Search results

Why would it make more sense to side with a millionaire than a billionaire?

I prefer spending limited resources on things other than a deep bench in the DH era. Pretty obvious that bullpen is more important.

^ This dude here was absolutely determined to be right about Ian Anderson no matter how long he had to wait to claim it.

The Braves fired what's his name immediately after it happened so that probably tells you something. Not sure what.

I feel like it's been relatively common over the years for players to change up arm angle to one degree or another and there isn't much better time to do it when starting from square one after injury. Don't really have much expectation either way but I'm guessing he's going to pitch for...

I think some consideration ought to be given to the possibility that players may play better because they're comfortable and treated well. A family member of mine has participated in the the little camp where mlb rookies are given advice on how to be a pro. The Braves organization gets high...

...trying to decide if I think he was an asshole to call a Twitter guys employer or not. Balancing it against the Twitter guy being an asshole. Coming down to Law was really punching down instead of just blocking a pest.

Snitker is an excellent manager.

The AAA guy seems like a very Braves play. Someone with very recent success and some tools to back it up. Not a bad flyer for a cheap fourth of.

Yes, that's frustrating for the many players who were good for a decade and told it was not enough. It's pretty arbitrary who gets the benefit of doubt on a short prime.

Yeah, Waters was the first one who came to mind.

Not a forgone conclusion, but also not a black swan event.

Also Montgomery is a SC boy and seems like a Brave anyway and is trying to leverage a small sample playoff run into big contract. Always felt like he was a real possibility.

Sounds like a pretty great idea though it might constrain the deadline moves.

Well actually 1% is a fairly likely outcome is really stretching the bounds of semantics and is not what the folks suggesting that seemed to be trying to convey. Basically they want to be correct about their old assessments uttered very confidently and suggest that the Lord made a miracle and...

Spoiler: they won't make a serious run at Soto.

1% is basically saying it was unforseeable it would ever happen. That's not accurate here.

Well done. Sometimes folks get all wrapped up in what they thought. This outcome might have been high end but it wasn't something completely out of all expectation.

Or the upside was simply underestimated and you didn't actually see a 1% event.

Wouldn't you have to get the top prospect one year in a row before you could do it twice?