chasfh

I would bet there are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of red hats who would gladly lay you low, at the very least, for badmouthing the first-ever nude-modeling daughter-of-a-member-of-the-Communist-Party First Lady.

I hear you, Sue, and you're totally right on the tangoing, but respectfully, let's be real here: by and large, men simply do not see abortion as their issue. Not even men who have caused women to get abortions care about abortion as an issue. To them, it's just a few bucks out of their pocket, if even that, so no big whoop. There will always be exceptions, like 1984Echoes, but on balance, men will never feel abortion as acutely as women do—if most men feel anything about it at all. Abortion may be the most imbalanced political issue in recent history.

Good to see the liberal media tipping off the Republicans so they can pivot during the next three weeks.

Actually, now that I think more about it, it occurs to me that white South Africans may well be more susceptible to this kind of idea, given how they too were once beneficiaries of a legally-enforced apartheid system of which they now rue the loss.

What the everliving fuck happened to her??

Pass on selling low on Baez. Selling low is part of what wrecked our system in the first place.

FTFY, because only one.

Tudor Dixon is the kind of attractish woman that gravitates to the hard right wing. They missed out on the whole defend-her-honor-from-any-slight era, and they are keen on returning to it because they think see themselves as the beneficiaries.

Time is running out. Gotta move.

Only one side understands that.

Suppressing the vote.

She’s practicing for her punditry career.

Exactly. Put another way, they don’t have to win the lawsuit—they need only file the lawsuit, then trumpet the fact that they filed the lawsuit. That’s the part the red hats will remember, not the part where they lost, mainly because their media is telling the red hats only about the filing, and not about the loss.

Gulp

One more data point for Trump/DeSantis/whoever gets the R nod in 2024 to campaign on a platform of reforming the woke activist libtard judiciary.

No problem. Charles Manson is tough and cool in the same way Trump is, so for the red hats, it totally fits.

About the only positive thing Eduardo has maintained is the ability to induce soft contact, and even that devolved from elite level to merely above average. Practically everything else on the Savant card is blue. It’s a bad sign, but I suppose that in the spirit of “anything is possible” … 🤞

The other guys are right—it isn’t $60 million, it’s $49 million. Otherwise, this. His ability to get whiffs took a dramatic drop. This is a tough era to morph into a pitch-to-contact guy, and he ain’t getting any younger.

Eduardo Rodriguez would have to suddenly be born again hard as a very good pitcher at age 30 to opt out of a guaranteed $60MM. I don't see it happening. I think he's ours for good, for better or worse.

One question, I guess, is whether at the talent level we had available to us, was this a true 65-win team? There was a seemingly historic level of concurrent under-performance, especially by hitters, that might not play out so pessimistically next year, or even in a parallel universe this season. If they believe there is some middle ground between 2021 and 2022 performance that serves as these players' "true" level, maybe they think they might be able to build from around the edges a team that approaches or even exceeds .500. At that point, the marginal value of a superstar becomes possibly more relevant for us. All this is speculation, but I believe it's plausible and within the range of outcomes, at least at the edges.

A team that positions itself to be a 65-win team isn't paying anything for wins because they aren't playing for wins. Anyone paying top dollar for top free agents are either trying to elevate themselves into playoff contention, into a higher playoff seed, or to lengthen planned contending status by at least an extra year. To your point, a marginal win has different values to different teams.

It's their concept and I have no claim to it. I see where they are coming from on it.

First of all, “Y’all”, what the fuck dog does Texas Woman have in Michigan’s Prop 3 fight, “Y’all”? Secondly, this kind of misdirection seems to be getting bolder and more on the nose. Illinois has an Amendment 1 initiative on the ballot that would change the state’s constitution to, quote, state that employees have a right to "organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at work" and that would prohibit any law that "interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively." Sound eminently reasonable, right? Even Republicans can’t argue that state employees should have no such right. So how do the Republicans get ordinary people of modest incomes to vote against it? By calling it a Trojan horse tax increase, saying “While Amendment 1 is being promoted as a workers’ rights initiative, in reality, it is a disguised tax referendum, a Trojan horse that, if passed, is projected to cost a typical family over $2,100 in additional property taxes within the next four years”, and that “This is a conservative estimate, assuming the rapid growth of Illinois’ property tax burden holds steady. It’s likely property taxes would grow at an even faster rate, because Amendment 1 would give Illinois government unions unprecedented bargaining powers that don’t exist in any other state." Of course they don’t say how it would give such unprecedented powers to unions that would lead to what those tax increases are, or what those powers are that will increase property taxes. They say only that it will increase property taxes, and as far as the how and the what are concerned, they will simply leave it up to your imagination.

That suggests that the fault lies with the Twins for not winning with the team they put around Correa, not the fault with the Twins not valuing Correa correctly. The Twins clearly believed that they were competing for the inside track to win the Central, something most of us believed back then; nobody thought they were benefiting only by going from 73 to 78 wins. Had they won the Central by a game or two, most analysts would agree Correa would have been a big part of the difference, if not the whole difference, given how they got 1.0 wins from their shortstops in 2021.

That depends on both how he values a win, and how much that win is worth. There has been a lot of agreement the past few years that a theoretical win in the marketplace can be valued in terms of actual dollars, and that the value is right around $9 million. (For anyone who is interested, you can find numerous articles on the cost of a win in free agency at Fangraphs.) So if Harris agrees with this concept, he might conclude that a player projected to get five wins in a year could be worth as much as $45 million for the year. Of course it’s doubtful that after this season anyone will offer Correa a 1/45, since the market is almost certainly not there yet. But this is an example of how Harris might look at Correa’s 5.4 WAR of this season and conclude that the Twins got their $35 million worth.