KirbyDome89

+1 for Milwaukee as a dark horse. They aren't talked about enough. They are what the Twins should be right now.

Six months ago you would've been crazy for suggesting it. Now, eh, it sadly makes sense. I'm not sure I'd give up both yet, but if 1+ prospects starts a serious conversation for Syndergaard I'm not sure how the Twins don't pursue it. Honestly though, NY might see Buxton/Sano as even more damaged than Twins fans.

Accepting that an individual has completed the steps deemed necessary to be reintegrated into society isn't the same thing as forgiveness. Forgiveness occurs on an individual level. I can support his pursuit of employment in MLB after demonstrating he's capable of being a functioning member of society. That doesn't mean his actions are absolutely excused. We can debate how much of an effect those actions at 15 should have on him through his 20s and 30s, and I've seen that in this thread, but I haven't seen anybody suggest that because he completed his mandatory rehabilitation he's free from all reproach. This of course, is if he's truly guilty. I agree with you, it's important to acknowledge that either scenario could be true, and I also agree that there isn't much wiggle room in regards to what happened. Either something did, or it didn't, there isn't much middle ground there. The fact that nobody actually knows what did happen though does create a bit of a gray area. I don't think this is a situation where we have to pick a side and then either throw the book at him or absolve him of all past actions. I'm not saying you can't question his lack of remorse, but I will point out that if we've recognized that the possibility exists that he may be innocent, it seems rather insincere to come down on him for claiming his innocence and showing what's subjectively termed a "lack of remorse." I have a hard time labeling what she said a false confession. At age 4 there's a lot going on that isn't understood. In general, you're right, he and his family made the conscious decision to enter a guilty plea. That said, I think it's fair to consider the alternative to pleading guilty was worse. What chance does an adolescent male accused of sexual molestation of a 4-6 year old girl stand in court? When you consider that the alleged incident occurred between family members you're looking at a national news story on top of probable jail time. By pleading guilty one charge was dropped, he had to keep his head low for 5 years, and the records would've been permanently sealed. He had a "choice," to proclaim his innocence at 15, but it isn't the easy road some are making it out to be. I'd also add that while he certainly knew he would have to inform certain people over that 5 year span of his listing on the registry, the whole point of pleading guilty was to keep the alleged incident under the radar. It isn't fair to say he knew there would be backlash today, especially when barring a bungling by Corvallis police, nobody should've known about this. The point of the plea was in fact to not have to tell the world anything about the alleged incident. One question that I haven't heard him answer is whether he would've singed the plea agreement if he had known this info would leak. Based on his insistence of innocence I'd guess not. **Before anybody reads this and loses their mind, no, this isn't some proclamation of innocence. It's an objective look at why a 15 year old may have chosen to enter a guilty plea despite claiming innocence.

I'll add that when actual talent does pop up they make sure to sell low. Ramos, Garza, Hardy, Barlett, Gomez.....

I'm not making the case that MLB teams have to sign him. I agree, teams should be allowed to operate as they so choose. An unobstructed opportunity, the same one every potential signee has, is all he can ask for. That's all I meant by he should be granted the same opportunities as others who have completed similar programs.

Neither of us have any idea what, if anything, happened. It sounds like we can both agree that there's a chance he actually is innocent. We don't have to agree where those odds fall, and personally I have no clue where'd I put them. It seems to me that if we can entertain the possibility of innocence then angst over his insistence on the matter and his supposed lack of contrition appear to be excessive.

Not wanting to see him in MLB and barring him from entry are two different things. I can understand the former but not the latter. Baseball is job, it shouldn't be given special status as employment only for those deemed acceptable by the masses.

Did you read any of the posted articles? That simply isn't true.

The SI article was a good one, no doubt, but I feel like I have more questions now than I did prior to reading it. I honestly don't know how to feel about what did or did not happen, and it's not hard for me to see either scenario being true. IMO that's the best reason I can think of to err on the side of caution, i.e. he has paid a debt, rightly or wrongly, and he should have the same opportunities as any other individual who has completed the same process.

Its a reference to them sharing blame with Heimlich if the attention is indeed traumatic. Acknowledging that doesn't detract from the focus of the thread. If you believe that Heimlich maintaining his innocence is traumatizing then media outlets asking to reiterate that stance are complicit in the traumatization. You seem certain he committed the act he was accused of, obviously he has a very different story. Therein lies your issue.

That's a great point. If Heimlich's responses are so traumatizing then why aren't those posing the questions or writing the pieces being admonished as well? Aren't they equally, if not more guilty of adding to the pain? I doubt anybody is naive enough to believe that the story broke because the writer and editor were "concerned for public safety."

Blue Smoothies....good times

He's certainly good enough talent wise, the question is whether a team wants to take on the PR that will follow his signing. I can understand why some wouldn't want him on the Twins, although I don't think I'd protest the organization signing an individual who likely would've been a high round pick. The only issue I've ever had is the idea that he "shouldn't be allowed," to play for a MiLB or MLB team.

You're calling him out for supporting vets in one thread and pushing back against the teams continual love affair with them in another. I'm telling you that not all veteran players are the same, i.e. there's a massive difference between supporting the team holding onto Dozier beyond this season and being annoyed at their reluctance to cut Belisle. To be inconsistent the situations would have to equivalent, and that isn't case...

It would be a nice gesture by the organization, but I think those innings are better served going to young pitchers who are pushing their way onto the active roster. We bash September innings, and it's true that performances during roster expansion have to be taken with a grain of salt, but something is better than nothing when it comes to getting some time for arms that have a shot to stick.

I thought the fact that Dozier suddenly became expendable during the offseason was pretty ridiculous too. That doesn't mean I, or anybody else who felt the same way, are in favor of Wilson, Hale, Belisle, Petit, ect spending time on the active roster. There's a very clear distinction between those two positions....

Well now that we know some of Belisle's fellow pitchers adore him it's clear the Twins have no choice but to keep him.....

I'd much rather believe this is about service time or an innings limit. I don't agree with the service time argument if they still believe they have even a remote chance, and the innings limit is an issue I think they need to address if/when (extremely unlikely) they make up ground in the standings. They aren't catching Cleveland by sending down young arms and rosters worse pitchers. That said, this is the same FO/ownership that sold a second round pick to save some $$ on the horrific Hughes extension. Would it really be that surprising if they held onto Belisle for a longer time than they should've (granted you believe the signing was even defensible in the first place) simply to "get their monies worth?"

An example of what not to do when pitching in MLB?

Honestly I think having 2 competent/knowledgeable broadcasters and foregoing the constant commerical interruptions during the later innings would alleviate a lot of the consternation. Does that cut down on game time? No, but 3 + hours of watching/listening to something you enjoy goes by much faster than 2.5 hours of constantly interrupted enjoyment. Football also has a ton of "dead time," but it's made bearable by constant analysis, replays, highlights from the current game or others, ect. (Yes, I know, there's no chance MLB is cutting commercial time) Little things like a pitch clock, cutting down on time out of the batters box, ect. I don't have an issue with. Honestly I don't think it saves much time but if MLB wants to convince itself that making those changes will in fact have an impact then go for it. I can't say I'm a fan of making fundamental changes like altering the strike zone, starting extra innings with a runner on base, limiting pitching options, banning defensive alignments, ect. The criticisms of strikeouts, baserunners, analytics, and hitting approach all smack of "get off my lawn." I'm not sure the fact Nightengale is a lifer helps him here. Listening to Jack Morris repeat the same concerns inning after inning last night quickly became tiresome. Every previous generation thought their way of doing things was the "best way," and any deviation from it is criticized. I will say I think Morris did make a good point between rants. Baseball, like life, is about adjustment, and at some point things will shift back towards an equilibrium position. Strikeouts won't skyrocket into the 300+ range and continue upward, the value of running the bases and producing runs isn't gone, every hitter in MLB won't be trying to max out their launch angle.

Remember how excited everybody was for things to change with the new FO? It's getting to the point where we're watching two versions of the same broken machine....

Don't underestimate this organizations ability to exhaust every veteran retread who doesn't belong on a major league roster before turning to younger arms.

Don't get our hopes up....

Dear Jack Morris, We understand that you think baseball was better "back in your day." That stance doesn't need to be reiterated every 30 seconds. Thanks, Everybody watching on FSN

You're right, he beat up on KC, Detroit, and CWS in May and he was fell flat against STL and LA. I would guess that his increased chase rate and % of pitches in the strike zone has as much to do with facing some pretty poor offensive lineups as it does with him rediscovering his form. Hats off to him for pitching well against Cleveland and LA this month though. As a nitpick I would quantify his positive May-June starts as more than "a few," but overall I agree with what you're saying; the jury is still out on what he'll be moving forward. I'm also not sure that his 5 years prior to TJ surgery are particularly relevant other than to highlight the fact he hasn't gotten back to where he was.