chasfh

A few guys here said it was a good pickup for the price.

I'm not the first guy here who mentioned Kyle Finnegan in the context of Tigers' closer, but I am the first guy you decided you wanted to call on the carpet for it, even though I mentioned it only in reply to those who did mention it first.

You apparently stopped reading my post after the first paragraph. You don't have to go back and read the whole thing—just skip to the final paragraph.

Nope, you can be president of the I Hate Poopyhead Scott Harris Club for life if you want.

I’m a little surprised people here are more sanguine about Kyle Finnegan than I thought they might be, or than I am for that matter. His card is decidedly meh for a reliever, and downright underwater for a closer on a contender. He’s 33, so no wonder his fastball is down a tick from the last couple years, but even if you accept an understanding of that, the fact is it’s still down that tick. His K rate is well below average and down from previous years. His walk rate is slightly above league average. His HR rate is way down, but that’s because his HR/FB rate, considered to be mostly luck-based, is half his career average, which explains way his xFIP- is sharply up even as his FIP- dropped. Flip side, Fangraphs pitchingbot has his stuff and command as both slightly above average for both his main pitches, and his fWAR is 0.6 even though his RA9-WAR is a flat zero, mainly due to the bad luck of not stranding enough runners. And he is pretty tough on lefties for a starboard pitcher. I get that people are looking at this acquisition in terms of the cost of prospect capital, but that’s really not the true cost of picking him and anointing him closer, is it? Isn’t the true cost the absence of better pitchers we will not have acquired that would be a better fit for that spot? I’m not one of the guys here who wanted to liquidate the top of our system in exchange for the top fire-breather on the market, but I did think getting a no-doubt closer was going to be on the shopping list. Maybe the prices being quoted Scott were just too high for him to consider. As far as I can tell, Vest and Holton are still the two go-to guys at the back of the pen, with Finnegan probably now third on the chart.

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?