Mr. Brooks

Those Target Field numbers were against Twins pitching. Plus, extremely small sample size. They aren't meaningful.

Well Romero isn't going to make the team out of ST. But a strong showing could put him on the radar for a May or June call up.

Sanchez was already added to the 40 man. Trevor May to 60 day DL.

They should have signed Todd Frazier. Bargain of the winter.

Do you think the Wolves can play .500 ball without Butler though? I don't think so, he's the heart and soul of this team. I'd predict 7-13 without him. The schedule is pretty tough the rest of the way.

Of course it's secondary. I don't understand this premise that nothing but the very top of the current priority list can be discussed. It's (this officer) a totally isolated abstract conversation. I get that. I'm also completely capable of discussing multiple things without losing focus on priorities. And I think most people are as well. And I also don't think it's healthy for each angle to insist that only certain parts are worthy of discussion. It just makes people bitter and standoffish. The way to get everyone to work together, IMO, is to say everyone's ideas are important and welcome. Let's talk about EVERYTHING, and see where we can all find common ground, then let's look for compromises on the rest.

I don't dispute that we don't know what would have happened. Not my point. He was supposed to go in. Given what his supervisors have said, I don't see how that's in doubt even a little bit.

They aren't the same thing, but I'd suggest they are more similar than you're allowing. Doesn't matter though, again I'm moving on, it's not constructive unless this becomes more than seemingly one isolated incident. I made a comment on a specific officer. I never suggested it was near the top of any priority list. I think my brain is capable of discussing multiple subjects, without lessening the importance of the higher priorities regarding these shootings. I reject the idea that people can't focus on the larger issues if they also discuss this particular officer.

Hughes can't be effective throwing 85-90.

Even though I think you are at least partially joking, i think lawsuits would be the better avenue. Even if they aren't winning cases, bankrupt them fighting the lawsuits.

Actually, at least one poster is disputing that he should have gone in. And I already stated that I'm moving on from my opinion that he should be held liable. I admitted that it's probably not constructive. Although, I will point out that the military holds people criminally liable if they abandon their duty.

Steamer projects Odorizzi at exactly 1 WAR. Either way, you say they'd be 15th, my immediate guess was about 19th. Not far enough off for me to get worked up about. Still not very good, IMO. But, an improvement.

I'll start by being clear that I think arming teachers is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard in my life. Outside of that though, I think it's going to take a little bit from every column. No one thing is going to be the solution. We need better gun control, but we're too far armed to think we can prevent everyone who might do this from getting their hands on a gun capable of doing it. So that's only part of the solution. We need MUCH better mental health care and prevention. But, again, we'll never be able to treat everyone who needs it, especially if they aren't open to treatment. So, that's only part of the solution. We need better protocol for limiting casualties once the shooting begins. I don't want our kids going to school in a prison. But, I do think we are going to have to make some uncomfortable concessions on this. Perhaps secure entrances with airport type security. Classroom doors that can be made impenetrable in an active shooter situation. Some of this will seem draconian, and it will be expensive. But, it's worth spending the money. We need better monitoring of obvious signs. Often times there aren't any. In this specific case, there were an almost a seemingly obscene amount of red flags. Law enforcement, students, parents, and school staff have to take threats and behavior more serious. Yes, it will lead to many times where it is much ado about nothing, they are kids after all, and kids say stupid things that they don't mean sometime. But when they say those things in combination with a horde of semi automatic weapons, something has to be done. I'm sure there are countless other avenues as well, but mainly I think it will have to be a little bit from every column.

But some are arguing that it was acceptable, some even that it was the best response. We know that in an active shooter scenario, he's supposed to enter. Period. It's bizzare to me that some are implying they know better than his supervisors what he's supposed to do there. I have no problem saying he was wrong, he didn't follow protocol, but he doesn't need to be punished. Perfectly fair take. And, despite my personal opinion, probably the correct one. But some are insisting that he didn't even do anything wrong, despite incredibly obvious statements from his supervisors, and other law enforcement that he didn't do what he was supposed to do. I'd think the best way to fight the NRA on "good guy with a gun" would be to insist that law enforcement handle it. By saying it's acceptable for law enforcement to stand by and do nothing, it just opens the door for the argument that, "if the cops won't do anything, we need to arm teachers and citizens who will." The cop should have gone in. It's unacceptable and disgusting to me that he didn't, and his supervisors have used those same descriptors. I'm moving on from my liability opinion. It's very unlikely, and probably not constructive.

I'm not asking for them to be more aggressive. Again, your implication that I want him to go in and shoot anything that moves is a straw man. His superiors have said he was supposed to go in, I don't understand why some can't accept that they know more than us about what the expected response was.

Well that is a lot of, and some really big if's. I didn't say impossible if everything goes well, I said unlikely.

Nobody thought Odorizzi would require a kings ransom. And that hypothetical offer for Archer isn't even a legitimate starter.

Do teams usually make drastic leaps by adding one replacement level starter, and one 1.5 win starter?

They were, I think 24th-27th last year, depending on the metric. Lynn and Odorizzi combined for 1.4 fWAR last year. How far would that raise them?

I gave examples of other similar scenarios in which people are charged. I have no idea what the punishment would be, I think it usually amounts to similar guidelines as manslaughter, in the case of ship captains. I get he's not going to be charged, probably not even a statue at this time. I gave my opinion, it's clear nobody agrees. I just think we're making an already scary place that we're in right now even more scary by saying it's acceptable for sworn police officers to stand by and do nothing. That's not ok with me.

Well at this time we don't know if their training was a failure, or if they just chose to ignore it.

They are being investigated as well. The sheriff stated that if it's discovered they also failed to act that, "they will be dealt with as well." I'd assume that to mean they'd face similar suspension/ firing as the original officer.

When you belittle people's arguments by comparing the possibility of saving an actual human being's life, someone's child, to a Big Mac, you are not welcoming people to discuss all fronts of the issue. You are just causing people to dig in deeper, and make it impossible for anyone to consider compromise. Please stop using terms like "guns blazing". Entering is actually the acknowledged correct tactic in an active shooter situation. And is what his superiors have said he was supposed to do. Not only them acknowledging that he was supposed to enter, but using terms like "disgusted" , and "heartbreaking" to describe his decision to not enter. Shouldn't those choice of descriptors from his superiors give you some insight into just how obvious it was that he was supposed to enter? You can make your argument without trying to make it sound like it would be some reckless "Rambo" style entrance. These guys train for situations like this. We already have laws that apply liability to passenger crews that abandon ship, and military personnel who desert. So I don't find incredible to suggest that a police officer who chooses to ignore his duty could also be held liable.

I've already said, he should face some liability. I've never argued he should be burned at the stake. We charge passenger ship crew members who abandon ship while people drown. We charge military personnel who flee in a firefight. Not much different, IMO.

The gun lobby has zero to do with this. Police officers are going to be armed, they don't need the gun lobby.