bmags

Saturday was bad but in my years of following a team here are my rules: - Any time the opposing team is supposed to have a huge disadvantage due to either a) extended layoff or b) coming off some quadruple overtime they will always win* - People who say "it's really hard to sweep a doubleheader" is only partially true. It's hard to sweep a double header, but it's easy to get swept in one** *unless its your team that was at the disadvantage **only applies to white sox

Fortunately for the sox trend is against big name managers. I could see sox zigging there though and prioritizing "experience" and getting another manager that goes by his GUT.

x10 "Don't be surprised if Boylen stays" "New FO giving him more of a shot than you'd think" "Boylen fired" "Boylen was a horrible with players and it's no surprise it was fired"

I've watched this like 100x on loop and still can't figure out how people were able to make that out. I guess it looks kinda blue?

I remember when Giolito couldn't get a whiff to save his life. Ah well, back to the "the way things currently are I will proclaim as the way things will always be" show

yeah I can't think of many examples of where a really good pitcher was actually blocked. They tend to find a way.

oh is Lopez's command better (after 4 years in the majors)

Massachusetts is down to 200 cases per day and in a region that is among the coolest in terms of spread. If any state could pull it off, Massachusetts has one of the best state gov'ts in the country.

I thought the conspiracy was officials overcounting deaths to make it look scary but I guess now we've moved on to other countries hiding deaths just to stick it to the US.

Nope. We also didn't know return so I didn't feel very strongly about acquiring him or missing out on him. Definitely didn't mind not getting him. But he would have been a pretty big help. Promote that scout (he was probably let go).

You've gotten us a middle reliever. In retrospect we should have gotten Dylan bundy.

Phillies were tapped out, dodgers perpetually looking to offload talent due to tax, "its the new yankees", etc etc

love when sox talk says other teams don't have revenue to sign a player. It's accurate roughly 0% of time.

They will get their chance one way or another, as we've seen this year. But I don't think it's the worst thing in the world for a young, inexpensive pitcher to force their way onto the team next year rather than being handed a spot.

Understatement of the century. I think Bauer stays in Cincinnati. They have aligned their entire operation to what he would love, it's out of the spotlight, and they can get close enough.

missed 100% of this game, but thoroughly enjoyed the push notifications

Charlie Blackmon is doing incredible stuff right now, very hot. I don't want to take that away from him. MLB app continuing to push notify me that he is "chasing Ted Williams" is really annoying. He's not chasing Ted Williams. That's all I have to say.

I totally agree here, I don't get this idea the padres developed him. The guy was in the majors at 20, by the time they saw him he physically looked completely different. The sox DID see tatis play on backfields and they screwed up. Had they had him, he'd be just as good as he is now, I am sure.

I find it funny that sox fans hate Sammy Sosa so much (myself included) that he never finds his way to these discussions.

I don't think the first one was that bad, Deshields was pretty good, and I'm a little more forgiving on pitchers who just seem to find it all at once. He was the ultimate outlier as a short RH pitcher who ended up being so durable. I mean the Scherzer trade to DET was awful in retrospect but at the time I didn't bat an eye. People thought Washington overpaid to acquire Scherzer, then overpaid him on his contract. Pitchers are too weird.

Man the late 90s/early 00s when all the small market teams were just giving away their players to the big market teams was such a crappy era. That Kansas City had an outfielder at one point of Beltran, Damon, Dye and slowly wittled them all away. At least now they are smart enough not to wait until they are an expiring and getting true hauls for them.

interesting topic

Really not that malicious to advocate that your businesses not be forced to shut down without compensation. I don't have a problem with restaurants following the rules to try and survive, I have a problem with our officials trying to make public health messaging solve economic and supply problems. Them telling people not to wear masks in March was using a public health justification to solve a supply chain and production issue. Refusing to provide accurate risk assessment on different settings is using public health messaging to solve an economic issue, where we are refusing to step up to the plate and compensate businesses who have been forced to shut down and so we act like their modified openings are safe. The public health depts should say what need to be done, and the other govt functions should align to make that possible. It should not be other depts saying what's possible to public health, and then public health making up messaging to make that seem safe.

I was sad about this, he had a pretty nice 2018 and then last year it made it unlikely. However, I always thought that tier of guys like basabe would always be easy use for a middle reliever trade, but this year really makes that difficult.

It's not about protecting the people about Montrose Harbor, as much as countering the point that indoor dining is safe. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1274_article I'm not a scientist, but in South Korea there was an outbreak in an office/residential building. 97% of those infected were on the same floor, with the infections mostly occurring on one side. Depending on how the air flows through an indoor setting, in a situation where you will be there for roughly an hour, unmasked and conversing, you are at high risk if you happen to be dining in the same restaurant as an infected individual. Now, your odds are lower to be dining with one, because there are less people, but if you are at a beach with infected people vs in a restaurant with one, I'd rather be at the beach. I wish to God that restaurants were given financial assistance to survive and I understand their plight, but the only safety as a community we are getting from the current standards is if there is an outbreak in a restaurant it only affects a small amount of people, which isn't that helpful from an individual risk assessment point of view.