Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    21,583
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49

 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 TheLeviathan

  1. I agree with you, but again, the shifts in coverage were directly tied to the implementation of the ACA. The same year the federal marketplace came into existence, my work had to make radical shifts in insurance coverage. It doesn't sound to me like that trend is isolated. How or why that is trickling, I don't know. But I don't think it's coincidence. I don't think the ACA designed this to happen, my guess is it's a reaction by the companies involved in the process, but something is amiss. And it's killing a lot of people who own their own business or work in the middle class.
  2. I don't care what the exact causal relationship is or how it has filtered the way it is, but I have a really, really hard time thinking that we passed a massive federal overhaul of medical insurance and we've seen huge changes to premiums, deductibles, and a host of other things and that hurricanes are to blame. Doesn't that, even a bit, strain credulity? Whether indirectly or not, it has caused issues. I'm not even necessarily opposed to it, but the ripple effects have to be addressed. However or for whatever reason they are happening. Obamacare set off some major changes in the market and people are paying for it. And the trend isn't reversing, it's escalating.
  3. I don't know if it's the emails so much as the growing realization that Obamacare is bad for a lot of people. The premium hikes are coming for those on the exchange, but those effects have mainstreamed as well. So unlike what is being sold to the public, we all know we're going to feel those hikes on our own insurance. And I know there are tax breaks and all that, but that doesn't really ease the blow. I tend to think that issue is the one really driving her decline in the polls. I still think she wins, but it should be an eye opener to the Dems that they HAVE to get the issue fixed. It's great that we insured a lot of people who needed it, but the middle (like always it seems) is getting squeezed to make it possible.
  4. Yeah, Sunday's game was good. Other than that it hasn't been very compelling from game to game.
  5. Exactly, if the Cubs continue with Schwarber in the OF, I'll call that foolish too.
  6. Welcome aboard. I might take a flyer on Hellickson, see if he can salvage his career.
  7. Boxscore is interesting with Dunn, how's he looked with a lot of run with the top guys?
  8. And it likely would've cost Carlos Santana too. Much like it did to Sano's confidence and Schwarber's knee.
  9. Legislators making more money might reduce the appeal of outside money. I'm in favor of legislator salaries doubling along with more strict guidelines about compensation and their work.
  10. Westworld is what my wife and I are using as our bridge to Thrones. We're sorting of doing that with the Walking Dead, but that show is losing me. I think it already lost my wife. She's hate watching now.
  11. It's a fair point, but we know now how many practices that were done in baseball were demonstrably poor ideas. From the frequency of bunting, to the downplaying of walks, to a host of other things. We can show mathematically how those ideas led to less of what they were trying to accomplish (run scoring), not more. Also, simply citing decades of practice isn't a sufficient argument. It suggests frequency of occurrence over time is sufficient for determining whether the practice is a good one. That's fallacious reasoning. "That's the way it's always been done" just won't cut it for me. It's not that I think I'm more of an expert, but I'd definitely say my argument is stronger on the face of it. I'm following more objective standards for good practice than simply falling in lock step with tradition.
  12. I think this just confirms that you don't see the distinction.
  13. I said the exact same thing to my wife. This can't be more than a two season run. But I like the idea of a show knowing its story and telling it, even if it is short lived. But yes, the last two episodes have continued to plant really interesting bread crumbs. I'm fully invested in this show.
  14. Westworld continues to intrigue. Ed Harris is fantastic.
  15. Lots of teams could use that kind of "empty power" behind their table setters. We should be looking at all teams that are contending or hope to be contending next year. Many of them will find a way to bring in a 30-40 HR hitter into their lineup.
  16. But this speaks more to the point that back then they were ok putting crappy fielders around because the degree of athleticism was so small that there wasn't much of a difference. I think if we could go back and eye test your examples you wouldn't be so quick to prop them up as good examples.
  17. Because other teams throughout history chose to forsake defense to get a kid to hit doesn't make it a good idea. Most failed conversions to other positions happen long before a player reaches the major leagues. Hell, experimenting like that are what the minors should be for. Not your major league outfield. I'm kind of done forsaking defense. And we know how much of a problem is causes. The Twins were wrong because they willfully hurt their team by their own roster construction.
  18. If you think the Indians doing that for two games as a patch is anything like a full blown position change, than I think we've found the problem.
  19. I seriously can't wrap my head around the idea that several posters seem to think this argument makes sense: "Carlos Santana in LF worked for two games so it must be a great idea to move Sano permanently!" I mean, good lord. Think about that for a half second.
  20. It was stupid. Now, the bigger issue is the lack of a DH and how that rule needs to change, but it's still dumb. You don't take someone and play them where they are not comfortable and get anything less than awful defense. Santana gave them awful defense. The two games matter because they got lucky that nothing was hit at him to expose how awful he was at the position. In a larger sample, like the idiocy that was the Sano move, you got to see how that plays out. It was dumb of the Indians to do, but it was forced by an antiquated rule that needs changing.
  21. Yeah, once you experience other markets on a regular basis you realize that "not awful to listen to" is enough to put you in the top half of broadcasters. Bert's not terrible, but you can tell he's checking out.
  22. I think this one might be over. Cleveland is just pitching out of its mind.
  23. It's a good plan, but this offseason planning is hard because so much hinges on two big trade pieces.
  24. The only way this team gets better is to use Dozier and Santana to acquire a catcher, maybe a SS, and lots of pitching. It's really the only practical recourse we have.
  25. Exactly, look a the other thread on this. The first retort is "real baseball fans like watching more baseball". Except, the added run time isn't actually baseball. So much of it isn't even dragged out player behavior, it's commercials. I get it. I'm not shocked. But it's really obnoxious.
×
×
  • Create New...