bmags

There's nothing else to do. I'm dreaming it.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 02:46 PM) Rockies would love to move him. I saw him play a bit last year after the Tulo trade, and he looked like he lost a step. Huge contract, which is yet another tribute to GM's of the world (this case the Mets former GM. Reyes is still at AAA for rehab, with decent enough stats. Rox have to decide pretty soon what to do with him. Nobody wants him. Nobody here knows what happened with the assault incident. I doubt it was as severe as the Ray Rice case. Still, Rockies are stuck holding that bag. Even Hahn has the sense to stay away from that quagmire. He was DFAd today. They were judgmental and decided not to employ someone who beat his wife so bad she had to go to the hospital.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 02:18 PM) Not to the tune of 10 million on a 50/50 case. That's going to take some work by a Plaintiff to find a firm to take a case like that. The CPD largely does a good job but they also kill innocent black kids! They may, they may not. That $10 million is likely inflated by this actually going to trial, and a law firm that knew all of its hours billed would be paid. Another plaintiff would almost cetainly settle for less, but restitution is there (unless they don't have a case which many libel cases don't). Your second point is idiotic. Nothing gawker has done punished poor people as much as Thiels funding of james o'keefe's ACORN sting, a malicious piece of trash that hurt actual poor people that he manipulated. If only poor people had a billionaire fighitng for them to protect them against Thiel. No, they may. Your argument is essentially we should have an unchecked billionaire class and not a free media. I disagree.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 02:04 PM) So he's got money, that's the problem. Link to the bolded? The reverse of that is a powerful antagonistic press outlet that attacks and bullies people who may not have the means to fight them is equally dangerous. So there's good and bad with all of this. We have a legal system in place for specific people to charge libel or slander against such an outlet. And, as you've said, plenty of enterprising law firms to take a case that has legs. Gawker is aggressive but largely punches up. I'd worry more about power going unchecked than your scenario which doesn't really exist, and if it does has plenty of ways to get justice for unfair practices.

Hard to imagine how disappointed I would be if I had Mike Trout on my team and $200 million to spend and somehow found myself with the worst farm system in baseball and a 3rd place team. I'd probably feel similar to now, but still. Would be so amazing to watch this guy in your uniform.

You make a compelling argument.

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.