Chisoxfn

I wouldn't compare him to either of those players. Poreda didn't have multiple plus pitches and Ring didn't have velocity (and to be honest...neither did Poreda).

I completely agree with you - That said, despite the public pickering, it seems like the two sides are at least getting closer on the # of games played. Obviously MLB can always just take a hardline stance, but it seems like we are getting a point where we can align on games played and than everyone just fights for a few days on hashing out prorata %.

I like Cavalli.

Not sure if this was posted here or not, but Who is now stating it is much less likely for asymptomatic individuals to infect others with COVID. Similar to the revised statements around touching surfaces, you can still get from asymptomatic individuals, but at a much lower clip than those who have symptomatic infections (or whatever the appropriate medical term is). If this is true, this would be great news as it would indicate things like temperature checks, etc, would likely be much more effective. If you combined that with just a really good tracing program to those who were symptomatic - you'd put a huge dent in this thing right than and there. There are also lots of updated mortality and morbidity stats that continue to show positive signs in terms of the effectiveness of treatment. In particular, better use of cocktails of drugs, in particular more focus on early prevention of bloodcluts and other treatments to target patients who are undergoing "cytokine" attacks. In a sea of constant bad news, I'll take these few things as major positives. That isn't to say everything is perfect, but either way, much better than if the above wasn't the case (i.e., mortality was staying elevated with no effective treatments & asymptomatic spread ran worse). https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html Note: There is a difference between asyompmatic & presymptomatic.

So is 75% prorated salary, meaning they get 75% of the full season pay (for 76 games). Or what you all re saying where they play 76 games for 57 worth of pay (in which case - yeah, this is all far worse than I thought in terms of how the sides are digging in).

Does anyone find it interesting that Mitch is spending a lot of time practicing with Robinson and some other unknown bears. Obviously they have existing relationships but was glad to see this as I think it shows a positive response by Mitch. I would love it if he took two steps forward this year and became a franchise qb and the bears long time QB.

I'm just excited for bball to be back. It would have been fun if the Bulls made the cut, but they were awful and don't deserve it. I think the league could have been more creative in its use of a march madness style dynamic, but this will still be fun and exciting. Fired up. And now Bulls can entirely focus on next year. It would be nice if teams who don't play, somehow get some added developmental benefit to counteract the fact that these other teams are going to get more development and time to work.

I want to issue a very specific warning for everyone in this thread (not saying any issue right now - just making a stringent warning). I want to ensure EVERYONE is RESPECTFUL to one another while discussing this matter. All items on this topic, stay within this thread. This is a distinct thread for those who want to discuss within our community what is going on out there, your views, your beliefs, your questions for others, etc. But treat one another with respect.

Man 50-60 seems short but hey I’ll take it. I think 80 feels like a better floor.

What list. Players do drugs and there is probably some truth they are more at risk from dying of an od than something else...but of course that is a risk said player is choosing to make and if you don’t chose to do it you have zero risk of oding. But people have to work. You and I get told we need to go in to the office...we have two choices...we go in or we quit and find a new job. And we don’t have the same asset base said players have had to fall back on (not all players but still most).

It sucks. We see leagues all over the world starting back up. Leagues in US with momentum and than there is tone deaf baseball (players owners I don’t care...so many people are hurting now and these two groups are fighting over who will be richer of the two and I still don’t buy that any of them is better off by this not happening). Lock yourself in the room and figure out an outcome. It’s one thing if the sport can’t play because it is unsafe..it is another when it is all about bickering on finances right now. I will have a hard time overcoming how much MLB is crushing itself right now.

Yeah - They are leveraging that and applying around. Lines up with what I have been reading.

Do they have a new date? Is it this Saturday?

Or not. Weather got in the way.

Pretty cool - Good PSA for anyone with kids at home too (good time to cast for a nice educational opportunity).

Ah yes...my finest moment of photoshop. I'm still waiting for the White Sox to send me a 2005 World Series Ring for the creation of that

Yeah - Even after losing 5-1, I'd have been talking mad smack to MJ the whole rest of the week. He probably would have made camp a living H for me too hahah.

Awesome story - Thanks for sharing and I LOLD hard at the last sentence. That is Jordan in a nutshell.

Was at that game. Was such a great game.

What happened?

It would be a death sentence to baseball. I think worse than the 94 strike. One thing to cancel because of the virus, another because of money (at a time when we are facing record unemployment).

I am going to guess big pharma started racing on a vaccine as soon as the outbreak in Wuhan became large enough. By that point, there was enough potential money to do more work. I don't think Big Pharma waited for any government funding to do what they would have needed to do (because potential profits & PR benefits of being the Company to solve this thing would be massive). Now the government could have created broader collaboration networks sooner and for all I know maybe they did those exact things (just kept it quiet...but with this regime if they did anything worthwhile or even somewhat worthwhile they would have talked about it from a mountaintop).

Tex - You hit on a key point I think others aren't discussing. If we know there isn't a vaccine for 3 years, should we hold and wait 3 years with limited our entire way of living, or at that point, is it just manage the entire way through this thing, focusing on ensuring that our hospitals can handle the surge and where surges exceed, manage back through until we get through this entire bugger. Maybe we target higher levels of continued quarantine for the most high risk population to buy further time for better treatments? The part of me that is bugged by this is, it certainly seems like we've seen areas / other countries who have knocked this thing out better and faster than us and why should we be talking about a much different containment strategy than others (unless we believe our data indicates that there is truly no containment and no matter what these other countries have done, at some point, 1 year from now or 2 years from now, they are going to deal with everything. I consider all of the above a worse case scenario because it essentially means we have no choice but to slowly manage to herd immunity.

I might be naive, but the way the message is delivered matters. If the message is delivered and notes that as part of our plans to open up the economy/states in a measured and safe way, we will be requiring social distancing and use of masks within all stores. This is to ensure we can safely re-open our economy and these measures will, in part, help ensure we can continue to maintain a re-opened economy. I'd also highlight the extreme benefit in wearing the mask (in a simple fashion). I think if you had a united message from the president in chief all the way to the states, you would see any protests being an extreme minority (and no matter what you do, someone is going to complain). When the message is mixed and unclear, than I think it leaves/causes more of those challenges. Obviously the science needs to support this, but I see no reason why the science wouldn't support the fact that if everyone wore masks (and if we did it sooner), we probably are much closer to wiping this thing out (earlier use of masks with a more coordinated social distancing effort).

Would a Michigan security guard have that incident happen if we had a federal mandate? I get it, people are always going to complain. Even if you softly policed it, wouldn't you still be better than the alternative? I get it, I don't like being told what to do, but by wearing a mask, I can freely enter a store and have freedom to get what i need. We have laws in place that require people to wear clothes in stores too.