diehardtwinsfan

Not sure Arcia would be a fit in Milwaukee. If they traded Lucroy, it's them suggesting it's time to rebuild, picking up Arcia really doesn't help them in that capacity. He's gone by the time their prospects are ready to play.

walking dead season five should be on Netflix this fall. http://netflixlife.com/2015/06/30/when-will-the-walking-dead-season-5-be-on-Netflix/

I want parents to be able to choose where send their kids to school. I don't think education should be monopolized by the government, especially given that I've yet to see any government initiative that is done well. It just doesn't exist. BTW, I have no problem if the government wants to run schools, but I have a huge problem with the idea that parents cannot use the funding set aside for their children on schools other than the one that their local government provides. That penalizes everyone. For all the talk about profit in education, it's the poor that suffer the most under the current system, as they have no means to redress the poor education that their children are receiving. States would be far better off providing standards and requirements for education and letting the free market run it. More kids would end up with a better education than what exists today, and it would effectively prevent your concerns about it being dumbed down (side note, that's already happening under the current system of education in this country). To answer your 3rd point, in Indiana, we do exactly what you describe. Education is defined at the state level and distributed in that manner. Our school system has been asking parents to petition the state to fix the funding problems now for several years because we are the lowest funded system in the state, despite being one of the best and by proxy providing more in property tax funding that our school system is received. The state caps property taxes at 1% for owner occupied and 2% for rental properties, collects all of it, and distributes accordingly. The poorer systems get most of the money and yet they somehow still cannot improve. The problem isn't funding. Certainly that helps to an extent, but at the end of the day, the problem is somewhere else. Finally, I've seen you write about the college system as it is today, and you know full well that the problem you described is different than that. Colleges are being dumbed down because as a society we've decided that everyone needs to go and the government provides a near unlimited amount of backed funds allowing just about anyone to go. It's the student load bubble that is causing that problems as colleges are lowering standards to get more and more students there. You pull the plug on easy money and take away the government backing of student loans, and this problem will resolve itself in a huge hurry. Colleges can spend on all that glitz and glamor b/c of the sheer volume of money being funneled into them. The free market was destroyed a long time ago with colleges and universities and replaced with a never ending gravy train of easy money.

1) 90 wins. That's very doable. Offense and bull pen is the key. 2) Wildcard, yes. Division I doubt it. KC is really making a case for being the team to beat (and on that, I'm pretty happy for Royals fans too). 3) Above average to elite production in the rotation, 2B, and 3B. Mauer returning to his former self offensively, and Hicks really looking like he could contribute well above average at CF. Sano is hitting well at DH also. Pen is weak, but that can be addressed cheaply.

Magic 8 ball, palm readings, and crystal balls I hear work pretty well In all seriousness, May took a huge step forward last year in AAA in his walk rate and has been pitching in MLB this season at the same rate he was in AAA last season. The K rate is there too. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that May still has potential to be a top of the rotation arm, and all his peripheral stats support it. His problem has been (thus far at least) the big inning. This was a huge problem for him last year and something he's improved on quite a bit, but I wouldn't be surprised if it takes another year or two for him to figure that out. I do think time in the pen will actually benefit him a bit there, especially pitching in higher leverage situations. I understand that the team has 6 starters this year and by proxy May is the odd guy out, but I would think it has to be a priority at some point to get him back in the rotation.

That it has. I was more concerned about your reverse jinx reversing on Dozier.

Please don't trade Arcia for a reliever....

I don't think having May in the pen will be a long term detriment to him, as a number of pitchers have had valuable development there. I'd probably put him in higher leverage situations given how weak the pen is and how good he has been, but that's a different issue. I suppose there is some value in easing him into the role. That said, I would prefer he start. I think the Twins are stuck until something is done with Pelfrey this season, and either Milone or Nolasco next season, though given May's development curve thus far, I suspect that he will be without question good enough to be bumping someone else. His FIP and K rate have been pretty good, unfortunately, he hasn't quite learned how to limit that big inning. Time in the pen might actually be a good prescription for that.

Levi, I've seen you castigate others for making similar idealistic claims with a bit of an elitist attitude as you are doing here, and I'm rather disappointed that you are resorting to the same methods. I understand that you are in education as a profession (and I wish more educators had your intelligence), but on this I think your viewpoint is a tad bit clouded. 1) I'm not sure where you are getting on about the highest bidder. This is about me as a parent being given the option to send my children to the school I choose, not the one I'm forced to send them to because of where I currently live, and to use some or all of the dollars allocated for my child at that school. The ones who suffer under this current system more than anyone else are the poor, as up and moving from a bad education system isn't an option, nor is private school. I send my kids to public schools and can do so because I can afford to live where I live. The reality right now is that most of the money being taken from taxes are being sent to these poorer schools and the results have hardly been satisfactory, because at the end of the day, the government's main solution to all of it's problems is just to throw a bunch of money at it and hope it goes away, and rarely is there any real accountability. As you have argued on so many occasions, this doesn't work. Why is education somehow different? You may deplore the profit motive, but having worked in enough government environments I can simply point out the fact that the lack of a profit motive usually leads to a whole bunch of other problems that you are conveniently overlooking (particularly an enormous amount of waste). I have no problems with private schools (or other public schools in other districts) being able to operate on a for profit basis b/c at the end of the day, they will outperform government run schools both in results and in the cost to operate. While that will not be true for every scenario, history has shown that this will be true far more often than not. On top of that, if the school does not operate within the best interests of a particular child or is just not very good at what they do, those parents can make the decision to transfer them to one that is a better fit for their needs. Free markets work. There's no reason to think this won't work in education either. 2) Do you realize how unrealistic this is? If I have an issue with how my school system is managing something, going to the school board will do absolutely no good. I think you know that. This is a cop out answer as it doesn't work. The only thing that will make them change is when a huge number of parents start making those complaints, and even then it will take years because heaven forbid these officials are going to freely admit their mistakes. But beyond that, your insinuation that parents are stupid is flat out arrogant. I'd be willing to bet that about 50% of parents are below average when it comes to intelligence and 50% are above average. I'd willing to bet that this same distribution exists among educators and administrators. I've met my fair share of educators, administrators, and stupid people. These groups are hardly mutually exclusive. I also think that the idea that you as an educator or an administrator or board member can some how have a better pulse on the best interest of a particular parent's child is incredibly arrogant. 3) You are correct. This is my point. The system as it is setup right now simply pumps a bunch of money into underperforming school systems while not allowing those parents to get their children out of them. The systems still underperform, and the children of the poor are the ones that suffer the most. The system we have in place DOES NOT fix this problem, if anything it exacerbates it, especially since the government doesn't have some of the most necessary tools at its disposal to fix many of the problems that need addressing. If a parent wants their kid out of a particular school system, some form of school choice allows them to take action into their own hands, immediately. My public school system is the lowest funded district in the state, yet it consistently out performs the others. The problem isn't money. The poorest systems in the state (at least here in Indiana) get the lions share of the wealth. Yet they consistently underperform. Why is that? 4) I never once said I sent my kids to a private school. Truth is, I don't. My kids attend public school. I made the choice to move to an area that had a good public school system. Poor people cannot do that, as they cannot afford to live where the better schools are, and that's a crying shame. They are punished because they are poor. Money is sent to their school systems in far greater quantities, and yet they still do not get the education that their kids deserve. Why is that? As I said before, this has nothing to do with whining about poor people getting additional funding and everything to do with the problem that said additional funding isn't working, which punishes those poor people as they have zero means of getting their children out of these environments. For the record, I have zero problem with the idea of allocation additional dollars for poorer children if there some well thought out way to do it. My problem is the assumption that their parents can't possibly know what is best for them and should not be allowed any realistic options to do something about it. My problem is the assumption that only the government knows what is in the best interest of educating my children. My problem is the assumption that profit is always a bad option while pretending that publicly run education is somehow void of corruption, ulterior motives, indoctrination, waste, and other failures that are quite frankly just as bad if not worse than a profit motive (not quite sure you believe this Levi, but the system as it is in place today most certainly does). The awful thing is the fact that the system that is currently in place does nothing to protect the poor or the rich. It is designed to protect a whole lot of people's best interest, none of whom happen to be the children receiving the education.

This is probably a better option. Personally, I fail to see how sexual history/promiscuity (with maybe the exception of a person who has a history of accusing people of rape) should factor into any rape trial. I don't care of the victim was a slut, two timer, or whatever. It really doesn't matter. No is no, regardless of poor decisions that they've made. Forensic evidence should be able to clear up most of that anyways. Why it cannot primarily rest on concrete evidence is beyond me. My greater concern though is making sure the law is upheld so that innocent people aren't ruined by it.

I think the big difference is that there aren't any names having standout seasons at appropriate ages that get you real excited. With the exception of pitching, guys in CR/FM strike me more as your blue collar players. A few will make it, may even be average players, but not that exceptional elite talent you'd hope they had. The flip side is that the high minors are pretty crowded there. Given that there is some nice pitching in the low minors, I am not terribly worried about it, though it would be nice if they struck gold with some of their more recent drafted hitters.

need a few of these posts next time we play the Royals.

I was a bit surprised by the Sanatana signing to be honest, but not exactly against it when it was announced. Nolasco was something I think a lot of us thought was a good thing at the time. Kind of hard to look back now and say 'could you have done better'. No question the Twins would have been better simply not signing him. He's spent more time on the DL than he has in uniform, and very little of his time in uniform has been worth the money he was being paid. Honestly, in terms of money, had that money been spent on a decent CF, I think the team would have benefited the most.

Not sure Dave. You stuck a fork in him a couple years ago. This might not end up where you want it.

OPS is a tad low for an MVP, but he's a second baseman playing elite defense. I would think if he keeps this up (especially if he its anything close to 40 home runs), he should be in real consideration.

Interesting discussion. My 20 cents... 1) I think education emphasizing the idea of mutual consent is smart in that it's forcing people to think about some things they haven't really thought about. It can probably eliminate some misunderstanding that happens in sexual encounters, and I think that's a good thing. There's a lot of gap in education and I think the more of that we do the better it is for everyone. 2) Lowering burdens of proof??? Really? That's a real real real bad thing. Just as an innocent person's life can be ruined in a rape, so an innocent person's life be ruined with a false accusation, and I do not buy the idea that they are rare as there is plenty evidence that this is not the case (whether it's accurate or not is a different discussion, but it does exist). Regardless of which, in this country, by the standard of law that we have in place, the accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise and the act of accusation is bad enough for a lot of innocent people. Nothing good will come from this. It's simply another form of McCarthyism. Levi is right here. Go after the real criminals (both the rapists and those who falsely accuse) and tar and feather them. By the way, I really wonder if this is going to prevent unreported rapes from being reported anyways. That's a side issue here, but I think the reasons for rape being unreported stem from greater issues than just the legal hassle. I know of one unreported rape when I was in college (interestingly enough, it was a guy raping another guy which hasn't been brought up here). It wasn't reported due to it being embarrassing, none of which changes with informed consent. If the concern is reporting it, then perhaps we should address why it is that these crimes are not being reported. 3) Two people getting drunk and doing something that one of them ultimately regrets is not rape. Nor should it ever be called that. It's a learning experience. Allowing someone to turn the walk of shame into an accusation of rape really will cause a lot of worse issues down the road. The real education here is about what happens when you have a bit too much to drink and end up shacking up with someone who you would otherwise not sleep with. That can be addressed with education, and the real moral is that when you go drinking, be smart about it. Likewise, these are kids, not trained professionals, and asking them to assess how much someone had to drink and determine whether it nullifies consent is a rather dangerous and very unrealistic precedent. If people are getting someone drunk so that they can rape them, there will be forensic evidence that would be admissible if the victim reports it.

May is a starter who is in the pen right now due to a lack of SP spots. I'd have him doing a lot of the 3 inning save type varieties. I'd have had no problems bringing him out the 8th and telling him he's pitching for a while.

Parker, me thinks you are a victim of your own success here People are expecting a full fledged scouting report. That said, there was a time when I thought some of the MI prospects coming up in the system would be better than Dozier. I don't think so. Not quite sure how long his peak will be, but right now the Twins are looking pretty good for that extension and he's looking like an elite cornerstone player. I just wish he was a couple years younger at this point.

Problem with Arcia is that he has always been a bit of a streaky hitter. His lack of plate discipline has also been an issue. At this point, his plate discipline is what it is. He was projected as a breakout hitter in MLB, and that could very well happen if he figures out what he was doing wrong. I think bringing him up over Santana makes a ton of sense, but given his lack of defense in the OF, he's probably a downgrade over Escobar/Nunez... think about that for a sec. Will has bat make up for that? Quite possibly. I think he's going to get called up if he can keep this up for another week or so, just to make sure he's not riding a fluke.

The idea of swapping Arcia for a reliever (no matter how good said reliever is), makes me cringe. I realize he's not a premium defender, but you are talking about a potential premium bat in exchange for a guy who might pitch 60 or son innings in a season. For a guy like Will Smith, I'd be interested in dangling someone like Burdi to get him if they want upside, or possibly a bit of a lower ceiling position prospect.

haven't really paid attention to this. Someone want to give me a cliff's note version here?

From 2012 to 2015, Burdi's delivery has changed, I don't think that's up for denial. I do, however, think it might just be a tad coy or obtuse (or perhaps just presumptuous) to assume this is somehow an indictment of the Twins coaching philosophy.

This is an internet message board. We all live in our mom's basements, shower once a month if that, and weigh 300 pounds at a minimum. You tell me.

I think this would be a good get.

I like the idea of a Vogt/Suzuki (and eventually) Pinto platoon. My big issue here is his age. At 30, he's got a lot of mileage on those knees already. I'd be much more excited about it if he were a couple years younger. The real question is whether Oakland would want someone like Plouffe for him. I doubt it. He's going to cost prospects. Who that is determines whether or not you get him. As for Suzuki, the extension wasn't a bad option. It's not like we could have found better in free agency. If we were getting an awesome prospect for him, I think he'd have been traded last year.