dc.

Well, I think there was a time it did really reflect poorly on us when our rep was also about avoiding pay day... Balfour turned out right for us, though it was less his durability and more his own failures. But I don't think it looks as bad as it once could have, even if we were right

Other shoe: Gallardo deal on hold; physical problems. O's docs not convinced he can go three years. Might fall through of be renegotiated. Read good analysis: O's can ask for less, going he freaks and signs, or he can walk and wait for a team to have an injury next week in camp. Last this happened was Balfour two years ago, O's docs were right and Balfour panned.

On first glance, the Kim move is an A+. Fowler and Gallardo are B-B+ in my mind... cheap but not quite the perfect upgrades we'd have imagined. The real question is... is it enough given what others in the division have done? That said, I just can't see the Red Sox lugging Hanley and Pablo through to anything worth anything...

I'll take it. Fowler Machado Davis Jones Trumbo Wieters Kim Schoop Hardy I could see moving Kim up to #2 if he pans out well and then just having a destructive 1-6.

If. ;)

Saw that on Facebook recently. Interesting. Has a Ken Burns feel.

But I think she can afford to, which is what we're seeing in those competition polls... She's losing some Bernie followers, but still holding on. And I still think no matter the opponent, Trump will struggle in a one on one election when he's pegged to issues instead of style

I misunderstood. I think you're right that many won't vote if he isn't the Nominee. But the same goes for people not voting for Trump. I still think Clinton wins that, pretty easily.

On Bernie: they are showing up to primaries to fight Hillary, I think they'll show up in more force to fight a Trump. On Trump: his supporters don't really care what he says, but to get independents and even moderate conservatives he's going to need more than insults. In the end, he's a walking internet troll. No matter what you say he has a comeback that someone thinks is good. It's the ultimate in him saying, "that guy is a contrarian" ... If you agree, you've accepted an insult. If you disagree, you've proven the insult right and open the door to more... He calls it "counter punching" ... It's really just talented insecurity

In a Hillary-Trump match-up, though, I think Hillary wins walking away. Trump will be able to hit the "untrustworthy" button a bit... but he can't really win that game, especially not as well as almost any other candidate could. He's seen as slimy by most. Meanwhile, Hillary is perhaps the best candidate to articulately take down Trump's policy proposals on everything from foreign policy to tax plans. While he'll shout about Benghazi and ramble without answering questions, like few other candidates I actually think Hillary will be able to say, "well, here's what he isn't saying and cannot say..." Trump's tax plan in particular is a disaster, but I don't think even Bernie is very good at explaining that. (The GOPers are even worse because their plans are equally dreadful from a debt perspective). I think Trump has been able to play hardball this long because of the size of the field. I think he will struggle more and Rubio is looking better as the field narrows. Though, the longer Kasich stays in the more it hurts Rubio. Personally, I much prefer Kasich. But in the end, in a one-on-one match-up, Trump will eventually have to start actually talking policy and his "good great better best" routine will just wear thin. Of course, I expected it to wear thing long before now. So I am not-so-secretly praying that it wears thin more than it has. But you can only say "I will replace this disaster with something awesome, awesome, wonderful..." so many times without answering what before people get fed up - especially in a general election. His promise to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something that will "lower your costs and give you better care"... there's no answer to that except,a ctually, for Bernie's plan. But damned if Trump would ever say it, at least in a GOP nomination.

I think the reality remains that if you look closely at the numbers on Hillary, there are HUGE disapproval/dislike ratings - almost as high as Trump has, and not only with the opposing party but within her own. There are plenty of people who just look at her and say "there's no way." But there is also a huge contingent who are leaning her way but have built-in reservations. Look at the splits on people who poll with "honesty/truthfulness/trustworthiness" as their most desireably quality in a candidate. She loses that demo like 90-10. The longer the race goes on, the more people see Bernie, the more the "man, I just can't stand Hillary" factor becomes a problem. It's also a big part of why the DNC has tried so hard to protect her in this nomination process (see debate schedule). The sad thing, this problem will only get bigger in a general election. Too many people will simply not vote instead of voting for Hillary - exactly the opposite of what we see with Trump, Obama, Sanders and more. The idea that Hillary is "more electable" had serious flaws in it. Look at the current polls on potential head-to-head match-ups. They may be flawed, but Hillary loses large to everyone but Trump - who she virtually ties when most people start to say they just won't vote. Bernie wins against everyone with a split against Rubio. And he wins big. PS - I have no real dog in this fight. Not registered with either party and never have been. But I will say I find almost the entire GOP field to be disturbing bordering on lunacy... and I certainly fall into the "don't care one bit for Hillary" camp.

Nevada is also a caucus and has incredibly low turnout. Mixed signals for both on that. I still agree with Papa - anything less than a 20 point win in SC is a loss of sorts of Hillary. Meanwhile - Trump might sweep SC for the GOP in terms of delegates. Jeb is out. Rubio is going to consolidate the establishment vote - but Kasich did well for almost not campaigning there. We're dangerously close to a Trump nomination. It's embarrassing. Ugh.

Fair. But it is also different to bring someone in for redemption than let someone sin under your own watch. Or it could be viewed that way

Well, financial cost is nothing.... but the "attitude" or "philosophy" cost could be substantial. That's a matter of opinion, but something that isn't unnoticed. Bottom line, keeping a guy making those mistakes (repeatedly) could be sending a message about what's tolerated or not, who's a favorite and not, etc...

Well, the Sun had a good talk of it. I don't think it would be knee jerk. He's cheap, twice in trouble in six months, we have two solid tight ends and another back up, it's early in off season to replace, etc... Let him be someone else's flier. No head feelings, but not our mess anymore...

Sun implies not bad could be adderall or the like, but still no excuse for the repeat

His career highs last year have to be put into context of actually staying healthy. Decline was in splits, I had forgotten that before. Splits against lefties (I think) are tanking and widening his gap. I'm worried he's platooning himself...

Delegates are really for Bernie, the story delegate counts should not be added yet as they change with popular opinion. Bernie is about to win Nevada which will be huge and could turn many other states. I think she's in near free fall again.

Anyone watch Making A Murderer on Netflix? Oy.

My worry with Fowler: fading numbers to so extent since leaving Colorado (oddly more power but worse metrics on contact, etc) and he plays sorry D. Not opposed, but not thrilled- depends on cost. Also think it will eat into Rickerds time playing, but he might need that adjustment. Gallardo I'm still torn on, but we need the arm this year. It gives us a chance.

Also just found this: http://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2016-02-16/lawyer-in-title-ix-case-says-focus-is-ut-not-peyton-manning Lawsuit is technically about cases between 2013 and 2015, Manning case cited only as history and background along with many other cases in last 20 years. So it won't go anywhere near him or her.

Fact finding could lead to deposition, but I doubt it. Again, maybe with the victim. But title IX tends to stay as analysis of the system at the university and most discussions will be from the top looking down. They could highlight specific cases as examples, even then it would mostly be about what the school did not what Peyton did. That's where the victim could come in to testify about how she felt school treated her and the situation, but I see very little reason the suspect would ever be called as an actual witness or even deposed to discuss how allegations were handled.

Likely not. Maybe the victim. But Title IX is about systemic response to these kinds of situations, but not really an individual situation or crime. So trainer could perhaps testify, but less about the crime and more about her experience with how it was handled. Even then, though, I doubt it. These cases tend to be more about the higher up officials and the way they respond.

And yeah, the book is absurd. But it's not quite to the level of a legitimate, legal statement of fact in response to the charges leveled here.

All I meant was that this document is not strictly "facts." There's another version from the defense side, plus of course much more, and we're not seeing it. We're reading one narrative.