PseudoSABR
-
Posts
6,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PseudoSABR
-
So much this. And we should punish them regardless, as the world-wide economy would be just fine without their oil in the long term, even though the vested-interests would take a huge hit (good). The world market would, of course, look to other energy sources once the price of oil rose high enough (hence the recent, nonsensical drop of oil prices). I say cease trade with countries that do not punish the funding of terrorism by their citizens (and officials) whatever the costs. It cannot be the job of American military might to safeguard the investments of so few.
-
Wha? Isn't it one or the other?
-
Interesting article I read today in context of earlier conversations: I worked in the CIA under Bush. Obama is right to not say "radical Islam."
-
Does Park get better facing AAA pitching? Aren't we again flirting with which lottery tickets to give playing time too? Ramirez' or Boshers' roster spot buys Arcia no playing time. Arcia sitting on the bench probably has less value than an arm in the bullpen, esp. to save against over use on a pitching-poor team... I can get on board with the designation of Arcia is result of the obstinate refusal to trade Plouffe and not account for winning the bid on Park, but that's not the argument that's being made. In any case, that the discussion has made it this far suggests there's something more than indefesibility...but you'll tell me otherwise, I'm sure.
-
No, I get it. And I know you haven't but if you skim back through the thread, the trajectory is, well, what I've wrongly characterized your last post as. The point shouldn't be whether TR made the right or wrong move all along, but rather, what is the right move going forward? How much chances do we continue to give guys like Vargas, Arcia, Santana at the expense of younger guys? What is the point where we know when to cut bait? And at what point do those other, younger players force us to skirt our plan? Basically I'd rather a conversation focused on what to do next, than on who to blame with where we're at, but perhaps that's only me.
-
Where does Arcia get playing time to earn his value? You really send Kepler down to give Arcia (more of) a chance; or bench Grossman, who has out-produced him? Doesn't such moves fly in the face of the very ethic you seem to preach? I really don't care about your answers to those questions, because my point is that the decision is complex and multi-faceted and colored with more than indefensibility.
-
As I just said above, if your point is that things need change, I'm on board. That said, Arcia may have reasonably never been part of such change. At some point you need to stop ignoring the issue with playing time; Arcia's roster spot was but a part of the problem (which he kept uselessly warm for months). (In general, and this is just a human thing, I'd refrain from designating yourself as the decider of worthwhile of opinions, you're just a flawed human like the rest of us, operating on limited knowledge, in limited context.)
-
If the point is that TR needs to go, a point I happen to agree with, there's plenty of threads for that discussion. The argument against DFAing Arcia shouldn't be well TR is stupid, see. I think it's just too bad that every thread just turns into the see, look how stupid the Twins are...there's an interesting conversation to have, and I fell like we're not having it...
-
Every team gives up lottery tickets in favor of playing time for other lottery tickets. In other news, life is not fair. And I'm glad we're at the point where "I don't care" and "It doesn't matter" become points towards the other side being indefensible.
-
Look, I was intentionally trying to avoid having an argument on the merits because you're clearly not willing to have one, because as you've said, the other side is indefensible. What could I possibly say that can counter such certitude? My guess: nothing. The reality of Arcia's DFAing is far more complex than the facts we have to work with. We don't know what the Twins know, and the Twins could be wrong on Arcia, but still have operated with a mere modicum of reasonableness. That you can't even grant a modicum of reasonableness to whom those you disagree obscures whatever nuance could be had. (And to be clear a modicum of reasonableness should not be the standard (and likely is not), but that's what I'm stuck arguing because you won't even grant me that.)
-
It's positions like this that make for contentious, I told-you-so threads, or just shut down debate. In a vacuum, I personally would have preferred a player like Arcia to say Santana, because he flashed big-splash potential two years ago. But in the context that the Twins operate in, being heavy on butchers at the corners, and not much, esp. in the outfield, up the middle, I understood DFAing Arcia, even if I wished the Twins would have operated differently throughout his tenure. Mostly, I get stuck arguing against absolutism and certitude, and what I actually think falls to the wayside. That it's somehow permissible to continually update Arcia's box score tallies a mere week after the trade suggests that those people who disagreed with you should have shut up in the first place. Well, if that was goal, it's been largely successful. (I'm painting with a broad brush here, and beyond this isolated comment, I really don't mean to ensnare you, Levi).
-
I know we've talked about this before, but, IMO, the resilience of the Hillary-as-liar narrative thread is buttressed by misogyny, or at the very least a gendered double-standard. Largely baseless accusations stick to Hillary far longer than they do for any male politician in recent memory. Even her husband, Bill, a demonstrable fibber, is hardly equated with lying as much as she has been.
-
Tremendous finale. Really. I think Cersei will end being far more competent than her immediate predecessors. Her need to scheme and eliminate threats from within is largely at an end. I just don't think the shows producers are going to continue to set up Kings Landing as some house of cards which can easily be toppled. Will Jaime be hand of the Queen? An interesting role for him vis-a-vis his little bro. I think Melissandre, Arya, and the Brotherhood will have their own entangled storyline next season--amounting to what? I'm not sure. I imagine that Melissandre, now further south, will sound the alarm on the threat beyond the wall. I think Gendry will emerge as a factor, now that Cersei is on the thrown; which brings to the question, on what authority or right does Cersei have the Iron Throne? Is she a usurper? Are all the Baratheon's dead; shouldn't one of Robert's blood relatives technically be next in line? Or is there some precedence (within the books) for a Queen-mother to rule after her King-child has died? The teleporting Varys didn't bother me. Evidently, redditors spotted Terrell ships in Dany's fleet. The occasional time-stamp would be helpful: "months later" printed on screen or "weeks before". Such time-stamps would only be needed for great aberrations from an episodes plot. It feels a bit lazy, but I'm with Levi and Brock, favor narrative over logistics. I have other thoughts, but not enough time to get them out in one post...
-
What are Arcia's positives, again? Santana isn't a good player, but he's fine as the 25th guy, you use in emergency situations. Again, I'll ask: what role would you have Arcia play and whose at bats should he be given? ..
-
You need a 25th guy who can do lots of little things; and since he's the 25th guy he probably doesn't do any one of them well, and he needs to be a guy who can ride the pine without his skills going to crap. I don't know what role people would have Arcia play, and whose at bats they'd give him...
-
Tell me about his AAA numbers last year. I'd love to hear someone rationalize those numbers away. The notion that the Twins should have just kept throwing Arcia out there, say, instead of signing Grooseman or giving the next guy a shot (Kepler), just leaves me dumbfounded.
-
And so is Arcia. Santana can sit on the bench and serve a purpose as a defensive replacement, a pinch runner, and the occasional start to give a guy day off. Arcia provides none of those benefits, and I think he's done horrible as a pinch hitter. With Rosario, Sano, Kepler, Grooseman, Mauer, and Park, there just isn't going to be at bats for Arcia. We don't have that same depth at CF or MI, so it's reasonable to keep a guy like Santana around, even if you don't ultimately agree with the decision. I'm not sure why so many posters need to portray views that are contrary to their own as totally unreasonable, that such views can't even be understood. It makes for really lame debates; there's a reasonable argument for keeping Santana over Arcia; and there's a reasonable argument for keeping Arcia, one I happen to not agree with...
-
Santana offers flexibility at up the middle positions, acceptable defender, has speed; and his bat has been about Arcia's equivalent. Santana offers skills outside of his bat; Arcia doesn't. When neither player looks like he can hit, the choice is easy... esp. considering the lack of depth up the middle and the depth at the corners.
-
Britain just voted to leave the EU. Nationalism is alive and well. I wonder if underselling the same element in America, and so Trump's chances...
-
Still, to suggest that he explore retirement (as if he hadn't thought of it)...
-
I think it's pretty crass to point out that he could give away the money or retire--that much is obvious--especially considering the sentiment Perkins is trying to convey, heartfelt remorse over his injury and not being able to contribute.
-
Well, there goes the whole forum.
-
It's not the best decision, but it's not totally damaging either. It works like this if a cop stops somebody with less than reasonable suspicion, but not as part of flagrant behavior (an illegal stop), if the person has an outstanding warrant, the evidence resulting from a search AFTER the cops learn about the warrant, won't be precluded because the stop was illegal. Very specific set of facts and circumstances that aren't likely to have tons of applicability, but nonetheless, another way cops can behave negligently without any real repercussion.
-
I've cited to sources each and every time I make a point that isn't commonly accepted. Desperate arrogance is continuing to leave your arguments unsupported. Post-Lochner, when the Court actually upheld regulation for the first time, gun laws were upheld. Prior to then, it was not the second-amendment that struck down regulation (probably including guns) but it was the right to contract. The right to bear arms (for purposes of self-defense) was only found to be a fundamental right in 2007, in Heller. That's a fact. Steve J, on 21 Jun 2016 - 03:26 AM, said: And the notion that any Constitutional interpretation is settled is foolish; the interpretation of the Constitution will continue to evolve with the times and the composition of the Court. That's the reality. The Constitution has no fixed meaning, no single intent. It is not the Bible, the supposed Word of God, which also was written by and interpreted by men; but the Constitution, nor it's framers, have ever denied it's need to be interpreted, that it emerged from many-minds, as a result of compromise and concession. For my part, I think Heller is right-wing activism; the Court had 200 years prior to the decision to assert that there was a fundamental right to bear arms, but they did not do so. It was not about finally figuring out the really true intent of the framers; no new clues emerged, no new evidence, just the political climate that made such a decision possible.
-
Yeah. The best use of this vote will be campaign fodder. The Dems got the Republicans on record, and that is something. Heck, I'm motivated to campaign against the-supposed-Maverick McCain now, who's in a close race in AZ. But it will be an uphill race out here for the Dems.
