Mr. Brooks

I thought players wanted to win? Wouldn't giving him a chance to win be a favorable look to free agents?

The Twins got a one time $50 million payment this year, half of revenue goes to payroll. That is why they spent $25 million more than usual this year. I'd b expect it to be back down to the $105 million range next year.

While nobody can say, I expect Lewis to debut in September next year.

But they aren't all consensus top 100 prospects. All 3 get on some, don't make the cut on others. And they are all towards the bottom of the top 100 when they do. Miami will want at least one top 30'ish prospect to start, then negotiate the remaining pieces from there. I doubt there is any dialogue that doesn't include Royce Lewis. Lucroy brought 2 top 50 prospects, with 1 less year of team control, I believe.

Also, when did liberals do a complete 180 on the belief in open dialogue. The belief that you win arguments by being right, just and fair. Not by shouting down speech and shaming people? It has to stop. It used to be a tenet of liberalism, what happened? Some people are open to evolving their beliefs, and are genuinely seeking dialogue, to express why they feel what they feel, and looking for other viewpoints. Until they've been shouted down and shamed, that is. They won't try that again. Genuinely hateful speech should be countered. But it can be countered with facts. Not for the benefit of the person giving the hateful speech of course, but everyone listening to it is someone who may need to hear the factual, reasoned rebuttal. That chance is lost once they are silenced and shamed. Mansplaining, cultural appropriation, etc. How did this happen? Edit: Just want to be clear this isn't directed at anyone in here, I don't think. But this is becoming a big problem on the left.

Sorry Mike, I meant to answer this right away, but I was at work, and distracted. I wanted to wait until I could focus, as i find this complicated and multi layered. I imagine there are different variables at play in different regions, as not all rural areas are the same. So, I'll stick to the area and people that I know personally, for this specific post. But I think the general sentiment applies in most areas, except perhaps the deep south, for obvious reasons. I grew up in a mostly rural county. It's technically metro, as it's part of the 7 county metro around mpls/stp, but really it's mostly rural. After school, I lived in urban areas, and then moved back to my home county several years ago. So I do have some experience living in both types of areas. The county I live in, went something like 81% Trump. But, it also went to Obama at least once, the other one might have, it was basically 50/50. So let's consider what the hell happened there? Did they all become racists? Not likely. Let's first get out of the way, and agree, that those people exist. I'm close to one, unfortunately. My mother in law used to be the most open minded, open hearted, compassionate, empathetic person I knew. I genuinely looked up to her. Then, she met her second husband, and over the years has changed dramatically. She's naive, and gullible, and she's been sucked into a bubble that is unrecognizable. She's racist, homophobic, and xenophobic. It's caused a lot of tension. I don't allow my kids to sleep over at her house, and very nearly cut her off from them completely, when she told them that all muslims hate us and want to kill us. Try explaining to your kids why they can't stay at grandma's, because she's racist and hateful. It's heartbreaking. But, I've found that those people are in the vast minority. And, I've also met people like that in the city. From my experience, those people are fringe, and aren't more measurable in rural areas than cities. Where rural voters are vulnerable though, and able to be exploited, is their lack of connection to all types of people. Yes, rural areas are more homogeneous than urban areas. And it's harder to feel empathy without connection. When a white guy in the city sees cops harassing a black person for no reason, they realize that could be their neighbor, or co worker, or the guy the bs'd with about sports at the bar. They've seen it happen to people that they've already established a connection with. When a white guy in a rural area sees that on TV, they might not have the same reaction. They might not have ever known anyone who was harassed for no reason by the cops. This isn't racism. It's a lack of connection. It's frustrating. I'm not trying to defend that type of thinking. But that person isn't some deplorable, irredeemable person. We need to not abandon the people in these areas. We need to not toss them aside as lost cause, racist Trump supporters. They can be connected with. It takes respectful, continuing dialogue. And it has to come from a place of genuine respect. I've discussed these types of issues with my family for years. At first they see things a certain way, but it's because they haven't had experience with certain issues, not because they are hateful or closed minded. My biggest issue that I'm passionate about is the disgusting act of throwing so much of our population in prison, the vast majority of whom don't belong there. It's a branched issue, because it just compounds into so many other issues, when you break up families and neighborhoods that way. When I first became passionate about this issue, it was hard to discuss with family members. In an almost exclusively white county, they just hadn't ever experienced, or even known anyone who had, the type of systemic profiling that is at the root of the issue. But over time, as I've presented facts rather than heated emotion, I've been able to open their eyes to what is really going on. But if I'd initially just called them racists who only care about themselves, they'd have shut me out, and I'd have lost my factual argument. It's a lack of connection that causes those types of issues to rank very low on rural voters lists of issues. It's not because they are racist and hateful. They aren't voting for Trump BECAUSE he's a hateful, racist, sexist person. They voted for him despite those things. Why? I think that lack of connection, which makes progressive issues low on their list of priorities, is exploitable to someone like Trump. People are desperate. Jobs and wages haven't recovered in these areas. Overall, our economy has, but not across the board. The types of jobs that exist in their world, are paying the same wages they did 15 years ago. Meanwhile, all the things that lower middle class people spend their money on, have risen in cost. You may have seen news on the recent study showing there is a suicide epidemic among farmers. They are killing themselves at 8.5 times the national average. There is also an opioid epidemic in rural America. People are desperate. The way of life is quite different in rural areas. People hunt, people fish, people have bonfires, eat a lot of red meat, and drive pickups. The Republicans have convinced them that liberals are coming for their guns, that PETA doesn't want them to fish, that liberals hate their diet and bonfires and pickups because of climate change. We know this isn't true, but we don't take the time reaching out to them to assure them that these things aren't true. Meanwhile, the Republicans hammer these points at every opportunity. So now they are desperate and scared. Deep down they know Trump doesn't have their back. But he says he does. He says he has their back all the time. The liberals don't. The left will likely actually benefit them more, but they don't get that message. The only time they see liberals talk about them, is when they are being condescended and discarded. Or, maybe they're not. But it looks like they are, the right has them paranoid and desperate and scared. It's not very hard to get a paranoid, desperate, scared person to vote for you, if you manipulate them while the other side ignores them. I truly honestly don't meet or know many people who voted for Trump because of any amount of bigotry or hate that they have. A few, yes, but very few. And I'm surrounded by Trump voters. Mostly, I talk to people who are embarrassed that they voted for him. It was a desperation, hail Mary, because they are scared and desperate, and what if Trump really does have my back, they think. It's my only hope, they were convinced. Progressive issues just aren't on their radar. Not because they don't want equality. It's because they don't experience inequality, and many have never known anyone who has. But they all know someone who has lost a job, or is struggling to pay a mortgage and kids in college, and rising food and fuel costs. They are connected to those issues. Many of these areas have been blue, or at least competitive before. They didn't suddenly become awful people. Please don't give up on these areas. It will backfire. They can be reached. They know right and wrong. We need to connect with them. As much as we'd like everyone to be progressive, we need to understand that there are more important issues in some areas. That doesn't mean we abandon our principles, it just means we don't shove them down their throats. We show them why our policies benefit the issues that ARE important to them. They may not vote blue because of progressive issues, but I truly don't believe that they are turned away by them either. Try to consider all the issues on their minds, rather than the easy route of dismissing them as racists because they voted for a racist. Bernie Sanders was very popular in my county. The county that voted for Trump at 81%! They were desperate for someone to connect with them. Unfortunately, it was Trump who did so more than Hillary. I've seen people in this thread who think we should dismiss these areas as a lost cause. Have seen the same at times in the media. I urge you to please reconsider. They are not a lost cause, I know it, please do not give up on them.

But both sides think they are the noble ones. Always have, always will. Even the Nazi's thought they were in the right. Every ploy just escalates back and forth, with both sides justifying it with the belief that they are in the right, and that the other side started it. It's not sustainable.

As someone who grew up in rural America, it's so incredibly lazy and insulting, to me, to say that Dems lose the rural vote because rural voters are racist and sexist. Dems used to compete in rural areas, even recently enough while they were advocating for equal rights and treatment. In areas where their message resonated, such as mining, industrial, and farming areas, they even dominated. Until the left stops lumping them all together as stupid, racists and undesirables, the left is never getting them back. Nobody likes being spoken down to, and discarded, and people will cut off their own noses to spite their faces if you insult them enough. Messaging matters. The Republicans don't help rural working class people, but they also don't ignore them and insult them. Unless there is a deliberate, pointed attempt to tell rural voters that they matter, Trump will win again in 2020.

This whole conversation literally started with someone asking, maybe this is how we can stonewall Trump's appointment. Why is it ok to stonewall his appointments, but it's wrong for them to stonewall Obama's? It's wrong for both. Trump is awful. The Republicans are mostly awful these days. Trump's appointment is going to be awful. We're all screwed. But elections have consequences. Trump won. Obama should have gotten to pick Scalia's replacement. Trump gets to pick Kennedy's.

Agreed. If we get to a point where shenanigans like that are the only way to win, then I'm not sure we're worth saving anymore.

A loss tonight puts the Twins closer to the White Sox than the Indians. Are they mathematically eliminated? No, but neither are the Royals. This isn't a contender. We have the 10th worst record in baseball. Being in a terrible division doesn't change that.

I don't think Gordon, Gonsalves and Kiriloff is even a starting point for Realmuto, let alone enough.

Ok, well if those rankings are accurate, then yeah I guess that's probably the right place. Some of those guys are 3-4 linebackers as well, which moves Hunter up even higher for just his position.

Vernon had the exact same sack total the previous 3 years before he signed his contract. Why did he have less sack cred? Maybe your right. He just doesn't feel like a top 7 DE right now. Perhaps 8.5 sacks is more than it used to be. Where does that total rank over the last 3 years?

Franchise tagging a guy is a lot different than a 5 year contract.

I think on some level we all knew it was only a matter of time.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. What I do know is that the Republicans tread into mockery and disgusting behavior has turned me from an independent who voted close to 50/50 into one who has voted almost exclusively democratic the last decade almost. If the Democrats join them, they will lose my vote. I will either not vote, or I will vote third party, which most often will steal votes from Democrats. I have to imagine there are other like minded independent voters out there.

Where did the article suggest ditching Sano?

Agree to disagree, I guess. Cousins has way more track record, both in duration and accomplishments. Hunter has averaged 8.5 sacks per year. Solid, nowhere near exceptional. This contract is for potential, not career to date results, IMO.

For the record I'm an Independent, so I don't have a party. Though I certainly lean left both in my beliefs and in my opinion of the state of the two parties at this time. While I agree that the left often plays too nice, and needs to fight fire with fire more often, I'm just not sure I'm ok going that far. There are political manipulations, and then there is just plain making a mockery of the government. And while I'll certainly concede that the right has already crossed the line into Mockeryville, I'm not sure we can recover if both sides do.

$18 million per would make him the highest paid defensive end in football, by a lot. I don't understand how you can think someone makes him the highest paid DE in all of football. Even this contract makes him the 7th highest paid DE in football. Can anyone present a statistical argument that he's a top 7 DE in the league right now? Not a youth/potential based argument. I've acknowledged that he's worth that if he hits his enormous potential. Hurries are certainly nice, better than a clean pocket, but not nearly as valuable as a sack. Being hurried into an incompletion is certainly a win for the defense, but it's not the catastrophic drive killer that a sack is.

Is that what we want to turn our Senate into though? I certainly don't, not even if it benefits my beliefs.

The charges he pleaded guilty to are detailed in the SI report. I won't post them here because they are graphic, but penetration was specifically involved.

But the people I'm addressing aren't arguing that he innocent. They are arguing that he did it, but should be forgiven. He either did it, in which case he's shown no remorse. Or, he didn't do it, in which case there is nothing to be remorseful for. I think it's fair to acknowledge that either of these could be the truth, as I have. I don't think it's fair to combine the two though. It's not possible for it to be some combination of the two. I don't think it's fair to say we can't question his lack of remorse for the thing he pled guilty to doing, just because an alternate scenario where he didn't do it exists. Even though false confessions do exist, these are the things a defendant has to weigh if they decide to plead guilty to something. In addition to the legal ramifications, they also have to accept that they are telling the world that they did it. This isn't a case of improper interrogation methods, or incompetent counsel, as is often the case in false confessions. If he didn't do it, this is a case of a tactical decision that the ramifications of pleading guilty outweigh the ramifications of insisting on the truth. One of those ramifications that he weighed, was that he was telling the world he did it.

Just want to make sure you realize it's 14.4 million per year, and not total, right? He's going to have to hit most of his admittedly high potential for that to be a bargain. He certainly hasn't been worth that much on his promising, but not exceptional performance so far.