TheLeviathan

He's had a terribly slow start at the start of the year. I don't know what specific, narrow time frame you picked out to pull that OPS number, but you're doing gymnastics to polish a turd Dave. Mastro can manage good defense and a .580 OPS. We should've gone into the season with at least one player in the OF that we could count on as a defensive and offensive contributor. Hicks would not count towards that either.

You're right....so what is Sanders' background on that? It seems to me that he often criticizes Clinton for the results of doing exactly that. So I could buy this argument if the candidate himself seemed to realize this.

Except I have the NHL and NBA as evidence for my opinion (not to mention our basic concept of justice and the role of vigilante self policing).....what evidence do you have?

Hicks and his sub 600 OPS wouldn't be inspiring me about our roster decisions. We needed actual talent.

Additional rules in other leagues have made them safer. Self policing has not. Additional rules have never caused violence. Self policing has. Additional rules are based on set criteria. Self policing is on the whim of the self appointed policer. Both are subjective, only one is effective. I've had a grip on the point from the start. Self policing doesn't accomplish anything and as other leagues take charge of the issues, we see how central they are to the problem, not the solution. The further we get from them, the better and safer sports will be.

How about trade Plouffe and sign Fowler? I had no problem with dumping Hicks, but this team needed an impact OF as insurance against multiple setbacks for young guys.

You know what would have made this easier? Signing a freaking outfielder this winter. One not named Darin Mastrionni and preferably far more talented.

I'm past the point of thinking any struggles with Mauer are concussion related. This isn't about staying at catcher too long, this is about his skill set/approach not sustainable at this stage in his career. He's always been late on the ball/hit to the opposite field and now his bat speed has turned many of those soft line drives to LF into strikeouts.

The process. I don't necessarily agree that even the goal is the right one, at least not right away. We've had colleges become a for-profit model for so long I think we'll have a hard adjustment. I'm ok with subsidizing college at a much higher rate so long as there is a corresponding move to force college to a) raise their academic standards and become better at training students for the work place and b ) drop their tuition rates and spend their money more wisely.

See I take him to mean what he says - he'll invent or use taxes in order to make sure no one pays for college. I haven't heard him say, even one time, that part of the problem is the universities themselves. I think what he wants is to have the last generation and future ones unburdened by excessive loan debt. Which is certainly a noble goal (and one I'd be quite happy to have happen), but again the attempt to solve it is really misguided. As much as I want all that money every month back, I want even more for the solution to be better for society than simply using tax payer money to end the debts.

No, he means free college. If he wanted what Europe has he'd demand sweeping changes from the universities/colleges. (Not to mention lower levels of education) And he's not, he's basically gold stamping the behavior of the universities the last few decades. His model basically turns college into a live-in high school round 2.

The performance just doesn't mesh with this. Hell, the FO doesn't even agree with you the last few weeks.

There is some experimentation with minimum wage at the state levels, I'd like to see that play out a bit before we start mandating a nation-wide $15. I'm not afraid that the whole system is going to be turned upside down, but we're talking about something with a wide range of potential effects. I'd rather see how those play out on a smaller level first. I think your second paragraph speaks to my issue - get behind his themes all you want, but that isn't the same as getting behind his policies. You can do one without the other.

Because what Bernie means is "free college for everyone" which is not what Europe does. That's one of the biggest misnomers he himself has, much less those that support him.

For the record, I don't think one need be a hardcore leftist to oppose some of the things going in our system that need fixing. Those issues are of a bipartisan creation. The real issue is the proposed solutions are always so terrible. You can like the theme Bernie is preaching, but in practice most of his ideas are just flat terrible and unworkable. What we have divorced from political analysis altogether is practical, selfless political conduct. Sanders is right about getting money out of politics, but that's just the start. Then we need people that will do more than pass something that sounds good and lets them keep their seat -we need to start crafting and passing good policies themselves and let the results do the talking. Instead we get "free college!" and "build a wall!" and other such nonsense. And believe me, if you believe either of those things you are just as gullible and as much a part of the problem as the other side. I'd like to start a new divided powers idea - liberals get to decide what needs fixing and then we drag their butts as far from the meeting to solve it as humanly possible. Then we get some libertarians/fiscal conservatives and force them to solve those problems as well as they can. Social conservatives can pass all the legislation and changes they want at their local church but they're barred from the process.

1) We've seen things escalate too far. We had a brawl over a bat flip. A freaking bat flip. 2) Bertuzzi was self-policing the unwritten rules. You're losing track of the contention you made originally. You want self-policing. My point is that self-policing A) doesn't stop the thing you want policed and B ) usually leads to escalated vigilante "justice". As opposed to the league implementing harsh penalties which, in a matter of just a few years, has almost made the enforcer a thing of the past. Self-policing was ineffective at stopping players from being targeted for decades and it's taken less than 5 years to fundamentally change the game with just a few rules. That's the argument - self policing doesn't work. It leads to violent nonsense. Harsh, objective, league-wide rules are a much mroe effective way to alter behavior. 3) My comparison was to what MLB could do should it choose the path of the NHL. The NHL and NBA chose league-wide rules to change the fabric of the game and it has worked for the better of the game and the safety of the game. Contending that any change that doesn't result in a "zero" effect is asinine. That's now how laws or justice or rules work. The point is to make the game played better and safer. And the NHL and NBA have demonstrably done both with league wide policies after decades of failed self-policing forced their hand. 4) Of course rule enforcement is subjective. It's just MUCH less so than Bitter Joe on the mound deciding to enforce his own code with 90 mph baseballs. That's what self-policing is at the core - one guy who decides he's the one who gets to decide right and wrong rather than a committee or group of people doing so within a firmly outlined set of criteria.

I think, to a degree, they already do. The problem is that no one agrees on what the code is, it sort of changes based on who feels like enforcing it. Hence why we had a guy thrown at for stealing up 2-0 and other nonsense like that. I think the rule changes at home and second are a step towards exactly this. I expect in the near future we'll see another increase in the punishment for throwing at players.

1) I think you've just failed to see how any form of unregulated, self-policing comes with inherent problems of fairness and serious risk. 2) The NHL hasn't had a Bertuzzi incident in quite some time. You should read more about the Bertuzzi assault. It was clearly a team that felt it needed to self-police the game and Bertuzzi took it in his hands. (The language is clear unwritten rules stuff about "respecting leading scorers", etc.) The league has cracked down on this mindset and made it clear that it will harshly punish players so that teams never feel like they have to do this. All baseball has to do is the same. 3) I claimed the NHL is reducing it's level of fighting, I didn't compare it to MLB. I said the NHL's recent changes are making it safer, cutting down on fights, and even squeezing enforcers out of jobs. In other words - league rules are working. The self-policing style of Todd Bertuzzi never accomplished this. It accomplished an assault that is still haunting one man. Fighting in baseball, almost always, starts and stops with someone breaking "the code". This started with a bat flip and an attempted retaliation. I can pretty much guarantee every brawl starts similarly. In fact, there is one story that talks aobut a majority of them starting for racial reasons. So the real way to stop fighting/brawling is to make players understand that unwritten rules are no longer to be self-policed by players. The league has to step in and more harshly punish the events that lead to these incidents. That means guys who throw at people need to sit for a long time and eat some hefty fines. Any timea player intentionally tries to intimidate someone with violence they need to eat a healthy penalty for it. That will change things (as other leagues are showing) and it will make the game safer.

1) Have you missed some of the recent issues with neighborhood watches? 2) Actually, Bertuzzi had a full grasp of the rules and the unwritten rules and he took them into his own hands. The problem is allowing the unwritten rule to operate at all. When you do, players feel they supercede the real ones. Then the violence happens. 3) Hard fouls happen, but brawls don't break out. Bat flips and slides shouldn't result in brawls or even guys being thrown at. They do because in MLB, unlike the NBA, players still believe their set of rules go beyond the ones set by the league. Hell, even in a MUCH more physical game like the NHL there has been a reduction in brawling/fighting because the rules are changing the culture. The unwritten rules are nonsense that has to be broken and at least two other leagues that used to operate with them are effectively disposing of them. 4) You fine people the same way the NHL does. Does it still involve an arbiter making a decision that isn't always agreed with? Sure, but it's not the player in the heat of the action deciding what punishment the infraction deserves. There is a gigantic difference. Has it been perfect for the NHL? Nope, never will be. But you know what it is? MUCH safer and it's forcing a change in behavior and the way in which players treat one another. Something the unwritten rules have never accomplished and, often, have accomplished the exact opposite- more violence and intimidation.

I'm with spycake, this plan is the worst of both worlds. If we play the vets in hopes of trade value we have three possible outcomes: 1) They stink and we wasted at-bats and innings on guys that are not part of the solution only to be bad anyway and get nothing out of them in deals. 2) They're decent to pretty good and we get lulled into a false sense of security that these players are actually part of the future and dismiss the first two months as a fluke and don't trade any of them. 3) They're pretty good but we believe we should trade them, leaving that option in the hands of a notorious non-dealer at the deadline. Meaning few, if any, actually get traded to make room for the kids. I simply don't see how this plan can be spun positively.

I understand the move, but boy it'd be nice to see them give the kid a little more leash. I could understand it if it was Gibson returning or something, but Dean? Ick, let the kid struggle and adjust a little bit. I think a stop in AAA this year was inevitable, but this feels a bit too soon for me.

Let's take this all by paragraph: 1) The league is hammering down on this stuff, starting with the catcher collisions and this year the take out slides. And they are trying to get rid of throwing at people over perceived slights. I hope they do more of it. You seem to be saying that unless players are allowed to intimidate and attack each other, it suddenly becomes a Goddell situation. MLB, NHL, and NBA all have strong systems and rules that are trying to do away with self-policing and it's working. I hope they continue it until self-policing is gone completely from the game. Just play the game and let the governing body set the rules. 2) Of course what Bertuzi and Odor and even what Bush did are illegal. The point is that you have to take away their ability to feel justified and empowered to go that far. We haven't had another Bertuzzi in the NHL because they absolutely cracked down on self-policing. They are moving towards fighting being abolished too. The only major argument against it? Players think not-fighting will somehow make them less safe. Why? Because they believe, like baseball players, that they get to decide what level of violence is dealt out in order to keep things balanced. Yet as long as that power has been given to them it emboldens chumps like Bertuzzi to go too far. Just go read what he said after that assault. He thought he was standing up for what was right. He was policing conduct on the ice. Just like Bush was policing it at Bautista's face. And Bautista at Odor's legs. And Odor at Bautista's face. Leave it up to them to police and they WILL take it too far. Leave it to the league and they'll be far more impartial and far less violent. 3) Nothing in the NBA is happening like it use to. They've eliminated large scale brawls. Hockey is cutting down on checks from behind, boarding, and other dangerous hits. Fighting is coming. And in every one of those cases the game continues to be played and players are safer doing it. Baseball will happen and it needs to happen too. The last two years have been glorious steps in the right direction. Get used to it. The days of being able to hurt each other in the name of playing the game right (a preposterous concept in and of itself) are ending. 4) What "needs fixing" is in the eye of the beholder. But I'm generally of the opinion that safer play is always better. And I'm always in favor of rules being enforced as objectively as possible and with as little violence as necessary. Yeah...players will act like jack$%$#. But the thing is - if you punish them harshly enough for it - they will reform their game and change. Hockey is seeing it happen. Baseball can too and I'm glad to see the league deciding that it's time to do it. This may spur further action and I hope it does.

How about we compare leagues with a more similarly collectively bargained arrangement for discipline procedures like the NBA or the NHL? The NFL is more like a dictatorship, I don't recommend that model either. But, I'll admit, in the hands of a good dictator it's still probably better than players purely self-policing. At least then there is only one person drawing the line and not-hundreds of variable ones players are trying to dance around. And the thing is, as inconsistent as you think Goddell is with enforcement - players are so much worse. That's why a guy got thrown at for bunting against the shift last year in the second inning. And why a guy got thrown at for stealing second in a 2-0 game. That's why we had a brawl yesterday over a bat flip 6 months ago. Baseball front offices have never "gone too far" so your entire argument is moot. But players sure as hell have. No rules fix everything 100%, but they dramatically reduce stupidity and over-zealous self-enforcement. If you let players police things you will invariably get a Chase Utley slide. Or a Todd Bertuzzi assault. No matter how unjust a suspension or fine is - it never has risk of putting a guy in a hospital over some arbitrary code of behavior.

By "pro" you mean "robot" I assume? Not to mention Andrew McCutcheon has never pimped a homerun and he's still been head-hunted multiple times.

The NFL is the only one with concentrated power and I don't like that system either. But even then it is still more effective at promoting safe play. If you want to bring up normal unwritten rules we can, but do you really think they are remotely comparable? No? Me either, let's just ignore that. The principle of self "policing" draws it's own comparison to criminal justice. It puts the power of rule making and enforcement directly in the hands of people with extreme bias, varying moral codes, amd varying degrees of belief about enforcement. Enforcement, by the way, totally reliant on violence and intimidation. The exact same reasons why vigilante and self policing I real justice never work. The enforcers of the rules become their own form of violators and we end up no better than we started. Often worse off.