Mr. Brooks

Nope. Super 2 does not allow the player to achieve free agency sooner. It allows them to begin their arbitration years sooner, effectively giving them a fourth year of arbitration. There is no possible scenario where he'll have enough service time to become a free agent any sooner than following the 2025 season.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe those were options for the arbitrator. I believe their two options under the CBA is to either let the 80 games stand, or reduce it to 60 games.

Silver slugger has always been voted on by the coaching staffs.

No, Vallimont came back in the Romo trade, for Diaz. Not with Dyson in the Davis trade.

Because he didn't get a full year of service time this season, there is no possible scenario in which the Twins DON'T have team control for an additional 6 seasons after this season.

It's impossible for him to be a super 2 after next year, as he'll only have 1.X years of service time. It will be a close call as to whether he achieves super 2 status after 2021, when he'll have 2.X years of service time, which is what super 2 consideration requires.

Players suspended for a failed test are not eligible for the postseason, even if their suspension ends before then.

Eddie Rosario has only an ever so slightly above league average OPS. And that league average includes catchers and shortstops and center fielders. I like Rosario, but I don't feel like his play is worthy of mention for team MVP.

Not to nitpick, but I've seen this a few times, and I think it should be clarified. MLB did not reduce his suspension. An independent arbitrator did.

The two possible outcomes were making the postseason, and not making the postseason. Sounds like a 50% proposition to me

Diplan was removed from the 40 man roster.

If I didn't know any better (and believe me i do), I'd say this looks an awful lot like you applauding their decision to sign Fernando Rodney.

You must have me confused with someone else. I've always said that Odorizzi was a steal for Palacios, even at Odorizzi's absolute floor.

1) I'm glad you think it MAY point to evidence he wasn't masking. But, some posters are suggesting it proves he wasn't. Those are the ones I'm pushing back against. 2) I'm stating nothing with the certainty that you imply I am. I just lean towards masking, until/ unless someone can make a compelling argument why he wouldn't run it past the trainers, which nobody has done. 3) My point may not have been clear. I'm suggesting that he could have stopped using PED's months before the test, but continued taking the masking agent, "just to be safe". Therefore a second test would show very low levels, not because he wasn't masking, but because he'd stopped taking PED's so long before hand, that they'd broken down naturally. 4) Just because testing and handling procedures have been tightened up, doesn't mean a mistake couldn't have been made in this instance. I assume there are humans involved in the process? If so, a procedural error is always a possibility. Do you realize how many surgery patients get tools and sponges left inside of them?

Escobar was a pending free agent during an 84 loss season. They attempted to sign him to an extension, he said no thanks- which is his right. They got back some pretty good prospects, rather than watch him leave for nothing. Is your problem with that move that you don't think they got enough in return, or that you'd rather he left for nothing? Pressley looks like it could have been a mistake. Every FO makes mistakes. I'm not sure if you're demanding perfection or not. I'm not exactly sure what your problem is with trading 41 year old Fernando Rodney is. He was released by Oakland in May because he was terrible, and would be the worst regular pitcher in our bullpen this year. Jaime Garcia fiasco? Garcia is now out of baseball. In return, we got Zach Littell who has an ERA 48% better than league average, and has 19 scoreless outings in his last 20 appearances. Your criticism of a move that worked out as well as the Garcia one did, combined with you conveniently omitting moves like trading Jermaine Palacios for Jake Odorizzi, signing Nelson Cruz and Marwin Gonzalez, working out valuable extensions for Kepler and Polanco, etc., makes it hard for me not to think you made up your mind early on these guys and nothing they could have done or will do would change your mind.

It's also not far fetched to suppose that the arbitrators reduced the suspension because there was a procedural error of some kind.

Yes, it's worth starting his clock. We're talking about 20 days of service time here. I hope the decision is because they don't think he's ready. If it's because of 20 days of service time, then this FO has lost all the goodwill they've earned from me - which is a lot. I have no problem with service time games when you're losing 90 games. I have a big problem if it's even a consideration when you have a 100 win team.

Right. And I'm not trying to deal in absolutes. Both are possible. I'm just pushing back at a few posters who have said something along the line of, "the arbitrator reduced his suspension, which proves that he wasn't trying to mask PED's." Unless I'm shown the transcripts of the arbitration hearing (which won't happen), then I'm not prepared to give him that benefit of the doubt, since I don't know why the arbitrators made the decision they did.

My point is, that's (taking the diuretic long after he's stopped taking PED's) not any more of a stretch than suggesting he took a banned diuretic just to lose water weight and wasn't trying to mask anything.

Well plenty of posters have suggested that his reduction implies that there must have been some evidence presented that he didn't take PED's, so yes some are posting that. A test that doesn't show PED's just means he didn't have any in his system at that time. It doesn't prove that he hasn't taken them. He could have kept taking the masking agent long after he stopped using PED's, "just to be sure" he flushed it all out.

Water alone doesn't have the same effect as a diuretic. No amount of water would cause you to mask a drug test. Diuretics cause you to flush out stored fluids, whereas excess water just causes you to urinate the excess water that you just drank.

Correct. It reminds me of when people say the Gophers shouldn't hire coach X because it'll just be a stepping stone job for them. I always say great. That means they built something successful. That's not a bad thing.

So again, how does one even prove a negative? As far as I know, it's not possible. Perhaps someone can present a hypothetical argument of what "evidence" that he wasn't masking would even look like. If someone can, that might change my perspective. But for now, with proving a negative being practically impossible, I personally believe that a procedural error is far more likely the explanation for the reduction.

The term "buddy" was straight from the mouth of Pineda, in his original statement.

If you were to go back and review Channing's posting history regarding Falvey, I think you'd understand Brock's lack of patience. Channing has posted, multiple times, and without sarcasm, that he thinks Falvey is covertly operating under the employment of the Indians, intentionally tanking the Twins in order to benefit Cleveland. If a poster has that view of Falvey, I don't think some pushback is to be unexpected.