Steve J

I hear Tony Batista isn't doing anything.

I'm going to be one of those guys....there should be no question, Walter Johnson is #1.

"The Red Sox shouldn’t have had the right to hold up the deal on this basis, and MLB should modify its rules to avoid similar situations in the future." I don't see the need. The Twins aren't victims here. They could have terminated their participation in the deal and went to the Dodgers directly if they really wanted Maeda.

Bryant is still under arbitration control. There is no way he has such a low acquisition cost.

Probably to commit to short term plans. In that list you have, I don't see anyone worth tying our boat to except for maybe Odorizzi.

Oh....You must not remember the days when the Front Office decided to garbage pick people like Tony Batista, a guy who was not playing particularly well in Japan when the Twins decided to make him their every day 3rd baseman in 2006. That was surreal.

I think you make an error comparing the fielding percentage of 3b to 1b. The hot corner as far as I can tell suffers historically the worst natural fielding% on the diamond, while first base generally enjoys the best. If Sano was a first baseman, his fld% would likely be in the 990s too. None of these options are anything approaching a plan unless February comes and nothing else has materialized. I'm personally wedded to the idea of getting Araez as many appearances as possible at various positions. I'm curious why he's not in the 3b conversation. Singing any of these guys to the major league roster would cut into his time more than anyone else.

It was all a young, inexpensive shortstop with a 6.4 WAR's fault.

Take a premium hitting all-star quality catcher, then add a dose of statistical regression to make him an averagish first baseman?? Sounds like a good plan if you want to battle for third place next year.

What are the chances the Twins think the current makeup of Polanco at short and Sano at third is simply too ugly? I doubt they are going to get any of the premium starters on the FA market, so it stands to reason is the best way to make our pitching better is to focus on defense.. I wonder if its time to move Sano to first/DH and if we are going to let Polanco stay at short, we could have Gordon split time at second while having him backup Polanco. Luis Arráez has the better part of a season's worth of experience at third base and afaict, looked decent there for the Twins this past year.

#38 for certain. I remember they wanted to trade him to Boston, he didn't wanna go. I remember the windbag sid hartmann ripping him on the air for not wanting to leave. Then he came back and resigned with the Twins that off season. Personally I would also add #7 as he was my favorite player, but that's a bit of a stretch.

I suppose gone are the days of frustrating loyalties....

I think I would lean towards Wright because for Green to reach his higher ceiling he would have to depend on a Twins development system that lately has not produced a whole lot of quality major league arms.

and hilarious. One of my all time personal favorite players.

I don't present it as an argument, but as a belief. And I am not the one derailing...

Guess what, they (illegals) are and always have been counted in the Census, which is then used to apportion Representatives to the States. http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q16 "------------------------------------------- Are undocumented residents (aliens) in the 50 states included in the apportionment population counts? Yes, all people (citizens and noncitizens) with a usual residence in the 50 states are to be included in the census and thus in the apportionment counts. ------------------------------------------" Saying the 3/5s rule gave the Slave States an advantage ignores that the apportioned representatives were in no way responsible to the Slave demographic. they had no right to vote. if Slaves were counted as a whole person, the South with their ideals would have greater weight in national policy, not less.

Because you said so. Please tell me now, what does Lochner have to do with the topic of gun control and the original attitudes and law towards gun control? The "you are welcome to your own facts, but not your own opinion" mantra is desperate arrogance on your part, especially when you yourself yet have to cite anything relevant.

So I take it you accept that Heller and McDonald settles the issue then?

This sort of reductionism is unserious. You really think my argument comes down to this?

My question is, why is the organization letting players play hurt? Where is Souhan's commentary on that?

I do not agree. A statement like this shouldn't come down to equating the discussions and maneuverings of the Founding Fathers with a more or less arbitrary set of rights decided only politically. If you believe that the Hand of God was on this process, which I do, it should instill reverence. If you do not believe so, then there is really no other conclusion other than it was formulated on little more than high-minded political constructs.

On reflection I think you are right.... I do think it turned out for the best...

it does nothing of the kind unless you truly believe 9 -slash- 8 Ivy leaguers in robes decide what our rights are

It is more accurate to say that Heller/McDonald basically said the 2nd Amendment applied to the States the same way the Courts had previously ruled the other Bill of Rights items did. and by Pre-1930, you mean 1918? Not really a time uncontemporary to the 1930s.... I don't see how this at all addresses me pointing out how wrong you were about the attitudes of the law towards gun ownership prior.

No. Just as with today, Representative seats are created in Congress according to population of all residents, not just Citizens. It was a compromise to get them to join the Nation, but it did not give them an advantage. It was certainly not absurd. Really? what else in your view is a "compromise"? you paint with a broad brush.