Squirrel

You can look for drink rail seats in sections 301 and 302. Those seats are always shady. If not in the 300 sections, look in the 200 sections. On the left field side, those seats start out in the sun, but gets shady by the the start of the game, but I'd go at least 2/3 of the way up. There may be sun for an inning or two, but those sections get shadier throughout the game. On the right field side, you can easily go about halfway back. The sun may make its way to you by the end of the game, but you'll be good for most of it. I generally look in the upper most rows of the 200 sections. You can take the elevators to the 3rd floor, and then it's a step or two down to your row.

The silver lining!

Nice write up! I think he's got a very sharp, baseball mind. He will do something post-career whether managing or general managing ... wouldn't surprise me!

I think it's for AAA depth, but I don't see him on the team, unless we've had a 2nd season of a lot of injuries.

This is the part with all of this that confuses me. Maybe. I mean ... the guaranteed dollar amounts and years are very different than the Twins contract. Could it be that insurance said, 'Okay, this is doable' where the others were not, again because of the guaranteed length and amounts? Front loading it as they did, and basically have 4 years of being opt outs at lower rates ... maybe the insurance said that was workable where the other structures were not? Totally guessing. If, indeed, insurance was part of the problem. If it truly wasn't, then, I'm back to they were trying to put the screws to Correa.

I liked the trade for Paddack and I would do it again. My only problem with it (which has nothing to do with this article) is that they didn't effectively stock the BP. But back to Paddack, I'm excited to see what he brings when he's all recovered.

I'm surprised you didn't get complaints that this spoiled the game thread for the Vikings WC game ... ;)

To truly emulate Wrigley, you need some critters living in the ivy, too ... along with the rats in the other areas.

At least they waited until AFTER all the Correa stuff … can you imagine if this was in the middle of that? I say, ‘Well timed, Brock!’

It was also something they said in the press conference … maybe not those exact words, but there was certainly an ‘Okay, let’s figure this out’ attitude. And you are right, it’s a good way to approach negotiations. It’s why I said the Twins negotiated in good faith. I can’t really speak to the Giants, or really to the Mets, either, but the Mets asking him to ‘pass’ a physical every year to guarantee money is not a good faith negotiation and is basically a yearly opt out clause. And the Twins didn’t give Correa what they initially offered, either, but I think they approached it fairly, which shows the amount of respect they bring to the table (despite my earlier whines that they only offered 10/285). Perhaps a different thread, but I’m not sure it’s a luxury tax issue. I think the later years, low AAV and opt outs was simply an insurance plan to a few things. IF Correa’s speculative ankle arthritis is a problem in those later years, it gives the Twins options to move him to another position, become a lesser role player or to cut him if it’s indeed that bad. And if it’s not that bad, Correa has already made his money up front. The lower salary later also leaves them room to take on another big contract or extend younger players. I mean, I’d guess it is more a payroll issue because I don’t ever see the Twins reaching a luxury tax threshold. They have the payroll room now and can do the higher AAV, but again, maybe an insurance plan … who knows what payroll will be then, but the Twins haven’t hampered themselves.

I think this is the crux of it for all three teams. And I believe that the Twins were the only team that was willing to be creative enough to structure a contract that basically said ‘We’re both covered either way.’ The high AAV early on, the very low AAV with the team opt outs in the latter years beyond 6. The Giants balked and Boras/Correa walked away thinking the Mets were offering guaranteed years and money. But then I think the Mets tried to play a game and leverage information against Correa. And then the Twins came in, with the same information, asking, ‘How can we make this work for both of us?’ The Twins negotiated, imo, in good faith. I’m not sure a deal could have been made with the Giants or not because it seemed the Giants weren’t given opportunity, but I don’t really know. And I believe the Mets tried to put the screws to him. All knowing the exact same thing.

Eh ... maybe as depth as long as he's not taking up a 40-man spot. Seems as if we have enough backups to play 1st, otherwise he has no position. And we have someone else on the roster with no position in Arraez. I just don't see a fit, in the long run. And if we are calling him up, then something is amiss.

If he isn't fit to play 2nd, he is definitely not fit to play 3rd. He has played a very passable 2nd over the last few years ... he has not played a passable 3rd. 2nd is probably his best position, followed by 1st, followed very distantly by 3rd. If he can improve at 3rd base, he would still be better suited for 2nd. This is part of the problem with keeping Arraez ... no position for him.

Eh, I took a nap :)

Actually, I think it’s when ST starts, unless you were counting that as the beginning of the season

I’m not sure, but this will now be every AAA team

I like this deal. The off season continues!

Or looking to trade ... ? I imagine his would take more to get done given his year last year.

We got Martin and SWR. That’s a great return, imo

This will be interesting to follow this summer. It’s the next step toward implementation in the majors. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35434317/sources-all-aaa-parks-use-electronic-strike-zone-23

This, times infinity

I added a poll to your original post, and voted.

So you over look a reprehensible person in order to hope for wins? That tells me quite a lot, is that the discussion you want? And I know people who can’t stand Correa who are ready to overlook Bauer’s behavior … what does that say? Is that hypocritical, too? None of this is productive discussion and serves no purpose but to impugn other posters and obfuscate the issue, which is Bauer and only Bauer. So stop thread jacking. There have been many professional athletes who have done abhorrent things. How many sought help? How many changed? How many were also clubhouse cancers? How many were described as ‘toxic’ by a very respected manager? And in what era, because more thought is given to domestic abuse than has in the past. Until you can provide context for every single person you mention, and relate them to this specific discussion, they don’t belong in this conversation. So far Bauer has proven to be unrepentant, in fact completely dug in and showing the opposite of remorse. The company he works for found enough cause to exact the harshest punishment ever given. In my job, my union contract is very specific about such behavior and I would be out of a job. Whether or not that’s fair, that’s the contract Bauer signed. And I don't want him on the team for all of that. And that is my opinion and an opinion held by others. Don't 'what about' the issue because you disagree. Make your case on its own merits and your own opinion without dragging it down a very complicated thread jack. This is the last warning. If you want to stand on Bauer to try and exact some kind of indictment of hypocrisy on others or this situation, think again. If you want to discuss this further, send a PM to @Brock Beauchamp or one of the other moderators; but for the purposes of this thread, keep it to Bauer.