jersey cubs fan

wait what? Soler signed a 9/30 contract as an IFA, so people are assuming he becomes a free agent with less than 6 ML years service because reasons. Is the trick that he used up his three option years in 2012/13/14 and therefore had to stick in the majors at the outset of 2015 and therefore would by default reach 6 years of service time by the end of 2020?

wait what?

"has become?" you just referenced something that happened 15 years ago. i don't recall it ever having any real meaning but it at least seems to be going to deserving players more often than it used to (and less often to outrageously undeserving players like it used to) "you don't recall?". Expand your baseball knowledge. It did not begin with you being hatched. It had meaning when people were generally completely uninformed about what really made baseball players valuable.

I don't see anything sad about it.

That is terrific. I would pay to watch.

I mean, obviously. What are you trying to say? The claim was there was no outrage before the video. There was. And immediately the NFL made changes (derwood's point about previous cases of abuse really has nothing to do with anything). The new round of outrage is actually stronger not just post video, but post Baltimore/NFL change of heart post-video and again after their obvious cover-up. The outrage is coming from many angles right now. But there was a whole bunch of outrage before this recent video was released.

So then you have no problem with the fact that the NFL only waited until after the video was leaked to impose stiffer punishments? You have no problem that the Ravens waited until after the video leaked to terminate Ray Rice's contract? what? no, of course i'm not ok with their deplorable non-reaction to this. but i'm certainly not going to complain that public outcry forced them to get it right My complaint is that there was no public outcry before Monday's leak. At least not enough to get the NFL to do anything of substance. You do realize that public outcry actually caused them to almost immediately toughen their domestic abuse related punishments? Because it did and maybe you were on holiday or something.

Gerry Duggan ‏@GerryDuggan · 6s You should see the Ray Lewis video! - Roger Goodell

sounds plausible

next week's unemployment data will reflect one former female NFL employee

Dan Snyder must be pretty happy

"we have no knowledge of this..., we are not aware..., we will look into it."

He looks like Wayne Arnold from The Wonder Years. woahhhhhh. I was going to say I did not see anything wrong, but you've just thrown that for a loop.

AP reporting law enforcement saying they sent video three months ago and that it was received by the NFL.

frivolous imo

Zach Zaidman ‏@ZachZaidman · 55s Trestman on Allen's #Bears debut: "He played."

http://deadspin.com/the-national-domestic-violence-hotline-has-seen-a-spike-1633095254 we've got this all wrong, the NFL is just doing its part to save women.

Rich Campbell ‏@Rich_Campbell · now Bears defensive coordinator Mel Tucker says the theme this week is for everybody to play better. That's good coachin'

Add on tweet: Those last few Angelo drafts were brutal. Didn't this just happen?

Sorry, I just disagree completely. We're talking about rounding error stakes here, and we haven't even talked about the fact that they still get to put 9 players on the field for those games Bryant isn't playing next April and mitigate the risk even further. This is just unfathomably bad and overly simplistic logic. No. It is simple because this situation is very simple. You can try and pretend there is some nuanced concept at play here, but it is not. It's about money and pretending otherwise is stupid.

This is reductive nonsense. Having Bryant through age 29 is better than having him through age 28. If history is any predictor, it's a lot better because Bryant will be a really good baseball player at age 29. In order to *guarantee* they have him at 29, they're sacrificing having him on the MLB team at the tail end of a lost season, and for a couple weeks next year. It's a trivial sacrifice for the expected benefit. I say guarantee because despite pretending otherwise, there are no certainties when it comes to Free Agency. Guys leave big market teams all the time. Just last season Cano left the Yankees for more money/years, while the Yankees were in the process of spending a billion dollars in FA and giving the middle finger to the luxury tax. As a result the Yankees are going to miss the playoffs by about one Robinson Cano because they're playing the husk of Brian Roberts at 2B. Moreover, money is not the only consideration here and why this is such a false choice. I'm pretty certain that I want a team option on Kris Bryant for his age 29 season. I'm far less certain that I'll want to guarantee him significant cash through age 34, 36, or even 40(like Cano). So if I can get the former while not at all jeopardizing the latter for the trivial cost mentioned above, it's a no-brainer. Money is the only consideration. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Even if you take into account the other stuff, the only thing that matters in that regard is money. The only reason you would not considering keeping him until he's 40 is money. Money is the only reason and pretending otherwise is foolish. Money is not the only consideration. It's certainty. There's about a 95% chance that, with Boras as his agent, Bryant is hitting free agency as soon as his 6 years is up. And once a player hits free agency, all bets are off. and the only reason that matters is money stop trying so hard to pretend this is not just about money. If you are fine with it, embrace it. Despite my belief that the pursuit for ideal value will lead to less than ideal win totals, in this specific case I don't have much of a problem.

This is reductive nonsense. Having Bryant through age 29 is better than having him through age 28. If history is any predictor, it's a lot better because Bryant will be a really good baseball player at age 29. In order to *guarantee* they have him at 29, they're sacrificing having him on the MLB team at the tail end of a lost season, and for a couple weeks next year. It's a trivial sacrifice for the expected benefit. I say guarantee because despite pretending otherwise, there are no certainties when it comes to Free Agency. Guys leave big market teams all the time. Just last season Cano left the Yankees for more money/years, while the Yankees were in the process of spending a billion dollars in FA and giving the middle finger to the luxury tax. As a result the Yankees are going to miss the playoffs by about one Robinson Cano because they're playing the husk of Brian Roberts at 2B. Moreover, money is not the only consideration here and why this is such a false choice. I'm pretty certain that I want a team option on Kris Bryant for his age 29 season. I'm far less certain that I'll want to guarantee him significant cash through age 34, 36, or even 40(like Cano). So if I can get the former while not at all jeopardizing the latter for the trivial cost mentioned above, it's a no-brainer. Money is the only consideration. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Even if you take into account the other stuff, the only thing that matters in that regard is money. The only reason you would not considering keeping him until he's 40 is money. Money is the only reason and pretending otherwise is foolish.

Eh. He had 1 return and like 4 touchbacks. It's not really a big deal. Probably not, it just sucks going from a guy who could break one every return to what we have now. That transition happened a while a ago.

How so? As a big market team they are in very little, if any, danger of losing him to free agency if they want to keep him. It is only about money. What they are willing to sacrifice is his age 22 season of productivity.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha So stupid it's funny. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha