MLB - Twins offseason just got worse

So when I offered my drastic steps to get the Twins pitching somewhat in order in a previous post I already noted that the Twins had made a mistake by letting a quality affordable option in Scott Baker sign elsewhere when he was ready to sign with the Twins.

Since then things have gone from bad to worse for Minnesota baseball. At least for now. 

• The short window I proposed to trade with Seattle passed when Chone Figgins was released, losing the chance at taking his salary on in order to get Jason Vargas. 
• Atlanta signed BJ Upton, which totally changes some of their demand for OF help. Although it does not totally rule them out yet as a trade target.
• Then out of desperation it looks, the Twins dealt what might have been their best trade chip in Span (best in terms of having a team friendly contract, his position and place in the line-up being in demand, and the team having a solid replacement option), as I had suggested in my original breakdown, he went to the Washington Nationals. They made sense as a destination for some time. But instead of that in any way being a deal which might solidify the wasteland of Minnesota pitching (or as I had proposed acquired players that allow the team to unload other offensive players for pitching) they received a single pitching prospect who has never pitched past A ball.
• If only that were all, while the rumor was later downplayed in how serious the discussions were, reports also came out that the team was having conversations with Francisco Liriano.

Really?!? That is the current plan? Let Baker sign elsewhere but consider a return of Liriano? Trade Span for a prospect who is not close to MLB ready?


Now the upside this prospect could eventually prove to be great for this team. Baseball America reportedly suggested he would rank 6th in the Twins farm system. So they did get a quality prospect, my issue is the team has a massive need at the MLB level and publicly stated intent to reload their pitching and have done little to do that. Liriano needs to move on, I think he is a fit for teams like the Astros or Cubs, but he should be the second last free agent starter Minnesota is considering, right after Jason Marquis. Twins GM Ryan said he will let the prospect (whose name is Alex Meyer by the way) determine how far he is from the MLB, which loosely translates to, "Yeah, he has a chance at pitching in the majors soon. Since we know we were supposed to get MLB pitching and haven't we don't want fans to think he is too far away, so we'll say something that is basically true of all players: if he does well enough, he will be in the majors shortly."

So what does the team do now?
I think they need to up their pursuit of two free agent starters: Edwin Jackson and Brandon McCarthy. In Jackson you know what you're going to get: A hard thrower who will give you lots of innings with an ERA in the 3.50-4.00 range. In McCarthy you're not sure what you're going to get because he carries to big question marks: how well he will perform with a new team (since he was quite good in Oakland pretty unimpressive in Texas) and how his health will hold up. But together you make quality upgrades for this team without breaking bank on the biggest free agents out there. And they are both younger free agents, which will mean you will have less regression at the end of the deal. I think Jackson will get done if they give him a fourth year, since last year only one team would only give him three and he had to settle for one year. Four years at maybe 50 million would do it. It's kinda high, but since the Twins are now relying greatly on Free Agents, they have to outbid others. McCarthy I think two years at say 8 mil a season with a vesting 3rd year at 10 mil might do the trick. It is an expensive upgrade to give 66-76 million for two pitchers no doubt. But don't blame me, my first proposal would have saved the team money.

The other option is the team deals Willingham for a pitcher from teams like Atlanta, Tampa, or Seattle. They would then probably have to sign someone, maybe Ryan Ludwick (although his career indicates his power is highly dictated by the ballpark, struggling in places like Pittsburgh and San Diego but thriving in St. Louis and Cincinnati, unless those two seasons in PIT and SD were chalked up to other struggles he may really find Target Field as a tough place to hit home runs), or the team could reacquire one of Cuddyer or Kubel - guys who may not cost too much in a trade and have provided solid (but not elite) offense at Target field. But in those situations, you still have to offer the best deal, and the team is not good enough to part with any players they see as a legit part of their future.

This is the tough position Minnesota is in. They are not rebuilding, but they cannot reload at the cost of the future because they are not really close enough to challenging for the top of the division. They publicly state their intent to improve the rotation, and yet do nothing for that yet. But Winter Meetings, where most of the offseason action takes place, is around the corner. Here's to hoping the Twins are going there with a plan in mind. Because if they walk away from their having twiddled their thumbs or only adding A ball players or scrap heap pitchers, you might as well wait for 2014 before getting excited.

HIV: Keeping the church from utter silence

I had some hesitations about posting this now. That is, World AIDS Day can become a token occasion to talk about AIDS, or better put, it can become the day we bring up AIDS so we can ignore it the other 364 days of the year. It's like Black History month, it is there so we don't forget it entirely yet can equally lock all our conversations and celebrations of African Americans in our history to the block of time that has been delegated to them - which totally misses the point. Funny enough, the church also does this with stuff we don't always want to talk about. How often does Stewardship become something only seriously raised during the two-three weeks in Oct/Nov dedicated to the Stewardship drive?

But none of this should be. Stewardship to be taken seriously needs to happen more often than at budget time. Black history should be seen as far too essential to American history to be ignored 11 months out of the year. And AIDS should be as big an issue on December 2nd or June 2nd as it is on December 1st. We must not convince ourselves that these things only need a day, a few weeks, a month. And so, I don't post this today so that it can be forgotten tomorrow.

In the Lutheran church especially, but far as I have seen in the greater church as well, AIDS is not a regular topic and rarely an illustration in church and theology. Although I imagine among global Christianity it has a bigger place, because there are places in the world so widely touched by AIDS to relegate it to a day would be societal suicide. Pastors there probably talk about it more. But the truth is much of African Christianity I know little about, since in America it seems African Christianity only exists to serve the purpose of offsetting our losses in Western civilization. I only hear it talked about when we are discussing how Christianity is booming there (in contrast to the increasingly empty sanctuaries here), but I know little of their theology. I've only heard one real critique of African churches in regards to theology, I can only name one or two African theologians from the last 1500 years of Christian history. So how much AIDS is discussed there, how it is, I cannot say much. I am only aware of one particular controversy around this issue from a sermon where a pastor made a claim (theologically not scientifically) that "Jesus had AIDS".


Here though, especially in the Lutheran church, I do not encounter it much. I imagine there are a variety of reasons for this: for one, AIDS is not seen (especially since the turn of the new millennium) as the big issue to tackle in the lives of the people. The "scare" is over (or so we're told, yet people living with AIDS day in have something different to say), but as new medicines have greatly improved the lives of the AIDS community, the issue is losing national attention in the greater culture. But I can say, it shouldn't. People are still dying. People I love. My own father passed away from AIDS related complications in the early '90s closer to the height of the AIDS scare, but my mother did as well, far more recently (2010), well after we were supposed to no longer be afraid of dying from AIDS. I just a month ago was at the funeral of a friend of the family who passed away. Friends of mine share their health struggles day to day, as social networking has opened this possibility. And while many communities have now dealt with AIDS for some time, others never have, and I find they are still today engaging it for the first time. That, and even when we know all we know from a book or a class, the "lesson" becomes far more real when it directly affects people in our lives. For how far medicine and education and acceptance for the AIDS community has come, it is still an issue.

The other reason is the church has been historically bad about dealing with AIDS. Especially early on, when AIDS was almost universally attached to homosexuality (even as a homosexual friend of mine recounts, it was in its very earliest days regarded for a time as 'gay man's cancer') theologians took the opportunity to decry homosexuality, marking AIDS as nothing more than God's judgment. Although I do remember a seminary professor challenging this notion, noting that the passage in Romans (1.27) cited to support this claim separates AIDS and the so called penalty for their error by almost 2000 years. Nevertheless, the AIDS community remembers very well how the public voice of the church was by and large damning and opportunistic in that it sought to use human suffering for little more than furthering the church's stance on homosexuality. And this cannot just be blamed on the loud public voices. The AIDS community has their stories too. My friend was as a child kicked out of her church on Easter morning when they learned she was HIV positive. My mother found herself separated from the congregation (a Lutheran one mind you) she called home. Yes the church has publicly, and in many individual lives had a bad history in regards to AIDS.

Before I continue on though, I must say that is not the case everywhere. And I am greatly thankful for that. The church my mother finally ended up in especially, a small struggling inner city Lutheran congregation became the wellspring of life for her, and the people and community truly were little Christs to her daily. The church still has a place in my family's life because there are churches that have been good. There are churches that have opened their doors and been absolutely supportive. I needed to say this, because while AIDS may not be a great issue in the church, for some churches it has been, and from my own experience, I've seen the difference.

I think another reason AIDS is not a large issue in the church has been the fact that AIDS education and the church have often found themselves with conflicting messages. Having been a part of both I've experienced and seen this. A lot of it comes out of issues related to sexuality, homo or hetero. Many in the Christian community since reserving sex for the marriage bed is such an important issue can't take on the discussion of safe sex. Part of this I get, that is, it is important to hold to one's religious values around this, so when one believes abstinence is the expectation, that should be said. The truth is the AIDS community also speaks about abstinence, but they are also realistic. That is, while the church should hold to its guns, we should not pretend that premarital sex is only happening outside the church. Simply because we want people avoiding sex outside of marriage altogether does not mean we should wage a war on condoms, because the truth is I want people who break that expectation to still be safe. I'm not sure everyone in the church does. Or rather, we don't like that safe sex removes some of the risks that one engages in while engaging in premarital sex, as if it destroys the argument to save sex for marriage. This issue is even greater in churches like the Roman Catholic church who oppose contraceptives (although condom use in particular has been discussed more positively at times in the RCC than other forms because of the particular preventative nature of it). Also, homosexuality and how the AIDS community talks about it and indeed is a part of it I think has made it hard for many churches to connect, because this issue is one of the greater ones in the church today. It has made it difficult for the two groups to engage hospitality and affection and the education as to how one contracts the disease. This is on the church and on AIDS educators to find ways to not let different agendas and different ethical standards impede the needed conversations on HIV.

But apart from the issues of AIDS itself, is the fact that AIDS is chronic. It is a lifelong struggle and illness. It can affect daily living for the rest of your life. It interrupts, affects, even ends relationships. It can carry into people's lives constant fears related to death, disability, and alienation. Even people who need not fear ever being alone because of AIDS, there is still the constant fear that someone will react some way that is negative. You are never too popular to be hurt by someone spurning you because of your health. And for people with AIDS, this is a day in thing. But all the struggles, both physically and emotionally, do not go away. And chronic illness is something the church has not in my experience engaged enough theologically. Even though it is a pastoral issue that just about every pastor tends to, even though it often comes with great spiritual questions by those affected, not enough has gone into a theology of chronic suffering. Or better put, those theologies have not been public enough. When we are talking about healing, new life, deliverance and so on, there are people out there asking "what about me?" Miracles and healing, hope, these are messages we can struggle to articulate for those who feel trapped in their chronic illness. This issue transcends AIDS but is necessary for a good theology for AIDS.

And this is what the church needs, along with making sure we are not breeding fear or letting fear of AIDS or ignorance to the disease brood in our churches, we need a good theological voice, because by and large the voice the AIDS community, the world in general has heard from the church on AIDS has not been good. It has either been opportunistic theology, AIDS used to draw sympathy or attack, but we must not imagine that this is a non-issue, or be so afraid of our poor history or the issues around sexuality that we have no gospel word for AIDS. We need one. There are groups and people interested in promoting good education and awareness about AIDS and the AIDS community, but theology is our business, and so to neglect this is our failure. To take it up is our calling and our role for a people of AIDS. The people - that is why we must not leave this to silence, or even a single day in the year. Because people, our people, God's people, are longing for the tender compassion of God.

Yesterday I finally watched the movie The Cure. I've heard about this movie for some twelve or fifteen years now, but I never got around to seeing it. I finally did. The premise is two boys become best friends, one of them is HIV positive. So his friend commits to helping him find a cure. What is great about the movie is that this medical issue, is given a human quality as it is happening between these two boys and the outcome of the cure is invested in the characters themselves. There is one moment in the movie where the boys get cornered by a guy who threatens them with harm. The one boy (who is HIV negative) pulls out a small pocket knife to defend them. The man responds by pulling out a large butterfly knife. The boy who is HIV positive takes the small pocket knife from his friend and gets in between them. He dares the man to stab him, inciting "my blood is poison", he cuts a small gash on his own hand and chases the man away shouting "MY BLOOD IS POISON!" The moment is fairly comical. But when the boys are safe and the energy fades, he collapses under the weight of his own threat. He cries and laments quietly "my blood is poison." It lifts up a great pastoral issue that people with AIDS face, how one understands the disease. His friend replies, "It's a virus." He looks and he sees that his friend is not a weapon or a dangerous chemical...he's a person who is being attacked. He's not the poison.

Do we have a theological voice for disease, especially ones that carry such lifelong burdens? How do we articulate theologically what a virus is? AIDS particularly carries like lung cancer (in relation to smokers), this assumption that one deserved what they got. Because of how preventable the virus is from catching, it turns the virus into some unsympathetic cosmic justice (especially since sexual contact and IV drug use are primary means of contraction), but our theology of viruses, of chronic illness, of AIDS can and should be better than that. How does forgiveness relate to healing (for Christ certainly links them - Mark 2.9) or how does forgiveness get us past cosmic justice and into a proclamation that the curse has been lifted (even when it seems so present)? Lutheran theology which is so caught up in the already-not yet paradox should be especially interested in how that relates to illness and healing.


Left to the experience of AIDS, people can see curse, blame, or ask why they deserved it (or what was God's will in it all). The absence of firm authoritative voices will leave more moments where people lament "my blood is poison" with no cry in return. But we ought be there, not only to say as the friend, as the medical community does that it is a virus, but to lift the curse from their burdensome shoulders and place it at the cross, the one place where the will of God is revealed for all people, a will that we not perish, but have life, and have it abundantly. But for this to happen we need to not let our voices be silent. I should say, I always appreciate those moments when in church I hear a prayer for people or families suffering from AIDS. Sometimes we knock general prayers, or prayers for wider issues, but perhaps we ought remember that in each of those prayers, someone is hearing "they just prayed for me". If something like that is so powerful, it stands as a glimpse at the great hope God provides for us when we long to be remembered by him. In Exodus we hear that God heard the voice of the people crying out (2.24). To be remembered by God is no small thing. Prayer is no small thing. To hear what God has then thus done and is doing, is no small thing.

Don't let the church be silent. She has far too great a voice to not speak up.

God is good and terrifying.

So I never have found the time to read C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, although I have the books myself I just never seem to get around to them. However, I recently got on audiobook The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and have finally been able to at least listen to it.

Unfortunately the book is packed away so I will not be able to give you a direct quote, but listening to the book has been fascinating. Lewis deserves major props for making a story that is filled with Christian imagery/themes without it being necessarily apparent, especially the first time through. By the resurrection of Azlan it starts to become more apparent. But if you did not know you were approaching a Christian story, you could work your way there and all of the sudden be surprised that you have been dabbling in a tale riddled with Christian themes. There is much I think is worthy of talking about: two worlds, how they overlap (particularly in relation to time), atonement, prophecies, seasons, and so on. Hopefully I will dip my fingers in to some of these on other occasions. Today I want to specifically talk about the description of Azlan.



There are two key moments I am thinking about, and I apologize that I cannot give the precise quotes with my book packed away (hopefully in the future I will edit and add them in the bottom of this particular post), but there are these two moments where I found Lewis' description of Azlan quite interesting. The first is when the Beavers are talking about Azlan to the four and the question arises as to whether Azlan is safe or dangerous. The answer was not what we might expect when speaking about a Christ-figure in the story, we are told that he is quite dangerous. Hardly the description we might give to our servant Christ.

This comes up a second time when Azlan first appears to Lucy, Peter, Susan, and the Beavers. If my memory is correct, Azlan is called "terrifying". But in both of these occasions we are told this is juxtaposed with a nature that is "good". Just because something can be dangerous or terrifying does not mean it cannot be good we are told.

What does it mean to speak of Azlan, and ultimately of God and Christ this way? For one, I think this reinforces Lewis' theme that Azlan is "not a tame lion". That is, as that relates to God, we do not control God. And once we realize that, just as much as we speak of a Lion that cannot be tamed, we immediately ought to recognize the danger and how terrifying a thing it is to come before him. In the book, no one wants to be the first to approach Azlan. Peter suggests Beaver should make the introduction, but Beaver says that children of Adam should go first, Peter then urges his sister under the "ladies first" excuse, but she rejects it and insists that he should, invoking the "eldest first" excuse. Only then does Peter finally lead the way.

This is even though they know, we know,  that Azlan is good. What would it mean to speak of the fear of the Lord? Perhaps we ought to take a page out of Lewis' book when we speak of the goodness of God, that goodness does not mean God is tame, it means God is good. That is incredibly important when we confront the reality of how we are often not good. To face a good that you do not control and cannot tame is what we need when we are victims of evil, but it is terrifying news when we are the bringers of evil. I think of how in the book at the mention of Azlan's name all the Pevensies react, but the reaction is different based on how they stand in relation to good. To Edmund, who has betrayed his family and the Narnians, he is filled with fear.

Fear of the Lord, awe of the Lord, recognition of truly how powerful the Lord is and dangerous the Lord can be, is something that has major themes and use throughout the Bible. It is often used relationally, sometimes almost as if describing faith, "The men feared the LORD even more, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows." (Jonah 1.16) or fear of the Lord is said to be "the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1.7). It is used quite positively.


Luther likewise picks up on the aspect of fear of the Lord in his catechism. But what is quite interesting is he places it especially under the 10 Commandments (under the Law). After the first commandment where we are taught to "Fear, love, and trust God" above all other things, the explanation of each successive commandment begins "We should fear and love God that we...".

One of my mentors once told the class that we have by and large forsaken the fear of God. We want the goodness, we want the love of the Lord, but have avoided speaking of the fear of the Lord. That, he said, is something we must recover. I'm not saying sinners in the hands of an angry God kind of recovery, this is not about going back to fire and brimstone and making people fear hell, it is about going back to the call to fear but one thing in this world, God. For the goodness of God, the trust of God, and the power of God through the cross is something quite different when we know how great a thing it is, when we are humbled before it. When our access to God through Jesus Christ is not something to be taken for granted, nor is our treatment of his creation.

Fear of the Lord is an even greater thing to speak of when we encounter God, just as when the band of travelers came upon the Lion, when Christ is no longer talked about, but we speak of him here, when we look up with scales falling from our eyes to see Christ before us, and that is the reality we live in, one where Christ is with us always, unto the end of the age (Matthew 28.20) the juxtaposition of our love and fear, of God being good and terrifying perhaps become more real. There is a reason the resurrected Christ enters rooms with the greeting "Peace be with you." There is a reason we need the gospel words. Perhaps one of the great abandonments of the church and hearing the gospel message is the lack of fear of the Lord, a forgetfulness of needing his divine goodness shared. Or perhaps it is because of fear of the Lord, where we do not come to the presence of God because we cannot bear such a fearful God, or because we do not want our Christ to be "untamed". In either instance we imagine that a God who is fearful cannot likewise be a God who is good or would be good to us when we have been not good.

Yet as in Narnia, that is precisely the story. That the God who is good and terrifying would so arrange for Edmund's freedom with his own life. Fear and love, dangerous and good, these words don't negate the way our untamed God has so chosen to choose us in Christ. Nor does the graciousness of God negate such an aspect about him, it merely holds onto us when we would think we could never be before someone so good and so terrifying.

Twins Offseason - reworking the pitching

The Twins need a new team. Plain and simple. They need one that can pitch. They have hitters, but Morneau starting to hit again, Mauer having another Mauer year, Willingham hitting 40 home runs, Span making his contract look good - none of that mattered at all given that the state of the Twins pitching. It proved more than anything the old saying that pitching wins ballgames. It is much rarer to find teams with great pitching and such a poor offense that they have a last place finish than the opposite. It may take more than pitching to make the playoffs (although with two Wild Card teams now, that may not be the case), but no matter what, that is where you start.

With that in mind, Minnesota has a long way to go. And they made their first mistake in letting Scott Baker sign with the Cubs when he expressed a willingness to return to the team at a lower salary. But that is done and past.

Here is my proposal: the team unload some of their better offensive pieces to start to put together their pitching. I think Minnesota will need to do this because they will not be able to afford all the pitchers they need via free agency.

The cost: Morneau, Willingham, and Span. As well as providing some salary relief.
The teams they deal with: Rays, Mariners, Nationals.
Here is phase one of the plan:
Justin Morneau goes to Seattle for SP Jason Vargas and utility man Chone Figgins.
Denard Span goes to Washington in return for Michael Morse and Christian Garcia.
Josh Willingham goes to Tampa for Jeremy Hellickson.

Here is my thinking:
Because of Morneau's cost and question marks, the Twins just cannot get too much for him. On one hand this may make one think it best to hold on to him, and that is fair thinking. But on the other hand there is no better time to trade him, than right now when the 1B free agent market is so thin. Seattle is desperate to get some hitters, being that rare case where pitching amounts to nothing when you have zero hitters. But it is not attractive to many free agents I imagine, and while 1B/DH needs an upgrade, they may not want to make a long term commitment, but do something now to win back fans and give Smoak/Montero more time to maybe develop into the MLB hitters they were thought to be. Morneau, being under control for only one year gives the team a short commitment so if those guys improve they are not blocked, but does not put the 1B/DH pressure completely on them. Instead, this year they can do any combination of Morneau/Smoak/Montero between those two positions, whatever works best for the team. It offers offensive upgrade but does not absorb to total risk of if Morneau struggles again or one of those players regresses further. In addition, this makes sense for Seattle because it means they are not responsible for Figgins this year, whose contract has been a disaster for them. Figgins was designated for assignment, so if he is not traded soon he will be released and the Mariners will have to eat his contract. Taking his contract off their hand offsets Morneau's large contract. That is why this all makes sense for SEA. It makes sense for Minnesota if they get Vargas in return, a pitcher who has succeeded somewhat under the radar over in Seattle. In the last three years he has pitched at least 190 innings and had two sub-4 ERAs. He is a an affordable, unimpressive, but quietly quality upgrade for a desperate Twins rotation. Figgins also would not be bad (his contract is), but given his speed and versatility, and perhaps the chance of some improvement with a fresh start, he would fit well in the Twins small ball style of baseball.


Tampa has a rare plethora of pitchers, but as usual needs to put together a line-up with limited funds. Willingham's 7 mil this year and next are very realistic amounts for the kind of offense he provides. Which Tampa needs. It seems the team would rather deal Hellickson than Price or Shields (who are better but more expensive and closer to free agency), which actually works out for the Twins because those two would cost more and this deal will give the Twins a young, controllable pitcher. Willingham also will likely never have a higher trade value. Who expected him to his 40 homeruns? Having a reasonable contract (consider he only costs 4 more million than what Jonny Gomes just signed for) for two years of control, in a market with a lot of expensive outfielders just makes this the right time to deal him. It will hurt the Twins' offense no doubt, but when you need pitching this is what you must do. It is a deal that makes a lot of sense for both teams and fills major needs for each by dealing out of their strength.
 

But moving both Willingham and Morneau will put a hole in Minnesota's lineup, and that is why they should deal Span to Washington, who wants a true CF and leadoff guy. Because the Twins have Revere, they have an adequate replacement for Span, and with leadoff-type CF's in demand they should deal him. Washington has been hesitant to commit to Morse both positionally and long term. He is older, but he has shown he can hit for average and power. It is his defense he lacks. But he would fit nicely in the Twin's lineup and help boost some lost offense. Because he can play OF or 1B it would give the team some flexibility for what kind of cheap position free agents they bring, or if they want to give Parmelee a shot at starting. Because Span has a team friendly contract, making him more desirable in what will be an expensive free agent CF market, Minnesota should demand more than Morse who is more expensive, controllable only for a year, and did miss time last year with injury. Garcia therefore is a reasonable addition. He is young, has seen a very small amount of time in the majors, but was successful. Minnesota will need to work on not just their rotation but their bullpen, and that is where he comes in.

The other alternative is not to trade Willingham and instead deal Span for a starter, that would in my opinion make Atlanta an ideal target. What makes sense here is Atlanta has other holes to fill and needs to be as budget oriented as possible, which may make Span very attractive. My guess is the return would be either Mike Minor or Tommy Hanson. Hanson once was great but had his ERA regress every year and has battled injuries. He has only topped 200 innings once in his 4 seasons, and so while he has strike-out stuff and once carried an "Ace" reputation/potential, I think that is past. Minor has done the opposite. His durability and ERA has improved, but his strike-out totals have dropped each year and so has his "potential", unlike Hanson who has at least delivered some good seasons, he has never lived up to his hype. So while they are both upgrades, I think I'd rather Hellickson and Morse to Minor/Hanson and Willingham to see the team improve in the future. And I still cannot get past Willingham will never be as valuable (trade-wise) as he is now, and not only do I think he will not repeat his 2012, but the Twins have shown they can succeed without tons of power, so long as they have enough pitching to carry them. No matter what though, given the demand for CF's, the friendly contract Span has, and the presence of Revere to help fill the void left, Span ought be dealt in some way.

So that gets the team started and really gives the rotation a boost with Hellickson and Vargas, while giving the bench Figgins, the line-up Morse, and the bullpen Garcia. This would make the team less desperate and allow them to patiently shop the free agent market for the value deals that begin to emerge in late December into January to fill in the bullpen, add another bat, maybe even get a quality starter. But the Twins cannot take a patient approach when their rotation is in the state it is in, which is why now is the time to act.

Names for them to watch as possible bargains that I think would fit in well with this team: James Loney (1B), Freddy Sanchez (2B/3B), Eric Chavez (3B), Andrew Jones (OF), Erik Bedard (SP), Brett Myers (SP/CP), Kevin Millwood (SP), Joakim Soria (CP), Jason Grilli (RP), Kyle Farnsworth (RP), Francisco Rodriguez (RP), Edwin Jackson (SP)
Note: Jackson would be a bargain in the sense that like last year, if he waits too long he may be a much more affordable addition than expected. But he would not be a bargain in the less than 2 million sort of way.

Braun finishes 2nd in MVP

Well, as predicted Ryan Braun did not win the National League MVP this year (although I was pleased to see that the BWAA agree with me when it comes to naming Cabrera AL MVP).

The good news: Braun finished second. Had he finished anywhere else it would have been completely disgusting. Since Braun's numbers really were clearly better than Posey, then the playoff and position (C or LF) issue should be the only thing that gives him edge, which meant Braun should indeed be second if not first, no one else really compared.

The bad news: it was overwhelmingly in favor of Posey (Posey earned 422 points to Braun's 285). This was a clear affront. Anyone who compares how close the Kemp-Braun race from a year ago were we should see something similar, since like last year when Kemp clearly had the better numbers, this year Braun did. And in fact Braun's team was in contention, which is more than could be said for Kemp.

But this year Braun only got 3 first place votes for MVP. Three. That is even more pathetic when one sees that two of those three votes came from writers for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal. Basically it means only one voter outside of people who cover Milwaukee baseball were willing to give Braun a number one vote. Even more than that, four voters had the gall to put him forth on the ballot. There is no defense for saying there were three players more deserving of the 2012 MVP than Ryan Braun. There really isn't a defense in saying there were two (although ten people opted to place Braun 3rd on the ballot too).

Now we should not take away from Posey's amazing year, or his MVP merits. And he does have some. But not to the extent that there should be that much disparity. And the sad part now, is if I were Posey, I would have to ask if I "earned" this award or it was given to me to punish Braun. For whatever it is worth Buster (and thanks to the BWAA we don't know what it is worth), congratulations on being named Most Valuable Player.

As I sad before, this is the problem with BWAA vigilante justice. Instead of the 2011 MVP being the only thing that some might call despicable (and that being solely on Braun), now the 2012 MVP is also absolutely despicable and the "winner" is really not clear. I mean, honestly, had Braun not spent the year under scrutiny and scandal, would he be the MVP this year? Braun had the numbers, a team that was in contention going into the final week of the season, had amazing numbers all season long, which would have garnered him attention throughout the year, and had the advantage of being the reigning MVP. Now Posey certainly would have had a good media story too, coming back from injury, going to the playoffs, being so young. So it is hard to say who would have had more MVP attention by year end, but Braun would have been in it all year round.

Had Posey still won, and he might have (although I really doubt it), then we could moan that they picked the wrong guy, but ultimately we would be talking about Posey having narrowly beat out Braun and ultimately it would be debates about what merits of the game does the BWAA favor more this year. Instead it is clear what they favor, or better put, what displeases them. And it has nothing to do with the 2012 performances. We will never know if Posey truly "won" the award or if Braun "lost" it because of his offseason. We can only hope they are done "punishing him", are appeased, and won't make further mockery of future awards.

If anything, the act carries within it vengeance, an unwillingness to honor MLB's testing and disciplinary system, and even perhaps a sense of redemption - trying to take back a vote they once considered a mistake by not casting it later. And in that, it is clear it is for their own purposes, and not to hold up the integrity of the game (which no doubt I'm sure many claimed to be upholding) that is at work in such an act.

But there is no fixing it. It would be just as much a shame if BWAA voters would read some lowly blog and think they made a mistake and try to fix it by voting for Braun next year just because they didn't this year. You cannot fix wrong votes, you can only hope that next year people stop trying to do just that.

Solving New York's OF Dilemma

The New York Yankees have a vacant spot in RF, and the question is how are they gonna deal with it? For years the answer was that they would just get whoever it was that they wanted. That's the Yankees way.

But this year things are different. The Yankees have set a goal of getting below the luxury tax threshold in a year. And so they do not want multi-year commitments. The challenge is to find a way to replace Nick Swisher at the same time. The solution I'm proposing will not only help now, but help them long term stay under the threshold.

The plan involves moving away from power. It definitely isn't the "Yankee way" but the Yankees still have power on the infield. And let's face it, the power method has done little to get the Yankees to the World Series with only one victory (2 appearances) in the last decade. Considering in that span they only missed the playoffs once, that is a significant inability to deliver in the playoffs, and one of those reasons is that pitching has bested their power offense. A new approach may help them with this. And if it does not work out well, the good news is it is a short term set up letting the Yankees revisit their slugger rich philosophy shortly.

The plan is simple: move Brett Gardner to center-field, sign Torii Hunter to play left and resign Ichiro  to play in right. Then trade Curtis Granderson for pitching help. The shuffle clearly moves from power to contact. No doubt the Yankees offense looks a lot different without Granderson or Swisher's power, but it would make the team more balanced. Especially without knowing which Derek Jeter will show up next year after his injury, the aging shortstop with declining skills or the hall of fame competitor and team captain, it would be wise to have more table setters than Gardner. 
Ichiro returned to his star spray hitter form when he came to New York. The energy of the race and the hitter park (not too mention being in a better lineup) all helped him greatly. And he handled playing in the big city flawlessly. He has already indicated he would like to play in New York again, and the Yankees should oblige. He is the quiet veteran type that fits in well with this team and is at the stage in his career where one year deal makes sense. This whole arrangement is based on my belief that Ichiro is perfect for the Yankees.

Now I could have stopped there. Just stick Ichiro in RF and call it a day. Some may prefer that. But here is the bottom line: New York is short on high level prospects, needs to shed salary, and most of all will almost certainly not be able to keep both Granderson and Cano after this season when both become free agents. Cano needs to be the priority to the Yankees. He's home grown, and a regular MVP talent. His game includes contact and power. He's the bigger star, and plays a much more difficult position to replace that kind of offense. The Yankees could play out this year then make a qualifying offer next season and get a draft pick for Granderson. But they could get much more if they deal him now.

A center-fielder who has had back-to-back 40 home run seasons is always valuable. And he would be an ideal alternative to Josh Hamilton for teams that want to win now but not commit that much money for that many years, or to teams that simply lose out on the Hamilton bidding. Trading Granderson now also allows the team that gets him to get a draft pick should they not be able to retain him. Therefore, they should deal him for young, controllable pitching which will help the team stay under the tax long term.

Hunter is a great veteran and team player. Like Ichiro he is not the fielder he once was, but still a quality asset. I would expect his slash line to look lower than his 2012 as his BABIP (batting average on balls in play) was unsustainably high this year. So I would expect him to hit .270-.280, not .313 but he is well rounded, being able to steal some bases, hit for a solid average, hit some home runs. He kind of reminds me of former Yankee Paul O'Neil's later years.

Hunter may require two years, and the Yankees right now do not want to pay him next year too (as Hunter has already been linked to New York's RF opening). If they were free of Granderson's contract they might be more open to having Hunter for 2013 and '14. But otherwise it means just upping the ante this season and paying him something like $15 million for one year, since Hunter will have a hard time doing better than that, and his desire for a World Series ring should be enough for him to come for even one year to New York.

These players would require short term commitments while letting the Yanks add cheap long term additions by trading Granderson. With the Yankees changing direction in spending, they can also try changing direction in their line-ups. Give it a try for a year.

That's my solution. What's yours?

Star Wars Expansion

So if you haven't heard the news...Lucasfilms has been bought by Disney. George Lucas has surrendered control of his franchise, which has opened the doors for more Star Wars, as Episode VII has already been announced. 

As a major Star Wars fan, I'm exceptionally excited. But as a Star Wars fan I am also completely skeptical. Don't get me wrong, I like the new prequel trilogy (even to some degree Episode I) more than most. But I also recognize that there is no real comparison to the original trilogy which captivated me. And I am in the group that despises the special edition of that trilogy in favor of the old effects, less wampa screen shots, no digital Jabbas, and most importantly - I subscribe to a world where Han shot first!

I thought I'd throw a few thoughts out there to help us, and Disney, prepare for another chapter in the Star Wars universe.

1. If Disney wants to start off right, the best thing they could do is release the original trilogy onto Blu-Ray. Many fans never went on to blu-ray because it has only been offered in the special edition. I may be wrong on this, but owning Lucasfilms should give them the right to do so (although knowing Lucas, he may have found a way to prevent that from happening, since much of Lucas' passion around Star Wars was that others would not have control over it). Such a gesture if possible should be done. It would immediately convince thousands, maybe even millions of fans that Disney has the right idea. It would give them early support.
2. The fact that the original trilogy is so popular is something that Disney ought to pay attention to. For such a money driven organization, the best thing they could do is figure out what the original had that the new series did not. Some, although not all can be replicated. A lower reliance on Green screen sets (which affects actors and lighting, atmosphere of the show, large and elaborate sets are noticeable to a viewer) and better casting would be two great places to start. 
3. But not everything can be replicated. The culture of the late 70's, the uniqueness of the Star Wars story in film, and the surprise against little expectations are things that Disney cannot replicate. Nor can they compete with the pure nostalgia we fans have from our first love. Therefore, we as fans need to while demanding better movies not be utterly disappointed when the film does not stand up against Ep. IV-VI. For the majority of us, there is little that will ever really change that. And we ought not hold our love for those episodes against these new ones, or we will never enjoy them.
4. Keep it live action. The Clone Wars show/movie just is not the same kind of experience. It's great in that it provided expanded adventures in the Star Wars universe, but the fans want live action. Once you stamp the words "Episode" on it, you are committing to a quality that requires this. You can use animation to continue to expand the universe, but the films are a different matter.
5. Speaking of the expanded universe, that is what this ought to be. The burning question for me has been will Episode VII literally carry the story from Episode VI onward or be a whole new story? And my thought is it should really be something different. This will help also in keeping people from comparing it too much to the original trilogy. But after seeing Indiana Jones years later, Rocky Balboa in a fatter physique, we don't need to see our beloved actors all older and involved. A Cameo, or maybe one or two of them having roles (but not the lead role) would be fine. Lucas tried to put too many characters from the original trilogy into the new one, which merely subjected us to things like Boba Fett as a little brat or inconsistency in R2 and 3PO's exposure to people like the Lars family, Yoda, and Obi-Wan. But along with just the problem of continuing stories that ought not be continued or seeing actors who aged poorly is the fact that the overall story there has been completed. The narrative of Vader's redemption, Luke's Hero Journey, the Rebel's defeat of the Empire have all been completed. The prequel trilogy, with the exclusion of Episode I, also served this narrative. We ought to then like the Machete order which not only found a great way to knit Episodes II-VI together but took Episode I as a movie that can be better respected when seen as outside the original saga, a greater piece to the universe, that is what Disney should do here. And they need to pay attention, because the Pirate's movies did not do this well. They would make a movie with no clear need for a sequel, then try to reopen the movie with a two-parter making a trilogy that really do not go together but try to, then they added another movie. Moral of the story, don't try to interconnect or build too much from Episode VI. Make it a distinctly different story, and don't try to resurrect old characters/problems from the original trilogy, which takes away from that story and its finality.                                              
6. Along with not trying to undo what Episode VI did, Episode VII should also not try to replicate the story itself. One of the great things Lucas always did was see a great arc between his movies that made it so they were never just repeating the same story. While this will be independent of that story, it should see the strength of Star Wars being that watching them is never like watching all the Friday the 13th movies, it isn't the same story over and over. So don't try to mimic this story. Real thought should go into the next saga and what the epic adventure will be. If we're waiting for anything, it is another great adventure to be drawn into, not repeat, since the first will always be better.
7. Which also reminds me of this. If I began by saying perhaps the best thing Disney could do would be to release the original trilogy, and mentioned the deep hate many fans have over the special editions, then let me say this: the worst thing then that Disney could ever do is decide to remake the original trilogy. The instant they try that, ever, it will be a disaster. Remaking popular movies is a major movie trend the last ten years, do not do it. We should not be remaking good movies, we should be remaking movies that could have been good but for one reason or another were not the hits they could have been.
8. Use George Lucas for what he is good at. Lucas has immense vision. He can picture Star Wars in amazing ways. He will still be involved in Star Wars, and he can help push the limit, or more importantly, his imagination of this universe can help writers find a niche within it that would be worth doing movies on. He also does have a good sense of over arching story arcs, being well studied in the broad concepts and impact of mythology. This is largely what he attributed his success with the original Star Wars to. This may best be seen in Empire Strikes back. Lucas had the vision for the film, but neither directed it nor wrote the script. He was highly involved, but wasn't allowed to let his broad vision or love of visuals interfere with the movie (which I think was a major issue in the prequel trilogy's formation). When Lucas is not in control, but used to help develop the movie, he can be a real gift for it.
9. Include lightsabers and use of the force. One thing the prequel trilogy had going was some awesome lightsaber duels and it stretched the limits of what one can do with them. Whatever the new story is, it should include this element which is one of the things that makes Star Wars unique compared to other space dramas. As fans, we also should taper down our expectations following Episode III. That is, the lightsaber duel in Episode VII should not have to show that fight up. Especially because that is a climactic battle that has a lot of story and anticipation built up in it. Therefore a fight of that sort should be reserved for later episodes. This way the movies do not over-focus on how to constantly one-up the previous fight taking away from story or making ridiculous and unnecessary choreography. I think it is fair to expect some fights with some of the energy and skill of the duel in Episode I, but lets taper expectations for our own sake and for the saga's sake. Let truly climactic battles come at climactic moments. 
10. And every good Star Wars movie deserves good villains, with staying power. General Grievous and Darth Maul were barely around before they were gone. Count Dooku was a pitiful villain. The series really would have been better had Maul made it to Episode III, as he appeared on screen with an almost Boba Fett kind of popularity. Learn from the prequel trilogy that the story is better served when there is a main villain sustained. You can introduce additional villains, but we want them to be of quality and last more than 1 1/4 movies. 
11. Listen to the fans. There is so much fan material, novels, documentaries, fan films, and the like out there that the universe has expanded on its own already, and it could be a great place to start. Disney will never satisfy everyone, but if they make major mistakes or alienate fans early, they will be in for a rough ride. Disney also then needs to let fans still be creative, Disney has a reputation for taking legal action against anything that so much as includes a reference to someone they have the rights to. But to start doing such action against fan films for example would have horrible consequences. Don't become an empire to the people.
12. Get John Williams on board now! One person who has delivered from start to finish in this series is Williams. The fifteen adults who have never seen Star Wars still know the Star Wars music. And he knows how to heighten the action, emotion, and ground the universe through that beautiful orchestral sound. It probably won't be cheap, but Williams is one of if not the best in the business, and he has made a living of making memorable music for movies, and Star Wars has been one of his crowning achievements. He even did better in the new trilogy than the original.
13. Show us something we haven't seen. As part of the new story, introduce something to the universe we have not seen in the other movies - a problem truly great, an organization only read about in the books. One thing that both Episode IV and Episode I had was they opened up a new world for us. Indeed most of the people who left the theaters after Episode I were clamoring on about: the lightsaber fight (which was to a whole new level) and just the radically different and wide experience in the Republic era of the universe. As Episode I showed something new is not enough to make it good, but it is a great start, and it gets people excited for the movie and the series, which is important for a new start. To make a distinctly new saga, open it in a way that expresses that, and makes people want it.

Well I suppose that is a start. I am ever excited, and equally nervous. As you can see, there is a lot that could go wrong here. But Disney will hopefully be smart enough to realize what is at stake in their takeover and continuance of Star Wars. 

Another thing to throw out there, not too long ago Lucas was trying to find a way to make movie effects economical enough for a live action Star Wars tv show, that would take place between the time of Episodes III and IV, and he supposedly had 50 hours of script already worked up. This could be an interesting thing for Disney to also continue to pursue. While it could be a further embarrassment of the prequel trilogy or even worse like the old Star Wars Christmas special, it would also be worth doing, because there is a lot of great stuff it could focus on that would require few actors from the movies. Most importantly it could focus on the oppression of the Empire under Vader and the birth of the rebel alliance. It could feature Vader hunting down surviving Jedi, the oppression of the wookies, and the strained and dynamic relationship between a younger Tarkin and Vader. So long as it is not trying to give us Han Solo, or "Ani" age Luke but really focuses on the Empire-Rebellion it could definitely be good and worth doing, since the birth of the rebellion was a story cut from Episode III and the movement from the Empire beginning in applauds in Episode III to people cheering its end in Episode VI is never shown. Even if a way to make such a high effects show happen could be found, it would need to be taken with a bit of salt and less enthusiasm/critique to be able to thoroughly enjoy it as it is a show. And the prospect of weekly Star Wars would be good, and while it would actually be its own thing, it would still have a purpose in the saga story. 

In the end, what I want is more Star Wars, and I'm willing to endure some bad ideas to make it so. I want the universe explored. I want Disney to not mess this up and make it a complete disaster of the transition. By announcing Episode VII they have already gotten our attention, now they gotta keep it. Lucas can relinquish the bitter struggle he had with fans, and maybe be involved in something where the screw-ups are not entirely his fault. Here's to hoping that the next three years are used wisely (the movie is expected to be released in 2015) to make a movie that people are still talking about in 30 years.

Spicing Up Church Council Minutes

A meeting was called on November the First,

Everyone was there but the parish nurse.

The pastor opened with a word of prayer,

and a devotion on creation's care.

The president then asked that the secretary go over,

the minutes of the meeting that took place in October.

With no objections a motion was asked;

made, seconded, the minutes were passed.

The pastor reported that the month went swell,

out of four deaths only one went to hell.

On visitation the pastor began to speak,

that after 70 hours of work this week,

the shut-ins have been seen, "They all are great!"

Discussion came up about pastor's mental state.

The issue was then tabled for a month of prayer,

then they will re-address it if they still care.

Pastor then requested communion more often,

But as usual the council's stance didn't soften.

The pastor proposed more community service,

Such a selfless idea made the council nervous.

The agenda read 'Old Business' on the next line,

properties reported that the foundation is fine.

It only cost seven thousand the church doesn't have;

not since the Stewardship series cut giving in half.

The parsonage repairs will wait another four weeks,

why rush when the carpets mold and ceiling still leaks.

The quilters are still planning a quilt giveaway,

for twenty lucky people's next hospital stay.

'New Business' required a little more fighting,

to discuss pointless things not worth writing.

The pastor suggested another project on vision,

to determine an identity and focus on mission.

After minutes of explaining this has happened before,

the pastor asked everyone to think about it more.

They moved on next to a worship complaint,

that centered around the sermon's length.

Which caused another debate to have music projected.

So a motion was made then quickly rejected.

Evangelism team wanted a visitor day,

and needed ideas to get visitors to stay.

The nice coffee will be replaced with something far cheaper,

Reports are still coming in of that neighborhood creeper.

The treasurer presented the recent budget scare,

the council in tears sat silently there.

The projected income looks dire indeed,

the dedicated funds are starting to bleed.

Then it was decided that the most recent blame,

should go to some members who the council then named.

The pastor was asked to preach more on giving,

but in a way that was 'more relevant' to Christian living.

The  president saw the time, then asked if they might,

just have a quick prayer and end for the night.

They prayed the Lord's Prayer and without further devotion,

ended the meeting with a unanimous motion.

It lasted five hours fifteen minutes since the first seating;

by the way, the secretary took notes for this meeting.