twinsnorth49

Pretty good spare part signing.

I just don't think he saw the talent or opportunities to improve the team last year. Other than Sanchez and Grienke, it was pretty weak. I do think he blew moving Willingham last off season though, if he felt the team wasn't going to improve last year then he really should have sold high on him after the year he had, it seemed like the perfect opportunity for a player who was not going to be a part of this teams next run. Having said that, I don't really know whether he tried to make that happen but didn't like what he was hearing.

I see that logic and you're right players definitely go harder into home than any other base, I'm just not sure players will go in harder low than they already do, it's not all that effective in trying to knock the ball out of the catchers grasp, as opposed to flat out running him over. No?

Take him over Pelfrey just for the fact he might finish 6 innings before my bedtime.

Seems to me the Pohlads have spent a few bucks this off season and it would appear they have no issue with TR spending more of it. I'd say the Twins are still in on Garza considering the noise surrounding Tanaka, I don't love 5 years but if that's what it took I'd be ok with it.

I voted Worley, if he bounces back I think he will have the most significance on the success of the 2015 team. I would love for Diamond to bounce back, I have a feeling he will as well. What are Hicks and Parmelee bouncing back from? Neither of them have shown much major league success..............ok, any really.

Fixed it for you.

They are the Yankees of the EPL, but the phrase is not about which side of the fence you're on. The funny part is all the bandwagon United fans use the phrase themselves when referring to their team, because they have no clue. ManU ManU went on a plane ManU ManU never came back again" and.. "Man U Never Intended Coming Home" (if you combine the first letter of each word you get the word "munich").

Hehe, well I should let you know the origins of calling them Man U are pretty sinister, if your Liverpool colleague is a true Liverpool fan he'll know where it comes from. It's a reference to the 58 Munich plane disaster that killed the entire team.......so only use it if you really, really don't like this fellow much.

Yah, that sounds like a Man U supporter. If you ever talk to him about footy, call them Man U, they hate it lol!

Father is from Liverpool so nothing to do with being a "big money" club. Actually I'm more of a "blue nose" (Everton).....the other Liverpool team. Their win last week against Man U was as sweet as it gets, first win at Old Trafford in 21 years!!

Big Daddy's.....try the Flintstones ribs! Rudolphs Ted Cook's Cuzzy's on Washington is worth the trip for a burger close to Target, classic dive. Try the Big Cuz and call it a day.......or call an ambulance.

Liverpool! Liverpool! Liverpool! Liiiivverrpooool!!! How 'bout that Suarez huh?

I think he meant The Captain and Tennille......which I'm certain is on his Ipod.

No, he might have been taken more seriously if he took some laxitives to help curb that ridiulously over constipated way he sang every freakin' song!!!

Yeah, just sitting back trying to recapture a little of the glory of, well time slips away and leaves you with nothing mister but boring stories of glory days Time to move on dude......just saying.

I can only hope TR considers this plan "D" and is making advance preparations for it, in case it becomes plan "A".........which the thought of makes me physically ill.

Bummer, I know it makes sense but I'm going to miss watching Joe catch, too bad.

Lucky man! I'm fortunate enough to see the Gophers a couple of times a year at TCF, you're right, it's an absolute gem, love the place almost as much as Target. Except for the beer lines.........but at least they serve beer now.

Most of those codes are based on the French Penal code of 1810, articles 354-357 for your reference. To be sure, the Otttomans had similar codes but largely the current codes still in existence were a result of blending Islamic systems with Colonial ones the Europeans brought, they have no basis in Islamic Law or Islam as a whole. Some of the same laws exist in Latin America as well, but you probably knew that too. You're absolutely correct that these laws are draconian and archaic, many countries have officially repealed them and the others are expected to follow. Having said that, it's a pretty big misreprsentation to say that rape is an effective way to get a wife, it is not and statistically speaking rape has a lower rate of occurrence in Muslim countries than many Western countries, including Canada and the US. The fact that a judge decided that this would be an acceptable decision in the case is perverse but that is where the blame should lie. People were justifiably outaged by it, mainly because most were unaware of the law itself. The decision itself will likely serve as the catalyst for it's repeal due to the public outrage that followed and continues today. This law has nothing to do Islam as a religion or Muslims in general, it is once again an extreme view held by very few. My "general talking point" on Sharia law was to do with with your "general talking point" that Muslim countries have archaic laws against your country Which laws and who enacted them? My assumption was that you hold the widely held misbelief that Muslims are at "religious war" with the US, usually thought of as Sharia law or Fatwas or Jihad. This of course is false and again only represents the extremists who do not speak for the majority, and the terms are again misrepresented. My question of age old religious feuds still stands? Which ones? Sunnis represent 75% of Muslims and 25% are Shia, pretty one sided if there was any real dispute. My point was that, any feuds that do exist are territorial based or tribal based, not religious, which you seem to believe. Blood feuds with the West and Israel are driven by the radicals, you're still equating any Muslim living in the Middle East with terrorists. Muslims are tolerant, throughout history they have been tolerant of other religions, even throughout their conquests of Christian and Jewish territories. Ironically, Muslims have rarely been treated with the same tolerance, from the Christian Crusades to Western Colonial rule, Muslims have been persecuted for centuries, because of thier beliefs. The Palestinians do want fair conclusions and are open to compromise, Israel being gone is not the only solution that would satisfy them, again you only focus on the lunatics. Palestinian recognition and the return of some of their settlements is really what the goal for the majority is. The refusal by Israel to recognize that, expand their occupation through aggression and not compromise, is as much to blame for the violence as the extremists who claim to represent Palestine. Look, I'm not defending terrorism, far from it. I just take umbrage with the belief that the radicals represent Muslims and Islam in many peoples minds, they don't and the vast majority denounce them. The cause of the conflict is not a religious one, it's a political and socio-economic one brought about by Colonial and post Colonial rule and exacerbated by the occupation of Palestine. This topic is far to big to be discussed in such a forum, it's too complex and has many historical roots. It also has so many myths, fallacies and misinterpretations that it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion on it.

Reality? What reality? You continue to frame Islam and Muslims in the context of the most extreme, and often wrong, interpretations. Laws against your country? Are you referring to Sharia law? You need to examine what the actual meaning of Sharia law is, it is not a threat to America. Or perhaps you're talking about the Fatwas, passed down by so called religious leaders who have no influence on 95% of Muslims and only represent the radicals. The Caliphate was dissolved in 1923 and possibly represents the single biggest reason for the various splinter groups within the religion. Rape is forbidden by Islamic law, you need to educate yourself on this common myth of Islam. Age old religious feuds? Which ones? Between the Shias and the Sunnis? Mostly myth, considering 75% of Muslims are Sunni. Tribal feuds? Sure, not unlike many religions, is there such thing as a peaceful religion, even the Buddhists have endured their share of bloodshed. The terrorists are not solely to blame for the conflict in the region, Israel is every bit as much to blame and the continuing storyline as them as victims endlessly responding to unprovoked attacks is wrong. Does Israel want peace? Only at the same price as the terrorists. Just to be clear, the conflict had nothing to do with religion, it's territorial and unfortunately with the involvement of too many, mainly a political one, which just so happens to be the most detrimental issue.

You had me.......until the Punto part.

Wow, I'm just utterly shocked at your complete lack of understanding of the Middle East and your stereotypical beliefs on Islam.. I don't know you but you always seemed like an intelligent person, the beliefs you state in this post are overwhelmingly false however. The vast, vast majority of Arabs have no interest in the eradication of Israel and just want peace. Do you appreciate when the rest of the world portrays all of you as extreme, right wing, war mongering, Imperialist, Fundamentalist Christians? That's pretty much your view of Arabs and Muslims.

So they replaced the useless land with a useless baseball team, at your expense and to their profit, and your...... Thankful? Happy? Confused?