Squirrel

I've heard some reviews saying it didn't meet the hype ... given the hype I can see it not meeting some expectations ... but that won't deter me, and I'm sure it will be awesome!

Not a fan of this signing ... said it in one of the other threads.

I'll see your 'bleh' and raise you a 'ugh, yuck'

I think I read somewhere that there were visa issues ... don't remember where so I can't link it.

Machado would be my dream ... but I've always known that one would go into the 'unfulfilled' category.

Why do posters use other people's real names? It's not confusing, it's just weird to read along and see questions from Falvey and Jon Bon Jovi.

Right ... hence my comment about the African American voters who really carried it.

Michael Jackson is another thread, and if you have time, I have a very worthwhile article for you to read ... basically asking 'How do you separate the monster from the genius? Is that even possible?' If you want to read it I'll look it up. But I don't spend my money on his music. His music, however, is genius. Did Moore have any qualities that would put him in that category? And was Michael Jackson ever in a position to govern and vote on laws and policy? Both pedophiles, but not related in this situation at all so I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than maybe too many are willing to overlook the monster for another purpose? I also read that the African American turnout was very large, despite the barriers. There was a very large, organized effort and it made a huge difference.

Am I the only one not overjoyed? I’m relieved, for sure. While I get that it’s a red state, it was still really close. Way closer than it should have been, IMO, considering one candidate was a pedophile. I mean think on that and how many still voted for him. I guess a win’s a win and I didn’t think we had a hope, so I guess it’s good. But still ... a LOT of people still voted for a pedophile. And Jones will likely get voted out next time around, as long as they get anyone who’s not a pedophile to run against him.

I know. These winter meeting discussions will just overlap. But I did mention it because there was some discussion already, including a bit more detail on it.

This has already been brought up in two separate threads. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/28147-article-4-stories-to-watch-at-the-winter-meetings/?p=700629 http://twinsdaily.com/topic/28158-article-winter-meetings-search-for-a-starter/?p=700676 I'm closing this and redirecting to one of those threads. We really appreciate everyone bringing news to the forums, but to help streamline discussion and not have too many overlapping threads, please post in one of those threads linked above. Thanks!

Lol! Can't both be true?

Yeah, this was mentioned here: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/28147-article-4-stories-to-watch-at-the-winter-meetings/?p=700629 With multiple threads going on the Winter Meetings, tons of overlap in conversations happening. I imagine that every thread will blow up if something big actually happens for the Twins!

No ... not in the OTHER BASEBALL forum. Yes, I understand how it gets mentioned, but if you want to talk specifically about this in regards to the Twins, please take it to the Twins forum. It would be one thing if you were comparing what others might offer and how the other teams chances are in comparison, I can see that, and yes, that would qualify, but if you are just making it yet another discussion on how the Twins can acquire (or not acquire) certain players, it really needs to be taken to the Twins Talk forum. Edit: And now I've edited the title to reflect this. Again, I understand the mentions, and that's fine, but for full-on Twins discussions, please take them to the Twins Talk forum. Thank you!

The Cole discussion regarding the Twins is ongoing in the Twins forum. Please let's leave it over there and not have a 3rd or 4th thread throughout the site discussing this. Same with the Rodney discussion. While I understand these rumors are often presented along side others, and that's fine, please be mindful that this forum is for non-Twins talk. Yes, it's very difficult (actually impossible) to separate these discussions absolutely, but let's not make these discussions solely Twins or dominantly Twins discussions in the Other MLB forum. If you think this information needs to be 'over there' and it's not already, get it going 'over there' and leave 'here' to (mostly) non-Twins.

I don't think it's rude ... I think there is a certain to truth to it ... on BOTH sides. (The 'being right' part.) I've followed this debate each and every time it's come up and there is absolutely nothing new being said ... it's the same old arguments on both sides, back and forth, back and forth. There are a few acknowledgements of understanding the others' points of view, even if disagreed with (and I say few, very few) vs people just digging in for the long haul, with the 'tone' of "I'm right, gosh darn it!" So, at this point, as a moderator, I'm putting this out here: If you've said it already, you've said it. Move on. There is no 'convincing' of anyone of anything here as most here have decided opinions. On TD, I don't care how much you believe in what you believe, or how right you may be proven in hindsight, or how right you think you are in foresight, no one is right or wrong here, only expressing opinions. Disagree with those opinions all you want, have a good debate, even heated as long as you remain respectful. But at this point, this subject has been debated many times over, and it will soon teeter over (and has) into jabs at one another and their reasoning as to why they think as they do which then becomes bickering. So, unless you have something new to add or are just refuting what you've already refuted time and again, stop. And while I'm at it ... stop with the jabs, especially if you meant them to be unfriendly. And stop being easily offended with perception without truly knowing and responding equally. (Especially the 'responding equally' part.) If you truly feel whatever someone said was meant as an insult, report it. (And even though I quoted Mike here, I am addressing EVERYONE. He just gave me a 'good jumping off' point.)

Welcome to the site!

Not saying 'don't continue discussing this here,' but this is also being discussed, with this same Twitter post, in a 'more specific' article here. Hard to keep the overlap from occurring in these types of articles.

My first choice is both! (Yeah, I know ... humming 'The Impossible Dream' to myself now.)

But we have others down the pipe ... if Polanco can remain serviceable until then ... that's part of the risk. We have to give something good to get something good. Too many people package quantity over quality and that won't work. I like Gordon, too ... and would be very sorry to lose him ... and if Polanco would go into that trade instead, I'd do that ... but then we'd be left pushing Gordon ... could he be ready now? But I don't think teams who are trading away quality pitching want 'ready now' players, they want prospects so they can build again. It's all a crapshoot anyway ... so I say go for it*. But realistically, I don't think that rumored trade will be enough, but maybe. <shrug> I know nothing with this! *(Disclaimer: that is not the same as 'going all in.' That I am not suggesting ... yet.)

I would, too! If there is any truth to that, I'm thinking ... why isn't it done already??? (And that it not being done already, I wonder at its truth. )

A.J. probably wants Hawk’s job now that he’s done ... or have the Sox already announced Hawk’s replacement. You’d think I’d know that living here, but I don’t.

Let's keep this thread for the rumors out there, and the other for actual deals made. That way it will (hopefully) keep the overlap to a minimum.

Oh, d’oh! Forgot where that started. I still don’t fault them overly much.

Or a typo. Or an auto-correct. My home computer tried to correct Gonsalves to a 'more common' Gonzalez until I taught it otherwise.