Steve J

Probably to commit to short term plans. In that list you have, I don't see anyone worth tying our boat to except for maybe Odorizzi.

Oh....You must not remember the days when the Front Office decided to garbage pick people like Tony Batista, a guy who was not playing particularly well in Japan when the Twins decided to make him their every day 3rd baseman in 2006. That was surreal.

I think you make an error comparing the fielding percentage of 3b to 1b. The hot corner as far as I can tell suffers historically the worst natural fielding% on the diamond, while first base generally enjoys the best. If Sano was a first baseman, his fld% would likely be in the 990s too. None of these options are anything approaching a plan unless February comes and nothing else has materialized. I'm personally wedded to the idea of getting Araez as many appearances as possible at various positions. I'm curious why he's not in the 3b conversation. Singing any of these guys to the major league roster would cut into his time more than anyone else.

It was all a young, inexpensive shortstop with a 6.4 WAR's fault.

Take a premium hitting all-star quality catcher, then add a dose of statistical regression to make him an averagish first baseman?? Sounds like a good plan if you want to battle for third place next year.

What are the chances the Twins think the current makeup of Polanco at short and Sano at third is simply too ugly? I doubt they are going to get any of the premium starters on the FA market, so it stands to reason is the best way to make our pitching better is to focus on defense.. I wonder if its time to move Sano to first/DH and if we are going to let Polanco stay at short, we could have Gordon split time at second while having him backup Polanco. Luis Arráez has the better part of a season's worth of experience at third base and afaict, looked decent there for the Twins this past year.

#38 for certain. I remember they wanted to trade him to Boston, he didn't wanna go. I remember the windbag sid hartmann ripping him on the air for not wanting to leave. Then he came back and resigned with the Twins that off season. Personally I would also add #7 as he was my favorite player, but that's a bit of a stretch.

I suppose gone are the days of frustrating loyalties....

I think I would lean towards Wright because for Green to reach his higher ceiling he would have to depend on a Twins development system that lately has not produced a whole lot of quality major league arms.

and hilarious. One of my all time personal favorite players.

I don't present it as an argument, but as a belief. And I am not the one derailing...

Guess what, they (illegals) are and always have been counted in the Census, which is then used to apportion Representatives to the States. http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q16 "------------------------------------------- Are undocumented residents (aliens) in the 50 states included in the apportionment population counts? Yes, all people (citizens and noncitizens) with a usual residence in the 50 states are to be included in the census and thus in the apportionment counts. ------------------------------------------" Saying the 3/5s rule gave the Slave States an advantage ignores that the apportioned representatives were in no way responsible to the Slave demographic. they had no right to vote. if Slaves were counted as a whole person, the South with their ideals would have greater weight in national policy, not less.

Because you said so. Please tell me now, what does Lochner have to do with the topic of gun control and the original attitudes and law towards gun control? The "you are welcome to your own facts, but not your own opinion" mantra is desperate arrogance on your part, especially when you yourself yet have to cite anything relevant.

So I take it you accept that Heller and McDonald settles the issue then?

This sort of reductionism is unserious. You really think my argument comes down to this?

My question is, why is the organization letting players play hurt? Where is Souhan's commentary on that?

I do not agree. A statement like this shouldn't come down to equating the discussions and maneuverings of the Founding Fathers with a more or less arbitrary set of rights decided only politically. If you believe that the Hand of God was on this process, which I do, it should instill reverence. If you do not believe so, then there is really no other conclusion other than it was formulated on little more than high-minded political constructs.

On reflection I think you are right.... I do think it turned out for the best...

it does nothing of the kind unless you truly believe 9 -slash- 8 Ivy leaguers in robes decide what our rights are

It is more accurate to say that Heller/McDonald basically said the 2nd Amendment applied to the States the same way the Courts had previously ruled the other Bill of Rights items did. and by Pre-1930, you mean 1918? Not really a time uncontemporary to the 1930s.... I don't see how this at all addresses me pointing out how wrong you were about the attitudes of the law towards gun ownership prior.

No. Just as with today, Representative seats are created in Congress according to population of all residents, not just Citizens. It was a compromise to get them to join the Nation, but it did not give them an advantage. It was certainly not absurd. Really? what else in your view is a "compromise"? you paint with a broad brush.

You don't seem to understand the purpose of the 3/5ths rule. Slaves were essentially zero-fifths of a person when it came to rights. That rule was expressly put in to subdue the representation of pro-slave states and pro-slavery ideals in Congress. No, for the first 150 years the laws were pretty much interpreted as they are post-McDonald/Heller, with odd errata occurring in the Western Frontier. It was only in the 1930s when the courts reinvented the Constitution on such things.

I essentially am as it pertains to the Second Amendment (and my understanding of it) being on the chopping block. it may sound crass, but that is not my intent. Do we need to pour more money into mental health issues? that may be the answer So noted. And thanks for the encouragement!!

Thanks for the list, Psuedo. Here are my thoughts. 1) This is cool but I'm pretty sure every gun dealer and manufacturer has to do this already against an FBI database when selling a gun. IIRC, there can be up to a three day waiting period already. 2) Please explain to me "the gun show loophole" and how it works? I believe I know what is being inferred by I want to be certain what you mean. Gun dealers must be licensed and even at Gun Show, criminal background checks must be performed just as if it were in their store. 3) Given how easy and quick it is to change magazines, would this really be effective? 4) Due process problems all over this ----------------------------- 1) Offhand, I think this should be regular curriculum and not just for gun owners. 2) Is the semi to fully conversion really a problem? I don't recall the last time an illegal conversion was used in a crime? I don' t think it's mechanically easy to do anyways (I could be wrong)... 4) I thought they already were liable if they sold to criminals? 5) Disagree. what would be the purpose? the Batman killer, Charleston shooter, and this new nut wouldn't have needed to bring an arsenal with them to do the damage they did. 6) In my view taxes should be for raising revenue, not for the expressed purpose of regulating anything. Wouldn't anything to stop people who want to kill others. Would just be to thumb noses at people who want to become practiced at their weapons. Civil liberties groups would say this would also cause a disparate impact on minorities. 7) How do we overcome due process? 8) Any State should be free to pursue this.

You understand that you cannot legally "buy politicians"? This invective of yours describing the relationship between advocacy groups and the politicians that support them shows a disdain for Democracy, not an understanding of it. The NRA is not so influential because it slips cash into the personal pockets of elected and administrative officials. It is influential primarily because it's membership consists of many, many people and there are many more not among their membership that agree with them on these issues. 1) The People's Right to Bear Arms is clearly not predicated on any involvement in the Militia by the very text of the Amendment. Else, what does "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean? 2) You are a 100% Wrong that "The People" mention of the second Amendment was intended to infer a collective right rather than an individual one. This is a pet idea that fails because it conflicts with the greater context of the Constitution where "The People" is held in most every other case to be an individual freedom. Historically, the Right was only considered collective starting in the 20th Century, and then corrected. Before that it was all but universally held to be an individual one. 3) Re: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X Have you read this book yourself? 4) I"m pretty sure it's not just the NRA that opposes removal of Constitutional Rights based on suspicion. I find it alarming that there are multiple liberals in this board that are seriously advocating this. 5) So, if we had banned certain ideologies prior to 9/11 during this attacker's formative years, it would have had no chance of preventing this atrocity? That is my point now and I think it would have had a chance, as bad as idea as it would have been. 6) "My Contributions so far"...did I actually accept that we shouldn't have bazookas? And my solution is this: Once again, every freedom bears a social cost. You may not like this cost but I accept it. Disagreeing with what is being said in no way requires me to come up with an alternative, though focusing on mental health issues and availability of services is one possibility.