bmags

Great, bulls are sending me down a goose chase where I imagine Wiggins on the team.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:57 PM) I think if he's doing more good than bad, yes. His reasons for backing the cases are immaterial to me. If this were a billionaire backing plaintiffs in claims against companies like BP over an oil spill, me thinks none of you would have a big issue with it, even if some of the claims were bulls***. Actually, that is such an unbelievably stupid strategy for, presumably, helping the environment vs. other methods I would criticize them.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:55 PM) Ok, so if he has a personal vendetta but every case he backs is 100% legit and the victim could not have sued otherwise, ethically isn't he doing a good thing? If he was doing something other than he is doing than I would comment on what he was doing. But he's not doing that, as has been discussed.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:36 PM) mm, k. You're talking about the ethics of the move. Money doesn't really matter. The same financial backing is being done on different scales in other cases. That's an obtuse argument. If there are lawyers who find it profitable to specifically target libel cases against online publications because they win them, congrats to them. Thiel is in a priveleged position of being one of the richest men in the United States and is using that influence to specifically injure a free media outlet he does not like. He';s not on a crusade to get justice, he rarely even knows the cases, he just funds every case made against gawker to financially punish them. Powerful people using their power to take down antagonistic press outlets is something I'm commenting on. Back in the day Thiel would just buy his own paper. Now he's just litigating one to death. With how fragmented journalism is, that's scary. They can't handle more than one problem, and would be especially concerned about any stories challenging powerful people.

"But he's a below average short stop, it'd be worth it" http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball...ticle-1.2497497

But yes, I concede that if Peter Thiel was not an influential billionaire it would be a completely different story. Usually taking crucial elements out of a story does change things.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:19 PM) And really, other than scale, how is his financial backing any different than any other contingency fee case? Lawyers finance lawsuits all the time. Does it really matter if it's a third party doing it instead? A man with his means? Yes. It does matter.

Horrible person. Would be equivelant of Myers trade. I would hate this.

He has funded many more than that case. It's not theoretical that it's an abusive practice.

Was also shocked when they wrote that Sean forgot-his-lastname through 140 pitches in his first start from the bullpen. Especially from a group of advanced statheads.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:08 PM) I think you can both say that Gawker was in the wrong outing Thiel, and also say that, on balance, billionaires backing lawsuits - particularly frivolous suits like the Trump hairpiece one appears to be - against businesses that they do not like or whose political ideology they disagree with is a bad thing. Correct. If you support Thiel doing this to a rag you don't agree with, just worry that if he has great success you will see it happen to one you do. Not recommending a policy difference here, but I thiel should be shamed. What a waste of money. He could be doing something productive with it. I too remember when John Galt got on the radio and said he was going to sue all of the takers of the world.

Found per the ringer article today, if you want to feel somewhat better about wasting chris sale and quintana, you can look at how poorly the angels have wasted trout: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=28649

par for the course with him.

And still cost the firm legal fees to get it tossed.

QUOTE (RegionSox @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:32 PM) I actually thought just hearing how a low level baseball team operates was more interesting than the saber stuff. Me too. Pretty cool line about how Sonoma is a town of 10,000, and they have 4,000 come to watch on Opening Night. But there is part of me that habitually thinks when they face backlash that Sam and Ben are celebs and should get their way and realize that very few people listen to baseball prospectus podcasts.

Thiel's carte blanche funding of any lawsuit vs. Gawker now leads to lawsuite against their article on a company responsible for creating Trump's hair suing them for libel because they quoted a judge in lawsuits against the company.

I'd probably always answer trout regardless, but the impact of his bat in the mix, plus elite CF, plus giving us back our elite RF is a really sweet fit. Best pitcher in the world won't matter if every hit to right field is a double.

Since i'm by myself: Note to self: Theo's retort to homophobic commenters asking why there isn't a heterosexual pride night was hilarious: "We celebrated heterosexuals by starting off the season with 6-STRAIGHT wins!" This book is so interesting and relateable to both business and sports. Easy to forget that while results are all that matters to fans, these people all do work together, and the relationships matter a lot on the backend.

I"m at a loss. Timeline: Post Tea Party election, Democrats push idea that their policies are radically outside the political mainstream, beat them in elections in 2012. Labeling is bad. DOnald Trump learns from this that labeling is okay, gets elected because of democrats, then pushes forth the idea that muslims are inherently radical in the sense that they want to murder and destroy the institution of America and should be banned, and it was a mistake to allow current muslim americans into this country. Linear A-to-B argument.

Unless this team proves that a player adding 1-2 wins will give them an advantage over cleveland, they should not buy. The more this team tries to add, the more we find that staying put would have done the same thing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 09:47 AM) None of that stuff is actually the point. The point was the gigantic speech about not needing to label and marginalize large groups of people, all of which are being done anyway. It is the point, because it's more important when people in power do it. Because when people in power do it it is part of policy, policy that can be enacted, policy that will affect real people. SO "some people on the left use labels" doesn't matter, because people on the left didn't nominate a candidate proposing new immigrants identifying as conservative sand banning them. Marginalizing them and taking away rights. Trump matters in this thread because he is the republican nominee for president of the United States. So yes, people on message boards call a section of the republican party radicals. But they didn't nominate a presidential candidate on the premise that they blame, marginalize, discriminate and remove rights of other American groups. But the Republicans did. Important things are happening in the world and in the United States, and the Republicans elected Trump. He's not some random republican congressman saying dumb things, he is the major party canidate. It matters a lot what he says, what he says has a large constituency.

What does that link to, i'm scared to click.

Are we sure we couldn't get Bryan Colangelo to trade us the #1 pick? Or something stupid? There aren't many dumb front offices left right now, just bulls and sixers.

It is different. Donald Trump believes the President of the United States faked his birth certificate and was born in Kenya. While some people on the left say that Bush planned 9/11. Same thing. It's just like when Reinsdorf complained about Horace Grant backing out of a verbal deal.

If that's the case, they didn't need to bring Grace back last year.