85 thoughts on “December 15, 2011: Hang in there, CH”

  2. Took family zooomx to the Wild game last night. First of all, I was caught off guard with the 6:30 start time, as the tickets said 7. Around 3:00 a colleague gave me a heads up and the race was on to pick up the kids from school and get on the road. Of course, traffic on 94 from downtown MPLS to downtown St. Paul was absolutely BRUTAL! Over and hour to drive that last 13 miles. I dont know how you city folk do it. Luckily got one of the last spots in the lot next to the arena. Sat down in our seats 5 minutes into the game. Not bad considering the hurdles we had to jump to get there.

    The Wild are really banged up right now, so we were lucky to pull a point from a top team in the league. I thought the 2nd and 3rd periods were impressive on our side. This team is fun to watch. They work hard, they hustle, and they really share the puck well. It is definitely a faster paced style of play then we have experienced in the past and I love it. We did have some fairly hockey-dense Blackhawks fans right behind us who really kept me amused with their silly comments. All in all a fun night of hockey on the one night we dont have hockey practice or games at home.

    1. It is definitely a faster paced style of play then we have experienced in the past and I love it.

      This. The team is definitely a far-cry from Jacques' teams of old. I wonder what he could have done with this talent...they're three lines deep and the fourth aren't scrubs either. I don't know if Risebrough ever assembled a team like this for him. On the flip side, I have to think that Yeo has a lot* to do with the hard work, hustle, and style of play you referenced.

      *I'm not very good at evaluating how much influence a coach has, but I'd say that there are enough holdovers playing better this year than last that he deserves a ton of credit.

    2. The games are so much more interesting and exciting now. The Winnipeg game was really fantastic from a fan's perspective. They seem to do a lot more forechecking to press the issue, rather than sitting back waiting. And when they're down 2-0, as they have been several times, you don't just assume that they have no chance. They've come back numerous times now from 2-0 deficits to tie and get points.

      1. Now for the bad news. Russo is reporting Latendresse is back out, this time indefinitely, with post-concussion sypmtoms and Koivu may have pulled a hamstring last night. Add that to Harding being put on IR along with Setoguchi and PMB out for at least a few days with a busted face...I'm starting to get a little concerned.

    2. Aww, I was hoping it was a team the Twins would face during the season.
      I'm still hoping I can find a "James 44" Game-used jersey at Twinsfest.

  6. The latest culinary fad? Vocal fry, of course.

    it is the sort of gritty, sexy voice that 85-year-old habitual smokers develop," says Roberta Anderson in the International Business Times.

    1. it is the sort of gritty, sexy voice that 85-year-old habitual smokers develop

      or that 85% of girls from wisconsin seem to possess?

      1. Mag, I still remember your response to my first post with an avatar at the WGOM: "YEEEEAAAH! Razor F'n Shines! Instantly a top five avatar for me."

    3. Awesome! I enjoyed the link to the MinorLeagueBaseball.com article as well, I forgot how dominant those Indians teams were during my childhood.

      1. someone needs to get to work on his logo stat!

        meat -- come back and do up a "Consensual Pork" WGOM jersey for him. I'd buy one (if my wife would let me).

    2. I'm a bit surprised that the Twins signed Willingham with Cuddyer still available. I wonder if Cuddyer was either holding out for more or really didn't want to come back.

      1. everything i've heard says that cuddyer was looking for at least $30+ million. might as well sign the guy for cheap before someone else does.

      2. There was some speculation yesterday that the Twins may look to trade Span (for pitching) if they sign Cuddyer.

          1. Hey, if TR can move Span for pitching the way he moved Pierzynski for pitching, how would you feel about signing Cuddyer and moving Span for pitching?

                  1. Yes, that. Nathan was already Nathan in 2006 (second season after the trade), but Liriano became F-Bomb and Boof had his one good year.

                    1. I see. I think that a 2-3 year max return might not be such a bad plan. Last year was all kinds of disaster, it's hard to imagine the Twins seriously competing for a WS this year, so why not trade a valuable player for a package of good, but riskier players?

                    2. While I agree with you in general, it should be noted that the Diamondbacks lost 97 games last year and 92 the year before. Of course, that's the same team that essentially bought its way to the 2001 World Series, so quick rebounds are just part of the franchise.

                    3. Surely contending next year shouldn't be ruled out. I'm just talking about what they should be planning for. I think ultimately they should plan to get back to .500 or so next year, and if their .500 team happens to be doing better than expected, all the better.

            2. The difference here is he would be moving a younger, less-espensive player. And remember, when he initially made the deal, it was for a setup man, a marginal AAA prospect and a A-ball prospect. Nobody was hailing the trade until Nathan started to show how dominant a closer he could be. Not that anyone disliked it, but it wasn't considered a lopsided deal initially. Nobody was upset at losing A.J. because we had Mauer.

              1. No, actually, Ryan would be moving an older, equally expensive player. APJ was 26 when that deal was made and he made $3.5M that first year with the Giants. Span was 27 last season and he makes $3M next year.

                Sure, no one was hailing the trade when it was made, but that doesn't mean it was a bad trade. It was a shrewd trade which paid off better than it might have, but was a good deal nonetheless.

                2. Actually, I meant the player he's trading away in this case is younger and less expensive than the player he's making room for, which would be Cuddyer. In the AJ trade, they were trading AJ to make room for Mauer, so in that case he was trading an older, more expensive player to make room for a young, min. wage player that was better. In this case, Span is younger and less expensive but is being traded away to make room for Cuddyer. TR really has to get a good deal in the trade to make it a shrewd move overall.

                  1. In this case, I don't think he'd strictly be trading Span to make room for Cuddyer, since Cuddyer isn't strictly an outfielder, and even if Cuddyer plays this entire season as a RF, if the Twins sign Cuddyer, it's in large part because he can also play 1B, a position of great uncertainty in the near future.

                    1. Other than Parmelee looked the best of the young players offensively and defensively last year, albeit in a SSS.

            3. I'd still be concerned, because I don't really think that Revere makes Span expendable and the other promising young outfielders in the system are several years away. They'd also be trading away outfield defense with a flyball heavy pitching staff, for the sake of adding someone who has a fairly replaceable skillset.

              I mean if he could get a potential ace type picture, sure. But for relief pitching? God no.

              1. Ace type pitcher, heh.

                I don't think it's really about making Span "expendable." If they can get a deal where they can get more value for Span than he has to the team currently, then I think it would be a good deal. We're not so close to being a championship team that we need to worry so much about how good we are at any one position--we want the most overall value possible and should make moves to increase the value of the team.

                Also, I think you do a disservice to relief pitchers. AJP was a good player, and in the three years following the trade, he accumulated 5.3 fWAR. Nathan accumulated 5.9 fWAR in that same period, despite being merely a relief pitcher while AJP plays a valuable up-the-middle position. Even if all we had was a replacement level catcher to replace AJP, we would have come ahead on the deal.

                Obviously, with any trade, there are no guarantees on whether your return will pan out. On the other hand, every time you hold on to a player, there is no guarantee that non-move will pan out for you, either. I don't necessarily think that now is the best time they could trade Span, mainly because his concussion issues are a risk that other teams might not take (but then again, that's a risk the Twins assume if they keep him), but he is a valuable player and in the two best trades TR ever made, he traded away valuable players. If we wait a couple years, then Span's 30 (or nearly 30), almost a free agent, and will have little value in a trade.

        2. Today, Joe C says still looking good for Twins to sign Cuddyer and he projected a lineup that had Span leading off, so he's speculating that they could sign Cuddyer and still keep Span.

          1. I think it's entirely possible that they want Cuddyer with the idea that he'll mostly play at 1B.

          2. I heard TR on the radio a couple months ago. He said he didn't think you could have both Span and Revere starting since you need to find power somewhere.

            I really got the feeling that one of those two would be moved.

            1. I wonder if he would feel that way with Willingham and Cuddyer on board. With Cuddyer at 1B and Morneau at DH, plus Willingham with some power in RF/LF, and Valencia with a legitimate shot at 20 HR next season, plus say 10-15 HR and 30-40 2B from Mauer, it doesn't seem like power would be a fantastically huge concern.

            2. Revere didn't exactly establish himself as a starting outfielder last year. If Span and Cuddyer are both here, he could easily be the fourth outfielder of even start in AAA.

      3. J. Shipley is reporting that the Dude "probably" isn't coming back either. I assumed this was true, but hadn't heard any recent updates.

    1. haha, that's right down the street from where i work. he was probably getting cuffed right around the time i left.

  12. As some of you know, I used to be lawyer. I don't claim to have been that great at it; I consider myself to have just been an average small-town attorney. I am reasonably sure, however, that in representing clients, I never said anything this stupid.

    2. Wow. I'll have to check with our PCA agencies in the Twin Cities here and make sure they don't authorize their workers to shower naked with clients to teach them hygiene.

    3. Here's another prime example of stupid stuff done by an attorney.

      A fed-up bankruptcy judge Wednesday ordered a Hastings attorney and her client to show cause why each shouldn't be fined up to $10,000 for calling the jurist a "Catholic Knight Witch Hunter" - as well as other names - in a court filing... [T]he attorney's memo called Dreher, another judge and a couple of trustees "dirty Catholics" and said the courts were "composed of a bunch of ignoramus, bigoted Catholic beasts that carry the sword of the church."...Nett and Isaacson called Dreher a "black-robed bigot." They complained that Manty was "a Jesuitess" with a "track record of lies, deceit, treachery and connivery."

      1. Holy Sh*t. I can't believe that was actually filed, let alone signed by an attorney. Love the free speech comments following the article too - giving the stribbies a run for their money.

        1. This sounds like something Moss' sister would write, but she's not an attorney. And her venom would be directed at attorneys. She thinks we're all cultist freemasons.

    1. I certainly dug the soundtrack, but the first one left me cold and unimpressed with the way it didn't disclose the pertinent information until the mystery was being solved.

        1. The movie was in many ways good otherwise, but yeah, the big reveal wasn't Sherlock parsing what we've all seen as an audience - it was Sherlock saying "by the way, this happened. Didn't we mention it?"

        2. Moss just re-watched it last weekend. It was enjoyable enough, but definitely not satisfying as a mystery. The problem was really that it wasn't so much a "whodunit" that needed solving. The mysteries that Holmes had to figure out (and then explain) were the various tricks that were done by the villain. How did he kill his father? How did he not die when hung? But there was no mystery about who the bad guy was and what he was trying to accomplish.

          And of course it was all a setup to a sequel. So Moss hopes that this one is improved, with the Moriarty character involved. The trailers are well done.

      2. I JUST watched the first one a week ago. I didn't watch it until recently because I couldn't stomach Sherlock being packaged as an "action hero", but I have to admit I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would. And Hans Zimmer's ST was very memorable and fit the movie well.

        That said, if you're going to "reinvent" the character, you can't beat BBC's Sherlock, which placed the story in modern day London. The mini-series had its own problems, but I was very entertained, and the actors (Martin Freeman as Watson) were quite good.

        httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--EsEiA3ec

        1. Yeah, I've just watched the first two episodes.

          Sherlock Holmes always was sort of an action hero in the books, man. Insane and enigmatic, sure, but still pretty badass.

        2. I loved this series, especially the way it handled texting.
          Can't wait until the next few episodes.

Comments are closed.