn into Robin Yount, I'd be okay with that.

Interesting in that four of the six Twins “legends” (in my book) spent significant time at 1B. (I’m considering Killebrew, Carew, Hrbek, Mauer, Oliva, and Puckett as the legends, though if you want to count Blyleven and make me qualify it as “position player legends,” I’m okay with that.)

Good stuff here. Another advantage the Twins actually have is that they have a better minor league system to use to for mid-season improvements, either from potential call ups or from using them for a mid season trade for MadBum or whoever.

Agreed that it doesn't have to be either/or. I get that people think of going from 146 to 165-170 this year, but let's not forget that 146 comes on the heels of 125, 90, 0, and 12. I'd also be into a plan that target last year's inning total. Another side benefit is that he'd get the year with the major league pitching coach that hopefully is going to be his buddy for the next 10 or so years.

Could you start a "Reddit for Dummies" stream?

DH: It seems weird to have two different rules, but there's something unique (and quirky, in a good sense) about having to manage and play in different styles. If they maintain the current difference, I do wish they would flip-flop the pattern, however. Use AL rules in the NL park and vice versa. That would give NL fans the chance to see the Edgar Martinezes and Nelson Cruzes of the world and give AL fans the chance to see the supposed intricacies of the NL game. Pitch clock: From what I've heard at the minor league level, this seems to have worked with comparably little effort. It would be interesting to see the breakdowns of guys who have pitched in the minors since that rule started. Have they continued to pitch more quickly when they get to the majors, or do they revert to prior patterns? But I'm for this rule change. Mound visits: Having six didn't seem to mess with the game much. If the desire was to shorten things, the next logical step is to try five, it seems. Roster size: Currently, it seems like the dilemma in roster construction, at least for AL teams, is whether to go with 12 or 13 pitchers. With a change, my hunch is that in the short term, most teams would settle on a 13/13 balance. Who knows how the game will change over time, however. For September, I get the arguments. It's nice to give guys opportunity for September callups, but making big changes to the roster during the pennant race doesn't seem right, either. I have a friend who's a AAAA player, and it's clearly been a reward for him to get a couple September call-ups based on a job well done. Anti-tanking: Uh, there's always going to be a way to try beating the system, and I'm not sure what they can do. Three-batter minimum: One of the things I worry about with significant changes are the unintended consequences. The 10-day DL, for example, was designed to let teams put guys on the DL a little more easily with minor injuries, but it's turned into a tool for roster manipulation. On the surface, a three-batter minimum might make some sense, but who knows how it would play out in actuality. And unfortunately, there's not a good way to test it, since the minor leagues seem to rarely do one-batter outings.

On Kimbrel, how about 2/36 with a mutual option for 2/30. Pitches great for two years, he opts out and we're not on the hook. Pitches poorly for two years (or in the second year) and we opt out.Somewhere in between and it turns into 4/66, not too far from what he's asking now.

Yes -- I managed to start collecting in earnest with the 1975 cards, so those two-color frame outlines were a favorite of mine as well. I also liked the 1976 set with the little figure for each position down in the lower left.