Jump to content
  • Create Account

BD57

Verified Member
  • Posts

    252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BD57

  • Birthday 07/26/1957

BD57's Achievements

  1. "Too much clock watching," IMO - and that's all it is. Setting a "deadline" for a pitch or pickoff would certainly lead to baserunners / base coaches "watching the clock" - they'll know the pitcher has to start his motion in "x seconds." I suspect the clock, as opposed to "the pitcher's motion," would become something keyed on (for any pitcher who habitually came down to the 'end' of the clock). The "upside" is, it'd be in a pitcher's interest to get the ball moving earlier in the clock; that could offset at least some of the "clock advantage." Batters stepping out is part of the "slowing down the game" equation. They'd have to decide when to start the clock, too - When the pitcher gets the ball back? When he toes the rubber? When the umpire signals "play" (after a batter's been given time out)? If it's "toe the rubber," do you set a time limit for the pitcher to do that after he receives the ball back?
  2. They may ... but advertisers in golf have accepted the "split screen" approach.
  3. Who believes Manfred wouldn't add 30 seconds to the "commercial breaks"??
  4. "20/20 hindsight" is pretty weak tea for a critique. Simmons was hired to play defense, period. Darn near everyone thought there was enough offense throughout the rest of the lineup to overcome his weaknesses at the plate. Obviously, that's not how it's turned out. The lineup's been considerably more anemic than was expected (injuries may have something to do with that), and the pitching's been so bad there's reason to doubt offensive performance "as expected" would be enough to overcome it. You have a better argument for "The Twins overpaid Kepler when they extended him."
  5. Agree with some of this. By & large, baseball pays guys for their track records, not their potential - not like the NFL, where guys with potential get big money early. Of course, the NFL is also dealing with younger guys who potentially have their "prime athletic years" ahead of them. In most cases, the "big money" pitchers have already put up at least a couple of their "prime athletic year" performances in the previous team's uniform . . . "How many of those years do you have left?" is the question. We couldn't come to terms with Johan when he was clearly one of the best pitchers . . . how'd that contract work out for the Mets? I suspect they were hoping for "more than they wound up getting." That's the risk of giving an established starting pitcher a "big" contract . . . . you're paying for performance you didn't receive, in the hope you'll get enough similar performance in the future to make it worthwhile. A team has to have the ability to "cover for a mistake." The Twins' income structure is nothing like the Yankees; it's much more of a challenge for the Twins to absorb a mistake. What baseball "needs" is to pool ALL revenue . . . National TV, National Radio, AND Local TV & Radio. The big markets won't agree, of course - "We get paid for our product, people are more interested, willing to pay more, etc.' The counter to that is "Without the 'other' teams - like the Twins - you have nothing to broadcast. Whether you like it or not, the only reason you have broadcast rights to sell is because we exist ... so we're as much a part of you getting that money as you are." Like I said, the Big Markets will never agree.
  6. is it "normal" or "unusual" that 25% of an organization's top prospects are injured?
  7. Appreciate the analysis. Only problem: it's built on an assumption which "might not be so," namely, the "top level" free agent starters would sign with the Twins if actively pursued, offered competitive money, etc. Based on the last few free agent cycles, I believe the Twins are at a massive disadvantage in pursuing the "top level" FA Starter compared to the largest market teams (like the Yankees & Dodgers), that the Twins won't even be considered by the "top level' FA Starters unless the Twins offer significantly better contract terms compared to those teams. Further, there's a good chance the Twins wouldn't be considered even if they did so. For whatever reason - beyond pure contract dollars - those guys appear to want to be in the "big markets": whether it's "better chance of winning there" (the top-level guys are typically at a stage in their career where winning a World Series is higher on their list of priorities), or "More off-field earning potential," or what, I think those guys generally aren't interested in coming to Minnesota & the Twins would have to offer significantly better contract terms to "get them interested." Which is a hard thing for a smaller market team to do.
  8. Given the idiocy which has passed for "Another Minnesota day ending in 'y'" over the past year plus, no one associated with Minnesota should be sneering at ANY other state.
  9. It'd be good for us to move Donaldson if we can. We're obviously looking at a "rebuild," which means we need "kids to come up & get good" . . . which isn't likely to happen during the remaining term of his contract. See if we can get some more "kids" for him ....
  10. I hope he does well - except against us, of course - as I can't blame Berrios for wanting to "cash in" when he has the chance. It's distressing that we can't draw interest from the better free agents. IMO, it isn't "just" a matter of "What's management willing to pay?" IMO, the "market" - the Twin Cities - has something to do with it, too, because there's more money available "off the field" in New York, Boston, LA, Chicago, etc. than there is "here." IMO, we'd have to pay more than the "big boys" to overcome the "off field opportunities" they have in the "big boys" market . . . and, again IMO, expecting ownership to do THAT just isn't reasonable.
  11. Can't say anything specific about Miami, beyond this - it was a long haul for people to the ballpark when they played in the Dolphins stadium, and now the new ballpark is on the site of the old Orange Bowl . . . not the most desirable area in town. As for Tampa . . . . that stadium is really awful. It's outdated to an extreme (it was outdated when the Tampa was first granted a franchise). There's only "one way there" from the mainland, and the traffic to the bridge is usually "nasty," especially for any weekday game (including Friday) - you have to slug your way across town during Rush Hour into an interchange which isn't set up to move traffic smoothly. If they were on the east side of the Bay - esp. if they built in Ybor City (which has been discussed, though nothing happened), it'd be way easier to get there and, especially, "to get out of there after the game." Would there be more Rays fans if they did that? Probably. It'd also be a lot easier "ask" for fans of the teams coming in to play the Rays. Until they caught on themselves, going to a Lightning game against certain opponents gave you a crowd of, maybe, 70% Lightning fans, 30% "opponents." Fans who want to "see the team they grew up with, before moving to Florida" are still well represented at Lightning games. That it's easy to get out of Amalie and on the road back to central Florida after a Lightning game (park in the right place, and you can be on the highway with little traffic inside of 15 minutes almost every time) makes it a lot easier "ask" for fans wanting to see their team. The Rays in St. Pete . . . You don't get out of there quickly, and when you do, you still have to drive at least a half hour to "get to where the ballpark should be."
  12. I agree the Trop is awful. They'd do much better if they built a real ballpark on the Tampa side of the Bay - it'd cut at least an hour's travel time off for a lot of fans.
  13. I hope Nelly gets a ring. He deserves it. Glad we got more than a box of balls in return.
  14. Agree. For a "mid/small market team" to put together that kind of staff, they'll need one of two things (1) An owner who's a gazillionaire willing to spend money to get a championship; or (2) the luck to have a true #1 and true #2 come out of your farm system at the same time.
  15. What sort of "money" does Berrios want to resign? I suspect he wants "Quality #1 Starter on a contender" money. IMO, he's never pitched at that level. Sure, he's been our best starter this year . . . but that's not saying much, His career ERA is over 4. He has yet to post a season ERA under 3.5 He doesn't even average 6 innings per start. There have been too many starts like last night: Good at the beginning, and then everything goes off the rails at once. Berrios strikes me as a #2 on a "decent contender" staff which lacks depth. And if I was serious about winning, I'd want to assemble a staff where he was a #3. Again, I suspect he thinks of himself much more highly than that, which inevitably leads to "No deal being done."
×
×
  • Create New...