diehardtwinsfan

Here's the problem. Blackburn is owed 5M, and he's awful. This is the definition of a sunk cost, and that right there is why he was outrighted. No one would take on the contract, adn I highly doubt that if he was DFAd someone would give him anything more than a minor league contract. The Twins are on the hook for this contract, but at least the only way he returns to MN is if he earns it. That said, no one is going to give anything to take blackburn off of our hands... even a bad contract for bad contract swap makes no sense, as Blackburn has been terrible and no team is going to put him in their rotation. The Twins won't get a bucket of balls for him. Their only hope is that he figures something out in AAA and can come back and look like the Blackburn of old, but at this point, the Twins have essentially written him off.

If he was still a prospect, I think you could make a top 5 (in MN) case for him right now. 24 year olds that OPS 1.1 in AAA don't exactly grow on trees and are typically considered very nice prospects. He's been doing this for a year and a half now too, so I'm not sure you can just SSS this anymore. While I don't expect him to do that in MLB, a floor of an average MLB first baseman seems pretty reasonable, with a ceiling that would make most of us downright giddy.

the arb/super 2 game is a different discussion. I'm specifically talking about the ridiculous arguments that 'if Trout/Harper played for the Twins they would only be in A ball right now'. There seems to be this myth that the Twins don't promote fast enough thru the rk/A/AA levels. If some had their way any decent prospect would be promoted after a month of decent production similar to what the Mets did with so many prospects. Aside from a couple of college pitchers like Slowey/Garza/Gibson there have not been any prospects (that I can think of) that deserved to be fast tracked. On that I agree with you.

I challenge you (or anyone) to start naming names of Twins prospects that were unjustly held back. The Twins are conservative with promotions but they also haven't prospects that have dominated levels (other than appy league). In recent memory, there haven't been any. In the small market days, they definitely played the arb/super2 game... Guys like Neshek, Morneau, and Bartlett spent more time in the minors than one would have liked.... but that was quite some time ago.

speaking of RBI totals, just what has been the OBP of the #2 spot in the linup when Mauer is batting 3rd during Mauer's career? I wouldn't be surprised if it was under .250

No problem. I have the luxury of teaching an online class this week with long labs

you can add Blackburn to this list too... Former #1 prospect of the team.

Couldn't disagree more. The thing I hate most about football is how owners screw the players over their contracts. The players get hurt or has a down year, then the contract doesn't matter, the player is cut. But if they exceed the contract and want a raise, all of sudden owners act like the player is a greedy **** for wanting his value. I don't have a problem with either system. Both sides know the rules going in. That's why FB contracts often have huge signing bonuses (and why reports of NFL contracts usually mention total $$ and guaranteed $$.) Interestingly enough, football earns more revenue than baseball too, yet baseball contracts tend to pay more. A 30M contract for a FB player is a big thing. It's fairly typical these days with baseball. FB players in particular get screwed. They are asked to put their bodies out on the line and the moment they get hurt, they get cut. Baseball puts far less wear on a body than football.

Isn't that exactly what they were saying about Slowey, Neshek and Baker as well before they got injured? Slowey and Neshek were malcontents... Baker was soft.

I'd have to think that Hendricks gets teh call here. They need to see if the things he's worked on have helped a bit. The Twins are still forced to pay for both Nishi and Blackburn, but at least now they aren't on the 40 man.

Now it's your turn to mis-characterize a position. Taxes need to be cut across the board, and taxing businesses vs. consumers does nothing but double taxes. Taxes placed on businesses get factored into prices, and taxes placed on consumers affect purchasing power, and all of that has a direct affect on the cost of labor. There are a number of libertarian tax proposals which would immediately result in lower costs and better standards of living (such as Ron Paul's plan which achieves it through gutting the government or the Fair Tax). While it may be always cheaper to build there, when the cost of living drops here, American labor will find itself in a better competitive spot. Judging by my personal observances of the system, I'd say it's not very successful at all. And likewise, your point about breeding criminals is also offbase. Again, since the creation of these safety net programs, what has happened to crime in this country? It hasn't dropped. This is because the safety net deals with the symptoms of the problems and not the problem itself. No one will touch the fact that their money is devalued every single day, which is what is creating the poverty and creating the crime. As I said earlier, there will always be poverty, and there will always be crime. The foolish thing though is believing that the government can somehow erradicate it by adding safety nets. It cannot. And since the inception of these safetynets, crime has increased and poverty has increased. Why is that? I know you aren't directing this post at me b/c I've stayed out of this largely, but there's far more than libertarian talking points here. There's a root cause that welfare-to-work does not address. I'm not sure you've spent a lot of time thinking about the roots of failure either. You sound just like a lazy Republican who says nothing but "trickledown trickledown" and ignores the fact that as implemented it's trickled up... Both programs quitely ignore the greater problems and both are nothing but a means to placate the bases of two parties equally bent on destroying this country. No, it's not. Government is not the solution, and it only creates more problems. Policy won't fix this. Undoing existing policy will.

I'm not here to insulte you or characterize you as something you are not, but I'll be real honest in that I've seen enough of the bad sides of society to say that relying on the goodness of humanity to escape poverty is absurd. I'm a landlord and own several rental properties, all of which tend to cater towards lower income individuals. I don't accept government subsidies because by and large for the most part, those individules are some of the most entitled-self centered people I have ever met. In my 8 years of doing this, I've come across 1 person who I would consider to be a success story amongst many failures. People don't escape poverty without outside assistance... with the exception of a lucky fuew, they don't escape it. Not anymore at least. There's a system in place today that wasn't there 100 years ago that virtually ensures that poverty isn't going anywhere. You are right, no one aspires to be on welfare, yet here we are with an ever growing population, and the more social programs we add, the more welfare grows. Why is that? You've challenged libertarians on their "do nothing" solution as lazy. I ask you, how is it that your solution isn't any more lazy when all you are doing is throwing money at a problem which in turn actually makes it worse? Likewise, your view on history is skewed. Engraved on the statue of liberty are the following words: "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." This was the mantra in this country up until the Great Depression, and it worked for the first 150 years of this country's existence. There was no welfare prior to that and this country did just fine. It wasn't until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the subsequent Great Depression which it engineered that required these social programs, and instead of dealing with the cause of this poverty, we allowed the corruption to continue. That system is designed to slowly suck money out of the general economy and place it into the hands of a few, and this is exactly where the US is going. You are correct to task conservatives on this issue, as they want to deal with the welfare without fixing the problem at the top, but this is one thing the libertarians have figured out. The problem is here because the system as a whole is stacks the deck against everyone else. History says otherwise my friend. I don't think you are a dumb flower-kissing hippy, but there is NO way to create these welfare to work programs. The problem economically is that the government doesn't produce anything. It sucks money out of the economy that the economy would purpose on it's own. Likewise the jobs it creates don't produce anything either, adding another disadvantage. Less goods are being produced. Then there's the human nature side of things, in which people figure out how to game the system, and that happens both with the recipients of the aid along with the corrupt government officials that use the positions to reward people for things like campaign help. How else does a guy Michael D. Brown get put in charge of Emergency Preparedness and it's 150k salary plus benefits without a shred of actual experience doing these things? I think the 16 million undocumented workers in this country might have something to do with some of this. I can guarantee you those individuals come from poorer backgrounds than the average welfare recipient and are willing to make far more sacrifices to achieve the American dream.

The problem from this libertarian has nothing to do with his zeal, maturity, dreams, or whatever... It's because in practice, Ryan is no fiscal conservative.

Brock, you already have a permanent underclass, and as long as the economic setup is allowed to continue as it does, it will only continue to grow. The welfare system rewards mistakes, so there's nothing preventing others from continuing to make them and no incentive to get out of the situation. Inflation is a different side of things in that it slowly erodes away the wealth of all of us (except those at the very top who have access to the money before it's value is destroyed)... That punishes people on fixed incomes and slowly moves more and more people into these safety nets where they have no else to go. I get the "what about the children" argument up to a point, but the simple fact is that since these programs have been put into place, there are more children that need them now. There will always be poverty, and there will always be suffering. Thinking that the government can provide some magic pill to fix all of that is everyone's first mistake. The other problem, is that somewhere you have to give the government control of parenting decisions. Is that really a line people are willing to cross? This is the same one giving the finger to the first ammendment telling religious organizations they ahve to do something that's against their convictions. What would stop them from telling you as parents that you cannot pass on your own moral views to your children?

this conversation is getting ridiculous in a hurry. If Mauer suddenly changed his approach, his RISP numbers would likey drop and his RBIs would drop as well. I'm not sure what people expect out of guys, but to simply get a hit in 35% of your at bats is considered pretty good, and in Mauer's case, that's what he is doing when there are runners in scoring position.

He's 21, so take any standout years in Elizabethon with a grain of salt. I'd be much more excited about him if he was 18.

I don't see him having a future in MN, and to be honest I'm not sure he's a big leaguer other than some teams AAA filler who will get an occasional chance to shine when someone goes down. He's blocked right now by Benson, Hicks, and Arcia and has guys chasing him in the lower minors too. I wish him best, but I don't see him getting any PT here.

He's only spent a half season in AA, so I wouldn't terribly surprised if he started there. They did the same thing with him last year in Fort Meyers... That said, he was not nearly as dominant in Ft. Meyers last year as he was in NB this year, so AAA is probably where he goes. I cannot see him in right unless both Morneau and Span are traded this offseason. He still has issues with breaking pitches, so it's not the worst thing in the world to slightly bump up the level of competition he faces and then bring him on once someone is moved via the trade at the deadline next season.

he's fast, but apparently several NFL players think they coudl beat him... got to love their cockiness.

wholeheartedly agree, but this is driving policy in this country. These extreme wackos are being used to justify destroying the 2nd ammendment, just as they are being used to spend trillions invading foreign nations (which ironically tends to create more of them). You cannot live your life based on what the extreme says/does.... but in this country, it seems to be acceptable.

I really think the Republicans have set themselves up with another 4 years of Obama. Romney was by far the worst choice of the four that lasted deep into the primaries. His base has no reason to get excited about it. His VP choice is nothing but a bunch or rhetoric, but when it comes to actual results, has been very inconsistent... Ryan, BTW, used to be my Congressman. I don't get the love for the guy. He started talking the talk after Obama got elected, but never bothered to stand up to Bush and his big government ways. Voters still remember that, and handing Romney the President with a Republican congress will not lead to less debt... If history is any indication, it will lead to sizably more. By refusing to hold Bush accountable in 2004, the Republicans rolled out the red carpet for Obama in 2008, and while I don't think his election will be nearly the landslide it was in 2008, I really think they are handing it to him again in 2012... when people like my parents are voting for Obama, I know Romney is in trouble.

some of those teams flat out choked (2006 and 2010 in particular).... I could have seen either one losing their series, but to do so in the manner they did tells me something else alltogether. But the teams they have consistently put together don't help. Teams like the Yankees now how to beat pitch to contact guys. They won't walk many guys, so you know you will get strikes. Just sit on your pitch and the hits will come... There's also an organizational flaw that only sets its sites on the playoffs... That's a step to a goal, but not the goal. Oh, and was I the only one who first read that and thought it said "breaking the stethescope"?

I'd probably send Benson to see if he can get back on track. Gibson is a lock as well. They can send 3 more guys and there are rules with certain international guys that prevent them from going. Hendricks, Parmelee, and Dozier might not be bad ones to send either.

Even though they technically don't qualify, Dozier and Parmelee haven't exactly graduated and should be considered prospects... that's just picking some nits though. I tended to be optimistic and said they were a 10-15 system at the beginning of the year. I suspect that should be higher now with Buxton and Berrios. Arcia, Hicks, Sano, and Rosario should all be top 100 guys and I suspect Buxton will be there as well (even though I personally wouldn't put him there). You could make a case for Gibson and Parmelee (if he was considered a prospect) as well. If I were grading things, Arcia and mabye Sanpo are likely an A- guys and the rest of those guys are the B+ range. That's a pretty solid core... Too bad they don't have squat for pitching.

Trading Morneau this offseason is already selling higher than what it would have been had they traded him in June/July. He's owed less, and looking more and more like his former self. If he keeps that up for the remainder of the year, there will be suitors for him this offseason, though I don't know if any of them will be willing to offer front line pitching for Justin. I agree primarly with what Brock said. One guy gets flipped this offseason to give Parm a temporary position. As long as he hits, Morneau gets flipped at the deadline when his value is presumably even higher.