turnin' two

If anyone is even close on their valuations of Lynn, I'm passing.

Yeah. This.

WHOO! Way to go Gio! What a game.

Welcome back Yolmer. I'm glad to have you back. Yolmer fits well with what this team needs right now. Especially with what we've seen from Moncada struggling with his health, and Leury on the IL. Yolmer can step in and play absolutely great defense. I'll take that guy as a bench piece any day. He isn't the answer to all the issues, but he in an answer to some of them.

Holy moly. Shouldn't we at least throw in Robert too?

There aren't a lot of good pitching options available. Mike Minor? Yeah, not sure he moves the needle much. You get better where you can.

I mentioned this in the trade deadline thread, and it is pretty much not a reality I wouldn't think, but Boston keeps avoiding opportunities to say they aren't trading Bogaerts. You could play him anywhere on the IF and he is signed through 25 with on option for 26. He would be a great fit. Really no idea what Boston would be looking for, but in a weird year, maybe you can get him for a weird deal. i wonder if something like Madrigal, Collins and Thomson or Dahlquist would be enough to temp them. Collins may have more appeal to Boston because I think his game probably translates pretty well to Fenway. If they aren't interested in Collins, I don't exactly know where you'd turn as I don't think you trade Vaughn at this point. So like I said, a pipe dream, but boy would he look good in the lineup.

Not quite sure what it means, other maybe it is younger people catching it, and maybe that hospitals are getting better at treating it, and likely a combination of the two, but even with Illinois having a spike in cases there has not been a spike in fatalities. 2 weeks ago, there were over 2k new cases, and we've been over like 1500 for more than a month, but haven't had more than 30 deaths since July 8th.

I was so happy until you reminded me that this movie exists. Eh, screw it. I'm still ecstatic. Hahaha.

Anyone who questioned his extension for even a second should punch themselves in the dick.

I know this won't happen, but it is a thought that popped into my head. Boston won't say they aren't trading Bogaerts. I wonder if a package could be built around Madrigal, and then play Xander at 2B, because at this point, I don't think you mess with Tim at all. Something like Madrigal/Collins/Thompson (Dahlquist). Something like that? I think Collins may be a good fit for Fenway, so he may be marginally more attractive to them than other teams, and I don't know what the Sox appetite for trading a young pitcher would be. Anyway, not a very likely scenario. But a fun name to pretend to plug into the lineup. Especially with what seems likely to be a boring trade season. Its a weird year, try to pull a coup.

Best content he has ever produced.

I hope they keep playing Engel.

Seems like it was a good game to rest Moncada, and play Grandal. Haha. Ricky wins again. I don't think I've had that much fun watching a Sox game since the blackout game.

Lester whines until he gets those calls.

He sure looks done.

The Tigers are in the Dane-ger Zone! Oh Yeah!!!!!

That's the best headline I've ever seen. Headlines from the Onion excluded.

Yeah. Exactly. These are professional players. Not kids playing little league. If you don't want a team running up the score on you, play better. Pitch better. Don't be down 7-0. Don't load the bases, and don't fall behind 3-0 in the count. And if you do, then you can't complain if a guy hits a dinger. Be better. Don't complain about him being too good. I think this is different for amateurs when the talent level can be drastically different. For pros though whatever. Suck it up. And there is no difference in losing 12-0 or 1-0. You still lose. Which is all that matters. If your feelings are hurt by a guy hitting a homerun, well, be mentally tougher, or get a new job.

Please be careful with that. I got "embarrassed" when I compared Illinois to Sweden. Mostly because of what a great job Illinois is doing...

Sorry I'm a couple days late here, but I was referring to the post office spokesperson, about whom, I know nothing, so yeah, I thought the probably was warranted.

Yeah, but this is more like Hahn saying that his acquisitions are great, but then some guy taking the article and posting it on their twitter with a headline saying "Hahn says his acquisitions suck!" Then when someone points out that isn't what the article says, people saying, sure you can't trust Hahn on that. He has to say that.

I mean, that is fine, and probably true, but then why post an article that uses a shill as one of its main sources? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, or even argumentative. I clicked on the links strangesox posted, because I wanted to see what they were about. And in each of those articles, the content didn't seem to really match up with what the twitter link implied. I think this is problematic. Because people with no skin in the game are adding their own headline and counting on people just reading their headline.

Yes. Absolutely. I completely agree. It also seems prudent to read articles before posting them, instead of just looking at the heading on some twitter post. Because neither of the articles you posted seemed to hint at nefarious intent. Not saying that intent isn't there, but those articles don't make that case. Someone on twitter co-opted the articles, and put their own heading on them. I'm not going to guess what their intent was, but all I quoted was directly from the articles you posted; and none of it seems to lead to "this is being done to suppress votes" path. And to your quote of why should we give the spokesman the benefit of the doubt; the author of the articles thought that the person they interviewed was credible enough to quote and include in the article. So if we aren't trusting the people quoted in the article, there seems little sense to trust the author, and then it seems like it makes no sense to post the article to share it with others. So I don't know about their credibility. But, the article is no more credible than the sources quoted. In which case, if you don't believe they are credible, why did you post it?

You just re-posted the same article that I quoted from the first time. Again, did you read the article? Or just the sensationalized twitter post? The real gist of it was that there is less mail that needs sorting by this type of machine. Not having them reduces flexibility, but isn't a catastrophic event. And the second seems to say... And then (Sorry about the format... it is just how it copied) The title of that article literally says they were removed because of "declining mail volume" But again, it doesn't seem like a super conspiracy. Or a cataclysmic event. In both of those articles you cited, the reason for the removal of equipment is due to shrinking volume. The statement you said, about mail piling up and deliveries taking longer to deliver, is not backed up by any of the articles you posted. And as for this being done to stop mail voting, that may be true, and it may be the intent, but again, in the article you posted, it says that the mail ballots are not typically sorted using the machines that are being removed. And in the second article you posted, it says that again, to quote "It shouldn't affect people at all" . And that quote is attributed to a spokesman for the USPS.