KirbyDome89

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

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

Have yourself an AB Kepler

I'm all for padding the stats for MN but ruling that a hit for Eddie is a joke.

Reusse: Paul can talk about how Sano's weight may have caused Duke to throw those WPs? Molitor: .........

Reed looks good....hmmm

Hopefully Baltimore continues to flail themselves out of scoring opportunities...

Am I the only one who's nervous that HIldenberger is warming up in a tie game? Reed is still there right?....

Gold.Glove.1B

Thank god Schoop is allergic to taking a walk.

Yep. Adrianza and Escobar are both FAs after this year too, so even if Polanco locks down SS they can find innings for Gordon.

The fact they're letting him get to FA answers the question of whether MN is willing to pay him. Turning to the younger players behind him is a viable gamble, but I don't think the Twins outbidding the rest of the league, and likely paying more $$ than an extension would have cost is really an option. IMO there's room for Dozier on this team, even with Gordon coming up.

My guess would be he competes for another WS....

1) If a family member or friend of mine made an accusation I would support them 100%, no matter what the story was, or how credible it was perceived to be. I believe everybody on here would do the same. It shouldn't be a surprise then that there are some individuals on here who are staunchly in the corner of the accuser. 2) Some posters start from the default position that the accuser is to be taken at their word. Perhaps they have more skin in the game, i.e. somebody close to them has gone through a similar situation, or maybe it just boils down to personal preference. It's a viable viewpoint whether you agree or disagree with it. 3) Some choose to take a more middle ground approach. Asking questions about inconsistencies in the stories told by either side side, or refusing to pass judgement until the process has been allowed to play out isn't a "gross take." Those actions aren't victim blaming, or exonerating the accused. They're trying to get to the truth, which should be the goal of everybody monitoring the case. Obviously, some aspects of these views are incompatible and IMO there is nothing wrong with debate along those lines. It goes without saying but the same level of understanding should be shown for all rational or calculated views, not just those that have the luxury of claiming the moral high ground.

We're talking about assault, not lewd comments or whatever other boorish choice some idiot decides to spew towards a woman. AFAIK assaults in those industries are met with the same scorn as the examples you provided earlier. Unless you can point to actual assaults that are taking place, made public, and are disregarded as a whole by American society my point stands. I'm not naive enough to think that all cases are reported, but I also don't believe we can include a number that cannot be substantiated in any way as evidence for a society that tolerates assault. I agree, it's sad to see people in the public spotlight commit acts of assault but I think we have to be realistic about how that compares to the general population. The number of athletes who commit these crimes is very small compared to the total number of their cohort. The same can be said for the general population; the number of individuals who feel it's ok to physically assault women is infinitely smaller than those who don't feel that way. That doesn't mesh with a society that tolerates assault.

Conviction rates are a total non sequitur. To find a party guilty, reasonable doubt must be removed. That can be a difficult barrier to clear under some circumstances. An inability to convict doesn't mean assault is tolerated. I agree that having to rehash the experience can be traumatic but that's where I stop. I don't share your belief that police and DAs are colluding to cover up assault cases.

Widespread toleration? Can you honestly point to any sector of American life where sexual assault occurs, is witnessed/made known publicly, and then collectively given a pass? Horrible events occur in life, but the fact that they exist doesn't mean they're tolerated. The fates of both Keillor and Weinstein and the #metoo movement would suggest the exact opposite, i.e. sexual assault isn't tolerated in America.

You're right, I was just hinting at the notion that having two low leverage mop up guys in the same bullpen seems redundant.

FWIW Kinley hasn't had much success above A ball and Moya has been much more impressive in both AA and ST. If Kinley is the low leverage guy then what is Hughes role?

My greatest fear has been realized. Nice name drop. What contending team doesn't have two low leverage long shots for mop up duty right?

That's unfortunate. Any word on Molitor's thoughts/feelings, or how Kinley is likely to be used?

If Molitor is being forced to use a guy that he doesn't trust/doesn't belong in the majors I think that's a big problem. Hughes is already going to eat up a roster spot; if Kinley has to be buried as well it not only puts a crunch on the relief staff, but it harms an already thinning bench, especially if Sano has to sit.

I realize he isn't seeing all of those earnings, and I certainly was saying he's set for life. The point was that when he knowingly or unknowingly made the decision to use the drug he wasn't in a dire financial situation.

That seems like a bit of a reach. 1.35 million by age 24 is a lot of money. I would've loved to have made "not that much," by the time I turned 24.

I agree that on some level teams know. Idk if I'd go as far as saying that they know exactly which players are using PEDs but I can't imagine they're shocked if/when guys in the organization get caught. Statistically there have to be some players using. Players are going to do whatever it takes when there's significant $$ on the line. I can empathize with the situation some of these guys from poor backgrounds are in. The question is where does the burden of responsibility fall? Chief is right, ownership is hurt by a damaged on field product. For this team, Polanco vs. Adrianza/Aybar might be the difference between making a WC game or watching from home. The money "saved," by the Polanco suspension is negligible in this case but we know damn well if it was Mauer (not that it would ever happen) being suspended that money would go right back to the Pohlads and it wouldn't be spent this season. If the $$ was moved to a central fund rather than the owner, and MLB distributed it among youth camps ect. I think it everybody would be better served. IMO these suspensions are more than just a mild inconvenience and a chance to recoup $$ for owners. Honestly, what is a team supposed to do if a player chooses to spend time with a sketchy trainer during his time away from the team? If the Twins were forcing players to only use their training grounds, or not to interact with certain trainers or frequent certain facilities, how long would it be before that action was labeled a means to control minority players and by extension racist? I'm not saying it is, but we know that's how it would be portrayed. There's no winning for the Twins in this scenario. If the club decides to put a facility in the DR and staff it with trainers, dietitians, ect I'm fine with it, but they have all those amenities here in the US and the players are choosing not to use them. I understand wanting to spend time back home with family during the offseason, but the resources Polanco needed were literally a phone call away, and he choose not to make the call.