KirbyDome89

Changing hats wasn't what I was addressing... I want no part of is a world where we're willing to ignore everything but current perception and make decisions based solely on feelings.

Racing isn't specific to just this issue but yes, I don't feel it isn't difficult uncover examples of individuals or groups reaching to find offense. Racing was also meant to say it's easy to claim offense. You have the moral high ground, and as a victim you now have a choice of whether to engage in discussion about whether X really is offensive or label any examination beyond your feelings as a personal attack, ignorant, racist, ect... Look no further than this very thread. It took all of a few pages before any poster who didn't outright condemn the logo was labeled as racist "supporters," and "knuckle draggers." Introspection and thoughtful discourse be damned right? "If I feel something is offensive, then it must be so, ergo it also must be removed or disallowed." If we're willing to ignore everything outside of current perception then that's the slope we're descending. I have zero issue with protest, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Perhaps the issue is that we're too concerned about "some kind of result," rather than a positive result.

I agree that perception can certainly change for the better over time. Things like black face or the comical intonation of Indian voices were once accepted norms, but it's understood today why they're offensive. We have grown as a society, but part of the that growth should be an improved ability to contextualize. We're very good at racing to point the finger at anything deemed offensive, but we're not good at hitting the brakes to think or discuss why or whether it actually is. For that reason I think intent is very important. The idea that everything should be viewed only through the perception of today without any underlying context is a slippery slope. Setting aside the argument of perception vs. reality, to me the idea of ignoring intent or context invites a "feels over reals," approach. I think the park or statue can be a good example. We've evolved to realize that the confederate view of slavery was wrong in every way. IMO part of that evolution should be an ability to also realize that Robert E Lee was a huge part of the Civil War and by extension a huge part of American history, and as such we should be able to view a park or statue with his name in a historical context.

I've already said you can make a solid argument against the logo.... The issue is how you're using a broad definition of "support," to justify going after people.

Racism is as much subjective as it is objective. Yes, it has a clear definition, but we're kidding ourselves if we think the wording can't be molded. It isn't hard to come up with examples of instances/events that are absolutely racist, and similarly instances/events that absolutely are not, but a grey area does exist. Obviously, this area is where it can become difficult to carry out a conversation. Subtlety and rationality are often abandoned in favor of hard line stances. I disagree with what you're defining as "support." I'd argue that you've stretched the meaning of that word. Does owning merchandise with the logo mean you support the logo, and in turn make you a racist? What if you've attended Indians games or provided profit for that organization in any way? Are other businesses, charities, and non-profits who work with the organization supportive of racism as well? You had no issue stretching my posts into 'support," for the logo when there clearly wasn't any. You're acting as though your perception is THE truth. You've drawn a line and decided that anybody who isn't 100% in step with your view is somehow an opponent of your stance. You've stretched the meaning of support to include everybody on what you perceive to be the other side of your line. You've appointed yourself arbiter, and you've justified personal attacks and misrepresenting/mislabeling any views that even remotely clash with yours because they fall onto the opposite side of the divide YOU created. I agree that equal weight doesn't deserve to be given to all ideas. I also agree that feelings shouldn't be spared in favor of facts, but it's disingenuous to act as though the divide you've constructed is in any way fair.

That's a good point. Watching mound meetings certainly isn't entertaining, but is saving 5 minutes really worth potentially altering a competitive aspect of the game? IMO the time saved doesn't justify the potential impact.

No, they just had their homeland invaded by England and spent countless years under foreign rule which culminated in bloody wars for independence. I'd say selective history is what falls flat. If you don't like the logo, that's one thing, but if we're going to use the past to point fingers then everybody is going to have a gripe.

I agree with most here; I hate the idea of limiting the number of pitchers available or setting a minimum number of batters a relief pitcher must face. At what point is MLB going to accept some responsibility in the length of games? I'm tired of seeing the burden being shifted entirely onto the players and I certainly don't want to see the game fundamentally changed as a result.

No question the Twins should be able to take advantage of a weaker division to pad their bid for the WC. That's a talking point that often goes unmentioned. I'm not sure how ripe the division is for the taking this season though. You're right, Cleveland hasn't done much this offseason. Swapping Alonso for Santana might be a slight downgrade, and losing Shaw didn't help either but IMO the only thing keeping the Indians from coasting to the Central title is health. If they're healthy that pitching staff is one of the best in baseball. Add to that a good bullpen and tons of positional talent and it's hard to see MN taking the division from them.

Seriously? Do you really believe that the social pressure applied by groups in media is benign?

I understand the "it's a logo who cares if it gets changed," argument, but I think it misses the mark. We have Indian communities (Idk if they're split or its 80% that are indifferent; both have been tossed out there) that clearly aren't decided on how they feel about the names/logos. If they come to some sort of consensus and want to sit down with Cleveland ownership I think that's a positive. If Cleveland ownership voluntarily decides to move in another direction for branding then good for them. If people aren't fans of the caricature logo I totally understand that. What I don't agree with is the social justice mob using pressure to push an agenda. I realize they're going to draw a lot of support on this issue, but for me this is a case where even if I agree with the end results I can't get behind the tactics used to arrive at that destination.

It's a sunk cost the moment they sign that contract. The Twins aren't handing out extra $$ to Berrios, Buxton, Sano, ect even though they would clearly demand higher annual salaries if they hit FA at this moment. The team gets burned in the scenario you proposed but overall I think they're making out alright.

They put all their eggs into that prospect basket though. If the plan is for all the young talent to move up and open a window of contention (and it has) wouldn't it make sense to have talent to supplement them? Fortunately the prospects have largely worked out but now they've already burned cost controlled time and the Twins are still without enough pitching around that group to win a playoff game. Honestly, if the organization is staking their future to a core of young players, what do they have to lose by bringing in pitching help or other support before their arrival?

This ^^ For as much love as ESan gets here (he was incredible during the 1st half last year) I think his role in reaching the WC is still understated. The Twins would've been buried by the ASG without that crazy 1st half. I realize the offense came along nicely after the break, but given the current rotation outlook we're banking on Erv repeating that crazy career half just to stay within striking distance of a WC. Scary....

1. I certainly think the Twins have missed the opportunity to spend in the past, and at the same time I think they've spent when they should've been slashing. That said, I don't believe much of the criticism surrounding the Twin's frugality is lazy or particularly off base. 2. No, the Twins don't have a fat TV contract, but they've seen a MASSIVE increase in revenue since Target Field opened. A $130 million dollar payroll next to their name will look eye popping, but in reality it bumps them to about middle of the pack in terms of spending, which is where they should be. They've operated well below that almost since TF opened, and I'm in agreement with you, they weren't good enough to justify that payroll in 2011, but they need to spend now. 3. This is a quibble, but I wish the Twins would've been more proactive in adding long term pitching help starting in 16' and maybe even earlier. This team was built to sink or swim with the young core now in place. If the Pohlads were indeed willing to spend, it would've been nice to see the team start adding pieces to complement the arrival of the young position players, rather than wait until they've begun to establish themselves to get some help. I'm sure there would still be grumbling about a 5-6 year deal for a SP but at least the FA/extension years of Buxton, Sano, ect, couldn't be used as an excuse not to sign pitching help.

"A lot of the statistical side of framing has more to do with the guy in front of and the guy behind the catcher than it does the receiver himself." Perfect context. Stealing a strike here and there is certainly beneficial, as is having a rapport with your pitchers.

This is what gets me. They could win the Darvish sweepstakes if they wanted to. All we've heard all offseason is how they're willing to spend and how enamored they are with Yu. Now, as soon as the offers start to gain traction the Twins immediately bow out? They couldn't foresee Darvish commanding 5-6 years at roughly $150 but posters here floated similar numbers across this board the entire time? If they were only in on Yu at a bargain price then why talk themselves up about their willingness to spend? If that tweet is true, then almost any way you cut it, the Twins look like they have egg on their face. Hopefully the report is off base and MN is making a real run at Darvish. I can't believe Milwaukee would be a more serious threat to land him than the Twins.

3 years puts Buxton, Sano, and Rosario on the cusp of FA. The fact that the Twins don't have projected front end talent moving through the system during that time doesn't help. They're going to have to either sign pitching or trade for it. Personally I would rather give up $ than prospects.

Barring a big signing and/or trade I think we can move No. 5 to the top of the list.

I can't say I'm surprised either, but I'll admit I bought into enough of the talk the Twins tossed out there to feel a little let down. It's hard not to feel a little misled too. What team in MLB isn't "interested," in a good deal? For me the question was were they willing to pay for the player they wanted/needed. Who knows, maybe we'll be able to spend next offseason listening to how "interested," the Twins are in Bryce Harper until contract numbers start to become real.

Those 05' voting results are indefensible. It's still hard to look at Johan's numbers vs. the field that season. Im not sure if he would've made the HOF even with 3 straight Cy Young awards, but I doubt he'd be below 5% of the vote.

Are we certain that replay has nothing to do with it? The number of replay occurrences might be down but that doesn't mean the time each one takes can't increase and ultimately affect game length. I'm fairly indifferent about the pitcher and hitter clocks. I don't think they'll greatly affect 99% of players. Not sure I'm on board with limiting player mound visits per inning. Maybe if they were limited to one per batter I'd be willing to cede my position. I get kind of annoyed that MLB seems to have no problem altering or adding rules to speed up the game, but when it comes to addressing their own involvement in slowing the pace, their willingness to change seems to fade.

I don't believe they were unsure of whether or not Burdi would be selected. Every write up I read, Twins specific or outside source, had Burdi as a lock to be taken early in the draft.

I agree, the tv money has to have viewership propping it up. If people aren't interested, the networks aren't going to continue to pay massive amounts for rights to broadcast the games. I think there are a lot of factors involved in baseball viewership declining, and many have already been touched on. To add to those, it's easier to get a pickup game of basketball or touch football together than it is to field a baseball game. I'm also surprised at how few public batting cages I see. Equipment is essential, but most importantly, kids need to have access. Just curious, but what would you define as a bro-out? I'm worried that my age and love for all kinds of beer puts me at risk.

Spot on. None of my friends, myself included, have cable subscriptions. Streaming (pirating), going to the bar, or if I'm in the garage, listening to the radio all suffice. I would also add that the MLB blackout policy is ridiculous which forces a lot of people into huge cable bills if they want to watch their team (at least legally....)