Before I start, let me acknowledge that two deadspin greys arguing is the Mariana Trench of how low you can sink on the internet, but fuck it.

They would have been able to guarantee $44 million worth of a contract that would have spanned 5 years. Instead, they’re guaranteeing nearly that much for a “contract” that spans 2 years. Now, if they want 3 more years, they’ll need to pony up even more guaranteed money. This situation is substantially worse than the…

Great username.

Either one of us is missing something or this is some extraordinarily subtle humor.

You think that’s bad? McCutchen had a 0.256 last year!

+1 underfunded pension

No, you need to form a union first. That’s how problems get solved. Don’t you read Hamilton’s articles? Sheesh.

It’s going to be super awkward when he gets drunk and subsequently thrown out by security.

In no way did I even remotely imply that.

It should be the first (and last) post on any freedom of speech discussion.

“Defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”

Could have sworn I read that somewhere.

Of course, it does have a way of turning those who live under it into detractors over time, making that more of an ongoing project than a one shot deal.

Capitalism has its problems, but given the choice, I’d prefer the system that provides electricity and, you know, food.

Which union do you guys belong to?

There’s something really great about seeing this phrase on a well-read website:

Wow, you sound fun to work for.

What’s the problem? Government is good and we need more of it, don’t you read Ham’s articles?

Not only does it not violate the 4th amendment, the text of the 4th amendment itself describes exactly how searches can be executed (upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized).