TheLeviathan

I don't think anyone has a problem with discussing larger social issues - the problem is that if we have no bottom floor for what a dumb thesis is and allow every inane conversation to have it's place out of not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings - you're going to scare off the kind of intelligent posters you want blogs from. If it was my first time at this forum and I saw that thread being treated as a worthy subject - I'd laugh and move on.

Couldn't have said it better. If you want to hide behind "bad luck" you're overlooking some pretty significant historical track records for the guys they went with.

Tony Bruno approves. I'd argue sports coverage around here in general is very, very weak. Very few people on the air that have anything but a cursory understanding of the sports world.

RiverBrian is clearly not the first person to think about it. Was just joking because we're rehashing pretty much the same convo....

I'm not saying we have to call them idiots - I'm saying when there is a clearly stupid thread - just kill it. This forum is cracking down on insults in the name of not scaring off new posters. You know what scares me off? A forum that thinks that initial post is worth discussing. To even give such stupidity the time of day. It tells me any post, no matter how inane or insane, will be tolerated. That's going to scare people off too. You want to discuss the racial connotations of "property" - the main thread of a baseball forum is a dumb place to do it.

Ben - that just speaks again to the desperate need to reform. Reform doesn't have to mean cuts in dollars, but it may mean substantial changes from what people are currently comfortable with.

Well said Labombo - the shock some people are feigning that this rotation wasn't very good this year is pretty hard to swallow. It wasn't good to start with and not much of a leap to have predicted they'd be awful.

I shared this with RP - but it's issues like this where sometimes it's just better to call the poster an "idiot", let everyone move on, and get past it. Instead, here we are on page 4..... Mainly because you're still validating it with the desired response. I'm not addressing the poster - I'm addressing the site managers who shouldn't have let it get this far so hopefully this is the last time something this dumb sits on the forum.

I'm with Dave - sometimes a post is just stupid and you're feeding the trolls to allow utter nonsense like that to even exist on a highly populated forum. We had a poster join just to enter that thread and call it stupid. You can bet many others saw that and had a very negative outlook on the site to indulge such ridiculous BS. This forum won't be successful just because it attracts a lot of well-mannered guests - it also has to be thought-provoking and unpopulated with troll-like nonsense. This was a clear case of a thread that just needed to be closed and done away with - Dave is right on.

I shared this with RP - but it's issues like this where sometimes it's just better to call the poster an "idiot", let everyone move on, and get past it. Instead, here we are on page 4.....

Sigh....

So when I posted this a few weeks ago....everyone just didn't know who Mastro was or what?

I say we have Morneau pitch and Butera play pitching coach as long as we're taking the Looney Tunes approach to things.

Sometimes unions hold back the ability for people to be paid for their performance. Teaching is a perfect example of this - not that pay for performance is the way to go either, but we damn sure need to better hold people accountable. A lot of bad teachers collecting the same checks the good ones are. As for your larger point - it's true that the substandard wages in social services hurt. The problem still stands that much of the funding that goes to these programs is horribly wasted - we overly regulate some ways these entities act but then we horribly ignore regulations on many of the cost controls. Which is really a double-pounding to many of the non-profits or social services organizations. The left-wing "blank check" approach to funding forces regulations, but since the "don't shoot the bunny!" argument prevent funding conversations - we over-regulate conduct instead to "ensure" that we're "getting our money's worth". It's horribly circular.

Or....you could join the sane opinion and hate both! I don't see why people think this has to be an either/or thing.

Well, you know that you and I generally see pretty eye-to-eye on these issues. If you ever want to start our own political party, hit me up. But yes, it sounds like something worth trying. To me there are a couple key components of any plan: 1) that we offer job skills and ways of creating earning power 2) That the system does not encourage people to stay on it. Your plan seems to do that - the nitty gritty is where these things always get difficult. And I'm in the same boat with contraceptives and sex education. One of my biggest fears is the rate of breeding among the uneducated vs. educated.

What you continue to do is lump "lazy" with "needy". It's your insistence on this that muddles the issue. People with disabilities, the elderly, children - these are people we can and should help. That we should provide for. The lazy should be given, to use your words, a "chance" not a "pass". You use a lot of language that masks what you're really saying - I'm all for programs that give people a "chance" but what they do now is offer a "pass" - that's the problem. People on the left, much like you have in this thread, immediately resort to the "don't shoot the poor bunny routine" anytime any reform effort is made. You immediately throw out these absurd "people dying in the streets" nonsense to mask a larger point - The system is rife with fraud. Not because we don't put enough money into it - but because we EXPECT people will continue to fail and need us. And that we're ok giving them a "pass" if it avoids these silly worst-case scenarios you keep bringing up. If we give people a mile's worth of slack to be lazy - it isn't too shocking that they take every damn bit of that mile. There cannot be efficacy in programs like Medicaid and financial aid - they were built on liberal ideas. They HAVE to be reformed. Of course businesses will seek to profit from systems like this if we basically stamp the fundamental method of the program as "We'll pay for anything! Just send in the paperwork!" Health care needs to change to a single payer, but many of the programs Ryan attacks - NEED to change. I work with medicaid every day, I know how much the disabled need it. I also know what a friggin joke it is for what it pays for. It can, and should, be reformed. Just because our intentions are good doesn't bless any strategy we take to fulfill them.

Threads like this is where a forum decides whether it wants to be the Strib comments section or a place of actual intelligence. Should be fun to watch....

I don't get it either, yes he was a reach in the draft. But you will soon learn that people like Lev and DPJ will root against him every chance they get, just because he was a reach when they drafted him. Don't get me wrong, I am very skeptical with what Ponder can bring to the table, but I at least want to give him a season before I declare him a guy with no future. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But this is a guy with injury problems, a questionable arm, and happy feet. I'm not encouraged. In a league this QB-driven, anything short of a stud is a waste of time.

So is your position that people are just utterly incompetent and unable to function? I mean holy crap is this a pessimistic view of humanity. There are many that need help, truly need it. I have worked with those people most of my life, I know who they are, and I don't want them to go without their needs. But I also know many people who will do precisely what you make them do for themselves. If you allow them to milk the system, not work, or work half-time - that's precisely what they'll do. I don't believe people will die in the streets if we ask them to provide for themselves. But I won't sit back and watch someone work 40-60 hours a week and be LESS well-off then someone living off the government. Screw your "don't shoot the defenseless bunny" bull**** on that's. It's hopelessly detrimental to a functional society. The problem isn't the amount of money going into social programs - the problem is that we walk into it believing so many people NEED help. If we went in thinking, well, we'll give them a hand and then let them go on their own - we'd be in a much different boat. The reason our current programs don't work is because we don't expect them too - and the mindset you're espousing is precisely why. No one can even suggest that many you suppose "need" help truly don't without you pulling some "woe is everyone" schtick that is obnoxious and dense. Not completely get rid of them - just put restrictions on them. I'm not on board with many of his ideas, but I appreciate that A) He's not giving us lollipops and He realizes that programs that hand out blank checks (financial aid, medicaid, etc) are not stable going forward. It allows for so much fraud and cost increases it's insane. I'd prefer if he'd address military spending along with tax increases, but at least the man is addressing real issues. I won't punish him politically for that. I'll examine his policies, but I damn sure will at least appreciate political suicide in the name of discussing the real problems. We have far too many platitudes from both sides to not embrace at least that.

God this naive socialism is frustrating. Do you not pay attention to Europe? You realize that most policies being implemented are in the hopes of a future economic rebound to mask the real issues? The "we" I refer to is any thinking American. If I walk up to my house expecting it to have a secure foundation, the last thing I want is the foundation repair guy to hand me a lollipop and tell me that "yeah, things will be fine!" I'd much prefer he tell me: "No...your **** is cracked. You need to do something" We can disagree about the how, but you god damn well better appreciate the effort to not hide the real problems. Otherwise what you get is a system in which the lollipop pushers become the norm because that is the way you get elected. No - the problem is we've made personal responsibility obsolete. Hell - if nothing else - lets fix the system so the people who do NEED help, get it. Right now it makes more sense to live off the government than to work for many people. And again, I'll keep saying it - we will not fix this problem by soaking the rich. It simply will not fix the problem. Europe is soaking the rich now and it's not bailing them out either. Get off this friggin nonsense about that please. I'm 100% for raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes for corporations and individuals - BUT THIS WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. It's only part of the solution. And until people like you stop playing the "you wouldn't shoot this poor, defenseless bunny?" routine about every social program we're not going to make any meaningful progress.

Jocko hit a lot of the points I was going to. Yes he's pretty far right fiscally, but that may be exactly what we need. The reality is that we can raise taxes and cut the military and STILL have a problem. I, for one, appreciate someone willing to take on the actual problem even if it isn't politically popular. We should all be looking for that in our elected officials.

Ryan is direct, smart, and very fiscally focused. Those are all strong things to bring to the table. Let's be honest, many of the exchanges Ryan has had over his budget with the White House he has generally gotten the better of the argument - whether you agree with his approach or not - at least he's upfront and honest. He's not afraid to have a conversation about what's wrong. To people like me - that is a welcome breath of fresh air.

So you're not talking about an elite prospect but you name-drop Randall Delgado? Here's the reality - Morneau has a long way to go to rebuild significant trade value, we see the most recent results and we hypothesize high return, but there is so much cash owed to him and so many question marks that I think it's pretty silly to think you're going to get a whole lot. Additionally, if Span had much value, why wasn't a deal already made? I think the fact he wasn't moved here in July says something about the value he holds to other teams. We're talking about a guy with some concussion issues, who plays a decent CF, has a low .700 OPS with limited power and limited steals, and who's home/road splits are alarming. I don't deny that the team should be looking to move Span for young pitching that can help as close to immediately as possible - what I doubt is whether he has the value to obtain that. My guess is he has the value to obtain a couple of single A pitching specs with some upside, which is a better fit anyway. Morneau fetching more than that just isn't going to happen without at least the rest of August and September matching the form of the last few weeks. This smells a lot like our overvaluing of Liriano to me.

Had to make sure, it was getting a bit irritating to be honest! Look - I WANT them to be trading these guys for A ball or AA types that move along with this team. I don't see anyone trading for Span or Morneau with guys who are already established major league pitchers, or even major league ready. I want us to deal high on Willingham and Burton especially. I have no issues with them targeting a Marcum, Sanchez, or even Grienke type. My issues are a few, and I don't think they're crazy: 1) MANY Twins are having really unexpected seasons that are either dramatic jumps in production from young players or vets that are healthier and more productive then in their recent past. While these things may indeed maintain, it's probably a better betthat some or many of them will not. If so, focusing our efforts on 2013 could be a serious mistake 2) The idea that we can deal Span or Morneau for young major-league ready pitching seems pretty doubtful and 3) That if we focus what assets we have in trade on 2013 and not 2015 that we stand to get less of a return - especially when our primary trade assets are not superstars or even all-star caliber players at this point.