Balta1701

Ok folks, just to confirm from an Admin, Maloney and Orlando are quite clearly NOT the same person.

He would be quite smart to sign that deal with an opt out after year 2 or 3.

Do you actually want this detailed?

Because Arizona definitely will need a veteran in that big league roster spot next year to compete in that division, after all the other teams aren’t that good right? Frankly, Arizona is a perfect spot. He could play on the big league roster all year and even if he struggles, what have they lost? Improved their draft pick.

It's not the best comp in the world but Zack Wheeler had an injury history when he signed his contract. He had 2 healthy and successful seasons, but was older at the time, and Rodon's numbers this year are substantially better than any of Wheeler's Met years.

Right now, the money to each of them seems "only a little high", and "not all that outrageous for their current performance compared to what that player would get on a functioning free agent market". No one would take those salaries on at the trade deadline, and the broken FA market would make it hard to move them in the offseason - but if the FA market were improved by the next CBA and there were more incentive for teams to spend money, those deals could become fairly easily movable...if the White Sox wanted to do that (not sure it makes any sense right now either).

If we're going to debating whether the numbers make sense, I feel compelled to point out that the new CBA is almost certainly going to lead to some changes in how we see contract values, if it is ever signed.

You really think my time is that valuable?

One more

My other worry would be that it actually is true, they get better with a PG, and that's just enough combined with the Olympics to land LaVine a FA spot with some other team.

I deleted his hidden reply because I didn't know whether nested spoiler tags would screw up, but wanted it to remain a threaded reply.

There is a second possible compounding factor. By every estimate only a fraction of the actually infected ever had a positive test - 600k dead in this country, 30 million positive tests, a 1% death rate implies half the actual cases were missed, and my best guess is that it is closer to 75% of the infections missed. Since January, testing has become far less constrained, they can be bought on the shelf at my CVS now. Health departments are facing contact tracing for 20k cases a day instead of 200k. There is now better leadership overall, and health departments received a funding boost that was 8 months overdue in the rescue package. If all that adds up to a higher fraction of infected individuals testing positive, then the hospitalization and death rates would appear to go down. For the simple example, if previously 25% of the actually infected tested positive, and now 50 % of the actually infected receive positive tests, then the hospitalization and death rates would appear so drop by a factor of 2. While the vaccine likely plays some role, I don’t know how to unwind those two effects to say how much. With sufficient statistics on vaccinated populations and reliable stats on infections and deaths in a lot of communities it could be done, but those stats have been badly politicized throughout.

Why do that today if there's no immediate need of a roster spot for someone else?

That's the unlimited plans though right?

Really? Care to elaborate? Genuinely curious what those red flags were after watching him kick our butts for 5 years.

If you have ESPN+ then yeah you have access to that. I don't.

The original article shows up as Insider content to me.

Yeah, I gotta admit, there's zero chance that this team should get anything other than an A. You could justify an A- on a curve by saying that the Giants and Red Sox have scored quite a bit higher, but large division lead and overcome challenges to do so certainly seems to justify an A. Anyone who has access to that article care to say which team got the F? I'm curious if it's Minny.

Since you asked me directly I will respond to your post despite you previously saying I should not respond to your posts. Please note the contrast between your two replies here. People who have elevated BMIs are the ones who are likely to develop type 2 diabetes and hypertension without being obese, but as you note there that includes something like 70% of adults. Thus, elevated risks are found in broad population groups.

By the way, just in case anyone would like numbers that can be cited and supported...https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-and-covid-19.html Here is the paper that came from. Diabetes and hypertension are also factors in different segments of the population. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.019259

If you don't want someone responding to your posts then don't post in a thread on a subject where they might have a valid response.