PseudoSABR

You're gonna have to specific here. What on earth has Trump said during the campaign that makes it clear he's never left the Democrat Party?

The hippies got bitter and got jobs. I know because they are my parents. (Although many of them are on board with social change (which is totally rad!), largely, they are as crotchety conservative as any generation prior.)

Kepler? Buxton? The minor league depth has flaws to begin the season for sure. The Twins need to buy themselves a couple months until one or both could be ready. But they shouldn't overpay for it. The outfield defense will go from being a net negative to a net positive with Buxton in center, which is an eventuality. The problem is real on opening day, but ultimately ephemeral.

I know that this post wasn't addressed to me, but I have a different take here. Not only did the Twins not give Sano any games in the OF for last September, they also (supposedly) forbade him from playing the outfield in the Winter League during games, but (supposedly) he practiced the outfield. My reading is that the Twins want to ease Sano into outfield without the risk and the pressure of live-games. There's also been talk (I think from the Twins themselves) of Sano shedding some weight in preparation for Spring Training--after a year of DHing, he might not have been in the best shape to avoid injury given the responsibility of so much ground to cover. On Plouffe, I think the Twins overlooked the guy becoming a plus defender at the hot corner, which has a lot of value, especially with Escobar's limited range (even if he's generally steady).

Right. If not for the changing demographics of the country (of which Dave reminds us), the Democrats could be perpetually banished to every fourth year relevance. Forbid the thought, but when babyboomers begin to pass, the country will look very different.

I was curious, so I looked it up. For the curious: Oddschecker.

To be clear, I'm not trying to avoid the issue, I'm more or less just talking-out-loud as to why the phenomenon exists--not trying to excuse it or minimize it. I agree it's a real problem, and has been for a long time.

I don't disagree. But let's not pretend that its purely an issue of Democrat's motivation to vote Congress out; gerrymandering has severely minimized how many true swing districts there actually are. (Wasn't it in 2012 that the Democrats actually won the popular vote in Congress but lost 20 something seats to Republicans?) Motivating liberal leaning people to involve themselves in local politics is a tough sell. Many of the key issues for liberals are not governed at the local level (civil rights, income inequality, health care). In urban cities, of course, that local landscape is different. There's also the income disparity that allows for conservatives to disproportionately invest more time in local politics without diminishing their efforts nationally. As a liberal, I see presidential tickets as a way to infuse liberal values in the Presidency directly, in Congress down ticket and in the Supreme Court, indirectly. I'm sure many conservatives feel the same, but liberal issues do seem to lend themselves to national solutions and politics.

The middle--Kennedy and Roberts--are self identified, though reasonable, conservatives. In a normal court, without Scalia/Thomas, they'd be that right-wing bloc. More conservatives will just push an already right-wing court further right. That matters on a host of issues. FYI: Four Justices are over seventy. Stephen Breyer is 74, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia are 76 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pancreatic cancer survivor, is 79. Probably the two most liberal justices, a conservative swing vote, and an arch conservative; clearly, the court could move significantly to the right over the next four to eight years. Maybe it doesn't matter, but I think it does. With a Republican president and a Republican Congress (with their entitled tea party wing) could easily nominate another Thomas. Roberts and Kennedy wouldn't survive the conservative scrutiny these days, I fear.

Just stop with the accusations of fear-mongering, especially when you keep referencing "targeted killing" as a reason to oppose Hillary. Look, it's your choice to restrict the scope of the issues you'll consider when voting, but don't expect others to appreciate the strictness of that scope, especially when you mention civil liberties as an issue but down play the influence of the supreme court (again, women's issues anyone?). And I think you're being patently dishonest about Hillary's record on civil liberties (esp. women's rights) and income equality as compared to the GOP. (I just don't know enough about her stances on immigration to comment (or really my own stance on immigration) All I'm suggesting is to leave room for changing your mind, and if the election is close consider choosing the lesser of two evils. That's not fear-mongering, that's being reasonable about the democratic process. FTR, I'm not on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon, but I do think the criticisms of her are strangely overstated. (As there's plenty to suggest she's not progressive enough for me. Yet still far more progressive than the GOPers.)

Yes, 25 years ago the court scaled back Roe with Casey, and 12 years ago they went much further in Gonzales, where a state can ban abortion procedures so long as a woman has other options even if those options are more medically dangerous to her. While the Court was reluctant to overturn State anti-abortion laws, the Court happily overturned city bans on handguns in Chicago and DC. You're downplaying the political affiliation of the Court. For every Kennedy or Roberts, there's a Thomas (total idealogue) and a Scalia (master construing interpretations). Imagine if Cruz is given the opportunity to nominate a justice? Or for that matter, Trump or Carson. My point on ACA is not to dispute the common sense of Roberts, but to demonstrate that if there were one more conservative, ACA may have been invalidated. Given how much the Republicans have lurched right since Bush, it's fair to wonder what kind of Justices they would nominate.

Conservative courts have already severely curtailed abortion rights with their holdings in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart, and curtailed access to birth control through Hobby Lobby. The ACA initially survived because of one vote. Not to mention the horrible holding in Citizens United which has usurped our democracy with money-as-speech - overturning that case alone would do much to diminish the power of special interests. I'm really surprised how little affect you're giving to the Supreme Court. As far as civil rights go, it's the last battlefield.

I think that's somewhat the point I was trying to make. The criticism of her seems rather generic in terms of how she'd make a poor president. It seems that people viscerally don't like rather her than believing that she'd make a bad president because of this specific stance on policy or that specific stance on policy.

As bad the GOP? Do you really need to overstate your case? Just make it. I see inconsistency and opportunism, but on all of those issues, I think there's huge gap between her and the Republicans. And can you imagine if the supreme court gained even one more conservative how our law on these issues could/will change? There's no way Clinton would nominate justices as conservative as Cruz et al. would. I dislike all this as well. But I'm also a realist, any Democrat that has a chance in the general is likely to take many positions I won't like and have strong ties to corporate America. Honestly, her hawkishness will serve her well in the general election given the current political climate. I hope you'll give Clinton a chance to sway you on some these issues, as I believe you also don't want to see a Republican president. If the election appears close, I hope you'll pinch your nose, and pick the lesser evil.

I guess I just don't get the Clinton-hate. I think she's a political opportunist and is guilty of nepotism, but for me, that's just par for the course with very few exceptions in terms of candidates who've held political office. Sure, I'd rather cast my vote for Bernie, but that's probably not a reality. What's essential for me is that no Republican hold the presidency - there's just too much at stake in terms of potential wars abroad, health care at home, and the supreme court nominations that are all but certain to be more than a couple. I may not like Hillary, and I may pinch my nose a bit when I vote her, but when it comes down to it, it is far more important to defeat the Republicans than it is to boycott an election that doesn't present me with a my ideal (or preferable) candidate.

I think much of what the country has currently seen of Hillary Clinton is through the prism of the media and the great majority haven't actually seen her debate or speak. I think she'll surprise a lot of non-political junkies with her competency and poise, especially vis-a-vis some one like Rubio. Hillary's drawbacks lack a there-there. Whether its supposed corruption scandals or lack of transparency or political royalty or opportunism - criticism against her often ventures into speculation. And as the general election marches on, without the there-there, such criticism will start to look like the typical ideological crap that most voters brush away.

I just want to make a couple of points. 1) Upside isn't a fixed phenomenon. It is fluid. Hicks' present upside is probably not considered the same as his upside pre-2013; similar point on Bentacourt. Once players became exposed, the rosiness of their supposed upside certainly waned. The reverse point for Murphy, a guy switching position to catcher, who had infrequent playing time at young age - as it became clear that he could be an above average defender and that he wouldn't be a hole with the bat, his upside is probably greater than when he was minor leaguer. 2) Upside is ethereal, while a player's floor is concrete. While betting on a player's floor isn't as sexy as betting on their ceiling; it's certainly risk adverse. Sometimes it's better to have a known quantity, even if a middle of the road option than it is to bet on former prospect's upsides and end up with no value. (In my opinion, the Twins sold high on Hicks' one month of glory. He was unlikely to get much more playing time to further improve (or diminish) his stock.) 3) Making deals early in the offseason always invites a hindsight analysis based on what other teams end up doing. Because we are Twins fans, I think we often refuse to acknowledge just how many other teams fail to address their own needs by waiting the market out. In terms of catchers this offseason, very few options existed right at the outset, and the Yankees catching excess would surely have been sought after if not by us. The Twins could easily be without any young catcher at all. The reality of previous Twins' offseason's would have netted us the likes Tyler Flowers.

Hillary might be colored with political corruption, but comparing her to Hitler or Trump seems pretty off-base to me.

As works in progress, with Houston and Chicago being a year ahead.

Well, using Saturn's moon to create a magnetic field did not happen in the movie. So credit Jose with that.

Isn't this the plot of Total Recall?

Given that Jones was Milwaukee's second Rule 5 pick, I expect Jones to be returned to the Twins at some point next season. The hand-wringing over this is probably much ado about nothing.

If TR didn't act as early as he did, we'd be reading this thread some weeks earlier, though titled: "At what point can we call thiiiis offseason another failure for Ryan?"

Right, I've never seen triple digits reported. Would be cool though.

The team over-achieved last year (whether by exceeding their ability or by luck). Even with the possible increased production from Buxton, Park, and Murphy and full years from Santana, Rosario, Sano, and Jepsen, I expect any gains to be offset by worse luck and regression (esp. from Rosario and Sano). Unless our luck continues, we should hover around .500 and compete for a wildcard. X-factor is Berrios; if he can emerge as a top of rotation arm, the Twins playoff hopes substantially improve. The thing I especially like is that we'll have depth both in the line up and in the rotation (though lesser quality). The bullpen should have much better depth as players like Burdi, Reed, Meyers emerge throughout the summer. Adding another bullpen arm this offseason would help, but I hope we don't give out O'Day money or length (or give up too much for someone like Storen, though that move is more palatable), because the emerging arms need to be evaluated going forward and could present better value and results very soon. For the same reasons, I wouldn't add any more outfield depth beyond a one-year deal or minor league FAs.