chasfh

I don't know how anyone can take in a movie while on a treadmill for the reason you allude to: it's a miserable experience during which the only thing I can't think about is stopping, at long last.

Young teens are so much a Bob Seger obsession that he took the song "Queenie", which Chuck Berry wrote about a seventeen-year-old, and made it about a thirteen-year-old. I wonder whether Seger hung out with Nugent ...

Agreed. If the core of the differences between Republicans and Democrats was about policy, the disagreements would be manageable.

If you are even a casual observer of American history, you will realize that callousness and cruelty is the point.

It does sound more to me like artistic license than historical reality, but a topline googling reveals that there were instances of enslaved women killing their offspring, mainly in the Caribbean that I've seen, where slavery was particularly brutal, but some in the US as well. We're talking about tens of millions of people across a quarter of a millennium, so it certainly had to have happened at some point. Apparently, it was fairly common for white planters to accuse enslaved women of this. That doesn't reveal to me how historically accurate the claim is, but I'm willing to bet it happened often enough to qualify as "phenomenon".

Looks like the Reds are burning that sucker to the ground so Wade Miley may be sprung. Maybe we can swing a Barnhart-type deal with them again. I would definitely approve a one year gamble on Miley for $10MM. Surely we have another 3B prospect we can offer up in return? Signing Miley off the open market, though? This past season was his career year by a wide margin, so he might bamboozle some team into a 3/45. I wouldn't want the Tigers to be that team.

I'm pretty well-read about the African peoples experience in America and I have never heard about enslaved women killing their own children. That's both horrible and fascinating. Why would they do so? Was to just to keep them from growing up slaves, IOW, "for their own good"? That seems pretty drastic. I wonder how much of the reason is that it was massa baby. That would make a lot more sense. Or was there some West African cultural thing governing this somehow? This is all new to me so I need to find out more about this.

Of course, Trump has his hand-picked “the best people” around him to shore up his own cognitive disabilities. 😏

So, what you’re saying is that it’s not a good strategy to put all your eggs in the starting pitching basket? That we need something more to support that than a couple of big boppers in the batting order, and a wing and a prayer in the ‘pen? Interesting … 🤔

I know I wasn't a fan of signing Barnhart, mainly because of his bat, and the Tigers definitely need to improve their hitting, but he's on our team now and so I have faith in him. I pride myself and think of myself as a man of faith, as there’s a drive into deep left field by Castellanos, it will be a home run. And so that’ll make it a 4-0 ballgame.

If the Tigers were targeting Barnhart one way or another, this was the best way. I'm guessing the Reds would probably not have exercised the option, making Barnhart a free agent, meaning we would have had to compete for him with a few other teams. That would have driven his price up to eight figures and multiple years, and we may still not have gotten him. This way, we get him for one year, which is the important part, and at a price we can certainly afford. He may hit adequately or he may hit horribly, but either way, he can handle pitchers and frame pitches, and for a year during which we're not due to seriously contend, that should be enough.

Ugh

FWIW, I can easily imagine the Lions having to overpay to get top quality free agents. After all, two inner-circle Hall of Famers opted to cut their careers short and leave tens of millions on the table simply because they didn’t want to play for the Lions anymore. I take your point about short careers and only one big FA payday, and my example hews to the extreme. And I agree with you, a lot of guys would take the money no matter what because that’s how they’re wired. That said, just about any player who’s accrued three or four seasons and is good enough to test the top end of the market has probably already pocketed several million dollars, many of them on their draft bonus alone. If they’re gonna make way into eight figures anyway, I could see someone signing with the Packers or Cowboys or Rams for $60 million, over signing with the Lions for $80 million. When you’re talking that much money, the extra isn’t going to make a difference to many or most people. You could live a few lifetimes on either pile, and a smart guy knows how to make money on his money. I think we’d be surprised how many guys go with the winner at a slight discount.

They would never learn of that.

Racy New Yorker humor c. 1961.

Low-hanging fruit prediction: Republicans will lean into this 102% number as de facto evidence of voter fraud. Never mind what it actually means.

They are for pharmaceutical company executives who are wealthy homeowners, so what we are witnessing here is the old two birds-one stone strategy.

I don't mean to tell you anything. I'm just asking questions so I can understand better. Do you know what other reported offers did Trey Flowers get before he signed with the Lions? I don't, which is why I'm asking.

I find it hard to believe that a player would prefer to play for a directionless 0-17 team versus a perennial playoff contender for an extra 2% salary, but hey, teh NFL isn’t my strong suit, so I’ll defer to your assessment of this.

Would a top free agent take $51 million to go to the Lions over taking $50 million to go to the Packers?

People talking about how cutting such and such a player will free up cap space to sign FAs over the summer, but serious question: what premier free agent would sign a contract to come to Detroit anytime soon?

Family values.