Brock Beauchamp

Refresh my memory, somebody... Who still has Dire Wolves? Only Jon and Arya, right?

Dozier isn't the type of guy you move "just because" (eg. Trevor Plouffe) but any decent offer should receive strong consideration. It's unlikely Dozier's value will be higher at next year's deadline (though it might be appealing to someone this offseason if Dozier continues to nudge his OPS upward through the season).

Keep on hitting, Kurt. Keep on hitting, John Ryan. Hopefully Ryan sees these two events happen in unison and makes the obvious decision(s). Get what you can for Suzuki, call up Murphy, and look toward 2017.

Yep. Going into the season, I said I wanted to see more of Polanco before handing him a job. Well, so far so good. In ~200 PAs between MLB and AAA, he has an OPS close to .850. Now, I'd like to see him continue to play every day for a few more weeks but the second either Nunez or Dozier is gone, he needs to be in Minnesota, playing as often as possible. Though, obviously, it will be much easier to play him if Dozier is traded.

Yep, many were Deists. And, while progressive, the founding fathers argued vigorously over slavery, which was on its way out in the western world. Ultimately, they conceded to the southern states and allowed it to remain law in the country. In some circles, one might use another word for "conceded"... "Compromised". It's not like slavery was the gold standard in 1787. Western countries were moving away from it pretty solidly. It was already out of England and abolitionist movements were actively petitioning its removal from the rest of the Empire. Many Christian churches were vigorously stumping against it, saying it was un-Christian (which it obviously is). France had mostly eliminated it a century prior to the founding of the USA and wiped it out of the empire entirely just five years after the ratification of the Constitution. So the "hand of god" thing doesn't fly with me. Again, it's ignorant of what was actually happening around the world and the trends that were already in play, trends the founding fathers ignored (at least in part) to appease southern states and get the damned Constitution ratified. And because of that compromise, America was one of the last western nations to abolish slavery and it required the bloodiest war in our history to get rid of it. So, no, god's hand was not involved in that thing because if it was, such colossal injustice and bloodshed would not have occurred because it didn't have to occur. The two most influential countries, England and France, were well on the way to abolishing it when the USA was formed. It didn't have to be that way, yet it was.

It will be interesting to follow how this plays out in November. The GOP has 24 Senate seats up for grabs; the Democrats, only 10. But the Democrats will probably trip over their own feet and inexplicably lose a seat because that's what they do.

Furthermore, the "hand of god" really gets under my skin . The founding of this nation was the triumph of a single class of person: the white male. So, in my opinion, there are two options here: 1. God hates women and people of color. If his/her hand was in this thing and he/she rolled with everybody who wasn't a white male (even his/her own followers) getting the big, hard shaft, that's not a god worth following. That's a brutal, ugly god and I want no part of it. 2. God wasn't involved, just a bunch of really smart white dudes who, while very smart, still couldn't predict everything that would face the nation in the coming centuries.

Remember, the Constitution required roughly two years of vicious debate before ratification. To believe there wasn't compromise involved (including the addition of the most well-known aspect of the document, the Bill of Rights, at the very end of the process) is to intentionally ignore the history of the document. And yes, I believe the Constitution was formulated on high-minded political constructs. The founding fathers were, by and large, amazing men of thought and progression. They argued vigorously amongst themselves and wrote paper upon paper upon paper extolling the virtues/damnation of government. They poured philosophy, economics, bleeding edge concepts about government and man, and all their utopian ideals into this new nation. They were bloody brilliant men. But still men.

Sure it did. But it was still a compromise. Which puts back into play the god-like reverence of the document in the first place...

The dragons would trounce the zombie walker things but the actual white walkers... Well, I don't think we've seen everything in their bag of tricks quite yet. I think we'll see some power-leveling from beyond the wall once the south sorts itself out a bit. After all, the name of the series is "A Song of Ice and Fire". We've now seen the fire in action, I suspect the ice will have similar wow factor down the road.

Yes to both of these. I figured Jon would survive - and that the Vale would save him - but given the show's brutal history and disappointment, I felt myself wavering on that certainty throughout the battle. It was a good example of taking a bad story element - the depressing, relentless nature of earlier seasons - and turning it into a positive later in the story. Without that brutality of earlier seasons, the battle would have lacked any kind of intrigue... But I just couldn't get those horrible moments out of my mind. It appears the story is doing the same thing for its female characters. By making them a combination of inept and/or feckless, we slowly began to dislike them all... Only to see most of them redeemed over the past several episodes. Also, the use of female brutality earlier in the series makes the likelihood of women trusting each other to share power more likely and less contrived. Not that I'm excusing past mistakes, just saying "when given lemons, make lemonade".

That is also consistent with fantasy tropes. Dragon scales become increasingly dense throughout the dragon's life. An ancient dragon is basically invincible in most fantasy stories. Anything smaller than a massive wheel-mounted ballista will bounce off their scales (even swords). In case you can't tell, I had this same debate with myself during the dragon scene.

You realize the Bill of Rights was a compromise demanded by anti-Federalists, right?

It's common in fantasy lore that dragons are nigh invulnerable. Firing an arrow at a dragon is akin to spitting on a tank. If Martin is using common fantasy tropes - and it appears he is - even the Greek fire catapults probably wouldn't hurt a dragon (and you can't really aim those things so the fleet was basically helpless against the dragons, even though they were hovering).

Not really, though. $9m for one season is affordable to all but the smallest market teams. The median payroll in 2016 is about $113m and will be slightly higher in 2018. $9m is under 8% of 2016's median payroll number.

FWIW, Dozier's OPS now sits at .724.

Much higher. Not only would he be a better player but also one at a fixed cost.

People wanted Bastardo because he was the last man standing. Nothing was stopping Ryan from signing one of the 15-ish relievers who went off the market before Antonio.

True, but notice how NY led the national curve from 1960-1990 but trails the curve after that point. Dunno exactly what that means but it's worth pointing out.

Escobar is definitely a guy to keep an eye on right now. He might be turning it around a bit, as he has a 1.074 OPS in June (SSS obviously).

The season isn't over. It's still very much up in the air how much Plouffe will make because this season counts toward that number.

Yes, all of this. It's one thing if the team is contending and Arcia doesn't fit. It's another thing if players with more upside force Arcia to the waiver wire. But this team... This season... It's like they're throwing darts blindfolded. Never before have I seen a season where a full 50% (or more) of the moves leave me scratching my head, unsure what the thinking was behind the decision. Even when I don't agree with a move, at least I can see the rationale behind it most of the time. But this season...

I think the best case scenario is that he comes back and turns into a useful LOOGY for 2-3 seasons. I think the most likely scenario is that he comes back, scuffles badly, and is out of baseball within 18 months. Which is too bad because I really like Perkins.

Hah! I posted my meme before I read through the thread.

Buxton plays every day. Kepler plays every day. Evaluate in November.