mtutiger

Reese Olson looks like the most likely Wentz / Hill for this year IMO. Although your question may be more focused on guys not currently on the 40 man roster.

Hoo boy

I don't know, nor can control, what others say or do. Nor do I particularly care, I'll leave you to dabble in hypotheticals. Just don't see how it plays out differently under Trump, or any other administration for that matter. Can you be more specific about what you would do to "put more pressure" on the railroads? What would you say publicly to compel them to move off of their terms? It's a leverage problem; people barely think about the railroad industry and, for years, it was always funny to hear people muse about how "railroad are dying".... they are very much not dead and are vitally critical for getting goods from point A to point B. The supply chain issues of the past couple of years are just a taste of what it is like when that cog in the economy isn't operating at 100%, the cog just not working for days at a time would be devastating to the American economy. It would impact goods getting to shelves at the grocery stores, commodities such as metals and lumber getting to manufacturers (which would likely negatively impact a lot of blue collar union workers in other industries, I might add), coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming or other areas getting to coal power plants that are still in use (without which may lead to pressure on our energy grid). Those are just a few examples of the second-order effects that would come from even just a few days without the rails operating, it would touch just about every American in one way or another. So again, that's the decision: that or enforcing the deal. And I'm guessing just about everyone in that position, including Presidents Ewsieg or MTU or whoever, enforces the deal. That doesn't mean that railroad workers shouldn't get sick time or that Presidents shouldn't expect criticism for whatever decision they make when given two bad choices, but any logical person in that position is going to take the option that doesn't bring about economic catastrophe.

I like that they are doing these updates now

I wouldn't say that I'm "making excuses" for everyone. Literally just a couple of posts ago, with respect to the administration's position, I said that there were no good options on the table here and, with that comment, it's implied that choosing the least bad option still comes with criticism and complaints. That's part of being President of the United States - you have to take a lot of slings and arrows. I take this particular issue seriously because it's one of the rare times where something comes up on the political board that intersects a bit with the work I do professionally. I figured that we were having a discussion about the contours of why this is happening and the issues that were facing the administration, as well as members of both parties in Congress, and why they approached it the way they did. If you want to have that discussion, great, but I don't see the "media bias" angle you are advancing. And to your original post, I don't see how this particular action, in totality, suggests that the GOP is the "party of the working man" given that only 6 of it's 50 in the Senate were willing to back workers on this issue. Regarding Trump, I would say that if he were still President, this probably plays out the same way it did with Biden. Probably every President in recent memory, tbh. And I'm guessing if we had President Ewsieg in charge, he'd probably not go with the option that tanks the American economy as well, despite the moral implications involved. It was a tough decision, but rail traffic in the United States is vital to keeping the American economy moving. Without it, there would be a lot of pain and suffering as well.

The reasoning is pretty mundane - after negotiations on the the current deal between the administration, management and labor representatives (which was just enforced), each of the 14 unions were then given time to vote and ratify the new agreement on their own. In other words, actual membership was given time to vote on whether to ratify the agreement. Some unions did in fact ratify while others did not, but ratification would have required all of them to agree otherwise they would have struck in solidarity with one another. When that process did not work, it kinda left us at this juncture.

In this market where the Zach Eflins of the world get $14 million per year, ERod opting into the rest of his deal wouldn't be the worst thing for most possible trade suiters IMO. It certainly wouldn't be for the Tigers lol. Either way, it might be a better button to push at the trade deadline if he's pitching well to maximize leverage.

Just to follow up on this: https://rollcall.com/2022/12/01/senate-clears-rail-labor-agreement-rejects-sick-leave/ Prior to passage, the Senate voted 26-69 against an amendment offered by Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, that would increase the cooling-off period for freight railroads and unions that expires Dec. 4. Extending the cooling off period was not an option.

This is a good point... if there was any risk of the 7 days passing the Senate, I'm convinced Cruz wouldn't have voted as he did. Out of the six who voted the way they did, I take Rubio out at his word because he's been consistent. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz? Not so much

It's not ideal, but part of being in power is having to make the least bad decision out of some pretty terrible decisions sometimes. Maybe I'm reading different sources, but my view is that the potential strike did get a lot of press and was the lead story on NPR during the couple of days leading up to the vote. And record profits were mentioned in the accounts as well - the companies got a lot of bad PR out of this. And I suspect that would have been similar if Trump were in office.

Jello shots anyone?

I dont know how realistic it was to get the necessary votes to extend the deadline, especially with the requirement of 60 in the Senate. But clearly, a strike really wasn't something that anyone would countenance. In a time where we already have supply chain issues and inflation, the railroads grinding to a halt would have been like a nuclear bomb to the economy - trains carry a lot of consumer goods, but they also carry a lot of necessities as well, such as food to medical supplies. It's not an exaggeration to suggest that a strike would do a tremendous amount of harm to the country. And would have downstream harm to all Americans. The railroads, for their part, knew this and had a tremendous amount of leverage in negotiations. So, maybe it's theoretically possible that a better deal could be reached, but I kinda doubt it - I have a little insight on the industry for professional reasons, and their business model (longer trains, on time and more efficiently) is complicated a lot by sick leave. I'm not saying it's right, but it's absolutely a hill they were gonna die on, even if the optics weren't good. So knowing all of this, as sympathetic as I am to the workers and that they should have more sick leave, this is one of those cases where there really wasn't a good decision to be had - you either tank the economy in the hopes (no guarantee) of seven days of sick leave, or you enforce the deal and try to fight it another day. On balance, they probably did the right thing - both politically and for the country.

So the 47/50 (not 49, due to absenses) Democrats who voted for 7 days of sick leave weren't voting to support unions, but the 6/50 Rs who voted the same are? That makes zero sense.

Probably worth adding in a couple of SF Giants Rule5 eligible players to the list, given who our PBO is: https://www.fangraphs.com/players/will-wilson/sa3009871/stats?position=SS https://www.fangraphs.com/players/jairo-pomares/sa3010023/stats?position=OF https://www.fangraphs.com/players/hunter-bishop/sa3011413/stats?position=OF Not sure I'd be as interested in any of them, but with his institutional knowledge, he may look their way.

Stavenhagen from the top-rope with a real hot-take on his pod: trading ERod. With the idea being that he's likely to opt-out given how overheated the starting pitching market appears to be at the moment. Despite the need for pitching, it actually makes some sense as a means to jump start the upgrade at their various needs on the position player side. Although it's one area where all the pitching injuries are an issue and it would likely require the need for another starter to be signed.

I do think we should continue to keep an open mind - to an extent it seems like some are already making judgments about this offseason when it has barely even begun for all teams.

This is random, but this kind of moment is the kind of thing that used to happen in all the other administrations but really didn't happen during Trump. Maybe others don't care, but I appreciate the dignity for the office and being able to handle the administerial stuff well

No amount of Blue Kool Aid would make anyone predict it, but if they managed to win out, I'm pretty sure that would be enough. Considering the start they had, that's still progress

Very...

I remember the 40 point beat down they put on the Tebow Broncos, but I'm sure there's been one more recently...

No doubt, the lack of energy and enthusiasm for Walker is noticeable, and the pros don't seem to be exhibiting a lot of confidence in a W on Tuesday for his campaign. Not making any predictions, but it wouldn't be a surprise if Warnock won by as much as 4 points, which would be a blowout for a D candidate in a state like Georgia.

If I were Walker, I'd be concerned the fact that AA% is almost 32% in early voting. It was closer 29% in the first round during early voting, where Warnock got more votes than Walker... granted I know people get chided for talking about EV, but due to racial polarization in the south, AA turnout in Georgia is fairly predictive. Walker still has a path, but his people will need to show up in big numbers on EDay.

The key term being "appearance of a scandal"... It all goes back to the first impeachment, which was Trump blackmailing the Ukrainian government to compel them to open an investigation that would benefit him politically. Wrongdoing or anything of the sort was irrelevant, just the appearance of an investigation was political gold. Still think that event is somewhat underrated in his political downfall... it really tipped people off to the playbook and people were much more wise to claims after it.

I'm not sure it matters what his motivation is. The reality is that anyone who talks about "suspending the Constitution" is talking like an aspiring Dictator and shouldn't be anywhere near power.

I saw that earlier, he would be a great fit here imo