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
-
In 2020? She's a natural match with Bernie, as he'll double down on the anti-Wall St. campaign, for sure. (No way he'd lurch to the center with a VP pick). I'd love to see a Trump/Palin v. Bernie/Warren general election. Let's see whose base value survive scrutiny.
-
Not saying you're wrong, but maybe that won the day. The knock on Hillary is her pragmatism and her willingness to carve out consensus in favor of championing liberal values. What we really want is someone who is wiling to change the system and process of governance, not gain a proclivity for it--but I fear, that is what we often end up settling for.
-
I love Warren, but she's not exactly a Spring chicken. Let's remember how much experience Obama had when he got elected. I think Warren's window is the next election cycle or not at all.
-
The ratings should not even matter as far as electoral process is concerned. That which draws ratings is not at all indicative of fitness for the Presidency. We should expect that ratings would be down. That will be given. But that fact points to the clownshow of our election process, not that Trump is ought to be given some deference.
-
The butthurt is just a red herring; it's about leveraging terms that favor him even further, and gaining publicity all the while. The Megan Kelly thing is simply a way to (falsely) legitimize his pulling out of the debates.
-
I thought Fox's statement had more funnies, honestly: Maybe Trump should offer to debate with the Dems to start a bidding war. That said, the primaries the debate schedule and the DNC/RNC need to be reigned in. The system should be regulated and broadcasted on CSPAN. It's a total sham that the networks can profit of the provocativeness of the debate, it creates an systemic incentive to favor the likes of Trump.
-
"After two months of investigation, the grand jury in Houston decided not to charge Planned Parenthood or any staffers, but instead to indict Daleiden and Merritt (the anti-abortion activists) for tampering with government records." Wow.
-
Alright, dad.
-
Oh my bad. Wouldn't want to suggest he's said anything crazy.
-
Outsourcing and the hiring of illegal immigration should not be options for the American businesses that profit off our consumerism and legal protections. A corporation is a public trust that should be revoked when it takes steps like these. In fact, I'd be in favor of criminalizing such steps. The truth is and free-market proponents don't like to hear, but businesses could bear out higher minimum wages by paying those at the top less or by making less profit (for shame). That businesses seem to base their success off growth rather than profit (largely because of the stock market) should not dictate how we evaluate our economic policy. We need more business owners and corporations that can survive on mere profit, and we need to take away the incentive of unfettered (and unsustainable) growth.
-
I mean, do you think Trump's immigration policy would have any tangible effect on wages? Really? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting. Building a wall and deporting Muslims will have zero impact on wages for the lower white middle class folks. That's why there's no legitimacy to their actual anger. (This is not to suggest that Immigration isn't a problem, but it's problem that has no bearing on wages, it might change the price of fruit and Mexican food though). The long term solution that people seem to desire for the wage problem is a market solution - don't hold your breath for that one. Businesses DO need to adopt different models to adapt to the need for higher wages. Some are already doing this - in what looks like a PR - which suggests there's plenty of room for our economy to survive higher wages for low skill workers. That some businesses won't survive is the nature of capitalism, and where there's a niche another business should take its place. Businesses will have a choice either make less profit, or find a way to run more efficiently. It'd be dandy if there was this long-term, self-sustainable solution to low wages, but there isn't. It's something that needs to be regulated or it won't happen. (If we could get closer to full-employment, the market might need to compete for low skill labor, but to get to full-employment we'd need some other form of regulation, as businesses owners benefit from our current system, not the one where they have to compete for labor.)
-
No, there's not, and no it doesn't. The bitterness is real, but only because Marie Antoinette's cake has grown sour. As a son of a lower middle class family, I understand the frustration of working your ass off to earn what little you can over minimum wage (and never know your children and have enough time to be the human you are). But those who fight for a higher minimum wage, also fight for you; those who oppose minimum wage also oppose a higher wage for you. Wages stagnate not because of immigration, but because there is no market incentive for higher wages for low-skill jobs when poverty exists. Immigration only hurts American labor when businesses hire immigrants--thus the problem is on a market condition that allows for what's best for the American public to be undercut. The notion that Trump supporters are getting screwed by the "underclass" just isn't true, and a belief that will only maintain such level screwedness. And we poor whites must eventually learn that the erosion of our privilege is an inevitability when what we seek is an equitable society. That we are on the butt-end of privilege does not mean that we don't actually have much to give and many more burdens to bear.
-
Unless we kill their and corporate and foreign interest's lobbying power. It's very sad day when private interest--making so little of the population--can sway a republic built upon the ideas of democracy. At what point do we not this happen?
-
Public unions are a problem in the same that government subsidies create a shadow demand to pilfer public funds. Perhaps rather than having public workers unionize, states could impose a statutory mandate to increase pay to match inflation/increase in standard of living. Unions in the private market are essential and don't necessarily lead to the same absurd results that public unions might cause as there's clear operation bottom line. A business could go belly up and get snuffed out of existence if unions overplay their hand, however, states and local municipalities (although they can go bankrupt) will never cease to exist--in that sense there's no barrier that prevents unions from bargaining their municipalities into forever-poverty.
-
I don't think it will really matter what the level-heads of the party say, as they've hitched their wagon to this inflammatory-base-motivating rhetoric for too long, where anything that appears less inflammatory will be labeled as conciliatory, cowardly, and weak. I don't see how Republicans can expect to fire up their current base and not also elect someone who best mirrors that fire, as crazy and impractical as they might be.
-
There's nothing about Trump's platform that would appeal to people that actually have values in line with the Democratic Party; there might be some Democrats that are willing to participate in the Republican primaries/caucuses to help elect a defeatable candidate, but Democrats are typically less-engaged with the political process so I think the number trying to game the system is really low. Like it or not, Trump's platform plays to deep-seated very right wing values like nationalism and protectionism. If "conservatives" don't want Trump as their candidate, they need only to look at whom they've built a coalition with over the past decade. As the party and the conservative media lurch to the right, riling up anger in the masses, to maintain their ranks, they left open the possibility for a person to tap directly into that anger and leave the party platform and traditional (moderate) conservative values behind. Reasonable Republicans have been too willing to embolden the fringe or their party to maintain political control, and this is the inevitable result. Trump/Palin 2016.
-
Regression to the mean is always the safest projection. So there's really nothing surprising here. A few things of note:(looking at the fan graphs depth chart) Park isn't included in the projections. Arcia is getting those DH at bats, and Vargas the 1b at bats. They have Rosario marked down for a total of 1 WAR Plouffe's fielding WAR is -4.5 (Def War in his profile is -3.1, though) Buxton's fielding WAR is -1.6 (Def War in his profile is 1, though) The only positive fielders are Mauer and Rosario.
-
I'm also thinking it's a corollary effect of Trump's rhetoric--emboldening the far left, and making their views seem relatively reasonable to the center.
-
Via Real Clear Politics Tuesday, January 12 Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread Presidential Nomination CBS/NY Times Clinton 48, Sanders 41 Clinton +7 Iowa Dem. Caucus Quinnipiac Clinton 44, Sanders 49, Sanders +5 Iowa Dem. Caucus PPP (D) Clinton 46, Sanders 40, Clinton +6 New Hampshire Dem. Primary Monmouth Sanders 53, Clinton 39, Sanders +14 Monday, January 11 Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread Presidential Nomination IBD/TIPP Clinton 43, Sanders 39, Clinton +4 Iowa Dem. Caucus ARG Clinton 44, Sanders 47, Sanders +3 New Hampshire Dem. Primary ARG Sanders 47, Clinton 44, Sanders +3He could win Iowa and NH; and his numbers in the nationwide polls continues to grow. What's with the Sanders bump?
-
Second-guessing the Twins is probably fine with everyone. What bothers me, at least, is the insistence that the criticism is clear/obvious (or likely as you put it), and the exasperated tone that comes with it. The decision to not bring up Berrios for even one start is complicated in terms of near future returns (winning that game/roster flexibility) and long term prospects for the player, both in financial and player development terms. In my opinion the complexity of the decision combined with our lack of first hand knowledge undercuts how sure any poster can be about second-guessing that decision. It's just like your opinion on how clear an issue is or how obviously likely something is, dude.
-
Rightly or wrongly, identity politics worked in Obama's favor, in spite of his rather center-left policies. Identity politics work against Bernie, in spite of his far left policies--and work in Hillary's favor. We can poo-poo the idea of the first woman president on a sports message board overwhelmingly comprised of men, but within the actual political landscape, Hillary-as-woman is more transformative than Bernie-as-socialist.
-
Typically, language like "plain," "simple," and "clear" are redflags that a person is having trouble supporting their argument with actual facts and not mere supposition. Just saying.
-
Mismanaging would be rushing prospects based solely on minor league statistical results. Mismanaging would be basing promotion on improving future bargaining as opposed to whats best for the player's development, which in turn would maximize future earning power. Your argument makes no sense with respects to Sano, who was promoted without having taken an at bat in AAA, and without having an open position to play. And frankly, your argument about "looking for a way out" runs counter to how homegrown players actually feel about playing for the Twins. You know the many examples of player loyalty to this organization.
-
I don't either. But there are passionate people at the fringe of consensus that commit something close to doublespeak in regard to free agent spending and prospect promotion. Not that you or Chief are among those people. But like I suggested in my post, there's refrain of compliant here.
-
There is a point where the supposed difference-maker is cost prohibitive given his likelihood of difference-making. Are O'Day or Soria difference-makers vis-a-vis their costs? Is a set-up guy really ever a difference-maker? I understand the notion that cost prohibitive shouldn't be in a revenue-making team's vocabulary, but I think the Twins can still get value in regard to the reliever market. The Twins actually do have Perkins and Jepsen; they aren't looking to makeover the bullpen, they need to fill it out (and only *perhaps* until arms in the farm arrive). While the Yankees address the back of their bullpen and ignore everything else, I'm still glad the Twins aren't in the bull's market on relievers. There could be a time where they should be, but given so many unknowns going into the season (with all the hope there is), the Twins should be reserved in spending on what looks like part-time players--that third-best reliever, or that center-fielder who eventually must get displaced by Buxton.
