gehringer_2

I think the Tiger philosophy is you don't put a guy on any field rehab or otherwise, until he is ready to go 100%. So 'rehab' is really just for hitter's timing. So if Vierling is ready, they activate him, option Jung then re-add Jace as the 27th. If they don't want to add Vierling yet you bring Kreidler out for a game. I actually wouldn't be surprised if they have both a pitcher and a position player ready to fly, or even send both and then see how many pitchers they use Wed to decide which they make 27. Since last season this team has played something like 70 games of 600 ball, you need to start taking every little extra step to win every game because you just might be playing for a 1st round bye.

Vierling's injury was his arm, so I'd think he'd be good to go to play CF where the throws are mostly short. Javy is the guy that I would have doing double duty - CF in one and SS in the other, but he's played less than other starters. If you have the DH in each game play a position in the other, Javy would be the only guy that has to play two in the field.

If I were Hinch, and Jobe (or whoever...) goes reasonably long tomorrow, I might go a little out of the box and bring up a position player 27th man for the DH - a right or left hand bat depending on how the Rockies starters line-up. Minimize how many guys actually have to play more than 9 innings.

Tomorrow is looking better for Denver, rain should have moved out by game time - game time temp in the 50's dropping to upper 40's

I don't know how much progress India has made on the state of its military un-preparedness, but they haven't done very well in recent skirmishes. They generally risk biting off more than they can chew.

Human nature. I'm on a committee currently where a few folks want to change a policy that will have an obvious, inevitable, bad result, and they refuse to see it (they are trying to send a virtue signal instead of actually achieving virtue). It's not a end-of-the-world issue but one where the aims they hope to accomplish will actually be set back. Magic thinking? Lack of thinking? And of course you are the bad guy who must be the evil side of the issue.

MLB page says make-up on the 8th. Are they going to play at 11:00 am?

It's getting complicated for all these guys. Ilitch is hiring hiring the Tiger people directly so that when/if FDSD disappears they have their own broadcast staff, but that complicated life for a guy like Kane who doesn't want to leave the pistons and give up the chance to take over Piston's PBP.

and/or Boras isn't interested in those players as clients!

I don't even think the salary cap is the issue as much as it is revenue nationalization and I don't see how you get there. What good will it do to have a cap if half the teams can't afford to get to it? There are some concepts out there that I think do work - capping single salaries at a % of a team total or a cap figure it good for any team sport, and simply fixing a total revenue % to go the salaries league wide is a core concept in winning long term labor peace. Right now the players will not give any ground on max salaries because they see big max numbers as what eventually pull everyone else up. I sort of doubt that is actually true but the if fixed the % of total revenue going into the salary pool it would break the tie between max and total salaries. It's not for lack of workable concepts - the problem is the haves have gotten themselves into such an advantageoud position it's going to be impossible to get them to come back to the pack.

Doesn't look too promising right now. There is rain pattern centered just South of Denver that is pretty stationary right now and the circulation is dropping light right rain on Denver. Forecast is >75% chance of light rain continuing right through 11pm. Not to mention only 44 deg F.

Appropos of this - I believe in a recent interview Tony Clark specifically mentioned Skubal as a guy on the Tigers who was 'engaged' on MLBPA issues.

True. He is more 'of the moon'.

Do you think Boras Venmo'd or direct deposited the gratuity?

Good post but I would take issue generalizing too broadly on this one. In my experience with freshmen, at least a fair number of kids were not particularly liberal - maybe liberal compared to today's GOP, but a lot of them well right of their faculty.

In all the years I've been connected to UM (which is a lot) the only UM pres who I saw force real transformation was Harold Shapiro. He came in and kicked a complacent institution in the rear and put it on the path to being world class. I think Schlissel - in his first few years, was pretty good also, but then he went off the rails.

So just to close the item I left hanging, I have now seen the Nolan Finley op-ed. Short version is the Dems Regents were unhappy with Ono since the election - felt his leadership was AWOL. They penned an OP-ED (which in the end was not run) which he felt was an insult and attack on him and wouldn't sign on. Supposedly he had wanted to stay at M but the relationship had simply collapsed.

against Tx, but not in Tx. but either way they have to travel Thursday night.

I put him an Amash in the same category. Nuts, but honestly nuts.

no doubt cost discipline is terrible, which is big shift from my undergrad days when people were still pretty cost conscious., but when you have 115K applications, 9000 applications just to the Law school, it's pretty clear the discipline isn't going to come from the customers!

👍

I get the point but I think Ono had lost the confidence of a lot more than the lunatic fringe. I tend to think the protest policy proposal was a big misstep - I mean the draft could have come from the Nixon White House. Which points to there being two different questions here - one is DEI and one is the larger question of civil society. DEI at UM needed to be fixed but that's one issue in a much larger context. And DEI may not have been the only issue at play if he had lost the Regents - it remains to be seen. In any case, you can't lead unless you give people a belief in where you are going - if what is dribbling out in the local papers is correct, Ono had lost his audience. So maybe he stays and tries to lead them to where he thinks a better place is? It is just as much capitulation to simply duck out? if you are going to turn an institution at all, I guess you have to be a little bit of a visionary and that is certainly not a vibe I ever got from Ono - or Schlissel for that matter. I think they were both more caretakers than movers. Maybe he was just the wrong guy in the wrong place once the political tide had turned. And so we wait to see what if anything leaks out from the Regents. Even if they weren't going to cry about DEI reforms they might applaud in private, he may have stepped on toes there if they ended up being blind sided finding out about the changes on twitter. To be honest, I think that had as much to do with Schlissel's dismissal as anything - him not paying adequate attention to the Regents that is. e.g. he might have survived the personal issues if he wasn't already in the dog house over ignoring/fumbling the Ilitch/Gilbert efforts to build more presence in Detroit.

which IIRC, wasn't even what it was once you panned back and saw the whole graphic.

the problem with this approach is that if you are wrong, by the time you realize it any hope of winning the battle will be over. I think the lesson if history is pretty clear that you oppose what is wrong when you have the chance. Granted, the issue is that the Uni's had gone over the edge on identity is destiny, but the Universities' transgressions are small potatoes to Trumps attempts destroy any civil society barriers to his whims. You can put your own house in better order without capitulating your obligation to provide institutional leadership. As the little girl says "Why not both?"

while they are at it they could do the same for the whole NBA.