Deadpool

Lots of money, but both of those players contribute...

It was never going to be enough, but it was (and still is) a good start.

Well, looks like John Henry got into the ether... http://c1.likes-media.com/img/aa0d9783a370387a1174bed6208f9800.600x

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/11/blue-jays-notes-melky-hamels-salty.html "...Davidi reports, and he also reiterates that the Jays aren’t interested in Yasmany Tomas." But, that is 2 weeks old, and who knows what's happened since then (or if it was some sort of cover at the time...)

There is no absence of evidence though, there's TONNES of evidence, all of which points to evolution as the source of "consciousness". http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

This is an incredibly, incredibly dumb response. But if you want to keep on believing that there's "more to life than what we can see", go right ahead. It won't make you correct, but if the best you've got is "you can't say anything until you can say everything" then you've got nothing to contribute to any discussion. Oh, and for the record, there is "absolute evidence", an abundance of it, in fact.

Nope. You don't have to know everything in order to know anything. Scientists are working on the issue (see: http://www.livescience.com/47096-theories-seek-to-explain-consciousness.html for some promising recent theories). The article you posted there basically contradicts the point you're trying to make. The author of that blog is disputing the findings of a book, and in fact says near the conclusion of his post "There is in fact no reason to believe that our mental faculties cannot be explained by an evolutionary process – a biological and physical one." First of all, seriously? You're going to drag the whole "evolution is a religion" trope out? No. This is not a thing, never was a thing, and never will be a thing. Religions are centred around beliefs, science (in this case, evolution) is centred around facts. Defending a fact is very, very different from defending a book. Secondly, enough facts are in that there's an entire field called Neuroscience (alternatively, Cognitive Science looks at many of these issues as well). The facts off the matter are that we have a bunch of chemicals and neurons doing their business up in our heads, and every time we learn more about one of those chemicals or neurons, we learn more about how the brain functions. You're descending into a "god in the gaps" argument, and that gap gets smaller and smaller every day.

The chemicals in our brains that create "sentience" are the result of evolution. Evolution has occurred, it is what brought us from single celled organisms to people arguing over the value of fWAR on a magical box. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory#Fact (yeah, I know, citing Wikipedia, but this isn't a term paper...) "Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact. The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point. There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact." ... "[stephen Jay] Gould also points out that "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution."

You're actually wrong here. That we are a product of evolution is fact, the theory relates the the "how". As in "evolution by natural selection". The "natural selection" part is the theory (and a damn strong theory it is, scientifically speaking...)

If the money is actually there, I like Tomas over most of the other OF options, that's for sure. I'm not sure if the money is there, and AA is on record as saying he wasn't interested (but he's sometimes evasive with the media about his actual desires etc...)

Chocolate Thunder on a minor league deal wouldn't make me angry in the least.

I know I'm not as high on Melky as a lot of people, but even I think he's too good to be playing in AA...

Yes, he'd be an upgrade for the team, and I love that the team seems to have money available, but I'm really less stoked about signing Sandoval than I would be about other players we could get.

Sierra was terribad, the only reason he was ever with the big club (beyond a september call-up) is the fact that Alex hates losing assets, Bonifacio was brutally terrible while he was here. Rogers was sort of meh... Those are all about performance (not really money because none were paid a huge sum...) I also have still not seen any credible report of the payroll deferment thing actually happening, just rumour and speculation, and even that isn't as clear about if it was the players' idea, or management's.

I'm not typically a betting man, but I would wager at least eleventy bajillion dollars that all 3 of those players are on the opening day roster (barring injury/death/earth exploding etc...) None of those guys are getting traded. Period.

I'm all for drunk-internetting, but isn't it a bit early?

They can't do that part. Player has to be offered back to the original team for $25K, or put through waivers before being sent to the minors.

Well, MLB.com's Email list just sent me an Email with the worst subject line I've ever seen... "Left-handa & Panda hear Boston pitches‏" I literally can't even.

That's a pretty optimistic time-frame. A lot of work will have to be done to make that a thing.

He's a sunk cost, so it would be nice if he contributed SOMETHING to the MLB club this season, but I expect a poor season at AAA for him, then a career in independent ball (or becoming a junior partner at (Josh) Towers Baseball Instruction, which is totally a real thing...)

It's too bad the Deadpool family christmas was last weekend... (Parents are snowbirds and they'll be in Florida for actual christmas, like all Canadians in their 60s...)

It's a contract year for him, he'll be hungry for success in spring training!

Those are pretty spectacular...

I have no boundaries about what can be laughed at. The example I typically use is "you can make a joke about Hitler raping my mom, as long as the joke is funny..."