chasfh

Which is exactly what I suggested here.

And I had no clue 2022 negated his entire history before that. Did you think Jeimer was done done as well?

And I would counter that Hinch has to push buttons now because he did not have players he can plug in everyday, not necessarily because he loves loves loves pushing buttons. I would guess that once he does have everyday players, he will push buttons a lot less. I guess in a couple of years we will see.

Why do you think Hinch has a passion for pushing buttons? Has he said as much? Is it because he's doing so now?

2023.

I found it amusing that the Cubs in-studio crew were praising the pickup because of Candelario's positional flexibility to play both third and first. They still have Madrigal and Wisdom at third and they've been struggling to fill first base, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Jeimer get the bulk of minutes there.

I suppose it could be true Jeimer didn't fit what the new administration wanted to do here, although I don't see how a guy who has a history of plus-D, pop from both sides of the plate, and the ability to take a walk doesn't fit what they want to do here. Seems like Jeimer has proven yet again he can deliver on all three. Does all that really take a back seat to "defensive versatility"? I think that whole idea might be misunderstood. I really doubt Harris and Hinch believe that the way to win rings is by fielding twelve guys who can all play at least three positions on the diamond at random every game. I think it's more an issue of, the organization is in a very bad stretch right now where the only players available to us are marginal talents, many of whom have value only as utility players. They should be bench players at best on decent teams, which we are not right now, so we have no choice but to play guys like this every day. Might as well test them at various positions to see whether they can play well enough somewhere anywhere while we figure out whether we can go long with any of these guys (which, no real surprise, it looks like we won't be able to). That's why I think we are swimming in utility players all playing multiple positions. I don't think it's our strategy to win in the future—I think it's more the only way at our disposal to survive and try to compete at this moment. Once we do get everyday players at third base and second base and in the corners on board, we won't need a multiplicity of the Zach McKinstrys or Andy Ibanezes or Tyler Nevins of the game moving around our diamond anymore.

Jeimer couldn't give less of a sht about "that's all you could get for me".

Nixon did it because he sabotaged the Paris peace talks.

Weren't you the one who just on previous page lulzed me by pointing out that actually it is the gas they buy or the groceries they are purchasing at the supermarket that drive inflation perception? And now you're pointing to everything but the gas they buy or the groceries they are purchasing?

I think Jeimer is just fine accepting blame for his leaving the team. I still believe there’s practically no way Scott Harris came in, assessed Jeimer, and decided yeah, he’s done done and on his way out of the game, so buh bye. I believe there are other factors involved that could have been some combination of someone upstairs saying no way we’re paying him $7 million after a bad year, someone upstairs directing Harris to cut him to stop the bad press, people on the ground around Jeimer didn’t want him on the team anymore, and/or Jeimer himself didn’t want to be on the team anymore.

On the old board, I (famously?) rooted for Trump to get the nomination in 2016, assuming he would get smoked like a cheap cigar in the general, because I mistakenly thought everyone already knew who he is. That was wrong. He did lose the popular vote by 3MM, but then the fckn Electoral College. In 2018, after two years of Trump showing everyone who he is, he was the catalyst of losing Congress for the Republicans. People started to become animated to vote against him. In 2020 I was concerned about Trump beating Biden, but he’d had two more years to show people who he is, and he ended up losing both the popular vote by 8MM and for real. People were very animated to vote against him. In 2022, even though Trump was out of office, he loomed like a big shadow over that election such that the animating issue was Trumpism wrapped around abortion, and an election that the Republicans were thought to have in the bag was almost lost by them in the House, and was (mostly) lost by them in the Senate. People were still animated to vote against Trump. Now, what’s going to happen in 2024? In a world where anything can happen, sure, Trump could win. But I think most people (at least here) agree that it would probably not be because Trump is going to win back voters who left him, or scoop up millions of undecideds. It would probably be because people who opposed him enough to vote against him in the midterms would suddenly become apathetic in a presidential election and fail to show up to vote at all. So the $64 question at hand is, are people now apathetic about Trump and the Republicans? Because it’s not just about Trump anymore. It’s also the whole party, which got fired up by Trumpism, overextending themselves by going all in on the impeachment farce and the culture war issues both real and fake and, most of all, the banning of abortion completely. Are people apathetic about all that now after having been all animated over it in 2022? Or, if the economy does a new 180 and is perceived to be going t**s up, will people be scared into voting Trump and the Republicans when they would normally vote against them? Looks to me like those are the two big questions there. Because I agree with most people here that there is probably not a base of millions of people who have never voted Trump, or who left the Republicans because of the Trumpism, who are itching to come back and vote for Trump next year. tl;dr I like our chances, but nothing is 100%.

lol lulz what, are we 4chan now?

Because at a certain point, it’s no longer about the money. It’s about the winning.

Not sure what you mean. I’m just saying we got nothing for him, and I don’t care about money saved.

Oh, sure, a lot of those people who bailed on the Arizona call probably did come back. Fox is the 800-pounder. But I do also think Fox has learned its lesson from that episode, because it did cost them eyeballs for a while, which costs them ad revenue for a bit, and they don’t want a repeat of that.

This is a pitchers’ deadline. Teams aren’t paying for hitting. Either way, I think a “pretty underwhelming return” beats a goose egg every day.

The Nationals got something for Candelario. We got nothing.

You misspelled "Pwned".

I don't think this is true—after all, Fox lost a boatload of viewers to its right flank just because they called a state during election coverage. I think Fox has painted itself into the corner of, they can't afford to piss off its viewers by not properly fluffing Trump, because when they don't, Trump tells everyone about it and his minions fall all over themselves making a show of their support.

I don't think players would say about any player "he's amazing, how he doesn't seem to have to work at it at all", because that comes off as an insult. Players respect guys who put in the work, and they don't respect guys who don't. As for coaching, I think you were right with your observation that his way of coaching probably wouldn't fit with the Tigers' new way, and also, not yet said, his way might fit perfectly with Miami's way. I'm an outsider, so I have no way of knowing, but based strictly on what I've seen of him through the media over the years, I would bet he's a guy who would never want to look at charts, or attend coaches meetings, or work with the farm clubs, or anything else that would require constant diligence and effort. I see him as wanting to hang out in the clubhouse and the dugout dispensing pearls of wisdom to major leaguers as the mood strikes him. He has created value during his entire superstar career by being Miggy. I can't envision that changing.

Yes, which is why 19-year-old Cristian Hernandez playing A Ball in the Cubs system might be a decent get if his tools fit within Harris/Hinch's development strategy.

OK, I see. I had interpreted your comment of "disappointing" as being disappointed in his outing. I think it was a mixed outing at worst, and we could make the case that it was a pretty good outing overall considering the outcomes he could control more (nine strikeouts and no walks in five innings), and despite the outcomes he has less control over (three bombs).

how about this one?