Without a doubt, he’s looking pretty awful and there isn’t a lot of upside IMO.

I do not understand the disconnect with the media, since the problems are so obvious. Does this sound like a guy you want leading your team? From his Wikipedia page:

As opposed to industrial or residential sex workers.

Set it up! I’d happily play this.

This would be hilarious. I propose any slot where the player scores exactly 0 instead scores 100, to incentivize people to actually work to find players who will score at least some points, but as few as possible.

Every lawmaker’s portfolio should be a randomly selected and changing set of stocks, bonds, etc. that they can’t determine. That way they have reasons to improve the conditions as a whole, veil of ignorance style.

GIF didn’t work, booo!

I’ve recently been thinking a lot about how bad the GOP is at predicting the 2nd order and even 1st order consequences of their actions. For example: recent laws that preferred pronouns can’t be compelled speech, therefore I can call you whatever pronouns I like.

You definitely need to have a hypothesis that Fields on the Jets is a big step up. While we saw flashes last year, this still seems like a super risky move to me.

I think the fact that I can’t tell which side I want, or that it would depends on where the rest of my team is at means this is reasonably fair, IMO. Maye has a lot of perceived upside and the 1.02 will have a lot of draft capital, so I think I take that side if I’m rebuilding, but tough decision.

If the 2026 1st were likely to be early, then possibly enough.

Wicks is about a late 2nd to me, so lining it up you’ve got Wicks is close to equal to the 3.04, the 2.01 is close to a 2026 late 1st, and that leaves you close to trading the 1.01 for the 1.02. Given the perceived value gap between Jeanty and the 1.02, this is too little for me.