wsnydes

And multiple issues with the same knee.

Unfortunately, they get paid what the market dictates. Thin market drives up cost. That's why I feel such measuring sticks are silly.

Depends on your definition of contending I suppose. I expect them to be relevant in 3 years, but not serious WS contenders. If they're relevant, playoff pushes should very reasonable at the end of that term. They may not make said playoffs, but they should be in contention late into the season. There's a lot of work to be done and it's not going to happen overnight.

Such as? Not a great market, making trades very expensive.

Lack of bodies of water an issue in MN?????

No love for Game 7 of the '97 World Series? I'd put it in the conversation, but probably still put '01 ahead of it I think.

I believe they had a shot of him sitting with Mike Hargrove as well. I don't recall which game though.

I almost wonder if teams would use a rotating DH more if rosters expanded. In some cases, I wonder if the manager would use the DH spot to keep some of the more offensive minded bench players sharp at the plate for when they do start or are needed for PH duty. It could go either way, but I think you bring up a good point.

I tend to agree with this when talking about the masses, but I enjoyed Game 3 of 2016 immensely too. That may have been my favorite game of the series. I realize that I'm not the majority of the audience.

For me it's 1991, no contest. 0-0 pitcher's duels in that pressure packed scenario is about as good as it gets for me. The later it got, the more the intensity ratcheted up. The more each pitch became magnified, the more the little things because massive things. Any mistake could be the difference, however small. As Chitown said, 2016 was sloppy.

I don't have a problem with a rotating DH or having a set DH. There are pros and cons of each. I like the flexibility rotating provides, but if you've got a guy with a great bat that can't play a lick of defense, I don't see an issue with having him as the primary DH either. To me, it largely depends on roster composition. What works for one team, may not work for others.

I'm liking these hires. Time to get busy, boys! Feb 13 is fast approaching!

I didn't say to ignore the victim completely. Most of the time, their cooperation is going to be key to forming a case anyway. I might be able to agree if it's a first time occurrence for the abuser, but if it's a reoccurring thing that could even span multiple people/partners, I couldn't disagree with you more. Those people need to be dealt with. That's an established behavior, not some one off instance. If there are kids involved, abused or not, being hospitalized and/or beaten nearly to death doesn't do them any favors either. Frankly, if I have a choice between being beaten or finding a second job or whatever, I'm finding that second job or whatever. I don't deserve to be beaten, I don't deserve to be battered and bruised, I don't deserve to live a life like that. It may be hard, but I'm better off. Nobody deserves to be treated like that. That's the message that needs to get through to both the victim and the abuser. Nobody deserves to be treated like that. Obviously, what they do is ultimately their choice. I agree completely that there should be an option between "partner going to jail" and "partner coming home to abuse again". There are options, they may not be as prevalent as they need to be everywhere, but there are options. HitInAPinch has touched on at least one. Could there be more and better options out there? Sure, and there's no reason that further options shouldn't be sought.

I'd just like to add to your statement that it's not just about women. Children are abused, men are abused, anyone can be abused for a variety of reasons - anger and the lack of being able to control it being one of them. I know that the focus here is geared more towards women, but they're only part of the broader issue.

Perhaps I didn't choose my words carefully enough either. I don't understand that mentality because I'm not in that position or situation. I hope to never truly understand that mentality. I agree that those smarter than I in the matter need to understand it in order to help those being abused AND those committing the abuse. I note that I don't need to understand the mentality. By that I mean that I acknowledge that it exists and I understand that it is something that people go through and that needs to be dealt with. I also realize that in order for the DA to press charges, this is often a hurdle that must overcome in order to make a case. If the DA can make a case without a cooperative victim, then it should be pursued regardless of what the victim wants. Whether charges are pressed or not is not up to the victim, it's up to the DA. It's the DA's responsibility to take dangers to the community off of the streets.

I liked this post more for the first and last two paragraphs since I don't really agree with any of the rest. I agree that pro sports tend to treat the issue with more of a PR approach rather than actually trying to do good. If they were truly trying to do something for good, they'd be more proactive. I think the leagues could do more with their public exposure to educate and deter these types of occurrences, not just with the players but also the fans that follow them. I don't believe that this issue is always cut and dry. There are grey areas. Self defense can come into play, muddying the waters considerably. DA's are the ones that decide whether to press charges, not victims, but if the victim is unwilling to cooperate there isn't always a way to realistically prosecute. I don't understand that mentality, but I don't have to. I know that it exists, for better or worse. Unfortunately, I feel that the money does win out at the end of the day. Whether it be the players unions or the league itself, the punishments don't always make sense or even matter in the grand scheme of things. To often the player comes back and everything goes back to how it was. Whether these guys should be considered role models or not, the public stature of these players puts them in the limelight. What they do influences people. I liked what the NFL did with the anti-domestic violence commercial last year or earlier this year, but have they done anything since? They made their PR point and moved on until it happens again. Rinse and repeat. That's the shame of it. I would also like to thank Seth for this article. Whether it be domestic violence or bullying or anything else where one becomes unnecessarily abusive towards another, they deserve the attention to stop them from occurring. I'm not naive enough to believe that it'll ever go away completely, but it's certainly a worthy cause to do everything that can be done.

I think May needs to be in the rotation. I buy into the notion that his health issues are related to his bullpen work. Duffey is a bullpen guy in my view. He's got two pitches, the roll suits him better. I'm not counting on Hughes at all really. I wouldn't be opposed to a rotation of Santana, May, Berrios, Santiago, Gibson/Hughes. I'd prefer to deal Santana for younger pitching, but only for the right deal. With Santana, I think that rotation is better than what they rolled with last season with more upside. Is it a good one that would be the rotation of a playoff team? Absolutely not, but it's one that can give the Mejia's and Gonsalves' of the world some time to develop and not really block anyone. I think it would be adequate enough, and one that isn't going to really be improved upon by FA veterans. I would expect that rotation to be improved upon at the trade deadline and the following offseason. I don't think bullpen reinforcements are that far off, but like you pointed out, there aren't enough to fill out a pen in my view either.

Valid point. I was thinking more along the lines of midseason callups. I don't really expect any immediate blocking unless Mejia or Baxendale make a serious push. I think it may be a bigger problem later in the season though. I should clarify. I think a few bullpen spots need to be filled from outside. My previous comments reflect the starting staff more.

I don't really disagree with much of what you said, but if those mediocre FAs are blocking younger, higher ceiling players at some point this season, I would classify that as counterproductive. If this is the approach, my hope would be that the FA pitched well enough to have some trade value but would more realistically expect them to be DFA'd when the need arises.

I agree with this. I'm willing to let 3B be in a state of flux next season. Let Sano have a longer leash and determine for you if he can play the position or not. I'm not sure I've seen enough either way yet. Either at the trade deadline or during the following offseason, you can target 3B if you need to. No sense in blocking people or creating roster issues now if you don't need to. I think they need to let Sano sink or swim at the position. My approach to this offseason and heading into the next one is to determine what the organization needs heading forward. That should have been done this past season, but in many regards it wasn't. Let the kids play next season and address obvious needs at the trade deadline or in the next offseason to make a real push in 2018.

It's time for this team to start getting even younger. Plouffe's time in MN should be up. Centeno should also be gone. I'm trying to pretend that Santana doesn't exist. Grossman is fine as a platoon/DH, emphasis on DH. I like the five you listed as adds. Keeping Centeno at the expense of exposing Turner or Garver makes no sense to me. I'm hoping one of them can earn their way north in the spring. For the pitchers, I was more about team direction than names. I'm that way to a degree with the position players too, but I think there is a bit more separation in the position player ranks than the pitchers. My biggest concern is about a definitive direction the team is heading. That should be going younger and building towards the future, which means jettisoning older players like Plouffe or stopgaps like Centeno.

Correct. Or compare him to 3 hitters using a comparison to other 3 hitters. I still don't really care how he compares to other 1B in the grand scheme of things as long as that production is coming from somewhere. We may not agree there, but that's a different argument. In micro-analyzing cases, I don't have an issue with comparing against position.

My interpretation of the post I was replying to was that it was a comp to 3 hitters, which was then put into a context using a statistical comp to other 1B. Compare one or the other, not both. All 3 hitters are not 1B, not all 1B are 3 hitters, so comparing Joe as a 3 hitter against other 1B doesn't make sense. Unless the post was comparing 3 hitter 1B types, which is not what was stated. That's my point. Just because Joe's numbers aren't favorable as compared to other 1B, that means nothing when comparing them to 3 hitters. That's what I was trying to get at. I think your last statement agrees with part of what I was trying to get at. I don't subscribe to the batting performance by position argument since each facet of the game has no correlation to the other. As long as the production comes from somewhere and the pieces of the lineup fit together, I couldn't care less where they play defensively.

I think I'm less concerned with actual names as much as I am direction of the team. I'd prefer to remove guys like Kinzler and Boshers from the 40 man in order to protect younger guys that will help in the future. I think holding onto older players at the risk of losing younger, promising players is a mistake and something I'd be concerned about.

Why does it matter how Joe's stats stack up against other 1B? Not all 1B hit in the 3 hole. I don't think Joe is a 3 hitter anymore, nor an everyday player, but this comparison is meaningless.