mikecgrimes

It's been nearly 2 months since this thread has been in play, we sat in playoff position most of that time, but long stretches of below .500 baseball doesn't excite anyone, right now we sit at 37 with the Rangers looking to make that 36. I guess we might not win the division.

I'll take the 7 over Baltimore and be happy.

guess the outfielders running into each other will do instead.

Wish he would have tried to score that awful throw would have turned into the pitcher taking Hermann out with a football like hit.

As much as that call was correct and in the twinsfavor. I hate that replay turns that into an out. His leg popped off for maybe a 10th of a second. He beat the throw and didn't overslide the bag in my mind that shouldn't be an out.

Clearly out but letssit around for 5 minutes

with the infield in I want to swing away and make them pay. That was a triple play waiting to happen.

I'm all for Buxton bunting as much as possible because he turns sacrifices into hits

Hate the guy but at this point no reason not to trade for Pierzinski unless somehow you can get someone better. Would prefer a .260+ hitter with average or better defense, but a bat at that position would be a huge plus.

I was trying to look up other contenders and couldn't find anyone who would make it difficult for sano. .270 and 20 hr's might do it given all the extra rbis he already has. I'd bet on the over on both those #'s.

If he plays above average at 3rd easily a superstar, if he's mostly a dh/1st base he's gonna need to keep these type of #s up for a full year, maybe it won't happen next year but I have a tough time saying he won't have a 40+ hr year at some point in the next 3 or 4 years. Guys like him make you forget how hard this game usually is.

When ou have 10 HR's in 145 at bats isn't your BABIP going to be significantly higher then even someone with 6 or 7? Thats an extra .020+ points over a solid power hitter.

The triples are probably a fluke and to the extent they improve his slugging percentage that will regress, that and a slightly lower batting average could look like a significant regression, but it wouldn't be.

It's been a while time to update my evaluation of the field. First the Democrats while I see an opening for Sanders I can't imagine someone like Biden not taking it, I put his chances at around 2%, It's really hard to say what will happen with Clinton. My gut tells me Democrats don't make the mistake of going with her when other options exist so I put her at about 40%, while I think that leaves it for Biden Warren or someone like that you can't overlook Martin O'Malley, I'm going a hair over Sanders at 3%. It feels as if Biden wants it most so I'll go 30% for him 20% for Warren and 5% for everyone else. On the Republican side a lot has developed and yet next to not much is clear. One things for certain despite leading most polls the term Front runner in regards to Trump is mostly driven by Democrats. Mote then 50% of Republican voters HATE him, and not the I will never vote for Jeb type thing. Either the guy is an idiot or he knows exactly what he's doing and that would be destroying the image of the Republican party further either option leaves him undeserving of any consideration for the nomination. I'm trying to come up with a reason to go 5% or something but when a solid majority of the party hates you it's a clear 0%. Trump hurts the candidates who want to run out the clock so despite fearing Bush would benefit I now feel Trump hurts him still I have to give him a solid 20% shot. The other clear frontrunners are Rubio and Cruz. Cruz is where the tea party support will end up as the field clears, the #s of Paul Carson and to some extent Trump suggest the Tea Party might have the advantage I'm going 30% Rubio is the solid all around safe option but currently is lagging in the polls I'd go 30% if he was polling higher but for now 20%. It's tough to figure out who else has any advantage, the media wants Kaisich that might be good for 10% I guess I have to give the remaining 20% to the field.

. I'd love to know what the polls would show if biden Warren or even a lesser Amy klobuchar type was in the race from the start. My guess is they would already be leading.

let's just assume the Republicans don't give you the candidate you want. The situation Clinton appears to be in isn't worthy of any discussion? I get if things go the way they might you would just vote biden, but this clearly isnt a republican witch hunt and yet nobody seems to care.

Not that I really care how it turns out, but it's kind of odd nobody has anything to say about Hillary Clinton. Must be really nice to be a Democrat.

Here's the problem cooperation are and always will be profit maximizers (not a bad thing). Change the rules of the game and they will play differently. A large # of these employees have no chance if the wage is increased at more then inflationary levels. Beyond that I want our 16 and 17 year olds of average to slightly below average potential to get and keep that first job. I really think this issue is all about pandering. If there is a perfect minimum wage that would benefit everyone then vote it into law and tie it to inflation.

So raising minimum wage at a rate that lags behind inflation is what? Even this $15 stuff is delayed so far out and has so many exceptions that it doesn't keep up with the historic inflation adjusted high. That more then social issues seems to be the line of attack this cycle. Most economic theory suggests its a bad idea but if Democrats want to disagree they should be bold and go close to $20 an hour. I think sometimes we confuse the lack of support of bad ideas as a lack of carrying about the issue. If it was so easy to come up with better ideas it wouldn't be just the Republicans we would be demanding do better. Status que tends to be the best option more often then not.

part of running for president is marketing yourself to the target audience. Being a former governor on its own isn't enough to be considered a top contender. Raise some money create your own media and the polls will prove you exist. It doesn't matter if you're Jon huntsman Tim pawlenty or Martin o malley if your not prepared to win an election you will be ignored.

huge difference between pandering when discussing issues, and pandering by voting for policy you know doesn't work.

It's a balancing act. For the most part I want republican candidates who understand which issues will impact us and which won't. A strong vocal stance on either side of the marriage issue is bad for Republicans. There will be a time soon when it will be OK to vocally support it but by that time it will clearly be over as a relevant issue anyways. The bigger problem I see is the inability of candidates to sell good economic ideas. It's hard to teach an economics course in short spurts but there is an easy way to prove the other side panders first and worries about results as an afterthought.

For a sure thing maybe, but he seems like Carlos Gomez without the additude and with a work ethic plus a little better all around. We have a spot for him that improves every aspect of the team unlike the sano situation where we because of mauer are giving up the chance to give other guys a chance to dh and rest a little.

A couple wins and suddenly I have a little hope again. The kind of guys the twins continue to need should be able to get to the twins and through waivers, and with no bidding war the price might be right. Why not turn that 5% shot at a wild card into 10%

No mention of Roddy Piper, usually enough random wrestlers make people's lists that someone as big as him would be on a list or two. Also while no confirmation it's terminal it was announced Jimmy Carter has cancer that has spread beyond the liver. Ex presidents are paid days off for a lot of us government workers.