chasfh

Fact is, Elon has no interest in reconciling anything, because he is playing to an audience that not only does not require that, it's an audience that would actively punish him for his apostasy.

I wouldn't think that's enough, but you may be right, since this is all conjecture, anyway. Point is, we agree that the pay is not the only thing. Number of offers fielded, number of years, teams involved, cities involved, known winning culture, respectfulness of the offer—all those criteria are in the mix and could lead a player to take less money from one team over more money from another. When it comes to that possibility, I think the main criterion is the matter of degree in the differences among the offers.

Exactly. People like to say that players are all about the money, and will always take the higher bid, but we know that's not true. At a certain level, especially when you already have well into nine figures guaranteed to be coming to you anyway, a few million doesn't mean so much. Players want to get paid, but players are wired to win. I'm not saying Correa would never ever take an offer from the Tigers over an offer from the Yankees. He very well might if the difference were substantial enough. You and I agree that the difference between $37 and $35 wouldn't cut it. Personally I don't think $40 would cut it, either. $45? Now I think you're getting his attention, bu-u-u-t ... I don't know. $50? I think Correa could be talked into taking $50MM from the Tigers over the $35MM over the Yankees and put up with the losing for a couple years, as long as he gets that opt out if the Tigers don't fulfill the promise of getting better enough to contend by that time. That's the kind of overpay I can't imagine the Tigers having to make to keep him from taking an offer from a current contender.

The Tigers can also get two pretty bad players for that. See Baez, Javier; Rodriguez, Eduardo. At least with the $35 million you'd be paying Carlos Correa at this stage of his career, you can be pretty confident you're getting a good player. Some here pooh-pooh the idea, but if the going market rate for a win above replacement as suggested in this article is roughly $8 million for a 2+ WAR player, then by that measure, Correa was worth the money. Sure, it would have been worth a lot more to the Dodgers or Mets than the Twins, but just because his teammates, especially his pitchers, couldn't help him pull his team into the playoffs, I don't think that should detract from the value his performance provides.

Players almost always take the years, but I didn’t say anything abut years. I’m talking about dollars. If Tigers offer $37 million and the Yankees offer $35 million, which offer is he taking?

If it were to come down to the Tigers offering, say, $37 million and the Yankees offering $35 million, which team would win him?

Maybe not.

I’m glad you appreciate the overview. Maybe some people believe that Al Avila worked super hard at his job but just wasn’t any good at it. But if Al wasn’t acquiring talent—the top job for any rebuilding team—at the rate of even the average team, then just what was it Al was working so super hard at?

I can’t imagine the kind of overpay it would take to get Carlos Correa to come here and lose for at least two more years.

That’s right, and some businesses get themselves into that treadmill, to the detriment of the rest of the business. BTW, just to be clear I wasn’t intending to imply that’s how fast feeders and car washes should treat their employees. I’m suggesting that’s how many of them do. Although there’s this one car wash nearby I suspect might be using undocumented immigrants as more or less indentured labor, obviously a different ball of wax.

We sure are moving to the “assassinate neighbors who vote for Democrats” phase in a hurry.

If a guy in Florida is willing to shoot another guy just because he had a Biden flag on his boat, then Fauci is definitely in someone’s crosshairs.

How much you wanna bet that at least one Republican who wins their election hurls charges of fraud against the Democrats because they didn’t win by more?

I have given very little thought to the notion that corrupt Republicans in power would use that power to punish corporations and people for not being 100% MAGA themselves.

Local stations definitely get time to sell time during national sports events, even the Super Bowl, including during the game itself. That's the whole point of getting affilaites excited to carry top national event—so they can sell local spots at the highest rates they will see all year. Fetterman could easily buy local time in Philly as well as the several other DMAs in the state, and he can also bump another advertiser by paying more money for the spot. So local availability is a non-issue for a motivated advertiser. Covering the whole state would be a wise move—every Fox station in the state could be bought locally, whether individually or maybe collectively through mutual rep firms. Only 4% of the country lives in Pennsylvania, though. If his true target audience made up at last third or more of the country, at that point it would make more sense to buy national versus paying premiums to buy spots by individual station. There's really no way that it makes better sense fiscally to buy nationally to hit 4% of the audience while wasting the other 96%. That's why I'm thinking the spot was meant for a national audience, and basically because of Dr Oz, who is a national figure. I think the spot was not only for Fetterman in Pennsylvania, but secondarily for Democrats around the country, since Oz has been such an effective foil nationally. I think they're banking on a Fetterman spot motivating D voters across the country to the polls. I wouldn't doubt if the funding for the spot came 100% from the DNC versus Fetterman's own war chest.

If he didn't intend to speak to people outside of Philly, then I don't know why he wouldn't have done a simple spot buy in just Philly?

Yeah, this is not going to end well ...

It also depends on the kind of business you have and where you have it, doesn't it? If you have a business that's high touch like, say, an insurance agency or a beauty salon, then you definitely have a vested interest in treating your employees well enough to retain them for years. To a fast food franchisee or car wash, employees are fungible so who cares how they're treated, because treat them well or treat them not well, they're going to be gone at the first other opportunity.

Do you mean money well-spent nationally?

Flipside argument: Sheila fired Quinn and Patricia because they were someone else's hires, not hers, so she took no heat for hiring them in the first place; so she might be more reluctant to fire Holmes and Campbell and thus will give them a lot a lot more rope, because they are her hires, she's responsible for that, and she will give them as much time as she can get away with hoping they will succeed.

Dusty Baker did not have a Hall of Fame career, but he probably will qualify as a manager, especially if the Astros win a ring for him.

Maybe, at least in its current form.

This is why red hats hate the media: Did CNN report that Trump had died? Nope. Does it matter? Nope.

By way of reminder, Trump is an overt litmus test for this campaign. His campaign-stealing is the #1 trait hundreds of candidates are embracing, and they are actively vying for his endorsements by clamoring to show up at his rallies. So please, let’s not pretend he is simply a retired statesman trying to live his life in peace and privacy.

I don’t have 31 minutes to kill and I am just going off the YouTube cover. Is the point all about how Americans are being wrongfully prevented from entering public spaces because they are not vaccinated or masked up? I haven’t been required to show proof of vax since I went to a play a year or so ago, and masks are becoming so passé in the age of mass vaccination and herd immunity (remember that phrase) that Illinois just recently dropped the requirement for healthcare facilitates. https://abc7chicago.com/illinois-governor-jb-pritzker-mask-mandate-healthcare-covid-cdc-guidelines-today/12341273/ I’m guessing we won’t be required to wear masks again on a widespread basis until the next pandemic.