Abomination

It was time for me to stop being stubborn and address my pitching. I think I now have a legitimate starting staff.

Heh. I had an eBay sale hit the same instant you accepted. I saw the popup for the trade combined with the sale sound and wondered what the hell was going on

Lowry's big day might save my entry.

I don't care if it's the corpse of Russ Adams that wins the game for us, as long as SOMEBODY walks it off.

Looks like Berger saved his skin at the last possible moment. Schwartzel was in position to make the cut, then decided to bogey the final two holes

It wasn't important so I didn't want to create walls of text, but fine. The very headline starts by saying that Bauer won the hearing but lost anyway. How exactly? Apparently because the information in the hearing, which he had already freely made public before, was made public again . It then talks extensively about the Dodgers and how they can terminate his contract. This is an article about a legal proceeding for a restraining order. The rest is designed to focus the reader on his guilt by assuming it before any future proceedings addressing that even occur. For the few parts that were actually on topic, the criticism of the petitioner seems mostly fair. The criticism of the judge does not. While I'm not an attorney, the matter of what the limits were and what can and can't be consented to seems like it should be fundamentally different when it comes to considering a restraining order vs a civil or criminal suit. The entire argument made in the article seems targeted to the latter rather than the former. It's basically interspersing two different things in the same article, hoping that no one notices imo. Back to the point, the restraining order, I believe, is primarily considering what physical or perhaps emotional risk Bauer poses in the immediate future to the petitioner. It seems like he made it pretty clear in communications that he never wanted to see or speak to her again, and that was before any talk of legal proceedings. Someone may wish to correct me, but I suspect the main effect it would have would be to allow the petitioner's side to say whatever the hell they wanted on social media without fear of Bauer's side posting contradictory texts or otherwise being able to directly defend themselves. I may be wrong about that. The criticism of Bauer's side doesn't really make sense. It's mostly centered on already established facts being stated again and complaining that Bauer's attorney attacked the credibility of the petitioner...

It really depends. All the different groups have vastly varying rules. Some can only have a car if it's black. Some can have the internet or a phone at their main church or whatever, but only use it for doing business. Some seem to feel they're playing dangerously if their horse drawn cart has a roof. The ones around here are pretty strict. It is rather funny though that when I used to see them at auctions, they would buy up all the electrical testing equipment. I never did figure out why. They sure as hell didn't have electricity.

Are you kidding?

And the most important thing: a manager. It may be debatable how many wins a manager can gain you, but Charlie is dead set on demonstrating how many one can cost you.

How is that a theory? If anything, that would mean he'd be even better off taking multi-year deals because it would increase the likelihood he could get some sort of settlement if the team tried to terminate his contract (rather than just letting it run out).

Pretty sure the precedent is basically fictional.

This seems very unlikely. More realistic would be to say he might never play another game as a Dodger.

We have a bunch of Amish (maybe they're strict Mennonites, not sure) in the area where I am. Every time I see them I'm tempted to play that song. Not that I would ever be rude enough to actually do it, but tempted. The music video for that song is amazing.

If they're both fully healthy, that would shorten the game quite nicely. That would leave only the 7th inning that Charlie could mess up ... maybe.

I hate doing stuff like this, but I made an exception. I wish Charlie all the best, but imo he has not demonstrated an understanding of how to manage a game at the big league level. I can see him being an excellent minor league manager.

The home run jacket is infinitely better than the seeds were, and what a lot of other teams do. Hopefully after the season they'll auction it off for Jays Care or something.

They'd probably be better off attaching the salary cap to draft picks rather than a strict cash penalty. Make the soft cap 200M, and every 10M over that you lose a draft pick, starting with #10 or something. That would get painful very quickly, but would still allow short-term spending sprees.

I'm thinking of going with: DeChambeau Berger English Niemann Lowry Schwartzel

Hopefully not the relievers. They'll hit everything except the fairway.

Or maybe he's a secret spy for the Rays.

He's over-managing. He needs to stop playing the matchups as much with all the frequent pitching changes. He doesn't have the personnel to do it.

Yep, there's gonna be a strike.

The bereavement list for Manoah might explain the bad night last night.

I could use help at 1B along with potentially an established closer.

I don't care who you are, if you're sitting in front of a microphone 162 times a year for 3+ hours talking on the fly, you're going to say something stupid eventually. Probably quite often. Morris should probably be replaced because he sucks at being an announcer, but not because of that comment which he apologized for after being made aware it had offended people.