TheLeviathan

Right, but which one is easier to fill? The Twins haven't been grooming anyone. Only in the last two drafts have they seemed to show an interest in adding catching. Basically, they're unprepared to fill the position once Mauer moves. First base can generally be filled MUCH more easily than catcher.

Give him a shot? Sure, but that isn't how I read your claim that he was "obviously" ready to "take over". That seemed....strong.

No, but now catcher might be. That's the point I think you missed in John's post.

I think you're a bit overstating how much we should rely on roughly a month's worth of MLB at-bats by Pinto.

Exactly. Much better said than I've been trying to express. Right now there is no long-term replacement. That's going to be a huge hurdle any way you slice it.

I so want to like this. And I still harbor so much bitterness for being subjected to this.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it wasn't Abreu's position that was the reason the Twins didn't pursue him. Further, it absolutely hurts the rebuilding. Whatever small, I'd argue trivial, distinction there is in knowing what position Mauer is playing is exponentially out-weighed by taking his bat away from a premium position. This will hurt the team's offense now and in the future. They could overcome it certainly, but it's yet another hurdle to a team with quite a few in their path already. Hopefully they overcome it, but anyone who says they weren't hoping two or three years ago to rebuild the team around an elite player at a premium position is lying. That was one of the Twins most advantageous factors in rebuilding - they had a young star at a difficult position to fill already in the fold. Now they don't.

Bartlett never starred for us. He finally got an opportunity and then was foolishly dealt. And yes, I'm responding to a post in reference to Gardy's treatment of him before he got regular playing time. In particular, the indefensible decision to send him down and play Castro. This hasn't been that difficult a train of discussion to follow.

Whose to say whatever personal beef it was hasn't just died out over time? Or that Gardy didn't get much of a say in the matter? It's clear Gardy didn't like something about Bartlett - and it couldn't have had any rational basis in talent or ability to play the game.

As I referenced with Castro - it had nothing to do with the trade and everything to do with indefensible decisions to send Bartlett to AAA in 2005 and 2006 in favor of giving several hundred at-bats to Juan Castro. All because of some bizarre, as-yet-undefined lack of "middle infield leadership" that has hurt this team on more than one occasion.

I understand this but I still don't like it. I think this is a bigger blow to the rebuilding process than most seem to think. It would've been nice to have him at a premium position in the early stages of our hopeful resurgence.

I hope, personally, that if Hughes is signed it's a 2-3 year deal. We have the space and rotation availability to give him plenty of time to build some value.

I'm not sure how a minor league deal almost a decade later fixes the fact that Gardy chose Castro over him. I'm not sure anything fixes that stupidity.

I'm pretty ok with this, it at least has some upside.

I think this reads like someone who felt this is a wasted effort. It's a great write up, but you could just feel that his nagging caveat about IF they spend was present the whole time. Hard to write a serious offseason plan when you just think its all for nought. Good plan though, if we got Kazmir and Hughes, I'd be quite happy. My bar is that low.

Can they at least have some success in the major leagues before we write their name in stone? Seems just a tad more prudent.

It's aggressive for sure, I think Trumbo would fit well in Target Field. My biggest beef is tht right now moving Arcia doesn't jive well with peak value. The day may come to move him, but I don't think now is opportune.

Cmon, you respond to reality with posting talking point generalities like this? Article 308 of Jordanian law allows a man to marry a woman to avoid being charged with rape. The same law existed in Morocco until last year. It exists in Afghanistan. Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and other places. Sometimes it is enforced even when not on the books. Here's an example: Jordan (1960) / West Bank — Article 308 The Jordanian penal code is also applied in the West Bank. المادة 292 من واقع انثى (غير زوجه) بغير رضاها سواء بالاكراه او بالتهديد او بالحيلة او بالخداع عوقب بالاشغال الشاقة المؤقتة مدة لا تقل عن خمس عشرة سنة كل شخص اقدم على اغتصاب فتاة لم تتم الخامسة عشرة من عمرها يعاقب بالاعدام وتكون العقوبة الأشغال الشاقة عشرين سنة إذا كانت المجني عليها قد أكملت الخامسة عشرة و لم تكمل الثامنة عشرة من عمرهاالمادة 308 إذا عقد زواج صحيح بين مرتكب إحدى الجرائم الواردة في هذا الفصل وبين المعتدى عليها أوقفت الملاحقة وإذا كان صدر حكم بالقضية علق تنفيذ العقاب الذي فرض على المحكوم عليه Article 292: Whoever has sexual intercourse with a woman, other than his wife, without her consent — whether through coercion, threat, deception, or fraud — is punished with hard labor for no less than 15 years. Any person who rapes a girl under 15-years-old is punished by death, and with hard labor for 20 years if the victim is between the ages of 15 and 18. Article 308: If a valid contract of marriage is made between the perpetrator of any of the offenses mentioned in this section, and the victim, the prosecution is suspended. If judgment was already passed, the implementation of the punishment upon the sentenced person is suspended.So no, I'm educated on it just fine. This feels like you just answered a question like "Is the color Aqua blue or green?" with "Rabbits don't wear hats". It's a completely tangential stat (if even correct) that has absolutely no bearing on the point being made. 80% of of Whales like plankton ok for a rebuttal? This is an area still stuck in archaic blood feuds with the West, Israel, and often with each other too. Everyone's history has those, only one religion is still painfully and oppressively stuck in it now. Which is what we're talking about - the reality now. I didn't say they were solely Responsible for the conflict. Israel has been overly aggressive and resistant to democracy. I also don't blame them because those around them aren't interested in fair conclusions and compromises. They only "compromise" that would satisfy them is Israel being gone. I also won't allow terrorist strategies of hiding among civilians to deflect blame on their enemies as a way to sway my opinion about who the primary cause of violence is still emanating from. Again, if you surrounded Israel with non-archaic, moderate, modern governments - they wouldn't be having any issues. I can't say the same about any of their neighbors. And that says much more to me than anything else.

Well, I prefer to deal in reality. Most muslims are good people and I'd welcome every rational one that wants to be done with their country's archaic laws to our country. They are truly wonderful people when they have contemporary views. But the reality is that in many of these countries rape is still an effective way to get a wife. Old religious feuds are still alive and well. The fact is, for all the claims of the masses of moderate, peace-lovers - the region and the leadership there is hopelessly stuck in the middle ages. That's why I have little faith in the ability to change hearts and minds and I don't blame the Israelis for feeling the same. The reason there is conflict there isn't because of a blood-thirsty Israeli government, it's because of the terrorists and zealots that surround them. Hopefully those that are moderate and rational someday win out in those countries, we've just seen ample evidence the last few years that they will not. At least not for a long damn time.

No, not every. But enough that the region is basically hopeless. And personally I'm not confused by terrorists using human shields and then turning them into exactly the talking point they are hoping to create. I have trouble sympathisizing with those "civilians" who facilitate terrorism, endorse female subjugation, excuse rape, teach religious blood feuding, etc. There is a clear difference in the intentions of the Israelis versus those around them. It appears we value that difference differently. That said, I think they should relinquish the turf they took in wars. Problem is those that oppose them won't appreciate it at all in any meaningful way. It boggles my mind how much sympathy mindless hate is getting versus over aggression.

Itll be interesting to so how quickly the ticket sales start doing the same.

I don't think it is at all. Tht entire region, particularly Israel's most ardent enemies have no interest in anything but Israel's death. You can't simply ignore that. I wouldn't call them barbaric, they are aggressive, but to some degree understandably so. But if their ratios of citizen deaths is barbaric, Obama may not have a term severe enough to describe him.

First, lets be honest, the real provocation came from Europeans dumping the Jews in the middle of a hot bed after WW2 and thinking that was going to work. Since then real risk of all out war on Israel has been a constant risk. Have thy been far too aggressive at times? Absolutely. Barbaric? That's hyperbole. Again, I'm very sympathetic to the Palestinian issue, they got screwed losing their turf. But I can't call a nation barbaric for defending themselves in the face of constant threats by a group of people with no interest in anything but religious blood feuding. The difference is simple to me, one side wants the others to all die and one just wants to be left the hell alone. Doesn't mean they don't overstep themselves terribly too often, but that motivation is very relevant IMO.

And how many American civilians have the Afghanis killed versus the Obama administration? Again, I'd like to hear your adjective for Obama. i agree there is zealotry on both sides. And I am all for a Palestinian state which includes part of what is being argued over. But none of that changes the fact that the Israeli government is the only one over there even remotely interested in peace. And the simple evidence for that is if the sides were reversed and the military might reversed - there isn't any question the barbarism would be ten fold. The restraint shown by Israel wouldnt be shared by their enemies.

I think the idea is that the agent here is puffing up, not that Parker was. I have no doubts that the Twins organization is well respected and for good reason, but I'm not sure how much that really tells us. We all know the Twins are straight shooters and I'm sure that's appreciated, but it has little to do with what the organization does well or what it could improve upon. Afterall, it's hard to step on toes if you're not on the dance floor.