TheLeviathan

Make stops, just be self aware of why. Dude got stopped 52 times. 52! I'm not even opposed to a degree of profiling but that is out of whack. The other half of that is that holding anyone in law enforcement accountable is nigh impossible. Do you share the insane hypocrisy about unions the rest of the political right has? Pointing our her parenting is, at best, incredibly insensitive and, at worst, condoning a senseless death. You should reconsider your contribution if you aren't comfortable with that.

You know what I'd like to know before I make a decision on Molitor? Who decided Sano in RF? Because, from radio interviews and jsut a gut feeling, he seems like he's never been on board with it. In fact, it almost seems like he's the one pushing to end that experiment. I think many of the problems started with Front Office, 40 man roster construction. Molitor has compounded that issue, certainly, but I'm not sure he needs to go down with the rest of the ship. Hell, if nothing else I love hearing a manager who understands 22 year olds don't need to be trashed in the papers. That Dozier implies clearly that Molitor has been on his case. Those are very encouraging attributes.

You're not wrong, but it is complicated. You're also right about the solution, this is poverty and desperation manifesting, not something that is a consequence of race. It appears as race because of the high poverty rates that still linger from generations of neglect. In fact, this is where I find the most powerful justification for a basic income system. (That and sweeping reforms about how we fund education)

I think it's important to note nick, that you don't have to be a power hungry authoritarian in uniform for this to happen. Perfectly good people can struggle in the face of fear and adrenaline. At the same time, that reason is only ever allowed to justify criminal behaviors when cops experience them. We need to hold officers to a high standard and rethink our approach to interactions so that good cops don't have to fight/flight through traffic stops and those they stop can stay safer. Everyone involved is a human who may not be at their best in a high tension situation, our procedures should be aimed at easing that as much as possible.

What's the point of this post? Honestly, what's the point?

'the hell was that Dozier?

He won't ever hit, people will have to accept it. The Twins selling on him was one of the few bright spots this off season.

I think it all boils down to the offers. With or without them going forward isn't that important, shop them and maximize their value. Whatever that is.

We all agree - don't move Dozier and Santana for anything less than good value. The problem is why you make that decision. Max Kepler looking like a stud should have absolutely no bearing on your trade talks about Santana. If you're shopping him, you're doing it to add value to the team in a trade. Ditto Dozier. Whether the Twins go .500 or .300 or .700 the rest of the way shouldn't impact the vision going forward. These guys are good players with the potential to contribute value to this team in a trade. They shouldn't be dealt unless the return matches that. Just letting your W/L record dictate your decisions is a large part of what I think happened last offseason. We have to keep perspective.

Guess it depends if the Twins see Polanco as a SS. It's hard to say with how Nunez has played this year and with Dozier coming back to life. They need to decide on Polanco, trade him, or make a spot for him. Ideally soon.

Here's what doesn't make sense: if you're just going to advocate dealing them in November anyway, the argument "don't write off 2017" doesn't really make sense. If you don't intend to retain them, then the only argument is about trade value not what you expect the season next year to bring. So, yeah, no one is arguing give them away. We all agree to get value, but our plans for 2017 are pretty irrelevant if that's the argument. And yes, things could go crazy and go right, but is that how you'd recommend we operate running the team for sustained success? Reaching for low-odds statistical anomalies as a basis for action? This season woke us up to some serious issues with the 25 and 40 man roster. We're further away than we thought and that's ok. It happens. But it's going to take time for that to get cleaned up. We also have young players we need to ease into the big leagues without expecting them to be MVPs or all-stars. We need next year for them to establish themselves without any other pressure than to refine their game. That isn't "writing off" the season, but we have to keep perspective.

Sorry, but if you're going to call me out for cutting off part of your post, I'm going to call that part of your post what it is. That isn't uncivil, you tried to paint my response unfairly. I took your central theme and argued that, some irrelevant disclaimer doesn't matter to me and shouldn't matter in your response.

I kind of wish Kyle Gibson was on the mound for us versus Kyle Lohse and Bert was forced to call the game.....

Yes, I wrote off your disclaimer because I took the central point you were making "don't write off 2017 contention" and addressed that and not some bogus small print, cover-your-butt junk at the end. Is anyone arguing we give them away like some sort of gift basket? If not, then let's get rid of that. Strawman defeated, moving on. Trading them in the offseason, versus July 31st, doesn't seem any more or less "writing off 2017". They are basically the same act. The only differences I can see are 1) Opening up playing time the rest of 2016 and 2) possible trade market differences, but that, at best, is speculative. If the Twins went .500 the rest of the way they'd match the 2012 Red Sox who went on to have the most historic one year turn around in baseball history in 2013. (69-93 to 97-63) Meaning, you are deciding not to "write off" 2017 for the odds of something happening that is the statistical outlier (by FAR) in MLB history. Yes, we need to write off any serious thoughts of contention in 2017 and right the roster around the kids. We need to make sure they have all the playing time they need to establish themselves and build around that with pieces that will be here for 3-4 years from now or only temporarily as trade fodder. So, no, don't "give away" Santana or Dozier but if you get a competitive offer - take it. Look forward clearly and not with delusion about the shape this roster is in. Some better play in the second half doesn't fix everything, 2017 is still going to be about getting things in the right direction. Not being turned there and ready to go.

This should really change nothing. Those players playing well shouldn't impact our decisions on other guys. If some of these assets - Dozier, Santana, Abad, whomever - are peaking in value now, trade them. Don't give them away, but take value where you can get it. The fact that the core is playing well sets us up eventually, but we're still talking about a team with a lot of holes that would stand to benefit from 2017 being a year guys continue to audition and establish themselves. The kind of thinking you posted is exactly what lead to the first half disaster this year. You're losing the forest for the trees.

Maybe I missed this upthread, apologies if so, but where do you think Blake Swihart's stock is at in Boston? They need pitching and perhaps they've soured on him enough? I know he needs work on his defensive game, but might be an interesting target.

Definitely aggressive on Buxton.....

Yeah, but you want him to be thinking about advancing to third on an out. The problem is Santana hit it hard, right at the SS, who was behind Vargas. Kid was screwed the second the ball was hit. If there was ever a time to just lay down a sac bunt, that was it.

Also, is that really on Vargas? I think if his first step is back to second he might get nailed there too. Just a crappy place for Santana to hit it.

In fairness, he isn't on base as much any more these days..... *ducks*

Kirby, Game 6

I was trying to allude to this earlier, cops are as guilty of rushing to judgment as some are in the aftermath of these tragic events. So I completely agree with this. I like what you posted about with Baltimore, that's a good step in regards to policing. The even larger issue is the systemic racism and the consequences that stem from that. Yes, race relations have generally been on the improvement path for awhile, but there are still lasting reprecussions from the generations that preceded it. The judicial system is still absolutely racist and needs reform. There are economic and educational disadvantages that still need more work. Those injustices have created a kind of desperation and despair disproportionate in black communities. Couple that with over-sentencing and misplaced drug war tactics and you have a recipe to create crime. Too many on the right level the charge that crime is disproportionately black. It is. But not for the reasons they think. It's disproportionate because we overcharge black men and women. Because we offer their children no hope and no way out of poverty. Criminal behavior is not more prevalent in black communities because people are black, but (and this is subtle, maybe, but changes things completely) by virtue of being black in a nation that still hasn't rectified a long history of racism. I know there are cops that get beaten down mentally by dealing with what they deal with every day and that colors their behavior, sometimes knowingly and sometimes not. We can fix their protocols, but we may not fix their feelings until we aim even deeper. Attack the real source of the problem - not the color of people's skin, but their oppression under poverty and mistreatment.

I like that, kudos to Baltimore on that front. I think that's the direction to take things.

On that, absolutely not.

Those are two very different kinds of assessments. Hand movements towards pockets are very different from running a mental risk analysis. It's not like police officers haven't been shot during routine stops. I think your second post is where to look - more national policies and an emphasis on police officer protocol leading to all persons in the encounter leaving safely. It is too police-centric now.