IndianaTwin

Why.

One of the classics.

You’ve obviously not been to a Thanksgiving dinner when Mrs. IT made the pumpkin pie. (It’s actually made from squash, but it’s the recipe from Mama IT, and she called it “pumpkin.”)

You can be happy if you’ve a mind to it. (Sorry, I’m a bit late on the response. I got shut out while fishing in a watermelon patch.)

A major part of how they’ve kept him on the field was the offseason surgery cleaning up his knee.

Careful. Such kind comments about Vazquez could get you banned from these threads. 😄

Do you mean the one in 2016 or the one in 1982. Or are you including the Senators as well? But overall I agree, two of them in 60+ years is more than enough.

I think it's a matter of degrees. Should a GM refuse to trade an asset to Team A offers a deal that is 50 percent (as if you can measure that) better than Team B, because Team A is in the division? I'm with you and others -- that would be a dumb decision by the GM. But what if it was only 40 percent better? 30 percent? 10 percent? 1 percent? There may be a number where it makes sense to consider the division component. I don't know what that number is, but no GM is going to publish it. So I think it's plausible that the Sox asked for more from the Twins for Fedde than they asked from teams outside the division. But I haven't seen anyone reference the corollary, which is that it's also plausible that the Twins would offer less to the White Sox than they would to a team outside the division, for fear of having the prospect bite them more frequently in future years. And again, that's a matter of degrees, but given that the Twins would be offering young, controllable talent, it's frankly a bigger issue for the Twins than it is for the Sox. The Twins could get bit for six years (or 12 or more if it's multiple prospects), whereas the White Sox only have to worry about one more year on Fedde. In Falvey's case (and any GM, for that matter), he's going to name that the other team was asking too much because they were in the division, but he's not going to highlight that they would only offer less for the same reason.

I'll focus mainly on the last few years, but I think they've made a lot of moves "that could have helped the team when they had a chance to win." Carlos Correa, Pablo Lopez, Tyler Mahle, Sam Dyson, Sergio Romo, Byron Buxton extension, Jake Odorizzi, Kenta Maeda, Kenta Maeda again, Nelson Cruz, Nelson Cruz again, Donovan Salano, Joey Gallo, Michael A. Taylor, significantly expanded payrolls for a couple years, Kyle Farmer, tendering Kyle Farmer, Anthony DeSclafina, Carlos Santana. Not all have turned out well (see strikethrus) and some on TD have not liked their fairly deliberate approach that's led to a lot of transactions happening late in the offseason, but I generally haven't seen them staying put. They have the past two deadlines, but all in all, it seems like they are pretty active at making moves.

Agreed, also fair. Vanimal didn't explicitly say it this way, but I will. I'm bored of the Pohlad bashing that's still rehashing the offseason spending pattern. I join those looking forward to "getting back to talking about the current roster of Twins players."

Hear, hear, Vanimal. And can you imagine how brutal Twins Daily would have been had they NOT told people they were planning to reduce budget and then did it anyhow?

In order to avoid another groan-inducing dud of a deadline, they’ll either have to find the chutzpah to hand over serious prospect talent for a stud or two, or build such a damn solid team in the offseason that the trade deadline becomes moot. I agree with Bigfork, the real time to show that chutzpah is in the offseason, but with a slight variation. Indications are that we should plan for a payroll-neutral offseason. Even if there is an increase from this year, I think it's very unlikely that it's going to be anywhere close to the 2023 total. With raises projected to basically match the money that's coming off the books, that doesn't look to me like a Walker Jenkins for a stud-type situation. Rather, to me, that points to the greatest likelihood in picking up a stud being an Arraez-for-Pablo type trade, meeting a team on an MLB-level position need-for-position need swap. (Don't think of Pablo's current salary -- when this happened it was basically salary-neutral. If I'm reading b-r.com correctly, the Twins actually reduced salary at the time of the trade.) It would probably be unpopular, but if Lee/Lewis/Larnach/Miranda have convinced the team they can pull this off, think of trading an Arb2 (right?) Willi Castro for an Arb2 pitcher that can become Pablo-like.

Here's the thing, Gregens: This is the internet. We all know everything and announce it loudly. I hope my sarcasm is plenty obvious, but I appreciate your naming the reality that we don't have all the information. I think most of us need to collectively remind ourselves of that reality on a regular basis when we make declarative statements about what needs to we think should happen. A few weeks ago on a Game Thread, I made this comment on Rocco. I think the same general principles apply to front office decisions. --------------------------------------- In actuality, I'm not sure I have a strong opinion on Rocco either way. But my general thought process on him is: Rocco is smarter than me. He also has information that I don't have. Every move Rocco makes is intentional. He doesn't make decisions without a thought process (and to anticipate a comment, I think considering "hunches" and "feel" is part of his thought process, including considering whether or not to go with that hunch). Given Nos. 1 and 2, when there's a move that I wonder about (and Vazquez DHing is an example), I try to consider things from every angle I can imagine and try to figure out what that thought process might be. In response, sometimes I say, "Hmm. I hadn't thought that, but it makes sense." And I enjoy the process of considering something from a new angle. Sometimes I post my thoughts. Sometimes I say, "Okay, that's defensible, but I'm not convinced." Sometimes, but probably not as often, I post my thoughts. Sometimes I say, "Hmm. I still can't think of anything." If I post anything, it's probably in the form of a question. In the case of Nos. 5 and 6, I tend to revert to No. 1. That may or may not work for others, but it works for me.

I definitely agree with the first two points. A little less convinced by the third. A corollary on the third is that if a Kepler had played better, there would be even less reason to trade him in a win-now situation. Also important to remember when we make the "Team X got such-and-such, and all they had to give up was Player Y," comment is that by definition, the Twins had to offer something better than Player Y." It's like in the offseason when people worked up and say that the Twins could have offered the same money that convinced some player to sign with an opponent. No, the Twins would have had to offer more money to get the guy to sign. I wanted the Twins to trade for a starting pitcher. Given what we saw happen, I'm fine that they didn't.

Depending on how long the bologna has been around, it may not be your soul that you're feeling.

Better than 13-run games.

I gather that there are mixed reviews of Perkins on TV, but I've been enjoying him on radio. And that's not just because the alternative is Gladden -- Perkins is actually enjoyable (and insightful). He also has a command of the English language.

Bit of a geneology junkie here. My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Peter Joder Sr., was born in 1235. His son, Peter Jr., was born in 1260 in Jodershuebel, Berne, Switzerland. And so forth.

No. My first cousin's child is my first cousin, once removed. My son is a second cousin to my first cousin's child.

And according to Atteberry, Bader is the first cousin, once removed, of Scott Baio of Chachi fame.

Rain?

Reportedly did treadmill and other work with no complaints on Saturday, with plans for "hitting and throwing progressions and 'low-level' plyometric exercises" on Sunday.

Sorry -- wasn't clear. As in, Olson had started the original game. With his DFA, the Red Sox will need to bring a new catcher into the game.

Fun things with trades: In a few weeks, Danny Jansen could become the first guy to play for both teams in a single game. The Red Sox and Blue Jays had a game suspended in the second inning in May and are scheduled to complete it in August. The Red Sox DFAed Reese Olson after acquiring Jansen, so they will need to bring in a new catcher. It could have been even better. Jansen was at the plate with an 0-1 count when the game was suspended. Had it been 0-2 and the pinchhitter struck out, it would have been charged to Jansen, meaning he could have received both the offensive strikeout and the defensive putout on the same play.

3. Yes. But Woods Richardson is short of Encarnacion-Strand.