stringer bell

For about 40 playing minutes, the Gophers looked like a competent college football team. The other 20 minutes were really, really bad. There is talent there. I think the coach is more than a motivational speaker/salesman, but there is a long way to go.

Not many players come back to a team that they are traded from in midseason. The only Twin I recall is Rick Aguilera and he came back to be a starter after being in the bullpen for years with the Twins. I think all of the talk about players not wanting to come to Minnesota is overblown. First of all, it depends on what an individual is looking for--fishing lakes an hour away, manageable traffic, great places to eat--or it might depend on who the player knows in the organization. The Twins did sign three free agents last winter and spring in Lynn, Morrison, and Reed. I thought they were all nice moves, but none of them panned out. My guess is the two biggest priorities for a free agent (outside of money) are playing time and a chance to get to the World Series. Last year a lot of us were pretty bullish on this team and a year from now we might be again.

No doubt, gerrymandering has protected Republicans all of this decade. And then there's the Senate. Barack Obama crushed John McCain in 2008 and won 28 states. He won 26 when he soundly defeated Mitt Romney. George W Bush won 30 states when he lost the popular vote by a half million and Trump also won 30 states when he too lost the popular vote (by about 2.5%). What does that have to do with the Senate? Well, if the election is basically a tie, as the election of 2000 was, shouldn't the states be split roughly 50-50? Nope it's 60-40 and the trend is getting worse as demonstrated by Trump carrying 30 states when he lost the popular votes by millions. I would state that at least 30 of the fifty states are more predisposed to elect a Republican than a Democrat, so winning a majority in the Senate is going to be tough sledding for the the next couple of decades. With a Republican in the White House, it will be difficult to impossible for Democrats to complete any legislative agenda, so nationally the important thing should be having a majority in one of the houses of Congress so that there is some evenhandedness in handling things like Climate Change, voter suppression, racial bias and many many more issues. 2018 is huge when it comes to electing governors who will be part of redistricting and state legislatures that will draw the lines in many states. That would set the stage for a 2020 election that could go a long way in changing the tilt in politics which now favors Republicans just about any way you look at it.

I’ve said it before but here goes...the Republican base turns out almost without exception. In an era when “ease of use” is so important, Republicans have continually worked at making it harder and harder to vote—long lines, shorter hours, fewer, more remote polling places, photo ID and the like. That is one stage of a nefarious scheme. Another is to murk up the distinctions between the parties “they’re all rich people looking out for their donors” and Citizens United and other campaign finance laws make the distinctions less distinct because Democrats have to raise their money someplace. You’ll note, the billionaires are feeding the Super-pacs and giving the Republicans a last-minute advantage, no limits, no accountability. The game is truly rigged and for Trump’s party.

I want the 2018 election to give Democrats a beachhead. The most attainable is the House. It will stop Trump’s legislative agenda, but would allow the courts to continue to be stacked. With his taxes in the open plus a half dozen committees investigating him and his family, the stage will be set for the Battle Royals in 2020, with gerrymandered legislative districts a big prize. The “strong economy” is going to slump and I think that when that happens the ‘pubs are in big trouble.

How much of political budgets are on TV advertising? I'd have to guess it is way over half of their budget. The sheer number of ads for political candidates is staggering this year. I truly don't watch a lot of TV either, but when I do, I can't help but notice the plethora of pitches for (actually mostly against) politicians.

Buxton and Sano have some similarities, but real differences too. They are similar ages and have both shown All-Star performance, but never for a full year. Sano looked like a certain star his rookie year and then in the first half of 2017, while Buxton looked like he was emerging in the last half of last year. With the position he plays and the defense he brings, Buxton is an asset as an average hitter, especially since his speed makes him such an asset on the bases. Sano has to be well above average at the plate, because he plays a corner (not especially well) and he isn't a game-changer on the bases. I do agree that Sano needs to alter both his attitude and approach. It is not okay to strike out 40% of the time. The .199 batting average and .679 OPS aren't pretty. Buxton's numbers were pathetic as well. He needs to find an approach at the plate that works and stick with it. If the Twins are to contend in 2019, one or both of these guys needs to realize much more of their potential than we saw in 2018.

from RB: The Indians could have been better prepared for the addition of Josh Donaldon, if Ramirez played some 2B during the year and Kipnis played some CF instead of coming in cold in September. Of course Kepler can and should play 1B on occasion in 2019. I believe Rosario could play some IF if needed. Doing so will provide our new manager more options to work in the 2019 World Series. Prepare for Success and Prepare for Failure. Depth and Flexibility is how it's done. Ramirez played a lot of second prior to last year, plus some outfield and Kipnis spent time in the outfield this year earlier, at least that is my recollection. Regarding Kepler at first--I think it's a good idea to have him in the mix. Given the injury history of Sano and the questions about Austin, the Twins might be in a situation for a lot of games that they need to get Cave, Rosario, Buxton, and Kepler into the game, with none of them being the DH. That would be predicated on Kepler being a better offensive player than he has been the last two years, but I think that might happen. Regardless, positional flexibility is a plus.

I have several thoughts about politics, let's start with King. To get a guy like this representing a district in the Upper Midwest demonstrates that the brand is pretty strong for Republicans. Advertising--if Democrats have such a money advantage, I haven't noticed it here. I live on the border between the first and second Congressional Districts, but get TV from the Twin Cities and see ads for all four contested Congressional seats, plus the Smith-Housley Senate election. I'm seeing far more ads for Republicans than Democrats. Further on the ads--Republican ads are almost universally negative, Ads against all four of the Democrats in contested races throw in Ellison and Pelosi, with an occasional reference to Hillary or Walz. Outside ads for Democrats are negative too, but they are far fewer than the Republican outside ads. I haven't seen a positive ad for Paulsen and few for Hagedorn or Stauber. The Republican claims stretch my belief far more than the Democratic ads. My supposition to quote the song is "when you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose". The chalk for the midterm now is that Democrats will win the house, but not with resounding sweep that Republicans did in 2010 and that Republicans will hold their advantage or perhaps gain a seat or two in the Senate. There will be some nailbiters in the Senate. From what I can see, Democrats would have to win every one of the close races to take a majority or have a complete surprise come out of Texas or Tennessee. Finally, the Flakes and Sasses and Corkers of the Senate (Susan Collins too!) bug me. They talk about working with the other party, but when Mitch McConnell needs their vote, he gets it. The lady and gentlemen should be protesting the way the Senate has been run--there is no regular order, bills and nominations are not debated but rather pushed. It happened for the tax bill, it happened for ACA repeal and now Republicans are pushing archconservatives into the judiciary. While Democrats have their warts, there is no equivalency with what the Republican party has become.

I’ve beaten the drum for Iglesias since September. I’ll add Martin Gonzales as another target. He was All-Star level in ‘17 and still above average 102 OPS+ this year. Historically he’s at least a league-average defensive shortstop and he’s truly versatile. He will be 30 in the spring and want starter money.

I am with Chief on this discussion. Shortstop remains very important and even though less balls are put in play, it is crucial to turn outs into outs. Polanco is a very nice offensive player for a middle infielder, but he cost too many outs with his defense last year.

Regarding the conservativeness of the court, Kennedy was a conservative, but deviated from the Republican line on abortion (partly) and same-sex marriage. The court is now 5-4 conservative, but it was before. I predict a lot more horrible 5-4 decisions, but that most likely would have happened with Kennedy on the bench anyway. We will see if there is really respect for precedent. This will IMHO tell the tale of whether these judges are arbiters or whether they are black-robed partisans. Hard to imagine that Kavanuagh is anything but a partisan given his long service to Republicans and work to bring down Bill Clinton and his statement to the Judiciary Committee.

Yup. And the GOP is getting away with it. I’m saddened but not surprised. I think of the next Dr. Ford going “why bother?” since their lives go on trial with an accusation. I keep thinking to myself that payback will be sweet when the McConnells and Trumps get their comeuppance, but more and more I’m thinking the wealthy and well-connected always come out ahead and the party and philosophy that embodies those sentiments will continue doing what they do without recrimination.

Odorizzi has to average more than 5 innings a start. His overall numbers are fine, but it weighs on the bullpen too much to go short as often as he did. If you have three or four guys that average six or more, then you can get away with an Odorizzi at #4 or #5. I would like to see the Twins stick with 12 pitchers all year and maybe juggle a little and have 11 for some period of time. That would require having guys that more often than not work into the seventh inning. I'm hopeful Pineda and Meija (or Stewart or Gonsalves) are able to go deep pretty often.

I don’t think Berrios is an obvious choice. Gibson pitched more innings, had a better ERA, and was far more consistent. Anecdotally, it seems to me that Gibson had more starts against the elite teams in the AL and fared well against the best. Yes, Berrios has a brighter future, but for today it was a very close call and I’d pick Gibson because of less poor starts and the ability to adjust when he came out with something short of his best stuff. Edit: Honest I didn’t see the post above when I made my post! Nice post jkcarew.

I would imagine he didn’t get more double plays than previous seasons, but that he still got more than average. This is what I liked about 2018 Kyle Gibson—he pitched well in some starts when he didn’t get a lot of swings and misses. Some games, it was a lot of grounders, other games, fanned more than one per inning. Regardless of what might be working for him in a specific outing, he usually found a way to be effective, as evidenced by 18 Quality Starts.

On Gibson, I’m not a stat maven, but wouldn’t guys who induce a lot of double plays always have a higher FIP? While luck enters into strand stats, I think the mental part of the game matters more and I think Gibson has become a smarter pitcher.

I think Gibson is deserving. I think Taylor Rogers is more deserving. Rogers posted career bests in virtually every category. His last 2 months were about as good as it gets. Going back to July 30–26 IP 10 H 0 R 3 BB 29 K. From May 1–57.2 IP 33 H 10 ER 12 BB 68 K 1.57 ERA.

OK, who is Juan Graterol?

It’s impossible to take politics out of this, but logically this makes sense. If there is some fire along with the smoke, perhaps Kavanaugh will withdraw. Personally, I think the angry white guy routine should eliminate him from consideration, but I doubt that will stop the GOP. On a side note, I’m glad no one is checking through my high school yearbook, although I didn’t do anything criminal.

I am pretty sure I said this would happen. It’s a bit of a liberal loop here, but this man is not credible in his denial, but it doesn’t matter. “We have the votes, we make the facts.”

I’m still saying that won’t stop them. I heard some of Ford’s testimony on the radio and she sound credible, but I believe proof positive is the only thing that will stop Mitch and his band of (mostly) merry men.

The GOP has never failed to live up to my expectations of doing absolutely anything they want when they have the votes. I predict they approve him on a party line vote and then confirm him in the full Senate 51-50. No delays, no pesky FBI investigations.

I agree that Feinstein’s actions were improper, but who is Grassley to call anyone out after his actions? How can anyone say with a straight face that there is a proper examination of Kavanaugh when well over half of the documents requested were provided. And what was made available was presented the night before the hearing? Beyond that, Grassley was the chairman of the committee that refused to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland.

I'd amend your statement and say that the voting population is hard-right. Not getting to the polls for progressive and moderate types has led to this IMHO, along with the idea that electing Republicans is safe, because they're conservative. "Roe v Wade is settled law" and so is gay marriage. A clear 5-4 advantage for Republicans on SCOTUS will unsettle both of those precedents. Republicans have been highly successful at repressing left-leaning voters. Part of it is message (implied) that politics is so screwed up, it doesn't matter who you vote for. Part of it is mechanics--fewer polling places, restrictive voting regulations and purged lists to name a few. Combine that with the good fortune of a wave in a census year and Republicans have placed a very heavy thumb on the scale in a lot of states.