Thoughts and an offer

I'll be away from the blog more than I'll be on it through the end of the month. Normally, when I write that, I end up getting lured back more often than I was expecting. But I'm not so sure that'll happen this time.

If you're interested in doing a guest post, I'll be interested in reading 'em and possibly posting 'em. The ground rules are pretty simple: About 300-500 words is a good length, spell well, be smart and interesting. I reserve the right to edit, but try to be minimalist. Also, write something that doesn't have to be posted today. You can send them to me here. Please include a sentence or two of bio information -- including your name, where you're from and anything else that's good for folks to know.

A few things I've noticed/thought about in the last couple of days:

*Delmon/Span/Cuddyer is not as good a defensive outfield as Span/Gomez/Cuddyer, but the offense-for-defense tradeoff is more than worth it. There are two other contributing factors at play: There's more outfield ground to cover at Target Field than at the Metrodome because the angles are sharper at the walls and I think Twins outfielders are not picking up the ball right now as well as they will when they are playing at night and have more experience with the sun/wind conditions. First steps seem to be a bit slow right now. I'm also wondering whether the Twins are pondering swapping a 12th pitcher for a late-inning defensive replacement outfielder. (No, that wouldn't be Jacque Jones.)

*A contention was made on TV on Wednesday that Delmon shouldn't have been charged with an error in the first inning simply because he "didn't touch the ball" when he made his ill-advised dive on Dustin Pedroia's double in the first inning. Nowhere in scoring rules does it say you have to touch the ball to be charged with an error. The standard, in my opinion: If a player has a chance to make an excellent catch and the ball skips by, then you don't charge an error. If the sprawl is ill-advised and the ball gets by the fielder, then an error is appropriate. It's a judgment call, not a hard-and-fast rule. As a former MLB official scorer, I also know it's a tough call.

*Interesting to see Kevin Slowey acknowledge that he needed to take more responsibility for getting on the same page with Joe Mauer during Wednesday's game. The postgame video has both of them talking about the issue. I'm guessing that Slowey will not be pulling an A.J. Burnett and ask to pitch to someone other than the regular catcher.

*I like when players speak their minds, except for those who seem to have three opinions on everything and shift their message depending on the audience. (See: Hunter, Torii, whom I find more comical than annoying.) Orlando Hudson has sparked interesting discussion with his thoughts about some of the African-American players who remain unsigned -- Jermaine Dye and Gary Sheffield are his prime examples. Good context of the Dye situation, comes from the Washington Post's "Baseball Insider" blog, in which he points out that "Dye himself told MLB.com's Bill Ladson he isn't willing to uproot his family from Arizona unless a team overwhelms him with an offer."

The Post blog, by Dave Sheinin, continues: "I'm not going to argue there's no racism in baseball -- and I certainly am not criticizing Hudson for speaking his mind (in fact, I find such honesty refreshing) -- but I doubt it's the reason Dye is unsigned. Fact is, the going rate right now for late-30s outfielders who play poor defense is $1 million or less. Garret Anderson, a 37-year-old outfielder who, like Dye, is African-American, is making $550,000 this season for the Los Angeles Dodgers. Jim Edmonds, a (white) 39-year-old outfielder who sat out the 2008 season (but who still plays credible defense), is making $850,000 from the Brewers. Both Anderson and Edmonds signed minor-league deals that became guaranteed once they made their respective teams' rosters. It's not as if Dye has received no offers. And if all of those offers are in the same range -- well, that's another issue entirely, and one the union is examining as we speak."

Even though the specifics of the Dye case may weaken his argument, I'm fine with Hudson raising the issue -- in part so others can put it into better context. (Hey, it would be hard to have a blog and not want to know what people are thinking.)