Squirrel

Geez ... showing your age a bit, aren't you?

I think that's what people are questioning ... how do you know they didn't have that conversation with the Dodgers FIRST, and that the press is just reporting where things are at? I think it's hugely presumptuous of you to assume that that conversation hasn't happened and that the press is reporting it to us, secondarily, to let us know that this is where things stand ... that there is a timeline in place. And everyone, please stop the 'LOL-ing' at each other.

I don't think that's an inference you can make from the article one way or the other.

Oh, I don't think we are really so far off in disagreement here. I have always stated we needed pitching and Dozier is the chip to get it. And I, too, want quality over quantity ... but I think there are differing opinions and approaches to what quality gained = what quality lost and finding that right balance that actually does good for us in the future. Yeah, it's all a crap shoot no matter what direction you go, but we could do worse damage to our future, imo, if it's not the right deal, risk or no risk.

That's fair. And I guess that's the divide here between the varying points of view on this issue. For me, there is a point where you walk away. Yeah, there's risk no matter how you look at it. It's just difficult for me to part with a proven, definite asset for something that may never produce. I'd be more comfortable, obviously, with a return of more pieces in the hopes that one is really good. Is there a point you'd walk away from this situation, out of curiosity?

Which is why I used a question mark as I was asking. If that's all the offer is for, then what?

I'm not sure it's really about value that Dozier isn't getting what he's worth. It's more about supply and demand. So are you saying that you would trade him straight up for DeLeon? A proven ML position player with above average defense and well above average power for his position, for an unproven highly ranked prospect within the Dodgers system? No. The only thing you can do is hold him and hope that a better offer comes along. Yes, we need pitching, but ONE pitching prospect isn't going to solve that. It may not even be a start if that ONE prospect doesn't pan out. Yeah, this isn't s great place to be in and we all hoped for more, but that's just how it is. If that's all there is out there for Dozier, you keep him and hope for better. If not, you look for another way. If this is the only way to improve our future, then we don't have much of one.

Well, I don't agree. And I still don't call it an ultimatum.

<pppffftsputtter> I'm not even sure how to respond to that. But somewhere in the Universe, Skeletor is getting anxious.

Sigh. Brock, when are there going to be ads with shirtless He-men eye candy for me to date?

I disagree. It's not an ultimatum at all. It's wanting to get it done because they need to move forward one way or another. It wouldn't be smart if they weren't prepared to walk away, but I think they are and always have been.

Heh, yes, such a warm and fuzzy collective we all are.

Not 'ours' ... one person's.

RAIL BARON!!! Card games, besides those mentioned, that are family fun at the holidays: hearts, up and down the river, spoons

The first two times I played Catan I won. No such luck since but it's a fun game

Too bad ... but cribbage ... I'm a master

Omg ... you play bridge?

I remember playing canasta with my grandma a very long time ago. She died in 1980, before you were born

I hope to see Rosario in right and Kepler in left this year. I'm not sure about Poanco at 3rd, though. You don't really say anything about why you think he'd slot there other than it's the only open spot left and he's the last one to be put somewhere. I think the Twins will have to go outside the org for a legit 3rd baseman.

This was gold.

This is a great event, lots of fun! Not sure yet I'll be able to attend, but it is well worth it!

I don't think having a dry policy helps. I went to school on a dry campus, it didn't help, nor would I consider the campus 'dry' as everyone found ways. All it did was to conceal and make 'secret' student activities while the RAs looked the other way because 'kids will be kids.' And this when the legal drinking age in MN was 19.

Well, I disagree. Sexual assault is sometimes very difficult to prove and how cases are prosecuted and defended make it even worse. As I edited above, I don't think it unreasonable for a school to expect it's students to represent them better. Yeah, that also is a slippery slope and can go too far, but doing nothing because it might go too far is also unacceptable.

I went to school on a dry campus, it didn't stop anything. And yes, both men and women need to take responsibility for their actions, but this also needs to be treated very carefully. It does get close to victim blaming/shaming as well as 'okaying' the actions of the aggressor when we start suggesting, 'well, he/she shouldn't have been drinking.' 'He/she shouldn't have been wearing that.' 'He/she shouldn't have agreed to be in her/his room alone because of course things will happen.' 'He/she have been 'promiscuous' before so ... ' I went to a school who did this kind of thing. And as recently as last year, their idea of dealing with the problem, after suggesting all of the above, and letting the victims know it was their fault because of their lack of responsibility in the situation, was to put both parties into a room telling them to resolve their differences. Teaching responsibility is one thing, but there also needs to be consequences, and I don't think the consequences should be for victims to have to face their attackers day after day, while being blamed for what happened to them. And that's what schools have done and still do. This whole issue is being discussed now because the U decided to suspend some of its players for their behavior and part in this. It's not a criminal judgement they are imposing. It's a 'you need to take responsibility for your actions or there will be consequences for actions' judgement they are imposing. And I say, 'Finally!' Maybe it's not ultimately the right way about it, but I think it's a start. And yeah, maybe it's not fair to all of sudden start now, but when will it be fair? Schools and their administrators and boards/regents have for too long brushed this under the rug for the sake of protecting its school's reputation and/or their 'stars,' and that needs to stop. Maybe if they stop brushing it under the rug and stop treating these situations as if it's okay, actual criminality will be reduced later in life by some of these students who have for years grown up to believe it's okay and take it steps further. Yes, even in this case the university should allow due process, but I don't think it needs to be just about adherence to our legal system. Levi, I understand that you don't think the U should take these steps because it doesn't adhere to the letter of the law. But I respectfully and very strongly disagree. Because rape and sexual assault happen and are often times difficult to prove. I don't think it's unreasonable for any school to start addressing the gray areas of these situations. And I also think it's okay for a school, who is giving a free-ride scholarship to someone, to expect them to represent their school in a more fitting way.

Omg, this is nothing more than a veiled 'boys will be boys' defense. Shame on you.