Cap'n Piranha

I pretty much agree with this--as I stated, I doubt Rooker will be as good as Cruz in 2021. I very much doubt that Rooker will have anywhere near the career Cruz has; I would be beyond shocked to be talking about Brent Rooker, Borderline Hall of Famer in 2035. That said, I tend to agree with the philosophy behind your Giambi reference. While Cruz would probably be somewhere around .290/.370/.550 in 2021, and Rooker more like .250/.310/.475, I wonder if the $14M you save by not having Cruz, in addition to the ability to give other players "half-days" by playing them at DH are more valuable than the 100 or so points of OPS you give up with Rooker. Particularly when taking into consideration that Rooker has very little downside, while Cruz has massive downside. To be perfectly honest, I think my ideal scenario is to sign Brantley, and go Arraez Brantley 1-2 in the lineup. You can give each of your outfielders one day completely off every week, and one day at DH every other week, thereby keeping all of them fresh through the season. Your OBP at the top of the lineup becomes great, especially if you put Donaldson third, and you can then tap into power with Sano, Kepler, and Rooker in the 4-6 spots. That puts Buxton, Polanco (or a new SS), and Garver/Jeffers at the bottom of your lineup--that's a pretty dang good bottom three, particularly if Garver is closer to his 2019 form.

In his age 24 season (2019), Rooker OPS'd .933 at AAA. In his age 24 season (2004), Cruz OPS'd .989 in A+, and .919 at AA. Based on this, Rooker would appear to be more advanced than Cruz at a similar point in their careers--why would we be so quick to assume Rooker can't possibly come close to Cruz' production? This is not to say I think he well--I am reasonably certain Nelson Cruz will put up better numbers in 2021 than Rooker. Will those numbers be far enough better to offset the extra millions Cruz will earn, and the decreased flexibility the Twins will have to endure?

I would be ok with keeping Cruz next year, or even the year after (depending on what happens this year--I'd be very surprised if Cruz gets a two year contract where the second year isn't a vesting year based on performance, or a straight up team option). That being said, I'm also good with not bringing him back--for a few reasons; There are some worrisome numbers in Cruz' profile. In his amazing 2019 season, Cruz had a hard hit rate of 52.5%--that's 10 percentage points higher than any other season in his career (other than his 2005 debut season, where he only played 8 games). In 2020, his pull rate dropped to it's lowest since 2007, and his swinging strike rate was the highest since 2009. His contact rate was also his lowest since 2009, his zone contact rate was his lowest since 2015, and his HR/FB rate was his highest ever (again by 10 percentage points).Everyone comes back to Earth eventually. Some people slowly decline, and therefore have soft landings. Others don't decline, and therefore drop like a rock. With someone who's declining, you can mitigate it by sitting them against tough same-sided pitching, or giving them more days completely off, or extra time at DH. Nelson, unfortunately is in the second category--when he falls off, it will be sharp and sudden, mostly because he hasn't declined in his late 30's like most players.Keeping Cruz at DH limits the Twins ability to be flexible. Without Cruz taking 90 to 90 percent of the DH PA's, you can give your players more rest, particularly your injury prone ones like Buxton, Donaldson, and Arraez while still keeping their bats in the lineup.

You are accurate in that no one is forcing Cleveland to change their name. I question whether you are accurate in stating public opinion has shifted to disliking the Indians moniker--as I pointed out in my very first post in this thread, there is nowhere close to a consensus amongst actual Indians about the nickname, and opposition to the nickname doesn't even appear to be a plurality. I say again, if not even a plurality of a group in question finds a nickname offensive, why would any other group? I would argue that telling a group they should be offended by a nickname when they're not is itself a form of racism; it's stating to that group they are uninformed and ignorant of how they should feel, and need other people to tell them what to do. I also disagree with your views on majority rule--there are certainly times when the minority should be followed, but those times need to be very carefully selected, else you risk making the majority feel disenfranchised. A disenfranchised majority is at best divisive, and at worst violently and reactionarily repressive. I would also ask you to name any government in history that operated under any form of strict minority rule that didn't encounter any messes. Making mistakes is endemic in humanity, and it is the height of both naivete and arrogance to assume our current generation is somehow immune to that. Human progress is not measured by whether or not mistakes were/are made, but by how quickly and completely those mistakes are/were identified and corrected. My final point here would be to say that I actually don't care if the Indians change their nickname, and I don't care if they do so because the owners have come to believe Indian is a racist term. It is their property, and they have the right to dispose of it as they wish within the constraints of the law. I simply believe, as a large swath of the Indian population does, that Indian is not a racist term, and treating it as such is foolish and counterproductive, in the sense that productive people/societies generally don't spend their time addressing problems that aren't actually problems. If we really wanted to do something positive for Indian communities, how about trying to fix the fact that the median income is $23k a year, and 1 in 3 live in poverty? Precisely how does the Cleveland baseball team changing it's name fix any part of that? The answer of course, is that it doesn't. And it's why this issue is so dangerous. It allows our society to believe we're making progress, and are getting better, without having to actually face difficult realities. This is quite separate from the forere/aremer nickname of the Washington Football Team, which is and was quite clearly a slur, regardless of whatever positive intentions may have existed in naming the team. But it seems to me that wanting to honor the inhabitants of this continent at the time modern European immigration began for their bravery, resourcefulness, and knowledge (all desirable traits in athletes) is a good thing, so long as it is done in a respectful way. Naming your team with a term many if not most Indians use to define themselves seems to fit that definition.

I posted the specifics in another thread, but what Arraez has done in essentially the equivalent of one year is remarkable. He is probably the best contact hitter in the league, and his numbers compare quite favorably to both Molitor and Gwynn at the same age (Molitor's numbers, specifically power, are better. Gwynn's are worse). I feel quite certain that so long as his knees don't betray him, Luis will retire in 12-15 years with a HOF-worthy career. Whether he gets in or not will likely depend on if he hits (pun intended) the 3,000 hit milestone.

There is. The point is that allowing 10% of the population to make a decision for the other 90% is bad. It's oligarchy at best, and leads to repression and division. There is absolutely no positive unique to alcohol, and just because some people like it doesn't mean it must always be allowed. Plenty of people liked slavery in the antebellum South, and had extremely strong feelings about that--that doesn't mean slavery should have been allowed to endure. This is supposed to be about Cleveland, so here's the throughline of all my posts--the elimination of the Indians nickname is in no way racial progress since Indian is not a racial term (at least not any more than Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, or African is). Claiming that the elimination of the nickname is good because it offended a small percentage of the population is a dangerous precedent, as it degrades the very foundation of democratic republicanism, wherein the majority sets the course. Stating that you don't perceive any harm to the large majority, therefore the minority should have its way is also problematic, because harm is a relative term, and can easily be warped, as I did quite clearly with the example of alcohol (that is, there is no objective good to consuming alcohol, other than as an exercise of freedom. Much like there is no objective good to the nickname Indians, other than an exercise of freedom).

Problematic. That's really the key word here. Who decides what is problematic, and what is the minimum threshold number of people required to declare something societally problematic? I could say that an individual has spent hundreds of dollars on merchandise that is now declared to be racist has been hurt. I'm sure there are more than a handful of individuals who have spent thousands or tens of thousands of dollars accumulating memorabilia with the Indians name on it. If the name Indians is indeed racist, shouldn't they put away, if not outright destroy, all of it? This is not to say that just because people have spent money on something it should not be outlawed--clearly many people had spent a great amount on slaves in the 18th and 19th century, but this does not make eliminating slavery wrong. The great difference here is the debate about the offensiveness of the term Indian. As I've pointed out, there is no great movement which believes the term to be offensive. It is in fact the preferred term for many Indians. If a term is not believed to be offensive by a wide swath of the people to whom it refers, what right does any other group have to believe it to be so? In closing, I'll give you an example that will fit inside your view. If 10% of people feel that seeing alcohol, either behind a bar, on a menu, or even at the tables of other customers when they go out to eat could cause them to relapse into alcoholism, shouldn't we prohibit the sale of alcohol in restaurants? After all, how does it harm you to not be able to have an alcoholic drink at a restaurant? Commercials for beer, wine, and liquor should also be immediately made illegal. After all, how does it harm you to not have alcohol advertised to you? We should probably also eliminate the sale of alcohol--why should people susceptible to alcoholism be forced to see alcohol when shopping at Target, or driving down the street? After all, how does it hurt you to not be able to buy alcohol?

My response was aimed not so much at you, but at other posters on this thread who have equated the Indians nickname with segregation or other forms of outright bigotry. The response came to you, rather than them, as you had posted about the disparity of thought amongst groups of people, which buttressed my original point; this change is not being made because the outcry of united Indian voices has become too loud to ignore; such a united voice does not, and has never existed. This change is being made because a group of people certain they are not just on the right side of history, but indeed the very cutting edge of progress, has grown bold enough that they are comfortable making demands. Those demands are then quickly capitulated to by image-conscious members of society, worried about financial hardship or perhaps their own historical legacy. Perhaps we will look back in ten, twenty, or fifty years, and know that this first group of people was right. Or perhaps we will not.

Thank you? It seems you've realized that with an issue this complex with no clear mandate from those affected, declaring people who aren't sure why the term Indian needs to be eliminated as head-in-the-sand living-in-the-past borderline bigots is ridiculous.

Either the Wichita White Walkers or the Wichita Walter Whites. The team website can then be www.www.com

Umm, just last year the Twins signed Donaldson to a $100M contract, and traded for the guy who just finished second in Cy Young voting. Exactly what makes you think this FO isn't willing to "do something"? Never mistake activity for improvement.

Here's a comparison of three players through their age 23 seasons. Player A: 543 PA, .302/.352/.379/.731, 7.7% BB rate, 6.8% K rate, 20.1% XBH rate Player B: 487 PA, .331/.390/.429/.819, 9.2% BB rate, 8.2% K rate, 23.4% XBH rate Player C: 1201 PA, .299/.341/.424/.765, 6.2% BB rate, 8.5% K rate, 26.7% XBH rate Player B is Luis Arraez, Player A is Tony Gwynn, Player C is Paul Molitor. While I agree that one dimensional hitters often have shorter careers, that doesn't hold true when that one dimension is in the 95+% percentile. Arraez is by any metric in his young career, an elite contact hitter--he legitimately could be an historically elite contact hitter. Of playes with at least 450 PA in 2019-2020, Arraez is first in total contact %, 2nd in zone contact %, 1st in out-of-zone contact %, and 1st (that is, lowest) in swinging strike %. He's also 14th (again, lowest) in soft contact %--Luis Arraez makes less soft contact than Mike Freakin' Trout. Given all of that, and the fact that he still has 4 years of team control left, and will never be all that expensive because he won't win gold gloves or hit 30 homers, if the Indians wanted Arraez in a Lindor deal, I'd tell them that's all they're getting, and they might actually need to give me something besides Lindor. I totally acknowledge this take will seem crazy to many, but a guy who compares favorably to two inner-ring Hall of Famers at the same point in their careers seems like a very valuable asset, and not one you give away for one year of a different player.

All of this hand-wringing misses one point that I would imagine to be salient. From everything I've heard, most Indians not only don't have a problem with the term Indian, they actually prefer it to Native American. As someone who was born in this country, as were both of my parents, as were all 4 of my grandparents, I am by any logical definition a Native American. As an individual of largely Scandinavian and English descent, a term that is logically just as applicable to me as to the Indians completely erases the vastly different historical experiences of our ancestries. As such, this whole debate seems quite similar to the recent insistence by leftists (who are almost always white), that Latinos now be called Latinx, despite polling showing 97% of Latinos don't use the term, and almost 80% of that group has never even heard the term. It seems to me that decreeing how other groups term themselves is the height of arrogance and privilege, and appears to emanate in large degree from the "progressive" left. https://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/life/commentary/11389-native-american-vs-american-indian-political-correctness-dishonors-traditional-chiefs-of-old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/

Hardcore History is absolutely fantastic. Right now, free episodes include a 3 parter on the Achaeminid Persians (about 12ish hours total), a 6 hour on Julius Caesar's Gallic Campaign, and a 5 parter (about 15-18 hours) on the rise and fall of Japan's Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere

I agree with everyone on this thread--if it makes sense to get Boomstick back, I'll be happy. Otherwise, I would fully support getting Brantley. If you can't get either of those two, I would, as many have suggested, use the DH as a half-day for regular players. Give Buxton, Kepler, Garver, Jeffers, and Polanco one day a week at DH, and give the sixth to Sano/Arraez/whoever plays LF. This would require having someone on the roster who can play shortstop and a viable third catcher, but would hopefully help keep all of our high-impact defenders fresher.

Now this is funny!

I want my HOF to be extremely inclusive. It should consist almost entirely of names that every fan of the game knows, even if only in passing. If an honest to goodness fan of the game can walk into the HOF, see a player's plaque, and go "Who?", then it's not a HOF. To that end, some players who were not just good but excellent should be left out. I would rather my HOF err on the side of exclusion rather than inclusion, to ensure that no one sneaks in as a "we had to elect someone" choice. It is not a bad thing to have a year without anyone being elected.

I have to take issue with your assertion that no one said she should be hired because she was a woman. Just 3 posts up, nicksaviking said "this is a good move even if she doesn't pan out." Can you tell me with a straight face nick would have said that (changing she to he in the quote) if Miami had hired a man? The answer is obviously no, meaning nick thinks its good she was hired because she's a woman. In all likelihood, the next Vice President of the United States will assume that role based solely on the fact that she's a woman--since Joe Biden openly declared he would choose a woman as his running mate. There are clearly people in this world, some of them extremely important and influential, who do not mind picking people for important and influential positions based on the fact that the person being selected is a woman. By the way, this doesn't mean the woman being selected isn't the best and most qualified candidate; it simply means that it is less likely the best and most qualified person will be selected, since just under half of the population has been ruled out with not even a cursory glance. Jackie Robinson is also not a good comparison to Kim Ng. When Jackie Robinson first stepped foot on a diamond, there were multiple states in the country where segregation was legal. I am not aware of any state in 2020 that has laws allowing separate and sub-standard treatment for women. Jackie Robinson was, by legal statute in many places, and actual second-class citizen. Kim Ng is, in no place (at least no place in the Western World), and actual second-class citizen. In the case of Kim Ng, I had never heard her name, or had any idea who she was until this news was announced. I assumed, prima facie, that she is perfectly qualified for this position. I also assumed, and still assume, that the Marlins hired her because after conducting their search, she was the most qualified person they spoke with. If that's not the case, and the fact that she's a woman played any role, no matter how small, in her hiring, then the Marlins are being just as sexist as if they hired a man over her because he's a man. I'm glad we can agree on a desire for a world that cares as little about skin color and biological sex in terms of hiring as it cares about eye color and foot size--that is to say, not at all. The problem is not when we acknowledge that we are not there yet as a society. The problem is when we as individuals don't act the way we want the world to be because not everyone in society does. The longer we insist immutable characteristics are important, the longer immutable characteristics will continue to be important. If we as individuals truly yearn for a society in which immutable characteristics no longer matter, than we should act that way, and encourage others to do the same. As Gandhi said, "Be the Change you wish to See in the World".

No where did I say she's not qualified--I said she should be judged by the same criteria as every other GM. You also can't be in favor of hiring someone based on immutable characteristics, and equity. Equity means people get treated the same despite any immutable characteristics. Saying it was a good idea to hire a woman simply because she's a woman is sexist, and quite frankly, demeaning to women. It implies that you think women need men's help in order to be equal to men. I think (outside of some physical activities), women can do anything men can do, and as such, do not need special treatment or favors. Anyone who does need special treatment in order to achieve an equal outcome is, by definition, not equal.

If she makes astute signings and trades, this was a good move. If she does not, this was a bad move. That is all I, or anyone else anxious to move into a more equitable world, should care about.

I don't think the Twins spend all that much on travel to Rochester; a quick google flights search shows first class tickets to Rochester are $500 to $600 a pop. It's about half that for coach (which I'm sure players and lower level staff are getting). That means even if the Twins have 300 round trips from MSP to ROC a year, it's only $150k to $180k a year if every single trip is first class. For an organization with somewhere around $250M to $300M a year in revenue, that's not a significant amount (it's akin to a person making $60k a year saving $35 to $45 a year). Do the Twins save money? Sure. But it's not like doing this allows them to start bidding for Gerrit Cole or anything. The only real benefit is travel savings, and the ability to more closely monitor players; those actually might be significant advantages.

My proposal to radically change MLB playoffs, and deal with some of the issues plaguing the sport at the same time; I call it the All 30, and just like it sounds, it means every team makes the playoffs. See below for how it would work. The leagues are still split; Round 1 Only the teams in places 10-15 face off (10 v 15, 11 v 14, 12 v 13). It is a one game playoff, played at the higher seed's stadium, and occurs on the Tuesday after the regular season ends.Winners advance to the next round, losers are slotted into draft picks 17-22, with the worst record team at 17, and the best record team at 22--this will prevent tanking, as there is now a clear incentive to not lose in Round 1.Round 2 Teams in places 5-9, along with the 3 winners from Round 1 play, after a re-seeding (8 will always play 9, 5 will play the Round 1 winner with the worst record, 6 will play the second-worst, 7 will play the last team). This will be a best of 3 series, with 8 games played every day on Thursday, Friday, and (if needed) Saturday after the regular season. The higher seeds get homefield advantage AND get to choose which 2 games they want at home.Winners advance to the next round, and are also thrown into a lottery with the losing teams for draft picks 1-16. The losing teams get twice the odds of the winning teams, and each pick is drawn from 1-16 (think each losing team gets 100 ping pong balls, each winning team gets 50 ping pong balls).Round 3 Teams in places 1-4, along with the 4 winners from Round 2 play in a best of five series, after a re-seeding like the one described above. Teams 1-4 get 4 games at home, AND get to choose which one game (if necessary) is on the road. These series start on the Tuesday after the end of Round 2, with 8 games being played every day Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and (if necessary) Friday and Saturday.Winners advance to the next round, losers who were a top 4 seed now get their draft order assigned by inverted record--this remains the standard for picks 23-30.Round 4 (LDS) The 4 winners from each league in Round 3 play, without re-seeding (1/8 winner v 4/5 winner, 2/7 winner v 3/6 winner). This is also a best of five series, with games 1, 2, and 5 at the higher seed, and is played starting on the Monday after the end of Round 3, with 4 games every day Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and (if necessary) Thursday and Friday.Winners advance to the next roundRound 5 (LCS) and Round 6 (WS) These operate exactly how they do now--7 game series, 2-2-1-1-1 format, with a travel day after Games 2, 4, and 6 (if necessary)Other stipulations You get reduced shares of playoff revenue for rounds you do not play in (teams playing in a round receive double what teams not playing in a round get; this triples for teams playing in rounds 4-6). This applies only to national revenue--the home team gets to keep all local revenue from tickets/parking/concessions, etcA Salary floor is established--each team must spend at least 1.5% of the total value of player salaries from the prior year's Opening Day Cumulative Payroll (i.e. if all MLB players were paid $4B as of Opening Day 2020, each team must have a payroll of at least $60M in 2021). Players not on the active roster but with active contracts countThe Luxury Tax is re-set at 4x the salary floor. Teams exceeding the luxury tax receive the non-participant revenue rate for all postseason series, even those they play inWhy this system is good Discourages tanking. The worse you are, the more likely you lose in Round 1, and miss out on high draft picks and playoff revenue. There is no longer any reason to be bad.Expands Playoff revenue. More revenue in baseball should be a good thing--more investment in player development, higher salaries for players, higher value to franchises; everyone wins.Provides bad teams a quicker road to competitiveness. With more teams pushing for position, the trade market will have fewer players, leading to greater hauls for teams that do trade at the deadline.Ups the value of the Regular Season. Moving up in the standing is now huge--getting to 12 means you get a home game in Round 1, getting to 9 means you lock in a Top 16 draft pick, getting to 4 means you get a double-bye and Enhanced Home Field Advantage in Round 3Protects the better teams in the early rounds. The teams playing in Round 1 will undoubtedly use their best pitcher in that game, meaning the higher seeds in Round 2 have a rotation advantage. The higher seeds in round 3 get the enhanced home field advantageI'm curious to see what everyone thinks!

If we want more balls in play, simply allow the batter to decline a 4 pitch walk, thereby forcing the pitcher to keep throwing. If he throws a 5th ball, it's an automatic ground-rule double. Guys in full counts, and weak hitters will take the walk at 4 balls, but better hitters, especially in 3-0 and 3-1 counts will stay in for another hack, especially if there are runners on base. Pitchers are going to have to start abandoning purpose pitches and breaking balls earlier in the count, leading to a lot more pitches in the zone, with a higher percentage of them being fastballs. This will also largely eliminate intentional walks, as the batter will decline it, and essentially get to hit with a 3-0 count and the reward of a double if the pitcher misses even once--thus, the best hitters will get to keep the bat in their hands far more often.

Count me out on Bauer, unless that price comes way, way down. Yes, he's been quite consistent, but he's only had one season (excluding 2020) above 3.3 WAR. He's only had one season (excluding 2020) below a 3.88 FIP. I'm not ready to reward that track record with a deal worth only $6M less than what Gerrit Cole makes. Gerrit Cole had 3 seasons with a WAR above 3.3, and 6 seasons with a FIP below 3.33. I also think Bauer's numbers from 2020 are likely to regress to the mean. His BABIP was .215, by far the lowest of his career, despite his hard hit % going up, and his GB rate plummeting to a career low, which suggests a fair amount of luck. This contributed to a strand rate of 90.9%, which is more than 10 percentage points above any other year in his career. His fastball velocity also decreased, which is worrisome since he threw his fastball almost 50% of the time, and is about to turn 30. None of this is to say I wouldn't be good with Bauer on the Twins, just for nowhere near $30M. I'd much rather give Odo a 3 year, $39M deal, and then take flyers on Gausman (3 years, $30M with a mutual opt-out after 2022) and Smyly (1 year $5M with a second year option for $7M). If Bauer does get $30M, those three would be cheaper than Bauer, give the Twins a better rotation foundation in 2022, and provide fantastic depth (Smeltzer, Dobnak, Thorpe, Duran, and Balazovic can all stay in the minors until needed). And not for nothing, but Gausman's FIP was only .21 worse than Bauer last year, and his xFIP was actually better.

If owners are forced to take a large cut in revenue, such as 25% or less fan capacity, there is absolutely no way they will not pass that along to the players. It is (to a degree) up to the players on what form they want that to take. The players can agree to a one-time reduction in pay, or not agree, and watch as the owners decline options and issue non-tenders while turning to prospects, all while greatly increasing the chances of a strike/lockout one year from now.