KirbyDome89

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.

I'm not sure that logic follows. Men are overwhelmingly represented when it comes to sentences for violent crime. I would hardly call those laws sexist. The fact that a specific group is overrepresented doesn't automatically mean a law is unfairly targeting that group, or that the law is racist, sexist, ect. There's no doubt those players are returning to a country where regulations are lax and drugs like stanozolol aren't difficult to procure. That's unfortunate, but it's reality. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the ease with which Dominican players can obtain these drugs is a major contributor to the disproportionate number of them that are suspended. If you want to argue that these players should be better educated about what they can and cannot consume then I'm with you. If you want to argue that the severity of these suspensions is ridiculous and they're knee jerk reactions for the heat MLB took for the steroid era then I'm on board. Ultimately though, the responsibility falls on the player to make better decisions about what they're ingesting, regardless of whether the person handing them pills is a friend. These players have an enormous resource at their disposal, i.e. the Twins organization, and they're choosing not to use it.

1. Agreed, Mauer has to continue to play well. 2. Maybe I'm not as high on Morrison as others, but if we're placing bets on whether he's closer to 17' or the guy from 12'-16' I would lean towards the latter. 3. If Rooker's bat is forcing him onto the roster why can't he be the platoon RH OFer the team needs? If 1B is his eventual destination that's fine, but if he's currently capable of playing a corner OF spot at even a tolerable level that would be huge coup. 4. IMO Sano isn't a big factor in the Mauer decision. If he shows he's incapable of picking up a ball at 3B I don't particularly want to seem him roaming around at 1B either; slot him into the DH spot and let him spell Mauer in the field. Yes, the demands of 1B aren't as great, but I'll pass on moving on from a gold glove defender with a solid bat just to keep a guy whose ceiling is adequate defensive play onto the field. 5. Yes, he took a discount to stay in MN. He was an MVP, and an offensive monster at the catcher position. The idea that he couldn't have gone to larger markets and made more $$ isn't based in reality. If the Twins are willing to give him honest answers about his role and what direction they see the team moving in the next few years, and Mauer is content with those answers, then I think he certainly would be willing to do another hometown deal.

Totally... Apart from local media calling him "the softest of stars," for failing to recover from off season knee surgery in what they considered a reasonable time frame, or "brittle," for moving to 1B after multiple concussions affected his vision, or having his commitment to the team, his work ethic, and his presence in the clubhouse questioned by extension, yeah, I'd say he's had a really easy go of things....

"As such, the Twins owe it to themselves to get a good long look at Kinley." I think they owe it to themselves to have an honest look at Kinley. He shouldn't make the roster simply because they lost Chargois and/or Burdi to bring him in. Two wrongs don't make a right. Hopefully you're right and they work out a trade or just send him back.

FTFY

Sure, if these short deals are a stop gap to a more secure rotation I'm on board. My contention was that constant churning to fill out 2 or 3 spots might be even less reliable than a long term deal.

There's no arguing most of the benefits associated with a short term deal, but I'm not sure rotation through FAs is one of them. FA pitchers aren't signing short term deals because it's in their best interest. Those guys are signing 1 and 2 year deals because their hand is forced by recent issues regarding health and/or ineffectiveness. Yes, you're avoiding the backend of long term deals, but you're also taking on a significantly higher performance risk in the short term, and then you're compounding that risk by rotating arms through every year or two. If you're reshuffling the deck that often what are the chances you continue to hit on a high enough percentage of arms to fill out half a rotation? If we were talking about one or two spots near the bottom of that 8-10 man range I would be totally on board, but right now the plan is to find at least 2, maybe 3 arms, (depending on how Gonsalves and Romero turn out) to slot into that top 5 range. IMO there's plenty of downside to that strategy.

5 of their 10 "best," starters are gone within that two year frame. I would qualify that as a need. Right now they have Romero, Gonsalves, and ....? Saying they'll spend the $$ cleared on big time FAs in the future is nothing but false hope.

There's a strong desire by some to reaffirm that the current FO > the former. A convenient way of doing this is holding up positive moves the current FO makes and proclaiming the previous regime was incapable of doing anything similar with no regard given to the validity of such proclamations. The old FO has become a punching bag for hyperbole. Their failures necessitated a change, but the topic has become polarized to the point where acknowledging that direct comparisons aren't necessarily fair or viable in some areas is a "defense."

TR never had this kind of money to work with either. MN was a lower tier payroll every season during his first tenure, and when he came back after 2011 the Twins started slashing $$ and "rebuilding." It's disingenuous to say he was incapable of making the moves we've seen when he never really had the opportunity to do so.

That has been my contention the whole time. I'm not sure why pointing that out is being "tough," on the FO but hopefully he makes good on proving himself.

Of course, K rate, BB rate, and HR rate are all factors in FIP. The point was that they all moved in the wrong direction, and the HR rate shockingly so. I agree, some guys just seem to get by with wider margins between ERA and FIP. They're the exception to the rule. His FIP-ERA pre TJ was usually around .5, which I believe would put him into that "exception," group, but last season that FIP-ERA margin tripled. Even for a guy who typically has an ERA lower than his FIP that's an alarming spike. He's coming off a season missed with TJ surgery, followed by a year where his peripheral stats dipped to career lows, and now he's pitching in the AL. That doesn't instill a ton of confidence in me.