Mike Sixel

Amen, preach it. This 100+ loss team just got older, and it's FO and manager spent the whole year trying to get even older and talking about veterans. Not once did we hear about young players and hope for the future. Until they decide to just roll with the youth, and they turn out good (or bad, but at least you know), this team will continue to be bad or maybe mediocre.

That's what everyone said last year, and here we are, and he's back in AAA. At some point, it actually does become a trend .... that some teams just refuse to go young and rebuild, and think staying mediocre is more important.

why? I mean, other than he's been here, if he's not good enough for them, why in MN? If he'll go to the minors (and really, why would he at this point), sure, why not.

I'm sorry, but the market won't be price sensitive (something I've argued with our product and network strategists about, to little avail). 1. Less than 30% of US adults have a college education. You want them to argue with docs about procedures? You want them to shop around for the best deal, or the best healthcare? 2. This isn't an elastic product. It also is just the opposite, as the need/cost escalates, we need the product more. When we actually need the product, it is most expensive, and you can't just decide to not take drugs and be healthy if you need them. 3. This isn't some optional thing, like cheetos or twinkies. We can't just decide not to do it. 4. Because it effects everyone, because it is so expensive, and because it is unpredictable, we need to share the costs. That means healthy people will be annoyed they aren't getting their money's worth, and sick people will constantly be fighting to get everything they need (because the healthy people don't want their money wasted). This creates HORRIBLE incentives for every single party in the transaction.

You've all convinced me not to watch it. Of course, I haven't watched any of the Netflix series about heroes....I'm struggling enjoying shows where there is no tension, in that hte good guys are immortal and unharmable, basically.

I am going to start by saying I work for the largest insurance company in the US, and these thoughts are mine, and in no way endorsed by them. 1. Ya, well, prices aren't going up because of insurance companies. We take the costs, mark them up, and pass them on. costs are going up because people are living longer, drug costs are going up, and providers (docs and hospitals) have no interest in controlling costs at all as they consolidate and drive up the cost of care (they also have to pay for all that fancy equipment they buy). Seriously, yes, we make a bleep ton of money, but we make it by marking up escalating costs, not by escalating the costs. 2. Yes, if you cut insurance companies out, you'd cut some profit out. But, hey, MN only allows non-profit insurers (irony, given who is HQ there and supplies yuge numbers of jobs there), are the costs there any lower than neighboring states? I think not. Why? Because all insurance companies do is mark up the rising cost of care for a profit. While that might seem wrong/bad/evil, we do offer some important services (especially to those that don't get much healthcare, and done come from a background where it was important), and while I don't love all of what we do, I think we do add value. 3. Selling across state lines is nonsense. There are huge barriers to entry in insurance, there just aren't that many (any?) companies out there that don't sell where they want to sell. Also, since the states regulate the benefits in plans, how would that work? Can insurers that cross ignore those? If not, then it is just, um, nothing. States will let anyone that is solvent sell in their state, as long as they provide legal benefits (nearly anyone, I used to be in regulation). I would endorse the following, until we can get single payer: a. Universal catastrophic insurance, pick a threshold, the government sponsored insurance pays it all. b: An account is created the day you are born (if already alive, it phases in for all of us over time) where the government puts 2-5K a year. That money is invested in the markets, and you can use it to cover education and medical expenses only (until some later time, when you can take out some profit but not principle). This is funded by cutting out various subsidies (including medicaid and medicare over time, but mostly for companies). I ran the numbers on this 30 or so year ago, and it worked then. Given our love of corporate welfare, it probably works even better now. c: Even under this or single payer, there will be private insurance. People will want more. Also, a company like ours will probably run parts of the system. This stuff is infinitely more complex than most anyone can imagine.

There was recently an article on ESPN that teams that commit to rebuilding get better faster than teams that just keep trying to stay mediocre. Also, attendance is not helped by not rebuilding.

Seriously? They've quoted him several times, and provided links.

Not one pitcher, no. I would roll the dice on both Sano and Buxton, but it won't be happening. Both had down years, they'll be betting on themselves.

Is surdyk's reopened?

Well, we are moving in a week (across town), so I'm trying to finish some bottles so I have less to pack! Last night I finished the white port. Tonight I'm guessing beer.... We have almost no packing done, hoping to somehow finish a lot tonight, so I can do this tomorrow: http://www.saraveza.com/site/comments/portland_farmhouse_wild_ale_festival/ some of my favorites will be there.

did she ever get a better picture for your date, Van?

Group shot or it isn't real. Just sayin'

You know, if alexa had a Twins Daily skill, I could post a lot faster....Brock?

You and Chief hanging out together? He's there, right? speaking of nonsense. hm, I got nothing I guess. Maybe when I get home and drink some inspiration...

IMO, the best true hitters hit the ball hard, with elevation, and aren't worried about faking the bunt. Or even trying one.

Just curios, do you think you spend more time with scouts, FO people, and players, or do you think KLAW does? I mean, we both know the answer. We also both know there is a lot of history in this sport around racism. In the context of both of those things, I'll listen to him on this.

A big one: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/do-the-twins-already-have-a-budding-ace/

even in a world where stats don't matter, that's just bad.

really? Huh. snark aside, we are talking about their plan for the year, right? People keep saying I should "expect" 3-4 different starters, as they trade off players and just cut some. I'm asking if any team has really planned to basically do that, as opposed to occasionally replace injured players for 3-7 starts.

I too found it odd.

It should be pretty clear that I said...promote. What young player have they added, that wasn't on the roster? edit: Indeed, with Chargois and Berrios probably not on the roster, and JRM probably not, I think they've actually reduced the amount of young players, but we won't know for another week or so.

Pitching inside =/= intentionally throwing at someone in retaliation for having hurt feelings.

In specific, I agree. In general, this team is SOL if they refuse to promote youth in principle. Given their talk and actions, I'm still waiting.

:19 Insano in the Membrane: How much of a difference in team K% over the course of a season can be expected by replacing a sub average pitch framing catcher with an above average option? (Cough Twins Cough) 9:20 Jeff Sullivan: Probably something in the vicinity of 1%. Would be worth a quick study. You’d also have a little drop in walk rate. Small differences over a large sample of time