mtutiger

This much I agree with insofar that the changes being made seem more about bringing the Tigers up to modern standards versus doing anything particularly exceptional versus the elite organizations within the league. It's the right thing to do and is helpful in the long run, but with respect to reporting on these changes, it's easy to overstate the importance or impact as well.

This is a fair sentiment, but now living in Jerk Sox country, it's not a guarantee that you'll always get players who open up and lavish praise on an owner. I guess that's the point I'm trying to make... I understand that the fans are skeptical whenever these articles hit, but I think there's a bias in that fans' relationship with the owner is much different than a players relationship, especially when the owner is the one who signs their paycheck and is the one who makes capital investments in the place that they come to work every single day.

I think the comments by the players are 100% legitimate. Let's not overthink things here, it may simply come down to Chris being a good boss to work for. Like, they actually like showing up to the ballpark and playing in this organization under this ownership and management as it is currently constituted. Changes around the ballpark that impact the players, while subtle on the outside, maybe aren't huge gamechangers in terms of attracting free agents, but make the experience of playing for the organization better than it would be if said changes weren't being made. Fans, because their roles are different than the players (ie. it's not their job to play for the Detroit Tigers), evaluate the Detroit Tigers differently than the players do (ie. mostly on how much $$$ the team spends on free agents). And because of that, fans are dumbfounded by players making positive comments and just assume that players are making these comments to kiss ownership's ***. It's the same as it ever was.... Chris has plenty of flaws as a businessman, not the least of which the shadiness of his business practices with regard to public funding. And he's not a perfect owner either. But whenever I hear Tiger fans fire off things like "he's the worst owner in baseball!!!", it makes me think that they aren't taking a good look at the rest of the league when making those comments... hell, considering the division they play in, there's a decent case to be made that he's the *best* owner in the AL Central lol

Yep. And one would think that we could carve out some time between the wall to wall coverage of Biden's age to put them on the spot about it.

True story: I've had discussions on abortion in the past where I've been assured that nothing would happen on IVF, despite the obvious incongruity of taking hard pro-life positions with the practice. Alabama's ruling just shows that everything is on the table.

I just wonder if the legal stuff, especially if coupled with SCOTUS denying his appeal on immunity and allowing the J6 trial to go on, scares away donors as well. Like, the cost / benefit analysis on that for any large $$$ donor cannot be great if the candidate is gonna be sitting in courtrooms while traditional candidates are out on the campaign trail.

Serious cash flow problems here...

Gross as it is, tells you how he's processing it

Never want to hear the term "Russia hoax" ever ever again

I believe I had read that, but maybe I'm misremembering. Interest continues to accrue on it as well.

I will preface this by saying that I am in no way downplaying the threat of Trump or what would happen if he ended up back in office or saying that he cannot win (as the polls currently indicate, yes he can).... Having said that, nobody will admit it (partially because the media seems primarily focused on issues related to Biden), but his campaign seems incredibly low energy right now. He doesn't draw the same crowds that he used to, he himself stumbles and rambles a lot when he speaks (even more than in 2016 or 2020) and, speaking as someone who lives in a pretty conservative area and recently traveled for family to an even more conservative area, you don't see nearly as much paraphernalia out in the wild as you did four years ago. All of this is to say that I expect the State of New York to do what it's going to do and there will be zero blood shed on account of it.

I kind of approach all of these cases, both the civil and criminal, from the view that committed Trump supporters aren't going to be persuaded by any of them. For what it's worth.

If the reaction to the actual ruling in the civil fraud trial is any indicator, I don't expect there to be rioters on the streets whenever the bill comes due.

For sure, I know what you meant... because NYS contains NYC and Wall Street, I think people underestimate the degree to which the NYS has experience in going after white collar fraud and enforcing consequences on judgments. But even still, the fact that the father and sons are barred from running the business for three years and there's a court-appointed monitor overseeing the company that has to approve all third party transactions is a pretty good example of there being actual consequences to these rulings. Or that Trump cannot take out loans with any bank chartered through the NYS Department of Financial Services, is another example of an actual consequence of this ruling that has an impact, especially when you consider how many banks are chartered in New York and the impact that would have on institutions outside of New York evaluating the credit-worthiness of Trump. I don't know the degree to which any of this impacts or doesn't impact the Presidential Election, obviously... but the point being made is that comparing the criminal cases and the civil cases against Trump are like comparing apples and oranges. We very well may not see anything come of the criminal stuff for many reasons, but even today, there are real world consequences playing out in the civil cases. That's just reality.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/meet-the-former-organized-crime-prosecutor-now-overseeing-the-trump-organization-077d4c34 In a way, they kind of are with the latest ruling.

1. Trump has already paid out some of the money in the E. Jean Carroll case, per the article. 2. If, hypothetically, he does not pay, the State of New York has legal recourse upon which to get said money. As mentioned in the article above. That is something that is completely independent of Trump's actions. These rulings are things that actually did happen to him, his business and associates (including his spawn Don Jr. And Eric). Hence why we are discussing them. Unless people are asserting that NYS will simply not enforce them at all, which I find to be unlikely, the money will be paid out one way or another.

The facts in the article speak for themselves. I'd encourage people to read it to understand what the implications of the recent civil rulings are versus just falling back on unverifiable and unfalsifiable mantras to explain everything.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-carroll-fines-82d423b8e7a7f9a32470729c5f4410e5 The whole article is informative and is worth a read as well... I understand the skepticism that anything will happen to him criminally, and honestly take more of a "seeing is believing" approach to it myself. But on the civil side, there's just not a lot of recourse. And I think his attitude toward these cases suggest they hurt as well.

You might be right, but they will be paid one way or another.

Possibly the last person drawing a check from National Review that is worth a damn.

I understand the defeatism / refrain here because it is an ever-persistent feature of the Trump era, but as far as the fines go, they will have to be paid one way or another.

Cody Cohost Rant for the Week: No, the Rangers City Connect jerseys were just as bad at the end of the season as they were at the beginning.