diehardtwinsfan

The rule of 27 I suspect is still a very real thing, even if it's largely been dismissed.

Trade Nolasco, Milone, Plouffe for whatever I could get. DFA if no takers (non-tender Plouffe in offseason if no takers). Trade Suzuki for something reasonable, call up Murphy Trade Dozier for good return. Will hold out for a good return though, and will try again in offseason. Targeting a pitcher with upside or catcher with upside. Call up Polanco. Attempt to trade Abad, Boshers, and Kinzler. Not expecting to trade all of them, but replacements would be Chargois, Melotakis, and one of Dean/Reed/Hildenberger. Dangle Santana, but leaning towards keep (unless a really good offer comes through that involves a high ceiling AAA pitcher. would have no issues packaging a lesser prospect in that scenario). Pat Dean may find himself the replacement here at least temporarily or said high ceiling AAA pitcher. Move May to the rotation in Nolasco's spot. Call up another reliever or possibly Dean for May's spot. Call up Berrios in Milone's spot. I haven't paid close attention to Buxton's recent performance, but he's a candidate for option. Would likely call up Rosario to play CF for the time being (not permanently, just getting him in the lineup). Leaning towards keeping Nunez as a super utility with decent bat and Grossman as a 4th OF who may have figured things out. Nice insurance in both cases.

Yeah, he's been one of the unsung RP guys around here. Not sure how hard he throws, but he's gotten the results each step of the way.

Then I misread the post I'd agree that these are definitely lesser tier prospects. But I still wouldn't trade them unless I'm getting a pretty high tier prospect in return.. BTW, I'd note that I highly doubt there's a team out there who would trade a top shelf pitching prospect that we need for a major league asset and guys like ABW/Harrison, so I guess we agree on that.

yeah, I really cannot criticize the Span trade. We needed pitching, and got a highly respected one. I htink it's a bit revisionist to go back and say we got fleeced. Any trade involves risks, especially when trading a known commodity for an unkown. That's where upside replaces said risk. Meyer may fail, the trade wasn't bad.

I don't think anyone is saying they couldn't be. You tend to want to keep these guys however. If Harrison or Walker can be packaged with Santana and cash to get a high quality SP prospect like Glasnow or Giolotto, by all means do it. I doubt anyone is really saying otherwise. I also highly doubt that the Pirates or Nationals would do that, but desperation in seeking a title can make someone do desperate things. If you start packaging those guys for major leaguers with a couple of years until FA... well then I think you're doing it wrong

I think the author thinks the difference falls into the normal range of error. That's possible. I think the problem though is that we fail to understand the difference between unconscious bias (something the Cops need and quite frankly can keep them alive) and racism. Both exist. One is intentional. One is far more latent. It isn't racist by intent, but it can certainly be racist when one looks at the numbers. Like it or not though, it's there because it is proven right more often than not. Case in point, my sister can tell me cop stories, and I can more often than not accurately guess race, gender, etc. I'm not saying it is right, but I think you have to find a middle ground between the ugly racism of the KKK and the actions of people who are trying to survive while doing a very dangerous job. That's where I really struggle (and abhor) the race card, especially when it is played far too frequently. The problem is that when you tell someone they are being racist when they have good reason to behave the way they do... well, it gets back to that us vs. them and forcing someone to take a side they had no plans on taking. It's a bad thing. Unconscious bias is real. There's more value in training someone to recognize when they are doing it than simply playing the race card. Doing so forces an us vs. them scenario. I've been harping on this a lot lately, and perhaps that is because I'm constantly finding myself defending something because ideology has forced it. All that bickering on TD did teach me something

You want to protest on the side of the highway, by all means do so. But there are plenty of people on said highway for a number of highly personal reasons, some of which I might add, could very well be life and death or other very important things to them such as catching a flight or going to see a dying relative or whatever.... You should have a problem with blocking a highway. A huge one. There's no place for that. I'm sure you'd have an issue with blocking an abortion clinic or something else. There's no excuse for either behavior here. By all means, protest, but do so in a civil manner.

I've had this same debate with my sister. It isn't even as much police procedures as the constitution of the US doesn't give them much else to go on. That is the very reality of living with a concept called probable cause. I'm of the opinion that at that point you leave them alone and actually go out looking for said perp, not looking to bust someone with a broken tail light. She doesn't agree with me by the way... But less laws, not more is what makes a free country free, and this is nothing more than an another way to make an end around the 4th amendment. We have a real problem in this country where we are trading our freedoms away for some measure of security. People could put an end of the broken tail light thing by simply standing up and calling it what it is. But we don't... and yeah, blacks suffer from this worse b/c it is enforced in areas stricken by poverty, and unfortunately poverty is found in a much higher percentage of black homes than others. I don't even think it's intentionally racist. Crime is highest where there's poverty and as such, that is where police tend to focus their efforts. Truthfully, that whole poverty thing is a bigger problem here, but I don't think we want to turn this into another economic debate

Focusing on one over the other breeds the very racism that you're trying to prevent, and it alienates the very people who will be more sympathetic to the cause. I understand why it is that people are focusing on black lives matter. I'm also saying that in so doing they are missing the point and become part of the problem. A lot of people died last week in tragic and avoidable ways. Ironically, when you focus on the two, you miss the other five and further divide an already divided country (or worse yet, you force people to take sides where they shouldn't be taking sides). All lives matter. Period. Put that in perspective and you'll solve a whole lot more problems than just police brutality.

seriously? He's got to be able to deal with that kind of stuff. It's part of the growing process. He was probably in that long b/c at first he didn't look weak and at some point he just needs to get his work in. I have no issue with it. Neither should anyone.

yeah, not sure I want to dump Santana... certainly would for the right offer, but I'd be trading Nolasco and Milone and DFAing them if there are no takers. I'd trade Plouffe too. Dozier is the guy I want a return for, but would actively seek to trade. He's also the guy that could spark a bidding war.

I kind of like Kepler's observatory... I seem to remember reading somewhere that he is related to Johannes Kepler... could be wrong though... just thought I remembered seeing it as a footnote somewhere when he was signed. As for projections... Morneau had true power, and he displayed it earlier. Kepler's power is starting to develop still. and while I don't see him eclipsing 30 HRs, 20 seems doable as he fills out his frame. Right now, there's no book on him. What will be interesting is seeing how he adjusts when pitchers adjust.

I've got to think the FO is gone after this year (and I think Molitor goes too). To stay, maybe a .667 winning percentage... I just don't see the team doing that though. It's nice that they've been decent for the last 20 games, but they need to get more of the kids in, but that likely leads to less wins, not more.

They become really good signings when they get flipped for prospects... at least that's my view on Kintzler and Abad... not quite as sure about Grossman.

Well, if anything it would get the kids up and some of the dead weight off.

Polanco's first option year was in high A as he had to be in order to not be exposed to the rule V draft. His second was in AA. He was optioned again last year in AAA (and wasn't very good), but he seems to be much better this year. I'm not sure his options management has been bad (and that comes from someone who has actively criticized said management of Arcia, Berrios, and Buxton). The bigger issue I have right now is that he seems to have figured it out and needs to have playing time. I'll be honest in that when I saw him this spring, he didn't look good, but quite frankly, as bad as this team has been, I don't see where keeping BD (baring a situation where no one offers anything of value) for 2017 and 2018 makes much sense when you have a much younger and longer cost controlled option that should be above average and could be a diamond in the rough. I certainly could be wrong, but I don't see the Twins being terribly competitive in 2017, not while we continue to keep the likes of Nolasco, Hughes, and Milone in the rotation at least and DFA potential cornerstone pieces such as Arcia. That makes holding on to BD rather strange given that the contract he signed was structured in a way to allow him to test the market. Losing Polanco for 2 years of BD (even if they are elite) in what will amount to likely one more losing season only to lose BD to FA would be wrong.

My sister is a police officer, so I get to see and hear both sides of this on a constant basis. We've had that argument over the tail light, because yes, I believe the 4th amendment exists for reason, and tail light is just as much of a violation as Snowden or the Patriot Act. At the end of the day, we have a presumption of innocence in this country, and the tail light is nothing but a selectively enforced way to look for a reason for probable cause. That type of stuff should stop. On the other hand, police do need some leeway. They are asked to make a lot of gut calls, and these are the types of situations that can put their life in danger. My sister has been there, and so have many of her peers. There are very real threats to their lives, and I think that to an extent there needs to be grace given where it often isn't. The other side of that though is the few that demand the respect that they refuse to earn. There's definitely a lack of professionalism in a lot of police forces which result in retaliation both among peers as well as to civilians, and it is this type of unprofessional behavior that desperately needs to be rooted out by a government that is completely incapable of doing so. What's even more disheartening about this is that from what I can best tell, Dallas was a good example of management actually having some success in that endeavor. Not that I'd wish it on anyone, but the killer picked the group that from my birds eye view seemed to be doing a better job at doing the right thing than so many others. That said, what really irks me about all of this is a much bigger us vs. them problem that people refuse to address. Black lives matter, I get that. So do white lives, Hispanic lives, men's lives, women's lives, and quite frankly all lives. The answer is working together as Americans or whatever else unites us and not continuing to segregate by choice. The answer to this senseless violence isn't more laws such as hate crimes, gun control, etc. It's the need to address our own depravity and figure out why it is that in the last decade we've seen a massive change in what constitutes the fundamental respect for human life, and it needs to happen throughout the entire country. This us vs. them thing only inflames that. It demonizes the other side and refuses to look at why it is things are as they are. You aren't going to find that in laws that only serve to upset a large portion of the country. That is what continues to divide. You can only get so much of that by installing a more professional police force, and you won't see anything about that in a society where poverty is an entrapping force that snares more and more each year. This nation has a severed artery and we keep putting band aids on it.

That's probably optimistic. I like him too, but his production had dropped pretty steadily as he's moved up the chain. He's not exactly lighting up AA right now, and while his numbers are OK for a C, I think he's going to need more time. I'd be fine with him as a backup at some point in 2017, but even that I think is rosy.

The only issue I have with not trading Dozier is that Polanco is out of options next year and he's a prime candidate to be Arcia'd. I don't know if he will ever be as good as BD, but what I can say is that the potential is there for him to be an above average 2B both offensively and defensively. If Dozier can net a really nice prospect while allowing you to play Polanco, I think you do it. I do agree though that he shouldn't be traded for nothing. Same goes with Santana. I'd rather trade Nolasco/Milone for nothing (or just DFA them both if there are no takers) then part with Santana for a meager return.. Now again, if someone wants to pay something nice, then by all means, let's do it.

I'd trade Nolasco and Milone for nothing or just DFA them for the young guys... not quite as sure about Santana to be honest. I think I'd want a decent prospect for him. In this area, I think Ryan would be right to not give him up. Santana can pitch like #2 for long stretches. Of course on the other hand his elbow is a TJS surgery waiting to happen given that he's one of the few that successfully rehabbed that one.

He's pretty young too, and the power has only really started showing up the last few seasons. I think that's a pretty reasonable outlook for him, but I could really see him exceeding this too, especially in the SLG department.

I suspect it's more that he does know what he wants, and he wants more than other teams are willing to give...

I'd half expect Santana to net something decent, especially if we threw in cash. As for throw ins.. only way I'd do that is if it means getting a really top shelf guy. If Pittsburg (just making this up, I have no idea what they need) was willing to trade Glasnow for example, but wanted something more than Nunez, I'd have no problem adding someone to make it work... As for Polanco, I think it makes far more sense to trade Dozier who won't be around for much longer and keep Polanco than to trade Polanco for 2 more years and presumably a QO of BD.

If Thorpe had pitched at this point, I think he'd be a tougher decision. As it is now, I have a tough time believing a guy who has only seen low A would be able to stick somewhere... speaking of things that need to be fixed... There's no reason why it is we should have to consider adding him at that point. International FAs signed under 18 ought to have more years before they are required to be protected.