BD57

First, it wasn't an "agreement"; if it was an "agreement," the Players would be in Court (or before an arbitrator) demanding that it be enforced. And they aren't. They discussed terms and concepts for re-opening, at a time when neither side knew for sure what that would look like. The assumption was "there would be fans in the stands" and owners would have that source of revenue available to them. That was before it became apparent that some levels of our national leadership were in love with the Lockdown & would do what they could to prolong & extend it. Now, we're "here" and one of the presumptions of their discussion - "fans in the stands" - has been shown to be inoperative. The Owners are saying "This Changes things," and the Players response is "The HeckYou Say - we want the same money, even though you won't have that source of revenue you were assuming you'd have." Hard to believe the Owners didn't fall all over themselves to say Yes to that 'swell deal' .... You've taken a "side" and that's fine. Your "side" is "The Owners loss of the revenue source they thought they'd have is no reason for them to refuse to agree to the Players' terms." That's fine. Make the argument. But spare us the "There was an AGREEMENT" business, because, again, these sides would be in court or arbitration, not spitting at each other in the press, if there was an enforceable agreement. Baseball is the most dysfunctional Labor / Management sport there is, in large part because both sides persist in selfish, oppositional behavior at every opportunity. This year is the quintessential Cluster because of the Shutdowns. If BOTH sides eventually come to believe it's important to have a season in 2020, they'll come to an agreement. If BOTH sides don't - if one or both decide their parochial interests are more important than salvaging something out of 2020, which is going to be a "one off," then there won't be a season.

Have the players offered to agree to "Whatever terms the owners wish?" No, of course they haven't. They want what they want, just like the owners. This is on both sides. That's not going to be popular here. So be it.

They'll probably have shorter flights which means "less cost." Given it seems inevitable they'll at least start without any fans in the stands, unless TV pays a "bonus" just for having baseball to broadcast (how likely is that?), "no fans" means no one will be making money & some could be losing . . . . IMO, they're trying to minimize expense & think this will do it. If there are "10 teams per," then ... 100 games? It doesn't compute - it won't be balanced unless they play "outside their conference" (thought I heard they weren't going to . . . . so I'm probably wrong on that). An even number makes sense - 50 home / 50 road. 12 games, all "in conference" would make sense - but that's 108. If you play 10 against each team "in conference," then you've played 90 & have 10 left over to play "someone else" - schedule balance becomes a problem with 30 teams, though (each "conference" would have to split in half to allow everyone to get 10 games "out of conference"; someone would draw the easier schedule). Go to 8 & now you have 28 games "out of conference" .... it's getting unwieldy. How you work playoffs with three "conferences" and no/limited cross-over is going to be a challenge too.

Unless there's reason to believe we didn't make competitive offers (you guys can let me know if that's the case), it seems the "top end" free agents aren't interested in playing in Minnesota - and if that's the case, there's not much the Twins can do about it . . . The Twins can't create secondary income opportunities for those guys the way other markets can. People tend to ignore that part of free agency . . . . "The Player has a say in where he goes."

Make a huge run at Cole; let him know "Whatever it takes." It may not work, but we need to be seen as "serious in the market." We need a "#1" - we don't have one now.

Odo's a good #3. We should definitely want him back. We need a "shut down" #1.

Yes, I remember game 1 ... games still have 9 innings, though, right? 5th to 7th inning, Yankees "crooked number, crooked number, crooked number." We weren't competitive. That's my opinion ... and, as I understand it, people are allowed to have opinions around here.

Bottom line - we didn't hit. Not nearly enough to be competitive. The one game we were "competitive" - game #3 - we scored 1 run, and blew our best opportunity (bases loaded, no outs, got nothing). Championship teams score runs in those situations. We don't have a #1. Berrios might be a #2, Odo might be a #2 - more of a #3 (and a good one), but we don't have a guy who blows people away. Some of it might be "our guys are inexperienced, and the Yankees aren't." We'll have to see about that. First two games, though, we were just obviously over-matched, and it was a matter of "when is this going to blow up" ..... I wish it was different, but it wasn't.

I'll revoke the magic for Sano, if you'd like. Sano's interruptions last year strike me as "not injury related" - my opinion, that's all it is - so I don't particularly hold that against him - whereas the time he's missed this year was not "playing related." Buxton, meanwhile, has missed time this year on more than one occasion, all playing related, until he finally broke down. Sorry - based upon the track record, I think Sano is more likely to be a guy who gives us 140 games a year once he's "established," which, based upon his play this year, I think he's finally done. Buxton has yet to [a] show he can "hit enough" over the course of a year to get past "he's worth it for his glove alone" (and he's got to do more than that to be "really worth it"); and play a season without missing substantial time during the year because of "on field" injuries. I WANT Buck to do it, because if he does ... whoo boy, will he be a weapon!!!!!

Thing is, what do we get from Buck's "position on the field' if he's only there for 1/2 of the season, vs. Sano if he's consistently out there for 140 games? Maybe I'm gun-shy, but until I see Buck put a couple of 130+ game seasons together, back to back, I'm going to have a hard time believing I can really "count on him" to contribute. And that's essentially the Question being posed - "Right now, knowing what we presently know .... which one would you put money on having more value?" If both have a run of 10 "healthy" years going forward - minor bumps & bruises only - then I think we're in for a heck of a ride, and there's a good chance we'll enjoy debating this topic, because it'll be like debating which is your "most favorite flavor of ice cream." Hope that's the case.

Can you tell me Buck is going to learn to stay healthy, play 130+ games a year, and get his BA up to, say, .275-.280? IMO, he needs to do those things to have long-term "big time" value; otherwise, he's a valuable piece who's "missing" way too often. If Sano's a 30-ish HR guy year in / year out for the next 5-10 years, he's going to be valuable, even if he winds up being a full time DH. While he still has holes in his swing & approach, he's definitely made progress this year - I think having Nelson Cruz around has been a godsend for him. Right now, I think "odds are" better on Sano, but only because Buck just keeps getting hurt.

I don't want Perez or Gibson pitching any high-leverage innings the rest of the year, regular season or "post." Shoot, I wouldn't give either of them the ball as a reliever in a post-season game with a 6 run lead, for fear they'd make a game of it. And I'm good with starting Dobs - he's been put out there more than once and done a good job with it more than once.

Following up ... I have no ill-will toward Kyle. By every appearance, he's a good man, someone you'd want representing your baseball team off the field, and I've never read a word about him being anything other than a good teammate. He had a run where he was a very effective pitcher - it looked like he'd figured things out, gotten some "swagger," some belief in his stuff, where he'd go after hitters and get them out. That's gone now, and has been for a while. He pitches as if he believes every single mistake he makes is going to wind up in the upper deck; he just doesn't seem to believe his stuff is good enough to get guys out. Long time ago, I heard Frank Viola tell a story, about when he was "green," wondering it he could get major league hitters out, and having trouble throwing strikes because of it. His catcher at the time - whoever it was - basically told him "we're throwing it down the middle, whatever we throw tonight." Frank complied, discovered his "stuff" was pretty good, and gained the confidence to go after hitters. Once Frank got to where he wasn't so afraid of making mistakes, he made fewer of them, and his "good stuff" became even more effective. Kyle simply doesn't believe in what he's doing. At least, that's what I see.

i dunno, Nick ... to what would you attribute Kyle losing all contact with the strike zone when he gets runners on base (as he did tonight)? It's been happening way too often the last couple of months. If he's not healthy, we shouldn't be running him out there.

One way of looking at it ... where is he among #3's on playoff caliber teams, because that's what we're trying to be.

Turned out that way, thank goodness. If he'd hit Kepler in the head or the wrist and he wound up missing significant time as a result, it wouldn't be.

World of difference between 11 year olds, where there can be wild disparities in talent, and MLB, where there isn't. Plunking Kepler because the guy before him swung at a 3-0 pitch is ridiculous. Throw at Cave next time you get the chance, if it's that big a deal - but it shouldn't be. The Rangers were down 8 because "they earned it." That's not the Twins fault. If they wanted to walk off the field and say "no mas," that's what they should do - otherwise, don't throw a pitch and expect the batter not to try.

Interesting Article about "blowouts" .... https://sports.yahoo.com/yankees-manager-aaron-boone-would-favor-mlb-mercy-rule-and-hes-not-off-base-004158370.html?fbclid=IwAR1s3AJZuQmAo5VpCYgetvbxtpWonEGRpcQwCef5t2t6ZnP1WvYJgYkvm0Q

Rather than the whole "unwritten rules" business, let's just give teams the right to 'call it" ... let the Ranger say "enough, we can call off the game now." But they won't do that, will they? So instead, we're supposed to go through this charade of "playing out the game," even though the team that's ahead has to "really not try 100%" to get hits and score runs. Question ... why didn't the Ranger hitters just go up and swing & miss at every pitch at the end, to get the game over with? Why were they still trying to get hits and score runs, if the game was over? If Kepler had been hit in the head, or on the wrist, and been injured so he'd miss time, this would be a whole lot bigger deal. The "unwritten rules" are all about "pride." Yeah, well ... "excessive pride" causes all sorts of problems. Don't want to give up hits on 3-0 counts? Throw strikes.

Perez has pitched himself out of the rotation, if we have someone else ... which is the issue. Gibson has to decide whether he believes in his "stuff"; he pitches like he doesn't. All those pick off attempts (one of which he eventually threw away ...) - pitchers throw to bases when they don't want to throw to the plate. Frank Viola supposedly figured out he was "good enough" when he was told to throw it down the middle & "let's see if they can hit it" (and they didn't, so much). Gibson's not as good as Frankie was, but he's not going to be given the ball if he won't throw strikes. Berrios' arm is getting tired, or something - his velocity is down, and that's not good. The whole staff (by and large) struggled against Cleveland. WAY TOO MANY WALKS .... what's with that? The "story" of late hasn't been the offense so much ... pitching hasn't been "contender quality" for a while. Too many guys not throwing strikes.

I don't think they can say "Dumb move" within hours of the event, even if they think it was a dumb move - you just don't do that. Let's see if he's still 3rd base coach next year.

Bad "send" ... gotta think "situational" - you've secured the tie, you have 2nd & 3rd, 1 out in the bottom of the 9th if you "hold" the second runner. I "pocket" the tie in favor of two shots at getting the run in; you're going to have infield & outfield in, so you'll have a good chance at getting it done. You might "send" if it takes two perfect throws to get the out. You don't "send" if it takes a bad throw to score the run (translation: if two "normal baseball plays" throws your runner out, it's not the right move in that situation). My other concern - either we had a slow radar gun today (which didn't seem to be the case) or Berrios is down a few MPH .... don't like seeing that.

It's "Sports Fan Logic 101" .... "If it doesn't work, it was a stupid idea." Sports fans - of every team - love to tell you what a moron their coach/manager is AFTER they know things didn't go well. See how many of them will "call it" that way before they know how it turned out, though ... *crickets*

He ran Dyson - a National League pitcher - out against a National League team. If anyone should have some familiarity with the opposing hitters and have an idea about how to get them out, it would be someone like Dyson. Obviously, it didn't work, so that makes it a "bad move" ...

The current state of the pitching staff is my concern, with pretty much everyone getting hit - it's becoming a "theme." We scored enough runs against the Yankees to sweep them, and gave up enough runs to get swept. The latter has to be addressed - we're not playoff team with the staff pitching like this.