KirbyDome89

That entire paragraph is the definition of appropriation. Spare me the unsubstantive commentary and I'll return the courtesy.

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. The push to change the Cleveland nickname didn't become more valid in the last 5 years. It isn't more derisive today than it was in the 90s when you read about it, or the decades that preceded that publication. That applies to ND as well. A quick Google search turned up a few op-eds, some change.org petitions, and a peer reviewed article, although I'm not familiar with the journal. If necessary I can link them. I'm not seeing the equivocation you're referring to, my thoughts haven't been hidden. As far as the whataboutisms go, I haven't made any counter accusations directed at Cleveland changing their nickname. My position has continued to be "this is wrong too," in reference to the ND mascot.

ND quite literally appropriated the term Fighting Irish. I'll reference my previous post about it's place in Irish culture.

The issue with Native mascots might go back decades, but it didn't gain momentum until mainstream media picked up the story, and that happened fairly recently relative to 20+ years you referenced. Maybe the push for changing the ND logo is on a similar trajectory, maybe it isn't given the same social credence, maybe nobody cares and it'll never be an actual issue. Regardless, the level of public outcry shouldn't be the determining factor. Cleveland's name didn't become more derogatory over those decades. You and I may not enjoy how the issue with the ND logo is being used, but that doesn't invalidate the larger point. I do think there are some people weaponizing actual oppression, but I'm not particularly interested in sorting out ethnic backgrounds or trying to create a criteria to determine which feelings are valid. Again, that's a can of worms that's best left closed.

Eh they're different avenues of arriving at the same destination; using slurs as a mascot. My objection all along has been consistency. It's a can of worms trying to sort out who is allowed to weigh in on which words, and what phrases are acceptable for use by which groups.

It wasn't part of their culture though. It was a derogatory reference to their culture. Yes, it was co-opted but that's setting the bar pretty low for acceptable use. There are plenty of pejoratives that have been appropriated; I doubt their modern day redefinitions used as team symbols would be met with much approval. Personally, I couldn't care less what Notre Dame does with their mascot. I'm pointing out that attempting to discern how/why certain slurs are more tolerable than others is splitting hairs.

This feels similar to the argument that tribes or individual natives are ok with the Cleveland franchise continuing to use the Indian mascot. A common counter argument is that the feelings of those individuals, or groups, aren't necessarily representative of the whole.

I'm glad the Sox are f***ing this up. As a Twins fan why wouldn't we want them to hire La Russa over more qualified candidates? La Russa's political affiliation, or his critique of a politicized organization doesn't make him a "racist." There's no need to grasp at straws to label him as such in order to justify his dismissal. His relationship with his daughters or his marital strife is equally as irrelevant. If Chicago ownership decides to go another direction after his most recent DUI incident conveniently came to light then that's their right. It doesn't have to go any further than that. If some of you are so disgusted with La Russa's hire, watching the hometown team must be agonizing as well. The Twins roster isn't full of choir boys. Also, Cora somehow gets a pass from the morality police on his legitimacy as a managerial candidate? Smh....

If Buxton wasn't healthy enough to swing a bat or play the field, Idk why it's fine to potentially put him in a position to slide/dive and create contact. If he was going to go, why not do that on a favorable count when Cave was at the plate? Lots of questions....

Hiding subpar arms in the pen is this FO's version of "pitch to contact." It doesn't work against good teams.

Not to mention the Twins have the advantage of playing one of, if not the easiest 60 game schedules in all of baseball. Nearly 2/3 of their games are against teams that finished 10 games or more under .500, and 1/3 of them are against two of the worst teams in baseball. Maybe Cincy and the Sox rise up, but right now I'd say this shortened schedule works in favor of the Twins.

Just because states like Iowa aren't calling it a "shelter in place," doesn't mean there haven't been restrictions, or that their approach has been any less effective. https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2020/04/06/if-iowa-is-already-practicing-shelter-in-place-why-not-call-it-that/ Minnesota is on par with Iowa and Wisconsin in terms of reported cases, and far behind both of the Dakotas. I'm just as likely to come into contact with COVID walking in my actual neighborhood as I am crossing the border into neighboring states.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day right? You might be able to wait on haircuts, dining out, ect. but for millions of minimum wage earners who rely on those jobs it isn't so simple. There will always be a subset of individuals who just don't care about others, but if the threshold for return is a sudden onset of mindfulness within that group, we're never leaving our houses. Is it not also a privilege to assume from a position of relative comfort, that other individuals and industries are capable of waiting? Is our position not influenced primarily by our personal well being above all else?

And my post isn't aimed solely at the 17 responses in this thread. There's definitely a strong sentiment on TD and elsewhere that Houston "deserves," a beating. I have a hard time believing it's only those who approve of that particular unwritten rule suddenly coming out of the woodwork to post.

"I would like to see the rest of the league turn on these guys.If it means they have to take a lot of beanballs then OH WELL." If not encouragement that seems like approval to me....

I wish there was a count for the number of posters who thrash the unwritten rules but suddenly are in favor of other teams throwing at Houston..... Fans should boo them, bring trash cans to bang, find any other sort of creative way to express their disgust, ect. I'm glad other players are speaking out, even if I do feel like some of it is possibly hypocritical, but the approval or encouragement of headhunting Houston seems to fly in the face of the usual pushback on TD against such tactics.

You might have a more kind view of Manfred than I do. I agree, they could certainly do both, but I don't see the merit in making format changes until they've exhausted or at least attempted a revamped marketing approach. To me the rule changes are more about Manfred "making his mark," or cashing in on a quick buck rather than advancing baseball.

The NBA is killing it because they recognized that it's a star driven league, and they've done a phenomenal job of marketing said stars over the course of an 82 game regular season. Casual NBA fans aren't flocking to watch the 36-46 eight seed in the east get bounced by the one seed in 4-5 games simply because it's playoff basketball. They're tuning in because they recognize, or have developed a rooting interest in, certain players thanks to a familiarity developed via exposure over the course of the regular season and the offseason. No doubt that having your best players in the postseason helps with marketing, but 3-4 extra games for Mike Trout's 80-82 LAA in October still isn't the same opportunity as a 162 game regular season tour across the country. If an effective regular season marketing campaign simply doesn't exist, then maybe MLB should address format changes to the game itself. I agree with Bauer that the former should be the first course of action.

I'm not sure why you'd assume format changes need to be made when the current style hasn't been made readily available or properly marketed. That's his entire point, and nothing he said is inconsistent with that. Why dilute the playoff field and devalue the regular season in an attempt to reach out to a younger audience when simply making content available and putting effort into a better marketing strategy can do the same?

I don't see any contradiction. Bauer believes the game is enjoyable as it is, but MLB is failing to make it available.

A vast majority of pitchers are velocity dependent. When the gap between a fastball and an off-speed pitch starts to close decline is inevitable. TJ is far from a death sentence. MN is banking on Homer Bailey as a post TJ success story and already has another success story, Trevor May, on the roster. There are plenty of other guys that have come back from the surgery. Of course his innings have been limited, he had TJ as a 16 year old after pitching in the DOSL. Kids aren't racking up 200+ IPs in A ball, which is where he was prior to last season with the Twins. He'll be 21 this year, the fact he hasn't had the full workload of a SP shouldn't be that surprising. Every time a new pitcher is brought over to this organization we hear about how Falvey "sees something there," or "hopefully Wes Johnson unlocks X or tweaks Y." I'm not sure why you'd think Boston is immune from that thinking. Where MN viewed Graterol long term is irrelevant if Boston thought they were getting a SP prospect. The Sox reviewed the medicals, they didn't align with where they saw Graterol, so Boston balked. Again, if negative fan reaction to the OG deal was really what halted things, Boston wouldn't be trading Betts. There's no return that will please that fan base, nor should there be. If you want to believe that Bloom was willing to risk his personal and professional reputation, as well as that of the Red Sox, just to add a former 3rd round pick in Connor Wong to their organization, go right ahead. I would lean towards the notion that the most simple explanation is likely the correct one.

He's 100% right on everything. MLB is essentially the grave digger being paid to dig their own plot. Until they can resist the instant gratification of a quick buck upfront and start making decisions that support the long term health of the game, the hole will continue to get deeper.

I don't hate the idea of higher seeds choosing their opponent but I think having 7 teams per league is too much. You're right, MLB isn't going to go backwards, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere right? If they continue to inch away from regular season relevance at some point they'll find themselves at a point where a 162 game season largely doesn't matter. I understand the tv and marketing aspect, but it feels like a very short term view, where the actual health of the game is being sacrificed for a quick buck.

I absolutely hate the 1 game WC; HATE it. A best of 3 series isn't doing much better. Nobody actually tunes into the first round, and sometimes the 2nd round, of the NBA playoffs because mediocre/bad teams constantly sneak in as the 6-8 seeds. MLB shouldn't water down their product, or penalize good teams by shortening series to three games. Nearly the entire proposal pisses me off. I've been saying for a while that Manfred is obsessed with making changes only for the sake or change, i.e. he's too concerned about "leaving his mark."

The sale of the comp pick in the Hughes deal was defended similarly; it's cash to fill roster holes. That money was pocketed, as I suspect this will be too. I'd prefer this FO stop selling draft picks.