ptatc

Conservative care is nearly always the first option unless the tests show significant laxity with the joint play.

Chris Harris to interview for the DC job. He was a good player to watch seems to have done a good job as DC.

He wouldn't have competition in the other city. It's an interesting debate.

Thanks, worth watching his spring training progress.

The key factor was trading nearly the entire starting pitching staff at the deadline. They obviously weren't prepared for that and it was a total tank after that.

Is this a classic elbow rehab and waiting to see how it holds up?

That was one proposal.

I was going to say in the belfry.

According to Kevin Warren who helped the Viking get their new stadium, it 3 years from ground breaking to playing.

I don't care who finances it but it shouldn't be outright public money. There is always going to be government incentives and tax breaks but they shouldn't fund the building. JR knows how to capitalize on privately funded stadiums as he did with the United Center.

I hope the city tells him the same thing. But again I don't blame him for asking. It's good business if someone else pays. It's good business to jack up the value of the franchise as you put it. Many many businesses that build or bring new companies to new areas get all sorts of tax incentives and public money in one way or another. Its the politicians that say yes that I have a problem with. If someone offered to build you a new home of business would you say no?

Another dumb article. I don't blame JR for this. It's good business if he can get the politicians to pay for it. I blame the dumbass politicians. I wouldn't give them a dime to build the stadium.

Exactly, business is business.

The worst was old Busch stadium in st Louis. It was so steep you could sit in an upper deck seat and look down to see the outfielder catch a ball against the wall. No one stood up to lean forward.

I guess 2020 doesn't count then since the as it's not recognized by the MLB. You must think that the Padres borrowed money for fun.

The building a support structure if needed it a good point. That would increase the build time if that is the case.

Calling Sox fans discrete is an understatement. As we've seen though the team even under JR is up and down with success. Just 2 years ago they made the playoffs in consecutive years for the first time since WW2. How did that change the attendance? As I've said before with the scrubs in town, I'm not sure a new owner is going to come here and spend the team into debt every year.

This is true but I think the location not just the newness will draw more fans. This is why I disagree somewhat. I think they will get more casual fans at the new location. Of course more will show when any team wins and this is especially true for Sox fans. Even when the Sox won the world series and we're good for a few years, they had trouble competing with the scrubs for attendance. I think the location will help some.

I disagree somewhat with the article. The new new stadium and a more accessible one will draw people. Just look at Wrigley over the years. It a very short sighted pendering to the click bait type of article.

The contaminated soil will be analyzed and decisions will be made on that prior to the ground breaking. Core samples will be taken. Once they break ground it shouldn't be much different.

If you listen to Warren from the bears, it's 3 years from ground breaking to playable.

To have more teams try to sign his free agents He'll do the same for Cease in 2 years when he ia an FA. Its all about driving up the price for his FA clients.

I agree. From the south burbs, GRF is easy to get to and from.

Isn't that how the current stadium is funded, a hotel and entertainment tax of some kind?

Patrick Sharp