Shane Wahl

Aha, so Twins Twerp is the TT known on various Twins sites. The Granny Baseball guy? If not, the coincidence is astounding.

Doesn't seem like it's really the point. It's comparative advantage. Is it worth it to give up .74 OPS in exchange for the potentially far more impactful starting pitching we could get in return for Span? Yup. Don't compare the wrong things. We're not talking about giving up Span because we don't like him. Im just quoting your post Charger... cuz I thought it was great. Shane... I'd love to have both Revere and Span. I like them both going forward. It's pitching... We need pitching. If Revere gets the better pitcher in return. Say goodbye to the little guy. If none of them bring back pitching or a decent middle infielder. Keep them both. We need depth as well. Yes, the Twins do need pitching. It seems foolish for them to first think trade-for-pitching, though. Anyway, I see Revere as playing himself out of the top of the order. Trading Span as well leaves a big hole at the top.

And yet if I recall correctly you love the idea of dumping Morneau (.802) for Parmelee (.699). I think that the .886 OPS post all-star game for Parmelee is more telling than his season numbers, a season that the Twins tried to ruin for him initially. The analogy does not hold.

So, I thought it was time to resurrect this thread. Those who predicted 10 or 11 are on the path to victory here. My 14 is a bit high, but maybe there is a power surge about to take place.

.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

Mastro proves that he is vital on the roster. 21 stolen bases in such limited playing time!?

If we can get some MLB ready pitching as well as some pitching prospect(s) then I say we worry about defense in the outfield later. I'll easily trade a little offense and defense from a team that's absolutely terrible at pitching. Having said that, it still needs to be the right return and not just a trade for the sake of trading him. The Twins could also sign two pitchers for at most 20 million a year for 2/3 years combined and keep the offense intact.

We can quibble about 47% until the cows come home, of course the number is invented. Just like the Democrats have invented a "rich" group that is milking the economy. Neither is true, but they play to the bases. All Romney said is what Reg. repeated - there is a group of Americans dependent on the government that are hooked to a party that won't vote for him. Likewise, there is a group of people hooked to the Republicans that won't vote for Obama. If this (or the fact that what he says on and off camera are different) is shocking to you - you are really, really naive. He didn't say "poor people" - he said those dependent on government which, by definition, makes them irresponsible for themselves. What you're doing is not unlike what he did - just from a left-wing slant. And note - this is coming from someone that is most likely going to vote independent. I am not sure what you are saying here. The implication in the video is that the 47% guaranteed Obama voters are those who are dependent on government. That is completely false. There are a whole bunch of middle class and upper class Obama voters out there, in fact, they are almost equal to Romney voters in numbers. "He didn't say 'poor people' - he said those dependent on government, which, by definition, makes them irresponsible for themselves." Read that garbage out loud to yourself, please. Clearly he meant poor people who aren't paying federal income taxes. And clearly, saying "dependent" on government is a gross exaggeration. But what is worst about your endorsement of this view is that you think such people are "irresponsible for themselves." In what way? As human beings? Or as economically successful? There are plenty of people who are fully responsible for themselves, their children, and their community who are not making enough money to pay federal income taxes. One has to be an ass to declare such people "irresponsible." The rich are milking the economy, by the way. They are the ones who spend millions on lobbyists to save tens or hundreds of million on tax breaks and subsidies. YOU are the naive one.

That is exactly what I mean. 2012 should be seen (not that the Twins view it this way, somehow) as a test for the 25-man roster. Those who have passed are: Span, Revere, Mauer, Willingham, Morneau, Doumit, Plouffe, Carroll, Parmelee, Mastroianni . . . Diamond, Perkins, Burton, Duensing (wildly misused), Fien, and DeVries. Those in question: Dozier, Florimon, Deduno, Walters, Hendriks, Burnett, and Swarzak. Those who failed and need to go away: Gray (et al of his ilk), Blackburn, Casilla, and Thomas. 16 players passed. One or two of them might be traded. That means that roughly 10 places are in contention on the roster, with perhaps 5 having an inside track (Dozier, Florimon, Deduno, Hendriks, and Swarzak).

I wouldn't call that not getting a fair shot - I'd call that rushing him. Which I wouldn't disagree with. Hell, I think he got TOO MUCH of a shot. Well, OK. I don't think it is "fair" to throw someone in over his head and keep him over his head for a few months and then pass judgement without giving him a shot when the Rochester season is over (as a second baseman).

Given that Ben Revere's OPS continues to plummet, trading Span seems again to be completely foolish. Parmelee in RF is also not a good idea (for a full season). Ben Revere does not look like a top-of-the-order guy at all.

I like the idea of Dozier at 2B. Good thing they promoted him in September to do that . . . Florimon might be a .650 OPS guy, and I don't expect much more. Let's say that Florimon, Dozier, and Carroll collectively produce a .650 OPS next year. Is that good enough improvement? I just REALLY don't trust the Twins' evaluation of FA middle infielders, so I don't know what they are going to do other than hope for Danny Santana and Levi Michael to have breakout seasons at AA.

Improve by subtraction (Casilla) and improvement (Dozier, Florimon). Also, are you sure that number is correct? Carroll is at .637, Florimon .623, Dozier finished .603 . . . then Casilla .572 (Escobar, Hughes, and Nishioka are lower, but with very few PAs). Still bad, but not quite that bad.

The statistics are there if those who want to can look. The 47% number was created by the 2009 law "Making Work Pay". That law has expired. The actual numbers of households that do not pay any federal income or payroll tax is between 14-17%. The Congressional office reported that the bottom 20%, with a household income near $19,000 pay on average 4% of their income to federal taxes. The not voting for your self interest. From message boards to conversations, people say things like "welfare $##@$%^&%$%$ the government never gave me nothin" as justification of voting Republican. When you mention corporate welfare to profitable businesses costs the government more they will respond with a "So" It is a bit absurd. The difference between an entitlement and good budget policy is wether or not it benefits me. People can see the welfare person, the corporate world is foreign, thus it is easier to hate the individual. Exactly, exactly. I have students who won't stop talking about "welfare fraud" and then I have to devote special time with them looking through the budget of the United States, showing them what on earth is really being spent on what. And this is a community college with generally fairly poor students! I guess the point is to make poor people hate other poor people, though . . . Hate motivates. One of the more disturbing trends of human nature. Money motivates also. The book Freakenomics pointed out through drug dealing. The guy selling drugs on the corner was motivated to do the statistically most likely job to get you killed (1/7) because if they moved up in the chain far enough they would make a lot of money. Nowhere does it mention they go after the ones above them to move up. Eventual attrition through jail takes care of that. I propose the economically disadvantaged do not go after the more wealthy voting wise on the same principal. I am going to move up (through divine intervention?) so therefore I will not do anything that will disenfranchise those in a higher economic standing. Welfare fraud. One conservative website said it might run 9 billion a year. Rates for catching welfare fraud run at about 34%. Picking on conservative websites, Medicare fraud is about 60 billion/yr. There are bigger problems than welfare fraud. Liberal sites claim 60 billion was lost/profiteered in the gulf wars. Forbes once reported on the 100 billion wasted since the start of the cold war on weapons that did not work. There are bigger problems than welfare fraud. People don't come into contact with it. If you really want to scare them, obesity costs 190 billion per year for America according to Rueters. Yes and $9 billion is not even a drop in the bucket. That's a month in Afghanistan. And who knows why the fraud takes place. I have hard time believing that well-off people are committing the fraud--I assume it is more like marginal cases where people don't quite qualify? I see, big deal, the cut-off point is arbitrary anyway. I am disgusted by the Romney-is-successful nonsense. How this country can associate success with money alone is just appalling.

I've been jabbering like an assclown for months about Shaun Marcum at 4/$50. Now a 1/$8 million might be much more likely. Paying Marcum to replace Pavano makes a lot of sense to me.

A full season with the current roster with decent health would mean 78-81 wins. Fixing the bullpen gets it to .500. Two rotation additions and some sort of contribution from Baker and Gibson could add 10 wins.

Also, a foreward is not enough from Gleeman. He needs to submit a blueprint! He has more GM tendencies than anyone here--and that is saying a lot--but he has never had to put a grand thing out other than nitpicking here and there.

I actually stopped listening shortly into the radio episodes. I like this environment better!

I have had this happen recently some as well, on my office computer (using Firefox).

The statistics are there if those who want to can look. The 47% number was created by the 2009 law "Making Work Pay". That law has expired. The actual numbers of households that do not pay any federal income or payroll tax is between 14-17%. The Congressional office reported that the bottom 20%, with a household income near $19,000 pay on average 4% of their income to federal taxes. The not voting for your self interest. From message boards to conversations, people say things like "welfare $##@$%^&%$%$ the government never gave me nothin" as justification of voting Republican. When you mention corporate welfare to profitable businesses costs the government more they will respond with a "So" It is a bit absurd. The difference between an entitlement and good budget policy is wether or not it benefits me. People can see the welfare person, the corporate world is foreign, thus it is easier to hate the individual. Exactly, exactly. I have students who won't stop talking about "welfare fraud" and then I have to devote special time with them looking through the budget of the United States, showing them what on earth is really being spent on what. And this is a community college with generally fairly poor students! I guess the point is to make poor people hate other poor people, though . . .

An important point about how Romney talks in that video vs. how he talks in scripted campaign events where he just says stuff he knows he is supposed to say. Romney in the video is fluent, clear, doesn't stammer, doesn't pause, and actually IS speaking in an "elegant" way. That shows him speakly freely as he truly is and he is expressing what he really thinks.

At minimum, probably 40% of that 47% are Romney voters (think old, retired white people and young people who are poor and somehow have no idea that voting for Republicans is not in their self-interest). Romney is saying that 47% won't take personal responsibility for themselves. He actually said that. Only a vile person can think that (and someone who believes that "middle class" is $200,000 a year).

They didn't call anyone up to take his place, so no.

Herrmann is LH, Mastroianni is RH. Replacing Willingham with Herrmann against righties, was the point by saying a LH 4th OF. Not sure why we are bothering with anything in this discussion if we are not allowed, apparently, to make predictions. It isn't crazy to think that it is more likely than not that Mauer-Doumit-Willingham will be on the field a bit less in 2013 than they were in 2012. It also isn't crazy to think that Span is traded in the offseason and that Willingham-Revere-Parmelee will be the primary OF until at least June 1 (and then only if Hicks/Arcia is/are tearing it up). I realize that generally 12 extra hits (add a walk as well) doesn't equate to 2 wins. Some of those hits are extra base hits, including a homer (again, I am making predictions so . . . ) and some of those plate appearances may be late in the game since A: Herrmann, unlike Butera, is a viable PH option, and B: Herrmann, unlike Butera, is a complete offensive liability in need of being PH for in late innings. Late inning plate appearances in close games were what I was referring to there. Anyway, so what if it ends up being 0.6 of a win. I forgot that 0.6 is lower than 0.