Steve J

AFAICT I imagine it's about a lot of things, but the incentives are that it allows politicians to set themselves up as dragon slayers and creates a new line of cronies to both be fed and feed the political sphere. The Climate Change Industrial Complex is a 1.5 Trillion dollar industry. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm What I said is absolutely not contemptible. It is however ridiculously naive to paint scientists as you have. They are susceptible to incentives, peer pressure, politics, and protecting their own pet theories. Peer review and publishing are also subject to bias and other problems. http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/04/fake_peer_review_scientific_journals_publish_fraudulent_plagiarized_or_nonsense.html http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/implicit-bias-still-hinders-minority-researchers/

Every voter ID law that could even plausibly create a disparate racial impact has been undone by the courts. Even reasonable voter ID laws have been suppressed. And I am wondering under what definition Clinton counts as a "qualified candidate". What has she accomplished?

As for actual money's invested into the scientific proposition of anthropomorphic climate change, I absolutely do think there is far greater funding available, which is the relevant point. The government is only funding one side of this debate.

I don't know if the inflation stats are "rigged" or not because there might well be a legitimate reason why monetary inflation is so low while we are all seeing significant rising of costs of living....I personally fear a bubble. and you are of course very correct about inflation. Historically the first things hit by inflation are, IIRC, food costs and the last to recover are wages. The stock market I believe has often been a hedge against inflation, but that does little good to people on fixed incomes....

Why shouldn't they be obstructionist? This current administration has been horrible. Neither Boehner nor Paul has up to this point looked all that serious about the debt or opposing Executive Overreach. The GOP are not the bizarre ones here. And I agree it hasn't been much of a problem until now, but you seem to misremember the GOP as being the ones to start this corner of the culture war. The Federal Government has been the one recently deciding and pushing the ideal that providing a safe bathroom environment for women now amounts to "discrimination" "The Senate can't even be bothered to do their Constitutional duty and at least hear the nominee for SCOTUS. They can shoot him down all they want but it's their obligation to listen and vote. They can't even be bothered to do that." This is a gross distortion of the Senates duties. They have zero obligation to hold hearings. If Obama wants to earnestly move forward with this, he can nominate someone who's not a rubber stamp for Democrat ideals "When the last time Congress passed a bill with real significance? When was the last time Congress didn't try to block even the most mundane actions by the President?" When is the last time the President did something that wasn't in violation of his oath? BTW, here is a list of things this Congress has passed https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?status=28,29,32,33&sort=-current_status_date

This is arrogant lecturing -telling me what my interests are and letting me know that I am not voting properly, as if the Left's political formulae was somehow a rousing success [it isn't]. Wait, I thought 2008 was supposed to be the year of the death of the GOP? It now holds Congress and will likely win the Presidency, even with a candidate as historically bad as Trump. And "wierd social environment"??? please

Where is your data on this? I think it's laughably untrue.

"What's the saying about two Burdis with one stone?" You just couldn't help yourself, could you?

3 home runs in 3 games.....

Background If the Twins are looking for a GM change, previous success on field doesn't matter to me as much as a general baseball business acumen and an open mind. As owner, job one would be to enlarge the market and make the team more profitable. Profitability is important to long-term viability My greatest criticism as a fan of the Twins is reserved for present and past ownership. I simply do not like the way the Polhads conduct the business of the Twins. I haven't forgotten the days of Don Beaver and the threats to move or contract the Twins if they didn't get a new stadium with taxpayer help. I recall all the talk fed to the press of the woes of being in a small market when all economic metrics have long pointed to the Twin Cities and Minnesota as being a viable baseball middle-market. Everyone here may remember the message ownership expressed shortly after being given a new field when the product abruptly failed, attendance fell off with the team's performance, and shortly thereafter payroll did as well. From my point of view what came down from ownership as a result was to this, to paraphrase: "we'll invest in more payroll when more people start showing up". I think that's getting the fan/team relationship backwards. Imagine a pizza chain promising to improve their mediocre product only when more people started buying their crummy pizzas. I would instead take more risk to improve the product, then hoping more people would attend "Build it and they will come" SCOUTING The Draft I would take more of a "Best player available" approach. For all the talk of needing to acquire high-upside arms, relief pitchers with good arms that don't earn saves are very cheap on the market and starting pitching with upside certainly fits the "BPA" model. Rosters can change a lot in the years required to develop prospects and it seems a lot more intuitive to just do the best you can to spam your organization with as much talent as possible and use the trade/free agent markets to supplement it to fill holes. I applaud the team for it's approach in some past years - for trying to find better pitchers with more velocity by drafting relievers and converting them, rather than just drafting polished college mediocrity with their good control, questionable command, and 88mph four seamers..... that this approach didn't work wouldn't stop me from approving them to try it again. What I don't want is to spend draft picks on guys who best project to be Tommy Milones and Sam Dedunos as we have no trouble finding those types by other means. I would consistently choose upside over polish. The further in the draft we go, i would focus even more on upside with the ensuing flaws. I would focus on a balance between stats/tools at the top of the draft and much more on tools down low. International Markets I would be a bit aggressive here and am glad they signed Park after the failure of Nishioka. International Markets are also a chance to gain cache in other nations, especially Japan, Australia and Korea. I want the Twins to be among the most respected clubs in the region. I also want to play a series against another MLB team in Tokyo or Seoul during the regular season. If I have to forfeit having three games at home and refunding season ticket holders, so be it. Advanced Scouting I don't see any reason why this should not continue. I want the scouting director to balance statistical vs traditional approaches. Advanced Statistics Over the years, the team's various comments on Sabremetrics indicate that they just that aren't into it and their involvement has been tepid and tokenary. I get the feeling they don't trust it much. Statistics must be integrated the system of decision making, not just another (probably ignored) voice vying for input. All Player Decisions will figure heavily on a statistical approach. PLAYER DEVELOPMENT Philosophies will be based on keeping players who hit at premium defensive positions there as long as possible. I can accept a below average defensive SS who hits 285/340/470. it's not a question of whether he fits the traditional mold of a defensive-first player, it's a question of Wins above Replacement, no matter how they get there. From pitchers I would emphasize more strikeouts and am willing to accept more walks. I don't need every hitter to have Mauer-like patience, but I don't value and see the future in any player I don't think will be able to maintain a 1:2 BB/K rate in the majors (like Rosario), unless they have incredible power (like Sano). I won't bring up prospect so they can sit on the bench. I will require the manager to play prospects who are brought up and sit a vet, if necessary. I would not allow struggling prospects to work through at the major league level if they haven't yet proven a sustained ability to hit at AAA (aka, Aaron Hicks). I would shy away from RH-dominant switch hitters in drafts. I would have switch hitting players who demonstrate a decided difference in splits drop their weaker side if they can't shake it by the end of their days in rookie ball, or their first season of A ball at the latest. I expect players coming from the minors to throw to the right base and make correct decisions as fielders. they should be prepared to play the field. Position Players should focus on skills as well as fitness during the off-season. I worry about pitcher load and would impose inning limits for younger pitchers in non-competitive years. I would keep our affiliates happy. The last thing I want is to have our AAA back in the PCL. I would prefer having more affiliates in the Midwest. MEDIA/PRESS RELATIONS From an organizational standpoint there is always something better to do than answering predictable questions to a bunch of reporters. However, outreach is important. Never shy away from a reporter looking for a few quotes. You need these guys on your side. Take them out to lunch. hire a good ad agency with a penchant for approachable humor and buy ad space in the papers. Send the Trib donuts once in awhile. Embrace bloggers as they tend to come up with better angles/questions. FRONT OFFICE/On Field Staff I would want to keep our legacy personnel close. Minnesota has a good and fortunate history. I'm fairly certain they just want to hang around the ballpark anyways and have little desire to influence team direction. If TK still wanted to manage, he would have been managing these last fifteen years. I don't know who I 'get rid of'. I set expectations and philosophies, let personnel fall however it does. There are a few things with TK's approach that I don't get, but he's a legend. A legend that wears Zubas.... I don't think we need a manager change. A manager's job is mainly preparedness and managing workloads. I don't think there's anything to be gained by getting rid of Molly. Bruno did a good job last year, and it's still early this season. Of all the problems we have had this year, none of it is because of the on field staff. Of note, injury communications have improved. I don't recall this year or last any player being listed as day to day, playing a few times a week by hobbling through, sucking, and then finally being put on the DL for the same injury for the next six weeks. The Manager and Trainer should be assertive in removing players from their duties if they think something is wrong. don't let the player make the call because any dedicated player will want to play through pain. That said, I liked the way Gardy handled umpires. Sometimes someone has to get thrown out to deflate a situation, and Gardy was certainly willing to stand in as a proxy for the anger from his players. If someone is going to burst, it best not be someone on the roster. The Current Situation: The best players should be put in the positions where they can provide the best value, from my perspective. Trevor May goes in the Rotation and Sano goes to Third. Maybe Nolasco has a future as a successful middle reliever, because I've lost hope he'll ever be able to be traded and he's probably no better than our 6th best starting option when everyone is healthy. I don't plan on resigning Plouffe, but I would be perfectly happy with him as a serviceable utility player for the rest of the year if I can't get a player in return that has some upside. Park is an asset. We keep Park. You couldn't give the contracts of Nolasco or Suzuki away right now, so that's moot. We play the prospects unless they struggle too long. We let Dozier work through it. His BB% is the same, his K rate is down, it's only his BABIP that's making him suffer. TRADES: I am willing to trade any non-star player at almost any time. I would look to the numbers guys more than any other. Elite talent is almost never up for trade and when it is, it's only a rental. FREE AGENCY I would be a hypocrite to tear into recent free agency decisions. I thought at the time that the Nolasco and Hughes signings would be good ones,as well as the Santana contract. If everything worked out, ie Nolasco and Santana held as decent #3 starters while Hughes took steps forward moving out of hitter-friendly New Yankee Stadium, we could be looking at a pitching surplus right now had Barrios, Gibson, and Meyer all transitioned to the MLB sucessfully. It didn't work out that way, but I can't fault the process that much. that said, offering extensions after limited success with the team to Hughes and Suzuki were puzzling mistakes. They are consistent with TR's apparent desire for long term certainty rather than try to get maximum value from the ebb-and-flow of the markets. I think in the future I'd like to see the Twins aim a little higher and show a little more patience with how the FA market develops. It's hard to find good value on the market when you are trying to lock up middling players before the bidding starts.. I wouldn't stay away from the 10-13 million dollar guys, but I would stay way from the $3-$8 mil specials. How much better than the normal depth of back-end starters the Twins always have can those guys actually be? Workhorses you say?? Innings have little value unless they have some quality to them. There's always a cheap Scott Diamond in the rough or Tommie 'Mayday' Milones to be had. Pretty soon those $5-8 million dollar 90 ERA+ "workhorses" add up to real money that could have gotten an actually valuable player.

Trading Park... Not a big fan unless we get a real return....like B to B+ prospects. Our sunk costs on him were almost 13 million dollars going into his first season, he's provided decent offense in the middle of the order, and he has a very team friendly contract going forward. Despite creating roster concerns going into the season, he's not exactly blocking anyone now. He is a good player in his prime that we control at a far below market rate, going forward. And I simply do not trust Ryan on the trade market anymore. He'll just acquire more backend starting pitchers, and call it much needed 'depth' while we watch their 88mph fastballs get pounded by major league hitters. Plouffe at this point has much lower roster value to the club, if only because I think resigning him would be a mistake.

It's really tough to get someone to bite on quantity when asking them to give up quality in prospect for prospect trades. Rarely happens. and Vargas has about as much value as any other random player with AAAA upside...

I don't see any of their 'chips' being cashed in for more than a C+ prospect.

I think the difference is that it may be held that OF collisions can be best avoided with experience, which Sano does not have in the OF. Collisions endanger multiple players, especially when one is listed at 260 lbs... Granted at this point the only swap they could make would be to put Plouffe in the OF (who has only 30 games as an outfielder), but I would think that his greater experience overall and lighter frame would reduce the risk.

In the OF, there is always the chance of two people getting injured. Imaging the inexperienced Sano running into Buxton. This is Minnesota, this could happen...

His ratios really bother me. He had an almost 1:8 BB/K ratio last year, which he's bound to improve upon, I'm sure. However, the trouble as I see it is this: how much improvement does he need in the associated skills to have a BB/K ratio where sustainable success becomes more realistic?? I doubt anyone has had sustained success walking once for every eight strikeouts, or that many have sustained hitting walking even once every four strikeouts... His power is real, his Defense is real, but his contact and discipline skills may regress him into a AAAA player or 4th OF....

Actually I'm more encouraged by the Twins going forward. I was convinced the Nolasco signing would have the Twins thumbing their nose at detractors who had long criticized their weird fear of going after significant players on the free agent market, but then they turned around and signed Santana to a multi year deal. They also went out and signed Park after Nishi completely flubbed. It shows me that they believe in a new process and aren't just dabbling in new ideas and looking to prove their old ways correct.

Would it be okay if I compared Nishi and Park if I also compared Nick Punto with Lance Berkman? Or would it be equally ridiculous?

I agree that Hicks was the more valuable player, all things considered. However, I have the feeling the Twins were the buyers and moved early to fill their catching need. I think moving early was wise and probably this was probably the best deal be had assuming the Twins had their heart set on a catcher. I like the deal.

I think TR is trying to upgrade the offense for next year, and trying Sano in the OF gives him the positional flexibilty to do it. A lot would depend on whether they sign Park and whether they are able to get a suitable trade for Plouffe. If they sign Park and Plouffe stays, I would say Sano is in the outfield most of the time next year. If Plouffe is traded, Sano may only play a handful of games there. It also may mean that the team does not view Sano as a long-term solution at third. All of these moves seem to idicate that TR is not committing yet to how next year's lineup will look. It's all about keeping options open.

I would absolutely not trade Gibson straight up for one year of Tex. The value of a good #3 Starter should not be underestimated on a team that in recent history has stocked it's rotation with mostly Veteran #4s and a slew of #5s. Tex's salary would also pretty much keep us from shoring up any other position.

Or maybe keep him until FA. He's a good player, and we need good players. A trade is always possible and in some cases desireable, but lets not rush to cash in for what would probably be, at best, a midrotation starter and a left handed A-ball reliever with control issues in return.

Aren't those '#1 Starter' reports a couple years old (dated) now? He's 24 and walks too many people. Granted something could click, but it better do so pretty quickly...

I see what you did there. Step to the front of the line, please. Yeah. I don't buy into the malarky of disowning history just because it wasn't local as seems to be the rage of conventional wisdom. The Twins/Senators are a historic franchise, not some lousy invention of the 60s Right, they are the same franchise. But the list specifically says "Twins Top Pitchers of All-Time." ................ Yes, I know, but I'm not going to enable that sort of selective use of history...

I see what you did there. Step to the front of the line, please. Yeah. I don't buy into the malarky of disowning history just because it wasn't local as seems to be the rage of conventional wisdom. The Twins/Senators are a historic franchise, not some lousy invention of the 60s