chasfh

I really had the sense that Monroe made a decision to crowd Benetti off the mike, especially later in the game, and it was very noticeable on the back-and-forth with Johnny Kane in the eighth. It was the Craig-and-Johnny show. It was all Benetti could do to try to keep up with the pre-Benetti references they were making, like Monroe's impersonation of Jim Leyland, which went on for a long time. Something I hadn't considered before the broadcast is that Benetti is actually walking into what might fairly be termed a tough situation. He is the one new guy coming into a booth that has all the same people still in it. They've been around for years and years together, and they all dominated the former guy like he was the beta kid in the classroom. Now here comes this new guy, this out-of-towner, this nerdlinger, obviously never an athlete, and a lifelong White Sox fan no less, being brought in and expected to take over leadership of the Tigers' broadcast. Add to that the fact that he's an already-well-known broadcaster with national experience who is considered one of the best in the game, who was hired with the explicit intention of substantially raising the level of the broadcast, attempting to herd the other four (or more) different rotating analysts like they're cats on the prairie, and accomplishing all that while missing at least 35 games during the season. That's a really tall order. Meanwhile, the guys who have been there were already active contributors to what was widely regarded as the worst TV booth in the game. How much of that was Shep being solely responsible for bringing literally everyone else around him down, and how much of it is that these analysts are really not good at broadcasting ball games in their own right? I guess we're gonna find out in short order once Benetti has worked with each of them a couple times.

In all seriousness, if as you say the Court can do anything it wants, then punting the decision to next year seems the most likely outcome, because I don’t see any way there is not five votes for Trump right now and forever, given three of them are Trump appointees and two others were already pre-cooked for him when he came onto the scene, and I do think Robert’s is concerned enough about his own legacy to not want all that blood all over himself.

Especially around the Great Lakes.

Aww, so adorable … 😉

SCOTUS didn’t have to take it on to strike it down. All they had to do was refuse to take it on and it stays struck down by the Appeals Court and it goes back to District Court for trial. And they could have fast-tracked it, like they fast-tracked Colorado ballot to help Trump. But nope. They also could have taken it on when Jack Smith asked them to earlier this year and they didn’t do so. You could say, well, the Appeals Court had to rule on it first before SCOTUS could take it on, and you’d be right considering that’s how the process of judicial review works. Well, except when Ohio asks the Court to block an EPA climate regulation before the DC circuit has even weighs in. Then the Court’s like, sure, we'll schedule that for you, no prob.

OK, so, is there a real distinction between cash consideration paid for a player, and cash paid for a player?

Jason Benetti was a mixed bag, more good than not. He’s definitely more lively than Shep could ever hope to be, but I also think Craig is competing somewhat with Benetti for airspace, and maybe dominance. Maybe Craig feels he needs to flash both his analyst and tenure bona fides to establish himself in this new pairing, but he doesn’t have the articulation I think working with Benetti should require. I think Johnny Kane was a lot more relaxed. I actually think he was high. Benetti was very stiff around Willie Horton, since Willie is big in Tigers history but nowhere in his. I think he felt really self-conscious there. He also botched who gave up the homer during the Willie segment (Benetti said Skubal, it was Holton), but hey, it’s spring training for him, too, isn’t it. All in all, a decent start, but I think he needs to establish himself as the alpha quickly to really lead the broadcast.

I don’t think Javy is the kind of guy who will respond to negative motivation. I think he’s just very prideful and in his own head right now stressing out about getting better. That problem is that he has a particular set of skills and some specific flaws that he could exploit at age 25 that he can’t at age 31. He has instincts at short and enough athleticism to make plays even though he’s lost a step. But he doesn’t have the athleticism anymore to overcome his flaws at the plate, which are basically pitch recognition and a long swing. He might be out of the game before age 34.

So good to hear that kind of thing for a change!

I don’t give a **** about Biden’s age because I trust the team he assembles. I don’t require him, or any President for that matter, to work 18-hour days or anything like that. I do expect him to be on the ball when he is presented with the options and he needs to make the hard decisions, and I trust he will be. But I also want him to get at least eight hours of sleep a night, and sure, go ahead and nap for an hour during the day if you can. It’s good for the brain. And don’t forget the blueberries for breakfast.

Yes! Laredos! My dad had one too! For about a week anyway ...

I started buying my own cigarettes when I was in seventh grade. (I stole them from my folks before that.) During the very liberal '70s, it was no big deal for a 12-, 13-year old kid to go to a Speedway or Total station, like we had kitty-corner from each other at 12 and Van Dyke, and ask for a pack of Newports from the apathetic person working the counter. I would go to whichever was cheaper. For a while it was 50¢ at Total and 52¢ at Speedway, so I went to Total. Then, Total raised their cigarettes to 55¢, so I started going to Speedway. One thing I totally remember was never buying cigarettes at the 7-11 at 13 and Hoover, because, as I remember saying, "I'll never pay 65¢ for a pack of cigarettes! What a ripoff!" By the time I had quit smoking by 1987, I was paying probably a buck fifty for a 25-pack of Century. (Remember those things?) But by that time, it was no longer cool for stores to sell cigarettes to kids at the counter. So, between college and my career, I was working at the Perry Drugs at 12 and Hoover, working the cash register. One day this kid walks in, looks about eleven, and says "pack of Marlboros", or whatever it was. I asked, you 18? He says no. I say, sorry kid, can't sell them to you. He says, they're for my brother, he's in the car. I said well, your brother's gonna have to come into the store and buy them himself. He shrugs and walks out. Less than a minute later, this guy, maybe 20 years old, comes barging through the door and starts yelling at me for not selling the cigarettes to his little brother for him! I said sorry, man, you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes, it's the law, i can get fired for doing that. And so he orders his pack of Marlboros and is swearing up a blue streak during the entire transaction. It was quite entertaining. Later, i say to the store manager, when it comes to selling cigarettes to children, we've come a long way, baby. He laughed. He saw what I did there.

Here's a serious question, because I just don't know. I've been thinking about how the Court can help Trump the most to win the election. Delaying the DC trial without getting any blood on their hands would be the best way. Suspending the lower court's ruling by taking on the case is a good first step. Figuring out a ruling is now the tricky part. They are not going to find against Trump—we already know that. But if they rule for Trump, they get blood on their hands, plus they open up immunity for other presidents not named Trump. And if they somehow parse the ruling so that Trump gets immunity for these specific actions he undertook to steal Biden's election, but no other president gets immunity for something like it, then they dump themselves with a bucket of blood Carrie-style. That seems like a dilemma that even they recognize through which they have to navigate carefully. So, to me, it looks like the best way they can cook this whole thing is to wait until the last minute—like, literally the last minute, meaning 4:59pm Eastern on June 26 or whatever day it is before they go to recess—and announce at that time that they must delay making any decision on United States of America v. Donald J. Trump because the issue is just so nuanced, just so complex, they couldn't possibly have come to any decision in the oh-so-short period of time they were allowed to deliberate the case, and so, they will take it up again when they reconvene in 2025, and have a good rest of the year, everybody. The question, of course, is: are they allowed do this? Because if they can, this seems like the easiest, least bloody out of it. Or are they bound to make a decision in the same session they put it on the docket?

OK, well, gas prices and interest rates, then.

You know, this is really a sneaky good point here: fabricating a spending crisis using a supposedly inevitable social security bankruptcy gives congressional fiscal scolds on the far right a nice cudgel with which they can strong-arm spending cuts in social programs for the poor to help offset ginormous tax breaks for gajillionaires.

The way the SSI retirement annuities system is set up is almost the complete opposite of means testing: the higher your income, the more you pay into the program, and the more you get in your Social Security checks when you go to collect. You might say on one level that's fair—the more you pay in, the more you should get back—and that makes a lot of sense on its face. But what ends up happening, too, is that people who have senior management jobs where they get to build a healthy 401(k) max contribution plus with a sweet employer match and a pension and DCP and also make a high enough salary where they can sock away even more money for the future also end up getting the fattest Social Security checks of all. I'm pretty sure that's not what FDR had in mind when he oversaw the architecting of the program back in 1930-whatever it was.

This is a great article about the massive changes in baseball coaching in just the past ten years, especially the past five. Specifically, how outside consultancies like P3 and Driveline are becoming more important pipelines for coaches being hired by big league organizations. As the blurb within says, they do write about some failures as well as successes. One part concerning the Phillies and Pirates, especially, caught my eye: The Philadelphia Phillies, under general manager Matt Klentak, also tried to fix their player development quickly, by entering into an exclusive agreement with Driveline in 2018. The Phillies player development culture turned toxic, The Athletic reported at the time, as issues arose between holdovers and Driveline employees and player improvement became a competition for credit. The failed experiment was a signal of a larger lack of cohesion throughout the organization, and the Driveline contract wasn’t renewed. ... As Pittsburgh has become more analytically driven under GM Ben Cherington, there have also been integration issues. As The Athletic reported last week, some players feel the blending of old- and new-school philosophies sent mixed messages and disrupted their progress. I noticed this part precisely because the Tigers seem to be the opposite of this right now. Everything I am hearing is how consistent the messages are up and down the system in a way that never occurred before the Scott Harris regime took hold. That makes me even more optimistic about our chances to become a perennial contender at some point soon. Flip side: we happen to be going all in on data science and its attendant adjuncts, such as hiring out of independent facilities, just as everyone else seems to be, too. So, standing out and making the difference in actual wins might be tougher than it would have been even three years ago when the Orioles went all in on the concept.

Are bullpen catchers expected to give constructive feedback to pitching they're warming up? I gotta believe no, if teams're just hiring guys off the street for the job. Or maybe they do some in the majors, if they're long-timers, and don't in the minors.

I'd be shocked if Riley gets anywhere near 600 ABs, because he would have to start 155 or so games to get there, but if he somehow does, he should end up murdering way more homers than some-teen. That would probably lead to a better walk rate than 8.5%, too.

I worry about this guy turning into a pumpkin, so if he ends up with your prediction, I'd be thrilled. Frankly, though, since he projects as the #1 DH on a team that's committed to rotating guys through that spot, not the least of which will be TORK!, I don't know how he gets enough reps to rack up those kinds of numbers. I would not be surprised to see him end up sub-1 WAR after racking up ~2 last year.

I think Skubal wipes out your K9 rate and falls just short of 1 WHIP. I also think he might be able to beat 3 ERA. The tricky part for him will be the 163 innings. I think I'd be happy with anything over 130.

First pitch glances off my glove and nails me in the throat-guard. Guaranteed.

@Edman85: is there a technical and practical difference between "cash considerations" and just plain cash? I would guess if there's any, it would have to do with what kind of budgeting they report to Baseball for luxury tax purposes. Or is "cash considerations" really just a schmancy way to say "cash"?

ha ha ha it's funny because he's not trump

Speaking of which: looks like somebody has decided he doesn't need to update his LinkedIn profile anymore ...