#or with brett because of course that would be the option according to so many things | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

downwithabusiveshipping · 6 years

Link

On October 5, 2017, some people say the world changed — or at least it was supposed to. That day, a year ago, the New York Times published the first sexual misconduct allegations against Harvey Weinstein, claims that quickly grew from a few alleged survivors to a whole army of them. In the months that followed those allegations, many other powerful people were forced to reckon with past sexual abuse, harassment, and assault they had perpetrated. What became known as the #MeToo movement was called a tipping point, and in many ways it was.

Mostly, #MeToo has succeeded in making it acceptable to talk about the sexual misconduct that’s been going on for decades and decades. But while survivors are facing their trauma through calling hotlines, opening up to loved ones, and posting on social media, that public reckoning largely hasn’t translated into actual justice.

In the past year, many survivors of sexual abuse have come forward with their allegations in a world that’s seemingly more open to talking about them. This is evident on social media, where #MeToo spread like wildfire after the hashtag, based on a movement created by Tarana Burke more than a decade ago, was revitalized. But it is also evident in the call volume increase the National Sexual Assault Hotline saw in the months following the initial Weinstein allegations. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, the hotline saw a 21% increase in calls at that time. Beyond talking about it, some major institutions — like the Senate — have changed their sexual harassment policies to better protect people in the work place. And the movement has spread globally, too, with the #MeToo hashtag being used across the world. And, of course, there have been some notable moves by the justice system after #MeToo picked up in the last year. Bill Cosby was sentenced to prison, and Weinstein was indicted on multiple sexual misconduct charges.

But as time has passed, some of those who were knocked down by #MeToo allegations are slowly and quietly creeping back into positions of power and celebrity. We saw Louis C.K. returning to the stage nearly a year after being accused of, and apologizing for, repeatedly masturbating in front of female colleagues. Jian Ghomeshi, who was accused of sexual assault by more than 20 women, will have an article in the October 11 edition of the New York Review of Books that purports to reflect on this exact situation — what happens to men after they are accused of sexual assault. Ghomeshi was acquitted of sexual assault charges and settled an additional sexual assault charge "with a peace bond and public apology" as noted by an editor's letter preceding his piece. And, as the Senate considers a Supreme Court nominee who has been accused of sexual misconduct by three women, many in the national spotlight have argued not over whether the nominee is guilty of assault, but whether it would actually matter if he was. The President of the United States cast doubt on nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accusers, wondering why Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the first to come forward, took decades to do so. That gave rise to #WhyIDidntReport — yet another social media movement in which survivors were forced to explain the systems of oppression, shame, and fear that kept them from reporting their assaults.

With all that, many have wondered what #MeToo has really changed, if anything. Certainly, things are different now, some have said. It would be hard for things to stay the same after a nationwide, even global, conversation about sexual misconduct. But when it comes to justice for survivors, experts say the systems in place are largely the same.

“Not yet that we’ve seen, at least tangibly. But, we don’t have any data,” Sara McGovern, RAINN spokesperson said, when asked whether her organization had noted any shift in how law enforcement fields sexual assault reports, and whether that translates into convictions. “Anecdotally, we’re seeing more people reach out for help and more people tell their stories. So, many people who might have kept that inward — even if they aren’t reporting to law enforcement — people are more willing to talk about sexual violence.”

Joanne Smith, founder and executive director of Girls for Gender Equality, told Teen Vogue that #MeToo has harnessed the "power of survivors naming and speaking aloud their experiences," and begun to change how survivors are believed. Still, she said there needs to be "institutional change" that comes along with these social shifts.

"Standing alone, these moments of individual accountability are insufficient to create the lasting change we need and deserve," Smith said. "Our challenge now is to meet the courage these survivors have shown in speaking out, again and again, with institutional courage."

Part of this institutional courage, Smith said, is the option of justice.

"Survivors first and foremost need to be believed," she said. "Survivors need real solutions to the violence they experience — strategies to prevent violence from happening in the first place, strategies to respond to incidents of violence when they occur, and strategies to help individuals seek justice and accountability for the harm that has been caused. "

Jess Davidson, the interim executive director of End Rape On Campus, an anti-sexual violence group, told Teen Vogue that the iteration of #MeToo that we’ve seen in the last year has actually highlighted how unfriendly the justice system is for survivors.

“I think what the last year has done in a really remarkable way is shed light on the ways these systems are designed to fail survivors,” she said. “I don’t think we’ve gotten to the level yet of reforming all these systems.” While Davidson said #MeToo has made survivors feel that they’re more likely to be believed if they do report, she said that doesn’t necessarily translate into actual justice when it comes to law enforcement. “Undoing these systems [that] are designed around horrible old laws designed to protect white men … we have not reached that level of action. Our society has just come around to the idea that there is something wrong.”

In New York City, reports of rape increased significantly — in some parts of the city reports increased more than 50% year to date over 2017 — which may indicate some progress, though it's unclear whether the increase is because of more reports or more rapes. But the same didn’t hold true in other major cities. In Washington D.C., reports of sex abuse decreased by 4% in the same period of 2017. In Philadelphia, rape reports decreased by 7%, while they decreased by 12% in Los Angeles. Rape arrests, however, increased by 12% in Los Angeles at the same time. In Chicago, reports of criminal sexual assault did increase by 4%. In Atlanta, reports remained mostly unchanged.

But these patterns are also hard to track. An increase or decrease in rape reports or arrests may not be attributed to a movement, but rather to an increase or decrease in rapes. And, towns and cities record their data independently, and have varying definitions of rape, making it hard to compare city to city. Statistics on conviction rates may be outdated — country-wide in 2015, only 310 out of every 1,000 rapes would be reported to police, and of those 310 that were reported, only 57 would lead to arrest and six would result in the incarceration of the rapist. And while #MeToo caught on in the United Kingdom, too, rape prosecutions there have reportedly plummeted, with authorities charging 23% fewer alleged rapists in 2017-2018 than in 2016-2017. Still, we know that relatively few rape reports turn out to be false.

There are many reasons why survivors may choose not to report their assaults to law enforcement, and McGovern stressed that going to law enforcement doesn’t make an assault more legitimate than someone who chooses not to report. “We always tell people there’s no right way to react after being sexually assaulted,” McGovern said. “The reality is that some people are not going to be comfortable going to law enforcement or reporting. That’s completely their choice.”

The barriers survivors face from law enforcement may be the issue at hand, Davidson said. Many survivors may choose not to report their assaults to law enforcement because of these low conviction rates, or because of the victim blaming that often happens when survivors do come forward. Others may not want to withstand the shaming that may come with a trial, and in places like college campuses, Davidson said some survivors choose not to come forward for fear their friends or social circle won’t believe them. These barriers of entry to the justice system are particularly strong for queer people, people of color, transgender people, undocumented people, and other marginalized people, Davidson said, who may not trust police because of historical violence against their communities.

That's why Smith said we can't just work within our current criminal justice system.

"There are significant gaps in the possibility of our progress without an alternative approach to justice. Our options for justice must be more comprehensive than what our punitive criminal justice model currently offers us," she said. "We look to the incredible contemporary scholarship and activism of our partners and visionaries in the deep work of transformative and restorative approaches to justice, Mariame Kabaand Andrea Ritchie, who have committed their life’s work to rethinking justice for survivors — and accountability for those who cause harm."

If we’re gauging how #MeToo has changed circumstances for survivors, justice can’t be ignored, Davidson said. If people who are assaulted still feel stigmatized by the system that’s supposed to help them, how far can we really presume to have come?

“I think the idea of seeing #MeToo and survivor justice as different is flawed,” Davidson said. “As me too interacts with all of these levels at which rape culture functions, we are going to have to shift toward a more justice oriented conversation, and watching likes on Facebook and Twitter turn into real action. I believe that’s where the movement is going."

Smith said that action should include all people and all institutions. It's not enough to change just one thing — the world does need to change.

"We are calling on an intergenerational movement that includes young cis[gender] and trans[gender] women of color, non-binary and gender nonconforming youth that feel and believe that they are part of a movement to end sexual violence," Smith said. "We are calling for changes in federal and state law, and in culture and policy in companies, schools, and other institutions, to ensure that we are supporting survivors to deliver accountability, justice and healing, but also to change the culture and systems of permission that leave folks vulnerable, allow for an abuse of power, and have made sexual violence a systematic epidemic in the first place."

#MeToo #anti rape culture #anti abuse culture #survivor justice #justice system #teen vogue #info #information #downwithabusiveshipping #not sure what else to tag this

2 notes · View notes

reporterbumble561 · 3 years

Text

Jdate Reddit

Back in the day, Farrah Abraham was a nice Christian high school girl from Council Bluffs, Iowa. Like any 16 year old, she had hopes and aspirations – her plan was to go into modeling after graduation. All those dreams came crashing down when she found herself pregnant. And it got even better when the baby’s father Derek Underwood died in a tragic car crash two months before she gave birth. So much drama right? Just perfect for the voyeuristic shlockmeisters at MTV Networks who found a perfect cast member for their new “Reality” show – 16 and Pregnant – which followed the stories of pregnant teenage girls in high school dealing with the hardships of teenage pregnancy. Duh. That appearance provided Farrah with her next gig, another MTV waste of life titled Teen Mom – which followed the lives of Farrah and three other girls from the first season of 16 and Pregnant as they navigated their first years of motherhood.

After spending so much time in the spotlight – Teen Mom regularly pulled upward of 3-5 million viewers an episode – Farrah’s life and career took a standard trajectory – She tried to pitch her own spin-off reality series to follow her journey after culinary school as an aspiring chef, but the show never really made it to production. Farrah also launched her own brand of pasta sauce called Mom & Me Premium Italian Hot Pepper Sauce, wrote a book My Teenage Dream Ended and released several music singles. etc. But I guess it still wasn’t enough. Still missing from her life was that special someone, a partner who could keep up with the successful single parent media machine that was Farrah. So what’s a girl to do? Go on JDate of course, where one can find successful single men of the mosaic persuasion known to take good care of their women. Her JDate profile read:

On JDate, however, the lowest monthly cost you can get is $29.99 ( if you subscribe for six full months with a single payment of $179.94). There is also an in-between, three-month subscription plan that comes at $44.99/month and is billed in a single payment of $134.97. Users can pay over mobile phones, PayPal, and of course, a credit card. Click/tap Yes to confirm. To unblock a member: Click/tap on your small Profile Photo at the top of the page, or the horizontal menu lines ( ☰) if using the app. Select Account Settings, and then Block List. Click/tap on the Display Name for the desired member. Click/tap Yes to confirm. If you’ve received inappropriate. Founded in 1997, Jdate is part of Spark Networks. According to the developers, it was the first dating site for single and unmarried Jews. Using it, people create families and seek serious relationships. This app has been the undisputed leader in the number of. JDate is available for smartphones thanks to a downloadable app that effectively scales down the interface for touchscreen, while also preserving all important features. Signing up with JDate is entirely cost-free, but in order to send messages a monthly, quarterly or semi-annual subscription to gold membership is a must.

I’m looking for a man to be my partner in crime, who is successful like me, and has style. If you can give a woman everything she deserves and you want the same in exchange, message me. You won’t regret it. I’m looking for a man that is top of the line; I guess I’m picky. I want a man who is happy, supportive, works hard, is successful, can stay in but can also go out, is active, outgoing, easygoing, likes children and dogs, can be serious, but knows when to have fun and is a romantic.

This was reported in September of 2011. By early December of that year, Farrah had snagged herself a handsome and well to do Jewish man 14 years her senior – 34 year old Marcel Kaminstein, a jewelry entrepreneur. Things were looking good, initial reports were rosy and Kaminstein was getting along well with Farrah’s daughter. So now we know the secret to success on JDate! Be an ambitious 20 year old hot single Mom willing to date an older man! Lack of Jewishness not a problem, fatties needn’t apply.

Sadly by New years, 2012 the relationship had gone south and Kaminstein and Abraham had called it quits – amicably. Now what!? There were a couple of options on the table – but none had the potential for fame that she enjoyed during Teen Mom. Until Farrah met another Jewish man, one James Deen, an adult video entertainer who had starred in over 1,300 porn flicks. Did she meet the HEEB 100 member on JDate? We don’t know. Did they really date or was he merely a hired gun for Farrah’s next publicity stunt? Well, that relationship did not last long either amid allegations that Deen mistreated Farrah and had a small wiener. Yes that relationship ended acrimoniously but not before Deen and Farrah filmed a sex tape. Farrah claimed she shot the professionally produced tape as a keepsake – like a wedding video – for her own use: “I wanted my own personal video made and photos taken for myself, when I am older I will have my best year to look back on. I’m happy to see my 21st year be done. I’ve learned a lot.”

Then Farrah claimed that the tape had been leaked and that she had no choice but to start shopping it around. She finally made a deal with adult film juggernaut Vivid Videos. The movie, “Farrah Superstar: Backdoor Teen Mom,” will be released in mid May and Farrah got nearly $1 million for the rights. Just to be clear, the “backdoor” reference does not refer to an actual door. And also the whole lost sex tape thing was a ruse. Deen’s mistreatment was merely him spilling the beans on the whole “story” because he claimed he cannot lie. The plan was always to release the sex tape as a play for further fame and fortune à la Kim Kardashian. Shocker. The sex tape can now be viewed all over the internet, just like the Kardashian tape.

And what have we learned from all of this boys and girls? If you can’t find ultimate happiness on JDate, like so many others before you, uhm, you can always release a sex tape. Also everything about this post is total and complete trash. I’m sorry. But that’s just life in the big city. Best of luck to Farrah and her daughter. As for James Deen, he is costarring with Lindsay Lohan in the upcoming film “The Canyons” directed by Paul Schrader and written by Brett Easton-Ellis.

AuthorRecent Postswendy in fursI live and blog anonymously from New York. If my boss knew this was me, I'd be fired in a nano-second. Ha ha! Screw you boss man!Latest posts by wendy in furs (see all)

Zayde, it’s time to go - 3/20/2020

Ruvane – Spark (feat. Kosha Dillz): Hanukkah 2017’s First Great Song! - 11/28/2017

Review: Sarah Silverman Loves America - 10/13/2017

4.0 ★★★★☆

300,000members50,000/weekly 57%/43% Male& Female

Jdate Sign In

57%/43% Male& Female 4/5 hookup chance High Sex Chance GeographyUSA, International low fraud riskVerificationemail, FacebookMobile AppiOS, Android$59.99 - $179.94subscription priceFree versionbasic account and search

USA, International

Sponsored ads

Jdate Reddit Free

Find your hookup adventure in one hour

Pure users are looking for adventures. They value anonymity, straightforwardness, and intimacy with no obligations.

The application works quickly and simply — no long registrations or endless questionnaires, no social media links or photo albums. The algorithm uses end-to-end encryption and deletes profiles and chats in an hour after they start.

Upload your favourite selfie, find the person who turns you on and start texting. You have one hour to arrange an adventure together.

Try shameless dating app. You'll crave for more!

FAQ

What is Jdate?

Jdate is the app that was created for Jewish people to meet each other for friendship, casual dating, and serious relationships.

Can I use Jdate for free?

There are only browsing members that are available for you as a free user. To get to all other features, you would need to upgrade your membership to the VIP.

Can I send messages as a free user?

No, you can send messages only if you are a VIP member of the platform. Yet if a VIP member would like to send you a message, you would be able to read it and respond to that.

Jdate Reddit Download

How do I connect with other people on Jdate?

Advanced search filters are available for the paid users and will connect you by your current location and profile details that you can filter manually.

Is Jdate safe to use?

Yes, Jdate is safe to use as they are taking their security level very strict.

Why was there $1 charged from me?

This is the pre-authorization of your card, a usual way to check if you filled the active bank card and not the fake one. It will be returned to you back within 24 hours.

What’s JLife?

Reddit Jewish

JLife is an online magazine where you can learn more about Jewish dating and learn the main tips. Also, you can read and get inspired by success stories from couples that have met and got married after meeting through the Jdate.

0 notes

lianordin · 5 years

Text

Dark-alley defense: Tech tools to keep you safe

“The self-defense seminars that I teach are all weapons-based,” White said. “Because I do believe, even after all this time doing martial arts, that the empty-hands stuff, it’s effective but it takes time to distill. And it’s not always going to work out for you on the street. I always promote somebody leveling the playing field by getting something in their hand.”

White’s doorstop advice isn’t a suggestion to bring down assailants by smacking them with rubber wedges. It’s about prevention, and it’s proof that your self-defense tools don’t need to be high-tech to get the job done (though a little electricity certainly helps).

We asked White to break down the best gadgets to have in your bag, pocket or hand when walking alone down a dark alley, and he had plenty of suggestions. He also had a story for every situation.

S-s-s-state-breaker

One night years ago, White found himself in a teachable moment.

“I broke up a fight,” he said. “It was a melee, really. It was about 30 people. It was bikers and punk rock kids. It was back in the day.”

Instead of diving in, fists flailing, White wanted to defuse the situation with whatever he had on hand. In this case, it was a bamboo fan.

“One of the weapons we use in Chinese kung fu is a fan,” he said, “and people don’t realize when you really pop it open, it’s loud. It’s really close to the sound of a gunshot.”

So, White pulled out his fan and made his move.

“These guys were pounding the shit out of each other,” he said. “And when you take the fan and pop it, you go like pop-pop-pop-pop-pop five times quick, what actually occurs there mentally is it’s a state-breaker. And that’s what happened. Every single person just stopped. They were still holding each other mid-punch and just looked, and everyone went from anger to what the?”

State-breakers come in myriad forms, from jarring sounds to bright lights, but they essentially cover anything that shocks an attacker into temporary confusion, pausing the assault and providing a window to escape or fight back. White doesn’t recommend everyday folks carry fans in their back pockets, but there are plenty of tools on the market designed with state-breaking in mind. For instance, there’s the BASU eAlarm+ ($25), a gadget that emits a loud sound when the top pin is pulled. It looks like a USB device and it’s small enough to fit on a keychain, but when activated it emits an alarm at 130 decibels, a noise level comparable with standing 50 feet away from a military jet, complete with afterburner, as it takes off from an aircraft carrier.

“It’s not so much the gadget as what the application is,” White said. “Like the flashlight, just blinding somebody with a flashlight for a second is a state-breaker.”

A flashlight is one of White’s go-to personal defense tools. Not only can one temporarily blind someone, but many are heavy and sturdy enough to also be used in a physical altercation.

“A really good flashlight, it’s not obvious, but when you look on the end of the bezel, which is where the light comes out, they have these crenellated striking edges on them,” White said. “And they’re so underrated as a self-defense tool because you can hit with it, but you don’t even really have to. You can press it into somebody’s clavicle and they’ll just wilt under it.”

Some flashlights are built specifically for self-defense purposes, with exaggerated bezels and textured grips. The SureFire Defender Ultra ($179) is an LED tactical light designed for fighting, with an aluminum body and Mil-Spec hard-anodized coating. It’s small enough to fit in a pocket and strike with one hand. It’s also a powerful flashlight, of course.

“Obviously with a flashlight you can blind them, but in general just illuminating your path and seeing what you’re coming up against — it’s just good practice to have a flashlight,” White said.

Stunna tech

The Venn diagram of “tech gadgets” and “self-defense weapons” has one giant, all-caps word at the heart of its intersection: TASER.

“I can only recommend what I know is going to work for people, and when it comes to using self-defense tools, the obvious one when it comes to tech, to me, is the taser,” White said, “which is a great option.”

He took a few seconds to talk through that last statement before adding, “Where they are allowed, a taser is a good option.”

Tasers may be the ultimate self-defense tool, but they come with a handful of limitations. First, here’s how they work: Pulling the trigger expels two tiny electrified probes that stay connected to the weapon via conductive wire measuring up to 15 feet in commercial models. The darts in newer iterations are designed to puncture thick layers of clothing and stay embedded in the skin once they make contact, firing electrical pulses into a person and resulting in neuromuscular incapacitation — the loss of control of their muscles.

Tasers are high-reward and also high-risk. They’re effective when wielded properly, but they can be extremely dangerous, even lethal, for anyone who hasn’t studied up and practiced using one. Tasers are more expensive than many other self-defense tools, and they’re not legal for civilian use in every state.

But if you can get a taser and invest time in training, it’s the number one option for personal self-defense. The Pulse+ ($450) is the latest model from TASER, the company and proprietary eponym. It’s equipped to work in the Information Age — the Pulse+ pairs with the Noonlight app, which can alert authorities the second your weapon is fired, using your phone’s GPS to track your location. That service costs $9.99 a month.

“There’s a lot of training involved,” White said. “They’re not cheap. But that’s kind of the ultimate, I would say, gadget. …I teach more locally in the northeast, and again, it’s just not an option because you can’t carry one.”

Which brings us to the final scenario: weapons you can bring nearly anywhere.

Writing and wet-weather weaponry

White’s next recommendation sounds like something out of Spy Kids.

“When I travel internationally,” he said, “I usually have what’s called an Unbreakable Umbrella.”

Unbreakable Umbrellas come from NTOI, and the walking-stick model that White favors runs $129.95. On top of functioning as a perfectly fine umbrella, an Unbreakable is light, weighing just over one pound. It still “whacks just as strong as a steel pipe,” according to NTOI, and it’s legal to carry everywhere.

“It’s really cool,” White said. “Just a super sturdy umbrella with a metal rod all the way down the center, and it’s got a crook on it like a cane does. And, because it’s an umbrella, it really comes in under the radar.”

Another everyday item that works well as a defense tool is the tactical pen. This one is a little trickier, when it comes to airplanes — the Transportation Security Administration considers tactical pens to be weapons, and therefore they’re banned from flights. However, many models are sleek enough that they simply look like high-quality or extra-rugged writing devices, meaning they can be carried into most scenarios without raising alarm.

Take the ISBOSI Tactical Pen ($39.95), for example. It’s a large, stainless-steel device with a knob on the back and an extra-long, extra-pointy tip, but it’s still immediately recognizable as a pen, not a weapon.

Proper training

An unspoken refrain runs beneath all of White’s advice: Practice. Practice. Practice. He teaches self-defense classes and highly recommends them to anyone curious about personal-security gadgets. Even with all of the fighting and defense styles at a student’s disposal, White said some of the most powerful moments in his lessons aren’t physical at all. They occur when a student actually gets their hands on a tool, and suddenly recognizes their personal limits of violence and security.

“These tech items are part of the recommended self-defense spectrum,” White said. “I teach all those different things because I understand that choosing to carry a weapon is a very personal thing for somebody. Not everybody is willing to grab a blade and cut somebody — nor should they. And vice versa with firearms and any weapons. So it’s really a bit of discovery you have to go on internally to decide what’s good with you morally.”

There’s absolutely nothing wrong, morally or otherwise, with buying a new umbrella. And if you’re going to buy a new umbrella, you might as well get the one with a metal rod running down the center for protection from the rain and anything else.

Images: Brett Putman for Engadget

In this article: alarm, basu, defense, gadgetry, gadgets, gear, isbosi, ntoi, personalsecurity2019, security, SureFire, taser, thebuyersguide, umbrella

All products recommended by Engadget are selected by our editorial team, independent of our parent company. Some of our stories include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

Comments

58 Shares

The post Dark-alley defense: Tech tools to keep you safe appeared first on thedigichick.

from https://www.thedigichick.com/software/dark-alley-defense-tech-tools-to-keep-you-safe/ from https://thedigichick.tumblr.com/post/187362167514

0 notes

heatbun4-blog · 5 years

Text

Lukewarm Stove: Trading Pederson to Sign Pollock, Cardinals Extensions, Bogus Pirates Rumors, More

Although I’ve come to terms with the Cubs’ budget this winter, one thing remains elusive: What happened to the Cubs trade rumors? I’m very much not rooting for a trade right now – especially any trade involving guys like Kyle Schwarber or Ian Happ, because I’m still high on each still – but it’s weird right? Especially as the trade market has been so ripe with transactions.

I suppose a busy market filled with alternative trade partners can lower the perceived/market prices of Cubs youngsters, but I still expected more noise than we’ve heard. And, sure, we’ve been warned of core-player trades for several years now without much action, but this winter really felt like it could be different. I’m not sure I’m bothered by it, because I like the Cubs core, but I do find it odd.

Speaking of confusing winters … the Los Angeles Dodgers, who earlier traded outfielders Matt Kemp and Yasiel Puig (plus starting pitcher Alex Wood) to the Reds, are apparently also now considering moving a third outfielder this offseason, Joc Pederson. The White Sox have come up among the interested parties, perhaps as a backup to missing out on Manny Machado and Bryce Harper, but they’re not alone.

One thing’s for sure, though: If the Dodgers are really trade away four big leaguers, including *three* outfielders in one offseason, they’re obviously going to turn their full attention to Bryce Harper, as expec… wut?

I’m not saying A.J. Pollock isn’t a good player and doesn’t make sense for the Dodgers, but being right-handed does not make up for the fact that he’s nowhere close to the hitter Bryce Harper is. He’s also five years older with an even scarier injury history. I can’t understand why the Dodgers would be out on Harper, but in on Pollock, after clearing so much money off the books. Well, I mean, I *can* think of a reason why, but it’s pretty lame for a team with as much revenue as the Dodgers.

Circling back to Joc Pederson, the Braves have also apparently checked in on the 26-year-old left-handed slugger, but they haven’t ruled out free agency either (Adam Jones, Carlos Gonzalez, Gerardo Parra, Nick Markakis, and others). Again, if there’s a trade out there for Pederson, there’s probably one for Ian Happ and/or Kyle Schwarber, but there may just be too many options out there for a trade partner to feel any upwards pressure on the acquisition cost. The Cubs may be best off holding onto these guys and hoping they play themselves into a higher tier of value (and they can always keep them, themselves). Moreover, what would the Cubs even target in trade right now with those guys, other than attaching them to a salary dump so that they could make some other move? So many moving parts, and you might not be all that much better for it in the end.

Hey, remember when the Cardinals traded for one of the best players in baseball this winter? Yeah, well, they still intend on trying to extend Paul Goldschmidt beyond his one year of remaining team control and they’re not being shy about it. Owner Bill DeWitt Jr. and President John Mozeliak have both publicly signaled their intentions and are preparing a pitch. Although Goldschmidt could probably sign a deal at any time – after he learns more about the organization, for example – but they’ll probably want to get something done before the season starts. Because if they don’t, they can always flip him at the deadline if things go awry for the team.

Relatedly, the Cardinals are no longer interested in trading Jose Martinez, who was displaced by the addition of Goldschmidt and re-commitment to Dexter Fowler. Martinez, 30, has been quite the offensive force in his three big league seasons (130 wRC+), but he’s extremely limited defensively, and might otherwise make more sense in the AL. Nonetheless, the Cardinals did not find appropriate value for him on the trade market, so it sounds like he’s sticking around. He’s not a bad insurance policy for Goldschmidt – in the short and long term – so that’s not a bad idea. Of course, if a great offer comes along from a DH-needy team, I wouldn’t count out a trade.

The Cardinals are also in talks to extend starter Miles Mikolas, 30, who reclaimed his career after returning from Japan last season. According to Derrick Goold, Mikolas’ extension could be worth as much as Mike Leake’s 5-year, $80M deal with the Mariners, and if that is, indeed, the case, I’d be happy to watch them sink that money. Mikolas was legitimately good last season, but color me skeptical that he’ll repeat a 2.83 ERA, 3.28 FIP season again. Let’s see if the league adjusts back to a guy whom no one saw for four years before giving him $80M. Or, actually, never mind … it’s the Cardinals. Give him $100M.

Yesterday, there was a random report floating around that the Pirates were actually the mystery team on Manny Machado. Jon Heyman has heard otherwise:

Although I can understand the theoretical positional fit and the theoretical availability of money considering a lack of other large commitments, the Pirates are just not going to drop that much money on Machado now (or maybe ever), and that’s without considering the already competitive NL Central.

The Rangers are inking Asdrubal Cabrera to a cheap deal as they continue to grab possibly-flippable pieces:

I’m surprised the Brewers didn’t jump on that, given that they need a third baseman or a second baseman, and Cabrera can handle both with a solid stick. Makes you wonder if a re-up with Mike Moustakas is the preference.

Speaking of which, Ken Rosenthal says the Padres and Phillies are interested, as well. Obviously, the Phillies interest might be contingent upon some other, bigger deals they have brewing at the moment, but it’s still unclear when any of that will resolve itself. The Phillies might also consider Josh Harrison, instead of Moustakas, if they miss out on Manny Machado, but, again, so much of this depends on what happens with the two big dogs.

And unfortunately, there’s really been no update on either guy lately, other than, I don’t know, more confirmation the Cubs are legitimately out and the Dodgers’ continued lack of interest. The Phillies, it seems, have almost no big-market competition for Machado and I’m still suspicious about the Nationals’ interest in paying Bryce Harper, so there might not be too much competition on that front, either. Silence from the Cubs, Dodgers, and Yankees on Harper/Machado is making a record contract so very difficult for Harper and Machado to land.

And finally, here’s a little more Harper talk to take us out:

Brett Taylor contributed to this post.

Source: https://www.bleachernation.com/2019/01/22/lukewarm-stove-trading-pederson-to-sign-pollock-cardinals-extensions-bogus-pirates-rumors-more/

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

swisscoin4-blog · 5 years

Text

Lukewarm Stove: Brewers Dark Horse on Harper? Realmuto, Segura, Greinke, More

I love, love, love writing up Lukewarm Stoves, mostly for my own rumor-consuming enjoyment … but right now, all I can think about is how much Portillo’s I’m going to eat as soon as I’m finished typing. So, yeah, brief intro. Rumor time.

After moving Giancarlo Stanton, Marcell Ozuna, and Christian Yelich last offseason, Marlins catcher J.T. Realmuto was expected to follow quickly behind. In fact, after seeing the writing on the wall, he even asked to be traded last year. But with three years of (arbitration-priced) control remaining at the time, the Marlins felt no urgency, so no trade went down. Lucky for them, Realmuto went on to deliver his best season in the Majors, with a 126 wRC+ and nearly 5.0 WAR overall. He may have one less year of control, but he’s now arguably the best catcher in the National League, if not the game. So naturally the Marlins are expected to trade him.

Early rumors had the Nationals interested, but they’ve seemingly moved on with Kurt Suzuki (and the Marlins preferred not to trade within the NL East anyway). Since then, Craig Mish has guessed that the Braves, Astros, Rockies, and even the Cubs (an outside chance if I’ve ever seen one) could come calling, but one thing is clear: Realmuto is on the block and will almost certainly be dealt this winter.

… or will the Marlins Marlin? According to Buster Olney, the Marlins and Nationals talks broke down when the former asked for Victor Robles in return. Whether that was an in-division premium for the catcher or their actual asking price is a bit unclear, but Olney reports that other teams who’ve checked in on Realmuto are “convinced that the Marlins will end up keeping” him through the winter. That would be extremely dumb given the other unloading the Marlins have done, so maybe it’s a very likely thing for the Marlins to do. I kid: dude’s gonna be traded. They’d be nuts not to.

The Seattle Times discusses the Mariners’ apparent tear-down, suggesting that “just about anyone,” could be next on the block. And given GM Jerry Dipoto’s M.O., that likely means more than “Sure, we’ll listen on anybody.” Cubs fans will understandably pine for closer Edwin Diaz, but he might cost the kind of prospect return the Cubs can’t realistically . muster when competing with other bidders.

According to the Times, shortstop/second baseman Jean Segura is the most likely of the remaining Mariners to be traded this winter, and it’s not difficult to see his fit with the Cubs. Segura, 28, is the right age to fit in with the core, was an above average offensive contributor last season (111 wRC+), and thanks to solid middle-infield defense, was worth 3.8 WAR overall. He might not stick at shortstop in the coming years, but as a back-up to Javy Baez, while spending most of his time at second base, there’s no questioning the fit. One potential roadblock might be the $60 million he’s owed over the next 4 seasons, but an early rumor had the Padres sending Wil Myers (and his $73M contract) back to Seattle, so perhaps the Mariners *might* be willing to take on some money if they liked the rest of the return. If that’s the case, the Cubs might be able to make it work. This is all speculation, mind you, but I’m pretty darn interested in seeing where this goes. Segura would fit quite well.

The Phillies are likely going to spend a TON of money this offseason – their owner flat out said they’d be “stupid” about it – and all signs point to Bryce Harper. Of course, the “stupid” comments have led many to wonder what else they’ll consider doing. One early doozy was the hope of landing both Harper and Manny Machado, in what would probably be the craziest 1-2 free agent landing in recent memory. But what if Machado isn’t the second guy. And what if the 1-2 punch doesn’t come in the same offseason. At The Athletic, Jayson Stark wonders if the Phillies are setting up a play to land Harper this winter and … Mike Trout in two years. Watching those two together would be absolutely wild.

But at Philly.com, Scott Lauber offers a rumor I’ve seen grown in popularity: perhaps the Phillies will spread it around. I have no doubt that they’ll at least try for Harper, but given his expected price tag ($325M+) and the Phillies many needs, spreading it around might actually be wiser. And, of course, that includes this offseason and next offseason’s almost equally wild free agent class. And with Trout looming a year later, well, you can see a bigger picture forming. I’m not convinced this is what they’ll do, but I must admit it makes sense.

At USA Today, Gabe Lacques writes that the Brewers “could be a perfect dark horse fit for Bryce Harper,” but I refuse to even consider it. If Theo Epstein and Tom Ricketts let the Brewers outbid them for Harper – because let’s be honest, he’s not *choosing* Milwaukee – they don’t deserve our many, many beer purchases at Wrigley.

[Brett: Regardless, it’s not happening. There will be plenty of other significant Harper suitors with sufficient money to outspend the remote range the Brewers would ever even consider. And hopefully, if there weren’t, the Cubs would do some “… and one dollar” Price-is-Right stuff to prevent the Harpocalypse. Or maybe the Cubs have planted this seed so that they can push the price tag up to unsustainably high levels on a determined Brewers franchise that, in the years to come, would be crippled under the weight of such a contract for even a successful Harper. Savvy, guys. Savvy.]

(Photo by Greg Fiume/Getty Images)

At MLB.com, Jon Morosi runs down the seven storylines to keep an eye on, and they’re mostly things we’ve discussed here with more context (Mariners aren’t done dealing, the Phillies are going to spend, Realmuto is going to be traded), but how about this: Morosi hears the Diamondbacks believe they’re going to be able to trade Zack Greinke (three years and $104.5 million) without eating any money. Greinke has bounced back in a big way the last two years, but he’s 35 and his peripherals and velocity keep going in the wrong direction. Does anyone think he’d actually get a three-year, $100+ million deal in free agency right now?

And finally, The Ringer runs down the best three second-tier options for the teams that whiff on the stars, featuring theoretical Cubs targets Marwin Gonzalez and Josh Donaldson, as well as starter Charlie Morton.

Source: https://www.bleachernation.com/2018/11/23/lukewarm-stove-brewers-dark-horse-on-harper-realmuto-segura-greinke-more/

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

efosa123 · 5 years

Photo

Lazy Profit Engine 2.0 Review hey it's Jonas welcome to my lazy profit engine 2.0 review I'll show you the members area I'll show exactly what this is I'm swimming through the episodes what they are and on top of that I've got some bonuses in this case combined with is me and Jon Olsson bonuses and the truth is if you're not getting this product from me or John or if he decides to promote it this is not going to work so and I'm not saying that because I want you to implied from my link which obviously I want you to do but the thing is if you're picking this up and you don't buy it from me or John it's not going to work that's the thing so if you're planning on getting this through someone else don't just ignore this product completely because it's not going to work and I know that because I've been making a full-time living from this exact method although I'm doing it in a different way which actually kind of works and so it's donal and that's the thing so I got some good things and some bad things to say about this obviously the bad thing you started that's when you work but let me show you the sales page quickly and I'll explain what why are saying this so first of all if you're looking for big results for in the next 24 hours then you're in the right place okay so you're about to discover the EC's money stacking method that will Bank you two hundred and two dollars per day with minimal effort and at zero cost um is it possible to make two hundred dollars per day with this method yes but I would say not consistently you may have it or you most likely will have two hundred all days maybe 300 or 400 or days but not every day other days you might make 0 or you might make $10 $30 $50 I said average you should be looking at somewhere between 50 and 70 dollars per day or so although journal 8 there has been absolutely crushing and he's been making like two three hundred bucks per day with this so he has really perfected this and you're actually going to get a super cool bonus from John oh it's a case study that he just completed himself even according this a couple of days ago we can see these results here this is from November 22nd which is just over a week ago and those three days to make $238 282 233 and these videos are so good and the reason that I'm talking more about that I'm be more excited about the bonuses here is because I did John Oh probably like an hour per day and I'm gonna do now for the last couple of weeks or months we talk a lot and he's doing the same method as I am kind of except he's he's been crushing it lately I don't even want to admit it but he's kicking my ass late and he's doing a better job than I am and I'm like the person has been doing this for so long and he just comes in and he just takes all the sales basically so why don't I say that he knows what he's doing and you're going to be getting a two hour long course from him which is like an ATC case study which is just super cool you're also going to get my own method and this is really cool as well so some people may already have it and in that case that's cool but I in this course explain everything that I'm doing to rank my videos at the top of Google and YouTube as well as on comic but what you're also getting here is something that I've never also before and something that you're only going to get if you pick up place the profit engine 2.0 and that's I you get the rights to give away millions Lacey matter which is my course as a bonus and you can get this course and then if you're gonna build your bonus page and where I have some really high-quality bonuses to give away give away my course that's that's what you get here is how again see this it's not something I'm planning offering again and that's completely true as well because I was actually planning on as soon as I launched my own course this was on July 1st I think I actually told myself that I'm never going to promote another launch jacking product again because it makes no sense and I wouldn't promote this either if it wasn't for Jonas boys very much and this is just so in-depth and it's so professionally made that I couldn't resist that's what we decided to do you're going to get another secret YouTube ranking method and this is the ATC launch tracks and campaign setup and some other things as well but overall our bonuses if you get this course again as I said if you get this course without getting it from me or Joe no it's not going to work don't get it that skip it if you're getting it from my link then and you get Joe knows bonus course my bonus course you can use my course as a bonus you're gonna be able to make a lot of money because you're going to learn how to do things right okay I've been talking for a long time now about my bonuses and stuff let's get into the good and bad about this course first of all the lazy method it's it possible to make money with it yes maybe I would never use it the lazy method is a perfect name for this method however I'll give him that but the thing is it's not good it's basically how to create a video made out of images and that's pretty much it so if I personally were to Google something like a product named review and I come to a video that's made up of like three images and it's basically hello this is a great product click link in the description below that's not a review that's that's not how you do a review video it doesn't help at all yes you managed to rank the video and yes you probably will get a few sales every now and then but don't do that number two is much better this is what you should be doing and ten videos here and again as I said there's some good content it's not all about all ten videos not gonna disable create a video made out of three images there's some decent content in here that you may want to go through either way if you get this course but don't do the videos as mentioned in this courses don't what you're going to undo it the way you're going to want to do your videos is with optimal methods that's about installing a screen capture software in your computer you can use screencast-o-matic which is what Brett recommends that's what I use myself it's free if you're ok with having a little watermark at the bottom left corner I would highly recommend you to pay fifteen dollars per year to get the pro version you can then record there's no limits to anything and I guess I say it's 15 dollars per year which is just super super cheap and besides that you're going to learn time where to get bonuses and stock which is awesome you're also going to see how to record it the actual visual you can see here a framework of a format that you and the reason that Brett says then you should do a maximum of like 45 minutes reviews because people will kind of get sick of you after that and I I agree I've been looking into my YouTube stats and I know that most people's drop off of my videos after like three and four minutes so I guess it doesn't really make any sense for me to make them like 10 to 15 minutes since most people drop off way before that but I want to do a proper review anyway and just show people exactly what it is that they're getting so for me I'm not going to shorten my videos by that much but I'll try it for a while but I just feel like it's impossible to cover everything that I want to cover in a four-minute video but I do like the idea and this is something I have been thinking out before so anyway my Brett says is introduce yourself in a product name that's great the gist of the product vendors and the proof lots of proof should be shown in that first minute with that as well that's that's good stuff dive into the product talk about the benefits pull off the products in this video talking about the flourescent down so that's great as well that's that's how you do a review I just feel like talking about doing all this in one it I can't do it I guess I like to talk too much but I can't get it done that quickly and then there's a couple of things as well it's hidden e announced I'm not going to get rid of that you can see that when you get to course by absolute to go through the optional method and some more things here as well and that's preferred your certainty has include bonuses and that is it but overall as I said like the course itself it's it's not it's not the best it's not going to help you rank and that's the big problem that I have here they don't talk about backlinks at all how to actually get the video to rank which is kind of the whole point here you're going to do this because you want your video to rank at the top so people actually click it and then you get sales but if you're just doing it like the lazy method I would say you will fail to ranked 98 out of a hundred times you might rank those two times it's been going after a launch that no one else is targeting and it's just not going to get any traffic in that case but if you go and after a fairly big launch it's very unlikely that you'll rank without using backlinks and that's what I'm going to show you in my own course to Lacey method I'll show you exactly where to go it's pretty much going to be copy and paste almost and that you do that it'll take it up for 20 minutes or so to do the backlinking after that in many cases you will be racked at the top and do it more and more and you're going to almost rank automatically after a while which is pretty cool as well and again like not only will you get by on course should be able to give it away as a bonus but you also get Jonas really really cool course it's an ATC case study so I would honestly say that the bonuses are worth a lot more than the actual product that I'm reviewing today Lacey profit engine and again if you buy this course but from someone else's link good luck I can't say I'm very afraid of competing with you for a top spot on Google you - I'm sorry but you you just you're not going to rank it's a simplest tie if you get it through my link though and you get the bonus package you go through my math that I get up and do this full time for over two years now I know how to rank a video go through that course go through Jonah's course and you're going to be kicking butt and me and Jonah will have some competition from you then but that's fine I mean bring it on so that's it that's my summary don't get this course if you're planning on getting it from anyone else if you get it from me though then yes you're going to get some cool tips from the opto method and a couple decent things from the lace methods well but most of all you're getting our insane bonus package which I think you're really going to love so that's it actually that's not at all I'm sorry let's go up here and take a look at the upsells so I'll put another one plus bonuses $27 this upgrades include more advanced strategies this is for those who has scaled from 15 to 35 I don't really know what this is this doesn't seem like it's related to launch jacking so take a look at it sales patient it sounds cool get it if not it'll be don't get it and you'll get our bonuses though if you just get the front end that's fine you need to get in there the absolutes just get this for between 7 and 13 dollars and the bonuses will be delivered to you automatically and you're just going to become a racking superstar very very quickly down a sale property 117 bucks ten dollars off and we remove while the bonuses I don't know what the boys are but if you want to save 10 bucks and up great number to you that is closer series to build a six-figure sensing seven-figure business Brett's millionaire blueprint all of the upsells from Lisa Proctor engine one okay take a look at sales page if it seems cool get it if not don't get down sell to is 27 bucks $20 off and we remove one and bonuses again I don't know what the boss is also upgrade three is one on one coaching with Brett where he'll help coach the students to get to at least 50 hours players pretty cool again I hope he's going to be talking about backlinks and how to actually get the video to rag because it's not I don't know if I would get any of these upsells probably get this one down still number one $17 because that does sound pretty interesting I gotta say especially email marketing strategies does something you can combine that something both me and John are will be talking about a little bit this both Janos case study and my own course as well it's super simple to build a list from YouTube and I don't do it as much as I should because I'm very lazy but it is it's a pretty cool it's pretty cool so anyway that's that's it if you get this course from my link again it's in the description below you are going to get two amazing bonuses and a decent course but as I said you you can pretty much skip the lazy method or at least don't do the video itself like I like just don't you might be tempted because it's easy to just gets three images something but it's not going to ver convert and people will just be like what the heck is this why did this person even bother applying this so do it properly or don't do that all that's what I would say okay hope this really review may only sense I again though you don't have a choice you have to buy to my link or don't buy this course at all that's why I finish off if you want this actually work though alright so thanks for watching hi gyetae about is it

#lazy profit engine 2.0 #lazy profit engine 2.0 review

0 notes

actufarley · 5 years

Text

Experts weigh in

Khabib Nurmagomedov has lost just one round while racking up a 12-0 record in the UFC.

It’s the second-best start in UFC history behind Anderson Silva, who won his first 16. Nurmagomedov’s 28-0 overall record is the best in MMA. Among lightweights, he has the most takedowns landed and highest strike differential, according to ESPN Stats & Information.

Unbeatable, right?

Maybe not.

When Nurmagomedov faces Tony Ferguson on April 18 in Brooklyn, he’ll be facing someone who is also on a 12-fight UFC win streak. Ferguson hasn’t been stopped in 16 UFC fights — fourth-best streak in history — and has won 21 of his 26 overall by stoppage.

Many are already looking forward to a Khabib rematch with Conor McGregor — who won the third round before being choked out in the fourth in their Oct. 6, 2018 bout. But Ferguson is not someone who should be overlooked.

ESPN’s MMA panel of Ariel Helwani, Brett Okamoto, Marc Raimondi and Jeff Wagenheim break down the matchup.

What would a Ferguson win look like?

Helwani: Nurmagomedov is the most dominant fighter in UFC history, and I have a hard time believing Ferguson will stop Nurmagomedov. I think Ferguson will have to go the distance and out-tough him. Easier said than done, of course.

Okamoto: Ferguson is one of the most entertaining fighters in the world, because he’s all action. Nurmagomedov is entertaining in his own right, but for a very different reason. It’s entertaining to watch Nurmagomedov’s dominance on the floor. “Action” is not one of the first words you’d use to describe a Nurmagomedov fight. He gets his prey to the ground and he doesn’t let them back up. So, a Ferguson win would look like a Ferguson fight: He would defend Nurmagomedov’s takedowns, and beat him standing. If he does get taken down, he’d pull out some kind of somersault, round off, triple axel reverse to get back up. And if he were held down for any real amount of time, he’d throw elbows from the bottom like they’re going out of style. Action is Ferguson’s friend. A grapple-fest is not.

Raimondi: Chaotic. Ferguson excels in a non-linear type of fight — lots of scrambles, lots of unique positions. He’d likely use several aspects of MMA to get it done, not just striking or wrestling. There would almost certainly be some kind of combination of the two. Nurmagomedov is one of the best wrestlers in the world, but Ferguson is dangerous off his back. Ferguson is also a dynamic and fearless striker. He’s unpredictable, which works to his advantage. Plus, Ferguson has cardio for days. There’s a reason he hasn’t lost since 2012.

Wagenheim: Ferguson’s cornermen need to whisper in his ear that the UFC has electrified the Octagon fencing and, if he wants to avoid electrocution, he needs to stay away from the cage. By remaining in open space, Tony will be giving himself his best shot at keeping the fight standing. That way he can utilize his unpredictable attacks to try to put Nurmagomedov on the defensive. We haven’t seen anyone succeed at doing this against Khabib, so maybe it’s fantasy. But it’s less outlandish fantasy than the notion that Ferguson can pull off a submission from underneath a Dagestani lead blanket.

How does Ferguson’s grappling ability compare to Khabib’s?

Helwani: Ferguson is very unorthodox in all facets of the game. He’s as unconventional as it gets in training, striking and grappling. Nurmagomedov is more of a conventional Russian grappler/wrestler. He is tough, durable and relentless. The latter trait might be his most impressive one. I mean, did you see the way he was cupping Dustin Poirier’s mouth during their fight in September? You don’t see that kind of technique often.

Okamoto: Ferguson has a strong wrestling background that includes success at the high school and collegiate levels. Ferguson has never really fought like a traditional, American collegiate wrestler in MMA, though. He has a style that is uniquely his own, which he has crafted mostly on his own. He’s also a black belt in Eddie Bravo’s 10th Planet Jiu-Jitsu system. Now, that said, there’s not a lightweight on the planet who owns an advantage over Nurmagomedov’s grappling. Nurmagomedov is the best in the world at taking an opponent down and keeping him there. What makes this matchup interesting is Ferguson’s gas tank and his unorthodox style. The cardio can’t be overstated. Nurmagomedov prides himself in making opponents tired. Ferguson doesn’t get tired.

Raimondi: Nurmagomedov is an oppressive wrestler with several ways to put opponents on their backs. Once there, Nurmagomedov has options. He can ground and pound from the top or he can get foes into a leg-ride type of position against the fence, which is where he cinched that jaw crank on McGregor at UFC 229. Nurmagomedov is hard to shake off once he has that kind of position. While Nurmagomedov is suffocating, Ferguson is dynamic. He’s rolling for legs, being aggressive, going for submissions. Both men are excellent grapplers, but they couldn’t be any more different in their approach.

Wagenheim: Khabib is going to maneuver you against the cage, trap you there, lock up your body and take you down, then wrap his legs around yours to immobilize you while he works his body into top position, from where he beats you up. He is as methodical as he is unstoppable. Ferguson, on the other hand, is all about the scramble and the scrap, his martial arts expressed in the chaotic abstract. He is Jackson Pollock impetuousness, while Khabib is as coldly resolute as, say, Edward Hopper. Sorry, champ, but I don’t know enough art history to cite a Russian master of harsh realism.

Is Ferguson a more dangerous opponent for Khabib than Conor?

Helwani: Right now, yes. Because Nurmagomedov has never fought Ferguson. So, off the bat, Ferguson presents questions Nurmagomedov has never answered. Ferguson is also a tad craftier on the ground, so that will be interesting, but lest we forget McGregor was the first and only person to win a round against Nurmagomedov.

Okamoto: Yes, I believe he is, for reasons we’ve already highlighted. Ferguson has more grappling experience than McGregor and better endurance. Ferguson probably doesn’t have the one-punch knockout power of McGregor, but let’s not pretend he doesn’t hit hard. He has sneaky power and more ways to finish a fight than McGregor. And again, the cardio is huge. Cardio is mandatory against Nurmagomedov.

Raimondi: People repeat the phrase “styles make fights” so many times that it has almost lost its meaning. But that truly is the case here. McGregor is a striker who is unproven against great wrestlers and grapplers, especially those at the level of Nurmagomedov. Ferguson, meanwhile, seems to have the tools to deal with Nurmagomedov’s wrestling, because the skills and offense off his back he honed under Eddie Bravo. And Ferguson is an effective, versatile, free-flowing striker on top of that. There are ways he can beat Nurmagomedov that McGregor could not.

Wagenheim: In theory, an opponent with one-punch KO power should pose the greatest peril, because Khabib is not a guy you’re going to systematically break down. McGregor has that kind of thwack, and Ferguson does not. But “El Cucuy” has a more well-rounded game, and if his wrestling ability enables him to keep the fight standing for longer than Conor could, that would afford Ferguson more opportunity to take Nurmagomedov out of his comfort zone. Tony needs to drag the fight away from methodical demolition and into hurly-burly improvisation, and he is a threat to do so.

Ferguson called Khabib’s performance against Poirier ‘lazy.’ What was your take on his win?

Helwani: I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I thought Nurmagomedov looked as dominant as ever. He was aggressive, relentless and smart. At no point did he seem in danger of losing that fight. After 11 months off, he did exactly what he had to do to win that fight, and he looked great in doing so. He even got a finish.

Okamoto: Not lazy. Convincing. Pretty dominant. I’m not entirely sure what Ferguson meant by “lazy.” Did he feel Nurmagomedov should have found a more challenging way to win, over taking Poirier down and owning him on the ground as he does everyone else? Poirier is a talented boxer with an underrated submission game, and Nurmagomedov overwhelmed him on the floor. Even though we’ve seen it many times before, it was impressive. According to UFC Stats data, he absorbed only 30 total strikes in that fight and went 7-of-8 on takedowns.

Raimondi: Not sure I buy that one. Nurmagomedov was pretty dominant against Poirier and finished the fight in the third round with a rear-naked choke. Nurmagomedov isn’t lazy, he’s methodical. That’s what got him to this 28-0 undefeated record, and that’s the game plan he executed perfectly against Poirier. Ferguson does a lot more in his victories. He’s rolling for submissions, jumping for knees. Nurmagomedov and Ferguson couldn’t be more different. But Nurmagomedov is extremely proficient in what he does. And let’s not forget how darn good Poirier is. It’s best to stick to an efficient strategy against someone as dangerous as Poirier.

Wagenheim: So we’re dissecting “El Cucuy”-speak now? Yikes, my head is spinning. Maybe what he meant was Nurmagomedov looked so comfortable in controlling Poirier from top position that it was as though Khabib were relaxing in a recliner. Or perhaps it was Ferguson’s homage to the bombast of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, who once said, “Inspiration is a guest that does not willingly visit the lazy.” Or maybe … nah, I have no idea what Tony was talking about, and I seldom do. I thought Khabib came through that fight smelling like a daisy. Which rhymes with lazy.

How do you expect the fight to play out?

Helwani

: I think it will be a very fun fight. I do think their grappling will neutralize each other and a good early portion of the fight will be contested on the feet. That should be fun. Ultimately, I see it going the distance.

Okamoto: There’s a reason the fight world has been looking forward to this matchup so much. Of course, the long history of cancellations has a lot to do with it, but it’s also because this matchup, stylistically, is arguably the most intriguing fight Nurmagomedov can book. Ferguson is so unorthodox. He surprises his opponents with shots they don’t see coming, he has (maybe) the absolute best gas tank in the sport, and he’s hard to pin down for an extended amount of time. He’s big for the division. This fight is necessary to determine, beyond all shred of doubt, the best lightweight in the world. I think the fight will be competitive, and Ferguson will take Nurmagomedov closer to defeat than he’s ever been. But my early lean has to be on the champion pulling it out.

Raimondi: That’s so hard to call. Nurmagomedov’s best bet is still to take Ferguson down. Ferguson might be dangerous off his back, but Nurmagomedov is one of the best pure wrestlers in the history of MMA. You can’t get to this point and not stick with your bread and butter. I expect Nurmagomedov to take Ferguson down and for Ferguson to attempt to allow that on his own terms — into a position where he can land elbows from the bottom and attempt submissions. What happens when it hits the mat is anyone’s guess. I expect Nurmagomedov to fend off Ferguson’s attacks and grind him out. But if you tell me Ferguson might do something wild and land or get a close submission attempt, I wouldn’t be shocked, either. No matter the result, I can’t wait to see two masters of very different styles go to battle.

Wagenheim: Back in 2013, I remember looking at the skill set of unbeaten Chris Weidman, noting he seemed like a bad matchup for Anderson Silva, yet being unable to envision a result other than another victory for “The Spider,” who had won 17 in a row while casting a spell of inferiority upon the rest of the fight world. I cite that to acknowledge that my predictable forecasting of another Nurmagomedov victory here is based on my own chronic lack of vision, not on some deficiency in Ferguson’s game. Ferguson has built a six-year winning streak upon an idiosyncratic tenacity that makes him Khabib’s biggest threat yet. Still, I just can’t see the night ending with anything but the invulnerable champion squashing another declawed antagonist.

The post Experts weigh in appeared first on Actu Trends.

0 notes

actutrendnews · 5 years

Text

Experts weigh in

Khabib Nurmagomedov has lost just one round while racking up a 12-0 record in the UFC.

Unbeatable, right?

Maybe not.

ESPN’s MMA panel of Ariel Helwani, Brett Okamoto, Marc Raimondi and Jeff Wagenheim break down the matchup.

What would a Ferguson win look like?

How does Ferguson’s grappling ability compare to Khabib’s?

Is Ferguson a more dangerous opponent for Khabib than Conor?

Ferguson called Khabib’s performance against Poirier ‘lazy.’ What was your take on his win?

How do you expect the fight to play out?

Helwani

The post Experts weigh in appeared first on Actu Trends.

0 notes

actutrends · 5 years

Text

Experts weigh in

Khabib Nurmagomedov has lost just one round while racking up a 12-0 record in the UFC.

Unbeatable, right?

Maybe not.

ESPN’s MMA panel of Ariel Helwani, Brett Okamoto, Marc Raimondi and Jeff Wagenheim break down the matchup.

What would a Ferguson win look like?

How does Ferguson’s grappling ability compare to Khabib’s?

Is Ferguson a more dangerous opponent for Khabib than Conor?

Ferguson called Khabib’s performance against Poirier ‘lazy.’ What was your take on his win?

How do you expect the fight to play out?

Helwani

The post Experts weigh in appeared first on Actu Trends.

0 notes

theliberaltony · 5 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to a special edition of FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): There are two cases — Rucho v. Common Cause, a case from North Carolina, and Lamone v. Benisek, a case from Maryland — currently before the Supreme Court that deal with partisan gerrymandering, and a decision is expected any day now.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that a gerrymander was so partisan that it was unconstitutional. But this won’t be the first time the court has addressed the issue. Just last year, there were two cases before the court on partisan gerrymandering (one of which was the Maryland case, which is now in front of the court again). At the time, the court declined to address the merits of the challenges, instead ruling in each case on procedural grounds. So what do we think has changed since the last time the court took up this issue?

And welcome Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog co-founder and contributor, who is joining us to talk over the stakes!

amy.howe: Thanks. I’ve never done this before, but I’m looking forward to it!

ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): Welcome, Amy! And, Sarah, there is one big, obvious change this year — Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired and been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

amy.howe: I agree, Amelia. The composition of the Supreme Court is the most noteworthy change. On partisan gerrymandering, as with so many things, Justice Kennedy was the swing justice. And we don’t really know what to expect from Justice Kavanaugh.

galen (Galen Druke, podcast producer and reporter): Yeah, lawyers and reformers were largely crafting their arguments around Kennedy’s thoughts on gerrymandering — which, as he wrote in an earlier opinion, are that partisan gerrymandering is a problem and that if a clear standard emerges for measuring its burden, the court should take action. That now seems somewhat irrelevant.

amy.howe: But as to the court taking up the issue again, the reality is that they didn’t have a lot of other options. Most of the court’s docket is discretionary, but redistricting cases are among a narrow set of cases with an automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is why the Maryland case is back before the justices. The justices had to do something — either say that they didn’t have jurisdiction over the case, affirm or reverse the lower court’s decision, or take up the appeal.

ella (Ella Koeze, visual journalist): But the Supreme Court adding the North Carolina case to the docket was new.

amy.howe: The North Carolina case was at the Supreme Court last year, but the justices sent it back to the lower court for a new look in light of the rulings last year. The District Court again ruled for the challengers and blocked the state from using the map on the ground that there was partisan gerrymandering.

ameliatd: Yeah, the North Carolina case is interesting because the state legislators were extremely open about their intentions when they drew the state congressional maps, which may have been a strategic blunder on their part. When the most recent round of maps was passed, in 2016, one of the lawmakers said in a floor speech: “I think electing Republicans is better than [electing] Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.” Even in today’s political climate, it’s rare to have someone so nakedly announce that they’re drawing districts to bake in an advantage for their party. So that could, in theory, make a difference to the court.

ella: But maybe because what happened in North Carolina was so egregious, it might give the court an opportunity to issue a narrower ruling?

sarahf: Ella, you worked on a project earlier this year that explained “partisan bias,” which is one of the quantitative tools challengers are using in the North Carolina case to bolster their argument. Tell us a little bit how that metric works and what you found in North Carolina.

ella: Well, first of all, the metric known as “partisan bias” has been around for a pretty long time. What it basically does is try to estimate what the seat breakdown between Democrats and Republicans would be for a given map (like of North Carolina’s congressional districts) when the vote margin (in this case, the statewide two-party vote in U.S. House races) is split 50-50.

So in a state like North Carolina that has roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, you’d expect that a 50-50 vote margin would lead to a 50-50 breakdown in the state’s U.S. House seats. But we found that Republicans have recently had a big advantage in the state in terms of turning votes into seats — in other words, that there was a partisan bias against Democrats — as you can see in the chart below. If there was little partisan bias, the colorful lines that represent each election cycle would come close to the center of the graph, at the 50-50 point. And that’s what they pretty much do for North Carolina’s U.S. House elections from 1992 through 2010. But in the most recent decade of maps, the lines cross the center very far from the 50-50 point, to the tune of a significant Republican advantage.

However, a note of caution — partisan bias was just one metric out of several that the plaintiffs used to try to convince the justices that the North Carolina map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

The Supreme Court has not historically been terribly friendly to the idea of using a single metric to determine whether partisan gerrymandering exists. So I would be pretty surprised if the justices found partisan bias was a convincing enough metric on its own.

galen: Yeah, in North Carolina, the lawyers challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina’s map really threw the kitchen sink at the issue. They did not rely on just one measure like partisan bias to try to prove that a partisan gerrymander had gone too far. They also, for example, used algorithms to show what thousands of neutrally drawn maps would look like. That’s something of a contrast with last year, when advocates in a partisan gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin put a lot of emphasis on the efficiency gap — yet another metric that attempts to measure the degree to which a map is gerrymandered.

So if the North Carolina case still doesn’t persuade the court, I think there’s a real question of what kind of metric or standard will convince it.

ameliatd: It’s been kind of remarkable to see all of the different quantitative tools that have been presented to help judges figure out when a partisan gerrymander goes too far. People have been really creative in trying to solve this — the justices have no shortage of options here!

sarahf: But what are some of the challenges in the Supreme Court taking up a metric to define whether partisan gerrymandering has occurred? As you all have mentioned, the justices have shied away from setting a standard in the past.

amy.howe: A real challenge is that several justices on the Supreme Court are inherently suspicious of essentially all of these metrics. Chief Justice John Roberts, in the oral argument in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case in the fall of 2017, called them “sociological gobbledygook.”

galen: Yeah, the court seems hesitant to rely on math. Of course, proponents of using these methods will point to the math that has traditionally been used to draw districts of equal population in accordance with the Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” ruling in Reynolds v. Sims.

ella: I’m really interested to see whether the court will try to define what a partisan gerrymander is (whether using math or intent or some combination of the two). Because as we explained in our gerrymandering project last year, it’s easier to say something is a gerrymander than to describe one out of context.

ameliatd: But there’s a deeper issue at play, too — the justices will undoubtedly also be considering whether judges should be involved at all in policing these gerrymanders. And so another big difference this term is that it’s more of a possibility that the court might just say, “OK, this isn’t an issue for the courts after all, so we’re shutting the door on these challenges completely.”

amy.howe: It was really interesting to attend the oral arguments in the Wisconsin and Maryland cases last term and then go to the arguments this term and listen to how the discussion had shifted on the issue that Amelia just mentioned — the justices are now talking about whether partisan gerrymandering is something that the courts should be involved in at all.

ameliatd: Although at least in the lower courts, some judges clearly do think this is something they’re capable of dealing with. We’re now up to more than a dozen judges who have ruled in various panels that specific partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional.

galen: I am going to issue a prediction.

ella: I’m ready for it.

** nervously waiting **

galen: The Supreme Court is not going to entirely rule out partisan gerrymandering as an issue that can be decided by the courts. That is to say, even if they don’t rule in favor of the original plaintiffs this time, I think they’re likely to leave open the possibility of someday ruling in a future plaintiff’s favor and endorsing a standard for measuring unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.

ameliatd: Why do you think that, Galen? Because Kavanaugh doesn’t want to come out guns blazing in his first term? It would be a pretty ballsy move to say in your first term that a question the court has been trying to answer for decades isn’t one judges should weigh in on after all.

galen: Yeah, it would just mark such a significant departure from the status quo, which is: “Yes, this is something courts can weigh in on; we just don’t have a standard.” Kavanaugh even said this during oral arguments: “I took some of your argument in the briefs, and the amicus briefs, to be that extreme partisan gerrymandering is a real problem for our democracy — and I’m not going to dispute that.”

ameliatd: But is there a point at which the justices can’t keep kicking the can down the road? The lower court rulings are just going to continue to pile up. And at a certain point, is the Supreme Court going to get sick of dealing with these cases? I think that point could be now.

amy.howe: Having “punted,” to use a technical legal term, on the issue of whether courts should get involved in partisan gerrymandering cases at all last term, it does seem like the court has run out of ways to punt in these cases.

And as Amelia mentions, with the lower courts’ automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court, the justices are faced with the very real possibility of becoming the court that has to review every. single. partisan gerrymandering decision. And don’t forget, the census (another can of Supreme Court worms) is every 10 years, so the flood of cases could be pretty constant. Here we are in 2019, and we’re still dealing with redistricting from the 2010 census.

galen: Yeah, if the court doesn’t want to deal with these cases anymore, they have to say that this is not an issue for the courts and is indeed a political question — “never come back to us again.” Because if they rule that there is a standard, then there will be a flood of cases challenging every map around the country.

ameliatd: Given the Supreme Court’s recent penchant for punting, the possibility you’re describing sounds realistic, Galen.

The Supreme Court: always capable of punting.

But it also seems like it just sets them up for more headaches and fighting.

amy.howe: I’m just having a hard time seeing the off-ramp that allows them to punt again. I feel like they need to fish or cut bait after having punted last year and in a case called Vieth v. Jubelirer (among others) 15 years ago.

ella: Amy, as long as we are predicting things, which one do you think they will do: fish or cut bait?

amy.howe: I think they’re likely to cut bait — say this is not an issue for the courts.

galen: Ooohhhh, interesting.

ameliatd: I would say I agree, Amy, but Kavanaugh did seem more concerned about partisan gerrymandering than I was expecting during oral arguments.

Granted, that might not mean anything. He could have been playing devil’s advocate, trying to trick all of us into making bad predictions!

(Clearly this is all about us.)

galen: But one of the arguments Kavanugh did lay out for cutting bait is that there has been movement on the state and congressional level that could make court involvement unnecessary.

Now, obviously, reformers disagree with that.

ameliatd: Right. That’s one argument I’ve definitely seen floated: “Look, the voters are dealing with it,” so there’s no need for courts to weigh in.

amy.howe: Yes, along with the idea that states could have independent redistricting commissions to draw the maps.

ella: Michigan is a recent example of that, right? Voters there approved a ballot initiative to establish a citizen-run redistricting commission, and any registered voter can apply to be on the commission (my dad, for instance, is considering applying).

galen: Yes, it is. But this idea that voters/states can take care of this on their own is somewhat complicated. Because it depends a lot on where you live. Most states east of the Mississippi, for instance, don’t have ballot initiatives that would allow voters to initiate reform.

ameliatd: And the people who really have the power to establish these “fairer” solutions (aka state legislators who are in the majority) are the ones who are currently benefiting from the status quo.

Look at a state like Maryland. Nobody will say they like partisan gerrymandering, but the legislators are also reluctant to just throw up their hands and start an independent commission. The Republican governor, Larry Hogan, was pushing for an independent commission, but the state’s Democratic lawmakers said they would only go along with it if other states did it, too. Which is, according to reformers, an argument for getting the federal courts involved.

sarahf: Also, fun (?) electoral fact, the district that is disputed in the Maryland case as being unfairly drawn to favor Democrats is, in fact, the district that 2020 Democratic contender and former U.S. Rep. John Delaney once represented.

galen: And when it comes to voters ousting gerrymandering politicians, as we have seen in Wisconsin on the state legislative level, a strong gerrymander can weather almost anything (even a blue wave). Also, it is rare that state legislators give up power all on their own.

ameliatd: Right — and why would you, especially if other states aren’t doing it?

ella: Yeah, there is really no incentive for legislation that’s not driven by voter initiatives.

galen: In 2018, Ohio legislators approved and put to voters a constitutional amendment creating a bipartisan process for drawing the state’s congressional maps. But Ohio was also kind of a rare situation, in that both parties were unsure of who might get to draw the next round of maps in 2021 and wanted to reduce risk.

sarahf: This might be too naive of a question, but why couldn’t the Supreme Court require states to set up independent commissions as part of determining whether a partisan gerrymander has occurred?

galen: LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH IS WHAT THAT IS

amy.howe: Right. For instance, the lawyers representing the challengers in the North Carolina case pushed back in the oral arguments against the idea that an independent redistricting commission could solve the problem, because it would have to be approved by the state’s Republican legislature.

And, Sarah, the Supreme Court can’t require states to set up commissions. In fact, there was a Supreme Court case a couple of years ago challenging Arizona’s use of an independent commission as unconstitutional. The commission barely survived — the vote was 5-4.

ella: Also, it’s unclear whether calling something an independent commission really means that much when state legislators can define the terms for commissioners.

ameliatd: That’s a really important point, Ella. People talk a lot about independent commissions as a more even-handed solution, but they’re not necessarily immune from politics. Some states, for example, have commissions staffed by political appointees or people with explicit partisan affiliations.

But even though the vote in the case Amy mentioned was narrow, there is now precedent saying independent commissions are constitutional — at least when they’re established via ballot initiative.

So it would be another kettle of fish for Roberts to allow that to be reversed on his watch.

galen: Yeah, overturning that would be bold.

amy.howe: Justice Kennedy was in the majority in the independent commission case — just throwing that out there.

ameliatd: I’m not saying it’s not possible. I just think it would be another ballsy move in a court that seems to be trying to tread pretty lightly on controversial issues right now.

But there are still outstanding opinions, I know, I know. So these could be famous last words.

amy.howe: There are lots of outstanding opinions, but only a few big ones, and this is definitely one of them.

ella: So I have a question for you all. Do you think it’s possible that the Supreme Court could say that a gerrymander’s origin has to be as blatant as what happened in North Carolina for it to be unconstitutional? Or I guess, put another way — do you think the court could say what happened in North Carolina is definitely an example of a partisan gerrymander, but we’re still unsure in the Maryland case, and we’re not yet willing to define a metric?

galen: Yes.

ella: That seems pretty risky for reformers!

galen: Yeah, reformers would hate that because it’s unlikely lawmakers would ever expose their underlying motivations as blatantly as they did in North Carolina.

ella: But I guess it would require the justices to say that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, which would be something of a win for reformers.

ameliatd: I guess the question is: Can the justices make this seem futile for reformers in the short term without totally shutting the door? I don’t know. With the 2020 census coming up, there’s sure to be more litigation, and I think this is something Democrats are paying attention to this time in a way that they weren’t, really, post-2010.

sarahf: So to wrap, what do you see as the key differences in the stakes from the last time the Supreme Court weighed in on this topic? And what do you think is the most likely outcome?

ameliatd: This time, the court arguably has an incentive not to punt again. So it seems possible to me that this is the year the court finally says, “Nope, this isn’t for the courts to get involved with.” Or maybe as Ella suggested, they rule against North Carolina because the process was so blatantly partisan but as a result set the bar for what counts as an unconstitutional gerrymander very, very high.

galen: I feel like I have to stick with the court punting, but honestly, who knows.

ella: One difference that interests me is the strategies of the plaintiffs (one metric vs. everything under the sun). I really don’t know how it could go. Kavanaugh is such a wild card.

And so is democracy!

galen: Kavanaugh did clerk for Kennedy, which is one thing reformers like to remind me.

So this is one case where we are going to find out pretty early on how much osmosis there was.

amy.howe: Just a reminder, Justice Neil Gorsuch also clerked for Kennedy. But I think because there are slight differences in how the cases came to the Supreme Court as compared with the last pair of cases, the Supreme Court has fewer off-ramps, which makes the justices more likely to decide the cases on their merits.

I think the two most likely outcomes are either: (1) a 5-4 ruling that courts should stay out of partisan gerrymandering cases, period; or (2) a narrow (but less divided) ruling that bars really egregious partisan gerrymanders, without saying a whole lot about exactly what those are.

ameliatd: It’s important to stress, though, that this issue is not going away regardless of how the court rules. The question is where the battle goes next — does it stay mostly in the federal courts, or does it shift elsewhere (like the state courts)?

Redistricting is really hard, guys.

ella: Has good maps, though.

amy.howe: And the justices think it’s really hard too. Fortunately we only have to write about their opinions; they actually have to try to solve the problem.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #A FiveThirtyEight Chat

0 notes

swisscoin4-blog · 5 years

Text

Lukewarm Stove: Reds “Extend” Iglesias, Cruz Drawing Interest, Six Teams on Syndergaard, Segura, More

Among the Cubs many options this winter, their plans for the back of the bullpen are among the most difficult to peg down. On the one hand, they already have two or three capable closers on the roster in Brandon Morrow, Pedro Strop, and Steve Cishek. But on the other hand, Cishek worked a ton last year and the other two guys experienced significant injuries. Morrow, in particular, is going to a risky bet for a full year’s worth of innings.

With that said, there are a number of high-quality relief arms available in free agency, but given the Cubs’ apparent desire to limit their spending, I’m not sure how active they’ll be on that front – at least, with respect to a sure-fire, shut-down closer. Then again, Morrow wasn’t an established closer when the Cubs signed him last year to be theirs.

Of course, they could also go the trade route …

To that end, they have made some high-profile trades for closers in the recent past (Aroldis Chapman, Wade Davis) and that could be the path forward this winter. On ESPN 1000 today, David Kaplan and Jesse Rogers mentioned Mariners closer Edwin Diaz (in a purely dot-connecting, dream-world kind of way) and, sure, if the Cubs parted with enough, he could be pried away, I’m sure (any Mariner can be had right now). But another name mentioned in the past is Reds closer Raisel Iglesias.

Perhaps not anymore?

According to Jon Heyman, Iglesias is getting an average of roughly $8M per year over the next three years, though this deal does not actually buy out any of the closer’s free agent years. Instead, it just added some cost certainty for a player who could’ve otherwise opted for arbitration (he had a unique contract) and a team who would like to know exactly where their budget will be. Typically, when a player signs an extension, a turnaround trade is highly unlikely, but because this doesn’t actually keep him in Cincinnati any longer than he was already under control *and* because it offers pretty reasonably priced terms, he’s still a candidate to be moved. Even for a very good closer, $8M per year is a lot for a small-market club trying to round out a roster. (It should be noted that the 28-year-old righty’s ERA dipped last year to 2.38, but his strikeout rate also dipped about 2.5 percentage points and his home run rate exploded from 0.59 per 9 in 2017 to a whopping 1.50 per 9 in 2018. That’ll happen when your fly ball rate goes up, AND your hard contact rate increases by 10 percentage points.)

Then again, the Reds may actually try next year, so he’ll probably just keep racking up saves for a last-ish place team.

Sticking with the Reds, Heyman writes that they and the A’s have interest in Matt Harvey. I would say signing Harvey, hoping for a rebound, and selling him at the deadline would be a great idea for the Reds, but they did that last year … and then just didn’t trade him. I genuinely have no idea whether the Reds actually have a big picture plan.

Jon Morosi writes that the Rays, Astros, and White Sox have all shown interest in free agent DH/OH Nelson Cruz, who has the most home runs since 2010 (tied with Giancarlo Stanton). Obviously, the Cubs (or any NL team) wouldn’t have interest in a pure DH like him, but he was pretty fantastic offensively last season (135 wRC+) and has been for a good long while. I bet he can still swing it next year.

Noah Syndergaard continues to generate interest on the trade market, with as many as six teams believed to be “real players,” according to Jon Heyman. Heyman points to the Winter Meets as a time/place something could go down. And I gotta say, if Harper, Machado, Realmuto, and Syndergaard all haven’t picked/been given a new team by then, these Winter Meetings are going to be NUTS.

Everyone will wonder whether the Cubs could be in on Syndergaard, but it’s hard to see them extending to get another starting pitcher unless they got REALLY creative and also unless the Mets were infatuated with guys like Kyle Schwarber, Ian Happ, and Addison Russell. I don’t see it happening. (And, as Brett said recently, it definitely isn’t going to happen with Kris Bryant.)

I actually hate this, because I think Michael Brantley might be pretty good next season:

It’s not like I want the Cardinals to miss out on Brantley and sign Harper in his place, but I don’t think they’re going to give Harper the deal he’d require, so Brantley feels much more likely. Brantley slashed .309/.364/.468 last season (124 wRC+) and was worth 3.5 WAR. The Cardinals could more easily add a corner infielder than an outfielder, but I’m sure they could make Brantley fit if they loved his bat.

The Phillies are considering moving Carlos Santana (which we knew, due to their desire to shift Rhys Hoskins back to first (especially if they pick up Bryce Harper)), but also Tommy Hunter and Pat Neshek. Hunter, the briefly-a-former-Cub, posted a 3.80 ERA (3.63 FIP) over 64.0 innings last season with an excellent groundball rate, a tiny walk rate, and almost no hard contact. He’s under control for just one more season at $9M and could be an interesting target for the Cubs in the right deal. Nehsek, meanwhile, will make $7M in 2019 and comes with a $7M club option for 2020, but is already 38-years old. That said, he did have a 1.59 ERA in 2017 and a 2.59 ERA in 2018, so … who knows! The Cubs need quality relief arms and they don’t all have to come via free agency.

The Mariners want to sell and the Padres want to buy so bad:

As we’ve discussed, Cubs are the sort of team that could have interest in Segura, but even at his current salary ($14.85 million for each of the next four years, plus a team option at $17 million thereafter ($1M buyout), he wouldn’t necessarily be a giveaway. Last season was his worst offensively since 2015, but he was still 11% better than average and finished with 3.8 WAR thanks to his quality defense up the middle. Segura never strikes out, but rarely walks, he hits for a lot of average, but not much power. In terms of a middle-infielder, though, he’s quite good and still only 28.

Brett Taylor contributed to this post.

Source: https://www.bleachernation.com/2018/11/21/lukewarm-stove-reds-extend-iglesias-cruz-drawing-interest-six-teams-on-syndergaard-segura-more/

0 notes

talkcarol17-blog · 5 years

Text

Lukewarm Stove: Trading Pederson to Sign Pollock, Cardinals Extensions, Bogus Pirates Rumors, More

Yesterday, there was a random report floating around that the Pirates were actually the mystery team on Manny Machado. Jon Heyman has heard otherwise:

The Rangers are inking Asdrubal Cabrera to a cheap deal as they continue to grab possibly-flippable pieces:

And finally, here’s a little more Harper talk to take us out:

Brett Taylor contributed to this post.

Source: https://www.bleachernation.com/2019/01/22/lukewarm-stove-trading-pederson-to-sign-pollock-cardinals-extensions-bogus-pirates-rumors-more/

0 notes

gyrlversion · 5 years

Text

The emerging Boeing 737 MAX scandal, explained

Boeing executives are offering a simple explanation for why the company’s best-selling plane in the world, the 737 MAX 8, crashed twice in the past several months, leaving Jakarta, Indonesia, in October and then Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in March. Executives claimed Wednesday, March 27, that the cause was a software problem — and that a new software upgrade fixes it.

But this open-and-shut version of events conflicts with what diligent reporters in the aviation press have uncovered in the weeks since Asia, Europe, Canada, and then the United States grounded the planes.

The story begins nine years ago when Boeing was faced with a major threat to its bottom line, spurring the airline to rush a series of kludges through the certification process — with an under-resourced Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seemingly all too eager to help an American company threatened by a foreign competitor, rather than to ask tough questions about the project.

The specifics of what happened in the regulatory system are still emerging (and despite executives’ assurances we don’t even really know what happened on the flights yet). But the big picture is coming into view: A major employer faced a major financial threat, and short-term politics and greed won out over the integrity of the regulatory system. It’s a scandal.

The 737 versus 320 rivalry, explained

There are lots of different passenger airplanes on the market, but just two very similar narrow-body planes dominate domestic (or intra-European) travel. One is the European company Airbus’s 320 family, with models called A318, A319, A320, or A321 depending on how long the plane is. These four variants, by design, have identical flight decks so pilots can be trained to fly them interchangeably.

The 320 family competes with a group of planes that Boeing calls the 737 — there’s a 737-600, a 737-700, a 737-800, and a 737-900 — with higher numbers indicating larger planes. Some of them are also extended-range models that have an ER appended to the name and, as you would probably guess, they have longer ranges.

Importantly, even though there are many different flavors of 737, they are all in some sense the same plane, just as all the different 320 family planes are the same plane. Southwest Airlines, for example, simplifies its overall operations by exclusively flying different 737 variants.

Both the 737 and the 320 come in lots of different flavors, so airlines have plenty of options in terms of what kind of aircraft should fly exactly which route. But because there are only two players in this market, and because their offerings are so fundamentally similar, the competition for this slice of the plane market is both intense and weirdly limited. If one company were to gain a clear technical advantage over the other, it would be a minor catastrophe for the losing company.

And that’s what Boeing thought it was facing.

The A320neo was trouble for Boeing

Jet fuel is a major cost for airlines. With labor costs largely driven by collective bargaining agreements and regulations that require minimum ratios of flight attendants per passenger, fuel is the cost center airlines have the most capacity to do something about. Consequently, improving fuel efficiency has emerged as one of the major bases of competition between airline manufacturers.

If you roll back to 2010, it began to look like Boeing had a real problem in this regard.

Airbus was coming out with an updated version of the A320 family that it called the A320neo, with “neo” meaning “new engine option.” The new engines were going to be a more fuel-efficient design, with a larger diameter than previous A320 engines, that could nonetheless be mounted on what was basically the same airframe. This was a nontrivial engineering undertaking both in designing the new engines and in figuring out how to make them work with the old airframe, but even though it cost a bunch of money, it basically worked. And it raised the question of whether Boeing would respond.

Initial word was that it wouldn’t. As CBS Moneywatch’s Brett Snyder wrote back in December 2010, the basic problem was that you couldn’t slap the new generation of more efficient, larger-diameter engines onto the 737:

One of the issues for Boeing is that it takes more work to put new engines on the 737 than on the A320. The 737 is lower to the ground than the A320, and the new engines have a larger diameter. So while both manufacturers would have to do work, the Boeing guys would have more work to do to jack the airplane up. That will cost more while reducing commonality with the current fleet. As we know from last week, reduced commonality means higher costs for the airlines as well.

Under the circumstances, Boeing’s best option was to just take the hit for a few years and accept that it was going to have to start selling 737s at a discount price while it took the time to design a whole new airplane. That would, of course, be time-consuming and expensive, and during the interim they’d probably lose a bunch of narrow-body sales to Airbus.

The original version of the 737 first flew in 1967, and a decades-old decision about how much height to leave between the wing and the runway left them boxed-out of 21st century engine technology — and there was simply nothing to be done about it.

Unless there was.

Boeing decided to put the too-big engines on anyway

As late as February 2011, Boeing chair and CEO James McNerney was sticking to the plan to design a totally new aircraft.

“We’re not done evaluating this whole situation yet,” he said on an analyst call, “but our current bias is to move to a newer airplane, an all-new airplane, at the end of the decade, beginning of the next decade. It’s our judgment that our customers will wait for us.”

But then in August 2011, Boeing announced that it had lined up orders for 496 re-engined Boeing 737 aircraft from five different airlines.

It’s not entirely clear what happened, but, reading between the lines, it seems that in talking to its customers Boeing reached the conclusion that airlines would not wait for them. Some critical mass of carriers (American Airlines seems to have been particularly influential) was credible enough in its threat to switch to Airbus equipment that Boeing decided it needed to offer 737 buyers a Boeing solution sooner rather than later.

Committing to putting a new engine that didn’t fit on the plane was the corporate version of the Fyre Festival’s “let’s just do it and be legends, man” moment, and it not surprisingly wound up leading to a slew of engineering and regulatory problems.

New engines on an old plane

As the industry trade publication Leeham News and Analysis explained earlier in March, Boeing engineers had been working on the concept that became their 737 MAX even back when the company’s plan was still not to build it.

In a March 2011 interview with Aircraft Technology, Mike Bair, then the head of 737 product development, said that reengineeing was possible.

“There’s been fairly extensive engineering work on it,” he said. “We figured out a way to get a big enough engine under the wing.”

The problem is that an airplane is a big, complicated network of interconnected parts. To get the engine under the 737 wing, engineers had to mount the engine nacelle higher and more forward on the plane. But moving the engine nacelle (and a related change to the nose of the plane) changed the aerodynamics of the plane, such that the plane did not handle properly at a high angle of attack.* That, in turn, led to the creation of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). It fixed the angle-of-attack problem in most situations, but it created new problems in other situations when it made it difficult for pilots to directly control the plane without being overridden by the MCAS.

On Wednesday, Boeing rolled out a software patch that it says corrects the problem, and it hopes to persuade the FAA to agree.

But note that the underlying problem isn’t really software, it’s with the effort to use software to get around a whole host of other problems.

1of x: BEST analysis of what really is happening on the #Boeing737Max issue from my brother in law @davekammeyer, who’s a pilot, software engineer & deep thinker. Bottom line don’t blame software that’s the band aid for many other engineering and economic forces in effect.

— Trevor Sumner (@trevorsumner) March 16, 2019

Recall, after all, that the whole point of the 737 MAX project was to be able to say that the new plane was the same as the old plane. From an engineering perspective, the preferred solution was to actually build a new plane. But for business reasons, Boeing didn’t want a “new plane” that would require a lengthy certification process and extensive (and expensive) new pilot training for its customers. The demand was for a plane that was simultaneously new and not new.

But because the new engines wouldn’t fit under the old wings, the new plane wound up having different aerodynamic properties than the old plane. And because the aerodynamics were different, the flight control systems were also different. But treating the whole thing as a fundamentally different plane would have undermined the whole point. So the FAA and Boeing agreed to sort of fudge it.

The new planes are pretty different

As far as we can tell, the 737 MAX is a perfectly airworthy plane in the sense that error-free piloting allows it to be operated safely.

But pilots of planes that didn’t crash kept noticing the same basic pattern of behavior that is suspected to have been behind the two crashes, according to a Dallas Morning News review of voluntary aircraft incident reports to a NASA database.

The disclosures found by the News reference problems with an autopilot system, and they all occurred during the ascent after takeoff. Many mentioned the plane suddenly nosing down. While records show these flights occurred in October and November, the airlines the pilots were flying for is redacted from the database.

These pilots all safely disabled the MCAS and kept their planes in the air. But one of the pilots reported to the database that it was “unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying an airplane without adequately training, or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models.”

The training piece is important because a key selling feature of the 737 MAX was the idea that since it wasn’t really a new plane, pilots didn’t really need to be retrained for the new equipment. As the New York Times reported, “For many new airplane models, pilots train for hours on giant, multimillion-dollar machines, on-the-ground versions of cockpits that mimic the flying experience and teach them new features” while the experienced 737 MAX pilots were allowed light refresher courses that you could do on an iPad.

That let Boeing get the planes into customers’ hands quickly and cheaply, but evidently at the cost of increasing the possibility of pilots not really knowing how to handle the planes, with dire consequences for everyone involved.

The FAA put a lot of faith in Boeing

In a blockbuster March 17 report for the Seattle Times, the newspaper’s aerospace reporter Dominic Gates details the extent to which the FAA delegated crucial evaluations of the 737’s safety to Boeing itself. The delegation, Gates explains, is in part a story of a years-long process during which the FAA “citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes.”

But there are indications of failures that were specific to the 737 MAX timeline. In particular, Gates reports that “as certification proceeded, managers prodded them to speed the process” and that “when time was too short for FAA technical staff to complete a review, sometimes managers either signed off on the documents themselves or delegated their review back to Boeing.”

Most of all, decisions about what could and could not be delegated were being made by managers concerned about the timeline, rather than by the agency’s technical experts.

It’s not entirely clear at this point why the FAA was so determined to get the 737 cleared quickly (there will be more investigations), but if you recall the political circumstances of this period in Barack Obama’s presidency, you can quickly get a general sense of the issue.

Boeing is not just a big company with a significant lobbying presence in Washington, it’s a major manufacturing company with a strong global export presence and a source of many good-paying union jobs. In short, it was exactly the kind of company that the powers that be were eager to promote — with the Obama White House, for example, proudly going to bat for the Export-Import Bank as a key way to sustain America’s aerospace industry.

A story about overweening regulators delaying an iconic American company’s product launch and costing us good jobs compared to the European competition would have looked very bad. And the fact that the whole purpose of the plane was to be more fuel-efficient only made getting it off the ground a bigger priority. But the incentives really were reasonably aligned, and Boeing has only caused problems for itself by cutting corners.

Boeing is now in a bad situation

One emblem of the whole situation is that as the 737 MAX engineering team piled kludge on top of kludge, one thing they came up with was a cockpit warning light that would alert the pilots if the plane’s two angle-of-attack sensors disagreed.

But then, as Jon Ostrower reported for the Air Current, Boeing’s team decided to make the warning light an optional add-on, like how car companies will upcharge you for a moon roof.

The light cost $80,000 extra per plane and neither Lion Air nor Ethiopian chose to buy it, perhaps figuring that Boeing would not sell a plane (nor would the FAA allow it to) that was not basically safe to fly. In the wake of the crashes, Boeing has decided to revisit this decision and make the light standard on all aircraft.

Now to be clear, Boeing has lost about $40 billion in stock market valuation since the crash, so it’s not like cheating out on the warning light turned out to have been a brilliant business decision or anything.

This, fundamentally, is one reason the FAA has become comfortable working so closely with Boeing on safety regulations: The nature of the airline industry is such that there’s no real money to be made selling airplanes that have a poor safety track record. One could even imagine sketching out a utopian libertarian argument to the effect that there’s no real need for a government role in certifying new airplanes at all, precisely because there’s no reason to think it’s profitable to make unsafe ones.

The real world, of course, is quite a bit different from that, and different individuals and institutions face particular pressures that can lead them to take actions that don’t collectively make sense. Looking back, Boeing probably wishes it had just stuck with the “build a new plane” plan and stuck it out for a few years of rough sales, rather than ending up in the current situation. Right now they are, in effect, trying to patch things up piecemeal — a software update here, a new warning light there, etc. — in hopes of persuading global regulatory agencies to let their planes fly again.

But even once that’s done, they face the task of convincing airlines to actually go buy their planes. An informative David Ljunggren article for Reuters reminds us that a somewhat comparable situation arose in 1965 when three then-new Boeing 727 jetliners crashed.

There wasn’t really anything unsound about the 727 planes, but many pilots didn’t fully understand how to operate the new flaps — arguably a parallel to the MCAS situation with the 737 MAX — which spurred some additional training and changes to the operation manual. Passengers avoided the planes for months, but eventually came back as there were no more crashes, and the 727 went on to fly safely for decades. Boeing hopes to have a similar happy ending to this saga, but so far they seem to be a long way from that point. And their immediate future likely involves more tough questions.

A political scandal on slow-burn

The 737 MAX was briefly a topic of political controversy in the United States as foreign regulators grounded the planes, but President Donald Trump — after speaking personally to Boeing’s CEO — declined to follow. Many members of Congress (from both parties) called on him to reconsider, which he rather quickly did, pushing the whole topic off Washington’s front burner.

But Trump is generally friendly to Boeing (he even has a Boeing executive serving as acting defense secretary, despite an ongoing ethics inquiry into charges that he unfairly favors his former employer) and Republicans are generally averse to harsh regulatory crackdowns. The most important decisions in the mix appear to have been made back during the Obama administration, so it’s also difficult for Democrats to go after this issue. Meanwhile, Washington has been embroiled in wrangling over special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and a new health care battlefield opened up as well.

That said, on March 27, FAA officials faced the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Aviation and Space at a hearing called by subcommittee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz says he expects to call a second hearing featuring Boeing executives, as well as pilots and other industry players. Cruz was a leader on the anti-Boeing side of the Export-Import Bank fight years ago, so perhaps is more comfortable than others in Congress to take this on.

When the political system does begin to engage on the issue, however, it’s unlikely to stop with just one congressional subcommittee. Billions of dollars are at stake for Boeing, the airlines who fly 737s, and the workers who build the planes. And since a central element of this story is the credibility of the FAA’s own process — both in the eyes of the American people and also in the eyes of foreign regulatory agencies — it almost certainly isn’t going to get sorted out without more involvement from the actual decision-makers in the US government.

* Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated that it was the landing gear, rather than the engine, that had been relocated.

The post The emerging Boeing 737 MAX scandal, explained appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/the-emerging-boeing-737-max-scandal-explained/

#All #breaking news #Entertainment News #boeing 737 #etheopean filight #etheopia #gyrlversion #malays

0 notes

priestfibre23-blog · 5 years

Text

Lukewarm Stove: Brewers Dark Horse on Harper? Realmuto, Segura, Greinke, More

(Photo by Greg Fiume/Getty Images)

Source: https://www.bleachernation.com/2018/11/23/lukewarm-stove-brewers-dark-horse-on-harper-realmuto-segura-greinke-more/

0 notes

flauntpage · 6 years

Text

Assorted Ailments – Observations from Sixers 116, Pistons 102

That was a pretty straightforward win.

There was a weird portion of the game where Detroit pulled within three, and I was sitting there thinking to myself, “surely they’re not going to blow this while playing at home with Joel Embiid while Blake Griffin sits.” That would be absurd considering that they went out and beat the Pistons on the road three days prior without Joel Embiid while Blake Griffin played. It would have been like entering the “upside down” from Stranger Things, or Seinfeld’s “bizarro world” or just the Twilight Zone in general.

But it didn’t happen, and even after Jimmy Butler left the game with a groin strain, the Sixers found a way to blow it open in the fourth for a comfortable, 14-point win.

Brett Brown did not have an update on Butler, but I imagine we’ll get one after practice this afternoon around 1:15 p.m.

Holding yourself to a high standard

Most of my focus last night was watching Joel Embiid’s offensive positioning and body language, to see where his starting points were and if he seemed to be annoyed with his role. This was, after all, the first game he played since the Keith Pompey article came out last week, featuring some quotes that suggested that he was unhappy with his play and the way he was being deployed on the floor.

I didn’t see much to suggest that anything was truly different, and of course Butler’s injury departure cut short the amount of time they played together, so there weren’t a ton of great examples to look at last night. Ben Simmons was also ultra-aggressive in the first quarter, so he did a lot of early-shot clock driving and didn’t flow into the base offense on too many occasions.

This was one example, and while it was kind of sloppy, it works for this exercise:

They sort of botch that, but you see how they swing it into a DHO with Redick, and then Joel peels down to the post with 10 seconds on the shot clock.

That’s how they get him most of his post touches, running that two-man game with JJ and then sliding down on the ball side. In this sequence he passes out of the double team for Butler, who gets a clean three-point look, so they actually turn a wonky possession into a decent shot.

This is how the base motion offense really is supposed to look:

Embiid is the trailing big, so they run that “A to B” motion with him and T.J. McConnell before swinging into a DHO with Redick. JJ kicks the ball back out, Joel takes it to the post, throws it out, and gets it back.

The whole point is that Joel starts most of the Sixers’ possessions on the perimeter, no matter if it’s the base offense or various horns and clear-out sets. He still gets post touches though because he inevitably winds up down there off the DHO with Redick in the two-man game.

I’m not entirely sure what his frustration is with the Butler thing, but certainly if you dial up specific looks for Jimmy or just call a simple pick and roll or iso or something like that, of course you’re not going to be involved. And in the Toronto game, when Joel was being run ragged, I honestly would blame that on Simmons to continuing to push a ridiculous and frenetic pace into the fourth quarter. When you are inbounding the ball as the trailing big, you’re just going to be exhausted hauling ass up and down the floor.

Speaking of ass, Joel opened his media availability by explaining that he had recently experienced a migraine and diarrhea. Brett Brown also confirmed that he wasn’t sure he would have Jo available to play until “late,” which I assume would be a short time before the game.

Embiid then elaborated on the quotes he gave in the Pompey story:

That was just me frustrated with the way I was playing. I know everybody took it out of context. But I love everybody and I love my teammates and I love the coaching staff and I think everybody that knows me knows that. (It’s) me being frustrated because I hold myself to a really high standard. I played a role in whatever was said, but I had a conversation with coach. It starts with me but there’s a lot of adjustments that we can all make. It’s just the frustration of playing… I’ve never really been in that situation; usually if I’m in a slump it’s two or three days but it’s been going on for like ten games. Also it’s because I hold myself to a certain standard. But it’s the past, we moved on and everything is great.

Joel had 24 points and 8 rebounds with 3 assists, 2 steals, and 2 blocks last night. He only shot 6 for 16 but hit 11 of 14 free throws and finished with the world’s quietest +30, so go figure. If Butler is out for a few games, this issue won’t be much of anything moving forward, but we’ll see what happens once the starting five is back together.

Ring that bell brotha

Furkan Korkmaz rang it.

He finished with a career-high 18 points last night on 7-12 shooting off the bench. He also grabbed seven rebounds and played some decent defense on the other side of the floor.

I asked Furkan how he felt and what was working for him last night:

Of course the feeling is really good you know? Sometimes you are playing good – really good – but the team (is losing). I feel like I played good and then we won the game. Things are changing really quickly here. After the trade I started to find more opportunities here, so I’m talking to the coaching staff and some of the players on the team about how I can be ready every time. I was ready today. I think every time I just go out there and play.

That was sort of a softball question to set up the next one, because I don’t like asking the asshole question right off the bat when a player has a good game. It’s usually more fair to throw something generic at a guy and let him answer it how he wants to, then if you have something that’s a little more “pointed,” you do that next. In this case, I wanted to ask him how he felt about his contract option not being picked up and whether or not he feels like he has something to prove when he hits the floor:

I mean, like I said, things are changing really quickly here in the NBA. Right now that’s the decision from the organization and from the coaching staff and the front office. I can’t make any comment about it. I just need to keep working and keep being professional. When the opportunity comes, when the time comes, I just need to show the people that yes, I can play.

A diplomatic answer. Not sure what else he can really say there.

To his credit, he’s taken the opportunity and really rolled with it. Furkan has been given double-digit minutes in four of his last six games, and he’s reached double-digit points in three of those four outings.

There’s never been a doubt that he can shoot the ball, but defensively he’s improving and he looks more comfortable playing the NBA game.

Brown on Furk:

He’s not intimidated by NBA basketball. He’s not intimidated by the moment. I don’t know how much you paid attention to Turkey in the qualification series, but, I have said this a lot, he was one of the better guards in that tournament. He’s got a bounce, he has an inner belief, there is a swagger that he has when he is going to make a play. He may miss a lot of shots, he may make a lot of shots, but there really isn’t any sort of trepidation, there is not a back down in Furkan. I thought he played the game well and he played it with a lot of confidence.

Looks like the decision not to pick up his contract option was slightly premature. We’ll have to see how that plays out.

Other notes:

Zack Steffen was the Sixers’ bell ringer. He’s the American goalkeeper who is headed to Manchester City this winter. I don’t think many people in the arena knew who he was.

The free throw shooting was pretty poor on both ends of the floor last night. Ben Simmons finished 2-9.

Ben was aggressive early and also when he came back in at the 8 minute mark of the fourth quarter. Detroit just didn’t have an answer for him on some of those bulldozer drives to the rack.

I swear that Ben is using that snatch dribble more this year. He threw it again on that pass to JJ Redick towards the end of the game, but when I asked Simmons about it, he didn’t have much to say, just explaining that it’s something that comes naturally to him and he really doesn’t think about using it. It’s hard to get much of anything out of Ben when it comes to quotes. He’s better I think after practice because before and after games he’s just bashed over the head with a million questions about the same topics.

The Sixers’ bench scored 52 points last night, or 54 if you want to add Amir Johnson’s late dunk. But the four-man rotation of Korkmaz, McConnell, Landry Shamet, and Mike Muscala really did a nice job covering for Butler’s injury and a quiet night from Redick, who was 3-12 on the evening.

Somebody once told me that I look like Furkan Korkmaz. Do I look like him?

Shake Milton has assumed Robert Covington’s role of the hype man during the Wendy’s “Frosty Freeze Out.” It was “next man up,” according to T.J. McConnell.

Finally, I need everyone to participate in this:

Last night Joel Embiid said he had been dealing with a migraine and diarrhea. If you were forced to deal with one of those ailments, which one would you choose?

— Kevin Kinkead (@Kevin_Kinkead) December 11, 2018

The post Assorted Ailments – Observations from Sixers 116, Pistons 102 appeared first on Crossing Broad.

Assorted Ailments – Observations from Sixers 116, Pistons 102 published first on https://footballhighlightseurope.tumblr.com/

0 notes