gehringer_2

True - on the other hand, the stability of that control is what got them through the crash when the General ended belly up.

MSU and WSU, our two other independently governed UNIs MIA so far.

or you can buy a Mustang Mach E (standard range) and you get the much safer LFP battery system.

law of unintended consequences.

Unless he really eclipses everyone else on the staff, he'll just go to the BP for the post-season. In fact with this staff probably two starters go to the pen.

Payoff line in story: " idealism doesn’t always survive contact with a price tag." and I'm pretty sure you could replace "doesn't always" with "never" with no significant loss of accuracy.

>How can an error count against the pitcher's record when it's made by a player fielding and not by a player pitching? are you asking logically or practically? Practically you do it by changing the scoring rule. 😉 Whether it's logical is clearly in the eye of the beholder. >And how can it can called an earned run against the pitcher when it is not credited as a earned hit for the hitter? But there is no hard and fast connection between hits and earned runs now. The hit that scores a run isn't necessarily the play when the error occurs. That later hitter still gets his hit whether the run is ultimately ruled earned or not. And as it is, there may or may not ever be any earned or unearned run after a hitter doesn't get his hit after reaching on an error. I don't particularly have a dog in this issue, - I can see it either way, but I don't think changing it would be a big deal either. That said, I don't see much chance it actually does change so we are just spitballing about it anyway.

I guess I'm not seeing the effect on the hitting team. If the pitcher is still charged with an error, the batter still doesn't get a hit. What does change is that when a run is scored after an error, the scorer now has two classes of errors to consider, pitchers' errors go in one box and other fielders' errors go in another box when it come to ruling on earned runs.

To me LinkedIn post seems an odd way to make this kind of release, but hey - I'm old so whatever. From a chemistry standpoint, there is nothing suspect in any of what Poon said. Cobalt is a cost problem, LFP is safer and more robust than Lithium Cobalt formulations but doesn't have the power density. If you have manipulated a Manganese rich electrode to give you LFP stability and LiCo density you should pat yourself on the back - they still have to prove their electrode system can stand up to real world aging and cycling and that their production system is scalable enough to realize the theoretical cost advantage of eliminating Cobalt. The thing with batteries though is that there a ton of variables beyond the just chemistry - the details of how you get the various ions into the electrodes to where they need to be in the form they need to be in and keep them stable there for as long as possible mean engineering execution is just as important as the science.

It's the Trey Sweeneys that are one of the things that separate good orgs from bad ones. There solid players out there all the time and some teams identify them and get them, and other teams don't, and it's the strength in the middle and bottom of a team's line-up that is usually made up of those players that make for winning teams.

Was he ever charged with anything?

I won't tell Trey if you don't.

the Cubs hardly gave him a shot - 14 AB. Maybe because he made 3 errors in 7 games. I thought Workman was supposed to be good glove - has he lost it already at 25?

especially since our back-up SS won't be able to take time away from his new gig in CF.

appears not. They had given the job to Jake Rogers and he punted.

OK - I wasn't actually thinking along those lines and certainly true, but also TBF a guy like Norris where it's a question of 'can we fix him' is still going to be a crap shoot at some level - your have to speculate into the future about whether a guy can do things he hasn't shown he can do, but there is no obvious reason he shouldn't be able to do. Especially when he's outside your system and you can't take your own metrics. He was a very odd case, tens of thousands of guys learn to throw of a rubber with more grace than Norris, why shouldn't he? If you come from that mindset, you want to take those odds.

if the next guy comes from Africa he may well be more on the conservative side than people may bargain for. In the UMC, it was African representation at the 2018/19 General Conferences that sided with US conservatives on LGBTQ issues to win the votes that eventually led to the fracture of the UMC.

Goes back to Lee's point - if you can't get proven players for a proven player, you might as well not bother - which is where the conclusion was leading. It's oddity is simply that that conclusion flies in the face of the apparent logic of trying to get back what you can while you can. But it appears the apparent logic may not be sound.

I'm not trying to PIN anything on anyone.

man - bring it down a notch. You are overeading what I'm saying. And I wasn't even thinking about the GOP, I was thinking about the DEMS! . And I would argue the college of cardinals and US senate have a good deal in common, but we can leave that for another day. It's just human nature than when you become a part of any institution its imperatives will have a draw that any given human being will resist to greater or lesser degree and I guarantee you that some of those cardinals that Francis appointed have drifted into becoming a new old-guard interested in protecting the insitution just like the people they replaced. That doesn't mean they have necessarily made any u-turns in their theology, but that they have become less interested in driving change than they may have been when appointed and thus - to get to the case at hand, less likely to support a papal candidate even as unorthodox as Francis was. We will find out how many, if any, when they pick a new pope.

Which is another way of saying that no-one will give up fair value even for a good pitcher even with a full year of control. Which argues that you might as well get the last year's value yourself, let him walk, and hope your comp pick turns into a serviceable player. I think you can do well with deadline deals with more average players, but not so much at the all-star level.

Norris was even worse than that - he never planted right - stiff or not, and he recoiled after his release and half fell off the mound. A still legged pitcher can still be reproducible and succeed (JV lands pretty stiffly and lasted a long time). That recoil prevented Norris from ever having a consistent follow through and release on his pitches, and he never conquered it.

You don't have to go from one extreme to the other to be co-opted. Look at your average US Senator after 10 or 15 yr in office. They may be in the same party, but they may also have bought pretty deeply into the institution they arrived at thinking they would change.

IDK, his mechanics were messed up from day one he arrived. He was always going to be project. Granted, given the lack of developmental acumen probably a dumb move taking on such a project.

what about a trade for major leaguers? I'm not sure why the discussion is stuck on a trade for prospects. If you can't sign him and you want to get some kind of return, why limit the discussion to a prospect trade? I wouldn't think the team would limit trade talks to prospects if they do go down that route.