thundercleetz

It's brutal losing a high draft pick, however, Kaufusi is a guy who probably needed a development/redshirt year in a pro weight room and film room. He has a great frame and skill set, but he'll come back next year as a mountain of a man. And luckily, this is a broken ankle and not a torn ACL. He may miss the season, but he should be back to full strength well before any offseason workouts. In short, I am not sure if we would have gotten much production out of him this season anyways. But I love this kid's long-term potential.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's trying to turn that bad Ubaldo contract into something positive. How many good players out there have a similar number to Ubaldo running through next year, and would only cost us a lower level prospect? Ubaldo is wasting a roster spot for us at the moment. So in theory, Upton is only costing us a prospect like Tanner Scott and $6-7M in extra payroll commitment between now and the end of next year. Not sure if there are any other matches out there for Ubaldo. The Padres are likely to DFA Ubaldo as soon as they get him.

Back to back gems by Gausman and Bundy! Just how we imagined our two top five picks to be! Rumor is that we are trying to trade Ubaldo plus a prospect for Melvin Upton. I am not sure how I feel about that. Sure, Upton can lead off, plays good D, is having a good year, and steals bases. However, his OBP and average are low, and I feel his OPS may not be sustainable if he stops hitting HRs. Upton does have a career .257/.341/.450/.792 slash line in 56 games at Camden Yards, with 10 HR. Upton is owed $16.45M next year, Ubaldo is owed $13.5M next year. Maybe there will be money involved. Upton has been hitting like his old self in TB ever since he left Atlanta for San Diego in 2015. However, with how terrible he was in Atlanta it's a big risk he could regress. I would hope we focus on getting a pitcher. Get better soon Kim!

Seventeen games over .500!

Schoop is becoming a star. He'd be an All Star if it wasn't for MVP candidates Robinson Canó and Jose Altuve also being 2B in the AL. Don't look now but Álvarez's OPS is creeping up to .800! I can't wait to see Bundy pitch on Sunday!

He got nearly the same amount of money as Stephen Gostkowski. Advanced statistics suggest Gostkowski and Tucker are among the top three kickers in the league. It is a fair deal for a player of Tucker's talents and production.

I think it's superficial to look purely at a guy's misses past 50 yards as the sole reason for judgement. The Ravens had the highest rated special teams unit in 2015. What about field position? He had the highest kick-off grade and third-highest field goal/extra point grade. Only 13.5 percent of his kickoffs were returned, which was second-fewest in the league. https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-6-highest-graded-special-teams-units-this-season/

Not sure what you guys are talking about with a down year: https://mobile.twitter.com/PFF/status/703237234850451457 @PFF: .@Ravens K Justin Tucker was PFF's highest-graded kicker the past two seasons. #franchisetag

I wish, Kubiak was the best thing to happen to the Ravens offense since Vinny Testaverde and Ted Marchibroda. I wonder if Kubiak would have had any interest in Joe after Peyton retired?

If Flacco can play like he did in 2014 under Kubiak, he's worth the contract IMO.

What I think the Green and Libertarian parties need to be doing is focusing their efforts on local elections: city/county councils and state-level delegates/representatives. They shouldn't waste their time on national and state-wide elections. Organizing efforts need to be focused at the college level, smaller unions, and small businesses. Get these types of younger voters registered and help new public servants get elected into local offices with the hope they will stay with the party as they move up. Achieving a track record will go a long way in convincing voters they are not wasting their vote.

Good commentary from Jesse Ventura on third parties, Iceland, and a multiple party system. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/13/jesse-ventura-why-im-voting-for-libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-for-president-commentary.html

Not disagreeing with you on the later things that should be legal. I am in complete agreement there. Yes, there are problems with glorified bribery. But is censorship of media the answer? Not taking a side, trying to better understand your reasoning/argument as I am undecided.

Right, that's why I asked the question how strict is the candidate/PAC contact/relationship regulated. Even though it's illegal it appears to happen. I understand the argument the rich shouldn't be able to spend what they want, but where do you draw the line? What about free speech?

I do not know all the details on the campaign finance debate but I can see both sides of the argument. My problem with the Super PAC is the anonymity. However, if someone wants to spend their own money on political ads, should we be able to limit their free speech? Or do we all agree that campaign advertising is off limits? Then where do we draw a line? Can I advertise for my TV show/radio show/podcast, which in turn can be a giant political advertisement/attack against other candidates? For example, say DC is running for president. If I am very rich, and I think he's a decent guy, what if I want to spend my money on running political ads telling everyone else he's a decent guy? I think Super PACs to a degree are misunderstood. The candidate is not allowed to have any affiliation with the PAC. But it is the formation and anonymity of the PACs which is where I have the problem. We should know exactly who is financing what. Btw, anyone know how strict PAC and candidate contact is regulated, if at all? Seems to be too much of a coincidence how some of the money is raised and used. The other questions I have about public financing: how do we handle major political parties with deep pockets that finance campaigns? Is a rich person running for office allowed to use their own money? A public finance system that requires signatures, isn't that a big disadvantage to candidates with poor name recognition? From what I've read from studies on states that have publicly financed campaigns, the data doesn't suggest much difference in results. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong sources? Regardless, it seems like some of the initiatives in states that have enacted these reforms are a step in the right direction and could reap long-term benefits. I'm new to this topic, so feel free to pick apart/answer my arguments/skepticisms

I'm pessimistic: from what I've read about the ACL, and people I've talked through who have gone through a reconstruction, it's very rare an ACL heals on its own if there is any sort of tear. That's why a partial tear often requires full reconstruction, and an ACL sprain is at high risk for a tear if proper rest is not given. I am encouraged that the best sports surgeon in the world decided Perriman's ACL is intact. However, the Sun article from a month ago quoted doctors who said if the ACL is still sore a couple months later, reconstructive surgery may be required to help the legitimate properly heal. In other words, we may not be out of the woods yet. Wouldn't surprise me to see Perriman sit out training camp and the preseason, possibly more, to ensure he's fully healed.

Nintendo stock is up 25% today, over 30% since the release of Pokémon GO. Nintendo's market valuation is up close to $11B!

I see what you are saying: in theory half of all voters are frustrated with the current candidates, so vote for the third guy. There's a prisoner's dilemma beyond that which keeps people voting R or D despite poor selections. Republican's may not want Trump, but they think a vote for Gary Johnson equals Hillary. Democrats may not like Hillary, but feel a vote for Jill Stein equals Trump. Until voters are completely confident a third party could win, they will not vote third party in large enough numbers to win. Fun fact: Libertarian Robert Sarvis, who captured 6.52% of the vote in the 2013 VA governors race, actually polled higher in Demoratic areas of the state than Republican. Republicans complained he lost Ken Cuccinelli the race, but the net effect is believed to have hurt the winner Terry McAuiffe. There are also problems with the way the two parties hold their primaries which stack the cards against non-establishment candidates. Why not hold a national primary on one day? Independents choose one party to vote for, then vote for the candidate within that party. I feel Clinton's early success in the south hurt Bernie in the later primaries, and by the time he built momentum it was too late. Primary voter turnout is way too low and people in states that vote later get discouraged that their vote doesn't count! Additionally, the electoral college is set up for two candidates. Which is ironic because a two party system is exactly what the Founding Fathers tried to prevent. Getting 270 votes with three legitimate candidates is unlikely, with four legitimate candidates near impossible. The best way to fix the problems we have now is by focusing on fair and transparent representation. Get rid of gerrymandering and have independent commissions redraw districts to lessen the amount of politically polarizing representatives. Institute term limits to prevent conflicts of interest (incumbent representatives running for reelection to get a senior role on a congressional committee greatly hurts primary competitiveness!) Campaign finances should be transparent: the First Amendment needs to be respected, but everyone should know exactly who has donated how much to each candidate. Finally, the Commission on Presidential Debates needs to be revamped to allow greater ease of access so the public can became aware of all legitimate candidates. Institute these changes (plus other common sense changes I've left out) and I think a lot of the problems we have today will lessen.

Great first half. A lot of fun to watch. Starting pitching will be an adventure for us, but we have a lot else going for us.

According to the Purple Reign Show on Twitter, the Ravens only play one team with a top ten pass defense from 2015.

Yes you are right - my misunderstanding of the twelfth amendment. Pretty much any legitimate third party candidate equals Trump. Which is why Bloomberg didn't run. Democrats have a small chance to take the House, but very small. Hillary could win the national election with more electoral votes, but if she doesn't get 270 electoral votes, Trump would win via the House. Goes back to gerrymandering, Republicans shouldn't have such an enormous majority that they have now (the largest since 1928 I've read). PR and DC should be states IMO (or some sort of compromise should be made with DC - one senator and congressman for example). This is coming from a Repuican btw. I believe if you get rid of gerrymandering you get many more moderate Democrats and Republicans, which makes control of the house a lot less of a deal than it is today.

If you had a legitimate third candidate it is likely neither of the three would get 270 electoral votes, which means Congress would vote for president. I guess that would be better than what we have now, but that means you'd get an establishment candidate. However, such a situation would make the Congressional elections much more important and really give Americans a reason to vote.

@MatthewHLeach: Dylan Bundy's last six outings, including today: 14.1 IP, 11 H, 1 R, 0 ER, 19 K, 4 BB. That'll do. He was hitting 97 MPH regularly yesterday.

Under-promise over-deliver seems to have worked well for the Ravens in years they've made good runs. I say let's stick with that: Ravens will miss the playoffs.

Jonathan Schoop is having a hell of a year: .301/.331/.517/.849 slash line