jerichoholicninja

Our neighbor texted my wife last night saying their sewer had backed up in the basement as asked if ours had. Thankfully it didn't. But I guess brown Friday struck.

This year's team that "wins" the offseason and falls flat on it's face during the regular season is the Mets.

From the Cards perspective, I wouldn't put the Matz signing in terms of "bad" but I don't think there's really anything that good about it. Certainly seems like the Cards could have found better uses for $11M.

He had a concussion that led to vertigo and he really hasn't recovered. He very well may have been Corey Koskie'd and never plays baseball again.

Matt Nagy will supposedly be fired after Thursday's game. Will be hilarious if they blow out the Lions (which is likely to happen) and then he gets canned.

Somewhat in the same situation with Jefferson. All my players put up good solid, average weeks for the first time all season. My opponent had nothing but busts... and Jefferson. Depending how MNF football goes I'm probably going to lose because one player went off.

It is just slang nothing more. Slang should not be used in headlines. Neither should it be used by "professional journalists" in articles. Although there aren't any of those left anyway.

How could you forget the legend of Colin Walsh I didn't remember him as one of Stearn's picks. So he's done it once in 6 years. And you made me interested to actually look up what he's done and I was shocked: 2015 - Walsh (made team but eventually returned) and Zack Jones (injured in ST, pitch some rehab games before being return to Twins) 2016 - Caleb Smith (traded to Cubs) 2017 - none 2018 - none 2019 - none 2020 - none It feels like every year he picks someone and then trades them but Stearns has only made 3 rule 5 picks his entire tenure and that was his first two seasons as GM. Maybe he sees the rule 5 as totally pointless and not worth the roster handcuff.

Has Stearns ever carried a rule 5 player out of spring training? Not that I can remember. Any players we pick will probably just be traded right away. I know he's done that a few times.

But as BSCR noted, there is literally no way they CAN have a controlling interest. I explained right before your selected quote what I meant by controlling. If these are actual, legitimate, real shares of ownership then active players that bought them when they played with the Packers would have to sell them if they play for another team. Billy Beane was going to be forced to sell his minority ownership of the A's if he went to work for a non-baseball company that was part of a group the also owned the Red Sox. Everyone wants to play both sides with these shares by saying they're real because you can vote for the Board of Directors but also they're not real because obviously it's just for fun but it can't be both. I would assume all this all has been cleared by and follows SEC rules and regulations otherwise I don't see how it's not fraud. But my point way back at the beginning is why don't other teams do this? It seems like an incredibly easy way to raise money.

So if these are legitimate owner shares aren't the players going to have to sell them if they play for a different team? They are "legitimate shares" but they come with limited power, especially in the numbers a single person can own. Power-limited doesn't make them illegitimate, it just makes them limited. Anyway, as has been said a number of times, shareholder privileges are limited to voting rights, an invitation to the corporation's annual meeting, and shareholder-only merchandise. So while shareholders vote to determine who sits on the board of directors, the individuals with power are those who have been nominated and elected. My single share of stock limits my ability to influence how the organization is run to voting for folks whom will wield real power. As such, I suspect any active player who were elected to the board of directors would likely have to resign from the board if they moved to another team, but I doubt they'd have to give up their shares. Also remember when the 1997 sale took place the original shareholders stock split spilt 1000-1, meaning the original shareholders hold more interest in the team than anyone who bought stock in 1997, 2011 or this year. Player who own stock hold considerably more sway as player than they ever will as shareholders. Ok. But I still don't see how current players could or should be allowed to own these shares. It seems like a conflict of interest. Players could vote for people who would act solely for the benefit of the player and not the organization. With all the rules the NFL comes up with I can't believe they would allow anything that could even give the impression that players might somehow have a controlling interest in a team while they are an active player.

So if these are legitimate owner shares aren't the players going to have to sell them if they play for a different team?

Since when has the word "jab" replaced shot? Is it supposed to make people less afraid of needles? It just looks unprofessional, immature, and stupid that every single article about the COVID vaccine uses the word jab about 100 times.

Has giving teachers gifts always been a thing? I don't remember my parents ever doing it when I was a kid or even hearing about it from other kids. My son's first year of preschool a couple years ago my wife asked me what we should get his teacher and I was totally confused as to why we would give her anything.

I mean you can buy a single season seat for 20 games and get a load of perks and be a 'season seat holder'. Season seat holder doesn't have the same cache as pretend part owner though.

I'm finally going to publish this to the world with the hopes it actually happens. About 15 years ago when I was in high school I came up with a team name that was stupid with a hint of legitimacy and perfect for selling merchandise and appealing to the youths... the Whatnots. Even came up with a logo that was a goofy looking question mark in pink and purple. I doubt I will ever have the chance to name a sports team so if someone out there with the power to do so reads this, please consider naming your team the Whatnots.

When I first saw the logo I actually thought it didn't look like their work. But you are correct, they are a big part of the problem. Every logo they do is the exact same style. There is nothing unique about them other than the stupid name they represent.

Let's say the Brewers want to raise a bunch of money in a similar yet "legal" fashion. Couldn't they create an "Owner's Club" and sell pieces of paper that say owner on them for $300. Give the "owners" a bunch of benefits like a big party at the stadium every year where they can pretend to vote on things and maybe even a hat that says owner. I'm not ripping the Packers for doing this I just don't know why other teams haven't tried something similar.

Serious question, what exactly is preventing any other professional sports team from doing this?

Don't worry. They'll change it in 3 years to something even worse.

I'm surprised to see anyone have this take unless you're a Zach Wilson dynasty owner. Mike White seems like the kind of guy everyone would want to root for. Nothing against Mike but there was talk of him taking over the starting job after just 5 quarters of decent play and that was just stupid

Does Eppler take the job knowing he's just going to have his power stripped away after one season? There's so many layers of baseless conspiracy theories involved here it's not even worth thinking about.

Looked like textbook running into the kicker to me.

Google Fi ads. So stupid.

Great week for my roster. Kamara almost certainly out, Chubb out with COVID, James Robinson injured but might play. Luckily I picked up Mark Ingram right away. My opponent has his own RB injury problems but also has D'Ernest Johnson so Chubb's COVID is a double gut punch for me.