ashbury

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/23/article-2375414-1AF671A2000005DC-627_638x391.jpg "Like."

As a personal favor I am looking into how to hide a post from a user, in this Chief.

I predict .231.

http://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/articles/snl%20jon%20lovitz.jpg "I need to save my job. I'll bring in... Neil Ramirez. Yeah, that's the ticket."

Anybody got insight on how you get a high schooler to sign for less than slot? Seems to me the kid has the stronger negotiating position than the team, and he doesn't need Scott Boras to point it out to him.

This thread started about Carl Crawford. Threads often have interesting tangents, and if I missed that that's what you were doing, I'm sorry about that.

This is, uh, Terry. From, uh, Minneapolis. Long time critic, last time caller. I would just like to point out that Ramirez has a BABIP for the Twins of .000, carrying on with the record of success he showed at Milwaukee. A pitcher literally can not be better than this, right? I think we, I mean the team's front office, should be commended for this pickup.

"Babe Herrmann." LOL.

I don't see where the courage part comes in, if the plan always was to acquire the bloated contract (as part of getting another player you really wanted), extract all the value the player still has left to give, and cut him once that point is reached. Maybe the "always" part is retroactive spin, but for a big market team, it seems plausible.

Nah, it's a feature.

Ho hum, another WINNAH!

Reminder: Ramirez gave up only two hits in his long tenure as a Brewer. Both homers.

As long as he throws that change with the same motion, it's got to be unhittable.

If that's your entry in the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, it needs some polishing.

Danchat says he's trying his best.

This was supposed to be good. Hope things work out as well for Robbie.

Yes, because nothing can go wrong with a #1-overall draft pick. http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Minnesota+Twins+Photo+Day+H5NfVhlbxP9l.jpg

This is a... good thing... in Canadish?

I genuinely hope that one of the gun-rights advocates in this discussion weighs in on your and Chief's point of view. As I said above, I think it's orthogonal to what their actual hope/concern is. I doubt I accurately stated it on their behalf, although I tried to at least get in the right neighborhood, that sometime in say the next 30 years or so we're going to be glad we have an armed populace - which I have to say, has not been the case so far in my 60+ years of life, ever. (And, I got up out of bed to add this, 'cause it was gnawing at me, that after asking posters to watch out for the personal characterizations, I hope I didn't run afoul too much myself. One standard technique in conflict resolution is to try "here's what I think you are saying". I may have gotten it wrong, but I wasn't parodying.)

I've heard that joke too, but only from the very people who learned English as a second language. Many of their countrymen couldn't have told it to me / and yes, I am poking fun at myself because despite classes in two other languages the only language I can talk good are English

I don't actually think it can be put to rest. Not unilaterally, at least. I had been planning to respond to the previous statement about killing humans (man this web site is a time sink ). Behind many of the arguments against any limits on gun rights is the notion that one day in the not too distant future, representatives of the government will be paying visits to you and me, demanding this or that of our private property to the government's ever-growing pile of assets. "We noticed that you didn't sign up for Obamacare, you need to pay this penalty now." Or whatever the current bugaboo happens to be. And when enough has become too much, the private citizens with these "notions" plan to simply blow that government agent away on the spot. Not today or tomorrow, quite, but pretty soon, and like-minded people will be doing the same all at about the same time in coordination. "Obama's coming for your guns" is the vanguard tip of this expectation that Obama's coming for everything. It's kind of a Walter Mitty fantasy, of saving the country from itself (or, more aptly, from usurpation by unnamed treacherous outsiders, which is why in the case of Obama it's so important to cast doubt on his legitimacy as the president), which is not easily dislodged by arguments about how large the opposing force would really be at such time as it would actually arrive. Compromise proposals such as protecting the ability to shoot for sport are met with tepid condescension at best, because sport isn't at all what they are fundamentally looking to retain. One side of the discussion can not simply "put to rest" the notion of shooting the coming illegitimate government, one member of it at a time. It is part of the core belief. And unless it is addressed in a better way than saying you will be outnumbered, which only encourages an Alamo last stand fantasy on top of it all, the two sides on the Second Amendment issue are merely talking past one another.

Do I have to close this thread?

Man, what situation CAN'T this visual be applied to?

I have literally no idea if this is sound coaching advice. But it sounds good and I like it!

By five months. I am one of the stronger advocates here for age adjustment when evaluating prospects, but this is cutting it awfully fine. Especially if comparing a player from a baseball playing country to one that is not. What next, adjusting Ozzie and Jose Canseco's stats by birth order?