diehardtwinsfan

Buxton - AA Sano - AAA Rosario - AAA Meyer - AAA Pinto - Probably AAA unless Ryan can somehow unload Doumit May - AAA Stewart, Thorpe, and Gonsalves A- That's my 2 cents. I could see Rosario and Sano starting in AA given that neither of them really hit to their full potential there, but from what I understand, the jump is pretty minimal to AAA, so since they both did OK there, they could start out in Rochester. That said, Rochester fans should have a lot to look forward to for the next few years. They are going to have some talented teams.

Then I think BA is wrong. Their number was around 3.9 for the international pool. They were at 3.1/3.2 before they made their last signing.

I'll say what I've said before, moving him to first permanently is foolish. His value as a catcher is far greater than his value as a 1B. I don't have a problem playing him at both positions in order to get him in more and keep him from wearing down as much, but he should be playing catcher until he can no longer do it. He isn't there yet.

Looking at Molitor and Gardenhire, it's hard to believe that they are the same age.

1991? Really? Please tell me you don't actually believe that the spike in attendance in 91 was because people really wanted to see the Minnesota native Jack Morris pitch.

This assumes that the Twins passed up on guys they thought were better in order to draft for need. I dont' see that, especially given the lack of ML talent in players taking immediately after Michael. Call it a pet peeve of mine, but in the BPA vs. need debate, this is really good example of my frustrations with it. It's revisionist history. Since the Twins needed help at SS, it's automatically assumed that he wasn't their BPA, even though based on the results, no one really knows. That assumption is bolstered more because he's failed as a prospect. This pick wasn't universally deried as horrible either. There were questions about his bat back then, and unfortunately, we've seen them play out. He's a bust. They happen, especially when picking that low.

I'm saying the number hasn't been updated. The Twins were at 3.2 prior to their most recent interenational signing, which was covered quite a bit in this forum, and that issue was addressed in that thread too. Perhaps they signed the kid for 10k, no one really knows at this point, but I doubt that. There has been very little coverage on their late signings and finding accurate info on this seems to be imposssible.

Freeloading is largely the result of a broken system in the first place. It's broken because the system has been rigged in such a way to eliminate competition, and forcing everyone to buy insurance (and not allowing them to get cheaper major medical policies) doesn't fix those issues. If you want to lower medical prices, switch to a cash only system and eliminate insurance altogether. Then you will see just how "unaffordable" this really is. ACA isn't going to fix these problems, it's only going to make it worse. It will do nothing but provide a nice subsidy to the medical and pharma industries who are already doing quite well. The real losers are small businesses and self employed people. Both Medicare and SS should have been available as public options, but these "safety nets" are nothing more than Ponzi schemes, and that was the intent from day 1. These are bankrupt because the government took the money in these trust funds and replaced it with government debt. This is going to accelerate the debt problems this country already has because as more people retire these IOUs have to be converted to cash to pay them. I never said that Jesus said not to help the poor. It is you who is reading more into this than what is there. I'm arguing against 2 things: 1. Whether or not the government is an effective tool for this. I'm not just arguing against its ability to fix this either. I'm arguing that the government is the primary cause for things being the way they are and the "fixes" are nothing more than bandaids to allow them to perpetuate the broken system, in large part because it's in the financial best interests of their backers to continue it. This system won't get fixed until there's a return to a true free market with no central bank. Fix this, and there's a lot less poor. Fix this, and helping what poor that remain will be a lot easier to do. 2. I'm also arguing against your conclusion of these passages means that a Christian must support universal healthcare. That's a huge reach. If you are concerned about poor children and cancer, see point number 1, as dealing with the root cause will be far more beneficial than ACA. Your last plea here is where I think the big disconnect lies. I'd argue that point 1 will do far more to accomplish what you desire than any kind of government intervention in the current system. You mentioned it works in other places, but you also forget that most of these other places that can afford it also don't maintain a standing army that essentially rules the globe. Do you think Israel could afford their healthcare if the US wasn't sending them billions of dollars a year? What about Europe? Also, minor, ok major, theological note here, but the fate of the believer was sealed by Christ in his sacrifice on the cross. My assurance of salvation has absolutely nothing to do with where I stand on this issue. Peter won't be standing at the gates giving me a quiz about ACA and helping the poor. Believers will be admitted because they were justified by Christ and sanctified by the Spirit. Again, I'd love a system like what you describe. ACA is a step in the wrong direction. My challenge to you is to take a hard look at this nation's history, particularly in regards to a central bank. There was far more to the American Revolution than taxation without representation. You want to eliminate poverty, you will need to start there.

Politicians won't touch this with a 10 foot poll. They should though. Personally, I don't have a problem with corporations giving money. I have a problem with the fact that they can give so much more than you or I. Call them a "person" and cap them at $2500 like the rest of us. Ban all pacs. Problem solved.

I'm not sure the international number for 2013 is accurate. Never saw the dollar amount for their most recent signing. The college amount is set in stone. They don't have control over those numbers.

This strikes me as a double edge sword. I get your point about winning games and driving in runs, and if the pitcher gives him a hitable pitch, then absolutely swing away. The problem is that his underlying stats say he's swinging away too much and that pitchers (especially ones higher up the chain) are going to take advantage of the fact that he expands the zone and not give him anything worth hitting... What then? I get the ultimate goal is to drive in those runs, but he's not going to be doing nearly as much of that as he could if he doesn't learn to lay off bad pitches. This has nothing to do with inflating OBP and everything to do with him becoming a solid major leaguer.

I still think well rounded is your best bet. Relying on one or two stars is not a good way to approach it. Having the stars is nice, but 1-9 needs to be a threat at the plate as even stars have bad games.... and they had better be able to get it done with the glove too. People look at Detroit's win/loss numbers and think it's powerhouse. They are a good team, but defensively, they are very flawed, particularly in their infield. That team has 3 DH/1B types. And let's not pretend that Boston doesn't have pitching either. Yes Verlander is the best pitcher, and Scherzer has been great too, but it isn't like Boston is throwing a rotation of PTC guys either.

It most certainly did. It was the federal reserve who enabled our Government's debt binge by lowering interest rates to create a debt bubble in the economy in the first place. It was the government that chose to repeal the glass steagle act that created the TBTFs in the first place. Yes, the private sector jumped in there too, but pretending that it was one without the other is absurd. None of this happens if the gov leaves glass-steagle in tact and kept rates where they belonged... none of it.

First, I'll reiterate, there's no command from Jesus to support universal heathcare. Your premise is flawed from the start. My biggest complaint as a Christian, and a teacher, is people who use the Scriptures to back whatever viewpoint that they want to espouse, regardless of what the writers were attempting to say. This is a real good example. The Bible doesn't weigh in on it. Now to answer your question, this is not your decision or my decision, it's a hospital's decision. And since you ask the question, what would Jesus do, what do you think he'd say to them? You've asked what he would say to me, but he speaks to multiple audiences does he not? Another point I'd make is that for the longest time, this was never an issue. People who couldn't afford to pay got put on payment plans and what not. Insurance was cheap because it covered things like catastrophic items and not every day visits. The system is setup in such a way now that it encourages this. I think my biggest problem with your argument here is that it can so easily be reworded to make you look just as extreme. That multi billion dollar hospital isn't having problems paying their bills, and the doctors that work there are millionaires many times over, yet you and I are now being taxed so that their profit margin isn't squeezed. And then of course there's a few more pragmatic questions. What of that guy who needs immediate treatment because he chose to abuse his freedoms. Why should I take care of him? There is a huge slippery slope here and I'm not sure people have thought through all of the ramifications. When the government starts footing the bill, how long do you think it will be until they start telling you what you can and cannot eat, how much you should exercise, etc.? I don't have a problem with Christians and non-Christians helping the poor. I have a problem with the government compelling people to do it, and I have a problem with the naiveté that goes with it to think that they can somehow make this more stable than the free market system. They cannot. Look at Social Security and Medicare. They are perfect examples. Both programs are great ideas on the surface, but your politicians took the money from these trust funds and spent it. Then, to mask it, they game with the inflation numbers (a problem they also created), entitlement benefits, etc. so that a person living on social security and medicare are still broke. And now these same people are in the hands of your great government to care for them, and that doesn't work well either. I have little memories of my one grandfather who died in a VA hospital due to gross negligence. My wife's father served his country in Vietnam and sustained a brain injury the prevented him from ever being able to support a family. They convinced him while he was in the hospital to sign away his benefits and he finally got them back about 10 years ago. The government will not take care of you. The government isn't your savior. And eliminating medicare won't suddenly mean that old people will be dying all over from curable illnesses. What it will do is force the price of the cure to drop, and given the current environment, pharmaceuticals and hospitals have zero incentive to lower prices as they have little competition. A real good example of this is a non-life threatening procedure. Lasik isn't covered by insurance. When it came out, it was insanely expensive, and because it wasn't insured, the price dropped to the point where it became fairly affordable. That's how supply and demand works, and in so doing, it makes charity a lot easier. The market will dictate what the price is actually worth, and when you artificially subsidize it, it doesn't seek to lower the price... It never does. It always makes things more expensive, which leads to more subsidies.

What the odds that the Vikings win just enough games to keep them from drafting the franchise qB that they need?

For the right price maybe... especially if it allowed us to grab a HS guy that fell due to signability concerns.

I hope you are right, but he's getting a 3 or 4 year deal, it won't be for Corriea money.

I'm not an accountant, but the Twins could choose to amortize this out or recognize it as a 1 time hit. Companies do this all the time.. I'd add that it really doesn't matter how it shows on the books, it matters who the Twins want to allocate it towards payroll. The posting fee may be amortized out over the life of the contract for tax purposes, but since they didn't spend the allocated payroll in 2013, they might choose to privately count it as last year's money.

Agreed. I do think the Twins philosophy might get in the way a bit here. Maybe I just have selective memory and ignore the times when they do this, but I think this is where you expand the zone for at least one pitch. Good command pitchers can still get lots of weak outs/Ks here by putting one an inch off the plate.

I think you want both personally. I never bought into the "that guy doesn't have to hit" line of thought that some people have. Depth wins games. The best model, at least for a mid-market team like the Twins, is to extend your stars while continuing to pump out better than average players (and hopefully a few more stars) while supplementing from FA in the few places where you have holes or potentially need a role player. While the stars are nice here, going after the Willingham and Cuddyers of the world is probably far more beneficial long term than a Pujols.

Yep. I could see Dozier making a case next year if his surge was for real, but even as the next wave arrives, it's good to let them play at least a year if not two before locking them up. That said, Ryan did this quite frequently during the metrodome era, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue doing it.

I'll bite. I think Tanaka could be fit (whether they spend the money is a different story). They have 40 million or something like that they could spend. Tanaka (5/50 with option plus a 50M posting fee). That comes out to 20M/year Hughes (4/50). This is 12.5M/year. Gibson Worley Correia. That's 32.5M being spent to massively upgrade the rotation. I suspect Gibson will have a much better season and KC is well... KC. Worley, KC, or Gibson likely finds themselves being replaced by Meyer, May, and/or Darnell at one point in the near future. You could substitute Hughes for Johnson or Lincicum, though both of them are going to be 1 or 2 year deals for a lot less cash. I'm not excited about Haren at all. I doubt Garza will want to return, and maybe I'm a bit queasy, but I think Santana's contract is one someone will be regretting quickly. Personally, I wouldn't give up a second round pick for anyone. In a deep draft, that's still a high enough pick to bring home an impact player. We can start talking about that when they in the plug a few holes phase.

Has SF come out and said they are giving him a QO? I honestly don't see it. He certainly hasn't been 14M good for a couple years now, and if SF wants to pay him that much, and he wants a short term deal, I see nothing preventing him from accepting it, sans perhaps him asking for an agreement not to do the same next year. I agree with you here, he's going to have a tough time finding work if a 2nd round pick is being added to the discussion.

Yes and no. I agree that extending your players isn't always like a FA. The Santana exension is a good example of this, as the Twins had all the leverage and could get an extra year of FA. Mauer on the other hand was not that case. That's my point. I think the idea of bashing the front office for not handing out huge FA contracts is kind of silly when they handed out a pretty big contract to Mauer a few years ago. I get that Bill Smith was the guy in charge when that happened and that Mauer technically still had one more year of control, but to pretend like this is far different from a FA contract is just wrong. There's an insane amount of risk being taken on by signing a catcher to that large of a contract for that long of a time, especially given that catchers tend to wear down more than others. I'd add that there's far more risk than a typical FA contract here as well. I also think it's a pretty safe bet that Ryan would have done that too. There's no way the Pohlads were going to let Joe leave after they got their stadium. My whole point has been that using this concept of the largest FA contract is Twins history is nothing more than wording things for the purpose of drama, and doing so in a way that ignores that 184M one they just handed out a few years back. I get that Mauer wasn't a true FA, but these situations aren't that much different.

HBT posted an article saying Linci is looking for a short term deal to re-establish value. That might make him a fit here where he isn't going to have to worry about someone kicking him out. I've said before I'm not a fan, though as a secondary addition to a guy like Tanaka, I would be fine with that. Johnson is another one I wouldnt' mind, but that's pretty risky.