drjim

I would object to the statement that Lannan is a "much better pitcher" than Correia. But the contract is horrible.

If you didn't read the reactions of @OldHossRadbourn on twitter you are doing it wrong.

This. That was the best Twins team in this entire run. Up 5-1 going to the 8th and Rincon had been a stud all year and coughed it up. Haven't won a playoff game since. That whole series was a heartbreaker.

My initial thought is I wonder if the Twins are really struggling to get anyone to sign here unless they really overpay. This isn't a fantasy baseball auction and these signings don't happen in a vacuum. If I was a free agent and had a couple of options at similar money I would think the Twins would be about last on the list.

I have a question on Evolution and I hope I can write it well enough that it makes sense. I have studied it a little and have no doubt that it is a process that is clearly happening in our world today. Much more obvious on the micro level, but the diversity of fauna in various locales would seem to speak to me on a macro level as well. My question is how accurate and useful is the theory of evolution in extrapolating back to the origin of specific species? That is, we observe several species now, we have observed several fossils that would suggest a progression, but how confidently can we make that link scientifically? In short, can evolution truly back up the claim that life started in a primordial soup and evolved into humans? I know that is premise scientists would use, but can that actually be backed up with fact? I understand how, depending on geography and available resources, that life will evolve in different situations and that over millions of generations there will be lots of diversity within fauna, but it still seems like a far jump to then move that from a few inorganic compounds that life sprung up. My discomfort with evolution is not about what processes it explains going forward (those appear obvious) but the confidence it has with going backwards and the conclusions that are reached.

Honestly, this is pretty abstract. You're generalizing. When I pressed Levi for specifics, he offered the bailouts. Whatever we might want to believe about Obama's liberalism personally or rhetorically, it really doesn't manifest itself in his policy. An old friend said of Clinton: "He's the best Republican president we've ever had." In general I think you're both placing the "center" in firmly center-right mentality. I'm fine with disagreeing on these issues. OK, I don't want to hammer every specific issue, but Obama to the left when it comes to business regulation. Obviously some regulation is desirable, but I would say he has gone beyond that and placed more power in the government to regulate business based on environmental concerns and hiring practices (to name a couple). He is also left of center when it comes to his tax plan. He wants to keep tax rates for those earning under 250k as is while raising for those making more while not offering much in reform. He is on the left in Social Security as his plan is pretty much to maintain the status quo. He wants additional government involvement in health care. He is on the left on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, access to contraceptives, funding for stem cell research and others. I agree with him here for the most part, even if he is hesitant to do more reasonable actions when it comes to drugs. He is left of center in using government money to invest in alternative energy companies. I could go on. He is not some socialist but he is a pretty run of the mill liberal technocrat. Because of this I will generally side with him on social issues and be less impressed with his economic policies. I struggle some with his foreign policy, but the alternative would be much worse.

If the Angels passed on a 1/12 deal I wouldn't touch him except for a lower base and incentives. Damaged goods.

If I may chime in Lev is right about Obama. He is a liberal and he is left of Clinton. He is probably not as liberal as many progressives would want, but he is surely pretty liberal. I generally like him because he has liberal aims with a conservative temperament. I do think he could be much more creative on tax policy and lay off on some of the more onerous business regulations, not to mention actually pursue a sane drug policy, but that the price to pay when considering the alternative.

Maryland, Maine, Washington all have votes to legalize gay marriage. Minnesota is the only state with a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. I'm also interested in the Washington and Colorado votes on legalizing marijuana. I think they both pass. Only way that Romney wins is if the polls are all systematically biased and/or a late break in his favor that is not being captured in the polls.

If you need a change in philosophies, that's rarely gonna happen if people are being rained the same way...as often happens in organizations Maybe. But there was a decade of success followed by two terrible seasons. I still think there is reason to believe that the last two years are the aberration vs. the previous decade and that the Twins philosophy is ultimately a successful one, especially with Terry Ryan the one calling the shots as opposed to Bill Smith.

I still fail to see how trying to promote from within as a general rule is a different philosophy than most successful businesses/organizations. Obviously you need qualified people to take the spots when they are promoted.

There is an exception at a certain age, where players can be signed for unlimited money that will not count against the cap (basically they are a free agent). That is what will happen with older Cuban and Japanese players, but will not apply in this situation. Otani will be have to be signed under the international cap.

I would still put him at #3 behind Sano/Buxton. Everything I have read is elite CF defense and plus arm. This, combined with the .760 OPS kab mentioned is a really good player.

I would love for you to expand on this thought. What do you not like about how they are conducting themselves and what would you like to see them do differently? Especially in the context of your experience in the Iowa Caucuses.

He does every year. Twins, Braves, Royals are always the first three.

I thought he posted that he was a B+. That seems about fair for a draft pick in rookie ball. Same grade he gave Sano last year. Sickels is generally more conservative (especially relative to BA and guys like Law) when it comes to toolsy guys in lower levels with questions about the hit tool.

I'm a little biased but I thought that Obama clocked Romney pretty good for much of the debate. I think Obama will regain his advantage (especially with women) and that will be the difference on election day. History shows that the third debate does little to move the numbers and I think that barring any significant gaffes that will be the case again.

You're aware that both sides utilize these things called advertisements that are less substantive, often far more hyperbolic and riddled with lies, and strategically designed to mislead far more often and far more effectively right? Just want to be sure, because - if you are aware of this - it makes your point seem a lot less reasonable. This. Plus the fundamental fact that Obama had trouble providing a defense of his record and providing a positive reason for a second term (even if it stretched the truth a little). Doesn't mean he can't recover and win some of those voters back.

I think this is a good observation. There are many striking parallels between this election and 2004 up to the strong performance that Kerry had in the first debate. Good for Romney, but some of the polling following the debate was interesting. It was a knockout victory for Romney and people seemed to indicate they'll take another look at him, but there didn't seem to be any negative movement against Obama. In a sense he held his position while allowing Romney to move forward to claim some of the undecideds. I'm not sure it is enough, Obama has a huge chunk of states to play with, Romney really needs to move the needle to have a chance. I'm not convinced one debate can do that.

A couple of points I'd make in response: Gene Glynn was only added to the organization 1 year ago. Tom Brunansky has only been back with the organization for what? 2-3 years (hired July 2010). Bobby Cuellar, while he did spend time in various coaching capacities with the Twins over the years, has also spent time in a number of other organizations, so he's hardly a Twins organization "lifer". If these three are indeed added to the Big League club, I don't see it as your typical "inside the organization" promotions. Also, while it may be true that Gardy, Andy, Ullger and Vavra remain in Big League positions, I don't think there's any doubt that with Glynn, Cuellar and Bruno, Terry Ryan would be putting in place a potential core of successors to Gardy and his gang. If the 2013 season starts off with another crappy April, I wouldn't assume the holdovers keep their jobs all the way through 2013. Paul Molitor is on record saying he'd be interested in a coaching spot, too, if the Twins want to talk to him about it. Add him to the Glynn, Cuellar, Bruno trio and that would be sending a clear shot across the bow at Gardenhire. I agree with this. This talk of the Twins only bringing in insiders is not exactly true. The team is going to have a philosophy, it makes sense to bring people in for a year or two in lower level positions to learn that philosophy before promoting them to higher positions. Many successful businesses outside of baseball follow this model. I will also add that I really like Terry Ryan and I am glad that he is the general manager. Every statement that he makes is spot on and aside from the Marquis signing he has been very solid in his decision making. He is not flashy but conservative and patient and I appreciate that, it bodes well for long term success.

You do realize the general manager was fired less than a year ago right?

I'm curious, why are you that surprised with the debate performance of Romney? He has always been considered a strong debater and Obama is generally considered a weaker one (especially compared to his speech ability). I wonder if the 20 or so debates Romney had in the past year helped him while the fact Obama hasn't had a debate in 4 years cost him. I will be interested to see how the next two go. Overall I just felt like Obama looked tired and beat down and Romney seized the initiative and never let it go.

I thought Romney waxed Obama tonight. Obama looked tired, bored and/or distracted. I generally think Romney is full of it, but he is extremely confident in his presentation. It also seemed like Romney left a ton of openings for Obama to jab him and Obama never took it. I wonder if that was the gameplan - if so it was a poor one.

I've always liked Bulldog in Northeast (also Uptown)

Levi Michael puts a huge dagger in your point. It had been over a decade since the Twins took a college bat near that high.