Mr. Brooks

According to Doogie on 1500 Friday, Antony and Pohlad had been practically begging Terry to expand several departments within the FO for some time now, and he refused, saying more people were not necessary. And, while they have played it down publicly, Levine and Falvey were in disbelief at how small some of the departments were when they got here. Terry Ryan could not be part of the evaluation going forward. His views on running a FO are too antiquated.

Is one of those tools throwing a football? I don't even think Mitch knows where the ball will end up half the time. It's downright cringe worthy. QB? No chance. I could see him catching onto a practice squad as an H-back maybe. Which is where he should be playing in college as well.

Looks like Trump has pegged Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. This doesn't do much to quell the racist "stereotype" surrounding Trump. Would you agree with that diehard?

We can only hope that prediction doesn't follow through to the end.

300 PA's by the trade deadline is pretty close to a full time player. He won't get that platooning with Joe. That means he's full time DH against righties. Has Plouffe ever hit well enough to have value at DH? Will he bring back enough that you are willing to move on from Vargas? Because that leaves almost no PA's for Vargas. I know some here probably would. I still want to see more from Vargas, so I'd just say no to Plouffe.

I agree. And I live in a rural area. One person, one vote. In addition to the popular vote, we should have ranked choice voting. That would give people much more comfort voting third party. We also need more voting precincts. I'm reading about precincts where people are waiting 2+ hours in line. That is unacceptable. We also need to work towards making online voting secure, that will give more voters access. All states should also allow mail in ballots. All citizens should also be automatically registered upon turning 18. There was a lawmaker down south somewhere, who actually made the argument that Americans shouldn't just automatically have the right to vote just for turning 18! Think about that. He said that out loud. In real life, not an SNL skit. Amazing that people want to make voting harder. Embarrassing. There are so many improvements that we can make to the voting process.

There are people here who can answer pretty definitively, and I hope we hear from them, but I think Garver has already surpassed average as a receiver. I don't know why you assume they will want the absolute best defensive catcher with zero regard for a bat. You should always look at the balance between bat and defense. They (Cleveland) did try to get a catcher at the deadline, and couldn't make a deal. As for not wanting Suzuki. One, none of us know if they made an offer. And two, Suzuki might have been the worst defensive catcher since LeCroy last year, so not wanting Suzuki doesn't automatically mean they won't accept anything less than A+ defensively. It could just mean that they at least want C+ or something defensively. Also, after last year, I don't think Turner is even so much as an afterthought at this point. He won't be added to the 40 man, and Seth didn't even have him in his top 30 prospects. Turner is not an option next year. If your theory is get the best defender regardless of any minimum standard with the bat, then I think they would just bring Butera in on a 1 year deal.

I might agree in theory. But, Molitor has proven with his actions that he plays his veterans if they are healthy. His recent words in the Strib seem to suggest he has no patience for FO giving lineup input. I fear that if Plouffe is on the roster, he'll play everyday. Unless he's hurt, but if he's hurt then he's not going to be tradable anyways.

Basing an opinion on his Molitor's) actually in game actions is not an assumption at all. Molitor can say whatever he wants, his actions don't indicate someone who uses any analytics. Funny how when someone in the organization says something that the forum in general won't like (such as Pohlad demanding Molitor stay), it's "oh he has to say that, he's lying, don't get worked up over what they say, see what they do. " But when they say something that we'd consider good, despite actions being the complete opposite, we should believe the words? EDIT: I want to be clear I'm not calling you a hypocrite. That comparison was to a segment of the forum in general, not you or anyone else specifically.

Can I ask what you are using to base your opinion of Garver on? It's my understanding that he's pretty solid defensively.

I think Polanco will have a better bat than Gordon, and probably by a lot. So I'm not sure why Gordon over Polanco at 2B. Just my opinion though. Some people think Gordon has the tools to hit better than he's shown.

Well that depends on which of Obama's executive orders Trump considers unconstitutional. There are specific orders that protect trans people and some that protect gay marriage rights. Also, not on this list, but something he promised while campaigning, was that he would nominate only staunchly pro life judges. I have seen some in here say that Roe v Wade will never be overturned. I don't know why you would assume that, but for argument let's assume that. The Republican party has shown there are other ways to effectively make abortion illegal at the state level, only to be narrowly rebuked by the Supreme Court. Now, Scalia's successor won't change that, but there is a good chance Trump gets to replace Ginsberg as well. When you say, "listen to what is actually said", why does that not include the things Trump actually said while campaigning? It's a genuine question, not a gotcha question, because I hear that a lot from people who voted Trump. "We don't know if he actually means this stuff." And yes, I realize that some is/was taken out of context. I thought the way the media cropped what he said about veterans with PTSD was absolutely despicable, and anyone who did that should never work in news again.

And just in case anyone wants a reason for their stomach to turn, and I swear this isn't from The Onion (though it should be). A couple of early cabinet considerations at this point: Secretary of the interior: Sarah Palin Secretary of Education: Ben Carson Yikes! Elections have consequences indeed.

Another game the Gophers easily win with even an average QB. They'd be 10-0 right now, if they didn't have to try to overcome their terrible 5th year senior QB every week. Huge stain on the Kill legacy. This schedule was likely our 1 chance to win the Big10.

Fair enough, but a year ago, the Twins had a pretty deep pipeline. So I think my point stands. Also, Gonsalves just had his "prove it" season. If he was at this point in his development a year ago, he'd have been higher than #8.

Except there is no way that your average rural American likes Donald Trump the person. At least, I have to believe that or we are truly doomed. I don't think it is about the person OR the platform, so much as the message. The Democrats have completely abandoned their base. LGBT rights are extremely important, but that isn't the base. Protecting minorities and Muslims is important, and necessary. But again, not the base. The base of the DFL has always been the white working class. I reluctantly voted for Hillary. Donald was never an option for me. He crossed lines, that to me could never be overlooked. But, I live in rural America, and I know several people who voted for Trump. Only one of these people, and I know most of them quite well, would I consider to be a racist, or sexist, or xenophobe. My brother voted for Trump, and he is one of the most compassionate, respectful, open minded people I've ever known. His reason was the inverse of mine. Hillary was simply not an option to him, so he held his nose and voted for Trump. I agree with you that this election was not winnable for Hillary, but I don't agree that it was unwinnable for the Dems. Trump tapped into a sector of the country that has felt ignored, condescended, and looked down upon for quite a while now. People will follow almost anyone if they feel it's their only hope. Those on the left (not you Levi) who want to insist that close to half the country is racist, sexist, xenophobic, whatever, and that is why Trump was elected need to wake up. I'm not saying anyone here feels that way, but some might, and in reading and watching the news outlets, most of those same out of touch elites still are. If they go down that path, we might never recover from this. Talking down to people, judging people, generalizing people, all that does is further galvanize them in their F you stance. The good news for Dems is that if us, and the planet can survive these next four years, then they have a chance to come out of this stronger than ever. But if that is to happen, they need to completely change the way the party as a whole, and people associated with the party (Hollywood, msnbc, huff post, etc.) treat, and speak of this sector of people. When a white, working class American turns on cable news, they don't see any representation of them. None, ever. Not even a squeak. When they read an article on buzzfeed, or HuffPost, or Slate, or name your favorite liberal newsfeed, they don't read anything speaking for them. Every article or story is BLM, or trans rights, or immigration issues, or the war on women. And I believe that this sector of people are sympathetic to those causes. But they also think they face problems too, can't one or two articles speak for them occasionally? Trump is an awful human, even those I spoke to who voted for him think as much. But he made these people feel like he is on their side, like he has their back. And, that is a powerful feeling. We all know it's BS, he isn't capable of having anyone's back but his own. But it's hard to see that when you feel ignored, and looked down on by half the country. Many people will say that it was selfish and short sighted to vote for Trump. That, I can agree with. I even told my brother, if this man leads this country into a dark place - nuclear war, irreversible climate damage, rounding up of Mexican immigrants, reversal of LGBT rights, violent or oppressive treatment of Muslims, a war on women, anything like that- then he's going to have blood on his hands. Nobody will be able to say they didn't see it coming. My brother says he rolled the dice that his words are just campaign bluster and negotiating tactics. But if he's wrong, after the things Trump has said and done, there is literally no place that Trump can lead us that his supporters can claim couldn't have been predicted. That accountability, I think is fair. Judging, and insulting the half of Americans who voted for him, that is not fair, or at least is not helpful. Sorry for the long post, I've read every word in this thread over the last 4 days. It's taken me 13 hours to do so and I've observed a lot throughout the thread. I thought it was great. A lot of logical, intelligent, almost entirely civil debate. Thank you all for that. Oh, and finally, Levi you crushed this thread. That is why I quoted you. Not just on your foresight of the issues that kept Trump in, and ultimately delivered him the win, but also on the other subtopics as well. Particularly gun control. Well done sir!

A team would have to have a pretty dang loaded pipeline if their #8 prospect became a mid rotation starter. For perspective, that is likely Gonsalves (your #1) CEILING.

Firing Terry Ryan seems like a huge waste of time if this is the plan. I don't see how anyone can think this team is Soto and Tejada away from a World Series run.

Jacque Jones and Butch Wynegar are names to watch for hitting coach huh? I hope that is Beradino speculation, and not inside information. I was hoping this insistence on Twins connections was going to be over now.

Yeah I agree to a degree about the rankings. I've said in some of the trade Dozier and/or Erv threads that I think rankings are overrated. But, there is a reason why Alabama and Ohio State, etc. are always in the national title conversation, and they aren't passing on 4 or 5 star recruits.

I agree there can be a bias, but using the tiny sample of AFL stats tells us absolutely nothing.

A couple of additional thoughts on my stance. 1) Keep in mind they also get a per diem, of $96 per day- there are millions of workers who make less than that in base pay. That doesn't include lodging reimbursement for outstate legislators, which is up to $1200 per month. That works out to an additional pay of up to 16k per year in 2015. Leadership positions also pay bonuses of up to 12k per year. It blows my mind that we live in a society where this is considered potentially underpaid for 4 months of work. Perhaps that is why there is such a sharp divide between classes in this country right now. 2) I'd consider making it a full time position- and having the pay reflect that, if the compromise was stiff term limits, and a lifetime ban on lobbying. I'm very wary of career politicians. Now, maybe I'm naive and there really are no qualified people who are willing to serve the public without needing to get rich from it. If that's true then we are doomed, so I choose not to belive that.

I think we might have unrealistic expectations of Garver at this point. If he projected as a catcher with good defense and an above average bat, wouldn't be be a top 100 prospect? That doesn't mean he can't, of course, many prospects go on to outperform their projections, but I don't think he's a guy we should worry about blocking. He's not a Joe Mauer, or even Wilson Ramos level prospect.

Teachers are not elected officials, though I understand your point.

Do these people currently not have regular careers? I'm assuming most, if not all do. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm sorry if I am.