chasfh

Now that I’m looking at her face for what might be the first time ever, she looks not unlike Victoria Jackson.

You tell me …

I wanted to understand what kind of deal you thought would be reasonable. I wasn't doing any kind of gotcha here—although that does go on here a lot, so I can see why you demur.

See, now that's the thing that's gonna make you wanna watch, right? Media meltdown live and nationwide? 😉

This is not political, really, but, in what certainly must be one of the more unusual twists in MTF history, I am booked to go live on Fox News Channel tomorrow morning at about 10:50 AM Eastern, 9:50 AM Central. I will be appearing on some show called America's Newsroom, during which I am going to be interviewed about the overdue library book story by Dana Perino, who was George Bush Junior's White House press secretary.

What's an example of a reasonable deal you think they are being presented with, that they should jumped on? Or, if not exactly being presented with, what would be a good example of a reasonable deal they should do, in your view?

It’s the time of the season to declare that “Trading Places” is far superior as a Christmas movie to “Die Hard”.

That’s because “Christian” doesn’t really reflect piety, charity, or even religiosity anymore, at least not in today’s America. It’s a virtue signal for a selfish, ruthless, fascist political movement.

Well, at least if he gets us in a war with them, we have a good chance of winning it.

I nodded and laughed at this until I read the whole post and saw that this tweeter is a douchey Gen Z cryptobug who wants to teach this boomer some kind of lesson, probably something along the lines of, “this is our planet now, get the **** off!”

The guy holding it up just needs to get his beak wet to the right degree. Then it will all go through.

It’s all fun and games before she gets out there and shouts “!الله أكبر“, and then ka-blammo.

I have probably something between a dozen and two dozen minor league ballparks, but I should see whether I can talk my wife into doing more parks we haven’t seen before. These three would be on the list.

No amount of Akil Baddoos could equal even one Juan Soto.

It might be less a matter of whether the owner will open up the wallet and cheap out, as it is a matter of we are not yet in a position to commit five-plus years to fringey-All-Star-level players. That said, if they had to give five years to anyone, Flaherty is probably the best bet of anyone not named Burnes. Even with his years wandering in the desert, he has an early track record of great success, and he did really well under this coaching regime. If the price for Flaherty is five years, I’m guessing this is going to be one of the tougher decision Harris and Ilitch are going to have to make.

Well, there is this, too, although it is from five days ago. Maybe this is where "afternoon radio guy" got it.

Did anyone suggest getting rid of the designated hitter, still not batting the pitcher, and reducing the batting order to eight hitters? That's one of Lee's favorites.

It's one thing to trade players when a team have little to no chance of making the playoffs. It's a whole other thing to have a terrific chance of making the playoffs, then trade their best player because they're afraid they'll end up not having the team to make help them the playoffs in 2028 or '29. I'd be shocked if any GM did that, let alone Scott Harris. In fact—is there any record of a team well into the playoff hunt trading their very best player at the deadline? Or even a team who was a playoff team, was expected to take a big step the following year, then traded their best player in the offseason to avoid having him walk for nothing in two years? If so, I'm curious how that worked out for them.

OK, have it your way. Everyone who has managed people for a living knows what I'm talking about.

Maybe it’s not about dirt found on the Kennedy woman. Maybe this is something “among the Italians, real greaseball shǐt”.

Yes, I’m afraid you will have to watch Skubal pitch for the Tigers for another year. Try not to rue what could have been this winter while you do so. 😉

Because his bosses went around him directly to the players. If you ever managed people, you would understand what that means.

I’m not sure we will sign him, but I am certain as can be that if we are firmly within the playoff picture, we won’t trade him.

I don’t know whether eight months of Skubal could unearth “three or four quality players”, by which I assume you mean substantially WAR-positive—that sounds like a tall order, even for someone of his caliber—but I simply have my doubts that Scott Harris would put a clear and present playoff picture in jeopardy in exchange for uncertain future prospects which itself might not guarantee playoffs. Teams well in the player picture simply don’t sell, and we sold last year only because we were practically out of the playoff picture. This is especially true because not only would Harris doing so send the fans the wrong message about whether we want to win now—something they’ve been waiting for for a decade—but it would also damage his standing with the current players on the team, especially anyone else we might want to consider signing to a long deal, like Riley. If we were to start trading top players away and costing ourselves playoff appearances with it, why would he sign with us long term?

You don't have to imagine it, because it's documented.