gehringer_2

No law says two great players can't come out of the same draft. Mobley is still young for a (near) 7 footer, we probably have not have seen his ceiling yet. And if Cade gets a handle on his handle, we haven't seen his celling either.

I think the theory of deferring does come out of an era when the probability of scoring on any given possession was low and idea was the team comes out of the locker room a little too charged up for offensive precision, while the same is good for defensive pursuit. But offenses are so good today and you see enough games with only a couple or maybe even zero punts, that 'giving away' that 1st possession probably does make less sense than it used to.

And think how valuable he'd be if he could keep it in his hands. (rimshot)

Another possible take is that JV didn't want to come back to the scene where he was such a dominant pitcher knowing he was no longer likely to be that guy but that that's what the fans would be expecting. Maybe less potentially disappointing for all concerned to just pitch somewhere that he could do the best he has left without the baggage. Add to that that JV is chasing stats (total wins) and there may be no manager in baseball less likely to help you do that than Hinch.

I liked Mobley in that draft also. And TBF, while Cade is rapidly becoming a more dominant player, Mobley has been more productive over the 1st years of their careers, and he is also still improving.

Don't mess with him with a flintlock pistol at 10 paces.

Well if nothing else, he is a *rare* talent. How many times are you ever going to see 8 TOs and an Assist/TO ratio >2?

Way back in the day, I was a fan of GHWB, and George Mitchell was the Democratic Senate Majority leader in opposition. And Mitchell would drive me crazy because he could calmly, analytically take apart many of the positions of the administration and most frustrating of all was that he did it without lying about the facts. Of course the truth he marshaled in his arguments were the pieces of reality that best supported his case, but they were pieces of reality none the less, you couldn't just point to Mitchell and dismiss him because anything he said was not true. So I was always impressed by what an effective adversary he was in the process. And of course he went on to succeed in the Herculean task of moderating the Irish peace talks, exactly because he was a man whose honesty was accepted by all sides. So how naive was all that? Today we know the most effective opposition is just make up anything up that sounds good, fits the 'narrative' and you know your side will love to hear. Then let your captive media segment amplify it across the world wide infosphere, into received wisdom, and you can win your case before the truth even finishes its morning yawn.

First impression would be: Danielson seems like a big ask to take on that contract for a guy who hasn't made an all-star team.

or maybe this https://katu.com/news/local/fact-check-oregon-fire-engines-allowed-to-fight-wildfires-in-california Everyone trips up, but It's always a good idea to sanity check everything one posts from other sources. We can all do a better job fighting disinformation. It's something we either get better at doing or we perish.

I blame reality TV, it's conditioned Americans to be incapable of social shame. Every previous generation of Americans would have been too embarrassed by Trump to elect him to anything, but we have a society apparently rotting from the inside out, that's now become incapable of maintaining even a modicum of self-respect.

Nah - as more info emerges, it's becoming clear they were not within any marginal governmental decisions of being able to cope with what happened. The question is whether this is enough to make the region rethink the whole approach. Considering the example of the difficulty in getting people to move out of flood zones in other parts of the county, the odds of making major land use changes because of the fire hazard seems questionable. (as an aside, Americans seem to prefer death and mayhem to reasonable change in almost all areas - we won't even restrict weapons to keep our kids safe in schools, why would we make people change their lives to stop fires?). Apparently one thing they could do would be to preposition more fire fighting equip throughout the region because in high wind situations response time becomes is super critical - but there are big cost, maintenance and logistics hurdles to that.

This. Good size and RH shot (always nice) but the 68 does look more like the outlier than the career norm - Of course the team around him played better that year.

I've never been that big believer in the value of offensive SOG, if a team controls the puck and works for grade A chances as compared to making dump-ins at the goalie (e.g.), I don't have a problem with that, but defensive SOG against volume is a pretty good marker for the opposition's quality time advantage in your zone, and they were definitely too high.

Is it even #1? They have reservoirs that were damaged by the atmospheric river last yr, they have parts of US1 that are unstable and would cut off thousands of people in case of total failure, There are water management issues in the Central valley and also with the Salton sea. CA is a place that doesn't lack for high priority issues related to geography! Maybe the programs cut weren't effective, maybe they had to spend it somewhere else, maybe they were idiots - but there is no way to determine what the choices were or the fine details of the facts from the sniping of advocacy press and social media posts.

Of course, if Chip Roy were in Sacramento he would have supported all those cuts and more wouldn't he? Politics is always choices.

I think splitting Seider and Edvinsson was important. I thought from the beginning that was a mistake by Lalonde. Having at least one defender that can hit and handle the puck in the ice for 45 minutes is way more valuable than having two on the ice for 23. And with Chiarot on the 3rd pair you have a player with some size/grit on each pair. The decision that I think is going to be interesting is when Petry is ready. Johanssen makes some mistakes but he plays faster and harder than Petry.

Ha! - I didn't think Gleyber was a particularly good fit! I can only assume they've seen something in Gleyber's glove work they think they can fix or more likely they only see him as a rental anyway.

It is ironic that Baines apparently got in on longevity only, yet as Lee points out, Whitaker doesn't get a nibble. I heard it said LaRussa had lobbied hard for Baines - I have no idea how much influence that accounted for. After Sparky passed there certainly wasn't anyone in ranks of Tiger management or FO with the stature to have much influence on voters - at least until Dombrowski, and I don't remember anything about DD being interested in Lou's HOF cause. I don't know where the cut off should be, or if there needs to any kind of strict one, but I think we almost go overboard with cumulative counting stats now. I think if a player clearly dominates his position for 7-10 years that's a memorable and impactful player and I have no problem with players like that being voted in - which is exactly what should have gotten Freehan in.

I don't think so just because that would run counter to his owner's avowed objective, which is a team that wins over time, but you never know. Just because C I. spent a lot of energy preaching that line in the past is no guarantee he hasn't changed his mind. Getting a little more greedy as things get closer to fruition is not exactly a rare human reaction.

Imagine that Lalonde had said to his players "Every time you are about to make a pass, forecheck, or take a shot, you are to freeze and count "one mississippi, two mississippi, and *then* do it". And McLellan came in and said, "forget all that" and it would pretty much capture it. Of course that is isn't what happened, but it is what *looked* like happened. More specifically I can take a guess at one specific thing which probably is directly tied to coaching scheme - which is that under Lalonde, the Wings *never* reversed the puck to keep possession - it was always straight ahead whether there was anything there or not. Now the wings better skaters like Edvinssion, Seider, Raymon, Larkin, Kane, are using their skating talent, reversing the puck to get their break outs organized, and amazingly enough, the team's passing, puck possession and facility at breaking the other team's forecheck has improved by leaps and bounds. They suddenly don't look like a poor skating hockey team anymore. I don't know if they are all just on a high and will not be able to keep this pace of play up, but so far so good.

Photographer with unparalleled composition skills.

I guess they needed a new coach.

He's only half right. There is nothing wrong with spending the money if you are willing to raise it. The real problem is that most of the GOP wants to spend money just as much as the dems, they just don't want to take the responsibility for raising any.

Kulfan with a story about the Wings shooting the puck more, which is great, but I think he's missing part of the story. I'm sure one reason the Wings wouldn't shoot the puck without a perfect chance in the past was because they couldn't get pucks back after shots. That always makes an offense reluctant to shoot. A big key to getting them to shoot more was in getting them to skate harder to recover pucks. Also liked McLellan talking about changing up lines to match-up with the opposition. Kulfan quotes him as saying he likes to keep pairs of forward (e.g. Larkin and Raymond) mostly together but then rotate the third player for some immediate objective/matchup.