Cup of Coffee

December 5, 2013: Game Night

306 Comments

Tonight I help run a game night at Luke Air Force Base for the dome dwellers who have no families of their own and elect to stay on base to watch things. This is always one of their favorite events; depression is a bigger factor there than many would realize (there were two suicides in November, for instance). I get to do this through my company. I don't get a chance to volunteer for worthwhile things often, but I'm looking forward to this.

306 thoughts on “December 5, 2013: Game Night”

      1. His Career Gamelog looks a lot like Chuck James's Twins Gamelog.
        Good for 7 games, One bad game, never played again.

    2. I have to say, as someone who missed two consecutive Christmases (first in boot camp, the second when I was "selected" to stay behind and take the second half of the leave block), good on ya, Milkman. Single life in military housing su-hu-hu-cks.

      2. We do several events a year and this is by far the easiest one to rustle up volunteers for. We were going to cap it at nine but we had twelve volunteers on the first day we made it available.

  3. Bought a Google Chromecast for my parents. Thought it would be good for them to port video to their TVs, especially for my mother, who likes to watch crap on You Tube a lot. Turns out that thing is not user friendly. You have to port stuff from your computer and my parent's laptop does not have the minimum requirements, so it only can be used to watch You Tube or Netflix, which they don't have. I did use my laptop to port WatchESPN (NDSU's playoff game is this weekend only on ESPN3), but man is it slow.

    I went online and read how it was so superior to AppleTV. AppleTV requires apple products, so yeah, there's that, but I'm here to tell you that AppleTV >>>>>> Chromecast. Not close.

    1. I have one that I picked up right when it launched and I enjoy it. Granted, I am pretty tied into Google's services, but it is insanely easy to play anything from YouTube, Google play music or Movies, or Netflix as long as you have a tablet or smartphone.

      It also helps that when I got the $35 device, it also came with a few months of free netflix.

      1. With AppleTV, you can play YouTube, NetFlix, Anything from Itunes, Disney, ESPN, PBS, (including a huge library of on-demand stuff for those three and others), and a bunch of other apps without a tablet, smartphone, or any other device, for that matter.

        1. For me, AppleTV makes no sense at all. I have no Apple products and don't have any cable subscriptions. And it costs about 3 times as much as a Chromecast.

          On the other hand, I already used an Android tablet and phones, and had a Google Music subscription, so it made a lot of sense.

          I would only say that, like many things, the intended use of the product drives the value. For instance, in my case, I'd tell you that ChromeCast >>>>>> AppleTv, but obviously that's not true depending on your situation.

          In other words, YMMV.

        2. With a smart Blu-ray DVD player, you can use NetFlix, YouTube, any number of other apps (MLB, Crackle, etc) AND play Blu-ray DVDs without a tablet, smartphone, or any other device.

          1. We purchased a top of the line* Blu-ray DVD player for this reason, but it seems the processor can't handle the streaming. Plugged into the hard connection, the streaming is choppy and Netflix will pause to reload at least every 10-15 minutes. With my laptop connected to the television and using our Wi-Fi, the streaming is seamless!

            *recommended to us by the electronics buyer for a major retailer...sigh.

            2. I have a smart Blu-ray DVD player and that's been my experience, too, so I have given up with using it for streaming. Plus, the interface sux and it has this annoying tendency when I move from the DVD input to the TV input to force the TV back to the DVD player, even if the DVD player is turned off. Pissed me off so much that I disconnected it.

              But the Apple TV works great.

              1. I don't remember. I tried to see if I could find it online, but they all look the same. I want to say LG or Toshiba?

                1. And he claimed "top of the line?" Yikes. The Sony BDP-S5100 has gotten the best reviews of the current crop that I've seen, of those I sell. The bad news is that Blu-Ray players aren't loaded up with processing power period, so unless you hardwire them, which isn't usually convenient, they're going to be inconsistent with the streaming.

                  1. That's all pretty much why, if I'm going to get a blu-ray player it's going to look a lot like a PS3.

                    1. Yeah, the PS3 blu-ray player certainly works better than the Phillips one we got on clearance a few years ago. It's also my favorite Netflix machine by faaaar.

                    4. I was being half-sarcastic. I do like the Wii because I can stream Netflix on it, but I hate using the motion controller on it, though it does allow for the d-pad. (Hulu Plus with the Wii-mote is the most awful user experience ever.)

                    7. I was being half-sarcastic.

                      I was taking care of the other half. The Wii is (in my opinion) a horrible Netflix machine - motion controller, low res, the clunky interface... just not good.

                      The Xbox is alright, but the PS3 is much better than even the other Netflix players I've used.

                    8. The Xbox is alright

                      I disagree here. The Xbox is a complete disaster in terms of Netflix on the basis that I can't use it without paying for Xbox Live Gold. Microsoft can go to hell for that decision.

                    9. wait, what?

                      You mean to tell me that not only am I paying for Netflix, which I never watch, but for Xbox Live Gold, so that they Boy's Xbox can in principle be connected to Netflix? [redacted] me!

                    10. It's a nice racket they've got there, eh?

                      I didn't rage against the decision to charge for online play, although their competition didn't charge for it. I did wonder, though, why they put Netflix behind the Xbox Live Gold wall. I remember being very surprised at that decision.

                    11. Ah, yeah, I forgot about the Gold membership thing. I had it back when I still used Xbox to stream Netflix, so it never really bothered me.

                      It would bother me now.

                  2. spooky - it's a Samsung BD-5900 (Blu-ray 3D). Purchased last year or the year before...perhaps this is what you were referring to below.

      2. a tablet or smartphone.
        Or laptop, provided you use Chrome. I found it very easy to use as well, but it's still very limited in what it can play. Streaming from a Chrome tab, something we tried only once, was a slideshow until it just stopped.

        1. Agreed. I am most interested, though, in what happens as Google opens up the API access to other 3rd party extensions. I am really excited about the rumored introduction to Plex support.

          1. Perhaps in the long run Chromecast will be better because 3rd party developers might pick up the ball and run with it, but this product is on the market NOW and it's very limited. I basically told my parents that I'm taking it back from them because it's worthless to them unless they go out and buy a new laptop. I was attracted to it because of the low price and I wanted to give them a way to watch ESPN3 on their TV this weekend because we wanted to watch the playoff game THIS WEEKEND. Maybe in three years, it will be better. But, if I wanted to watch the game on their TV THIS WEEKEND, I should have sprung the extra $65 and gotten them something they could actually, you know, USE.

            It is half-baked. I guess I should like it.

            1. This is what Google is claiming. They say once they secure more developers, it will have been well worth the investment. I also heard tell that they were considering charging per download on apps that come standard with most other streaming boxes, though, which would defeat the whole purpose. Now they're stuck trying to do all the legwork not to sell a product, but to make an already-bought product more useful.

              It seems that word on them is getting out. I hadn't seen a blitz for any product in my department like there was for the Chromecast in some time (ever?), but sales have slowed considerably, at least where I am.

              1. What a business model. Sell people a piece of crap with the hope that someone else will make it useful at some point in the future. I consider this to be the equivalent of some dude selling printer paper and saying it's better than the novel in the next store because in the future someone might write a better novel that you can download and print on this paper. In the meantime, here's a pencil.

                1. What a business model. Sell people a piece of crap with the hope that someone else will make it useful at some point in the future.

                  Seriously. What do they think they're selling, video game consoles?

        2. Depends on the laptop. Like I said, my parent's laptop was unable to cast from a Chrome tab because it is a few years old and not up to minimum standards. The performance of the streaming from the Chrome tab was really, really disappointing.

          1. Not having seen a Chromcast box at the store in person, I'm curious how plainly marked the minimum requirements are. Are they right there on the box or did you only find out your parents' laptop wouldn't work after you had to dig around obscure forums for 25 minutes?

            2. I don't recall seeing any minimum requirements and I'm not sure what they even are actually. It worked on the wife's laptop for about three seconds before ceasing to update. If her laptop doesn't meet the minimum requirements, they set a high bar for this to work.

    2. The Roku beats them both (depending on the person - an Apple TV makes way more sense for folks with tons of Apple products), but I never, ever suggest Chromecast. It's a losing battle. People see a price tag and they convince themselves it's apples to apples. No, Mr. Customer, that Vizio TV is not of high quality, no matter how good the price looks.

      1. I shouldn't go on, but I will. You know what really pissed me off? When I got the Watch ESPN tab set up and clicked the video, it came up in a popup window that didn't have the little icon to cast it onto the TV. Holy WTF. I googled this problem and all I have to do is copy the link to the original window. Now I can do that, but it's a pain in the tush. How, though, is my technically challenged 71-year old father supposed to handle stuff like this? Answer: he can't be expected to. That's just ridiculous. Even if their laptop was up to standards, they'd have to mess around with crap like this because Google couldn't provide an add-on to their browser that accommodated popup windows in their own miserable browser. But, hey, the Chromecast add-on is in "beta" so I guess that's ok or something.

        Wow. Just wow. Hire a programmer, Google!

        1. It gets worse: the people primarily coming in to buy Chromecast are elderly, and assume the cheapest one is the "simplest" and therefore the most user friendly. It's a little odd how older folks often assume that the easiest product to use is the one that chargest the least.

          1. To be fair, maybe they're not assuming the easiest so much as the simplest. Cheaper typically means less bells and whistles which typically means simplest. Unfortunately with electronic products they push is to add as many features as possible (whether they're ready for public consumption or not)

            1. That's what I'm saying, albeit poorly above. Although the Chromecast has very few built-in apps and therefore qualifies as "simple," Stick is far from the first customer I've heard say it isn't much fun to use.

              1. That explains why I've been happy with mine. My only expectation was for youtube, netflix, and play music to work seemlessly, and they do. Anything else was gravy from my perspective (the joys of an $11 device). I'm excited about additional capability later, but I went in with very throttled expectations.

                1. That's essentially my way of not gutting the product when people ask about it. "You have to know going in what you're getting. There's a reason for the price tag."

      2. No, Mr. Customer, that Vizio TV is not of high quality, no matter how good the price looks.

        I and my two Vizio tvs beg to differ.

        1. And someone always jumps in to defend one of the least reliable TVs on the market. My stores are a wasteland of returned Vizios. The new TVs come out in March or April each year, and four of our eight shelf display Vizios have already failed and have been sent out for servicing. This is a problem across our company and others that sell them.

          1. Bought a Vizio from Costco on the strength of the return policy (and Doc's lobbying). No problems to report after three (?) years. Guess I got a good one.

            1. Yeah, you kind of have to get lucky with them, but I try to be as clear as possible about their problems without gutting the brand to customers, like I was with Xbox 360s when they first came out. People become oddly loyal to brands and buy everything they make, so you have to treat these things with kid gloves on occasion.

              Samsung makes Level 20 Awful soundbars and all-in-one home theater systems compared to similarly-priced competition. They sound like clock radios. They also make poor Blu-Ray players despite having made good ones in previous years. I know you can get complacent when you're #1 and people buy your stuff because your name is on it, but they might take a page out of Apple's book and make sure functionality is king. I'm not even a big Apple fan, but returns on their products are so, so rare.

              (Yes, this might be partially because Apple-bots discard and upgrade their gadgets once a year)

              1. I think the Apple fanboy buys new every year thing is pretty overblown. I listen to a fair number of tech podcasts, and the Apple users, particularly the developers, are all using pro-level Mac desktops from between 2008 and 2010. There's more turnover in laptops, but I think that's a function of people who can buy things with their business' tax write-off in mind. I think regular folks purchasing computers with their own money hold onto things longer. My primary computer is a Mac laptop from 2010. My wife's is my old 2008 Mac laptop. She's exceptionally hard on electronics, but that thing still (mostly) works. My folks' Mac desktops are from 2006 and 2007, respectively. No problems with either, though the one from 2006 finally fell out of compatibility with the version of OS X released in 2012.

                The one place where upgrade cycles might be moving particularly quickly is with tablets and smartphones. Tablets have been on an accelerated development curve, and any tablet, Apple or otherwise, made in 2010 is going to feel pretty old compared to the newest model. (It's really not just an Apple thing: try using a first-gen Samsung Galaxy Tab from 2010 or a first-gen Kindle Fire from 2011 against the newest models made by those companies). Smartphones have been on a similar pattern. It helps that I don't have the money to upgrade it, but even though I'm eligible for a new subsidized smartphone purchase, I'm holding out for whatever comes after the iPhone 5S at this point, since that seems like it will be the next major advancement in Apple's smartphone platform.

                1. The ones I'm referring to are the phone customers (whom I see all day every day, because that department faces mine) and almost every Apple fan I know personally. This is a fairly large sample I'm pulling from - I don't believe it just because it's something I've heard people say. I believe it because I see customers and other folks show off Apple logo tattoos. Naturally, the tech-savvy folks aren't among these, but the tech-savvy fans of any brand are in the minority.

                2. I've reluctantly migrated towards an Apple ecosystem at home. I got hooked in partly from an iPod purchase back in 2002 (I would still probably have that iPod except Apple recalled it for some reason and sent me a brand-new iPod for free back in 2009 or so) and mainly because my wife felt strongly about it. Frankly, I don't think she had any really compelling arguments to go Apple, but they seem to make decent hardware, and my hope is that in the end, the premium price is offset by fewer purchases for upgrades.

                  I do like our iPad quite a bit (I think it's a 2.0, maybe), and I suppose it'll run slower eventually, but it seems like the kind of device that I'd use it until it dies.

                  I remember having conversations in middle school with a geek friend that was using some disk compression software (I think DiskDoubler, maybe DriveSpace) to increase the capacity of his hard drive from 20MB to 35-40MB. Back then, I was all about upgrading (usually to the next-to-latest tech which could be had at a discount due to the latest tech coming out), and I think it made sense in that era. These days I'm basically content with the capabilities of my hardware at home. Maybe I'll get an SSD to boot from some day, but otherwise I'm not creative enough to think of the next killer app that makes me wish I had faster gear.

                  2. I'm afraid of the day my iPod Nano 16gb (pre-touchscreen) give up the battery ghost. (That's what fails first, right?)
                    I'll then probably buy a refurbished iPod Nano 16gb (pre-touchscreen).
                    I would have really loved a 32gb or 64gb iPod Nano (pre-touchscreen), but I guess that'll never happen.

                    The thing I like most about it is that its weight is so light that I can drop it and the headphone cord will keep it from hitting the ground, yet the body is big enough to not get lost or make me feel like my fingers are fat.

                    1. That was before Apple got crazy about miniaturization, so you could open it up and replace the battery yourself.

                3. I've had some iPods over the years, but I was only willing to have them if I got them for free. My first two were before the touches were out that my mom got from a tradeshow and I remember absolutely despising them. iTunes was (and still is!) the worst and they broke down quickly because they put a frickin hard drive in a portable music device. I went on to a Sony Walkman, which I loved and used for a couple years of trouble free music playing. Then, when we had the Trinket, my mom bought us an iPad 3 to goad us into Facetiming with her first grand daughter (more than happy to oblige). We still have it with no sign of ever needing to upgrade to a newer version because it works great. That iPad cooled me off on being anti-Apple, which is good because shortly after that my mom bought me an iPod Touch to Facetime back home when I would travel for work and, aside from iTune, I really like it since they went to the more reasonable flash type drive. Of course, I've abandoned it as well now that I have a smartphone with Google Play.

                  Anyway, that pointless diatribe was me leading to saying I don't understand the constant need to upgrade electronics devices, unless one hates money. Of course, as I say that I just recently bought a new phone after only about 9 months of use on my previous phone. Virgin had a 50% off sale and my previous phone did rather suck.

                  1. I have an iPad 2 and I guess I don't have a good reason to upgrade. It looks great, works smoothly and does the job. I absolutely love the device.

                    If there's a tempting reason to upgrade, I'm unaware, but I've to some degree kept myself in the dark intentionally. I don't have enough money to be seeing things that I simply must have. I'm happy with beer and the occasional video game being enough to entertain me until we're out of debt.

                    We paid off one of the three credit cards last month. Sixteen months and our rash, careless past is in the rear view mirror. That's sort of a non-sequitur, but it occurs to me that I've spent as much time talking about TVs as I do on a work day. Sigh...

                    1. I think the iPad 2 is still a pretty good device, myself. I would like an upgrade on the phone, simply because I would like 4G and my battery is getting weak, but otherwise I'd keep that for multiple more years, too.

                    2. My new phone is 4G capable, and the 4G network is pretty good down here (except for right around my house, but I don't need it there), and it is noticeably faster than my previous 3G experience. But, I still got my wife an iPhone 4 for Christmas because she doesn't give a rip about download speeds. I think the $300-400 savings was worth it.

                    3. I like my iPod, except that it's too small, but have never had an iPhone (nor any other Apple product). My wife is on her third or fourth iPhone, loves them, and has been wishing for an iPad since about 2011. She got some money from her mother's estate and asked if I'd be okay with her getting the iPad Air, ostensibly from me and Kernel, for Christmas. "Fine be me", says I and promptly transferred the cash I would have spent on her into our checking account to pay the bill when the Tgt CC statement shows up.

                      I'm kind of excited for her, but I've never used an iPhone or an iPad, so I don't know what I'm missing.

                    4. It's a lot like a Smart TV or a Roku or a DSLR...do you want it? Damned if I know, but if you have it, you'll end up falling in love with it.

                    5. I do know that I want a Smart TV. I also know that I can't afford it or justify a purchase right now since my tv (a 5 year old, 56" Samsung) is still in excellent working condition.

                    6. I urge you to look at prices on them at least twice: once, just ahead of the Super Bowl, and another time in March/April when the new models come out and retailers clear the old inventory with deep discounts.

                    7. I will do that. That March/April timing sounds like it lines up with a certain other event that it might work.

                    8. It's a lot like a Smart TV or a Roku or a DSLR...do you want it?

                      I've told my wife that, if we're lucky enough to have kids, I'm buying a really nice camera. She doesn't really care about learning how to use more feature- heavy gadgets, but understands how much history means to me. And she likes having nice photos, though she doesn't have much of an eye for photography. (Seems like every single picture taken with her iPhone is in portrait orientation.) I bought my first digital camera when I went to Iraq. It was the best I could afford, but I suppose I could have done better with an analog SLR. I was concerned about carrying lots of film, and what the sand, dust, and heat would do to the camera & film. The photos I took are priceless, but the quality is only so-so. Compared to what my iPhone can do ten years later, or what Pops' Canon SLR from the early Eighties could do, they're embarrassingly lo-res. If we can have kids, I want them to have good photos of their childhoods. They'll be priceless, too.

                4. When we have the ability, we often get a family Christmas present, i.e. use the Black Friday opportunity to get a big-ticket item. That's how we've gotten our TV and Wii. This year, we decided to splurge on a computer. It is essentially mine since I work from home, but now my wife has the computer I was using and the old, old computer that was using Windows XP and was barely good enough for surfing the Internet can be retired or the boys can use it. Normally I go with second generation on electronics but because with my main income I get paid more per hour the faster I get the work done, I went for a better computer and monitor (a bigger screen allows me to work faster because I can keep multiple windows open and visible and don't have to flip through them to find what I need).

                  Got the computer on sale at one of the Office stores (Depot or Max. I can never remember which is which) and the monitor at Spooky's Place. I'm enjoying Windows 8.1, but I can see how less tech savvy people could be mystified by it, especially those without tablets. The computer has twice as much RAM and hard drive space as the old computer and I went from 19 inch monitor to 27. I was originally going to settle for 23-24, but I couldn't find any available for the price I wanted (we went to 8-9 stores on Black Friday), so we decided to spend extra to get the better monitor, which was half price for Black Friday but was still almost twice the price of a 23-inch that was sold out at the same store.

                  BTW Spooky, your Place had about 3X as many people in the store (per square foot) as any other store we went to except WalMart. All other places looked like a typical Saturday except for the grocery store, which was pretty much empty.

          1. Heh.

            Actually, we did have a problem in the first year with our 42-inch screen. Fixed under warranty. Because Costco.

              1. I don't like shopping at big boxes, but the things I've read about Costco's labor practices have assuaged my conscience a fair bit when it comes to shopping there.

                  1. Costco has significantly improved my standard of living. Not least of which because they sell megapacks of the extra-wide rolls of toilet paper.

                    2. You are crazy. My wife is somewhat of a spendthrift. I get mad sometimes and tell her that the only place she's willing to cut costs is on toilet paper. Why there? Why?!?

                    3. I will happily spend double on good toilet paper. 6 years using government toilet paper: single-ply, 80 grit does not a happy sailor make.

                  2. Blue jeans for $15. Decent dress shirts for under $20. Organic meat. Household supplies. Discounted gift certificates to local joints.

            2. also, I read elsewhere that Vizio doesn't actually manufacture, but rather slaps labels on contract-built stuff. So I suppose it might really matter what year you purchase one. Consumer Reports in 2012 placed Vizio reliability in the middle tier.

              1. Vizio TVs are manufactured in South Korea by AmTran Technologies, but it's oddly difficult to find a lot of information on what they do.

                They, like LG, have these weird rumors out there with no basis in fact. It is very common that customers come in with the idea that Vizio is Sony's cheap brand.

                What I do know is that Vizio buys unwanted parts from other companies to use in TVs. I don't know if this part is true anymore, but at one point, if you opened up two Vizios of the same model you wouldn't have two identical TVs - they would have been made with whatever parts were available.

                    1. btw, according to the Repository:

                      Vizio's major partner in the consumer electronics arena is AmTran Technology, a Taiwan-based OEM/ODM that manufactures more than half of the televisions sold by Vizio[6] and owns a 23% stake in the company.[6][7] Vizio also manufactures its products in Mexico and China under agreements with ODM assemblers in those countries.

                      so, yea, the Intertubes Wisdom on Vizio isn't wrong per se. They do their own engineering on a lot of stuff, but partner with OEM/ODM manufacturers to get the stuff built. Which, I think, probably isn't all that different from a number of other consumer electronics vendors these days, right, spoons?

                    2. Possibly not, though there's always so much misinformation out there, it's hard to get the straight story from teh Googling.

                      Taiwan, not South Korea. Huh.

                      The strangest rumor I get about Vizio is from people coming in, who've made the decision because they "want an American TV." I have no idea where that comes from. If anyone else has heard the rumor and has some idea, I'm genuinely curious.

                    3. Don't they shill Vizio on the four-letter a lot, or am I thinking of somewhere else? That could be the "American" angle.

      3. I did a lot of research and ended up buying a Vizio for our bedroom. It was a location where I wasn't interested in the cheapest, but also not the best. I was looking for a middle ground and ended up here.

        Hopefully I'm one of the lucky ones! Reliability is always the thing that product reviews really can't touch on.

        1. Yeah, bedroom TVs are turned on so infrequently that I don't push for customers to obsess over that decision. Plus, a >42" TV costs so little, who cares if it dies? My 32" bedroom TV has given me three years and I spent less than 200 on it (and would have only been at 200 without the discount). It's a brand with even lesser name quality than Vizio, but I wasn't breaking the bank for a bedroom TV.

          Customer reviews are useful but very dangerous. They're made when a TV has been bought that very week, so when a customer spends a pittance on a TV and it functions even to a minimal degree, they're going to be happy.

          2. I spent about $200 on a TV back in the summer of '00 (GOML!). I went for the biggest size I could get at that price (32"). The thing is a monster, it has lost the cable and one of the 2 RCA inputs, but it's still going strong. That's all we've got, and we're keeping it until it dies completely. Then I'll think about something else.

            1. I got a 32-incher (Samsung) off of a grad school roommate when he left the country--he must have bought it around fall '08, so it's 5 years old now and seems to show no indications of slowing down. I wish it had an extra HDMI input (I have three devices that use HDMI in, so I have to manually swap the Blu-Ray player and the Apple TV), and frankly it looks a little tiny in the furniture that it's in, but it'll likely be our only TV until it dies. If I'm going to spend any money on home entertainment, I'd rather put it towards audio anyway, where it serves more of a dual purpose.

          3. Plus, a >42" TV costs so little, who cares if it dies?

            People on fixed incomes? Our TV, bought in 2011, had better last us another five years, at which point I'll set it up for use in the basement until it dies.

            2. Aye. See my comment above.

              Also, we cancelled our cable 6 months or more ago, got Netflix, and at this point, I'm thinking about cancelling that for a few months too (when the baby comes in May, we'll want something again). I miss TV so little...

                1. I have a hard time letting it go because I'm a sucker for sports and I know I'll want it for the winter Olympics and the upcoming World Cup. Also, a lot of Seattle Sounders away games wind up on cable. I doubt I'd be any worse off if I couldn't watch that stuff on television, but I haven't been able to tear myself away yet.

                  2. Eh, the curling probably won't be shown on tv anyway, so no need for it for the Winter Olympics.

                    2. Yeah, I think curling was CNBC or MSNBC last time. Especially with the Winter Olympics, everything is on TV because there are just way fewer events to cover.

                    3. Well that changes things. Not that I'm going to re-subscribe, though.

                      I do love the Winter Olympics (compared to being pretty meh on the Summer Games). The hockey tournament alone is worth it, and the obvious curling.

                    4. I'm a complete sucker for the Olympics. If they brought back Tug-of-War, I would probably watch it. Actually, I'm sure I'd watch it, it would be one of the best events.

                      I could go on and on about which sports I'd include or exclude from the Olympics, too. I really like a lot of the stuff from the Summer program but it could probably be trimmed a bit. The Winter Olympics seem pretty tiny compared to the Summer Olympics.

                      Much as I think that curling and hockey are awesome, I think an idealized Olympics would probably exclude them on the basis of being team sports. I mean, I love team sports, I just don't think of them as being very Olympic. I might like it best if they spun off the team sports from the individual sports so that, say, in winter '15/'19/etc. you had the winter team sports and in summer '14/'18/etc. you had the summer team sports.

                      But, as it is, hockey and curling are in the Winter Olympics and it is awesome anyway.

                    6. I don't hate that idea. That would allow NBC to show more of the stuff I want to watch on the main station, although they'd probably still somehow end up showing synchronized diving for 8 hours a day.

                    7. Again, it's not that I dislike team events/sports or feel that they are unworthy of existing, I just don't find them to be completely tied into the "Faster, Higher, Stronger" aspect of the Olympics which I find most compelling. Terry Tiffee has an Olympic Bronze medal, for instance. I'm sure there are less deserving athletes out there, but it's an example that comes to mind.

                      Even then, team archery doesn't exactly fit into what I consider excludable team sports. If we took out team archery, then you'd have to get rid of basically any relays from individual events, and relays feel legit to me. Team archery is still essentially an individual event.

                      For summer, baseball and softball have already been ditched. I'd also ditch basketball, soccer, field hockey, water polo, and volleyball, and I'd keep rugby out of the Olympics. Water polo would be the hardest one for me to ditch since it's been in since 1900, but I would probably do it anyway. You could make an argument for rowing as a team sport, but I'd keep it because it scores high in the "Faster" and "Stronger" criteria. Men's Olympic soccer especially wouldn't be missed--it's basically a bastardized U23 tournament.

              2. I haven't had cable for six or seven years. If I came back to MN I might go back because of baseball, but it's been very easy for us because the streaming revolution. Plus, an antenna gives us plenty.

                It's actually pretty alarming how many people don't know that they can get the major networks and a handful of other channels with nothing but an antenna.

                1. If we had a digital converter, sure. Also, an antenna. (Or am I wrong about this, and you can set me straight? I'm just going off of what the Best Buy guys here told me...)

                  2. I still own a functional 27" TV that I purchased in 1989. I don't use it anymore, but it is functional.

                    1. We have one older than that, the wife owned it when we met in 1987. It is also functional, and we also don't use it anymore. I had my first VCR that I bought in 1988 for more than twelve years and even replaced the tape head myself (had an engineer at KARE order it for me). They just don't make 'em like they used to.

                2. It's actually pretty alarming how many people don't know that they can get the major networks and a handful of other channels with nothing but an antenna.

                  I can't. We looked into that and I would need a booster antenna to get FOX. Otherwise, it would just be PBS and local access channels. L.A. is just too far away, I guess.

  4. I went online and read how it was so superior to AppleTV. AppleTV requires apple products, so yeah, there's that, but I'm here to tell you that AppleTV >>>>>> Chromecast. Not close.

    I agree. We have Apple products so that issue is covered. But I've been very happy with my AppleTV. I just wish they had NBCSports as a "channel" so I could watch soccer and hockey even easier, but it's not a huge deal as I can just stream the app from my I-phone.

    1. If my daughter doesn't figure out by next Christmas that I'm Santa, I'm telling her. Sorry, honey, this is your last rodeo.

        1. My parents. God love them. They would have Santa show up with both the presents from them AND him. Plus, mom's handwriting was EXACTLY like Santa's. I guess they wanted me to figure it out or something.

              1. My Mom would write our names left-handed so they hid her identity. However, we'd do family presents on Christmas Eve after Mass and Santa presents were always pretty low-key.

                I think I believed in Santa until about 2nd or 3rd grade. There's even a picture somewhere of "Santa's" gloved hand and red with white-cuffed coat sleeve pulling the covers up on a young CoC sleeping on the couch. I tried to stay up, waiting in front of the fireplace, to catch a glimpse of Old Saint Nick! By 6th grade, we'd moved to a house without a fireplace and I WAS Santa. My parents would have me place the presents for my younger siblings so they could go to bed at a normal time.

        2. same paper.

          We're years off for the little ones even though CER is older than Miss SBG.
          I think she knows but, like I was, is willfully outwardly ignorant. But because the facade is two-sided, we can't speak of it.

        1. She keeps telling me that I'm getting coal for Christmas. Yeah, honey, I know. That's because we give you everything.

          She also said that the tooth fairy isn't real because people don't have wings. She said that the real tooth fairy is someone crazy, like your parents. She quickly backed off of that, though, because I think she figured out that if she doesn't believe in the tooth fairy, she ain't getting nuthin. She still hasn't lost a tooth. Best to play dumb for a few.

          1. if she doesn't believe in the tooth fairy, she ain't getting nuthin.

            Been there. Skim did the same exact thing with the Tooth Fairy at one point.

            She has come out and said she knows Santa's not real, but to my surprise and delight, she has not felt the need to share this with Sour Cream. I think Sour suspects it regardless, but she still has those rose-colored glasses.

      3. I believed in Santa for... a long time (3rd grade, I think? Yikes.). We're not pushing it with my kids. My son was excited to see him, from a distance, at an event we were at last weekend. When we went to actually "see" him... meh. He didn't even want to tell Santa what he wanted for Christmas. And it wasn't a shy thing, since he talked to the guy, he just didn't care to get that into it.

          1. I think there might be one or two small differences between us, but, otherwise, yes. Yes we are.

          2. Man, if only I figured it out that early. I blame my parents for taking advantage of my trusting nature.

            1. I was incredibly naive as well. It was after Christmas my 3rd grade year that I figured it out. Still am, really. I'm OK with that. Discussing this the other day with my wife, I said "better naive and often embarrassed than cynical."

              2. Luckily you don't have to choose one or the other for all times and places. Cynicism and skepticism have their uses.

                1. I tend to find they make the world a less magical place. I want magic. I'll take getting fooled on occasion.

                  1. I guess there are different kinds of magic. Especially given all the electronics talk today, I guess I tend to think that science makes the world a more magical place and I see properly-done science as an exercise in skepticism.

                    "In God we trust; all others must bring data." -- W. Edwards Deming*

                    *Apparently. I first heard it attributed to Billy Beane, and he might have said it, too! Even if Deming said it, which of course I can't really prove, he probably stole it from his dad or his brother or one of his friends from college. Why? Because skepticism!

                    1. Oh, don't get me wrong. There's a place for belief and a place for not-belief. I've just been running into far too much "science is the be-all/end-all" reasoning for a few weeks here, and it's been kind of maddening. We gotta realize that there's an awful lot we don't know about the world, and far too many of my science/skepticism oriented friends seem to think science has told us everything, or is about to. It borders on religious belief, ironically.

                    2. Also, I was thinking more about believing in the stories people tell you. I hear a lot of things from folks (especially in my line of work) that, if I were to put it to the test, wouldn't necessarily prove true. Where it's not relevant to the matter I'm working on, I tend to let it go. For me, that kind of skepticism = burnout.

        2. My daughter isn't into Mall Santas at all. She knows they aren't real because they don't know her name. She knows that the Easter Bunny at the mall isn't real, either because she had gloves on and rabbits don't wear gloves. She's pretty close to figuring it all out, but for some reason, she's hooked into the Devil that is the Elf on the Shelf. I'm not sure that she actually falls for that story, maybe she does, but an inanimate stuffed elf flies to the North Pole every night and is back by morning? Yeah, that's a good one.

          1. Ugh, my wife is going to push that crap on my kids. My favorite, though, is the hour long commercial they got on network tv.

            1. We got a picture taken at the MOA with their Santa a few years ago. Ugh, he looks like a, ahem, bad man. We've never gone back. The neighbors down the street asked if we had our appointment with him this year. Uh no. They did -- their daughter is 8. Man, no thanks on that.

              I don't remember finding out about this. My parents for sure never told me, I guess I just put two and two together. I know, though, that I had it figured out before Christmas when I was in the second grade. Maybe my wife will veto my earlier assertion, but I think that won't be necessary. I think she'll figure it out.

              1. My preference would be to avoid Christmas everything (mall santa, elf on the shelf, presents, lights, financial stress, music, all of it) and make it just be Thanksgiving 2. But alas, my view is not shared by nearly enough people, most specifically my wife.

                I remember figuring it out, though I don't remember how old I was, because I found it awfully strange that all of the presents from santa were under the tree a good week or two prior to Christmas.

              2. Pretty sure some kid told me about it on the playground in 1st grade and my reaction was "yeah... that seems to make sense."

                My daughter believes but it DEATHLY AFRAID of any actual Santa. And a kid at daycare told my 2-year-old if he was naughty that he'd get a lump of coal. That has been helpful for getting him to stay in bed at night. Thanks, kid at daycare!

                    1. This reminds me of a Jim Gaffigan bit:

                      My wife and I have an open door policy. If one of our kids has a nightmare, they are free to come in our room and pee in our bed.

                      Unfortunately, this aptly sums up the way it went for us a couple nights ago...

        3. Phil, obviously Santa can't go to the malls and assorted places right before his big delivery production.
          He has helpers, they pass it on.
          But sometimes the real SC shows up and they never say so because everyone would freak out, so you'll never know if a good helper is the real SC or not.

      4. My wife insists on telling our 9-year-old "I don't know if Santa exists, but if you don't believe in him he won't come." Maybe this is because…

        My MiL still insists on buying Santa gifts for her adult children…and her grandchildren. So, yes, not only does Santa come for my kids, but he comes twice. I should have put my foot down on that immediately. Now I'm pretty well stuck.

        1. Aw, heck, Santa still comes here as well. Just an excuse to have something to get up for the next morning (we open gifts Christmas Eve) and to not have to wrap them.

          1. My Mom wrote Santa's name down long after we knew, just because it was fun for her to do. I think she still might, but it's more to amuse us than anything.

          2. My kids stopped believing in Hanukkah Harry at an early age. Also, we only had a burning bush the one year.

        2. Put your foot down the first year you're a jerk.
          Put it down later, you're breaking tradition.
          You were stuck before you did anything.
          I've been there on a similar sitch.

        1. Where does one start?

          There can be only one answer to this SelectShow

          1. The Andrews Sisters; Prince; The Replacements; Soul Asylum; Hüsker Dü; The Suburbs; The Lamont Cranston Band; Lipps, Inc; The Jayhawks; etc. etc. You can get a pretty eclectic channel with those starting points, I'm guessing.

                1. Holy Balls Dick Ginn is in Wikipedia!
                  Worked for the man, RIP.
                  Everything you'd want in a small-town grocery-store head who was also still everything you'd expect in same.

              2. it's not polka, but it is perhaps the most culturally significant musical performance ever to come out of Minnesota:

                httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OOkWQLspBE

                1. I think I mentioned it here a long while ago, but I once had a long conversation with Martin Zellar when he stopped into my store in Apple Valley. That was a great time.

        2. Speaking of The Replacements, I found the All for Nothing / Nothing for All compilation at the library today.

      1. Heh. I was just thinking I needed to send you a message that The Current hasn't given up on the newest Franz Ferdinand album yet, and I've been enjoying it more and more because of that.

        But also, I find myself bouncing between the two. Usually about the time Mary Lucia comes on.

        1. also annoying about The Current, I cant pick it up on my terrestrial radio, even though they have a translator in Mankato AND New Ulm. If I lived 10 miles north or northeast of where I live, I would be fine.

        2. I can't stand Mary Lucia - I usually like The Current the rest of the time (morning gets a little dumb now and then) but the afternoon rush hour? Blech! I'd rather listen to KDWB.

            1. Not even close. Barb's vices are just minor-league versions of Lucia's same major-league vices.

              1. Now that I take the bus, I rarely hear the Current anymore beyond the Morning Show and some times on the weekend. Speaking of which: Bill DeVille is easily the best of 'em.

  7. GW basketball played (soon to be Big Tweleven doormat) Rutgers. It was a classic GW game in which the opponent buried 15 3's, many from way beyond the three-point line. I've seen it played out numerous times as GW catches the opponents' "fluky" good offensive game and ends up losing... but last night GW still won! Their second-best player missed yesterday's game (he has played in 3 of the 8 games so far this year because he has a broken finger with a metal screw in it), and hasn't been able to shoot the entire year, yet the team is 7-1 with wins over the ACC, Big East, and whatever the conference is that used to be the Big East, but is now the teams that aren't in the Big East anymore, but still play football. They play the Maryland Twerps on Sunday (they could knock off both new entrants to the Big Tweleven in a week!). Best of all, the new AD's office has completely revamped the culture and embraced technology. All home games are streaming online for free: I've now watched 6 of their 8 games so far this season. Oh, and they have one of the coolest court designs in the country, too.

    All I can say is: #RaiseHigh

  8. Conclusion: the WGOM loves talking about the English language and technology. And complaining about technology.

      1. Started as a baseball site. There's more to life than that. Either you talk about the stuff we talk about or

        Actual Spoiler SelectShow

          1. Oh I know. What I found interesting were some of the testimonials in the headers, especially from some of the folks who are only around once in a while. I was amused, for example that our old Sioux-loving lawyer Dicta referred to us as "malcontents". I don't know about that. I think he meant that in jest, but I don't see it that way. But, then again, I went off on a $35 piece of hardware today, so if the shoe fits, wear it, I guess.

        4. My favorite part of the recent episodes of that podcast have been the hosts' repeated requests for reviews from listeners. And the on-air responses to some of the tamer criticism they've received about the non-baseball topics they love to discuss.

            1. Yeah, I'm meticulous with my texts to this day. Why does it have to be a chore to find an apostrophe? No matter how many times I see it, I won't accept "im" as a form of "I'm."

              1. Thankfully the keyboard on my phone defaults to using "I'm" when I swipe in "im"

                Ending periods though? Meh

                  1. Something I use all the time, just not when ending a text. This is a habit that dates to using IRC, so it's not going anywhere.

                2. Mine auto-corrects corrects "well" to "we'll." I need language support for Minnesotan English. I figure around 40% of conversations I have with fellow Minnesotans contain more than one sentence prefixed with "Well, ...". I know that's a regular fixture of my speech and informal written communication. Auto-correct has made sure I'm aware of that.

                  1. I get highly irritated when auto-correct changes a perfectly good word to something else, and "well" certainly falls in that category. Surely it's not that rare of a word.

                    1. That is one thing the Google Keyboard doesn't do. I just have to make sure to read the message to ensure it correctly guessed what I was wildly gesturing.

                    1. I like to think that one of the telling signs someone speaks fluent Minnesotan is when they understand the use of just "Well, ..." as a statement, and can accurately use it in different situations.

                  3. Well I can't say I have this problem.

                    Tip: become more Texan, spell it "Wal" like the Stranger in The Big Lebowski.

  9. While we're all around and chatting about useless stuff... this question was posed to Philosofette for one of her classes the other day: does critical thinking involve emotion?

    Curious about the reception on this... no real concrete definitions were given.

    1. critical thinking will take emotions into account during analysis. But critical thinking is applied logic, right? I'm not sure how "emotional logic" is still logic; if it is, then what is the value-added of the "emotional" part?

      1. I agree that it should not involve emotion. Whether it does depends on the person (or on definitions - if you get emotional, it ceases to be logical).

        This is...an interesting subject to me, because I am dead cold in what few arguments I have with The Milkmaid. I never abandon logic or bring emotion into anything, unless I'm manipulatively angling for some...well...you know.

        This actually had an effect on her over time. She used to be very emotional in arguments but adapted to (1) help keep things cool and (2) help her win arguments. Clever girl!

    2. What class was that for?
      I would say critical thinking should not involve emotion. In fact, isn't the point of critical thinking to remove bias, distortion and subjectivity from the reasoning process in order to come to the proper conclusion?

      1. A teaching course.

        One of the things I was considering was that it very much depended on the topic being thought about. If it is something that affects one's life in a meaningful way, then you'd darn well better bring emotion into it. "Will this make me happy" is a meaningful consideration most of the time, and failing to consider that when relevant seems to me to be a mistake. How can you think critically about life if you're not bringing in the emotional state of the people involved?

        Maybe that's just the "analysis" Zombieman mentions above. But let's say "I'll be better off financially" and "I'll be happier" are the two sides of a decision... how do you weight those things? Weighting them certainly isn't a process of critical thinking, right? So does critical thinking mean setting aside the emotional considerations of a decision, or does it mean taking them in account? I don't know. I kind of dismissed the question as too vague, but... for most meaningful decisions, it seems to me that emotion ought to play a role of some sort.

        1. critical thinking is independent of preference relations. There is nothing "rational" or "irrational" about preferences, with the possible exception of intransitive individual preferences. Intransitive or incomplete preference rankings (e.g., A is preferred to B is preferred to C is preferred to A) seriously muck with rational choice analysis.

          1. I think of critical thinking much more broadly, I guess. We can think critically about our preference relations, for example. I definitely think there's a distinction to be made between "applied logic" and "critical thinking".

        2. let's say "I'll be better off financially" and "I'll be happier" are the two sides of a decision... how do you weight those things? Weighting them certainly isn't a process of critical thinking, right?

          right. The weighting of independent "dimensions" of choice is outside of rational analysis.

          We impose some limitations on "rational" preferences in formal analysis. A standard one is to assume that preferences are well-ordered such that we can use a function that maps various inputs to a single output (which, uh, is part of the definition of a function, so I repeat myself), and that the set of outputs meets certain criteria (like it is partially ordered).

          [I may or may not have stated that coherently; it's been a while since I've plowed any of this ground, and I ain't no set theorist]

          1. Hmm. I'm not even quite sure I agree with what I wrote any more. Let's try something else:

            To me, applied logic is probably a fairly narrow field of thinking. It involves knowing, or having the logical tools to uncover, all the variables. Anything by which you make assumptions - even fairly well-informed assumptions - is probably getting away from logic. Particularly if those assumptions involve human actors.

            Critical thinking, on the other hand, is the sum process of applying reason to a problem. That involves logic, to be sure, but it also involves making those informed assumptions (indeed, making informed assumptions instead of assumptions is, I think, much of what critical thinking is about). It also involves weighting preferences, in so far as one is able, taking into account emotional effects, setting reasonable timelines/temporal preferences (how do we weight the immediate effect vs. the later effects, etc.), and probably a few more things.

            Does that make sense?

            1. Yes. But "critical thinking" doesn't require what we call in the biz "complete and perfect information". Rather, it applies coherent rules to the information one has to order alternatives about which one is aware.

              In other words, I'm treating "critical thinking" to be one and the same with "rational analysis" and "strategic thinking" in the game-theoretic sense. Just because one does not know what one does not know, doesn't mean that one's decision-making is "irrational" or non-"critical".

              1. Sure, but doesn't that critical thinking involve information about emotion?

                Here's an example:

                I need to buy a new vehicle, that'll seat 2 adults and 3 car seats. We don't do much city driving. We do a lot of highway driving. We're really really tired of having repairs made for our current vehicle and the frustration that comes with them. We want to save as much money as possible because we're worried about our future financial well-being. We frequently need extra space to haul stuff for our kids. Safety is very important, as we're afraid of our kids getting hurt or worse. We're proud of our self-identified status as environmentally-friendly, and we'd like something that is as "green" as possible. Etc.

                What should we buy?

                To me, I can think critically about this decision. I'm not just gonna go to a lot and say "here's my money, give me the most car for it" or "that's the safest vehicle, I'll take it" or anything like that. Critical thinking involves taking into account all of those various issues above and doing my best to come to a "well-reasoned" decision. It will not happen with "complete and perfect information." But it will involve considering all of those various emotional elements described above.

                1. emotions obviously color how one ranks alternatives. Preferences aren't about some weird rational calculation; they're about how we feel about alternatives. Analytically, we can use functions to represent preferences over alternatives, but that doesn't change the facts of where the preferences come from.

                  1. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Do you think the scenario above describes critical thinking or not?

                    1. I am saying that preferences are preferences, not rational calculations. Rationality is applied to preferences to render actions - you choose actions or strategies to pursue what you desire.

                    2. But critical thinking involves preferences, and preferences can be shaped by critical thinking. And your second sentence there... sometimes you do, sure. But sometimes you don't. And where there are conflicting preferences, you think critically about them.

                      My sense is that your scope of what constitutes rationale thought is extremely narrow. How would one come to a rational conclusion about which car to buy in your understanding? Could one think critically about such things? I say yes. You?

                    3. ... and let me clarify: I don't think "pure logic" and "critical thinking" are synonymous. I agree that rational calculations are not emotional things. But how often can you really make a purely rational calculation? Maybe more importantly, how often do you? But that doesn't mean you aren't engaged in critical thinking the other times.

                      But what's more, even in those cases where you are applying purely rational calculations to preferences... well, the underpinning preferences are based on non-rational (not necessarily irrational) factors, so can you really say that you're operating in a purely rational fashion? I think we're just deluding ourselves into thinking so (or worse: lying to ourselves), probably because we've somehow developed an idea that "rational thought" is truer or something, despite the fact that we aren't solely rational beings. But I'm rambling now...

                    5. Yes, you can choose a car through rational or "critical thinking" and that can include "but we wants it, our precioussssss".

                    6. You have also raised arguments/claims about endogenous preferences.

                      There is a literature on that. Ironically, I don't have strong feelings on that issue. For me, "rationality" is mostly an assumption useful for external, analytical purposes.in that context, it is extremely powerful, but far from perfect.

    3. I think the tendency is to conflate "emotional" with "irrational" and I don't think those are equivalent. Often I've seen one person's emotion used as a way to discount or discredit their argument without involving the substance of the argument at all, and I find that to be a crappy way of arguing.

      I guess I would say that critical thinking can involve emotion, but doesn't require it.

  11. I got Gravity's Rainbow at the library for our book discussion. I knew it was a large book, but holy jumpin', that is a big book.

      1. I'm into GR about 15 pages - sloooo going. Maybe the pace picks up when you get used to it. Like the banana breakfast party.

        1. All I remember about my first foray into the first 4-5 pages of the book was that bananas were a thing.

          [There, that's better]

          1. I reached out to an old professor of mine who introduced me to Pynchon. He said the first 4-5 pages were impossible, but made more sense after the first 10.

    2. I read that JW was also accused of going into a BK with some buddies and drinking pop out of ketchup cups without paying for it. Do these guys have to act like college kids...

      1. A couple of years ago, I got to visit his old jail cell on Robben Island. Very powerful and highly recommended. (Of course, I also had to deal with the m-i-l complaining the entire day that I was forcing us to do something depressing while on vacation and then having her ask the guide - all of whom were former political prisoners on the island as was told to the tourists approximately a bajillion times - if he had ever been to Robben Island before he got his job.)

  14. Phil Hughes signs with the Twins today and he will wear #45. Scott Ullger will have to find a new one.

          1. Huh, I see it is pretty widespread on Twitter, too. It seems like there's a really small chance that he will make it through waivers, but maybe I'm missing something.

        1. I wouldn't even bet that Diamond is better than Hendriks. It also doesn't seem like the bullpen is so good that he couldn't have started the season as a long reliever. I really don't get it. If they were this low on him, they could have traded him last year similar to the way the Braves traded away Diamond.

          I would say that this is really confusing, but it seems likely that:

          1) The scouts/pitching coaches are down on him for some reason, maybe legitimate, maybe not
          2) They really felt that he wouldn't be in the rotation coming out of spring training and since he's out of options, they'd rather keep around some option-able pitchers

          1. 1) The scouts/pitching coaches are down on him for some reason, maybe legitimate, maybe not
            This feels similar to the Slama situation. Great numbers in the minors but either not given a chance or the team gives up early on him.

            2. I feel like Slama is materially different than Hendriks. Slama was already a reliever, so that's a strike against him. Hendriks first pitched in AAA at 22, Slama at 25. Slama was a two pitch pitcher, though maybe he would have mixed in a couple of poor pitches if he was a starter. Hendriks essentially threw as hard as a starter as Slama did as a reliever, so Slama likely has the weaker arm. Slama had bigger strikeout numbers, but a 4+ BB/9 rate generally makes me a leery of translating that to the majors.

              I'd say this feels more like a Slowey/Garza situation, where the team seems to have some behind-the-scenes issue with a pitcher which makes them impatient about big-league production.

              I'll say this against Hendriks: he seems to have relied really, really heavily on his fastball, which isn't really blowing anyone away. It's possible his secondary offerings are in the realm of good enough to fool minor league hitters but not very effective against major league hitters, if such a realm truly exists.

              1. the team seems to have some behind-the-scenes issue with a pitcher which makes them impatient about big-league production.

                Sorta what I'm hearing. He was not a popular guy.

                2. The Twins aren't good enough to judge players based on personality.

                  We put up with Delmon for years!

            2. I'm not really sure what to think of Swarzak. Looking at his minor league starts per year, it seems like he had a bunch of injury troubles (now I'm remembering he had a drug suspension in there somewhere) and that probably explains a lot of why his minor league numbers were so up and down. He did well the first time through the order as a starter, but fell apart the second time through the order (.758 OPS vs. .938 OPS, majors only)--relieving could suit him. He also doesn't have bad platoon splits, so you're not forced to use him strictly as a match-up reliever.

              That said, a lot of that seems to apply to Hendriks, except Hendriks was more consistent in the minors. Although, in SSS he had a bad platoon split. He had a similar 1st-time/2nd-time-through-the-order split, which would suggest that his secondary stuff isn't very good. He didn't throw his secondary stuff much, so he/Mauer/other catchers weren't very confident in it either.

              1. I think Swarzak's path is going down the Matt Guerrier path, but more stingy with the walks.

                1. I was actually thinking about bringing up Guerrier as a decent comparison to Swarzak. I always felt like Guerrier's curve was a good pitch and made him one of those good one-trick-pony kind of relievers, but I also probably overrate his curveball.

            3. Swarbuck is Gardy's boy. Any pitcher that will pitch 3+ innings one day and volunteer to pitch the next is Gardy's hero. Of course, even with him on the team we still have to have 13 pitchers.

        2. here is the deal, if the Twins did not like him, why couldnt they trade him? Im sure they could have picked up a nominal prospect for Hendriks.

          I think the Twins owe an explanation for this move

          1. Not that it's really an excuse, but it's possible that they just aren't good at trading players they don't like.

            Lohse -- At the time they traded him, they weren't going to get much--he was almost a free agent--but he was a solid pitcher and they could have traded him earlier. I'm sure the Gardy problems didn't just come from nowhere.

            Garza/Bartlett -- I think that trade was a bust from the moment they finalized the deal.

            Slowey -- Ultimately let him go for nothing

            Ramos -- I have partially justified that trade in the past, but you'd like to think they could have done better.

            Those are the players I can think of off the top of my head. Even if it's not a secret that the Twins don't get along with some of these players, they really just need two interested teams to drive a trade up to a fair price.

    1. Thank you. I might have missed that otherwise.
      Laughed so hard, and then there's like a last-second twist in the middle of the credits!

          1. I get a kick out of your string of uninterrupted LTE's popping up late-night/early a.m. Unless I can guess at the context, they make no sense on the sidebar (were one to read them as a series of connected comments) but when I go look at what you were commenting on, sometimes it's like you're closing that topic down - finalizing it.

            1. Or folks just want to move on to the next day.
              It feels rare when I can participate in a conversation rather than just take potshots at it once it's over.
              Sometimes I feel like the guy who arrives at a party just as everyone else was going home.

              Humperdink's A Party Pooper.
              Nobody wants to play with Hooper AMR.

              1. I can see that - being the last comment on something or having my comment sit at the top of the sidebar for an extended period of time makes me feel uneasy for some reason.

                AMR...? Not Him!

      1. I think its a dumb argument all around, especially the Rosenthal quote that says

        So, one exec asked, what is the problem? Does Hughes not believe himself? Is he concerned about getting hurt?

        3 years at 8 mil is not going to kill the Twins books.

        1. At worst, it's Nick Blackburn. The argument seemed weak to me too - basically "I'm kind of afraid he won't be as good as he potentially could be" - and was premised on a guess about Hughes' preferences, with no real basis therefore.

          1. What's dumb is he says he would take the guaranteed money every time but questions Hughes about doing the same thing. A smart agent tells a pitcher every time to take the guaranteed money every time. Even these days it doesn't take much for a pitcher's career to be over. Plus, what if you get to the end of a one-year deal and then you end up with TJ surgery. You'll be rehabbing the whole year without being paid and then you'll probably have to sign another 1-year deal, if that, to prove that you're healthy, which of course you won't be at 100% till at least midseason. Take the money, kid.

Comments are closed.