Laika

AA did not trade the bulk of his good prospects away but he did trade a fair number of them. If you look at past top 20 lists, most prospects were not traded. But he probably still traded more top 20 org prospects than most GMs during that four or five year stretch. It certainly would have been nice to have guys like Musgrove and Desclafani during the dark years here. Perhaps some decisions on who to trade vs who to keep could have been better. But really the problem was not trading the prospects - the problem was the returns. He lost a lot of value in the Dickey and the Marlins deals. Nobody is lamenting the loss of Franklin Barreto and Sean Nolin though, so that shows the merit in not being shy about slinging spects around.

Teams should get better at realizing when Tampa Bay doesn't have all that much leverage during these roster crunches.

Barry Davis would be better than Arash Madani lmao

Spanky has a Grichuk boner

Grichuk is like six combined feet from a two homer game

Yeah it's pretty complicated for a few reasons. - Side deals - Seattle must pick one player from each team - Seattle must draft a salary floor of like $48M - They have to think about marketing the team so they will probably pick some big names who are not ideal selections One rumour they are looking at Carey Price, which would be f***ing hilarious

It sounds like the report on Beltre is that he's very advanced / experienced as far as international prospects go but not as high upside or toolsy as some other kids. It will be interesting to see how his tools play against pro competition in a couple of years.

Olympic rosters might give us a Simeon Woods Richardson vs Jose Bautista plate appearance

I don't think it even is an updated ranking. Just the same as preseason but graduation adjusted

Jesus, that's a hot streak. I don't really find any K rate that starts with a 2 that concerning anymore, especially if the guy takes his walks.

I would say Texas does need a catcher. But is Gallo actually on the block? He's a star who helps on both sides of the ball. They would want a lot.

I guess I was wrong. Doesn't make a difference though, it looks like they have a seating capacity that is the same regardless of whether it's open or closed

Nice deal for the Sox but it is fair. He's older than I thought.

It won't matter. They will have stadium specific seating maximums that have nothing to do with the general provincial classifications of indoors vs outdoors. But the place is literally inside doors and the fact that it has a retractable roof does not mean it is outside.

Yeah you're wrong for sure. It'll just be considered indoors.

You have to drink bleach and then aggressively use a penis pump

As tempting as it is to drop your two cents on vaccination politics, science, morality, etc., please just don't. Even if you are RIGHT you are not changing anyone's opinion through this message board and this stuff has a demonstrated history of just derailing threads. Nobody really gives a s*** if you think vaccinations are bad. And even if you are an epidemiological doctor nobody here is going to get vaccinated because you tell them too.

What do you mean? Very much doubt whether or not the dome is open has any bearing on allowable fan count

I dunno, if everyone in hockey is dumb then maybe it could be valid to leave some of your better players exposed if they wouldn't get picked.

mmmmmm not sure about that being good news i see your point though

It is okay during sex, well at least in most jurisdictions. I will give you some helpful examples as far as I understand the law in Canada: - If you consent to play a sport and get hurt in the normal course of that sport, does your consent to playing make the person who hurt you safe from criminal charges? YES. No assault. It is in the public interest to allow this type of consent or "implied consent" for potential injury. - If you consent to a street fight and suffer bodily injury, does your consent make the other combatant safe from charges? NO. It is Assault. It is not in the public interest to allow this type of consent for injury. - If you consent to BDSM and the infliction of pain upon your body for sexual gratification, is the other participant safe from charges? UNCLEAR. Most analysts would agree that if consent was explicit for all acts and there was no non-superficial "bodily harm" then there would be no assault. Previous Supreme Court Cases actually would make you believe that rough sex is NOT in the public interest so you cannot consent to be harmed during sex, but a modern re-trying of those principles would probably find that to be bad/outdated legal opinion. - If you consent to being choked out and having vaginal sex performed on you while out, is the other participant liable? YES. This is assault under Canadian law. As soon as you lose the ability to withdraw consent at any moment, your consent is no longer valid. - If you consent to "rough sex" and a dick ends up in your butt while you are passed out and that sex act was never specified, is the other participant in trouble? OF COURSE. There is no "implied consent" for anal rape or any other sex acts, really.

bookmarking this masterpiece

yeah lmao f*** that

Zoo is already open but you have to buy tickets in advance. Going to take my spawn next week.

We will delete most strings of Covid debate that have nothing to do with baseball. It has nothing to do with the veracity of the posts. I'm not policing truth. It's just seen as political. In practice I tend to jump in when it becomes clear through a series of posts that the discussion has gone political. It's harder to pick out specific posts, harder to see where the line was crossed and the sports discussion thread was completely lost. And it's easier to identify when people are arguing or it starts to get a bit heated. We are imperfect. Please don't whine like a little bitch if you think it was unfair that your post got deleted and someone else's didn't. I don't even read most of Jim's posts. If I delete any of your posts it might be a quiet compliment because it means I read them.