Can_of_corn

He did. But folks sure seem to like to harp on that one in particular. I guess they think it's funny. I never find it funny when a player gets injured on a play but tastes vary.

I wonder if Braves fans keep harping on the ball Markakis put over the fence last season or if they have learned to let it go?

I don't need to see that.

I'd rather he was just ignored. Every so often the MASN camera could pan over to him at the end of the bench.

You want to take a job away from someone who needs the paycheck? For shame!

He should at least get a fair chance to fail.

I'd love to have Hyde sit him all season. I don't think it is going to happen. He won't play much but Hyde won't just leave him on the bench.

Not sure how practical that is, unless you get Puig to drive him.

Right, which is why you are already declaring him a DH. Because you are perfectly willing to be convinced.

You wouldn't put him in the lineup for every road spring training game? You are a nicer person than I am.

It isn't just Trumbo, most players see a decrease in offensive performance when they DH. I think folks that work for the Orioles understand that it isn't feasible to have plus defenders at every position and have a keen grasp at how to balance offense and defense on the diamond.

I love how after 25 games in the majors in left, with decent metrics and 26 games in the minors that he didn't see a poster is willing to make a blanket statement like "MC is best at DH". This despite the fact that Mountcastle has never started a game at DH and that we have zero idea of how it might effect his hitting. This is of course after how they were complaining about getting push back for being critical. Geez I wonder why you are getting push back?

Not signing Aiken didn't hurt them at all.

While making the owners money. These burn it to the ground rebuilds tend to be good for the bottom line.

More like a drop in the bathtub. For the record I'm not advocating for it. I do however think that once the folks with increased risk are taken care of it doesn't matter much which group of low risk folks get it first. The amount of work involved with insuring that folks that work retail are taken care of before office workers is going to be greater than any gain you would get from it.

It isn't changing at all. Not sure why you keep making me repeat myself. You said " obviously playing more games for losses before empty stands would further help the owners in negotiations. ". I do not think that is at all obvious. You think it is obvious. That is the idea you are working under concerning the negotiations.

Precedent has a lot of weight in this country. We are also talking about 2,000 people in a country of 328M. People that have an outsized impact on local economies.

You are working under the idea that owner's think that an increase in losses (or claimed losses) would lead to an equal advantage in future negotiations. I have not stated that and don't agree with that idea. I think there is a finite amount of advantage to be gained.

Group 3. Jan 15th 1942.

I am not saying that every team turned a profit last year. I'm not even saying most teams turned a profit last year. My guess is that not playing games while not paying players is a better model for owners than playing games without fans. I don't agree with your hypothesis that no diminishing returns exist when it comes to claiming losses. I think to a certain degree it would be useful and that they have a pretty good idea of where that point is.

That isn't obvious at all. There is a limit to how much capital is to be gained. The best situation for them is to not actually lose money while being able to plausibly claim that they are. I think they lose less/make more by not playing games then they do playing in empty stadiums.

There is close to zero chance that folks that work in retail or meat processing facilities are going to get access to the vaccine before the general public. Maybe first responders but not your bagger at Publix. MLB could jump ahead of everyone in your fourth group and not impact a single life. All the ML coaches and players don't even amount to 4,000 doses of a vaccine.

I'm not saying that no real losses occurred. I'm saying that I don't think all teams lost money (in the red) and the amount of money lost is being exaggerated. I'm suggesting that it is possible that they might forgo some now revenue to secure substantially more future revenue.

They have a new CBA to negotiate in 2022. If they can successfully claim that they have lost money it can certainly have an impact on those discussions. It could also theoretically add in negotiations with cities or the various outlets that show their games. Think of how much money is at stake over the life of a CBA and compare it to making a mild profit over 30 games.

If they can cry poor and give up a bit of money now for increased leverage to use in future negotiations why wouldn't they?