d-mac

May needs to be in the rotation.

Definitely surprised by how inexpensive his contract is. Not much downside to this deal. I think the Twins got a steal.

The only comparison to be made: I hope to God the scouts that thought it was a good idea to go after Nishioka weren't the same ones that have been scouting Park. In fact, I hope they are no longer with the team.

I think we are looking at two different pages. All I see are Frame Chances/Predicted Strikes/Actual Strikes/Extra Strikes/Framing Runs Added By Count... etc But I agree, Suzuki was awful last year.

I don't see a pergame column. And yes, Suzuki saw 2.49 times (not 3 times) as many pitches. But if Murphy caught 2.49 times as many pitches, then he would jump to 31st in extra strikes, making the difference between the two greater.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1819124 Actually Murphy was 38th, not 39th (out of 109) last year in extra strikes and Suzuki was 90th. I don't know where you're getting your data.

League average catcher is still a huge improvement over a below replacement level Suzuki.

Small sample size but Murphy was 35th in 2014 and 39th in 2015 (out of 100+ catchers to record an inning) and Suzuki was 90th in 2015. He's a HUGE upgrade in that department. Suzuki was an absolute black hole last year with all things considered.

Yeah, I'm definitely a TR hater but even I can't call this a horrible trade.

It's a Ryan Standard Operating Procedure. The best example off the top of my head was picking up Dusty Hughes because he confounded Mauer and Morneau. Hughes had like an ERA over 5.

He'd better not crash and burn.

I could see Span on a one year deal to keep CF warm for Buxton, I don't think he is ready for a full time role in the majors yet. But I hope the Twins plan at catcher isn't to sign AJ. I want them to look to trade Plouffe for a long term solution at catcher.

I would prefer they deal Plouffe for a quality catcher this offseason. If they need to throw in a prospect like Polanco to get it done, so be it. But I will not be happy if Plouffe is traded for bullpen parts or another #3 starter.

The thing people scouting pitchers and building pitching staffs should be asking is not whether or not the pitcher has velocity, but whether the pitcher can miss bats.

Maybe Perkins is just on the wrong side of 30 and finally showing his age? That's the problem with being too tied to individual pitchers in the bullpen- they break often and need replacement. Locking them up to long-term contracts are never wise- especially at an advanced age. If it were up to me, I would have traded him in 2013 or 2014.

No. Please, no more trades for bullpen arms.

I'm still not sold on Vargas. He's still going to strike out a lot and has never managed to translate his raw power into game power. Not to mention the uphill battle a power hitting switch hitter has to nail down the mechanics on two swings. I just don't think he'll hit enough to justify being a full time DH.

Why? Escobar is younger, cheaper and likely a better SS going forward.

Just like I did over on the Escobar thread, I'm going out on limb here: Jose is our future ace. While I support being cautious with his innings this year, we need to start him in the rotation out of spring training next year. We've got our ace. Escobar is our SS. Kepler will be our lefty bat in the line-up. Now we need to find a solid young catcher this offseason and assemble a legit bullpen. Now I'm not the most optimistic person in the world, but I am confidently optimistic about next year... as long as Terry Ryan doesn't F*** it up.

You forgot about Gibson.

I'm with you on this Brock. I wasn't expecting much, but I've been blown away by his performance and his nasty curve. That thing is legit. And he gets ground balls. That sets up a bit of dilemma for next year. With those bad contracts to Hughes, Nolasco, and now Santana, what do we do with these young starting pitchers? In a perfect world I'd roll with Berrios, May, Gibson, Duffey, and Milone. That's a cheap, young, and effective rotation. But we've got 3 below average aging vets on scholarship blocking them now.

Hindsight is always 20/20. But you aren't wrong in that inflation is a consideration in the time value of money, but it's not the guiding principal of the concept. Opportunity Cost means that time is a resource. It's the question of "If I do X instead of Y, what do I give up by doing so?" People's time on on God's green earth is limited. So as a practical example- if I choose to go see a movie tonight at 6:30, I won't be able to watch the Twins game. The opportunity cost of going to the movie (beyond the financial cost of the ticket, popcorn and soda, and the gas I spent to drive there) is that I give up the opportunity to watch the Twins game. In financial terms that means that even after assuming zero inflation and zero interest rates, $1 today is always worth more than $1 tomorrow. I can exchange that dollar for goods and services sooner (and have more time to enjoy said good or service) than if I waited till tomorrow.

If that's the case is why don't we see more good to elite players forgo pre-arb contracts in order to maximize their free agent earnings? Other than Scott Boras clients, that is. My thoughts are that: A.) 2019 dollars are may be only worth 80 cents in today's dollars. Intuitively most people understand that and don't have to be an economist or finance expert in order to do so. $30(.8)= $24. B.) Financial security and stability is strongly valued, especially so in such a high risk profession as professional athletics. And C.) Law of diminishing returns show up. $10 million is a lot of money to all of us, but the difference between $20 and $30 million is not that great. Even after taxes are removed, all a family's needs and wants that are satisfied at $30 million can be satisfied for $20. Taking these factors into account lead me to conclude, that given a choice between a big payday today or an even bigger payday in the future, even when accounting for inflated baseball salaries most people would choose the money today. Furthermore, the assumption that baseball salaries will continue to outpace inflation by a magnitude of 2 to 3 times means that team revenues must continue to grow at least an equivalent rate indefinitely. While certainly possible, if not likely, we logically know that is not a certainty.

Time value of money has nothing to do with inflation. It's about opportunity cost. #Economisted

Nick Blackburn? Or was he already in his arb years when he signed his deal,