Mr. Brooks

I like to call that being Nolascoed.

That may be true. But, one ace can turn a fringe pretender info a contender. I didn't say it's a must have, I said it could speed the process up by one year.

I think we agree on all but 2 things then. 1) I don't think someone would be stupid to pass on this job. It won't be the only appealing one. 2) I don't think we can be a real contender until 2019. 2018 seems a bit too soon for me without shocking the world and signing or trading for a legit elite ace.

Why Is the bar for Polanco to be a .350 hitter? Was Dozier a .350 milb hitter? I think one could compare Polanco to Dozier at the same age and easily make a case for projecting Polanco to be at least as good as Dozier in a couple of years.

Fair enough, I like but not love our talent. But, please see my edited add regarding ownership.

You said "few will ever be as promising as this one. "IMO that is overrating the talent. I'd say it's more promising than average, but I'm not as convinced that our farm system is much better than average. Even the national experts might be starting to agree as Law dropped us off his top 10 farm systems. Edit to add: And I'd say that if it turns out that ownership is as meddling as I suspect, it turns this job into an instant decline by the best of the best candidates, regardless of all other circumstances. I think you could still get a bright up and coming under the radar guy with a chip on his shoulder, which may turn out ok. But, for Pete's sake the owner is seriously considering making the hire himself (along with St Peter who isn't a baseball guy)! I hope he comes to his senses, but if not holy huge red flag.

1) It seems very homerish to me to say that if someone passes on our job opening they don't deserve a similar job anywhere. 2) I think you VASTLY overrate the talent that we have. I like our future lineup, but that doesn't mean much without starting pitching and I just don't see much of that in the cards for us. Berrios looks like a keeper, but probably not an elite ace. The odds say that only 1 of 3 of Jay/Gonsalves/Stewart will pan out. I don't see any impact talent in our rotation now. Sorry, never believed in Gibby and still don't. 3) I think it's very possible, based on Phil Miller reporting there was a specific disagreement, and Pohlad's comments, that maybe ownership is actually very meddling and Terry has always covered it up. 4) I won't believe that there are not payroll limitations until I see proof otherwise. It just doesn't make any sense that Terry would refuse to sign any elite ace pitching if ownership was begging him to spend more money.

For those referencing other white collar crime. Unfortunately the government is corrupt. It has been since the first caveman took a leadership position, and will be until the end of time. Guys involved in the housing collapse, who committed crimes, deserved very harsh penalties. But, they spent millions, if not billions of dollars lobbying the government. That naturally lead to preferential treatment. I doubt this guy from the Cards scratched anyone in government's back. Sadly, that is how it works.

Why do you keep saying it's not hacking? The official definition of hacking is: Use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system. I admit I'm not an expert so tell me what I'm missing based on that definition of hacking?

The sentence was well within the sentencing guidelines for this crime. It is not cruel or unusual punishment. What he took AFTER the hack is irrelevant, as that component is not what he was charged with. He was charged with the hacking. In our example with the sandwich, it is breaking and entering (not trespassing), regardless of what I steal once I'm in. I might face additional charges based on the value or amount of damage that I do once I'm in, but that still doesn't change the original charge of breaking and entering. Not to mention, that even the sandwich would be burglary, as I would have stolen whatever ingredients i used to make the sandwich. And, who said anything about the punishment being based on how much the investigation or prosecution costs?

So it's less of a crime because the victim didn't do more to protect themselves? The punishment should, at least partially, be based on how hard the criminal had to work to break the law? And why does it matter how "tempting" it was? I imagine that to a bank robber, banks are really tempting, with all that money just lying around, waiting to be stolen. The definition of hacking doesn't change just because someone is a really easy target. Sure, there are degrees of difficulty when it comes to hacking, but either way it's still hacking. Yeah, on the surface, it's just baseball, what's the big deal right? But, this is a very serious crime. And, the silliness that we equate to it because it's just baseball doesn't change that. In the eyes of the law, the reason the target of the hack doesn't, and shouldn't, matter very much. Just like I shouldn't less time if I break into your house and "only" make myself a sandwich. Also, whether the sentence will deter this specific guy from ever doing it again isn't the only consideration. Punishment also has to be a deterrent against future criminals considering attempting the crime. A slap on the wrist does no good in that regard. Lastly, I've seen comparisons to other crimes. It's not that simple. Federal and State prosecutions are completely different. The Feds don't F around. Even the most blatant criminals know not to get messed up in federal jurisdiction. Once they decide to prosecute it's basically over. The feds have something around a 90% conviction rate. They don't lose, and they almost always get the sentence they ask for. It may be imbalanced, and I agree that when compared to some cases of actual physical harm, it seems severe, but if it is your beef should be with the other cases for getting too light of sentences, not with this one.

I hope they reconsider their stance that a GM be hired by the end of the season. That eliminates a pretty large pool of qualified candidates IMO.

And let's not forget that this didn't just happen today. It was announced today, but happened a month ago. These guys have had a month to think about this, and to find qualified people to get advice from, and perusing media guides is the best they got so far! I'd be far more forgiving if this just happened today.

There are a couple of reasons why the statement bothers me. And, I'll start by again pointing out that if he ultimately, SMARTLY, decides to leave the hire up to a qualified person or search firm, then these will both be moot points. 1) Baseball is constantly evolving. Look no further than Terry Ryan. I was a pretty big fan of his work during his first tenure. Sure, he wasn't perfect. He was risk adverse to a fault, and never had what it took to find the final piece or two to put us over the top. But, he got many more decisions right than wrong, and built some pretty good teams. But after just four years away, the game completely passed him by. During his 2nd tenure I think he got almost every decision wrong, and looked borderline incompetent at times, which is still amazing to me, considering how long he's been around and how much he knows. That right there is how brutally cold blooded this game can be in passing you by. My point? I don't want the Twins comparing FO structures from around the league trying to figure out who they should emulate. I want someone smart and innovative leading with a vision. I want other teams trying to emulate our structure! 2) Sure, there are a few different ways that mlb front offices are structured, but it's not like there are dozens. I wouldn't fault an average Joe for being curious and checking media guides to see how other organizations are structured. But the guy making the call on our next GM? I would expect that person to have a pretty intimate idea of how other organizations are structured, and a pretty good idea of how he wants to structure ours. Or, absent that knowledge, I'd want them to at least have an actual person who does have intimate knowledge of how those organizations are structured, and more importantly the context to know WHY those organizations are structured that way. Just the fact that he is consulting media guides for this kind of important stuff should have been a wake up call to realize, " wow, I'm in way over my head thinking me and Dave st. Peter can get this hire right." I mean I've heard rumors that the Twins have an analytical guy in the front office. If so, wouldn't he be the guy to consult over some general information in a media guide?

It's only no improvement if he actually means what he said. If he's lying, then it doesn't offer any clarity to the players, it only insults them by treating them like children.

I understand the general, vague "vote of confidence". I think it's pointless, because when everyone can see that its hollow, then it doesn't actually serve the purpose that it's supposed to. But, there are a million different ways to phrase something like that while being vague enough to keep your options open. Pohlad chose not to do that. He made an absolute statement. He left zero wiggle room. He may well change his mind later, and I hope he does, but at this moment I really believe he meant what he said. I just don't think you use such absolute terms otherwise.

For the record, I'm not necessarily opposed to Mollie getting a chance at a 3rd season, although he wouldn't be my choice. But, I want the new GM making that call, not the owner.

I gave a sample statement earlier in the thread that wouldn't have left him hanging in the wind, while simultaneously not declaring in absolutes that the GM will not be allowed to replace him. What would have been wrong with a statement like that? And most of those hollow votes of confidence are vague, along the lines of, "at this point we are not considering a change." Something like that leaves wiggle room to later make the change without completely contradicting their previous statement. That is a whole lot different than flat out saying the new GM will not be allowed to replace him.

Either he means what he said, which is bizarre and incompetent to the point that I don't believe this team has a snowballs chance in hell so long as he owns the team. Or, it's purely lip service, to which I ask who does that serve? If everyone knows that it's likely a hollow endorsement, then why even say it? Because if it's that obvious to people here, then surely Mollie and the players can figure that out as well, right? I'm just asking someone to explain that part to me, that's all.

I also don't understand the argument that the players need to know their manager has job security in order to play their best. If it's high school or college, sure, but aren't these guys supposed to be professional? Is it that much to ask, in exchange for generational life changing money that they give their best effort every day, regardless of whether they know for sure their manager will be back next year? And how many years is the cutoff? Can they give their best effort without a guarantee that Mollie will be back in 2018? What about 2019? How many years does the owner have to guarantee before the players can no longer concentrate?

So it's the players that are too stupid to recognize that it might be empty lip service?

The media guide comment has nothing to do with PR, to me. It shows where his thought process is regarding how a mlb front office is built, as if teams print the secret formula for success in their media guide. If he brings in outside consulting, then yes, it will likely all be moot. But, Phil Mackey makes it sound like it's 2 of the Pohlads and St Peter who will be looking at candidates and making the hire. If that is the case, then Pohlad's view and statements are very relevant.

Where is the camera?

Sorry, Pohlad said you can't for fire Molitor.

Bert would immediately release any player with more than 2 vowels in their name.