chasfh

All correct, but if the Tigers trade Skubal this year, it would be saying a lot to fans, mainly, that winning soon is nowhere on the docket. And it might not be anyway, but management wants to be really careful about what their actions say. The only way he could get away with it is to get a current big league stick that has All-Star potential if not at actual All-Star level. They can’t just liquidate him for the 2024 equivalent of Jake Rogers and whoever that pitcher was.

I was just making a joke on the word “associates”.

I am shocked that you of all people brought this up but I’ve been hypothesizing this since at least last season.

This. Right here. Unfortunately. The Skubal thing, I don’t know how they let him go anytime soon, unless he becomes just too hot to handle in the clubhouse.

I thought he was still at the Free Press in some local bureau doing dogcatcher stories?

Following up on this, has the RWM started weighing in on how Reggie Jackson is a woke commie anti-American yet? Because I have a feeling they’re gonna in the next few days. Because remember: when Reggie was playing, he wasn’t considered anything like Willie Mays. He was a lippy, uppity, mau mau negro, and the media gladly reminded us of that every day.

I don’t think it’s a take that’s hot, either. But I think the fact that he is saying anything like this at all might be actually meaningful, and not just a thing he’s writing to meet a deadline.

BTW, Tork is 1-for-20 (a single) with a walk and six strikeouts in his last five games. In Triple-A. Something worth watching …

Which is why I think the team might be giving a signal that it’s OK to start talking about the team in this way, because beat writers are changing their tone about it all at once. We’re talking about two major guys here at the very least, not just one rogue Fenech. TBF, McCosky is still talking about only minor roster adjustments, like Meadows up for Malloy or Baddoo, but I’m keeping my eye on his output, too.

I think of the art of divining what teams are doing under the hood through shifts in coverage tone by the beat media as akin to Kremlinology. You can’t rely on the powers at the top to be forthright with you about what’s really happening, of course, but you can make an educated guess based on what the supplicants say, and how they say it. When guys like Petzold and Cody make the sudden shift from “things are fine and prospects will advance, trust us” to “things have gotta change and we can’t rely on our top prospect anymore”, that tells me they are getting signals from inside that it’s OK to start talking about this stuff in this way. Because if the beat guys start appearing to badmouth the team and their product in conflict with what the front office itself is saying, they won’t be on the beat for much longer—again, ask Fenech. And I don’t see signals from the front office that everything is still all right as is so trust us. That message hasn’t been coming out like that lately. So if the organization is flashing those signals, and the dependent media are reflecting that in their reporting, then I’m concluding that something is up and something is gonna happen soon. Counterpoint: I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about so ignore me and my tinfoil hat. 😁

I might believe you if the beat writers did not 100% depend on the teams to maintain their access to the front office, players, and information. You can ask Anthony Fenech about exactly how that works. Thank you for your insights about local writers, which I will take under advisement.

Listening to a woman named Ashley Hayek on Washington Journal talking bout some America First stuff they want to impose on the rest of us and I just wanted to see what she looked like, and damned if this isn’t yet another decent-looking woman who got work done to adopt the Trumpy punched-in-the-mouth look. Before: After: I will never get that look. It must be a sexual submissiveness signal of some sort.

I’m pretty sure the pun was 100% intended since you explicitly modified the original phrase “elephant in the room” in the service of the pun! 😉😂

Well, makes sense since America needs more associates. These Walmart customers ain’t gonna greet themselves when they walk in.

What’s an AA degree?

The Beat Revolution is continuing apace. First Petzold with his "things gotta change" tweet that I shared a couple days ago. Now this, from Cody at the Athletic, answering a mailbag question: With Colt Keith’s defensive metrics not being great at second base, is there any possibility that the Tigers could try him at first? They could then move Jace Jung, when he comes up, back to his Gold Glove position at second. — Josie C. Sure seems to make a lot of sense, no? I would guess the Tigers want to take things slow with Keith given he has already spent the past year learning a new position. But at some point you have to accept the realities: Keith grades out very poorly at second (minus-8 defensive runs saved as of Thursday). Although he may improve at some of the nuances of the position with experience, he is only going to get more poorly suited for the position with age. There is a gap at first base, and counting on Spencer Torkelson does not seem like a serious path forward anymore. At least having Keith take groundballs and making sure he can play first base at least part-time seems like the simplest solution. I’m a big fan of Occam’s razor. See the part I've bolded and colored? That's what a beat writer giving up on a former 1/1 looks like. Given how completely the Tigers have controlled the beat press, this does not look like a coincidence. I don't think the beats would be writing things like this without the Tigers being on board, or, even more Machiavellianistically, maybe actually directing this kind of coverage to prepare fans for big changes and/or announcements. We may have arrived at the Very Interesting Times part of our program.

****ing Royce Lewis, man, amirite? Now that's what a 1/1 is supposed to look like. Although—he did take six seasons to make his big league debut, so he did percolate for a while, didn't he?

I'm a terrible, terrible investor—it's practically more like gambling to me—and my losses are legion. I am the only guy in the history of the world to lose money on Microsoft in the 1990s. Even so, I have had a couple of big wins. Notably, I put $5,000 into Netscape in 1995 and sold it a few weeks later at $7,000. Then I put all that in Sun Microsystems and held on. Around 2000 or so, whenever they hit their top and even after it had slud some 30% or so, I sold off and still collected more than $70,000. In my case, though, it was truly blind squirrel nut. I'm sitting on another win here, although not as big as I'd like it to have been. I bought 10 shares of NVDA last May at $313.40/sh, which after the split works out to 100 shares at $31.34—so, some $3,100—as part of a play in AI with some discretionary money into stocks including MU, ORCL, PLTR, IBM, and, funnily, MSFT. NVDA went up as high as $140 yesterday. That's a four-bagger, the company is now the highest valued on the market at over $3T, which seems completely overheated, and I'm thinking, maybe it's time to bail. So yesterday afternoon, I set up a stop limit at 125.10/124.90, meaning, initiate a sell of all shares when it drops to or below 125.10, but only if it stays over 124.90. That way, if the stock has a wild hair moment where it drops to one dollar or something before boomeranging back up, I don't get shook out at that price. NVDA was down yesterday, closing at 130.78, ten dollars off the day's high. This morning's pre-market showed it hovering around 127. Good chance the stop limit order would execute. In my limited and shrinking understanding of technicals, the market likes round numbers to serve as resistance and support. So, I could envision the market getting down to just below 125, a very round number, then turning around and shooting up, which would sell me out at the lowest point. Then I would not be a participant in a new run. So I thought, why not take a bit of a chance here and split the order? I'll set up a stop limit sell for half the shares at 124.10/123.90 (down a dollar from where I had it), to avoid a round number shakeout, and the other half at 119.10/118.90, which would avoid the same kind of shakeout at 120. Well ... this morning, NVDA did go down and down, flirting with the 125 floor before breaking through, and going down as low as 124.30, before turning back around. As of 1028am ET, it's back up around 126 and change. So, based on my changes, instead of selling the entire lot out at 125, per my instructions before the market opened, I still own 100% of my NVDA because I had changed those instructions. I think in a perfect world, NVDA goes back up to 140+, then I reestablish my stop limit for something like 129.10/128.90, and I clear a few hundred more dollars. Fact is, though, even if it dives later today and both sells are triggered, I still have almost quadrupled my little investment from $3,100 to more than $12,000, taxed at 15% instead of as income. So even though I'm not getting maximum points for style in that scenario, I can still pay for the housepainting job we're getting done right now with the win. This is the "game" part of the game. And, also, why I don't gamble unless there's only house money involved.

You gotta know a lot of this money he gets from donors is going to prop up the lifestyles of the appointed and famous.

lol "could be"

A lot of bot feedback on this post, too—Elon is going after him

This is 1967 he’s talking about. This is a reminder that Jim Crow segregation didn’t end suddenly with Brown v Board, or the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that everything was kumbaya ever after.

I'm not sure who I'd want in return for Skubal at this deadline, given as you say he is under control for two-plus years still, but it would have to be at the level of Jackson Holliday-plus, and I say "plus" because Skubal is proven and Holliday is not. And Holliday is transitioning to 2B, which doesn't scratch our shortstop itch anytime soon.

When I saw this post this morning, I was also wondering how many at bats in each inning he was getting, and I assumed that the ratio would be highest for 2nd inning, and it is. Split G PA AB HR HR/AB tOPS+ 1st inning 2416 2417 2089 123 5.89% 89 2nd inning 544 543 485 46 9.48% 118 3rd inning 1474 1474 1281 82 6.40% 111 4th inning 1357 1364 1213 67 5.52% 95 5th inning 1161 1160 1012 52 5.14% 97 6th inning 1445 1446 1256 73 5.81% 93 7th inning 1222 1220 1043 64 6.14% 104 8th inning 1423 1426 1246 90 7.22% 118 9th inning 938 939 826 37 4.48% 87 Ext inning 242 350 290 21 7.24% 111 The reason I thought this was, if Willie is coming up in the second inning as the 12th, 13th, or 14th batter of the game, then the other team/pitcher has already given up a bunch of baserunners by that time—at least five at minimum if he's 3rd in the order, at least seven if he's in the five-hole—which means pitchers are not pitching well, and thus he's more likely to tee off on them. He also has the best tOPS+ in the 2nd inning, too, also unsurprising to me.