TRex

Awww... it looks like the 'Fun Bunch' is all grown up! What's next... parting their hair on the right?

THIS!

Looks like a garden-variety wall scraper from the MLB Gameday site.

How can you impute his motive on this? He is a gregarious young man giving an interview in a language he is not fluent in. How many of us, if asked to comment on our size in Spanish, wouldn't reply with a similar statement? While his size/weight are undeniable, suggesting he has a bad attitude or is unwilling to work on his nutritional habits seems unfounded at this point.

I think he's going for Mauer's #7 (the number Buxton wore in the ML)!

Don't take this the wrong way, Nick, but if you believe the weights on the back of the bubble-gum cards... I've got some land right next to Fort Myers to sell you! Puck was listed at 210 in his final year, and Hrbie at 230! Furthermore, if Panda weighs 245, I'll eat my shirt (well, I spilled a little ketchup on it earlier, so I may eat it anyway)! Jim Thome was brutal in the field and still logged 500 games at 3rd base before moving to 1st/DH. I think we could hold off on the Sano debate until we see him at the major league level (or if his arm strength doesn't return), but I guess it is pretty easy to paint a target on Sano's keester.

I love it when Reusse gets Eddie to talk about his kids... he gets so excited! I especially like that Pat always asks him about his daughter who has autism, and Eddie is even more excited to talk about her development! He definitely seems to be true to himself... FCC notwithstanding!

I find numerous reports about a UCL sprain, including this from Berardino on 2/20: Oh, hell, never mind... a little digging shows that 'sprain' and 'tear' are synonymous in this setting. Since that is the case, I have either mis-diagnosed hundreds of ankle sprains or I am walking without tendons!

I really enjoy Gleeman's lists, and he is usually quite accurate in his reporting. However, two things he states in his 6-10 ranking do not fit with what I thought. First, there was this about Lewis Thorpe: And then this about Nick Gordon: Can anyone here clarify one way or the other on these two statements?

To me, these two are really linked... Gleeman's lists are very 'Missourian', and are less projection and more historical reporting. Since catcher defense is almost impossible to quantify for MiLBers (outside of throw-out rate), it is of secondary importance in Gleeman's rankings. I am not a big fan of his 'damning with faint praise' style but (no offense intended), you can really tell he is a great writer.

If you can provide a single scouting report that indicates he will 'likely': outgrow,not have the arm for,not have the range for,not hit enough forSS, I will understand your position. However, unlike Cuddyer, Plouffe, Dozier, and even Goodrum, I do not see any evaluations that really question any of these points. This is not to say that there weren't discussions of his relative 'goodness' at any of these traits, however ! In my opinion, his down-side is Pedro Florimon. And while that might make some people 'throw up in their mouth' a little bit, I think that is a pretty good floor (certainly better than Plouffe, Dozier or Goodrum). While I don't like to suggest an MiLBer will have a career like a HOFer, I don't mind saying that a prospect projects to have a (some) year(s) similar to a HOF average year (does that make sense?). In that vein, I could definitely see Gordon matching the average year for Barry Larkin, who had a triple slash of .295/.371/.444 with 23D, 4T and 10HR while stealing ~20 bases at an 80% clip. Add in GG-caliber defense, and how can you not be excited.

With that kind of 'needling'... are we sure you are not Torri(e) Hunter?

... especially if additional innings at SS skew his positional perception. He is definitely tradable as a good/great 2nd baseman (and this is from someone high enough on him to have him as his Adopt-A-prospect in 2013). And the Twins have specifically been 'in' on Cueto for a half-dozen years, so I think their contract offer would be more than just 'competitive'.

And at the very least, he will be stretched out for long relief in those early April games where the starters frequently don't make it to the 6th inning.

Say... is this Tuttle a red herring (ala MASH)?

It was my recollection that he was doing the 'rest and rehabilitation' at the time of the draft and... to no one's surprise it didn't work. He had TJ on 8/31.

Sounds good to me! I think the fact that the Twins chose to start him (again, at a very difficult position) at High-A in his first full season indicates they are not too worried about how struggles will affect his development. Similarly, I don't think they were worried about calling Jorge Polanco up for a short time in 2014. I would also imagine how he responded to his initial FSL struggles would strengthen the Twins assessment of his mental makeup.

I must be a REALLY slow typist, as Markos beat me by 30 minutes! But anyway... First off, let me STRONGLY state that this is not an anti-Garver post, I am just using his developmental trajectory for comparisons... I will also state that, as we have discussed about ABWII, there is no shame being ranked #17 on a very deep minor league system. However, I don't know why there isn't more love for Stuart Turner. IMHO, I think there is even more excitement for Mitch Garver (which may be born out later in this list), who is a year older and put his numbers up at a lower level. This really befuddles me! I understand that Garver cannot control where he is placed, but his offensive numbers are the main reason people are excited about him. If nothing else, you would think Turner would be the poster-boy for those who are looking for rapid prospect advancement. Here is a player starting his first full season at High-A, in the pitching (and ballpark) friendly FSL. He played excellent defense at the games most demanding position (catcher), and started >70% of his teams games (93 games total or ~4.5 games per week). In comparison, Garver started <50% of his teams' games at catcher (63 games total, or ~2.9 per week). And while the main question about Turner entering the year was whether he would hit enough to make his defensive prowess acceptable, he performed quite well after his slow start, as Seth pointed out. While it might be hard to see how good Turner's post-May 19 .787 OPS is, consider that the top OPS in the FSL was .816 and Jorge Polanco led the non-LF/1B crowd with a .780 OPS. While still not the offensive force that Garver was, Stuart proved much more than adequate. His peripheral numbers (SO rate <20%, W rate >10%, higher OPS with RiSP) also portend future success. He even had several game-winning hits and was awarded the leagues 'offensive player of the week' the final week of the FSL season. I personally think that, given positional bias, his future WAR is likely to be greater than Rosario, Polanco or Garver (because of position uncertainties) and also ABWII (because of the low floor). Like so many of our prospects, this year at AA will be a make or break year (in terms of being a top prospect, anyway)!

Pretty dry humor... but I like it! However, I am sure you have a price that Sano could meet.

What makes me apprehensive is that scouts think he is unlikely to stick at SS. While he seems to have the arm for 3rd, you could spend $20M for 3 years, which is more than Plouffe would cost. They are similar in age, and we know Plouffe's power plays in the MLB.

While I had a pang of regret when I first read the news, you all have convinced me that I was just being miserly and short-sighted! Upon further reflection, this just feels so much like the Radke extension in 2000 which, the club has repeatedly said, greatly influenced the moral of the young players and the acquisition of free agents. And if Hughes can maintain a 3.52 ERA (and a GB/FB of <0.6) with an outfield including Willingham, Colabello, Parmalee and Arcia; imagine what he can do with some combination of Rosario, Buxton, Hicks and Kepler!

Who ever actually said this? The way I have always seen the situation portrayed is that the Twins management wanted Mientkiewicz at Chattanooga and Smith's response was 'then can I coach closer to home'? Although it may cause apoplexy in some TD readers, this may actually reflect Smith's desire not to have the Rochester job, and thus the Twins hired Quade.

... so you can take it with you?

It's really, really not that simple, as I am pretty sure that the US government DOES consider it as 1 big employer. Whether we agree is another question, but the first step has to be getting the government to rescind MLBs anti-trust exemption. If others know more, please correct me, but it seems like the litigation needs to come from someone starting a new league, not the players themselves. I don't think there is a rule preventing players from signing with other teams/leagues, so maybe some rich person will just buy off the top 25 draft picks some year and create his (or her) own traveling team!

If the Players Union paid the minor leaguers' salary, how could they not let them join? And if they do let them join, they will greatly outnumber the major leaguers! Why would MLB players want to accede to the wishes of 18 year olds?