Sousy

That's certainly one way to avoid anyone claiming him on waivers.

Man, Kelly's Pub. I haven't been there in a loooong time. The funny thing: my first job out of college I worked in downtown Minneapolis as a consultant and spent a bit of time around some of the various technology user group / networking types of things. At some point working around the area I met (and chatted with briefly) John Bonnes. It wasn't until years later I listened to my first episodes of Gleeman and the Geek and thought "why do I know that laugh...?."

Sure… but wouldn’t the building need to be unnaturally large?

IMO, that's the right attitude to have. The Hall of Fame is a tourist attraction first, something fun to talk about and debate about second. There's no fixed criteria for "this and that guy should be in against this and that other guy" - it's all going to be who the writers admire or abhor or who the players (through the veterans committee) respect or do not. The problem with Bonds and Clemens is that many writers who are still personally involved in the careers of these two men just can't put a positive vote in place for either of them. Some writers can put a vote in place and justify it based on strict baseball production, another sizable group can't look away from the off-field disasters that they both carry around. (PEDs, abuse, underage girls.) I can argue either way with the various groups of writers, but I also can't say that any of them are wrong in their vote justification. (Just like there aren't enough that are going to write glowing things about Curt Schilling in 2022.) Maybe in decades to come the veterans committee will look at things differently - but they also might not.

FWIW, another comment about video games: in my limited sample size, MLB: The Show is quite frankly the best sports video game on the market. My youngest is absolutely enthralled by the way they mix arcade like quality with simulation style play.

I certainly think that MLB could use more voices in a national booth that are both engaging and educational about the nuances of the modern game. Thinking of the football parallel, John Madden also came at a time when football broadcasts themselves were changing. Football television has always been more 'national' than baseball has - it's on once a week and a national broadcast team decides (well, especially at that point) what goes on the air and what doesn't. Madden and Summerall were certainly two broadcasters that signified a must-watch football game. In that sense, viewers tuning in to watch the game were just as interested in the play and analysis of the play as they were the players. (The Vikings fan tuning in to an Oakland Raiders game probably wasn't as familiar with the players, but could still appreciate / be entertained by a particular blocking strategy - BOOM.) Baseball broadcasts are different. We tend to watch our teams (there are usually a lot of games running every day at the same time through the season), get to know the players and be just as interested in their stories as much as we are in the intricacies of the slower speed of a baseball game. When those things are gone, the broadcasts seem much, much different. (e.g. how frustrated people get watching an ESPN televised game vs. Dick Bremer on BSN.) I think having a national broadcast try to follow more of a "football" model would be fantastic - a broadcast where the 'analyst' is there to break down the particular hows-and-whys of technique and why certain things happen on the field the way that they do. (e.g. why does a team shift like crazy against Max Kepler?) It seems most analytics in baseball focus on the fun graphics like an exit velocity, launch angle and those flight path diagrams without explaining how a manager / scout would care about those particular stats rather than just looking at the admittedly cool pictures.

I certainly don't think OF depth is the biggest issue the roster faces in the offseason. Just off the top of my head, people the org has that have been at least playing some outfield at AA/AAA/MLB: Larnach (hope the offseason has him working on breaking balls) Kirilloff (seems to be a good fit at 1B, too - but will probably be platooning there with Sano) Rooker (not at great defensive OF, needs some hitting work) Celestino (called up from AA unexpectedly, gained a lot of useful experience and grew in AAA) Miranda (IIRC, the Saints had him trying some OF - might be a slot there given where corner infield depth is as well) Martin (been playing some CF in AA this year since being acquired.) Cave (ahem) Those are at least the guys I can name off the top of my head that should be immediately available if needed - and there is not (as of yet) a starting LF penciled in to the MLB lineup if Buxton / Kepler are locks for CF/RF.

Every labor dispute will involve marketing a particular case to the public - Manfred's letter here isn't much different. Where I don't see the players being able to make any traction (I'm struggling to see how this actually does improve competitive balance) is in changes to the revenue sharing system. Those rules weren't just players-vs-owners, there was a lot of owners-vs-owners in getting to any kind of agreement on splitting the MLB pie in the first place.

Sometimes you go looking for the next developmental prospect to fill the minor league roster, sometimes you just need a Rob Whalen to fill a few weeknight innings in St. Paul.

That would negate a good chunk of the value Buxton brings as an elite center fielder. As much as we can be in awe of what he can do on offense, it's shocking how big of a difference having Buxton in center field makes on defense. (Even down to pitching strategy.)

Sign Marcus Foligno to a journeyman contract. Anyone who pitches Buxton hard and inside should brace for getting their ass kicked.

According to reporting, it was the Twins offering the no trade clause that sealed the deal - nothing else about the offer apparently was a significant change in terms of guaranteed money / incentives. Buxton wanted the team to invest in him as a player - not as an asset to be traded. This kind of deal is certainly that investment. The thing I really like about this contract is that there is a lot of mutual benefit here: if Buxton maxes the thing out, the Twins are obviously reaping huge benefits in terms of winning games and fan interest.

Given the market, there's no way an elite starting pitcher signs a contract like this.

Buxton's view of this has always been pretty clear: I want to be here, I want you to invest in my future. There's a lot of reasons that Buxton should be angry enough to want to leave - but now the Twins have made the commitment he wanted all along. Here's hoping it all works out. Related: now that this is settled, where's the best place to buy an eleven year old a Buxton jersey for Christmas? ?

I don't think we know yet - it all depends on Lewis' recovery and how his play continues to develop. Something we've learned this year: you just can't have enough middle infield / centerfield depth. Hopefully Lewis stays on track to be a dependable everyday shortstop.