IdahoPilgrim

I think we're on to something here - the more we talk about alcohol, the better the Twins do. Where's Buckninetyone?

You've done well, sir.

What type of scotch? I never drink anything less than 12-year-old single malt myself.

I know the feeling. I just got back from a church finance meeting, and I feel like drinking too.

I've been looking carefully and I can't see what model phone she is holding. Can you enlarge the picture at all?

Well, you can share music just by touching the phone with other people who have S3s, so if we just happen to run into each other by chance (on a planet of 7 billion people), you can get my playlist.

My comment on Mauer is that leading by example and by on-field performance, while being a necessary component, is not what ultimately makes a good clubhouse leader (or a good leader in any organization that relies on overall team performance). It has to involve picking guys up who are down, challenging guys who are getting out of line, setting an even keel and atmosphere whatever may be happening, and a bunch of other stuff that actually takes interaction with other players. That's something that just comes more naturally to some players rather than others - it's a personality thing and not just a game ability thing. Mauer may indeed be able to do that, and may indeed step up to fill that role with Morneau's absence. But it will take more than just playing well on the field.

Technically that depends on how you define effectiveness. Both ERA and OPS are lower for this year's starters than for last year's. Not to say they are good, but they aren't as bad as last year, at least by those two metrics.

Suh-weeet! Looks like I'm going to have to schedule some vacation time next July to catch them at Coors Field.

And I'm not saying that is wrong either. But there have been some who have suggested in other threads that those who choose to continue to go to games and buy tickets are an indirect part of the problem. I strongly disagree. Let's all be fans in the way our individual personalities lead us to be fans. For some that is continuing to go to games and buy tickets. For some that is turning our attention to the minors. For some that is boycotting as a form of financial pressure. I'm not going to argue that any of these are right or wrong. But let's not label any of them as "part of the problem."

Don't let anybody ever make you feel that way. There's nothing wrong with loyalty, even when they're losing.

I've never been a National League fan either, although I've had to learn to follow it now that I live in a National League TV market. My "other" home team is Colorado - it's been fun watching Cuddyer, but other than that it's been a lackluster season for them too.

You mean, it'll be 20 years before we have a winning season? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Yes, they are still alive, but there is certainly precedent for not making it up when it doesn't fit easily into the remaining schedule. And, yes, I also will be watching (after I get back in from work)...as much as I don't understand the purpose.

Things to Think About: 6. Why are we even playing this game? It's basically meaningless for both sides, and the only two purposes I can think of are 1) an almost unhealthy obsession with completing a league schedule for the sole sake of completing the schedule, rather than determining a championship, and 2) gate receipts. I'm all in favor of making up lost games when feasible, but to schedule a 1-game series on the last off-day of the season for the team, just so we can play 162 games instead of 161, seems excessive.

I agree. I just don't see the point in getting too worked up, one way or the other, about a 1-month callup. And I liked Thrylos's comment on another thread - giving some of these journeymen one month of major league pay (which works out to about $80,000) is a decent way of saying thank you to them for contributing in a role nobody really wants - AAA filler.

I can't speak for what happened last night as I wasn't watching the Twins - I was at the East Idaho State Fair watching a demolition derby (which come to think of it sounds similar to what happened last night with the Twins) - but here's my take on this whole topic of unwritten rules, for what it's worth. For me it all boils down to sportsmanship. Yes, we always play hard, but when the game is out of reach and pretty much guaranteed there's no need to kick the other team when they're down. One of the classiest moves I saw in sports was at a hockey game. The home team was ahead by 5 goals with about 4 minutes left in the game. Yes, a comeback is still theoretically possible but in practice it wasn't going to happen. One of our guys intercepted a pass and had a clear breakaway on the away team goal. Instead of taking it down and trying to score, he dumped it off into the far corner and got back on defense. In my mind it was classy because the goal would have been completely meaningless and would only have served to embarrass the other team. It's the same idea that you don't go for two in football when you're already up by 35. And you don't keep bombing 3-pointers in basketball when you're up by thirty late in the 4th quarter. To me, that's what any "unwritten rules" are all about - class and sportsmanship. Winning is one thing. Pushing someone's face in the dirt and grinding it around is another. Again, I don't know the situation last night, but if it was a case where Toronto was comfortably ahead and the game was out of hand and somebody saw the need to steal a base anyway, then, as much as it might be technically right, it's not a very classy move. Just my 2 cents.

I'm not sure, but I think this might be in the running for game-thread post of the month..or year.

In keeping with the spirit of game threads (even game threads of previous days) let's change the topic: How many licks does it take to reach the chocolate center of a tootsie pop?

Mercifully.

I disagree with the whole premise of this post, which seems to be embodied in the part in bold. Is the payroll lower? Yes. Is it because the driving force behind the listed personnel moves is to make more money for the owners? That's a matter of interpretation, and I disagree with the one given here. One can be validly critical of whether Ryan should spend more on payroll without tying it to the meme of "owner greed." That's gotten old. And I for one am just as glad that Liriano was traded (his performance this year notwithstanding) and that Pavano, Baker, Marquis, Capps & Casilla are no longer Twins. And the Span trade was a good move widely praised at the time.

That's just the way it was set up before the start of the season - the winner of the North division plays the wild card, and the South and West division winners meet. I'm guessing the thinking is that, since the North division has 6 teams and the other divisions only have 4 teams, there should be some "reward" for winning the larger-sized division - hence they get the wild card team.

I really don't care about the contract - I want him active and healthy because we need his bat in the lineup.

That's exactly the thing I think is going to change - especially when the catcher in question is one of the team's top hitters or has a lot of money invested/sunk into him. Right or wrong, I think teams will be very quick to switch such people to "safer" positions, much more so than in the past.