tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290900252024-03-07T00:47:11.338-07:00Taylor's Twins TalkFocusing on the Twins, with a few ramblings on other things that catch my attentionJSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.comBlogger1061125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-31358068858734364132009-10-09T22:06:00.002-06:002009-10-09T22:09:10.774-06:00Like a PhoenixIt's a double-reference. I'm hoping, for one thing, that the Twins will rise from the (largely self-created) ashes of the current 2-0 deficit to the Yankees and hand the Bombers a drubbing in Games 3 and 4 at the Dome. <div><br /></div><div>But . . . the reference is also to this blog. Or, at least, the <i>spirit</i> of this blog. I've decided to start the blogging life up again, although not at this URL. You can find the new Taylor's Twins Talk over at <a href="http://taylorstwinstalk.wordpress.com">taylorstwinstalk.wordpress.com</a>. If you liked what you read here, hop on over. Hope to see you there!</div>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-28358102053551382822009-02-01T10:22:00.003-07:002009-02-01T10:27:05.572-07:00The End<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It's been a good ride, folks, but it looks like I'm joining the long list of bloggers who burn out after awhile and move on to other pursuits. While I still enjoy writing my thoughts down, the rarity of my posting since the end of the season is a pretty clear indication that I don't enjoy it enough to actually sit down and do it. It seemed appropriate to pull the plug now rather than get into the start of Spring Training when traffic usually picks up and people started wondering where I was. I certainly could continue to operate the blog on a part-time basis, but I think if I dragged things out I would come to resent blogging rather than leaving having enjoyed it. So, thanks to all of you who checked in from time to time -- and go Twins!<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-49421452598376947252009-01-25T17:35:00.002-07:002009-01-25T18:02:49.268-07:00Boxing Banter<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> The first big fight of the year was held yesterday, but aside from that there's not a lot of in-ring action to discuss this week. Here's the (short) return of Boxing Banter:<br /><br />1.) Shane Mosley (46-5-1; 39 KO) won his first full-fledged (i.e. non-interim) championship belt since 2004 by defeating Antonio Margarito (37-6; 27 KO) at the STAPLES Center last night to take the WBA Welterweight crown. That puts Mosley at 7-1 since losing multiple light middleweight belts to Ronald Wright in '04. His only loss in that stretch was, incidentally, to Miguel Cotto -- who in turn has only lost to Antonio Margarito in his 33 fight career. That makes for a rather interesting triangle, and could mean that a rematch between Mosley and Cotto is in order. Certainly that fight, won by Cotto via a narrow unanimous decision, was closer than yesterday's drubbing of Margarito by Mosley, which ended in the 9th round. Mosley says he wants big fights, and if Cotto gets past Michael Jennings on February 21, I would think that rematch would fit the bill.<br /><br />2.) The only title fight on the schedule next week is for the vacant IBF Junior Welterweight crown, and will Herman Ngoudjo (17-2; 9 KO) against Juan Urango (20-1; 16 KO). Urango's sole loss came two years ago against Ricky Hatton, in a decisive unanimous decision. Ngoudjo, meanwhile, has a split decision loss to Jose Luis Castillo and a fairly narrow unanimous decision loss to Paulie Malignaggi on his record over the past two years. I'm going to give the edge to Urango going in, but I don't know much about these two fighters and what sort of matchup they'll have.<br /><br />3.) Remember Francois Botha? He's perhaps best remembered for being on the losing end of fights with Michael Moorer, Mike Tyson, and Lennox Lewis between 1996 and 2000. Botha returned to the ring from a five year absence with a unanimous decision win against Bob Mirovic (28-18) in 2007. He'll be facing the similarly uninspiring Ron Guerrero (20-15; 14 KO) in South Africa on January 30. Believe it or not, the fight will be for a "world title" of sorts, as the World Boxing Federation has decided to award the winner its vacant crown. If it isn't WBO, WBA, WBC, or IBF, however, nobody cares.<br /><br />4.) There was some hope that Manny Pacquiao's next fight would be against Floyd Mayweather, Jr. -- but if that fight is going to happen, we'll have to wait. Pacquiao's first order of business will be to take out Ricky Hatton on May 2. This fight should be interesting as well, but I expect Pacquaio to solve Hatton without much trouble. I hope that's the case -- a convincing win over Hatton could open the door to Mayweather, since it would make it more likely the money for a huge purse would appear. <br /><br />5.) Mark your calendar for March 21, when WBC Heavyweight champion Vitali Klitschko will defend his belt against Juan Carlos Gomez. As I've said in the past, I'm a sucker for heavyweight bouts, and I think this one will be entertaining. David Haye might be waiting in the wings for the winner, especially if the winner is Klitschko. <br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-11282133797064131062009-01-20T17:22:00.002-07:002009-01-20T17:34:07.996-07:00Kubel Re-Ups<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In an off-season that has been disturbingly light on Twins news, today's <a href="http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/neal/2009/01/20/kubel-agrees-to-a-two-year-deal/">announcement</a> that Jason Kubel signed a two-year deal with a 2011 team option was a jolt -- a reminder that the Twins are, in fact, still operating a baseball club in Minneapolis and that Spring Training is just around the corner. <br /><br />It's hard to evaluate this deal without knowing the terms, and as of yet they haven't been disclosed (probably since the deal isn't official just yet). However, my immediate reaction is positive. Kubel does not appear to be headed towards the stardom that was predicted for him when he was an up-and-coming prospect in the farm system. Nonetheless, he is moving towards becoming a very solid big league player who retains the potential to break out and have at least a few special seasons. Last year, Kubel hit .272 with an 806 OPS and 20 homeruns. Those are respectable numbers, and if he can dublicate them over the next few years I'll be perfectly happy with the result (unless we overpaid for him, which we'll find out later). <br /><br />Of course, the Twins didn't have to buy out Kubel's last arbitration years -- but in so doing they gained cost-certainty and presumably answered the question of whether Kubel remains in the team's plans in light of the "glut" of outfielders on the roster. I like the fact that the Twins are sticking by him. I'm sure I'll have more to say on this topic once the terms become available and there's something to really evaluate. As I said, though, I like the <span style="font-style: italic;">idea</span> of getting cost-certainty on Kubel and of keeping him around to DH and play in the field on occasion. Consider that a conditional thumbs-up while we wait for news on how much was actually spent to keep him around.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-48201826558515902432009-01-19T16:31:00.002-07:002009-01-19T16:36:28.487-07:00Blog Update<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Hello all -- just wanted to let you know that I'm still around and plan on resuming a more normal blogging schedule over the next few weeks. I will cover "big news" as normal, and also plan on posting on other topics when I get the chance. Unfortunately, studying for the Bar Exam is a definite chore, so even though I'm not officially in school anymore, I might as well be. Hopefully in the next few days I'll get my first "Organizational Database" post up. I also plan to be back with a Boxing Banter post next Sunday (didn't get around to it yesterday -- first time I've missed since I started it!). <br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-1354859981488632412009-01-14T19:22:00.002-07:002009-01-14T19:26:22.299-07:00Spring Invitees<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The Twins announced non-roster invitees to Spring Training today. I'm not going to have a chance to give my thoughts on the list tonight, but I'm hoping to do so tomorrow. <a href="http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090114&content_id=3744446&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min">Here's the list</a> if you haven't seen it yet. Be back tomorrow!<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-82400048857545588082009-01-12T12:17:00.003-07:002009-01-12T12:50:43.000-07:00Hall of Fame Results<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Congratulations are in order for Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice, who were <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090112&content_id=3740171&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb">elected today</a> to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Neither selection is unexpected, although the decision on Rice -- who was on the ballot for the last time -- could have fallen on either side of the 75% line. Here are some thoughts on newsworthy topics from the results:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Henderson's Vote Total</span></span><br />A commenter on my <a href="http://mntwinstalk.blogspot.com/2009/01/hall-of-fame-predictions.html">predictions post</a> (where I predicted that Henderson would get 96% of the vote) clearly thought I was overstating Henderson's likely support. While I did go a bit high, Henderson received 94.8% of the vote. That's close enough that I think it justifies my prediction; the point was that Henderson was a well-respected player whose credentials would be clear. I think that's borne out by his total.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rice's Vote Total</span></span><br />I also overstated Rice's eventual total (this will be a recurring theme). I thought Rice would get 78%, while he ended up with just 76.4%. Nonetheless, that keeps the trend alive -- if you get to 70%, you're going to be elected the next year.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dawson Next in Line</span></span><br />Andre Dawson reached 67% in this year's election. With no dominant players coming onto the ballot next year, that should put Dawson into a good position to get the 8% bump he needs to get elected next year (the list of players who are eligible starting next year is discussed at the bottom of this post). Dawson should benefit from Rice's election, because they are often discussed as similar players. Just as Bruce Sutter opened the door to Goose Gossage, I suspect Rice will open the door for Dawson.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Blyleven Gains -- But Not Much</span></span><br />I wish the news on Blyleven was a little better. On the plus side, he went from 61.9% to 62.7%, which is at least in the right direction. But he remains over 12% away from election, and he has just three years of eligibility remaining. Still, Blyleven is probably in pretty good shape -- two years ago, Jim Rice was at 63.5%. That means that as Blyleven gets onto his last few years on the ballot he's more likely to be considered. Also, 2010, 2011, and 2012 all seem to be good years for veterans like Dawson and Blyleven -- there aren't dominant players like Henderson to brush the veterans off to the side a bit. It might take a couple more years, but I am now pretty confident that Blyleven will get into the Hall.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">No Bump for John</span></span><br />At least not much of one. Tommy John, in his final year of eligibility, garnered 31.7% of the vote. That's up from the 29.1% he received last year, but was obviously nowhere near enough to get him elected. His only shot now will be through the horribly broken Veteran's Committee -- a fate I wouldn't wish on anyone.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Stingy Voters</span></span><br />Somewhat surprisingly, both Tim Raines and Mark McGwire lost support from a year ago. Raines fell from 24.3% to 22.6%, while McGwire went from 23.6% to 21.9%. I suspect that Raines lost some support because a few voters compared him (somewhat unfairly) to Rickey Henderson, and so didn't check him off this year. I don't know why McGwire lost support, after staying steady in his first two years. Neither lost enough support to worry about dropping off the ballot, however, and they still have many years for people to consider their candidacies. A few other players, including Alan Trammell, Dave Parker, Don Mattingly, and Dale Murphy also lost support this year. Harold Baines bucked the trend at the bottom of the ballot, gaining slightly from 5.2% to 5.9%.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Other First Timers</span></span><br />Aside from Rickey Henderson, the voters didn't much care for the new candidates. All of them were booted off the ballot, with Mark Grace (4.1%) and David Cone (3.9%) coming the closest to sticking around. I thought both Grace and Cone would last another year, and that Matt Williams would come close -- guess I was wrong on that count!<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">New Next Year</span></span><br />Here's the list of eligible players, most of whom will probably end up on the ballot (only to be quickly ushered off after one cycle): </span>Roberto Alomar, Kevin Appier, Andy Ashby, Ellis Burks, Dave Burba, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mark McLemore, Shane Reynolds, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Fernando Vina, Todd Zeile.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">There are some interesting names on the list -- I expect to look hard at Roberto Alomar, Andres Galarraga, Barry Larkin, and Edgar Martinez when I think about it next year. But none of these players have the "without question" quality to them of a Rickey Henderson, Tony Gwynn, or Cal Ripken, Jr., to name a few from the past couple of years who have been obvious. That could make things interesting next year -- and I hate to say it, but it seems entirely possible that no one could get elected next year. I sincerely hope that's not the case!</span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-5135217670405382982009-01-11T18:05:00.002-07:002009-01-11T18:44:12.310-07:00Boxing Banter<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Relatively quiet week to report on, but there are some bigger fights coming up in the next few weeks that should be interesting. Here are this weeks notes:<br /><br />1.) In a battle of undefeated fighters, Hungarian Karoly Balszay (20-0; 14 KO) won a unanimous decision over Denis Inkin (34-1; 24 KO) to snag the WBO Super Middleweight belt. I thought Inkin would get the win in this fight, but I suspected it would be a close bout. It was a fairly close fight, 115-113, 116-112, 116-112, so I wouldn't be all that surprised if the two fought again in a year or so.<br /><br />2.) The second scheduled title fight was turned into a non-title bout after the challenger failed to make weight. WBO Light Heavyweight champ Zsolt Erdei (30-0; 17 KO) remained unbeated by winning a unanimous decision over Yuri Barashian (25-5; 17 KO). The result wasn't particularly surprising, but Barashian's inability to make weight was. How do you miss your weight in a title fight? Sheesh. <br /><br />3.) Two title fights next weekend, both on Saturday night. The first will present undefeated WBC Welterweight champion Andre Berto (23-0; 19 KO) making his second title defense since winning the belt in June. His opponent will be 27-year-old Luis Collazo (29-3; 14 KO), the #1 contender for the belt. Collazo hasn't won a fight against a real quality opponent in a few years, so I would expect Berto to retain.<br /><br />4.) Finally, in a battle for the vacant interim WBO Cruiserweight title, Alexander Alexeev (16-0; 15 KO) will battle Victor Emilio Ramirez (13-1-0; 11 KO). Alexeev has the more impressive pedigree and a few years of experience on Ramirez. He's also more respected by the WBO ranking committee, coming into the fight with the #1 ranking against Ramirez's #7 slot. My money's on Alexeev to become the new "interim" champ. <br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-8132710220235330992009-01-09T20:13:00.003-07:002009-01-10T13:32:07.164-07:00Hall of Fame PredictionsThe results of this year's Hall of Fame voting will be announced Monday, so it's time to make my predictions. Last year, I correctly predicted that Goose Gossage would get in, but I also thought Jim Rice would sneak in and so missed that call. I had a few solid percentage predictions for the guys that didn't make the list, but also missed big on a few guys (like Blyleven -- I didn't see his dramatic increase in votes coming). We'll see if I can do better this year. If you're interested in reading about who I would vote for if I had a vote, you can click <a href="http://mntwinstalk.blogspot.com/2008/01/hall-of-fame-predictions.html">here</a>.<br /><br />My projections are largely based on general impressions from articles I've read along with trends from the past few years of voting and some educated (I hope) guesses as to what could happen given this year's particular dynamics. As a quick refresher, a player must receive at least 75% of the vote to be elected to the Hall, and a player must receive at least 5% of the vote to remain on the ballot next year. Also, a player has only 15 years of eligibility on the ballot, so any player failing to reach 75% in his 15th season on the ballot will not be back next year. Players who I am predicting will be elected are in bold, and players who will not be on the ballot next year either for failing to reach the 5% threshold or because they've run out of years of eligibility will appear in italics. My predicted vote total appears right after a candidates name, with the totals for the previous five years following in parentheses -- most recent listed first.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ricky Henderson - 96%<br />Jim Rice - 78% (72.2/63.5/64.8/59.5/54.5)</span><br />Andre Dawson - 70% (65.9/56.7/61/52.3/50)<br />Bert Blyleven - 67% (61.9/47.7/53.3/40.9/35.4)<br />Jack Morris - 46% (42.9/37.1/41.2/33.3/26.3)<br />Lee Smith - 42% (43.3/39.8/45/38.8/36.6)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Tommy John - 35% (29.1/22.9/29.6/23.8/21.9)</span><br />Tim Raines - 32% (24.3)<br />Mark McGwire - 24% (23.6/23.5)<br />Alan Trammell - 21% (18.2/13.4/17.7/16.9/13.8)<br />Don Mattingly - 17% (15.8/9.9/12.3/11.4/12.9)<br />Dave Parker - 17% (15.1/11.4/14.4/12.6/10.3)<br />Dale Murphy - 12% (13.8/9.2/10.8/10.5/8.5)<br />Mark Grace - 8%<br />David Cone - 6%<br />Harold Baines - 5% (5.2/5.3)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Matt Williams - 4%</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Jesse Orosco - 2%</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Mo Vaughan - 0.8%</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Jay Bell - 0.4%</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Ron Gant - 0.2%</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Greg Vaughan - 0.2%</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Dan Plesac - 0%</span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-51542327776732129282009-01-05T15:32:00.006-07:002009-01-06T09:14:05.294-07:00RIP Carl Pohlad<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I just went to the Star Tribune's website to check out if there was any news on the Senate recount/contest/imbroglio and saw the banner headline about the </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);" href="http://www.startribune.com/business/37106499.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU1E::Dy_oacyKU">passing</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of Twins owner Carl Pohlad. I wish his family, and the extended Twins family, my condolences.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Pohlad's legacy is mixed, in my opinion. On one hand, this is a man who first sought to move his team and then actively promoted contraction. Throughout the 1990's, he was viewed as shamefully cheap, putting a team on the field with a miserly payroll and no chance to win. On the other hand, I don't think there's any question that he loved baseball and the Twins (despite the contraction efforts). He was the owner during the Twins two world title runs in 1987 and 1991. He authorized his GM to go over budget several times in the 2000's when the team finally started winning again. If nothing else, Pohlad provided a stable figure from 1984 to 2009. There are many worse owners throughout the sports world, and in a way I will miss him. Undoubtedly, the 2009 season will be dedicated to him.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE:</span> My apologies if I missed it, but how is it that ESPN at no point today had this on the front page anywhere? The death of the 25-year owner of a team that twice won the World Series in that span strikes me as newsworthy enough to get at least a few hours on the front page, but I looked for this several times today on ESPN and could only find it in the MLB section. In contrast, CNNSI <span style="font-style: italic;">still </span>has the story on the front page after a good half-day, and for a few hours after the news came out MSNBC had it in their major headlines section on the front page, meaning it penetrated not just sports news but actual news news. Ultimately this is pretty inconsequential, but it strikes me as a tremendous oversight on ESPN's part. I'll score that as an error to the webpage headlines editor for ESPN.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE 2:</span> Talk about weird timing -- this morning I checked ESPN and, whatdya know, ESPN has finally put Pohlad's death on the front page. This leads me to believe this really was a "whoops" moment on the part of whoever was editing the headlines yesterday, because certainly Pohlad's death didn't become more newsworthy overnight. I'm guessing someone with some clout in the baseball section noticed the oversight and found a way to get the news on the front page. Better late than never, I suppose.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-39628794972961128952009-01-04T19:32:00.002-07:002009-01-04T20:17:03.985-07:00Boxing Banter<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Well, so much for that Vikings playoff run I was hoping for (not that I expected it). Now, onto the boxing:<br /><br />1.) I went 2-for-3 on my title bout predictions from a week ago. First up, Denkaosan Kaovichit took the WBA flyweight crown off of Takefumi Sakata with a 2nd round knock out. I also correctly predicted that Toshiaki Nishioka would succesfully defend his WBC interim junior featherweight title against Genaro Garcia. My incorrect pick came in the WBA "regular" lightweight championship fight, which I thought would be won by the defending champ, Yusuke Kobori. It seems I disregarded challenger Paulus Moses' undefeated record (built mostly against less-than-steller competition) at my peril, as Moses picked up the crown and now sits at 24-0. At least I can say it was a close call, as the fight went to the cards, with Moses getting the unanimous decision.<br /><br />2.) I mentioned that Evander Holyfield was contesting the decision in his December 20 fight against Nikolai Valuev, and it seems the WBA is taking things seriously. A panel of judges will apparently <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=3800796">review the fight</a>, and I would imagine that they'll actually consider whatever the panel says (this being boxing, though, maybe I'm giving them too much credit -- I suppose it's possible that this was done just to shut Holyfield up). Again, I don't really have a dog in this fight; it sounds like neither fighter was very good. However, I don't think the decision of the ringside judges should be overturned unless it is <span style="font-style: italic;">absolutely clear</span> that their decision was wrong, and I don't think this fight rose to that level. A bad decision? Quite possibly. A clearly, obviously, unequivocally wrong one? No.<br /><br />3.) There are two title fights in Germany on Saturday. In the first fight, WBO light heavyweight champ Zsolt Erdei (29-0-0; 17 KO) will defend against the WBO #10 contender Yuri Barashian (25-4-0; 17 KO). Erdei has held the title since January 2004, with 10 succesful defenses behind him. I would be stunned if he lost the title to Barashian, who only the WBO and IBF have even bothered to rank. <br /><br />4.) The second title fight on the German card will see WBO super middleweight champion Denis Inkin (34-0-0; 24 KO) make his first defense since winning the title in September against Fulgencio Zuniga. His opponent will be undefeated Karoly Balzsay (19-0-0; 14 KO), the WBO #1 contender and Intercontinental champion. I love fights between undefeated competitors, and this one should be entertaining. Both of these guys seem to have some finishing power, and they're about the same age (Inkin is a little older). I'm going to give the edge to Inkin to retain.<br /><br />5.) Finally, Friday night brings the season premier of ESPN's Friday Night Fights, which will see Yuriorkis Gamboa and Odlanier Solis in action. Free fights are always welcome!<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-73773381569593819722009-01-03T19:24:00.004-07:002009-01-03T23:34:04.542-07:00Top 10 Sports Moments of 2008<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It's a few days late, but I finally got a chance to sit down and put together my list of this year's top 10 sports moments. I wanted to get it up on the 31st, but that wasn't going to happen thanks to what was a ridiculously busy schedule over the Holidays. If you want to reminisce a bit, you can check out my 2007 Top 10 <a href="http://mntwinstalk.blogspot.com/2007/12/top-10-sports-moments-of-2007.html">here</a>. Feel free to let me know in the comments whether I left something off that you would have included. Now, for my favorite moments of 2008:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">#10 - Pacquiao Pounds De La Hoya (12/6/08)</span><br />By no means was this the best fight of 2008 -- not even close. In fact, it wasn't even really a <span style="font-style: italic;">fight</span> so much as a beat down by Pacquiao. Why, then, does it make my list? How about the fact that it likely ended the career of the most marketable fighter boxing has ever seen. Or the surprising dominance of Pacquiao, who was supposed to be the weaker fighter due to his naturally smaller size. Or the fact that it cemented Pacquaio's place as the best active pound-for-pound fighter in the business. All of these reasons factored into my decision to include this fight on the list, but the thing that sealed the deal is that this fight opened the door for the possible return of Floyd Mayweather, Jr., who would like to test Pacquiao's claim to that pound-for-pound crown.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">#9 - Davidson's March Madness Run (3/20 - 3/30/08)</span><br />It's not unprecedented for a small school to make a big run in the NCAA Tournament, but the 10th seeded Davidson Wildcats, led by Guard Stephen Curry, didn't just make a run -- they nearly knocked off the eventual champions in the Elite Eight. Davidson took out Gonzaga, Georgetown, and Wisconsin on the way to facing Kansas in the Midwest Regional Final, and ended up losing by a slim 59-57 margin. That was enough to get Davidson in my top 10 -- but to be fair, I should split the #9 spot and give the National Championship game some credit as well. Kansas ended up taking out Memphis in overtime after trailing by 9 points with just 2:12 left to go. The finish of regulation was remarkable, with Memphis choking by missing four of five free throws to end regulation. I'm giving Davidson the headline, but really this spot belongs equally to that great championship game.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />#8 - The 50th Daytona 500 (2/17/08)</span><br />The finish of the Daytona 500 is always pretty interesting, but this year's Daytona 500 probably wouldn't have made my list if it hadn't been the 50th running of the sport's biggest race. Ryan Newman ended up getting the win with an assist from teammate Kurt Busch, giving team owner Roger Penske his long sought first restrictor plate victory. The fact that the "new car" (a.k.a. the Car of Tomorrow) made its Daytona debut in this race also spiced things up somewhat. Really, though, it's the nostalgia involved with a major anniversary that gets this year's relatively pedestrian running of the race on my Top 10 list.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">#7 - Celtics win the NBA Championship (6/17/08)</span><br />The Finals matchup between the Celtics and Lakers was a dream come true for the NBA, but notice that I didn't put the series itself on the list -- this spot goes exclusively to the Celtics for winning the banner. I didn't start to pay attention to the NBA until after the Celtics were already in a serious decline from the championship era, and before last summer the team hadn't hoisted a trophy since 1986, and hadn't won a conference crown since 1987. The extreme makeover that brought Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen in to join Paul Pierce made Danny Ainge look like a genius (and Kevin McHale look very, very bad). It was a notable return to form for the Yankees of the NBA (17 championships -- wow).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">#6 - Jimmie Johnson/Lewis Hamilton Championships</span><br />I'm cheating by putting both racers togethers in one slot, but I couldn't pick which one I preferred. Johnson made history by doing the unthinkable and winning his third straight NASCAR championship, something that seemed unthinkable in the modern era with so many competitive teams. Hamilton, on the other hand, won his first Formula 1 Championship in just his second year in the sport, becoming the youngest driver to pull that off. Hamilton narrowly pulled off the win over Ferrari's Felipe Massa in the championship, winning by just one point after a last lap pass netted him a fifth place finish in the Brazilian Grand Prix. The motorsports world might look very different in 2009, but 2008 brought two brilliant and historic championship runs.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">#5 - Rays win the Pennant (10/19/08)</span><br />The World Series proved to be a bit of a dud, but the Rays 4-3 series victory over the Boston Red Sox in the ALCS was anything but. After narrowly losing the first game of the series, Tampa Bay clobbered Red Sox pitching in Games 2-4, scoring 9, 9, and 13 runs respectively in those games. That was enough to give the Rays a 3-1 series lead and seemed to indicate that the Rays had figured out how to score enough runs off of Boston to make it to the World Series. The veteran Sox wouldn't quit, though, and undoubtedly had visions of a 2004-like comeback flashing through their minds as they won games 5 and 6. In the end, the Rays would ride series MVP Matt Garza and rookie David Price to the game 7 win. And just like that, the Rays threw off the shackles of the first 10 years of team history. No longer are the Rays a laughingstalk. Hopefully they can continue terrorizing the Yankees and Red Sox for years to come.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">#4 - Michael Phelps / Usain Bolt</span><br />The Olympics deserve a spot on this list, and without question the stars of the Beijing Olympics were these two guys. Phelps, of course, set the record for excellence by striking Gold in 8 different events. Bolt won "only" three medals, but his 9.69 second 100 m time (while showboating at the end!) broke his own World Record and inspired praise (for the sheer brilliance of his achievment), criticism (for his showboating), and concern (about the possibility that Bolt's time was aided by performance-enhancing drugs -- something for which there is no evidence). If I had to pick just one single event to put on this list, it probably would have been Phelps' 100m Butterfly victory over Milorad Cavic by just 1/100th of a second -- it was the most exciting 50 seconds of the Olympics for me since I was rooting hard for Phelps to break the medals record. Bolt's achievment is nothing to sneeze at, but I couldn't get overly excited for a 10 second event.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">#3 - U.S. Open Golf Championship (6/12 - 6/16/08)</span><br />By far the most exciting golf event of the year. In case you've somehow managed to forget, this was the great battle between an injured Tiger Woods (who would submit to season-ending surgery a couple of days after winning the event) and the surprising Rocco Mediate. Woods' improbable victory probably would have been enough to get the event on this list by itself (how on earth do you win a golf tournament with a double stress fracture of the tibia and an ACL injury!?!), but the way it was done made it even more special. The unheralded Mediate finished the Fourth Round in a tie with Woods, requiring a Fifth Round the next day. The two golfers were still tied after the extra 18 holes, so in the end it came down to a playoff hole that was won by Woods. Mediate proved to be a popular foil to Woods, and I suspect many were rooting for David rather than Goliath in this battle. Woods victory over the field despite his injuries simply shows how very much better he is than everyone else in his sport. That's not exactly a revelation, but last year's U.S. Open served as yet another amazing reminder.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">#2 - Wimbledon Men's Final (7/6/08)</span><br />An instant classic, this battle between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer is now considered by most pundits I've read to be the best Tennis match ever played. The event took all day to complete, as rain delayed the proceedings several times. In the end, Nadal would win by the unbelievable score of 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7. Nadal had been nipping at Federer's heels for some time, and this unbelievable match was the culmination of that fight. Federer had been invincible on the Wimbledon grass. While they likely will never duplicate the 2008 Wimbledon final, I hope they have a few more great bouts before Federer hangs 'em up.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">#1 - Super Bowl XLII (2/3/08)</span><br />The Super Bowl is the undisputed King of sporting events in the United States. Nearly half of the people in the United States watch at least part of the game every year, a mark that nothing else comes close to. But really, the Super Bowl is popular in spite of itself. The game is usually a long, boring dud with bad halftime entertainment and far too many commercials (which usually are nowhere near as entertaining as they are expected to be by the fans, some of whom tune in solely to watch them). That's what makes last year's Super Bowl the #1 event of the year -- not only was it an "event" in the sense that everybody was watching, it was a great game that saw a tremendous upset. The New York Giants 17-14 win over the previously undefeated New England Patriots denied Bill Belichick's squad perfection, and created the legend of Eli Manning. The Giants final drive, notable for Manning's evasion of a seemingly sure-thing sack and David Tyree's circus catch off his helmet, was astounding sports theater. For once, the Big Game lived up to the hype, setting a new bar for greatness. It easily deserves the #1 spot on my list this year.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-8068767688653172662008-12-28T10:59:00.002-07:002008-12-28T11:38:26.767-07:00Boxing Banter<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Like many of you, I'm sitting down to see if the Vikings can salvage a playoff berth today. Hopefully they can pull off the win against a Giants team that doesn't have a lot to play for -- I'd rather see them get in that way than through a Bears loss (although a Bears loss might be wishful thinking anyway). Now, enough on football -- time to get to boxing. Another abbreviated schedule this week means another short Boxing Banter post:<br /><br />1.) The only fight of any significance this week was WBC flyweight champion Daisuke Naito's title defense against Shingo Yamaguchi. Last week I suggested that Naito was probably the prohibitive favorite due to the comparative records and strength of prior opponents, and that turned out to be the case -- Naito won the fight via an 11th round stoppage and doesn't seem to have ever been in any trouble. <br /><br />2.) Fight News reports that Evander Holyfield is contesting the result of his December 20 fight against Nikolai Valuev. I would guess he has virtually no chance of suceeding. I don't know the rules that are in play for a sanctioning body to review a ring-side ruling, but I would guess the judges would have had to be horribly off to be reversed. I know that a few people, like ESPN's Dan Rafael, believe that Holyfield should have won the fight -- but I've read plenty of reports from other people that say the fight was either a draw or a Valuev win. My point is that this doesn't seem to have been a case where Holyfield won the fight <span style="font-style: italic;">without any doubt</span>, and I think that's what it would take for the judges at ringside to be overruled. <br /><br />3.) There are three title fights in Japan this week, and as with last week's fight I don't know much of anything about the fighters. First up is the WBA flyweight defense of champion Takefumi Sakata (33-4-2; 15 KO) against Denkaosan Kaovichit (45-1-1; 19 KO). Sakata has had the belt since 2007, and hasn't knocked anyone out in a title defense. With his record, that would seem to suggest that Kaovichit has a good shot of knocking Sakata off, but that record is built mostly against bad fighters and it's unclear just how good he is. These two fighters have met before, going the distance in a draw in November 2007. That suggests the fight is indeed closely matched. I'm going to predict a title change.<br /><br />4.) Next up, Toshiaki Nishioka (32-4-3; 19 KO) defends his WBC interim junior featherweight title against Genaro Garcia (36-6-0; 20 KO). It will be Nishioka's first defense after winning the title September 2008. Garcia hasn't fought since December 2007, and has lost two of his last three fights. Nihioka, on the other hand, has been on a decent run recently. I would be somewhat surprised if Nishioka didn't retain.<br /><br />5.) The WBA has a strange policy (designed to get more sanctioning fees out of fighters) that allows it to have multiple champions in a weight class. If the WBA champion in a class wins another major belt, he's declared the "WBA Super Champion," and a new "WBA Regular Champion" will be crowned. WBA "regular" lightweight champion Yusuke Kobori (23-2-1; 12 KO) will defend that so-called "title" against undefeated Paulus Moses (23-0-0; 17 KO) in the final interesting fight of the week. Moses has a couple of solid wins, but I wouldn't look at the undefeated record and get all starry-eyed -- he has a lot of cheap wins in the record as well. Kobori seems to have faced stiffer opposition in his career, and I think he'll emerge from this fight with the win. <br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-68419111224070588482008-12-26T09:14:00.003-07:002008-12-26T09:29:00.611-07:00Dickey Redux<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I wasn't paying any attention to the Twins on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, so I missed until this morning the fact that the Twins have <a href="http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/36732329.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUqCP:iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU">agreed to terms</a> with knuckleballer R.A. Dickey. Last year, of course, the Twins signed Dickey before the Rule 5 Draft only to see the Mariners select him (in what to me was one of the most unusual Rule 5 selections ever -- I'm not saying it was a bad move, but Dickey doesn't exactly fit the profile of the standard Rule 5 pick).<br /><br />It's not immediately clear what role Dickey is expected to play in the bullpen next year, but I don't think it necessarily <span style="font-style: italic;">has </span>to be clear at this point. It's never a bad thing to go into Spring Training with more Major League caliber pitchers than there are available roster spots, and the 'pen that the Twins looked to be ready to go with wasn't exactly filled with 7 All Stars anyway. There's room for a guy to get pushed out by Dickey if it looks like he's better. If he's not, then the Twins can get rid of him instead. I can't imagine the money is going to be much of a deterrent.<br /><br />This was a quirky little Christmas present from the Twins to those fans who were excited by the Dickey signing last year only to see him snatched away by the Mariners. We'll see how he does when the season rolls around.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-86766607179513829882008-12-21T09:59:00.005-07:002008-12-21T14:13:46.174-07:00Boxing Banter<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Very little to talk about today, as there was only one major fight this weekend and there's only one next weekend. Here goes:<br /><br />1.) I said last week that if Evander Holyfield was even remotely competitive in his fight with WBA Champion Nikolai Valuev, that heavyweight boxing should give up and crawl away. I guess it should start crawling, because Holyfield was far more than competitive yesterday. According to several sources, he should have won the fight. Not everyone agrees -- ESPN comentators seem to be split on the subject. The point is that Holyfield survived for 12 rounds against a champion, and had a legitimate chance to win the fight and a belt at 46. It seems clear that Holyfield was better than he has been in quite awhile, but he was by no means championship caliber. Instead, Valuev was exposed as a sham champion. I didn't know much about Valuev before this fight other than that he was a monstrous fellow with a strap around his waist. Now, I know that despite his size he's not much of a fighter, and also that he ducks legitimate fights. Those two things tend to go hand-in-hand; he's not very good, so why bother fighting a legitimate fight? This makes me wonder whether there's any possibility he'll fight one of the Klitschko's -- I imagine the money would have to be huge to force him into a fight he'd go into knowing he was going to lose. As for Holyfield, he should leave now. This fight was nearly as good as a win for his legacy. He didn't get squashed, and if he left now he could retain some dignity. If he fights anyone better than Valuev, he'll almost certainly be down in a hurry. It's well past time to hang 'em up, Evander.<br /><br />2.) The only fight of any consequence this week will be on Tuesday, when WBC flyweight champ Daisuke Naito (33-2-3; 21 KO) defends against Shingo Yamaguchi (23-5-2; 9 KO). I've got nothing on this fight; I don't know anything about either fighter. This will be Naito's fourth defense since winning the belt in July of 2007 from Pongsaklek Wonjongkam. He's won two of the fights and retained via draw in the other. Yamaguchi does not seem to be a serious threat to take the strap.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-57506648640597472322008-12-18T18:42:00.002-07:002008-12-18T18:49:09.183-07:00Blog Update<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">First things first -- when I changed templates all of my links disappeared. I'm going to be reconstructing them over the next couple of weeks, but here's my request to those of you who I may have linked to in the past: if you still want to be linked to, please let me know with an e-mail to taylorjs@colorado.edu (or a comment on this blog would probably work too, I suppose). This doesn't mean I won't link to anybody that doesn't contact me -- it just means that I'm less likely to accidentally overlook someone if you remind me!<br /><br />Second, I'm heading back to Minnesota tomorrow for the holidays. I still intend on blogging a bit during the next two weeks, but I'm less likely to catch any breaking news as quickly as I normally would.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-11210273934921107292008-12-17T22:02:00.003-07:002008-12-17T23:31:34.287-07:00My 2009 Hall of Fame BallotIt's coming a day earlier than I had originally announced, but here is the ballot that I would cast if I were a voter for the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The format is the same as <a href="http://mntwinstalk.blogspot.com/2006/12/my-hall-of-fame-ballot.html">last year</a> -- first, I'll list the players that I would cast a vote for if I had a chance, then the players who I would consider to be possibilities for the future, and finally I will name those players who I would remove from the ballot entirely. Also, just so you're aware, I've plagiarized the comments that I made last year on many of the names who are still on the ballot.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hall of Famers<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Bert Blyleven (12th Year) -- 61.9% in 2008</span></span><br />Despite some difficulties with Blyleven's candidacy, I think the scales come down on the side of Bert being a Hall of Famer. Whether this determination is colored by my Twins bias and my enjoyment of his color commentary for the Twins - well, that's for others to decide. On the plus side, Blyleven is 5th in career strikeouts (3,701) and no one is going to catch him anytime soon (with the retirements of Greg Maddux and Mike Mussina, Jamie Moyer is the closest active player with 2,248). He also struck out 2.8 batters for every batter he walked - that puts him miles ahead of all-time K leader Nolan Ryan (just over 2.0), in the neighborhood of Roger Clemens (2.96), and well below Randy Johnson (3.2). Looking at the pitchers near Blyleven on the K list, he's better than the majority of the top 20 - Fergie Jenkins beats him, as does Greg Maddux, and Pedro Martinez utterly blows everybody out of the water with about a 4.2. But Blyleven is clearly amongst the best in terms of K-BB in the history of the game.<br /><br />Blyelven is also 9th All-Time with 60 shutouts - the man liked to finish what he started. The amazing thing about this stat is that it is incredibly predictive of Hall of Fame pitchers. Other than Blyleven, the <span style="font-style: italic;">top 23 pitchers</span> in this category are in the Hall of Fame. Luis Tiant, at 24, is the first guy besides Bert who isn't in the Hall. Standing alone, that means nothing - but it is another indication that Blyleven's stats are in the same league as other Hall of Famers.<br /><br />As for ERA, Blyelven's career 3.31 ERA isn't great by Hall of Fame standards - but it's better than quite a few players (Early Wynn, Fergie Jenkins, Dennis Eckersley, and Lefty Grove for example). In other words - I'm neutral on ERA.<br /><br />The most oft-heard argument against Blyleven is that he won just 287 games, and this doesn't meet the magic number of 300. But that number didn't prevent Fergie Jenkins (284), Juan Marichal (243), or Jim Palmer (268), amongst others, from getting into the Hall. Bert pitched a couple more years than Jenkins, so one argument could go that someone with 22 years in the game should have crested 300 - but with his other numbers being so solid, I find it hard to argue that the lack of wins is entirely Blyleven's fault.<br /><br />Perhaps more compelling is the argument that Blyleven was never a truly dominant pitcher - he finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting twice, and that was as good as it got - and he was an All-Star just twice. He also never led his league in ERA, Wins, or even K/9. Nevertheless, that doesn't take away from the fact that he put up some brilliant numbers in his career, not all of which were dependent simply on longevity (as his 3.31 ERA shows). Bert belongs in the Hall, and with last year's roughly 14 point jump in his vote total, I'm hopeful that he'll make it in one of his last four years on the ballot.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Andre Dawson (8th Year) -- 65.9% in 2008</span></span><br />After putting Dawson in my maybe category in 2007, I moved him into my "yes" category last year. Nothing has changed my mind since I made that decision. Dawson was a career .279 hitter with 438 HR's over 21 years. In that time, he also picked up 8 Gold Gloves and 4 Silver Sluggers, Rookie of the Year honors in 1977, an MVP award in 1987 (along with 2nd place finishes in 1981 and 1983) and topped it all off with 8 appearances as an All-Star. His 2,774 hits in 21 years are a litter lower than I would expect from a Hall of Famer, but the total package is outstanding, and I'm now convinced.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ricky Henderson (1st Year)</span></span><br />Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. He is the best base stealer of all time with 1406 steals, and with the changes in the game is likely to forever be so. He revolutionized the lead-off position, hitting 297 homers primarily from that spot. He won an MVP and finished second and third in the voting two other years. He made 10 All-Star teams in his 25 year career. It's almost irrelvent to add that he also had 3,055 hits and 2,190 walks (second most all time). If he didn't have the steals, maybe there would be a little bit of doubt in my mind (I'd probably vote for him anyway). But the steals are there, and they are relevant -- don't forget that in the era he played, the stolen base was a much more vital part of the game. There is absolutely no question in my mind that Henderson belongs in the Hall.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim Rice (15th Year) -- 72.2%<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> in 200</span></span></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">8</span><br />Last chance on Rice, and boy is this one tough. Rice's numbers (.298/382/2452) are actually fairly close to Hall of Famer Al Kaline's (.297/399/3007) - except for the hits, but Rice played 6 fewer seasons than Kaline. Last year, I said the difference between Kaline and Rice was Kaline's greatness in the field -- he won 10 Gold Gloves, and Rice never won one. However, Rice won an MVP award and finished in the top 5 of the MVP voting 5 other times. To me, that shows that Rice was an extremely respected hitter for a sufficiently long stretch of time to justify a Hall of Fame vote. Having fully considered the issue, I'm now convinced -- Rice belongs in the Hall. The sportswriters are likely to agree with me this year, as he's likely to retain the support he picked up last year while gaining a few last chance votes.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hold-Overs (a.k.a. the Maybe's)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">David Cone (1st Year)</span></span><br />A Cy Young winner in 1994, twice a twenty-game winner, five times an All-Star -- Cone is not a shabby candidate. I had planned to place Cone in my "no" list straight out, but he had some sustained success and I would want another year to consider his candidacy if I were a voter (yes, I understand that voters don't actually get to choose a "hold him for a year" option when voting). His 194 wins in 17 seasons are probably not enough, but this is not the shut and dried case it would appear. Next year, I'll probably say no flat out (assuming he hits the 5% mark and makes it onto the 2010 ballot) -- but for now I'm putting him in my Maybe column.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Don Mattingly (9th Year) -- 15.8% in 2008</span></span><br />This one is fairly difficult for me. His .307 career batting average fits comfortably in with the current Hall-of-Famers, and he hit 222 HR, so he wasn't a slouch in terms of power. He also won 9 Gold Gloves, 3 Silver Sluggers, and an MVP Award. But I just can't pull the trigger - his BA/Power numbers are more in line with a Hall of Fame 1B from the 1910's than with one from the 1980's. This is closer than I originally thought it would be - I'd put him in the top 5 of the "best of the rest" on my ballot - but in the end I have to leave him off, at least for this year.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mark McGwire (3rd Year) -- 23.6% in 2008</span></span><br />The McGwire saga in the Hall of Fame voting remains one of the more intriguing things to watch each year. After a year in which the question of performance enhancing drugs first exploded and then seemed to disappear (who was talking about it in August, September, or October?), will McGwire benefit? Or will voters continue to keep the issue alive and shun him in large numbers? It seems likely that McGwire has polarized the electorate -- he won 23.5% in 2007 and 23.6% in 2008, so voters don't seem to be very willing to change their minds on him. I've stated before that I wouldn't base my decisions on PED use, but my stance has changed slightly -- if there was a fair amount of proof (and I'm not talking the amount or kind of proof that would be necessary to convict in a court of law; I just want something more than a wink and a nod allegation) that McGwire used PED's for a significant part of his career, I would at that point likely exclude him. If he's only linked to use late in his career, or for only limited periods of time, I would be more inclined to vote for him. Part of the reason I put him on my maybe list, then, is because I just don't know where he fits on that spectrum -- and after all, there's nothing wrong with using those 15 years of eligibility to fully consider his candidacy.<br /><br />Of course, there's also the issue of his performance on the field and whether it's enough to get him in. Last year, I stated that a player with a career batting average as low as McGwire's (.263) was to me a dubious Hall of Famer. I'm going to stand by that as a general proposition, but I've largely been swung around to the view that great performance in another area can compensate for a low batting average. That's why I am now convinced that Harmon Killebrew (.256 career BA) is still Hall of Fame worthy -- because 573 HR's for the era he played in was a remarkable number. Do McGwire's 583 HR's measure up?<br /><br />For now, that's the question I can't answer. McGwire hit a bunch of homers, to be sure, but he did it in an era when homerun numbers have become inflated. It's also the statistic that would benefit the most from juicing. More than likely I would eventually support McGwire's inclusion in the Hall as one of baseball's great sluggers, but there are just far too many questions about his candidacy to say that I would support his election this year.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jack Morris (10th Year) -- 42.9% in 2008</span></span><br />Another close one - but Morris' 3.90 career ERA is a bit too high, and his 1.78 K-BB ratio is a bit too low to earn him consideration for his control. He did win 254 games - which I don't think disqualifies him at all, since he has a .577 winning percentage. His failure to ever win a Cy Young (like Bert, he finished 3rd twice) is another strike against him, because unlike Bert he doesn't have a dominant category to boost his candidacy. Borderline, but probably not quite a Hall of Famer. In the last five years of his candidacy (starting next year) my focus as a voter would be on whether Morris should get in as one of the great pitchers of the 1980's and early 1990's -- but again, the fact that he doesn't have a Cy Young to back that up is problematic.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dale Murphy (11th Year) -- 13.8% in 2008</span></span><br />His .265 batting average is a concern, but his 398 HR, 5 Gold Gloves, 2 MVPs, and 4 Silver Sluggers make him a serious candidate. I have reservations about Murphy having just 2111 hits in 18 seasons, though. If I had to make a final decision on Murphy right now, I'd vote no -- but I'm willing to reconsider.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dave Parker (13th Year) -- 15.1% in 2008</span></span><br />No glaring weakness, like Murphy's batting average. Parker hit .290, with 339 HR and 2712 hits in 19 seasons, while picking up an MVP award, 3 Gold Gloves, and 3 Silver Sluggers. But, while those numbers are very nice, what exactly makes him a Hall of Famer? He was a very good, but not great hitter. He had very good, but not great, power. He could field pretty well. In the end, I think he misses the cut - he's a great player, but not a Hall of Famer.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Tim Raines (2nd Year) </span></span>-- <span style="font-weight: bold;">24.3% in 2008</span><br />Raines played for 23 years and compiled a .294 batting average, 170 homers, and 808 stolen bases (good for 5th all time). He was basically the National League version of Ricky Henderson, and while he's nowhere close in terms of stolen bases, he has a much better batting average than Henderson and was a more patient hitter (Henderson walked a lot, but he struck out a ton, too). Raines also went to 7 All-Star Games, picked up a Silver Slugger award, and had one top 5 finish in the MVP voting. I'm inclined to put him in the "great, but not Hall-worthy" category for now, but as with the rest of those players I'm sticking him in my "Maybe" list in case I later change my mind on him.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Lee Smith (7th Year) -- 43.3% in 2008</span></span><br />Smith picked up 478 saves in his 18 years, which was the record until Trevor Hoffman passed him in 2006 and kept piling on in 2007 and 2008. His career ERA is also solid -- but when you compare Smith with the dominant closers of this era (Mariano Rivera, Hoffman, Billy Wagner) he doesn't quite match up ERA-wise. His 2.57 K's per BB is also a bit low. My biggest problem with Smith last year was that he has 21 more losses than wins, but it was a mistake for me to focus on that category because it's pretty meaningless for closers (heck, it's pretty meaningless for all pitchers). I think Smith is stuck between era's a bit -- he was a closer as far back as the early 80's when the position was first starting to evolve into what it is today, and he closed games out into the 90's when that evolution was pretty much complete. I lean towards a no vote for Smith, but he's close enough that I reserve the right to change my mind in future years.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Alan Trammell (8th Year) -- 18.2% in 2008</span></span><br />Solid career numbers (.285/185/2365) and awards (4 Gold Gloves, 3 Silver Sluggers). But like Parker, Trammell is a really good player who I just don't quite consider to be a Hall of Famer right now. If someone can come up with a compelling argument in his favor, I would certainly consider it.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mo Vaughn</span></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">(1st Year)</span></span><br />Mo Vaughn doesn't exactly scream "Hall of Famer!" to me, but I find his numbers and his career interesting enough to include him on my "Maybe" list. He finished with a .293 career average and 1620 hits in 12 seasons (lower than I would like, but he didn't play for all that long). More interestingly, he had a four-year stretch in which he won and MVP and finished 4th and 5th in the voting two other years. If you ask why I put Vaughn in my "Maybe" list and banish Harold Baines to my "No" list, it's that four year stretch that I'd point to. Baines never was considered one of the top players in his league -- Vaughn clearly was. Vaughn also contributed by playing first base, and I'm a bit biased against DH's in that regard (although you could fairly ask whether it actually HURT his teams to have Vaughn at first base -- but I don't remember him being a complete and total farce at the position). If push came to shove I would say no on Vaughn, but it's also not quite clear cut.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Matt Williams (1st Year)</span></span><br />I'm not thrilled with his batting average (.268) or total hits (1878 in 17 seasons). However, he was a consistent power hitter (378) who won 4 Gold Gloves and finished in the top 6 in MVP voting 4 times. As with Vaughn, if push came to shove that wouldn't be enough for me, but he's also not a categorical no. I would want to continue considering his candidacy.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Off the Ballot<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Harold Baines (3rd Year) -- 5.2% in 2008</span></span><br />Baines was in my "maybe" category two years, but I've thought about him some more and decided that I can make a firm decision on him. His .289 BA and 384 HR's are arguably suitable -- but he spent most of his career as a DH, played 22 years and only picked up 2866 hits, never finished higher than 9th in the MVP voting, and won just 1 Silver Slugger award. In the end, that's not good enough.<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Jay Bell (1st Year)</span></span><br />He's a career .265 hitter who picked up just 1963 hits in 18 seasons. Bell had solid power for a guy who spent a large chunk of his career as a shortstop (195 HR's), but those numbers aren't enough to compensate for what is an otherwise extremely lackluster Hall of Fame resume.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ron Gant (1st Year)</span></span><br />Open and shut case in my book. He was a career .256 hitter who had only one season where he even made it into the top 5 in the MVP voting. His 321 homeruns aren't shabby, but you don't build a Hall-of-Fame worthy career on 321 homeruns and not much else.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span><br /></span></span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mark Grace (1st Year)</span></span><br />In my head, I associate Mark Grace with Don Mattingly. Looking at Grace's numbers, though, he just doesn't stack up to the comparison. Grace had a .303 average and hit 173 homeruns (to Mattingly's .307 and 222), never won an MVP award or even finished in the top 10 in voting (Mattingly won an MVP), made the All-Star game just 3 times (which stunned me when I looked it up -- Mattingly doubled that, by the way), and won 4 Gold Gloves compared to Mattingly's nine. While these two have long gone together in my mind, it's clear that Grace's credentials fall short of Mattingly's. For that reason, he falls short of even my "Maybe" category.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /><br />Tommy John (15th Year) -- 29.1% in 2008</span></span><br />John is not a bad Hall of Fame candidate. His 288 wins are over 26 Major League seasons (although he didn't win many games over those last few years), and he has a 3.34 career ERA. He also finished 2nd in the Cy Young voting twice. Basically, John is Bert Blyleven without the strikeouts. In the end, that's not enough - Bert's Hall credentials are largely dependent on his strikeout and control numbers, and John can't compare in that regard. I've had John in my "maybe" category for a couple of years, but 2009 is his last year of eligibility so an up-or-down decision on his candidacy is appropriate. I would not cast a vote for Tommy John. He was a very good pitcher who doesn't quite rise to Hall of Fame levels.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jesse Orosco (1st Year) </span></span><br />Looking only at Orosco's early career, the Hall of Fame might not seem like such a far-out suggestion. From 1983-1987 he picked up 102 saves with an ERA as low as 1.47 and usually in the mid-2.00's. After that, he became the situational lefty most of us remember. His career 3.16 ERA isn't bad, but there's just nothing in his career that would lead me to believe that it was Hall-worthy.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dan Plesac (1st Year)</span></span><br />The poor-man's Orosco. Like Orosco, Plesac started off getting saves and posting solid ERA's. He then transformed, just like Orosco, into a situational lefty. His career 3.64 ERA shows that he wasn't as effective, as does the fact that his career was 6 years shorter. If Orosco isn't Hall-worthy, Plesac certainly isn't either.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Greg Vaughn (1st Year)</span></span><br />Vaughn finished fourth in the MVP voting in 1998 and 1999, laregly because of his power (50 and 45 homers respectively). Other than that and his 355 homers, he has virtually nothing on which to hang his Hall candidacy. He finished with just 1475 hits and a .242 batting average in 15 seasons. In no way does that measure up.JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-85048099405730889192008-12-14T20:16:00.002-07:002008-12-17T23:40:21.111-07:00Playing Around<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It was time for a new look for the site, so I will likely be playing around for a few days with different looks, colors, etc. I got a kick out of the grey, blue, and red scheme that was up for the last year or so -- but it really got old (my apologies for those of you who hated the look). A big goal of mine is just to clean things up a bit. You'll notice the advertising is gone -- I got a very nice check for a year from one of the advertisers, but my commitment has been up for awhile and the other two ads were just wasting space.<br /><br />So, please pardon any strange things that you might see for the next week or so as I play around. And if by chance you see something you really like, let me know.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-2216100850608451702008-12-14T19:54:00.002-07:002008-12-14T20:15:44.974-07:00Boxing Banter<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A shortened BB post tonight as I prepare for my last final (ever!) as a law student tomorrow. Here are some brief thoughts on what we saw the past few days:<br /><br />1.) I hope you had a chance to watch Tomasz Adamek take the IBF Cruiserweight title off of Steve Cunningham on Thursday night. The card was on Versus, and also included an IBF Bantamweight fight won by champion Joseph Agbeko. Both fights went the distance and were entertaining (this was a great free card), but the Adamek-Cunningham matchup provided a great deal of drama. ESPN's boxing page even lists it as a contender for fight of the year. Adamek managed to knock Cunningham down three times (I believe he had only been down once in his entire career to that point) while staying on his feet despite absorbing a lot of punishment, and that proved to be the difference. A stunning round 4 sums up the fight -- Cunningham dominated the round, to the point that the announcers were discussing awarding the round to him 10-8 instead of the standard 10-9. Then, out of nowhere at the end of the round Adamek landed a right to the face that dropped Cunningham. Under the scoring rules in effect, that mandated a round victory for Adamek, and he ended up winning the round 10-9. That was a three point swing in that one round, and had he not picked up the knockdown (all other things staying the same) the fight would have ended in a draw -- one judge for each fighter and one with an even card. Great fight, great card, great job by Versus putting it together.<br /><br />2.) Wladimir Klitschko easily defeated Hasim Rahman in Mannheim, Germany yesterday to hold onto his IBF and WBO belts. Rahman was a replacement fighter for Alexander Povetkin, who was supposed to get the mandatory fight against Klitschko but was injured in training. This was a ho-hum fight that was never in doubt, as Rahman spent painful amounts of time against the ropes and Klitschko was clearly the better, stronger fighter. It ended in the sixth roung when the referee stopped it following three brutal shots from Klitschko.<br /><br />3.) Elsewhere in heavyweight land, it was all about the old guys. Riddick Bowe returned to the ring for the first time in three years and picked up an 8-round unanimous decision, while James Toney beat Fres Oquendo by split decision in a 12-rounder. I would like to say that these results are meaningless because both fighters are far beyond their prime, but with Evander Holyfield getting a title shot next weekend I guess I can't quite make that statement.<br /><br />4.) The Kendall Holt-Ricardo Torres rubber-match was called off because Torres was hurt, but Holt still faced a challenge on the Showtime card on Saturday night when he faced previously undefeated challenger Demetrius Hopkins. Holt retained his WBO Junior Welterweight belt by split decision. The judge ruling for Hopkins was sort of on an island, with her point spread very different from what the other two judges had. Normally with a split decision in that situation I'd say a rematch is likely, but the cards of the other two judges weren't that close. Still, a rematch would be nice to see if Holt could do it again. I'm guessing Holt still wants Torres for a third time, so maybe that will come next.<br /><br />5.) There are some fights next weekend, but there only appears to be one world title on the line -- WBA Heavyweight champ Nikolai Valuev defends his belt in a sham fight against Evander Holyfield, who came out of nowhere when he signed this fight. This thing has no business going beyond three rounds, if that. Holyfield is 46 and hasn't been a meaningful fighter in years. Valuev is a monster who is 11 years younger and has 34 KO's in 51 matches. The only reason this fight was signed at all was that Holyfield needed money and Valuev needed an easy end-of-year opponent, presumably for a tuneup. If Holyfield is even remotely competitive in this fight, Heavyweight boxing should just give up and crawl away. <br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-83239903644774919862008-12-14T00:24:00.004-07:002008-12-14T01:11:17.346-07:00New Look Organizational Rankings<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">For the last two years, I've put together Organizational Rankings posts (they were linked on the right side of the page, but my messing around has temporarily removed them). Unfortunately, this year I never got around to getting the relief pitcher post up (if you're clever, you can get to the page that has about 1/4 of the players listed, but I never activated the link because it was never completed). Equally unfortunately, the idea suffered from my inability to determine exactly what information I wanted to convey on the pages. On the one hand, the lists have been put together in the order of my rankings -- which is great if you want to see who I valued going into each season. At the same time, however, I've been trying to use those pages as a player transactions database. While there is a LOT of information on the players in the organization available on the web, some basic information is widely scattered and requires some actual digging to get at.<br /><br />I legitimately want to service both of the goals mentioned above -- I enjoy ranking players, but at the same time I think its nice to be able to go to one site to see transaction information, rather than trying to track it down from multiple sources. As a result, I've decided to change the way that I present the information.<br /><br />First up, in January I will be unveiling my new "Organizational Database." No, it will not be a true database. It will not be searchable in the way a true database is -- it'll just be like one of my long "Organizational Rankings" posts, but it will be organized by last name rather than by my rankings so that it will be significantly easier to find the player you're looking for. No more guessing whether Nick Punto is listed as a 2B, SS, or 3B if you want to see info on him. More than likely, I'll put the data into 4 or 5 separate posts broken down in some fashion like "A-E, F-K," and so on.<br /><br />Here's the kicker: my goal is to keep the Database as up-to-date as possible. I will include a link to a page (probably The Baseball Cube) where you can easily see historical stats. I will include all the basic vital information. Most importantly, however, I'm going to do my absolute best to give you information like what year the player will become Rule 5 eligible, how many options years the player has used, and so on. I will also make an effort to regularly update all transactions for all players at the Rookie League level and above. This is all information that I keep track of anyway, but other than a half-hearted effort to track transactions I generally haven't made it available on the site. I might as well try, and see if anyone finds it useful.<br /><br />As for the Organizational Rankings, they will survive in a different format. Starting in early February I will begin putting out the rankings using some of the same rules as I've used in the past, such as deciding which one position a player belongs in and not changing the rankings during the year. The posts will be much more in the nature of a simple list than they have previously been, however, and more than likely will include only a paragraph or two of explanation at the bottom to give some insight into why I ranked Player A higher than Player B, and so on.<br /><br />I sincerely hope that once I get these two projects up and running that those of you who visit this site will find them to be useful. In any case, they should be much more user-friendly (and informative) than they have been in the past.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-75873837736464283802008-12-13T19:03:00.002-07:002008-12-13T19:07:27.867-07:00Seth's Book -- Downloadable!<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Hey folks -- if you're looking for a great Twins minor league resource, you need to check out <a href="http://www.sethspeaks.net">Seth Stoh</a>'s Prospect Handbook 2009. I went with the hard copy, but if you want to save a couple of bucks and like reading material on your computer, Seth has now made a downloadable copy available for $8.00 <a href="http://www.lulu.com/content/4837266">at this link</a>. I strongly recommend the book -- very few people (and maybe none not employed by the Twins) know as much about the Twins minor league system as Seth. <br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-44569777850127755372008-12-12T11:33:00.003-07:002008-12-12T12:05:11.124-07:00Rule 5 Thoughts<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A little later than promised, here are my thoughts on this year's Rule 5 Draft:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Losses</span><br /><br />It seemed coming in like there were a number of players who the Twins could lose, but by adding so many players to the 40-man roster in November the Twins were able to take most of the most susceptible players off the board. As a result, the Twins lost three players overall -- not a great number, but not terrible either.<br /><br />The sole Twin taken in the Major League phase of the draft was 24-year-old Dominican <span style="font-weight: bold;">Jose Lugo</span>, a lefty reliever with a middling career ERA but excellent K-BB numbers -- last year he struck out 76 and walked just 33 in 69 innings, and he's consistently shown that those numbers are about what can be expected from him (at least at the minor league level). The Royals drafted Lugo and then sent him to the Mariners, so for the second year in a row the Mariners will have a Rule 5 draftee who needs to stick on the big league roster or be offered back to the Twins. Last year, you may recall, the Mariners unexpectedly took recent signee R.A. Dickey from the Twins, and when they couldn't find room for him on the big league roster they worked out a trade that netted the Twins catcher Jair Fernandez. I would expect something similar to happen again this year, since Lugo is seemingly nowhere near ready for the major leagues -- he spent last year in High A Ft. Myers, and it's an awfully big jump from there to the big show. <br /><br />The Twins also lost two players in the AAA phase of the draft, meaning they won't be coming back. First up is righty reliever <span style="font-weight: bold;">David Shinskie</span>, a 24-year-old Pennsylvanian who has been in the organization since he was drafted in the 4th round of the 2003 draft. Shinskie's 2008 was limited by injury, but he had a very solid 2007 season (3.36 ERA in 64.1 innings). <br /><br />Finally, infielder <span style="font-weight: bold;">Juan Sanchez</span> was also taken in the AAA phase, heading to the Brewers. Sanchez was initially signed as a free agent in 2004, but didn't get to the US until 2008, where he hit .314 in 137 AB's with the GCL Twins. While those are nice numbers, it's hard to feel the loss of a guy who wasn't that well known in the organization.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Gains</span><br /><br />The Twins picked up two players yesterday as well. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Jason Jones</span>, a right-handed starter out of the Yankee organization, was first up. He was a fourth round draft pick back in 2004, and has risen fairly steadily through the organization. He's already 26, so it's getting to the time where he'll need to take the next step. He'll get that chance this spring with the Twins, where the word is he'll be thrown into the bullpen mix and given a chance to earn a spot on the big league roster. Jones is not completely unfamiliar with a relief role, but he's been used far more often as a starter to this point -- he has 104 starts against just 20 relief apperances. His K-BB numbers are excellent, although he's not an overpowering pitcher as evidenced by his K/9 numbers. At this point, I don't expect him to make the roster (so he may be on his way back to the Yankees at some point), but anything is possible if he has a solid spring and there are injuries or disappointments involving other players.<br /><br />Finally, the Twins selected righty reliever <span style="font-weight: bold;">Henry Arias</span> from the Reds in the AAA phase of yesterday's draft. Picks below the major league phase rarely pan out to much, but remember that a couple of years ago the Twins selected Brian Buscher from the Giants at this level, and he's now spent some reasonable time in the big leagues. In other words, unexpected things can happen. Count me a bit underwhelmed by the soon-to-be 24-year-old Arias -- he has ok K-BB and K/9 numbers, but his ERA and WHIP have generally not been that great (although he spent the first part of last year in A-ball with the Royals and actually pitched reasonably well). Ultimately, there's just not enough information on Arias to know whether he's worth much. With a AAA phase rule 5 pick, though, there's not much to lose -- so I look forward to seeing how he performs once the season starts.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-30241987258509917552008-12-11T17:46:00.004-07:002008-12-11T18:01:38.619-07:00Punto Returns to the Fold<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In a move that is undoubtedly making many Twins fans shudder in fear of what's to come in 2009, the Twins today <a href="http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/neal/2008/12/11/nick-punto-signs-with-twins/">brought Nick Punto back</a> under a two-year, $8.5 million deal with an option for 2011. The fact that Punto is back on the roster is bad enough for many of you, but the fact that the Twins are talking about him like he's the presumptive starting shortstop for 2009 is even worse.<br /><br />Now, I can't deny that Punto has had some miserable performances with the Twins. His 2007 season (and his .210 batting average) won't soon be forgotten. But let me point out that Punto hit .284 last year with a 726 OPS (admittedly not great, but not deadly). He stole 16 bases. His Range Factor at shortstop (4.92) and his zone rating at shortstop (.865) both would have led the league at that position if he had been a regular starter. In other words, Punto remains an outstanding defensive shortstop, he has speed, and two out of the last three years he's hit at least .284. I am not arguing that the man is a Hall of Famer, or even that he'd be my first choice to play the position. What I am saying is that, by my reckoning, he's worth $4 million and is a far better choice to start at shortstop than Adam Everett ever was.<br /><br />I know many of you wanted the Twins to make a splash by landing a third baseman or a different shortstop at the Winter Meetings. I also know that Nick Punto doesn't qualify for most of you as a big deal signing (and I'm really not trying to argue that he is). All I'm trying to say is that, compared to many of the free agent acquisitions the Twins have made the last few years, this one actually stands a chance of working out exactly as they expect it to.<br /><br />Now, hopefully Punto doesn't go out and make me look like a complete fool by reverting to his 2007 form . . .<br /><br />As for the Rule 5 Draft, I'll have some thoughts up by tomorrow morning. Rough cut: Not as painful as I'd feared, not as painless as I'd hoped.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-71038260425526510212008-12-10T20:15:00.002-07:002008-12-10T20:20:23.480-07:00Rule 5 Draft<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I wish I could tell you that I'll have up-to-the-minute commentary on tomorrow's Rule 5 Draft, but unfortunately I won't. I have a final in Indian Law tomorrow from 1:15 to 4:15 mountain time, and before that I'll be doing last minute prep. I expect to have a full recap of any Twins-related draft picks (coming or, much more likely, going) after I get home. Hopefully the Twins don't get ravaged -- there are definitely some guys I hope don't get taken. Be back tomorrow!<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-16061844693339701182008-12-07T22:46:00.002-07:002008-12-07T22:49:54.480-07:00No Surprise<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I'm not sure why Dennys Reyes and his agent decided to wait until what seems like the very last instant to <a href="http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/35691814.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUqCP:iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU">decline the Twins offer</a> of arbitration, but it seems they did just that. Reyes is a lefty with a good track record, and should be able to get a nice, juicy contract on the open market. As such, there was no real reason for him to accept the Twins arbitration offer. From the Twins side, while I'm sure they wouldn't have minded getting Reyes back for another year, they really made the offer to protect the draft pick compensation they'll receive when he signs elsewhere. Really, this is a win-win for both sides. The Twins seem interested in adding a reliever during the Winter Meetings, so we'll see if that (or anything else) happens starting tomorrow.<br /></span>JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.com3