chasfh

Speaking of razzberries, looks like a whole bunch of guys here will be ready to give Scott Harris a whole bowlful of them after six o’clock rolls around.

Looks like the same sort after all.

Pirates say no.

WAR is not a good comparative to use for Miller since as a reliever he is deployed only opportunistically and strategically.

This might move the last-day market toward sellers and have the effect of increasing the price for Bednar.

Probably DFA’ed Manning because the Twins, Braves, and Guardians wouldn’t take him even as a throw in. I also have wondered for some time whether Manning is simply a drag to coach and/or to just be around.

You mean the same thing Reese Olson went on the 60-day list for?

It’s the end of an error.

Maybe “proven major league talent” is not what we need. After all, Tommy Kahnle came here as “proven major league talent”.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: Trump behaves in an adversarial and unfair manner toward his targets, who respond appropriately, then he claims they the ones being adversarial and unfair toward him. And it works like a charm, because he has successfully primed his fan base to seek only his side of the story.

He's good copy = impressions = ad revenue. Also, he's good copy = clicks = affiliate revenue.

FWIW: Too Much TV Exclusive: Reports Of 'Late Show's' $40 Million Annual Loss Are 'Bull****' I am shocked to discover that unnamed network sources might be trying to spin a story. Rick Ellis Jul 31 IS 'THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT' REALLY LOSING $40 MILLION A YEAR? In the days that followed the cancellation of the CBS late night talker The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, sources that appear to be at CBS and its parent Paramount Global fed a steady stream of background quotes to eager industry reporters. "This cancellation has nothing to do with politics." "It's a reflection of the weakened state of late night television." "And oh, by the way, the show was losing $40 million a year." The economics of late night television have always been a bit of a black box, so in the absence of any other data, that $40 million figure has become the accepted conventional wisdom in most of the reporting surrounding the cancellation. So much so that when The Financial Times wrote about David Ellison and the turmoil at CBS today, their piece quoted the $40 million figure, attributing it to "media reports." But how accurate is that number? It's a bit difficult to know for sure. But after talking to several people familiar with the economics of the show (both current and former employees), here is an overall look. The Late Show's annual budget appears to be in the $90-$100 million range. And while the outside estimates of the show's ad revenue are all over the map, most estimates show the revenue dropping by about half over the past six years. Which likely means a substantial annual deficit over the past couple of years. But is the reported $40 million a year deficit an accurate reflection of the revenue problem? Sources I've spoken with insist the number is wildly inflated, with two sources who have direct knowledge of the show's economics telling me the number for the upcoming season is likely to be closer to the range of $25-$28 million. Which is a lot of money, but it is also not $40 million a year. One source suggested that the $40 million figure included a lot of extraneous expenses, including likely pay increases for staff and for Colbert if the show continued past next year. The source also suspected the figure included some shifting of expenses in a way designed to maximize the short-term loss, although "No one really knows for sure," I was told. "I don't know anyone I've talked to who can figure out where that $40 million number came from. So it's impossible to know how accurate it is. If you ask me, it's bull****." One of things I've heard from more than one person is that the idea of cancelling a show because it's losing $40 million a year and then leaving it on the air until May doesn't make a lot of sense. "I've read some stories that CBS executives are leaving the show on the air in order to give us a 'proper send-off.' I'm sorry, but I've worked for this company long enough to know that some executives might be sentimental about shows. But they're not tens of millions in more losses sentimental." Another pushback I've heard from insiders was the idea that The Late Show was less digitally savvy than competing late night talkers, leading to less digital ad revenue. The sources agree that was true, but laid much of the blame on the network and to a lesser extent on Colbert himself. "I know for a fact that we tried to get the green light for more digital content and we were told the network 'didn't think that played to our strength.' I also don't think it was a high priority for Stephen, although I don't have any direct knowledge of the conversations he might have had with CBS." Regardless, what is clear is that at best the reported $40 million a year loss is the absolute worst case scenario. And the truth is that the loss this year will be substantial, but likely at least $10 million less than network sources are telling reporters. I've reached out to the network and Paramount Global as well as to Stephen Colbert and have not received a response. https://toomuchtv.substack.com/p/too-much-tv-exclusive-reports-of

Or Jarrod Washburns.

I will reiterate that I do not believe Harris will liquidate anything near the top of our system, and the prices paid so far seem to indicate he might not have to. The top guys I think we'd be willing to let go are Briceno and Max Anderson, and that might be (more than?) enough to pry Bednar out of Pittsburgh.

I pumped gas at a Sunoco at 12 Mile and Mound for one day in the late 70s (when that was still a thing). I was made to pay two dollars out of my pocket when the amount i was told I pumped fell short of the amount I’d given them throughout the night. That was the end of that job. As I remember, I didn’t mesh with the roughnecks I worked alongside anyway. Funny how that worked.

I don’t think the media has acted like inflation has gone up to 6% or 7%, and I don’t feel like they are being unfair to Trump.

Big problem. What the **** do they see in this guy?

I agree with this.

Honestly, this stuff isn't even catnip anymore. It's just a big so what, especially in an era where legislators choose their voters and cement their power to such a degree that they couldn't give two ****s what their constituents think, anyhow.

Neither of them are actual news operations, especially Newsmax. They are opinion and entertainment vehicles. EDIT: Also, just wondering, how is Newsmax local to Philadelphia, San Francisco, et al? How does that work?

Yeah that would be the equivalent of something like Holton, Hao-Yu Lee, and, I don't know, Dylan Smith? Something like that. Butto was sixth on the Mets' bullpen chart, and Holton is a setup guy, but their bullpen is far deeper for them to deal from than we could have. So if this was the price point that won, we probably could not have reasonably beaten it.

Neither are major news operations.

If there is no precedent for trading an All-Star with four more years of control until free agency, then I will say there is zero chance the A’s trade Mason Miller.

CBS is going to become the Newsweek.com of major news operations.

I will stop short of declaring that there’s zero chance the A’s trade an All-Star who’s controllable for the next four seasons, because anything is possible in a world where anything is possible, but i would be shocked if the A’s traded Mason Miller. Is there even any precedent for a bad team trading an All-Star with that much control attached to him?