chasfh

Are you actually concluding that the entirety of our positive record at the time was due to two guys and their win-loss record? Yeah, no sale.

We are simply not in a position where emptying out the top of our system for a couple of guys will get us a ring. If things go as planned we will be at some point. Just not right now.

Sneaky good. I knew he’s been improving but I didn’t know he was this.

Speaking about the organizational arc, I don't think we are as close to peak Tigers as you might think we are, where the right guy makes all the difference. As for last season, we already had the best record in the league at the deadline, with a 106 team wRC+ and the fifth most runs in all of baseball, so pushing all our chips into the middle of the table to acquire a hitter just didn't make sense.

I for one am glad we are not overpaying for established major leaguers with the top of our system. I'm on board with building the system into a contender until it is demonstrated—not claimed, but demonstrated—that it has failed.

Honestly, all I had to do was scan the home page and look at the headlines. In the attention economy, a content provider has to tell people exactly what they're getting while they're on the surface, because they'll lose the people if they dig into the details and it is not exactly what they thought it would be.

Just a reminder that at last year's trade deadline, the Tigers had the best record in the American League and a nine game lead on the second-place Guardians. So I don't fault Harris for not selling off the top of the farm system in exchange for a couple established veterans in a desperate attempt to get us over the line and into the playoffs. We looked very much in control of our destiny at the time. Liquidating the best of our farm system to go for broke simply did not strike anyone as being necessary because it looked like the help we need was on the margins.

My belief is that the one who bakes the cake gets credit over the one who bought the ingredients.

I don't disagree with your characterization of a 1st degree versus 2nd degree faith, although I do believe that even though they contemplate different things, they manifest in the same way: believers don't need evidence to prove whatever the thing is to them, because they already believe, and that's enough. And besides, it could be fairly hypothesized that most, if not all, faith is is what you refer to as 2nd degree, since it is one's social circle—starting with the family and extending to neighbors, friends, classmates, co-workers, fellow congregants, whatever—that ratifies your faith through social approval along the way and validates it as an idea and, by extension, you as a person. I think this is particularly true when it comes to faith in a god, because that gets taught to you by your family from a very early age during the initial socialization process. Very few people if any come to believe in a god without any information from outside, and I highly doubt that without that outside information, that practically any child would start questioning their place in the universe and seek to place their belief in a supernatural being.

This is brilliant and makes me consider something I had not before: that faith that the conspiracy is real is a fairly direct analog to faith that Christian god, Jesus Christ, Satan, etc. are real, and that lack of proof of their existence is a feature, and not a shortcoming. It's a test of your commitment.

I think we know the answer to that.

Look, I acknowledge that chances are this is more likely true than not, but god damn it, why do we have to have a president that makes us even question whether this is true in the first place?

Take a look at the Free press and I think you will see her vision for CBS News: the lionization of the corporate class, an implacable advocate for Zionism and foe of the Arab world; and such fealty to Trump that they address him directly through headlines as "Mr. President".

It might depend on whether they conclude that Kent State was merely amateur hour that could be improved upon. Hopefully not.

Fun fact: Mengele was a doctor, too.

Not saying they're going to succeed. Only saying they're going to at least try, provided we let them stay around long enough.

It's not as though this McAfee character is forcing those parents to feed raw milk to their kids, tho

He gets a charge out of turning the city upside down to bend to his will.

Trump got what he wanted out of it: another wedge between him/MAGA/red hats and the rest of the country, represented by a big bad dangerous city, that they want to eventually subjugate.

My impression is that the Tigers forced Fenech out because he tried to be too much of a journalist, pointing out faults too directly when the team and players were stumbling as well as digging into inconvenient off-field stuff. I might not be remembering it exactly right but that’s been my takeaway since he’s been gone.

If Montero is going to make it onto the perennial contenders, assuming he doesn’t have some sort of epiphany, I would think it would be as a swing man. Start when a lot of guys are hurt; front of the bullpen and doubleheader starter when we are largely healthy.

Apparently, it depends on whether the team is winning or losing.

Says here the graphic is an exact summary of your point of view.

When Petry was a kid, he had a choice of working on his pitching or working on his funny. I don’t blame him for his choice.

I see … so, based on your post … Am I close? 😉