Physics Guy

I think the time has come for the two leagues to play by the same rules. It may be quaint to have those differences during the regular season, but it is utterly distasteful to me that the rules change in the middle of the World Series, depending on which stadium the game is played in. Since MLBPA will never allow for the removal of the DH, it is probably inevitable that the NL adopt the DH. It seems like much of the discussion here is an attempt to sway the other side. Both sides seem firmly entrenched in their preference, and that is what it is, a preference. It's about a style of play and which style you prefer. My preference is the DH. I don't enjoy watching pitchers hit in general. Of course there are exceptions. I will add two points to the discussion. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anybody has mentioned protecting pitchers from injury. Adam Wainright last year comes to mind. With the HUGE contracts being thrown at FA pitchers these days, I would hate to see my team's pitcher on the DL because he was hurt running bases. My other point has to do with the argument that everyone who has a glove should have to hit. Many used analogies to basketball to support their argument, but I think comparing a pitcher to a goalie is the best analogy. A pitcher's value to the team's defense is exponentially more important to their team than any other position, much like a goalie. Just like a goalie only plays defense (yes, they occasionally get an assist), why not let pitchers focus on pitching and not worry about hitting?

Considering Plouffe is only +1.8 that past three years for dWar, you might be overshooting a bit for Sano.

This is what his transaction log for 2003 & 2004 looks like: 07/16/2004 MIN Called Up From Minors 06/02/2004 MIN Sent To Minors 05/21/2004 MIN Called Up From Minors 03/26/2004 MIN Sent To Minors 02/27/2004 MIN Signed - ( 2004) 09/02/2003 MIN Called Up From Minors 07/27/2003 MIN Sent To Minors 06/10/2003 MIN Called Up From Minors 03/14/2003 MIN Sent To Minors

Best that I can tell is that he played about 30 games in June/July of 2003 and then spent Aug in AAA before being recalled in Sept. In 2004 his game log starts in May, so I would assume he spent the first month in AAA. He hit about .220 in his first stint. He went down to AAA for Aug 2003 and Apr 2004 then hit well enough that the Twins traded Dougie in 2004. It appears he benefited from some AAA seasoning as well.

I really don't have a problem with it either way. If the coaches judge that he isn't quite ready, send him to AAA for a month or so. I think we can get by with Rosario and Santana in CF if we don't sign anybody. If the bat is ready, then it will be great to have his D in CF.

Here's another way to look at it. Not including the current crop of early twenties guys, those are four of the top 6 everyday players to come up through the system in this millennium. Only Mauer and Morneau didn't need additional time in AAA. Mauer was 21 and Morneau 23. Yes, Buxton may be ready, but it's not going to hurt him to spend some time in AAA either.

For not trying to start an argument, you sure seem to be argumentative. Hunter, Cuddyer, Dozier and probably Plouffe all benefited from being sent back down to AAA after spending parts of a season with the Twins.

I will echo the sentiment here. I very much enjoyed watching Cuddy, both as a Twin and when he moved on. The ending to his career was a bummer, but most are. Kudos to him for stepping down with money on the table. I would love to see the Twins bring him back. I'm not sure if he would be interested in moving back to MN, but would love to see him on the broadcasts.

Agree completely, and I don't think I want to give up Buxton for Fernandez. Who gives up a top 5 prospect in all of MLB for a reliever?

I would love to see the Twins get McGee, but don't want to give up prospects for him. If they do it needs to be a package involving players not including Buxton, Kepler, Polanco, Gordon or Stewart. McGee is projected to get 4.7M in arbitration. With next years arbitration numbers, the AAV is around what Sipp signed for and what I would guess Bastardo would get. I'd rather go 3/15-18 for Bastardo than pay the same to McGee and give up the prospects. All things being equal, I'd prefer McGee. But all things aren't equal.

+1+1 Thanks for writing this Dave. You saved me some time. You don't give up one of the few pitchers we have with potential Ace stuff. He throws 95 and has a potential top end slider. He's a ways from getting there, but it's way too early to give up on him.

After what happened to Mauer, I am fine with the Twins not going for the top shelf C. I'm happy with trying to be close to league average hitting with strong D at the catcher position. Yes, Sanchez is better, but I'd rather use resources elsewhere. The Nats were smart ( likely pushed by Boras) to move Harper out of catching.

He also was dealing with hamstring issues.

I'll take rose-colored any day over your black and white view. Things aren't nearly as cut and dried as you are making them out to be. You are certainly entitled to believe he can't play out there. I'll wait until he's actually tried it before I form an opinion.

With the health issues Span had this year, maybe he is willing to take a one year deal to rebuild his value. Could be a win-win scenario for both Span and the Twins.

I think what you are trying to say is that Miller isn't much better than Gibson. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Miller has three full seasons under has belt by the age of 25, whereas Gibson has two at 28. I have a feeling you may be underselling Miller a bit. Miller was already pitching in the majors (in the bullpen) at the age that Gibson was pitching for the Missouri Tigers. That being said, I agree that they would need to move at least on pitcher from their current rotation to do this.

Where is our resident Braves expert? Biggentleben, what say you?

Pretty darned well I'd say. I was shocked when I saw his stats a couple of months ago. He was only 26 this year.

Nope, it was one of the few I missed on this thread. I'm amazed I've read as many as I have. You don't think Antony may have been saying that for Suzuki's benefit being he is the incumbent? You don't think the FO ever says something they don't 100% mean? My take on it is that they want Murphy to play as much as he earns which should be more than Suzuki if 2015 is representative of their abilities.

While I agree with most of what you've said, I'll have to chose to disagree with this. I tend to think just the opposite. I think the Murphy/Suzuki split will be 90/70 games or even 100/60. I will be extremely disappointed if you are right.

Now who is over-exaggerating?

I can't believe how long it took me to read through 15+ pages of posts. My head is spinning. I will go on record as being a guy who liked the idea of Hicks starting the season in CF and giving Buxton some seasoning in AAA. That is the main reason I don't like the trade. I've been holding out hope that Hicks would eventually become the player everyone hoped for. I saw some glimmers of that this year, but it is still too early to say if he has turned the corner. If Hicks is indeed destined to be a 4th outfielder, or the RH component of a RF platoon, I think this trade will be fine. I am with Chief (I think he originally stated it) that it scares the hell out of me that he figures it out in New York. To me, Hicks has much higher upside than Murphy. People have suggested for the past couple of years that Hicks is a head case. If that turns out to be true, I doubt he figures it out in the media circus that is NY. My guess is that in the end, the Twins didn't have faith that Hicks was going to figure things out. In the end, my gut tells me that both players end up being part-time/role players. I would have rather rolled the dice keeping Hicks, especially if it allows Buxton to come up when he is deemed ready. On a tangent, what about signing Span to a one-year make-good and incentive-laden deal? There was a suggestion in the offseason handbook that he might be interested in that since he is coming off an injury marred season.

Trading Russell wasn't the smartest move either.

Both debuted at 23 and Rosario clearly had the better rookie season. Hicks has been the more highly regarded of the two coming up through the minors. http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=hicks-001aar http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=rosari001edd Rosario Age 20: .835 OPS in A Age 21: .903 in A+, .742 in AA Age 22: .672 in AA (although he had a late start due to suspension) Hicks Age 20: .829 in A Age 21: .722 in A+ Age 22: .844 in AA Hicks has been slow to adjust to the majors, but he showed some signs of coming around last year. Hicks has the better defensive value between the two. Rosario is a free swinger, Hicks is patient (sometimes maddeningly). Until Rosario shows he can produce again next year (and not be a repeat of Santana from this year), I am unconvinced that he is the better prospect. His K/BB rate concerns me. I hope he proves me wrong. Either way, I hope they both become fixtures in our outfield because they have earned it by their performance.

League Average SLG for RF is .438 and for LF is .416. Rosario .459