KirbyDome89

IMO this is already an "egg on the face," situation and the best thing to do is to clean it up as quickly as possible. You're spot on Ted; Molitor has no desire to use Kinley, nor should he, as Kinley hasn't shown anything to suggest he can trusted. He's eating up a 25 man spot, the importance of which is magnified given Molitor's history of bullpen usage, the early struggles of some relievers, and the unpredictability of the starting staff. For me, cutting ties with Kinley won't be hard to stomach, it'll be a relief. However Bard and Chargois are performing now has nothing to do with what's best for the Twins. I get that the optics of cutting Kinley loose this early, or while Bard and Chargois are pitching well may make it seem worse in the eyes of some, but in reality are harming themselves by holding onto a guy that can't get into games.

I think this is stepping around what John was saying. He was spot on when he pointed out that it's very different to acknowledge a more difficult path for some, as opposed to suggesting that things in life are handed to others. The last number I saw for total American's living in poverty was around 40 million. That's incredibly high, the number of whites that comprised that was just over 17 million, and that isn't taking into account those living barely above that line. I have a hard time believing those individuals feel lucky or grateful for their living situation, and I certainly don't believe that they haven't earned what little they have in this life. Granted, I've seen privilege applied to more than just economic status, but an individual's SES is pivotal in everything from physical health to social power and upward mobility so I think it's fair to use it in this regard. I don't know why we need to operate under the assumption that there is a finite amount of social capital. The idea is certainly pervasive in a lot of the social movements today, but I feel that it's only detrimental and leads to a lot of the infighting we see. IMO it's one of the big reasons we see things pride parades being halted and co opted by other social movements. Rather than pulling people down, the idea for society should be to pull everybody up to a place where opportunity and access to resources are as close to equal as possible. That doesn't mean we'll see an equality of outcome, nor should it, but a basal level from which to start from should be the goal. The point of having defined language isn't to appease the hurt feelings of one group, it's to actually get to a place where conversation occurs. If you were to sit down with someone of opposing views and they started in by telling you that you're a snowflake or an elitist, I'm guessing you would be put on the defensive. I don't think anybody would blame you. It's easy to look past these buzz words in an effort to mine some sort of underlying meaning if you mostly agree with whatever message you believe is being conveyed, it's much more difficult to do so when those words or phrases are directed at you. I feel like we're overcomplicating simple protocol for carrying out civil conversation. The idea of avoiding provocation to ensure valuable conversation isn't novel. You've used the word aggregate a couple times now to describe who the term white privilege is pointed at, but I think Chief raised a fair point when asked who that is. We've acknowledged that the term is a generalization and that it can't be assigned at any sort of individual level, so what does the term add to a conversation? That's an honest question. From my perspective we have a group seemingly out in the ether, neither you nor I can say who or how many belong to it, and we know that the formation of this aggregate isn't particularly accurate because we've acknowledged that the threshold for entry allows for sweeping generalizations. I don't see how introducing the term to an attempt at honest conversation adds anything other than confusion or frustration.

It sounds like everybody here is in favor of having actual discussion. I guess I'm not certain that everything being floated in the thread will flow towards open and honest talk. 1. With the sit down and shut the **** up thing are we talking about taking a breath to actually listen to the other side, or is it a recusal from the conversation? I'm guessing (hoping) this board intends it to mean the former but I've often seen it shoved across as the latter. I'm only a few years removed from being a student on a college campus, and I'm still working in academia. The sit down and be quiet message isn't usually relayed as "Hey hear me out," it's more commonly stated as "Your view is invalid because of (skin color, SES, geographic upbringing, basically any qualifier desired)" If we're removing people from the conversation, we're asking for a lecture, not a discussion. Diehard had a great post about defining terms and maybe this falls under that category. 2. I'm not a fan of buzzwords like "White fragility," or "White Privilege." The amorphous definitions of these terms have already been pointed out but IMO they're also weaponized in the same way that Levi pointed out "isms," are used as ammo. These terms don't spark discussion, they're intended to antagonize, similar to the hand grenade in the thread analogy earlier. Craig was right, introspection is healthy, and it's often uncomfortable, but calling others fragile isn't going to get anybody there. That's just reality, I don't think it's thin skinned to point it out.

Lynn part II The Twins can just low ball these guys, the players will realize there is no market for them, and then they'll be forced to re-up on 1 year deals..... #Flexibility

No, I get what you're saying but again, Eddie has earned the reputation that he has. I don't think anybody has trouble criticizing Dozier, Mauer, Kepler, ect. for questionable decisions on the field. The point I made was that Eddie makes those questionable decisions much more frequently, and so of course he's going to receive a disproportionate amount of criticism for doing so. IMO it starts and stops there. I can live with physical errors. Bad routes on fly balls and wild throws are going to happen from time to time. It's the mental mistakes that drive me nuts. Eddie has all the talent in the world but at times he's just so unaware of situations. He has played enough ball to this point where the mental errors are inexcusable.

I don't think they're necessarily held to a different standard. Rosario is just going to draw more attention for those types of plays because of the frequency with which he commits questionable baseball decisions. It's fun to joke about adventurous Eddie when the Twins have the game in hand, but if they don't have the luxury of a comfortable lead, failing to make it to 1B and later getting picked off can end up costing the team.

All that time to get the call wrong. Hilarious. I'll take the run though.

6 pm ET start on April 4th. I get that they can't control the weather but playing evening games in any northern city during early April isn't helping matters.

I agree that media tends to sensationalize stories. It's unfortunate but it happens all too frequently. Apart from live games, I can't watch ESPN because at this point it's more sports gossip and fabricated drama than actual reporting. I'm not sure this is the case with the comments made by Dozier and other Twins players though. If they really didn't think it was a big deal then why not state that instead of their initial comments? Why is Dozier still talking about it and doubling down? Why is Rosario sending out unsolicited tweets? I have a hard time viewing these guys as the victims of a media driven narrative. This is a story because they made it a story.

IMO there's no situation where a hitter should purposely make their job (getting on base) more difficult just to appease the opponent. Flip it around, when a team gets a big lead their pitchers don't suddenly start grooving fastballs down the middle, and they don't stop trying to strike guys out. I don't understand why some think hitters need to give themselves up, especially when their team is trailing. These guys are professionals. If MN doesn't want to get beat on a bunt then don't shift in a way that allows hitters to do so. If they didn't want Sisco to get on base then maybe Berrios and the D could've done a better job of making sure he didn't. It really is that simple.

Do you agree with his feelings or do you simply support his right to make his feelings known?

Agreed 100%, it certainly doesn't help the decision to keep him on the roster though.

That's not a shot at moderation... I'm pointing out that these "comparison," or "tracking," threads are really just ways to reaffirm positions, often using a SSS as displayed above. I'm all for letting it stand, but lets call a spade a spade here.

Unfortunately this isn't an April Fools joke.... http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23001797/minnesota-twins-upset-chance-sisco-baltimore-orioles-bunted-vs-shift-9th Brian Dozier spoke out about Sisco's bunt after the game. "I could've said something, but they have tremendous veteran leadership over there, with Chris Davis, Adam Jones and those guys," Dozier told reporters. "I'm sure they'll address it and move forward." Berrios added to reporters: "I don't care if he's bunting. I just know it's not good for baseball in that situation. That's it." So they gave Sisco the entire left side of the infield, and they're pissed at him for taking advantage of it. I wasn't aware that as a hitter you're expected to hit into the shift and forego trying to get on base when you're down 7 runs....

I remember a certain Hicks thread very similar to this that was locked. Personally I don't think it should have been, but the theory behind it was the same. If we're using one game to reaffirm signing Darvish would've been a terrible decision does that mean Lynn is a bust too?

I'm guessing the trend is short lived....

Duke's job is to throw wild pitches? Out of the zone doesn't have to mean bouncing off the plate. You can pitch effectively outside of the zone and still be in command. The guy threw 2 WPs and a handful of other pitches that could've been if Castro hadn't blocked them. We aren't talking about passed balls. Duke struggled with control that entire inning, I'm not blaming Castro for that.

Hildenberger looked shaky. Congrats to Rodney for pitching out of the jam but he couldn't record 1 full inning before giving up a homer. Duke was anything but fine, it honestly looked like he was throwing AT home plate rather than Castro's mitt. We can get on Castro for trying to backhand a pitch that was bounced but IMO that isn't exactly fair. We're pissed at him when in reality if Duke just throws the ball anywhere that isn't into the f****** ground it isn't an issue. Yes, it's one game, but the above concerns me a hell of a lot more than anything the offense didn't do...

I agree, Dozier isn't likely to take a discount, nor do I think he should. I don't think it's a situation where he was dead set on hitting FA and refused to entertain offers from the Twins. They've clearly had discussions and at this point Dozier is confident they aren't willing to pay him what he's worth and/or they're unwilling to commit to his future with the team and so he's going to look for work elsewhere. More power to him.

Sure. Should they be fine with letting Dozier go because Adrianza is on the roster? The point I made was that it isn't hard to fit Dozier, Gordon, and Polanco on the 25 man, i.e. the utility IF spots are more expendable than the starting second baseman.

No, I get it. I'm fine with kid gloves that keep him out of the three hole, and I don't disagree that getting him off to a good start would alleviate some nervousness we have about his offense. I just don't know if I'd extend that safety as far as removing him from late game ABs. IMO that's shielding him a bit too much.

That's kind of a paradox though, Buxton can't really get his feet under him in those situations if he's constantly pulled for a PH. I love the results, but in game 1 of 162 I'm ok with Buxton getting that AB.

This is the ugliest game ever....nice bloop RG

Back to yanking Buck....jesus.....

Have yourself an AB Kepler