chasfh

Yes. Yes, they are.

They probably shouldn’t take any meetings in any skyscrapers.

I had never understood the rationale behind 154 beyond mere nostalgia for something almost no one today was alive to see, but it can actually work, mathematically, in a 30-team situation: 12 games with your division rivals; 6 games with the other ten teams in the league; four games with a designated rival in the other league; and three games with each of the other 14 teams in the other league. That’s 154. It might get a little touch trickier when they go to eight four-team divisions and they want to maintain separate leagues. 12 with each team in your division; six with the 12 league teams outside your division; and three with the 16 teams in the other league equals 156. If they want to maintain four games with a designated rival, that’s 157. If they don’t mind an odd number of games in a season, and i don’t see why they should, that should work okay. The Players would be thrilled by a reduced schedule that also reduces the 172-day service year to 164 or 166, although they might accept 172 as long as it includes more in-season games off. One of the main concerns is how Baseball would reduce salaries by 8/162 = 5%, but I could see Baseball agreeing to maintain current contracts in exchange for reduced minimum salaries.

I have a scheduled call with him next week where I can bring that up.

Barron's Headline: Trump Tariffs Are a Nightmare for Stock Markets. Next Quarter Could Be More Terrifying. Me, to my advisor, on Tuesday: Hi [Name]—just an example of the news we are all seeing every day. All signs continue to point to down. Do we continue to believe in holding all equities for the entire ride down, however far it may go? This is not an order by us to sell, but rather a question about the efficacy of sitting back and watching what everyone appears to know is going to happen happen ... Does it continue to make sense to keep holding all of it during the easily foreseeable drop and hope we can make it up within several years, or does it make sense to shed at least some of it (sort of like a “sell in May [or in this case, April] and go away” kind of thing)? Advisor: This market selloff is disconcerting on many dimensions. We do think it is temporary. Our recommendation is to stay invested. We think lower interest rates and an accommodative Fed will have a positive impact on stocks in Q2, Q3 and Q4. So, hold on and ride it all the way down, make no changes, because it will come back starting in Q2, because this is all very normal and the market will respond to normal Fed policy. OK. FTR, I do believe he is right at least directionally. After the Great Crash of 1929, the market did come back to its previous level ... in 1954.

That's OK, they'll be back on board the MAGA train well before lunchtime tomorrow.

It's an indication that the whole government and the whole nation is spiraling.

If names are the thing that wins and loses elections, maybe consider changing your name to something electable. Dirk Striker would probably work. Guy Manly, for sure. Magnus Steele. How about Max Power?

Best of luck to you landing on your feet.

Colt Keith should have tied the game on the single.

I’m not counting on Parker coming back. Not that I believe he never will—he might. But for the sake of mental health as it relates to expectations, I’m just assuming he’s not in the plans for this year. I’m more waiting for Vierling and (gulp) Wenceel to come back for this year, and also, for Max Clark next year.

The first question I usually see in these surveys are, “How much would you recommend [Our Product] to a friend?” It’s the most useless question they could ask when it comes to true product feedback, but the most valuable to marketing efforts.

OTOH, he has hardly any miles on his arm, which is a risk factor for pitchers in their 30s.

We are headed for an economy rooted on special pleading and exceptions due to insider sweetheart deals and outright graft.