old nurse

Your logic "If you think your squad has a chance, then you need a closer, not a pen of questions" is solid, but the choice of Capps was obviously incorrect. The Twins could have had a similar bullpen arm AND the pick. Here are the 'closers' signed in 2012, their salaries (mil), and finally their 2012 WAR (FG): 1 YR Deals: Matt Capps, 6, -0.1 Jonathan Broxton, 4, 1.3 Ryan Madson, 6, 0 Francisco Cordero, 4.5, -0.8 Octavio Dotel, 3, 1.5 Brad Lidge, 1, -0.2 Jon Rauch, 3.5, 0.4 Fernando Rodney, 1.75, 2.2 Francisco Rodriguez, 8, 0.3 Multi-YR Deals: Heath Bell, 6, 0.4 Frank Francisco, 5.5, 0.1 Joe Nathan, 7, 1.7 Jonathan Papelbon, 11, 1.4 The Twins weren't eveer going to go multi-year on a 'closer', so looking only at that first group, the Twins could have had better production from nearly all of that group AND received a draft pick AND paid less is nearly every case. This is why their logical was flawed for signing Capps. Those that signed a one year deal, what was their WAR the previous season? You would be basing your decision on what they have done and anticipate continuation. When used as a closer, what was Capps WAR when healthy? He wasn't this year.

For those of you thinking that Burton will give up free agency for 2 million consider Jon Rauch got 3.5 from the Mets. Another good year and he could get a 3/13 deal like Crain or a 3/12 like Guerrier. Do you really think that Burton will give up the chance for that kind of money for 2 million? Do you really think an athlete thinks "What if I get injured?"

Capps would have been a Type B free agent. That would have netted them the 58th pick. In the middle of the winter they would have expected a Pavano, Liriano and Baker combo to healthy and have 15-16 wins each the next year, being optimistic, and Blackburn to be .500. You do need a closer if the three pitchers returned healthy and in in 2009-2010 form. If you think your squad has a chance, then you need a closer, not a pen of questions. The end result was players stepped forward.

Thank you for the article. I now know when I see your name next to an article what quality the piece will be and ignore it.

What Burton did this year bears no resemblance to what Blackburn did to earn his contract. I would think that Burton would not get closer money in free agency if he is the set up guy next year. As top set up men in free agency are getting 4 million the final year of his contract would have to be closer to that number. If it is a three year deal with a 4th year option it would be closer to a 2, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 and a healthier option amount.

Who makes the club win? A few lower place should go to Willingham. Take out Willingham and insert a Clete Thomas type. The domino effect on this team would be that they would make a run at the record for futility. Trout or Cabrera? Trout has probably contributed more to his team's success than Cabrera. That was the intent of the award. Although, if they had not signed Willingham, would Joe Benson made the squad out of ST and not had the season he did? A topic for another thread of what if.

a. If Gardenhire was to be fired it should be for his very public doghouse. The players in his doghouse have been traded for basically nothing. Unless you can buy players, no organization should have a public doghouse. Better returns for Loshe, Garza and Hardy would have put this club in a better situation. The return for Cuddyer, Kubel and Nathan will take years for a return. In the past those players would have been traded for a more ready prospect or two. Chargois and Berrios might well turn out to be a better value than what they could have picked up. b. Rantz is old. We all will be old someday. You need a better line of reasoning that that to say Rantz should retire. Rantz did not make unwise draft selections. The lack of development at the AAA level the last few years is more of a reflection of the drafting, not the development. The Twins ability to find players from other teams minor league systems and turn them into serviceable players at the major league level may well be the work of the system in place by Rantz. c. You can't turn a pitching staff that imploded around in one season. The staff has been a band-aid job for years. Deadline deals to make a bad deal is worse than no deals. What the Twins had to trade was not what other clubs wanted or was not offered a fair enough value in return. That part of the business was not, nor should not, be made public.

Burger Moe's I must have tried on a bad day. I would not recommend to an enemy. Tugg's gets mixed reviews, I am afraid to try it. Lion's tap is as described, simple, but awesome.

If you got a grill, then buy a hamburger press. Buy the best ground beef you can plunk your money down on and make your own. It will save you money in the long run. Depends on what you like for spices. Grinding to liquid a little onion, garlic, pepper of desired heat and a clove or few of garlic. Add spices and you can have your own burger. Sort of like Brats. The stuff you get in the supermarkets tastes lake crap compared to Grundhofer's in Hugo or Morelli's

The Nook or Shamrocks #1. Close second is the Blue Door. They would be number one but they are too hard to get into. $2.00 taps for premium beer is hard to beat. Maybe when they open a second location in longfellowMatt's #3. Victory 44 #4, Smashburger #5. Meister's in Scandia serves a good burger. Was not impressed with Kings bar in Miesville with their multiple (40 some) burger options. We did like Lion's Tap. 5/8 is highly recommend, but we were not impressed

If the Twins talk of trading Span for pitching, here is to hope that the Twins say not good enough to an offer for Span, and say how about Revere instead and the team bites on it.

Professor you provoked a very strange thought. I do not know how i got it from your comment but it is a bit twisted. (Please feel free to use your education to improve the thought if you follow it) The world would be a better place if we were all cognizant of the impact of our actions on others and acted accordingly. Charitably our time, talents, and excess is a second trait that would be beneficial. Given those two traits in the general population we would all be libertarians.

With thirteen more games to go the Twins will have a better idea of what Floriman can can do. The stats guys here will tell you about his fielding at the end of the season. 13 games will give you a hint on offense what he can do. I would bet by seasons end he will prove himself to be a backup. Shortstop for the Twins is like being a drummer for Spinal Tap.

Quite frankly, it's hard for we libertarians to get much traction when we're being morally demonized by both sides. Instead of action I should have said proposals for solutions to problems. Best way to solve things is to look at it from many different angles. Of course that requires politicians to work together and compromise.

I think you're simplifying the Libertarian viewpoint quite a bit. Some of us aren't against legislation entirely (though we are against stupid legislation and/or legislation that doesn't work). My Libertarianism comes from the core belief that the government is not a good service provider. In most cases, competition breeds efficiency and there is no competing force against the government. The government's role is to legislate private industry and prevent them from strong-arming the population into submission, not to avoid legislating entirely. Of course, there are Libertarians who call for much more radical government reform/de-legislation than myself, though after the financial debacle of 2007/2008, I do not understand how they reconcile those beliefs with reality. Libertarianism as expressed by the party and Ron Paul is what I don't get. I get wanting less government. Working in health care (the moniker isn't a joke) the efficiency in private health insurance is called non coverage and fighting tooth and nail for benefits. Efficiency in government. Separate agencies for food, WIC, housing and general handouts. Doesn't make sense for four eligibility organizations. Two for seniors (medicare and the VA). I am all for lifetime limits on benefits. I am also for only giving out staples for food.

Where the twins may benefit from this market is if teams overpay a starter they may have to dump someone for salary, Someone may have to give up a two or a three because they invested too much. With a trade that fills a hole for the other team they will not feel like they lost out.

So why can't we criticize legislation that is not correcting the problem but is, in many cases, exacerbating it? Part of the problem is we can't have a meaningful discussion about fixing legislation when one side wants it gone altogether and the other wants to demonize anyone who dares suggest there is a problem. You happen to fall into the second group. If the criticism leads to action and improvement I am all for it. There is no action.

No recent administration has ever worked on getting the government to run more efficiently. If the Republicans did, they would lose one of their rallying points. The Democrats seem incapable of it. 20 years ago Al Gore talked about it after the election, but nothing came of it. Perhaps the operation is too unwieldy. To rethink a whole new process is beyond the current crop of politicians.

This Vikings team will do poorly regardless of the refs

The hope would be by midseason Hicks can step in. A trade deadline deal might bring a better return for Span than an off season deal. However, if a good deal can be made during the off season, do it. If the Mets want to give up Zach Wheeler for Span and a decent prospect not named Hicks, Arcia, Rosario or Sano, well bring on Revere as CF. The Phillies also have decent pitching prospects to trade for.

DeVries had 150 innings this year. The Twins starters are so bad they could use the bullpen for a couple innings each as there are 9 bullpen arms plus the staff leader in ERA, who happens to play a vital role as third string catcher, available to do a game if need be.

That's "best team in baseball", not "contending". A 2b and ss who hits 250 shouldnt be too hard to find, right? Can we call them up from Beloit?

The statistics are there if those who want to can look. The 47% number was created by the 2009 law "Making Work Pay". That law has expired. The actual numbers of households that do not pay any federal income or payroll tax is between 14-17%. The Congressional office reported that the bottom 20%, with a household income near $19,000 pay on average 4% of their income to federal taxes. The not voting for your self interest. From message boards to conversations, people say things like "welfare $##@$%^&%$%$ the government never gave me nothin" as justification of voting Republican. When you mention corporate welfare to profitable businesses costs the government more they will respond with a "So" It is a bit absurd. The difference between an entitlement and good budget policy is wether or not it benefits me. People can see the welfare person, the corporate world is foreign, thus it is easier to hate the individual. Exactly, exactly. I have students who won't stop talking about "welfare fraud" and then I have to devote special time with them looking through the budget of the United States, showing them what on earth is really being spent on what. And this is a community college with generally fairly poor students! I guess the point is to make poor people hate other poor people, though . . . Hate motivates. One of the more disturbing trends of human nature. Money motivates also. The book Freakenomics pointed out through drug dealing. The guy selling drugs on the corner was motivated to do the statistically most likely job to get you killed (1/7) because if they moved up in the chain far enough they would make a lot of money. Nowhere does it mention they go after the ones above them to move up. Eventual attrition through jail takes care of that. I propose the economically disadvantaged do not go after the more wealthy voting wise on the same principal. I am going to move up (through divine intervention?) so therefore I will not do anything that will disenfranchise those in a higher economic standing. Welfare fraud. One conservative website said it might run 9 billion a year. Rates for catching welfare fraud run at about 34%. Picking on conservative websites, Medicare fraud is about 60 billion/yr. There are bigger problems than welfare fraud. Liberal sites claim 60 billion was lost/profiteered in the gulf wars. Forbes once reported on the 100 billion wasted since the start of the cold war on weapons that did not work. There are bigger problems than welfare fraud. People don't come into contact with it. If you really want to scare them, obesity costs 190 billion per year for America according to Rueters.

The statistics are there if those who want to can look. The 47% number was created by the 2009 law "Making Work Pay". That law has expired. The actual numbers of households that do not pay any federal income or payroll tax is between 14-17%. The Congressional office reported that the bottom 20%, with a household income near $19,000 pay on average 4% of their income to federal taxes. The not voting for your self interest. From message boards to conversations, people say things like "welfare $##@$%^&%$%$ the government never gave me nothin" as justification of voting Republican. When you mention corporate welfare to profitable businesses costs the government more they will respond with a "So" It is a bit absurd. The difference between an entitlement and good budget policy is wether or not it benefits me. People can see the welfare person, the corporate world is foreign, thus it is easier to hate the individual.