Trov

I have to commend her for writing the "I can't afford to play this game" piece. She took a huge risk to do this. She is already a small set of women in baseball, and to write about how bad the minor leagues get exploited. She took a huge risk, and now it looks like she is getting huge rewards for it. She could have been blackballed by MLB for bringing to light about minor league players disrupting the MLB minor league system. She helped break the gender wall, and she took a risk that many before her never were willing to do. Good for her, and I hope great things for her in the future.

I would not say Odo is an "ace" because of his lack of dominance and lack of pitching deep into games. He can have good games and good stretches, but his approach to pitching and lack of dominate out pitch holds him back to be an "ace" in my opinion. He will not give into hitters but also lacks the "out" pitch that aces have. He is a good pitcher and glad to have him, but not sold on him leading a rotation. When I think of aces I think of guys that will dominate for 7 plus innings. Odo goes 5 innings most starts maybe 6 if you are lucky. I bet if we get electronic strike zone he may improve because he loves to nibble the corners and if he is not getting calls his strike to ball ratio goes up, even if he is actually hitting zone. I would be interested to see how often he was throwing strikes not called, and balls that were called strikes. I could be wrong but it seems like he had a lot not called that should have been.

Interesting read. You would never think of pitchers or teams talk about these things even about 5 years ago. I like that the team worked with him and hopefully the pitch will work well for him. Many teams years ago would say his slider is terrible just scrap it and go with the other pitches. Twins now are saying you have great spin, lets find a grip and arm slot that works for you. Makes sense to me to develop pitches that will help, instead of just saying lets stick with what ya got. This may be why Falve and company have managed in past to identify pitchers that others have not. Hope this continues for years to come.

I have been a big fan of Eddie for awhile now. He has always hit well at all levels. He is not the typical guy hitting, with his huge chase rate, but good contact on chases. He is a leader in the club house and loves to come through in big situations. You can point out to several times he stepped up in big situations, but you need to accept the bad with the good. For years, people have stated his defense is below average and his decision making on defense is questionable. He thinks he can make every throw, but sometimes he makes poor choices and runners advance. When hot, the man can carry any team and will be feared by all pitchers, because other than behind him, there is no where you can throw a pitch he may not hit a HR on. I once saw him hit a HR on a ball at his eyes. When cold, he will leave you shaking your head wondering what he was thinking. He is who he is and will never change at this point in his career, no matter how much you ask him too. That being said, the question the Twins need to answer is if they feel they have someone as good, or better, in the system. That includes the impact in the clubhouse, something that I feel goes underrated for both positive or negative impacts. I do not see any long term deal in his future at this point. If he has good season this year the Twins will be up for big choice, tender contract or not. My guess, they will not because he is replaceable on the field, and teams may be looking to save money next year because of unknowns of COVID and fans in seats.

It is interesting, this was talked about awhile ago before the summer camp started as a possibility. They cannot do this long term when rosters get down all the way to 26, but may be worth doing for a week or two. I would hope it is not set in stone though and will be adjusted based on game situation. For example, if the starter goes 5 solid innings, but pitch count is where it is time to go, but teams has a couple run lead. I would hope the regular bullpen would get the nod to secure the win. If however, the starter struggles and hits whatever pitch count at say 3 innings I could see a second starter coming in to hopefully get 3 to 5 innings and save the pen. Then as rosters reduce and the starters go longer the plan would be to do normal games. This could also be a plan of say 1-5 and back up 1-5 based on COVID or injury. Of course it would make sense to move guys up to matchup better, but if they are already set up with days of rest that may not be able to happen. Who knows, I cannot read Rocco's mind.

Mitch Garver against Tigers makes most sense. If Gardy and Anderson have same plan as they did when they were leading the Twins pitchers. They told pitchers not to nibble and make hitters put ball in play to get on. Well Mitch has approach to swing at pitches in middle of plate and not swing at borderline pitches. So the approach for Mitch lines up with Gardy plan. They will throw it right down middle to get ahead, or if they fall behind they will then throw down the middle to not walk someone. You may not be able to defend a walk, but you also cannot defend a ball 10 rows back in stands either.

This kid cannot catch a break. Catches a cleat in the turf. Not making some crazy catch in a scrimmage but a normal catch and hurts himself. I hate to call him injury prone, but pretty sure he has injured every body part at this point in his career. It is not that he has a nagging issue that just does not heal, but something new each time it seems like. This could not have been prevented from telling him to not go all out, from how it was described that he caught a cleat. I hope he comes back quickly for his own sake, not just the Twins.

I agree health will be huge, but so will depth. In normal season, you can live with a a star being out for two to four weeks, sure you may lose a few games because of it, but you have a long season to bounce back. This year, no time to bounce back, the playoff race starts now. Think about, by the time the season starts, we would normally be talking about who is in or out on the trade deadline and which teams are going to try to make a push. I believe that this year the deeper franchises will have the best edge. Also, the front offices and managers that will make the quick changes needed. If someone is in a slump you may need to act much quicker on benching them. In most seasons you can give a guy a month to start hitting, not this time, that is half the season. What will be most interesting is to see how surprise teams that get out to hot starts what they do come September. Do they make changes to improve team for playoffs, or ride it out and see what happens? Teams that expected to be good that struggle do they try to make bold moves? My guess is most teams are going to have a plan this year and not deviate from it much. Teams that expect to be a building year will do that, even if they get out to hot start. They will not change out the players that got them there and let them build. Teams that expect to compete will make quick changes to roster and lineups to avoid getting into deep hole if things go badly to start. Teams that expect to compete will pull starters much faster and treat so many games like must win games, because they pretty much are. In a normal season some games become just throw away games. You can tell you are going to lose so you throw out the bullpen guy that needs to work on something to get beat up. You rest the regulars for the next game. It will be hard for any team that wants to compete to just be willing to accept a loss this year. It will be a fun season to watch I think. I just will try to not get too invested.

First, I find some flaws in the article. Cron and Smoak play same position so no way could have signed both. Also, it would have been at expense of Donaldson, he is better than both at a better defensive position. Cron held his own, but was not amazing defense at first, in my opinion. Keuchel is far from his cy young season, other than that season he has never performed all that great. He was good after that season, but it was his age 27 peak season. He is now 32, coming off of 8-8 with a FIP of 4.72. Sox are not know to be great fielding team. Anderson led league in errors at SS.

Because he was a former federal judge and understood the law. He knew making a statement like that would lead to law suits, and possibly challenge the reserve clause they had back then, which later was successfully overturned. It is not about public perception, it was about the law and he knew the law. He wanted to keep baseball out of the courts as much as possible because he knew they would lose.

Until I read the article I spoke of at beginning of thread I did not know. I actually find it interesting that they never would say it was his award. Most other sports will say the name of the person they are honoring for the award.

Lets just hope they are not "Meth Gators" https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/us/police-warn-flushing-drugs-create-meth-gators-trnd/index.html

The question is what do you mean by "count." Do you mean that it is not the same equivalent of WS because the season was 60 games? Do you mean they will not get to reap the same rewards that a WS champ normally would? Is that rosters may not be full strength due to illness? It will count as far as record books go, and I doubt it will ever have a footnote. Fans may argue, but the winner will still have to make it through the playoffs as any other year. Sure, the path getting there may be a crap shoot, but once you are there it will be just like any other year. If someone tries to argue the rosters depleted, assuming they are, all teams will deal with same issue and no different from normal season and injuries happening. If anything, this playoff may show the true best organization thanks to depth. Now, if you are looking at it as an organization they may say it does not count. Yes, the team will get to raise the flag and let it fly forever that they won. However, this normally comes with boosted attendance. There is still a strong possibility that reduced fans will be required next year, hopefully not and we are back to "normal" but still possible. Organizations want to win championships, but above all else they want to make money. Championships normally help with that, but this time around it may not.

I do not know how many, if any, players spoke out at the time they won it. I bet if Barry Larkin spoke out 25 years ago about it he would not have received the same level of support he is now. Players to speak out when they are playing, in what they believe may be an oppressive league could have resulted in loss of job and black balling by owners. Maybe some did speak out, but fell on deaf ears or in the lack of social media days when you are at the mercy of the media to spread the word, things were different. I will agree that since it is the baseball writers that named the award and give it out, they should be ones that change it, still does not change the fact that is should be changed.

Although no overt statements that say, "I will not let a black player play," or something like that, it was stated for very long time that he had great influence over the owners and would behind the scenes help keep the owners to the unwritten rule of no blacks. There was never a rule on the books, it was the understanding by all owners that was the rule, and Landis would keep the owners in line with that rule. There are many stories that state Landis was behind much of the color barrier, but being a smart judge he knew not to come out and say it. There is a story of him blocking purchase of a team that had intentions to hire many black players. There is not coincidence that shortly after his death a black player was signed and then made the majors. So no smoking gun, he was too smart for that. He knew how to keep the oppression hidden from the public.

No one is advocating from removing his name from MLB, only to remove his name from the award. The point of having his name on the award was to honor him. I do not understand where you read the advocacy of removing any mention of him when talking about the history of baseball. You can talk and learn about history without honoring certain people in history for what they did. Talk about Landis and what he did, good and bad, but do not honor his name making black players have to see it every time they look at an award that they should be proud to have earned.

First, how is removing the name from an award getting rid of history? Second, how is removing statutes and monuments honoring people getting rid of history? Who has advocated for never talking about these people in text books, documentaries, or the many other ways to learn from history? I do not believe any person who advocates for removal of statues and monuments to honor people are advocating for never talking of them again. I learn all the time of Adolf Hitler and what he did in history, but I have yet to come across a statute of him honoring what he did. Following your logic I should have never been able to learn about him because statutes and monuments are the only way to learn history.

There is a difference between removing names and statutes to honor people, and removing them from being taught in history. I did not say burn the record books of the years black players were not allowed, and remove any mention of Landis. You can remove the name from the reward and not honor the man, but still inform people who he was and what he did both good and bad for baseball.

That was actually my point about listening to radio while watching game. You learn who is really good or not. I felt John Gordon was decent, but when I started to see how excited he would get over routine plays, and sometimes have no emotion for big plays it was crazy. The worst, is Pirates radio. They only have one broadcast team, and the radio just uses the TV broadcast. You will hear you can see the player do something, but no I am on the radio I cannot see anything, you need to tell me what you are seeing. The best of all time was Vin Scully. He would do both TV and Radio but was so smooth and wonderful. He would tell you every pitch, but not miss a beat in his story. So many times with our current crew for Twins on radio I will hear pitch 1, then they tell some story and now the count is full. Sure nothing too important happened, but still annoying.

First, I agree no name should be put on the award as an honoree award. I am not denying cleaning up the early days of baseball was a good thing. However, you can acknowledge that without putting his name on a trophy for playing, when he never even played. The fact the name is twice as large the person who played and earned it is crazy. The award was named after him the year he died, in 1944, still when baseball was segregated, so my guess they gave no thought to the negative it was and would become. How black players would feel about it was not even in the mind of the league as, thanks to Landis, they were not even in the picture. I do not know anything about Cy Young and his stance on black people, if he was an overt racist and let it be known, then yes I would be all for removing his name from the award. I would not support a Ty Cobb batting title, as he was well know for his views on black people. Although this is a baseball forum, if Lombardi was the level of racist you say, then yes, remove his name from the trophy. Just call it the super bowl trophy. Just because back when it was named the people doing did not fully understand how it would be perceived by people, does not mean when it is understood they should just leave it because.

Barry Larkin, former MVP, has been calling for removing the Kenesaw Mountain Landis name from MVP awards. Personally, until I read the article about this, I did not know the name was on there, actually larger than the person who won the award. For those who do not know, Landis was first commissioner of baseball, and a well known racist that helped keep baseball white. It was not until after his death that baseball was integrated. Yes, he is historical in baseball, for both good, cleaning up the gambling that was going on, and bad the segregation of it. However, his name does not need to be on, and especially larger than the person who won the award, trophy. It is a constant reminder of the dark days of baseball, or should I say the white days of baseball. The only point of having his name on the award is to honor him. To honor him is to honor what he stood for, racism. This is just another example of the roots racism has in our society. The best players in baseball have to be reminded of the days when black players could not play in the majors every time they look at what should be a great achievement. Sad that this is still going on. Glad it is coming to light, and I hope MLB makes the change.

You kind of pointed out what I was saying. Desmond vet missing out on 5.5 mil this year, but still will make 23 mil over next two years then will be 37(edit) there is team option for 15 mil on last season, with 2 mil buyout so only will get 10 more million if team does not pick up last year. Unlikely to get new deal after that. He can opt out this year, say I will play next year, if he gets cut still gets his cash. Zim, is vet making little to no money this year compared to what he made in past. Ross most likely has serious concerns over COVID. He will miss time, but still will be on this side of 30 before he is FA. He is taking bigger financial risk by sitting out than other two. Leake, is the most interesting for me. He is passing on 5.5 mil, unlikely to get another big deal in his career based on age and current economics. Therefore, I believe he most likely feesl strong about COVID as well, and feels he has made enough in his career. He may get a contract next year, and could even argue since he sat he is fresh. He has long enough career numbers to build off of for next season to fight for his money. However, if he played and played poorly, it would be used against him, but if he performed well it is unlikely he would be reward for it.

ESPN has been doing Korean baseball from their homes. Easy to do this day in age. Why send broadcasts guys on the road? They normally are just watching monitors anyways and not the game as it is played, like back in the day before TV. It is interesting, if you have never done it, to listen to radio broadcast while watching tv, to see how the radio guys tell you what is going on. To be clear, radio also uses monitors, but they have a different job to tell someone that cannot see what is happening. I remember listing to radio back in the day, John Gordan getting super excited about a deep fly ball that was way back way back, he would get you on the edge of your seat thinking this might be a HR, or a double off the wall, maybe an amazing catch. Then I would see the play on TV, only to see a fly ball caught just in front of the track with fielder camped under it.

Of the hitters, I would put Celestino as most likely, Kiriloff next, then Lewis. My thinking is Celestino being on 40 man makes him easy to bring in. When Buxton gets hurt, hopefully he can stay healty for 60 games, Celestino is most logical to replace him. Why, because you replace defense with defense. Rest of roster should carry offense, Buxton will hit 9th again most likely so even some drop in offense is not huge. Kiriloff because his bat is MLB ready I believe. He is best offensive ready player so can replace either corner spot or DH/1B situation if needed. Lewis because he is versatile and can play any position, except for catcher, so he will have many chances depending on injury and illness. Jeffers has a chance, but will need something to happen to catchers set ahead of him. Larnich bat may be ready, but based on need an ranking I think he will fall short, may just be based on years in system too.

Interesting the forum was about the players that had opt out clauses in their contracts at end of season, but now has transformed to players opting out of this season. So lets pivot. Ian Desmond also stated he would opt out. I think the players that will take this route will for two reasons. Either, they have a real worry of catching and spreading COVID, or ones that feel it will hurt them long term financially for only 37% of what they were expecting to make, with the risk of COVID as well. There may be additional reasons that I cannot think of. I doubt many young guys will opt out, unless they meet high risk category to get service time and pay. Giving up a year of service time is a huge deal these days, so unless he feels very strongly against playing during COVID issues i doubt anyone waiting on service clock will opt out. I doubt the very high paid superstars under long term deals will opt out, again unless they meet the high risk category. Even at 37% that is a lot of money to turn down. The players I could see the most likely are the old vets on not high pays, especially ones that have earned a lot in career. Also, the guys set for FA, assuming no need for service time, and they are not making high amounts. The risk of getting injury or having a poor season could cost him millions in future signing. However, what complicates issues is not knowing what long term deals may be reached this year. I doubt other than a very select few, like Mookie Betts, will get large long term deals. The middle of the road guys that would normally get 3 to 4 year deals will most likely only be offered 1 year deals at low values next year. I am no GM or insider, just my guess based on current trends.