TheLeviathan

Florimon has been anything but impressive in the field....but is anyone else sorta impressed with his at-bats thus far? I mean, I feel like I must be insane to even suggest it, but he's not just having success - he's earning it through good ABs.

This group has a long way to go before I consider them having depth. I don't see this as a deep group personally.

Just an observation watching tonight - but I really dig the way Torey Mitchell plays. He's been severely underrated as a pickup this year.

Honestly, I've been impressed they done this much for a pay-cable station. I marvel sometimes that they have enough to do what they've done. This isn't a several hundred million dollar movie production, you have to keep your expectations reasonable. I think with that in mind what they've done is amazing.

Long way from the days of Crocodile Tears.

I think what I like most is that the team is winning close games. With the lack of bullpen depth and worries about starting pitching, it's nice to see this team clawing out these 4-3 type games.

Good post Glunn. The unfortunate reality is that strong religious faith can come with negativity as well if not fully considered. I know there are many people of many faiths who refuse to allow any person or book to allow them down the path of prejudice. But the reality is there a very significant population who do allow themselves to have bigoted feelings in the name of religion. I've yet to meet someone who, when pressed, can oppose gay marriage on any coherent, factual arguments. Unfortunately that only leaves prejudice left.

It's hard to take apart so many things that seem baffling in one post. I'm just going to suggest that people who "bitch" about the Twins SS woes have a pretty good reason to do so - they've been pretty consistently awful for quite some time. And the team seems to have a penchant for getting rid of guys that might actually break that trend. Just to pick on two things: 1) Pedro Florimon is 26 and has had 7 years in the minor leagues. If a wrinkle that is still in his game is butchering routine plays -I'm a bit concerned by how long we should wait to get that ironed out. 2) It's a cliche, but it's true - giving teams extra outs hurts. We just won a game thanks to that in fact. If Florimon was airmailing throws from short LF because he was getting to that ball - I think we can all live with that. When he plays kick the can with a routine ground ball on a regular basis - that's a totally different thing.

Joe Mauer apparently is defying those gods.

Now do we see a hit and run again? Even risk it with Weiters all but daring people to go on him? I can't see a straight steal here for sure.

Roenicke's stuff has a lot of movement. Maybe it's just comparing him to the average Twins pitcher, or maybe it's just tonight, but his stuff is hopping.

Atta boy Parmalee.

By all means, describe why you're opposed to gay marriage. If it doesn't fit definitionally, I'll happily retract.

Pedro Hernandez has a FAR better chance to win than that happening.

Let's clean up your language and state it plainly. Many states don't want to honor legal rights to gays no matter what you call it. So if it's not about the word - what is it about? It's a simple question. First off, I've gone out of my way not to name call, the closest I've seen of anyone in here is your reference to "you people". If you are referring to "bigotry", well then I use it as the most apt description. There is a large segment of the population committed to being intolerant of a particular life-style. As for this point, you're right that marriage is discriminatory. And, if you had verifiable evidence that there was a valid reason to discriminate against gay couples, I think you could make a good case. Unfortunately, even by the lesser conditions of the Equal Protection clause, there is little reason to do this. Studies are unclear about parenting advantages, generally showing the sex matters less than stability. One could argue there are BETTER reasons to start discriminating against some straight people from marrying. So I agree, discrimination is part of life. That doesn't mean this form of discrimination is acceptable. Especially when there is such difficulty forming a coherent argument to do it.

My premise is not incorrect, as demonstrated by this. We are talking about LEGAL marriage. If you don't want the benefits of having a legally recognized marriage you are welcome to hold whatever beautiful ceremony you want. It's irrelevant to the legal aspects. If it was simply about ceremonies and celebrations in front of God - NOTHING is requiring churches to start marrying gay couples. And I would stand vehemently opposed to any attempt to do so. The argument gets confused when you do precisely what you did this entire post - conflate the ceremonial aspects of marriage with the legal aspects. They need not be wed so tightly, even though for many people they are. (pun intended) I would suggest to you that we have not. I think there are more people that were wishy-washy that have slid in the opposite direction, but the core that is resisting gay marriage has not changed at all. They just continue to try to find more sympathetic ground to stand on so the bigotry isn't exposed. Again, if it was only about the sacred nature of the word, Civil Unions would've been passed as a glorious compromise and no Defense of Marriage Act would've ever been passed to prevent those from getting recognized in other states. The entire premise of that legislation was to outlaw that if some states did rename marriage to extend the benefits the states who don't want gays have legal rights wouldn't have to honor them under their definition of marriage. Essentially, that legislation (still defended adamantly today) prevents your theory from being workable in a large cross-section of the country. So the question remains - why would that legislation be there and defended heavily if indeed most people are just hung up on the word? I think you've fallen for the smoke and ignored the fire.

I agree with much of your post, but there is a major flaw. First though, I agree we need to stop talking about marriage as a "right" - it's a license, not a right. Religious people need to remember that it's a judge who approves it, not the minister who conducts it that determines the marriage we're talking about here. (legal marriage) People fighting for gay marriage have to keep this fight in the proper context as well, some of the dialogue about how they are being denied a right gets almost comically inaccurate. My issue with you is that this phenomenon of people opposed to gay marriage fighting over the word is a recent development. The concept of civil unions for gay people has been around since at least the late 80s and was fought, tooth and nail, by religious, anti-gay marriage people from the get-go. I know, I've had this conversation with family members many times in the last 10-15 years. If this were truly about the word, civil union legislation would've been a slam dunk and the DOMA would have never existed. I ask anyone who disagrees to give me another reason why DOMA exists if it's only about the term, not about the legal rights. DOMA is, was, and continues to be legislated bigotry. The fact is, the ground beneath the feet of people opposed to gay marriage is shrinking and they are clutching to anything that diverts attention from the heart of the matter (they don't want gays to be able to marry, no matter what you call it) and using the term as a shield is the new vogue thing. We could call marriage "civil partnerships" or "The Union of Guaranteed Perpetual Unhappiness" or "God's approval to breed" and it wouldn't matter - it's the fact that gay people want it that's the issue. Not what we call it. I hope that wasn't offensive, but the national conversation on this (from both sides) is beyond aggravating.

Reading comprehension. At no point have I called for the removal of Robertson. Hell, I've actually made it clear that I'm aware my perception of him is worse than his stat-line. You're really, really reaching here, sorry. The day I start a thread after less than a week of games suggesting a guy doesn't belong - you Picard the hell out of me, ok? It'll be fully deserved. The day may come for this thread, but after three games it's downright silly to even talk about.

Fair or not....he's the guy who gives up big home runs in my eyes. That's all I can see him as, stats or not.

Well it was that or the tea....which he then threw directly into his face to numb the pain of reading this.

Yeah, that's the guy I have engrained in my memory. I don't think I'll ever not see Robertson as the "guy who always seems to give up a homerun"

Escobar's competency is nothing short of baffling. In a good way.

I feel like Picard had something appropriate to say about a thread like this. Now what was it.....

Larson is the bigger loss, but wow did we give up a lot. I'm not sure I like it and I've always been a HUGE Pominville guy. Fun to have him at least!

My wife (a White Sox fan and Chicagoan) was in genuine pain watching. I am thankful that my pain watching this was lessened being able to rub it in that it was her crappy baseball team that produced that travesty. So the real question here is - is this worse than two mullet-clad morons rushing a 70 year old man from behind? I say yes. (In fairness, we did use for a year)