gehringer_2

We'll see who manages to wins the seats. We have three reasonably ordinary Dem candidates in MI and Rogers seems to be polling more or less even with all of them, which I find incomprehensible.

People are angry at Dems for same reason they are angry at the GOP - it's because the Federal government in the US has ceased to function in the public interest for at least a generation now no matter which party was in power. The Federal Constitutional system has broken down to where you have a minority in control, desperate that they are finally going to lose that control and thus perfectly happy the see the whole system crash and burn, and a majority that can't understand why the things they want, the things they need, that they know almost everyone else also wants, can't seem to happen no matter who they vote for. There is an inchoate sense of 'anybody but the incumbents' underlying everything, while the corporate system corruptly funnels billions to those incumbents to help them keep fighting the rear guard.

Manfred claims - and note that word - that the owners are unified on TV revenue sharing and a hard cap. *IF* that is what is coming, then I can understand a team being worried about committing too large a % of a hard cap to a single player when the actual cap number can only be guessed at. OTOH - given where current team payrolls are - with the Dodgers and Mets over $300M and 4 other teams over $250M, it seems unlikely the initial cap is going to be less than $250M, in which case $40M AAV is ~16% of the cap and so probably doable.

there is something to the fact that there is a parallel to the public being done with both parties in their traditional forms. For the GOP it came a couple of cycles earlier in the form of Trump and his pseudo populism rolling over the rump of 'competent conservative' Reaganism. And now the same rejection of the previous generation's status quo - call them the Triangulation Democrats, is coming to the Democratic party. It's right there to see in every poll: People may *hate* Trump, but they do not like the democratic party at all either. The only question is whether the people that ultimately capture the Democratic party will be saner than Trump and MAGA because the old guard is gonna be broomed. But I'm just not so worried about Platner. He was a loud mouth who liked to instigate and be outrageous, and he was an obnoxious 20 and maybe 30 something - and people need to remember that he spent years in combat in the ME where the kind things that sound shocking in his social media posts were garden variety everyday parts of the culture that he was living in. But he hasn't killed any kittens or defrauded any grandmothers (that we know of!) He's the heir of long family democratic heritage and you can read him as finally coming home to that now. YMMV.

or was it simply a holding action in the long twilight struggle... (curiously, I just read the transcript of that speech, and JFK didn't actually use the expression in the way I think it is popularly remembered)

then the only conclusion is she really didn't real care to run a race. So your argument should be with Schumer for recruiting someone for the job who had no will to do it. Which is pretty much the critic of the old guard democratic party in a nutshell.

They don't have to write in Mills, she'll still be on the ballot, Yet the people of Maine apparently have had little interest in funding their uber-popular ex-governor to stay in the race against him. I don't think you've asked the more interesting question. It's not why the Bernie types like him, it's not that he's captured the national party leadership. There is plenty of scepticism of Platner in the national democratic party. The question to ask is why Mills couldn't manage the support to keep running against him?. The mainstream choice is still right there for the voters.

I remember he was in trouble one day for trying to surreptitiously take video on a iphone of a closed practice in Lakeland. It's one thing to break the rules when something is at stake but he seemed to be a rule breaker in more a juvenile "hey look at me" way. That made him easy to get rid of for other possibly less valid reasons.

after looking at this logs I'm a bit less worried about Torkelson. He got to the start of May looking pretty normal but then had a 6/71 stretch arcross 15 games when he was seriously off his feed. But in the 70PA since that two week stretch, he's back to 250/300/469 - ie. pretty normal. Of course you remove any player's worst stretch and they look better so we'll see if he can keep the OPS at least over 750 the rest of the way.

Trump goes to the Garden, the Knicks lose: ETTD!

so just skimming through ESPN's MLB page and I came across this report from the owners meeting: "Manfred says all 30 teams are on board to split TV revenue -- yes, even the Dodgers The Los Angeles Dodgers -- and other high-revenue teams -- would surrender a competitive advantage under MLB's proposal, which would require them to share all of their local television revenue (they currently share 48%)." That would pretty much be the news of the century for MLB wouldn't it? So I read this as the way that the rich teams will get the poor teams to be willing to lock out the players over the hard cap. Without full revenue sharing, what would the poor teams care about the cap when their salary totals stay well below any cap?

only in the Fahrenheit 451 sense...

somebody has to go to a bad team so the Wings can get a high 1st round pick.

Flaherty is coming around a little bit - there may be some hope. He started May with a 6.14 FIP, it's now down to 4.13. Montero doesn't get a lot of K's but he doesn't walk guys either - maybe more of an enter the game at the beginning of an inning and work 2 or 3 kind of guy than a 'fireman' type?

wasn't it about then (March) when news about 3rd party bookings for 1.8nm chip fab started to show up? Also Del's observation that CPUs are suddenly back in vogue.

well I'm flippant because the whole situation with the Wings before this dropped was totally depressing to me, so I can only hope this becomes the chance to reset things that seemed to be going nowhere. Seriously - this is so perfect for the Wild I find it hard to believe that few people with a few brains can't come up with a huge win-win for Wings and the Wild and maybe a third team as well. That's why I think the sturm and drang about the 3 team list is immaterial. The target team is obvious. Get'er done.

HaHa - that would be a great story. Buddha is almost certainly correct that simple is true, but the possibilities are a lot more fun.

and doing a good job of killing that legacy there....

No doubt - but he was still getting a chance - and the chance matters to how you feel about your prospects on a season. I say up front have no idea if he actually thinks this, but if *I* were Dylan Larkin, aside from missing the playoffs I would be pretty totally pissed of that I'd been playing for 10 yrs on a team that let me get regularly run at and sat on their hands. Personally, I don't know how that could not get under a skill player's skin after a while. Maybe it never did, but like I said, I'd be fed up with it.

after playing in the Worlds and then the Olympics he got a taste of how the other side lives. And maybe there is more to team building than just talent level. I think Tyler Bertuzzi had pretty much warn out his welcome after Covid, yet once he left this team never seemed to have the same heart. This team is an assemblage of players with almost no 'light a fire" guys. Maybe larks woke up at some point and realized he doesn't like his own team that much anymore, I wouldn't. 🤷‍♂️

I think fans think a lot more about how much a player cares about his 'legacy' somewhere than a player does. All that 'legacy' plus $5 gets him a Vente. Also a clarification to the story above: It may have been years in Det before Yzerman got a cup, but he was in the playoffs almost every year from his rookie season and they got to the conference finals by his 4th year. His team was regularly getting their shot, so no comparable level of futility.

I think Hongbits's speculation that Yzerman wanted to remove his "C" is an interesting take. Of course we have zero data, but it's one of those ideas that make other things fall into a more orderly progression. And you wonder how the locker room would feel about that - plus? minus? Who know?. TBH, I've always thought it a little odd that the Wings coach didn't pick his captain. Not that Larkin wouldn't have been the obvious choice at the time, but the fact that the "C" was bestowed by the FO rather than the HC struck me as odd even at the time. Along the same line, maybe McLelland wanted no captain because he thought the team needed to develop broader leadership and it wasn't happening and the whole message turned into something toxic by the time it got to Larkin. Mc has talked about the team not having enough other sources of leadership a lot. A ton of possibilities we'll no doubt never find out about. 🤔

Larking is a multimillionaire with expensive legal and business management in front of him. He's not going to fall over on a dare from a famous ex-Jock, any more than Yzerman is going to do something just to spite Larkin that's going to hurt the billion dollar business he is responsible for. In modern sports in the end the money is the voice in the room that gets listened to. 😟

I think this is a bit more more melodramatic than it would actually get. People mostly talk to each other that way in film or on line - not so much in real life. Besides, I doubt if Larkin quakes over the possibility of Steve Yzerman trying to break his self confidence and I doubt Yzerman would any point in trying. Not to mention If Larkin wants to insult Yzerman he's got plenty of fodder over the progress of the team "you were only as good as your assistant GM in Tampa" etc. 😄. That's what a screenwriter would come up with anyway. . But that kind of pissing match between two grown ass men would be a pretty juvenile exercise. Not to mention that if it's really strained the communication is going to be via the agent anyway. Back in the real world the point about the leaks not being in the Larkin camp interest is a solid one, and from what I understand his agent is generally known as a pretty discreet guy. So either it came from the team, or Dylan himself was dumb enough to talk to St.James without his agent's knowledge.

this needs more than one "laugh" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣