PseudoSABR

Well at least Mauer is making the batting race interesting.

Ignoring Tate's push off prior to the supposed catch was the real criminal part. The ball was against Jennings body, I don't care where Tate's hands were; it's pretty thin evidence to award the touchdown.

I think the argument that Cabrera winning the Triple Crown appeals to the BBWA more than Mike Trout's incredulous rookie season grasps at ghosts. Mike Trout's rookie season has all the mythos that baseball writers crave (somewhere Rick Rielly is suddenly interested in baseball). Mike Trout is Mikey Mantle and Willie Mays. The guy has the incredible ease of Mantle and the absurd athleticism of Mays, and he's playing at their prime in his rookie year. Trout's highlight-worthy hops, the Halos' hole when they call him up, his humble personality--only add to his statline. As much as writers like old-stand-bys like RBIs, writers like to dream, and they can dream on Trout until someone slaps them in the face. There's as much old-school and mystic in Trout as there is Cabrera's potential triple crown. We don't need sabermetrics to tell us that; we have our ****ing eyes.

There's not a lot at the top (i.e. Grienke) but the Twins would never be in on top tier guys (or they shouldn't be); but the middle tiers are pretty fat, to the point where someone might fall into affordability. There's old guys like Loshe, Dempster, Millwood, Kuroda, Arroyo who will be attractive to competitors but the Twins will have no interest in. Whether it's Sanchez, Peavy, Marcum, or Jackson, I'd be pretty happy if the Twins signed any to a deal less than 10m per and less than three years. Add the possibility that Floyd, Haren, and Shields could also hit the market, the Twins might be able to pluck a mid-to-top of the rotation guy. One from the McCarthy, Blanton,Saunders, Villaneuva, Young group might be more realistic. And there's also the crazies/projects: Zambrano, Liriano, E-Santana, J-Sanchez, and Dice-K (ha). In any case, there's far more out there than years past. The Twins have money to spend, and even if they don't compete, they should be in the business of acquiring assets. tl;dr: Top Tier - Grienke Old Tier - Dempster, Kuroda, Millwood, Lohse, Arroyo (Oswalt) Option Tier - Shields, Floyd, Haren (Twins affordability begins here-perhaps) Second Tier - A-Sanchez, Peavy, Marcum, Jackson Third Tier - McCarthy, Blanton, Saunders Questions Tier - Chris Young, Villaneuva, Guthrie, Baker, Maholm (option) Crazy Tier - Liriano, Zambrano, E-Santana, J-Sanchez, (Dice-K) Nearly all of those guys are better than what the Twins have thrown out there four of five days.

No questions on my sexual orientation or my political identification? Pfft.

What does this even mean?

Agreed, we need to shut that BS down too. I thought the liberals invented these people. Rich people taking advantage of the gov't is different than poor people taking advantage of the government.

Look, this is a big deal, Levi (I didn't think it would quite play this loudly and broadly...); both the right, left and the media are reacting negatively and fiercely to his comments. Maybe we all kind of thought Romney believes this way, but when you get a candidate on tape revealing (with authenticity) a caricature like that, it's pretty rare. It's not that he said some people are dependent (which is really about 8% whom aren't elderly) it's that he said he doesn't worry about them nor will he try to change them. It's despicable. When he calls half the nation 'victims,' and sneers about it, we have every right to call him Thurston Howell, and tell the guy to **** off. He also said these people made up 47%! He suggested that all Obama voters (or all non-income tax payers) are dependent on the government which is total crap; and you're letting it slide. Look, David Brooks, David Frum, Peggy Noonan plenty of non-tea party conservatives are condemning his statements (even wingnut Kristol calls Romney arrogant and stupid). Are you just not reading and paying attention to how a broad range of reasonable people are reacting? The truth is, I'm not exactly surprised by your reaction here. This reminds me of why the Paul Ryan thread went haywire. I think you kind of agree with Romney on this issue. I think it's good for people who believe this way to see how these beliefs play out in a public sphere, and to see how out of touch and rather baseless such beliefs are. Levi, I know you're reasonable on lots of issues, but the notion of people depending on the government really offends you, in a sense that seems exaggerated--to the point where you can forgive a 39 point over-estimate from Romney. It just seems so inherently ideological.

What's damning isn't the inaccuracy of his broad brush, but the sneering contempt he shows for such people. The fact that Romney gave a 10pm press conference I think indicates the kind of reverberations his statements are having. I'm not sure what kind of effect it will have in terms of swaying voters, but it certainly reifies the caricature of Romeny-as-Montgomery Burns. This is the kind of fodder TV ads are made of...

There's a video/tape that got leaked to day of Romney talkign to some donors, he says some pretty rightwing stuff, and I'm not sure if he's telling these people what they want to hear or if he really believes it, but it seems pretty damning to me. Here's the money quotes: “There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it,” “My job is not to worry about those people,” Romney said. “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81312.html?hp=t1_3 The videos have a lot of interesting stuff in them, and oddly Romney shows much more personality than Ive ever seen him have.

Post more.

The religious extremists have certainly taken hold of the anti-homosexual platform in this country, but worldwide it is punishable by death in a number of non-Christian African countries to be caught in a homosexual act. Most Islamic countries have severe punishments for homosexuality, up to and including death. I'm not saying any are right by any means, but to explain this exclusively as a Christian issue is ignoring the issue on a larger, world-wide scale. Of course, the context of our national problem has to do with our largely national religion. I have no doubt that other religions and nations deride gay rights far more than we do, given what I know about women's rights world-wide, it makes total sense. But if the defense of Christianity begins with showing the unmitigated hate found elsewhere in the world, you're going to need an awful lot of Pledge to shine off that halo. If Christianity desires to be a modern spiritual guide post in American lives, it's got to be progressive on this issue. I have a hard time believe that Jesus would vilify gays to the degree his followers do, so the whole premise seems to be an exercise in exclusion, not morality.

It's the Church. A guess, but I'm sure Latino's overwhelmingly disfavor gay marriage as well. I think it's pretty tried-and-true result of oppression--the best way to stop being the Other is to identify and rally against another Other.

It's no fun to predict unless you take some risk. I'll say 358 to 180 in favor Obama. Obama wins all the states from last time save Indiana, and surprises and takes AZ. Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I think the election as turned a corner (the Dems convention/Clinton speech, libya scrap, the fed acting today) and the basic fundamentals favor the incumbent. I bet the race isn't nearly as close as MSM would have us believe; I wouldn't be surprised if Obama wins by larger margins than he did over McCain (who was a much better candidate than Romney).

I'm really glad Span is playing before the season expires. Let's hope he can finish it out.

I remember there was a lot of talk in left-wing circles about the manufacture of voting machines being linked to Republican backers after Gore v. Bush, but it seemed a bit tin-foil hat...though oddly viable at the time. Exit polls, in part, due check in wide spread voter fraud on the other hand.

I really don't know how to read the bruhaha over the embassy attacks yesterday. It looks like Romney may have jumped the gun in his criticism of Obama (Real Clear Politics article penned by former McCain aid), but I doubt it will really damage him. The ethics of what to criticize and what not to as a candidate seem unfairly grey to me.

There's a lot wrong with the voter ID plan but on a simple level, why should 200,000+ people have to go to the government to get back their fundamental right? Same reason I can't vote in my living room. If you want to vote you need to take some responsibility. If a convicted felon votes for Obama my legal vote for Romney is rendered meaningless and thats BS. Voting would be so much more worth while if we had an obstacle court prior to casting our choice. We live in a Democracy, bub. Even the lazy and derelict have a right to be represented without needing some extra test of responsibility.

Have you checked out Wu Lyf? You might dig their stuff.

Beautiful Oppressionism. Ha! That was great. Good for Kluwe.

Arcia, Gibson, Kepler, and Goodrum all seem to get the shaft in this list. This article and list is likely just September fluff as the season winds down and their isn't much to write about in minor league ball. I imagine the top 100 as well as our own top 20 will change before April next year. This is just clickedy fodder.

I was surprised about how gracious Clinton was towards Obama; I thought the speech would be a nostalgic look back at the 90s, but he delivered a pretty compelling and dense argument for reelecting Obama.

It's not ridiculous. Liriano was pitching very well and coming off all kinds of injury and make up concerns (not unlike Morneau). You admit the trade was stupid, yet you somehow think that TR will do better with Morneau? An .800 OPS from a 1B for 14 million IS NOT appealing to lots of teams. You're being willfully pollyanneish. There are people in this thread that think Morneau should have been given to the Dodgers for nothing. I think you're really out of touch about his value. (And for the record I'd rather Morneau in 2013 than some teams 8th best prospect). Morneau will fetch far more at the deadline in 2013 because he'll be farther away from the concussion and have a chance to reemerge as an elite hitter. We'd be selling very low on Morneau in the offseason.

Did you see what we got for Liriano? Imagine less than that. Bigger contract, just as many questions. I don't think there's anyway Morneau fetches even a top 10 prospect with his contract, questions, and league average production. Do the Twins really need to buy a middling prospect for 14million? That doesn't seem prudent. If we're going to trade Morneau, we need to maximize his value (or at least try), and that means trading him at the 13 deadline (if need be). Moreneau's production isn't as replaceable as Span's, especially if Morneau returns to form (or even continues his second half numbers). It is pollyannish to believe that Morneau is the most easily expendable part. He's simply the most undesirable part (contract/production) at this point, but that will probably change in 2013.