TheLeviathan

There is no reason we can't offer 3 years/33M right now and see who blinks first.

I'm with you that replays can bog down games and be obnoxious. I don't think this particular issue has that concern though....does it?

Well said.

Given Chief's repeated declarations, I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. Do you think it's at all reasonable to declare that deal a loss even if Alcala became a hall of famer?

So Ryan Pressley himself is the fine line between death (starving) and life. Which I assume means Ryan Pressley alone separates us from being a winner or a loser. If not, this analogy is nonsense and doesn't work. Assuming you mean it to work.....that's. Wow. You're pretty far from reality if that's the case.

Owner interference could explain it, still...that sucks.

Duffy looked filthy tonight. I'll be really curious to see if he can maintain that or if it was a fluke. The Jays looked lost against him.

If Alcala becomes a good starting pitcher....they absolutely win that trade. Calling that a loss already is absurd. Time will tell. As it does on all transactions.

What do you make of his comment to the Strib that he judges great catches by the force of impact with the wall? I'm not sure that's a good way to view that. I don't want to read too much into it, but I don't like that on the surface. And, again, I absolutely think you can teach a player to avoid potential injuries and still play hard. Hell, when I coached football, it would be the focus of hours of training camp. It's about technique and awareness and that can be taught.

Nothing irritates me more in sports than the "make up call" and players having to "earn" calls. The robo-umpire eliminates both. Whatever other imperfections or tepid improvements.....it takes those both out.

Woof

I have a problem with another person's use of the term. You interceded on their behalf and, for some reason, internalized those criticisms. My point was, and remains, that using the term "illegals" as a broad term for this is inaccurate and misleading. We have a Central American migration crisis. Nothing walls or all of the other typical "illegals" debates can do a thing about.

I can't even blame auto-correct for that one.

Oh, and why do we differentiate? Because how you fix the problem for fence-jumpers in the dead of night and massive caravans arriving at check points are VERY different.

I think MLB and Sears have more in common than we baseball fans wish to admit. (Que someone citing revenues in 3...2....1...)

Exactly, it's not perfection I'm after. It's consistency. Unless there is one computer who is an automated Joe West, we would immediately have a better system just by replacing guys like him with a system that is more consistent.

In our current political discourse, what do you think the term "illegals" is meant to infer? I take issue with how ham-fisted you are treating this. In our law there are many acts you can commit that can be lumped under one general category (manslaughter and murder are both "killing", burglary and petty theft are both stealing, etc) but we make differentiations for a reason. I doubt I have to explain the reasoning....right? So there IS a differentiation between those who walk up to border guards at check points and fence jumpers in the dead of night. In my opinion, saying these are all "illegals" is purposefully non-constructive. The majority of people at our border are coming here through ports of entry. That does not fit our general use of hte term "illegals". It just doesn't. I don't want to argue semantics, but words matter and that term feels non-constructive. Wouldn't migrants be a better word?

Merely because something has "survived" doesn't mean it can't be improved. Ask my wife if you don't believe me.

A "normal cross section of people" immediately makes it no longer a Fox audience though,

Sure, with people who don't resort to stuff like your first line. I enjoy going back and forth with people that can keep up without being petty or mischaracterizing. I, for the third time, implore you to up your game. This post I quoted.....you can do better. You can start with an apology or some self-reflection. But tripe like this doesn't warrant a back and forth. It warrants an eye roll. And despite that, I'll still ignore most of what you posted and answer a meaningful question. I do relish discussion, I wish you'd make a more honest effort to do so. So here is me, ignoring the unfair stuff, and answering this question: Where do we place them? I honestly don't know. This situation sucks. The Dems are hypocrites for celebrating sanctuary cities and then running from that trap Trump set. But I don't know what to do with all these people. I don't know how to improve the judicial process, I don't know where to house them, I don't know how to fix their broken countries. I haven't been critical of Trump or the Republicans on this. This is decades of failed policy arriving on our doorstep and I'm not sure there is a good solution.

No one said there are "no illegals". What was incorrect was to lump them all in as illegals. They are not. The discussion is about these massive waves of people who are coming and, of those people, most of them are not illegals. Clearly there is a distinction between people running over the border in the dead of night (illegals) and those walking up to border agents with children in broad daylight right? Using the term illegals purposely muddies the water. So what would you have us call them so we don't have to quibble? I'm assuming, since you are a rational person, you'd agree the vast majority of these people are not what we would call "illegals". So by all means, tell me what term makes you comfortable and I'll use it. What I won't concede is on the issue of continuing to use the word "illegals" in this context. It's irrelevant this crisis and the vast majority of people in question.

Nobody wants to be next to respond because you have a tendency to mischaracterize those you respond to. Upthread you did to Brooks. He very, very clearly said we are part of the problem (he even tried to politely point out that you had mischaracterized him) and you ignored it and doubled down. That's not a fair or productive way to have a discussion. I would implore you again to make a greater effort not to do that. I see a lot of posters going out of their way to take the best of what you contribute to further the discussion, you are doing quite the opposite. On a difficult topic, it's hard to want to engage when the other person only further complicates it with an unfair tact. In this discussion you could start with something simple - the current crisis is not about"illegals". Every time you use that wording you are factually incorrect. Asylum seekers are not illegals, they are following our legal process. What is broken is our process. Lumping this current issue with "illegals" is not fair to the conversation. So, I'm going to do what everyone else is doing for you and take the best of this post and respond to it fairly. I hope you endeavor to do the same with those you respond to: The Democrats and Republicans need to swallow some pride, get off their stumps, and devise a real solution. I worry our politics have become so toxic that even something like asylum cannot be handled with agreement and compromise. Issues like this become a crisis when we create a politics without compromise or discussion. We turn every mole hill into a mountain. It's why I try so damn hard in this thread and the other to get those on the left to avoid the toxic swamp the right is dragging us into. Independence, compromise, etc - these are the skills that help you govern. It may not make you pure of heart for someone's ideology, but dammit - it stops nonsense like this from happening.

I think it's safe to say that wasn't a Fox crowd, it was a Bernie crowd. And, yes, that matters. Still, good for Sanders to do that.

Cave will be sent down, he's just not getting enough regular at-bats and the team has at least six players with some degree of outfield experience. Hell...seven if you count Sano when he returns! They'll keep rolling this three catcher thing, but in regular 7 game bunches I hope Garver and Astudillo get at least 5 of those games.

I'm not sure that's true anymore. He looks light years better. And his bat presents a huge upside at the position for the Twins. Jason Castro is low ceiling, low upside. I'm sure his WAR looks great with a mix of dubious catching measurements, but his bat has been subpar to terrible for awhile now by far more concrete measurements.