KirbyDome89

"He's clearly better than our worst reliever." That's why the move isn't popular. The goal is to improve the bullpen. The easiest way to do that is to add to the top and push everybody down, not vice versa. Sure, they have a few more days to add actual impact arms, but that doesn't mean anybody needs to like the Romo addition. If nothing else the deadline continues to creep closer and the Twins have yet to make a significant move.

In fairness a large portion of that "good," sample size came before his TJ surgery. We were debating whether to extend Kyle Gibson in the midst of his run at this time last year too. It isn't a perfect comp, Lynn has the better performance track record but Gibson certainly wins when it comes durability. If Lynn was a FA in the offseason it'd be a different story. This team needs pitchers, especially starters for next season. Personally I'd rather see the Twins go after a higher tier/more reliable arm than buy high on Lynn with the hopes he turns into a bargain.

I absolutely thought it was after reading the headline.

I agree, there really isn't any excuse for the state of the bullpen other than the Twins were being cheap, and that isn't really an excuse. It was a huge oversight, and it wasn't hard to predict it becoming an issue. There shouldn't be a pass issued, and I don't think many are handing one out. Cron came at a reasonable rate and this team needed a 1B, it's hard to hate on that move too much. I was, and still am, happy with the Marwin signing. I'll grant you that the timing of the signing does suggest that if Sano hadn't injured himself MN was fully prepared to start the season with a payroll hovering around 100M. The Parker signing was never met with rave reviews. The bullpen was aided by a slow early schedule and the starters going deep into games to begin the year. Once the schedule picked up and some of the starters regressed the warts started showing up. No matter how easy or logical the Cruz signing was, the FO got it done and they deserve credit for it. Cron was coming off a 30 HR season, he wasn't unwanted by the rest of the league. TB DFA'd Corey Dickerson the previous season after he was an AS, and he went on to win a GG last year. Schoop is going to finish with 20+ HRs, a 780is OPS, and 2+ bWAR; I'll take that from a 2B. The Kepler and Rosario extensions look pretty good right now. The Odorizzi trade is a feather in their cap, ect. This FO has definitely done some things right. I've been more critical than some when it comes to the FO. I have my own list of grievances (Rule V picks, handling of the Jelfry Marte contract, Buxton's service manipulation, laundry list of waiver claims that flame out, Matt Belisle pitching last season, ect) and bullpen oversight this season is near the top.

Cleveland actually had a really good bullpen in both 16' and 17'. They were deeper than just Andrew Miller. I understand why you want to dampen expectations. I'm of the same mindset, that the Twins will definitely add, but it won't by anything substantial. MN isn't going to acquire another Pressly; they had him and they gave him away. It's incredibly unlikely MN finds a trade that favorable. They don't need another Perez type arm. They're flush with fringy starters who struggle in the pen. If that's the best they can provide then the FO deserves to be raked over the coals. Look, it wasn't difficult at the beginning of the season to see that the bullpen would need help. Nobody said it would be easy but this club literally traded away their best relief arm and filled in all their holes with waiver claims and unproven minor leaguers. I'm not sure how the current state of the entire pitching staff isn't an indictment of the FO. If they've proven anything it's that they underestimated the team they had. I'm not sure why get a pass for ignoring a glaring weakness during the offseason, and playing "wait & see," while that weakness continues to cost them games. Gibson is silently back to being the erratic pitcher we all knew prior to last year. Perez crashed back to Earth a while ago, and Odorizzi is right on his heels over the last month+. Pineda is semi reliable when he's actually on the mound but even then it's 4-5 innings max of back end performance. It isn't the worst rotation in baseball but it's a far cry from the teams the Twins are trying to compete with, and that group certainly hasn't helped mitigate the damage from an undermanned pen. The Twins might be deep in terms of bodies they can use to start a game, but if we're talking about talent on the mound that certainly wouldn't be the adjective I'd use.

Any other year I'm turning the broadcast off when NY goes up 9-3....the Twins offense certainly refuses to roll over Fun to watch...

Dick needs to quit whining about last night... Seriously, we get it. It's not a great look to cry about a single missed strike in the previous game while Yankee hitters currently continue to destroy Twins pitching.

I'm with you on this. If other teams are content to "see what happens," I'd argue it's in the Twins' best interest to upgrade. I doubt that's actually the scenario we'll see, but hypothetically if other teams were hesitant to add it would mean a depressed market and that's something MN should take advantage of. Why not grab the first seat in musical chairs (get the player you want for a lesser price) if other clubs are waiting to see what unfolds. There's a way for MN to bolster the MLB team without "selling," their future. Their options aren't limited to emptying the farm for a 1-2 year run vs. holding onto every prospect and continuing to move the goalposts.

You forgot that they can't spend right now because they need all that bankrolled $$ for extensions. The can is constantly being kicked down the road. I have to assume assume they'll do something at the deadline, and they obviously have no choice but to address the rotation in the offseason, but withholding cynicism or critique when it comes to the Pohlads spending to win reads as a coping mechanism in this thread.

Saturday in DC Police had to use physical force to prevent Antifa members from jumping barricades and attacking Proud Boys members at multiple locations along the route of their rally. There was still at least one reported incident between the two groups. That's just a few days ago.....

Antifa isn't a biannual blip on the radar. It's not contextualization to state that; you're purposefully misrepresenting what the group actually is because identity politics doesn't allow for true internal critique lest the high ground be lost. You preach accountability but you can't level even the smallest amount of criticism towards Antifa without qualifying it. I don't believe for once second that you would disagree with me if I said the marginalization of a group like the Proud Boys, by extension, excuses their actions to a degree. Swapping Antifa into that equation shouldn't change the outcome.... Again, where I stand between these two extremes has been made clear; reread old posts if necessary.

You cannot in one breath admit to downplaying the motives/actions of Antifa and then in the next claim you aren't excusing them. You can continue to say you're against the violence, but the second you start qualifying those statements or minimizing what Antifa actually is, that sentiment begins to ring hollow. I'm not stretching any logic to get to that conclusion. Look up ARA and the spawn of what we know as Antifa. I'm not wrong about them being relatively new to the scene, and if your stance is that the 80s don't qualify as "new," then we'll chalk it up to semantics and move on. It isn't my responsibility to educate you. Create a Twitter account and start poking around. Start with large groups like RCA and move from there. Check independent news sources. Go find FB groups and IG pages. I've already told you to check out the podcast Tim Pool did Joe Rogan regarding how groups like Antifa are sheltered. There's plenty out there to keep you busy. Their stated motive doesn't align with their actions, and even if it did, I've made my stance clear regarding violence towards ideology.

My stance has remained consistent; the goalposts haven't been touched on my end. You continue to bring it up, and subsequently claim it isn't to link the past to the present. What then is the purpose of adding that criteria if we're talking about the actions of these groups in 2019? Calling Antifa a biannual occurrence isn't putting them into context. It's an obvious effort to minimize what the group is, and I'll at least give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you know that. Was I silent though? Did I not also label right wing groups as extremists, or vilify attacking individuals based on skin color? Do I really need to make a separate post detailing why neo Nazis beating a black man in the streets is wrong, or can we all just agree we're on the same page when it comes to dealing with far right groups? Part of accountability is protecting certain principles no matter who is violating them.

You continue to offer "historical scope," as evidence that one rationale for violence is worse than the other. That is equating the two time periods. Thank you for demonstrating once again, that there can be no in house condemnation without qualifiers. Downplaying or disregarding Antifa's social reach, motives, actions, ect is justifying the violence. That's consistent through this thread. Ignorance, whether willful or unintentional, is bliss though right?

That's skirting my point; which is that tiki torches 2 years ago aren't akin to rallies in Nazi Germany. You insist on lumping the two together, yet a comparison of violence between two extremist groups in 2019 is apparently a false equivalency. If you can't see the distinction it's because you're choosing not to. Luckily there are plenty of, "people like me," who will continue to point out the hypocrisy of justifying violence from one extreme while decrying it from the other. I'm glad I'm not so tethered to identify politics that I cling to a warped view of what Antifa is, and feel the need to constantly qualify any in house criticism.

In 2019 they probably are, which was what I was getting at with my rankings comment. We have masked thugs beating people in the street for failing to align with their political agenda (fascists) and then there's the other side beating people for having the wrong skin color (supremacists.) IMO trying to parse out which is more dangerous is an exercise in futility. You keep falling back on the historical scope during this false equivalency tussle but you either fail to realize, or continue to ignore the fact that the extremist groups which we're talking about (KKK, Nazi party, ect.) aren't even close to what they were in terms of political powers. That's already been pointed out upthread. You'll have to explain to me how lumping tiki torches in Charlottesville in with a Nuremberg Rally isn't a false equivalency. That'd be a good place to start before calling other takes "dishonest." I see everybody condemning the violence of Antifa, however, a lot of the condemnation is hedged with a "but....." Antifa isn't some random grouping of individuals who've been antagonized into countering violence with violence. I feel like a number of people in this thread have that impression. That's untrue. They're an organization that embodies exactly what they claim to be fighting, and they seek violence as eagerly as the extremists on the right.

There has always been opposition to fascism but this US based version of Antifa that we're talking about is relatively new to the game.

Earlier in the thread you were crying about false equivalency but now pudgy urbanites with replica helmets are akin Nazi soldiers, pencil necks wearing button downs and polos while holding tiki torches are apparently on par with lynch mobs of the past, and the KKK definitely holds the same prominence and has continued their same level of activity. Seems like an honest take..... But sure, lets overlook the less than savory aspects of Antifa because they haven't been around as long as other hate groups....

1) White nationalists beating a black man in the streets vs fascists beating reporters with opposing opinions in the streets? Do we need to do a ranking scale for which type of hatred is worse, or is it enough to agree that attacking an individual for merely existing or having a dissenting opinion are close enough to lump together under the banner of "wrong?" As far as the degree of violence is concerned, there are plenty of homemade weapons and instances of unprovoked violence from both sides so how is the line being drawn? 2) Antifa goes where the alt right travels and vice versa. 3) The platform for organization is totally irrelevant. Let's be honest, Antifa is composed mainly of my age demographic, young men in their mid 20s to early 30s. I'd wager the alt right groups can't claim the same demographic statistics, nor do they likely use social platforms with the same general frequency/proficiency. 4) Are we arguing fascism vs. nazism here? 5) Violence from one group is certainly being normalized or at the very least tucked under the rug.

That description fits Antifa just as easily. I don't why the notion that Antifa lacks organization or isn't on par with extremist groups on the right continues to persist in this thread. You might not encounter them as often in your social circles, or in consuming your preferred media outlets, but couldn't it be a simple bubble issue? You've stated that you spend time seeking out extremist groups on the right to decry their actions; I promise you if you put in some time you'll see Antifa isn't the "random group that shows up here and there," or the "unorganized group that lacks a political party or agenda," they're being portrayed as. As far as justification goes, when you set a morality scale by saying things like "one side is evil, the other is simply misguided," or claiming violence from one side is worse than the other, or admitting to a rooting interest, albeit small, in one side "winning," you are justifying the actions of Antifa. I'm right there with you when it comes to distaste for fascism, but what I can't understand is why Antifa is consistently left out of that grouping when they show, time after time, that they're eager to meet any opinion they deem disagreeable with violence.

To echo Van, they're far from loosely organized. They're notorious on Twitter for promoting and threatening violence as well as doxxing. It isn't by chance that mobs of individuals dressed in all black and masks show up to these rallies. If you don't want to dig through Twitter or FB (understandable) I'd urge to you listen to the podcast Tim Pool did with Joe Rogan where he goes over how groups like Antifa organize/exist and how they're overlooked in comparison to other extremist groups.

No, the point was that the extremist group(s) in Charlottesville were destroyed by the national media, and Trump was widely criticized for downplaying the rally. However, when Antifa, another extremist group, starts attacking political rivals, police, or anybody on the ground it's ignored, defended, or in some cases outright supported by the same media outlets. Van's right, it's a total hypocrisy.

Well, according to HuffPost it's the fault of the Right for being in a city that "doesn't want them," and baiting Antifa into these actions. Also there's apparently no real linkage of Antifa to violence. Smh..... They're a domestic terror group, and the cognitive dissonance practiced by actual media outlets that defend Antifa while simultaneously admonishing the extremist groups they clash with is equally hilarious and sad.

Meh, as a back end starter he isn't high on the list of concerns. I wasn't expecting a ton from him this season either. I'd certainly rather have Pineda than Tommy Milone or Bartolo Colon but we're setting the bar pretty low there...

Well in theory as revenue rises every year, one would expect payroll to increase, especially with significant money coming off the books and draft picks being sold for cash. The mantra for a long time has been "they're saving $$ to use for when the team starts to win." Setting aside the flawed logic, there's nothing to suggest that any "saved $," is actually bankrolled and put towards payroll in another season, regardless of team expectations or performance. Payroll directly reflects that. My post was sarcastic and alludes to the unsupported idea that money saved or not spend within one season is used as a surplus in another. I guess you'll have to define reallocation. If they actually took money saved and put it towards better players the following year I'd argue that it would indeed equate to growth.