ptatc

I agree with this. Just because you don't see a problem with the "slippery slope of gun control" doesn't mean that those you do don't have justifiable concerns.

Since the poiliticians won't fund gun control maybe they will create a special fund for school improvements

Not on gun control obviously. But maybe some of the other measures people are talking about: funding for security at schools and such.

This winds up being the issue. If they won't do anything about it, do we wait until the next election and hope to get a change? Or do they try to find something that they can agree upon?

This is all true but it doesn't mean that they won't take more things away if they ever started the gun control laws. The pro gun people do have a justified concern. "rights" isn't the point. The point is that when they start to regulate something and promise they won't regulate it even further to get people to agree to it, they are most likely not telling you the truth. Thus jusitfying the concerns of the group. I'm not saying it isn't smart to wear a seat belt. I'm not saying that it isn't smart to add levels of gun control. I'm saying that the people concerned about "the slippery slope effect" have justifiable concerns.

I'm starting to think this way as well. If the politician refuse to act on gun control, maybe there is something they can agree upon. regardless of the reason, they don't seem to want to act so find something they will do.

I think some of the reason is that Charlotte is a hitter's paradise and Birmingham is a tough place for hitters. They fully expect the time at AAA to be short because it really won't tell them as much.

To be fair, there is precedent with things like seat belts. When mandatory seat belts in vehicles was being discussed, the group opposing them said "next hing you know they will fine us for not wearing them." Of course, the pro seat belt group insisted this would never happen. Also you can't compare the US to other countries when you say that "not everything is a slippery slope" because it didn't happen elsewhere. The politics and legal systems are unique here and it's an "apples and oranges" comparison.

I think it's pretty much a given that he will be up at some point prior to Sept. this year.

That would be a typical timeline for UCL reconstruction rehab.

Where do you think those decisions were made? It wasn't the FO. KW said each year he presented the ownership with 2 plans. One to try to build on the current team and one to tear it down and start to rebuild. The ownership always decided on the current team instead of the rebuild. Maybe RH is just more persuasive. He certainly has a more laid back personality.

This is fair to theFO people. The ownership can't have them rebuild and immdiately fire them for a poor record. As painful as it is to watch, they get a few years to see how the prospects develop at the MLB level.

Very few pitchers throw the FB straight over the top. It's really hard on the shoulder due to the impingement of the humerus and the acromion, the arm and the shoulder blade. It also decreases the movement on the ball. As someone else said, the release point is a big deal if the hitters think the CB has a chance to be a strike. Right now they recognize the release point and don't swing because it is most likely not a strike.

Gotcha. The article was just stating the obvious.

While it sucks, he was pretty much correct. This team is awful to watch so far. If they are going to tank they may as well go all the way and they are. It is a valid question to wonder if they will ever rebuild a fan base. The Cubs have always drawn a good fan base since 1984. Win or lose. The sox don't. They will only draw when they win. Hopefully, if the rebuild works and they have a sustained period of competitveness, the fan base will grow.

Most pitchers do this. Partly because it doesn't change the release point as much. However, this makes the true 12-6 a more rare pitch and it can be more effective. The greater drop instead of the lateral movement is the advantage of the 12-6 version.

I disagree. I don't think you can expect them to be good right away. i think most of them will need a year of growing pains and learning before you can expect them to be ready. So if they want to be good in 2020 they need the 2019 season for learning. Some of them may be good immediately but I don't think they should count on it.

OK. I'm not watching but those would be reasons why the velocity may vary.

Are you sure he is not mixing in some 2 seamers or cutters?

There are. However, a professional sports team with the money invested in him will monitor his health very closely. Any medication given for conditions like this would come from the team physicians, in general. There could be exceptions but it's not likely.

Usually severe kidney issues or really high blood pressure. But there are others.

Just educated guessing. He passed a physical which means he doesn't have severe forms of those conditions which would require medication. If so, the team would have prescribed the meds, not a "licensed physician in the DR."

I guess he could be using it to make is body more lean but this is a odd way to do it for baseball.

Because he doesn't have those issues. He was using it to mask the PEDs. This is why it is a banned substance.

Yes. That is why they take the diuretic. It's a banned substance. It doesn't matter if it was given to you by a licensed physician. Even if this is all true, you need to read the banned substances in the contract.