Balta1701

Yes, I’m allowed to bring it up. Because he brought it up and made sure we all knew his position. Because if that, I’m also allowed to judge his position. If, for example, in 2006 he said he would never get a DUI again, and he attacked Kaepernicks remarks publicly as “insincere”, and the he gets another DUI and is too weak to even man up to his mistake and instead hides behind public no comments, in the process not living up to the standard by which he publicly judged another man...well, I’m going to judge him to be a coward, an insincere a**hole, a liar, and think Ron Gant had a point.

100%. Read that “joke” and recoiled.

Your need to punch down at minimum wage workers and restaurant workers in a conversation that really wasn’t going that way says way more about you than it does anything else.

You should have resisted.

People aren’t bringing up LaRussa’s politics. He did that himself. No one made him speak at Glenn Beck’s Rally in DC that was a Trump rally before Trump did them. No one made him repeatedly call out Kaepernick as insincere, as recently as February of this year (and then fail to live up to his own important standard of sincerity while yelling at a cop). No one made him stay silent after the murder in Minnesota. Apparently Tony LaRussa expects you to care about his opinion. He’s a hall of fame type guy.

https://www.facebook.com/101805971467321/posts/222007239447193/ https://yourlocalepidemiologist.com/phase-iii-data/?fbclid=IwAR3jlgtUuu3ydgU80kLwFI0q6EnVBynKl1lfWSPLZF9utjfK7Em8TA-YFws

I will be stunningly disappointed if Robert is a #7 hitter this year.

Or they're just taking advantage of the "Winter meetings" to try to drive in more traffic.

I mean, we've just go so much else going on right?

Yeah, but is LaRussa going to do that with his players?

The state of Florida shut down the COVID monitor in that state by seizing equipment at gunpoint.

Take. That.

That may be late spring/early summer. But even 10% distribution, if targeted to the vulnerable groups, will dramatically reduce deaths and hospitalizations. Governments have clearly shown they will allow some people to get it and die as long as hospitals aren't being fully overwhelmed.

No, the goal is 10+ million doses of the Pfizer vaccine by the end of December, with 30 million being optimistic. The first doses are being distributed in Britain right now. They're hoping to be able to manufacture more doses than that starting in January.

I mean, I don't know that they'll pull of 30 million by the end of the month like they're saying they hope to do, but it would be surprising if the first several million aren't available this month, and in January we're going to upgrade the people running the distribution efforts. I'm hoping I can get in sometime in ~March.

I would bet you're right and ownership will impose a season lenght (do they have the right to do that from last year's agreement) but I would also expect more than 60-80 this year because once a vaccine is available it will slow the growth of hospitalizations and that will allow most states to permit some sort of gatherings. You can do >60 game seasons if you can put 50% of the ballpark full.

No, because too many stadiums will have attendance limits early in the year, and this will drop revenue. Even if it's a 50% attendance limit, that's 20,000 tickets missing on opening day. Ownership will not pay full salaries knowing that they cannot receive full gate, and the PA will not agree to anything that reduces the contracts owners agreed to. This has nothing to do with player safety, it will be entirely about money.

The White Sox's run started in 2000, had 7 straight years where they were above .500, were disappointing on playoff appearances but had a title, then squeezed 3 more above .500 seasons and one more playoff appearance out of that group. They probably should have rebuilt a couple years earlier, but 9 years above .500 out of 11 isn't bad.

The Cubs gave 6 years of good baseball where at least they were competitive every October, including an NLCS appearance and a World Series win. If we have to be rebuilding in 2028, that's not the worst thing ever.

I have zero problem with giving up minimal level talent for either Darvish or Lynn, and I have zero issue with extending Lynn a couple years if the price is right. However, the fact that you can do one should not affect your valuation of the other. If I'm trading for Lynn, I want to know what he's worth this year to me, I'm not going to give up Vaughn for him so that I can convince him to stay longer (and Vaughn was reportedly the Rangers ask at the trade deadline). If I'm extending Lynn, I'm extending him because he can be worth the contract I'm signing him for, not because I traded for him and I need to have something to show for the trade.

Winter meetings: Monday: "The Phillies have traded Zach Wheeler and Andrew Vaughn for Michael Kopech" Tuesday: "The Phillies would like to introduce their new General Manager Rick Hahn". Cubs got away with it right?

I mean, if we trade someone away, it seems almost certain to come back and hurt us, that's just our record. That said, this is a fair deal concept for both sides, and it fills a need for both. So yeah, I'd hate doing it, and the downside is obvious, but we have to do something to add pitching and doing so without giving up the big guns is the key. Apparently based on this year, the trick is the Rangers need to accept fair value for Lynn rather than a king's ransom for a guy with 1 year of control remaining and a non-trivial contract. If they're willing to accept a fair deal, that's a fair deal.

I would probably do that deal and hate myself for doing it, and in 3 or 4 years Stiever and Sheets would be guaranteed to beat us in a playoff series so we better win this year.

Generally makes sense to me and I can't argue against that one. Depends on the pandemic budget.