TheLeviathan

Final deal: Cubs trade Matt Garza to the Rangers for Mike Olt, C.J. Edwards, Justin Grimm and PTBNL. I think the Cubs did pretty darn well for themselves with that.

It would seem, by your definition, Ryan never had a chance to fail or succeed. Which is a pretty dismal outlook on our GM if you ask me. I'm not sure how such a self-defeating attitude does any good whatsoever.

Hard to imagine it will. It may, but one thing I wanted to point out here is that one of Ryan's moves that has unquestionably failed is Worley. But I will point out that most people negative about Ryan's moves are never blaming him for that. It was a smart move that just didn't pan out. The moves that didn't, that weren't all that smart from the outset, are the problem. We need to see him expanding his willingness to upgrade the team, I think we should all agree to that.

I was totally taking it tongue in cheek myself, I tried to edit it but apparently I was in a zone of satellite signal that would be ideal for amish people. (I really wanted that fourth one in there because I think it acknowledges people that disagree with me too, felt bad that I was misrepresenting what I thought was a fair argument) But rest assured sir, I edited it in and there is actually a fourth point. Now I don't look nearly so incapable of counting.

Well, it's that or you don't have a discussion. Do you really think this left-driven debate on this issue is getting anywhere? It's not, in fact it's emboldening the other side of the aisle in states that have these laws and it's missing the point entirely. You are getting high and mighty about this because these are your terms, so you want them respected and honored in the debate. You think they are a "common touchtone", but they are really just your touchtones. You won't get commonality if you don't have it in the terms of the discussion. If the roles were reversed, you'd easily dismiss them as well. But instead you come after a reasonable guy like Smerf who disagrees with you because you have to make sure your terms are the field for debate. It just alienates those that disagree. That's precisely what we are seeing nationally. This case only got national attention on the back of a bunch of distortions and exaggerations of the case initially. Hell, you held on those distortions well into the actual case, utterly ignoring the actual evidence. Let's find one of the many other cases in which young black men were treated unfairly. I'm sure we can find hundreds of them the media didn't exploit falsely for ratings to have a real discussion. The problem is, that's too much work. Easier to just inflame a case that most people have about 10-20% grip on what actually happened.

I'd argue you're setting a pretty low level of "possible". One much, much lower than Ryan himself seemed to set.

Because there have been some that have even asserted the team is "happy" with where they are? Really? Because I thought the vast majority of us thought upgrading the putrid performance of last year was going to be relatively easy? It was an awfully, awfully low bar afterall.

My phone posted it when I hit enter to add the fourth one. Stupid technology! (Or my incompetence using it, whichever it is that is to blame)

This is more acknowledgement than usual. I don't pretend the griping wuld end with more concessions like this, but it would sure fix a lot of the repetitive debates. THere should be nothing but universl agreement Ryan failed his own goals last year, goals I would imagine we all shared at some level. IF we all started from here I think we'd have more mutual understanding of opposing views. we can agree to disagree and still find Ryan a fine GM. But the incessant apologizing for clear failures has to end. if this FA group was so bad, Ryan never should have set the goals he did, but there are other ways to think about it too. What is relevant is where do we go from here? in my eyes there are four general paths: 1. Ryan failed last season, but succeeds next offseason by bargain hunting and helps build a contender. 2. Ryan is (as you have argued) "happy" to keep losing big league games while we wait on prospects and has another failed offseason. 3. Ryan doesn't like losing but is so principled against the kinds of trades and signings that bring significant and immediate help that we not only fail next offseason but generally do so for the rest of his tenure. 4. Ryan realized his mistake and now intends to play with the big boys when the time is right. Now you might believe 4 is the truth. I'd argue we have a significant history to back up 3. In any case, you have to acknowledge the possibility that it is true and we may be battling this problem well into when our young prospects arrive. This offseason is critical to see which of these paths we're on. I genuinely hope it is 4 - but I need to see something, ANYTHING to give me reason to believe it. It could be an awful contract (80M to Bruce Chen for all I care) but I need something to show me the willingness is there. Until then, I'm pretty convinced 3 is true, but the Twins fan in me hopes I'm wrong.

The terms are always important. The very nature of our political discord is rooted in that problem. Both sides set their own terms and then wonder why the debate never gets anywhere. The discourse will never reach meaningful conclusions. I doubt you accept the terms from an anti-abortion person that the practice is murder before you talk constitutionality. The issue is here that you like your terms so much but can't see how they get in the way of the issue. For example, I think there is a lot of racial injustice in the system, but having it in this context is irrelevant. So it matters a ton.

Remember when everyone said there was no way the pitching staff could be worse than last year? Remember when Ryan said it was priority number one to fix? Well, it's about the same. So Ryan failed to fix something even most of the optimist said would surely be better just on luck if nothing else, but it's still as bad as it was. How is this holding him to an ideal? How, based on his own remarks, is this anything but a failure?

The problem is that he hasn't done us any good this year. He's been awful most of the season and if he does rebound here the last half of the season it's too late to get any value out of him and he may price himself out of where it would make sense to gamble on him again. (Considering he's never been a particularly good pitcher) If this had been the intent, a TO would've been more wise. In any case, this list looks like it breaks down like you'd expect over the course of on year of production - pretty easily spread out over the levels listed. Most of us got our targets wrong as far as who would've been best to sign, but I'm not sure that helps me feel any better about our offseason failing to help the big league club avoid another 90 loss season.

Nope, just way overstating the certainty. We're talking two different issues. I can say with absolute certainty (because it can be proven/disproven) that there has been false information at root in the perception of racism. I don't deny there is a perception of racism, I deny it's well founded in this case. Well, it does because there was ample evidence to show that the cops behaved inappropriately given the evidence. I guess I'd pick one of the many, many, many examples in which they didn't to a black man rather than this. I don't understand what is to be gained by making an issue of laws an issue of race when there are so many genuine examples of race that would be better served.

What I read is exactly what is being espoused on one side of the argument and it is precisely what is meant. Anyone with the audacity (as Smerf showed) to question the certitude of the involvement of race is treated as though they are ignoring the obvious and undeniable. Most of the time it's a subtle jab at the other person as well. The only racism in this case exists because of a mass of trumped up evidence, half truths, and media over-reaction. There are far better cases of latent racism, many of which the very same prosecution is guilty of. This is a poor example because it's such a strained, fabricated effort to do so.

So, I'm guessing Tom Kelly isn't aware that the Indians are 4th best in MLB in stolen bases and the Twins are the 4th worst?

We're several years from this even being on the table. In any case, the Twins have plenty of resources to do both should they choose to do so. I'm not sure that changes this situation at all.

That's a fair point, but how much of that is needing to get feet wet and how much of it is the high turnover rate of closers that continually shuffles setup men into the role? So teams ride the hot hand until they have no choice and then go another route. Either way, you're right it's highly unlikely. I'm just really desperate for some parts of the future to give me reason to watch games.

I thought the best person this team employed for broadcasts (other than Mr. Provus) was Jack Morris. How he never got more than a fill-in role while people like Laudner and Smalley get significant air-time is baffling to me. I loved Morris on broadcasts when I heard him, but maybe that's just me.

In my opinion it did. I'm not claiming certainty though, I could be wrong. You can't claim you believe something and that makes it "certainly involved". Whether you want to call it spurious or not, it's speculation. I imagine they would have been more cynical of his story if there was evidence that they should be. Which, even the prosecution that was trying to prop this up, couldn't do. As has been the case from the beginning of this, you're more informed by ideology than facts. It's also counter-productive to say it is "certainly" involved when we are only speculating. No one denied it's existence, this is just a piss-poor example to trumpet for it.

"Certainly involved" - I think that's a stretch. I believe it played a role, but when and how much is utter and complete speculation. Frankly, there is as much reason to believe "hooded young person" was the profile he was looking for as it is "young black male". And you have nothing but your own biases and beliefs to fuel your decision either way. It annoys me that we talk so much about this as a certainty. Truth is, everyone of all creeds and colors, profiles for good and bad. It's just what we do. What Zimmerman was profiling is speculation. I know that offends the ears of liberals in general on this issue, but that's the truth. You can argue the subtext of "punks" (as if that's now suddenly code for race? Did every old person with a kid on their lawn mean to be racist all these years now? How conveniently these terms get used) or I could devil's advocate the idea that he never volunteered race, something I would expect a race-motivated person to do without prompting. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, the difference between me and you is that I'm not professing certainty. Also - what were the cops supposed to do exactly? Arrest him for show just to appease people even though they had all the evidence, knew there was no case, and were actually pushing for a more appropriate charge of manslaughter while their local prosecution felt (again, based on law and evidence) that there was no case? Why are these guys the bad guys when they were just doing exactly what they should have done?

Well said. Letting the rest of the teams know you are willing to pick up some or all of the cash remaining on the guys you are shopping doesn't weaken your bargaining position, it just brings more people to the table. That strengthens your bargaining position. It makes zero sense, silly in fact, to play it coy when you are trying to move pieces to help your future. Your cards are already on the table, so play your best hand. Hopefully the Twins aren't being shy to use all that available cash Ryan said would be helpful at the deadline. (Albeit, not the way he had meant)

Absolutely, Ryan's dumpster diving works very well when it comes to bullpen pieces. Mostly because complementary pieces are very erratic and inconsistent in production. So it's easier to get lucky on short term deals.

How about if he was better than Vance Worley? Or Scott Diamond? Or just about anyone else. Edwin Jackson has not pitched well, but he's a player with significant talent who might have pitched very well. I'm not content with guys whose ceiling is "ok". Why is it so wrong to want to aggressively pursue talented players rather than innings eaters? And here is a more direct question - if the Twins fielded a roster this year that was nothing but major league minimum, scrub players (but had the same farm) - would you be happy? Would you be happy when Sano and Buxton come up that the best we can augment our talent with is the likes of Kevin Correia who, even as a pleasant surprise, has no trade value and mediocre production? Is there any threshold in which you see the FO as worthy of criticism for being too cheap and too risk adverse?

I remember being very sad as a kid when Knoblauch was traded. Then I realized what a jerk he was and how much that deal propelled us back to relevancy and I couldn't have been happier. Sometimes these moves are bittersweet but necessary.