chasfh

I appreciate your not mischaracterizating me, or things I say or don’t say.

Just asking because the conversation right up to your post was about Mike Trout, and he did have a potential claim to that at one time.

Do you mean Trout, or are you pivoting to Ohtani, who pitched last night?

I didn’t see that highlighted in either of their deals, nor had I heard of any other contracts containing this clause. How common is this? Do you think it serves as a sort of indirect no-trade clause? If not, what’s the purpose of it?

This is not an honest mistake. This is on purpose. They know what they’re doing.

Yup, that’s exactly the kind of thing an archvillain would do.

Is it clear that I am saying so, or are you inferring that I am saying so?

Maybe it’s because he plays like you imagine Jackie Robinson played!

Without Javy’s slide being overturned—without his heady swim move around Salvy’s tag attempt—he’s called out and we’re still watching baseball right now.

Maybe he got a note. Thankfully Dan didn’t get the same note. BTW, here to say Javy’s slide was arguably the difference between winning and losing. For sure, it’s the reason we’re celebrating a win at this very moment instead of watching yet another inning.

And it is all pitching, because defense has been kind of ass.

Los four straight, win five straight. Easy peasy. Tigers are now 9-9.

Almost a walkoff pickoff. Don’t think I have ever seen that. And I still haven’t.

First and third, two outs on the Torres single. How about one or two more runs here? My cuticles could use the break.

Remember when Harris was too cheap or too scared or too stupid or too much of a toadie to spend money on players? Ah, good times … 😁

Perez swung mad and homered!

I'll go a step further: that slide represents the kind of baseball I have never seen a pro play.

El Mago definitely avoided the tag! It should be another overturned call, this time in our favor!

I can't believe Benetti and Dirks pretended as though touching the runner with the end of the glove wasn't enough to overturn the safe call. That smacks of broadcast homerism, and I have no respect for that.

Stinky was out by a lot. No question about overturning is necessary.

It won't.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking: now he can afford a decent suit and tie.

I am fascinated by the $5 million if he gets traded clause. Doesn't that serve as a sort of de facto no trade clause?

I'm not saying the criticism was valid. I'm just saying it's there and all those examples I offered up were considered flubs, and perhaps even cost her the election. In the end, though, the bottom line is that a black woman was never going to be elected president in 2024. This country is just not past that way of thinking.

This particular quote, in context with what went before it, refers to people who have previously occupied the offices of the president and the pope in general, not these two specific people. In any event, the conflict is not one-directional as you imply, since Leo is specifically responding to Trump's words and his actions in Iran. It's true that Trump is breathing fire at Leo who is deftly using verbal jiu-jitsu to respond, so in that sense the hostility attribute is definitely one-sided. But since Leo is engaging instead of ignoring, he does have a role, however softly pedaled, in the conflict. You may disagree, but that's how it looks to me.