IndianaTwin

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.

No, no, no, the other part. Reading TwinsDaily is part of the BEST things in American Life — so much so, in fact, that I was doing that instead of watching the Super Bowl.

Looking down through them, I have to say that they have been consistently sharp. The only feature that I haven't really cared for is that trim that goes around the neck and down the front in Nos. 12-14. But like you're a sucker for pinstripes, I'm big into the powder blues. (And that goes for a whole lotta teams, actually -- perhaps especially the Cardinals.)

Oh, and reading TwinsDaily, of course.

I predict that I will spend the evening watching the MLB Network. As George Will said, "Football combines two of the worst things in American life. It is violence punctuated by committee meetings."

Nice. I’m guessing a lot of remember our first “significant” card. It was a 1974 Rod Carew for me.

Really cool stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Talent levels aside, I think a reason people (including me) are reluctant to give big assets for a catcher is because the one we signed on a three-year contract got hurt early in his second year.

Now THAT'S a BB/K ratio I can get excited about.

Except for the part of having to put up with Cubs/Sox fans if they are playing in October.

After reading the thoughts people are saying about going after Machado on a short-term deal, I started thinking the same about Kimbrel, and then I read this on mlb.com. https://www.mlb.com/news/best-free-agent-fits-for-craig-kimbrel/c-302893196. 5. TwinsThe Twins are gearing up to challenge the Indians in the AL Central in 2019. They clearly think their young core is ready to make the leap, and they've added a lot of power to their offense by grabbing Nelson Cruz, C.J. Cron and Jonathan Schoop. But after those acquisitions, the back end of their bullpen still looks like it needs a boost. They did sign Blake Parker, they have some other options like Addison Reed and Trevor May, and Taylor Rogers might be the best reliever you've never heard of. But those guys just aren't in Kimbrel's class. On the other hand, as a bridge to Kimbrel… that could a strong group. Minnesota might have to wait out the market, but the idea of adding an elite closer should be a tantalizing one, especially since the Twins' bullpen was a big question mark even during their surprise run to the playoffs two years ago.Given that with the way the market has gone, it seems clear that he's not going to get the 70/4 that MLBTR predicted. How much would it take to get him on a 1-year deal? If no contention, he'd certainly net a haul as well.

I like Norris, and you convinced me on Vincent. I'd also still take Greg Holland as well. His St. Louis stint killed my fantasy team last year, but he had no spring training. He was studly in Washington and has a track record. Most importantly -- great summary and discussion starter. But, Jamie, only 54 posts in four years? You need to do more than one per month!

I was high on Spooneybarger when he came up. Wouldn't it have been awesome if he was five years younger or Saltalamacchia was five years older?

We got six inches of snow so far. You? And can you believe those idiots on (name your channel of choice)?

I was going to ask if this thread should be retitled "...Part 1a (17-21)".

Thanks for the link to this interesting sto... Z-z-z-z-z.

(Quoting yours among several commenting on a 12-man staff...) Five days off in the first 15 days of the season. They don't have to use a 5th starter until the 15th game of the season. It sure would be nice if they would at least START the season with a 12-man staff. They managed to wait to game 16 to start Hughes last year, though that included snow and Puerto Rico. But that at least suggests they are willing to hold off on needing No. 5. I don't recall whether that meant carrying a four-man bench during that time.

Dear Santa Falvine: Do you read the New York Post? George A. King III reports that David Robertson is looking for a three-year contract. According to King, so far most interested teams have only been willing to offer a two-year pact. The 33-year-old hurler compiled a 3.23 ERA and 91/26 K/BB ratio across 69 2/3 innings with the Yankees during the 2018 campaign. The Red Sox and Phillies are known to have interest in his services. Source: New York Post Santa, I have been very, very good. Please be the team willing to go three years and give me a shiny reliever wrapped up with a spiffy bow. I promise I will be very good next year too and not send you any more of those Nigerian prince emails queued up in my Out box. -IT

Sign them both to 3-year deals if you think they can pitch well for that time (and I think they can). If they pitch well and the team stinks in either 2019 or 2020, it seems that makes them even MORE valuable as trade assets with 2.5 or 1.5 years of control. If they pitch well and some of the young guys pitch well enough so we can get along without them, same thing. And if they don’t pitch well, well, trade them to the Padres!

Rotation SP 1: Berrios SP 2: Pineda*** SP 3: Odorizzi for 5 IP, followed by Romero* SP 4: Gibson (He and Berrios are separated primarily to spread out the likelihood of a long start that preserves the bullpen. SP 5: Clay Buchholz/Mejia** *I don't think you enter the season assuming that Romero can give you an entire season as a starter, but neither do I assume that Mejia or Pineda do that either. In any case, if they can get through the rotation 10 or so times with Romero throwing 3-4 innings every five games, he can quickly be stretched back out to be a starter and moved into the rotation as needed. **As mentioned in another thread, I go after Clay Buchholz on an incentive-driven contract and use the Romero approach on Mejia. ***If Pineda gets hurt, slide Mejia into that spot and let Buchholz pitch as a "regular" starter. Bullpen RP 1: David Robertson (go 3/36 or more if it takes that) (Magill's probably my first cut) RP 2: Joakim Soria (go 2/24 if it takes that) (Slegers is probably next. Or maybe Duffey) RP 3: Addison Reed (see what I did there? Robertson, Soria, and Reed are laddered like a bunch of CDs. Hopefully they are worth more.) RP 4: Trevor May RP 5: Taylor Rogers RP 6: Andrew Vazquez RP 7: Whoever wins it in spring training, but Gabriel Moya is my first bet. My three signings require three DFAs, so people smarter than me can pick three from among the guys highlighted, probably two pitchers and a hitter. Am I going with 14 pitchers? No, but there's no way that 14 pitchers get through ST with no one going on the DL. And if they do, well, I guess Romero goes down to Rochester for a few (short) starts after all. And maybe Moya too, since there are five off-days in the first 15 days and there are three stacked pairs. By that time, someone is almost guaranteed to be hurt. Rochester rotation 1: Gonsalves 2: Stewart 3: Thorpe 4: Littell 5: Magill or Slegers if they survive the DFA. The assumption is that Gonsalves, Stewart and Thorpe will fight for the first "real" rotation opening after the seven guys named above. If it's a one-start deal, it could be one of the other three, unless one of them pitches himself in front of the other three. Rochester bullpen Everybody else, riding the shuttle and filling in DL spots as they deserve it.

I've said elsewhere that one of the things I've been impressed with in the new regime is that they don't box themselves into a corner with moves and seem to be prepared to cut bait pretty quickly if things don't seem to be working out. Occasionally they get burned by cutting bait too quickly (Anibal Sanchez would have been nice last year), but not usually. When Buchholz has been good, he has been really good. Like top-half of the rotation good at times. When he has been bad, he has been really bad. Like bottom-half of the AA rotation at times, though often that's been hand-in-hand with injuries. So I offer him a very modest salary that is very heavy on incentives for 100 and every multiple of 25 innings beyond that. DocBauer beat me in also wondering about enticing him to move to the bullpen, where similar incentive-driven formulas could be developed.