Chuckie Finster

Springer was with us until he was 30. Bregman is 30. Yordan will be under contract until 31. Altuve is 34 and counting. Unless you’ve got some evidence that 32 is the magic number, seems we’ve done a pretty good job of keeping our guys through those prime years.

We offered six to Bregman. There’s no universe where Tucker accepts six. What’s the argument here?

We did offer Bregman a contract through those years, at a higher rate than Walker and he said no. It's the combination of money and years that don't make sense for a guy who hasn't been All-Star caliber in half a decade.

Thinking back on the "golden era" what (non-prospects) have we let go that we genuinely regret? Charlie Morton Gerrit Cole Justin Verlander (?) In all seriousness, is that the complete list? We made unquestionably the correct call with Correa, Springer, Keuchel, and Yuli. So, if this list is complete and I am Crane, the only "regrets" are: a non-homegrown pitcher coming off an incredible season seeking a record contract two non-homegrown aging pitchers with a questionable amount of talent left in the tank Not quite the picture Passan is painting! Not to mention, we've given big deals to home-grown talent like Altuve, Yordan, Javier (and oh yeah, Bregman a few years ago). I'll go on the record and say that I am pretty confident that Bregman will be a similar story to Correa and Springer - still a good ballplayer, but not worthy of the long term deal he seeks. So, the real story is that Jim Crane has largely been proven correct in not wanting to give out giant contracts. Kyle Tucker is a young star looking to cash in whose current team will likely be unable to make the highest offer. That's not unique to the Astros, if happens every single year to teams across the league. Cashing in a year early on a player you know you will lose is generally considered smart when other teams do it, but Astros gotta be the villain I guess.

How much do you think Boras paid Passan to tweet this novel?

Sign someone like Teoscar/Santander and this lineup will be pretty clearly upgraded from a year ago, all while not locking ourselves into bad long contracts AND picking up a new #1 prospect. I've shit on Dana plenty, but he might be cooking here.

Well I, for one, am thrilled that we will have a front row seat to the aggy November collapse.

Very solid winner, although Sam did great and made more of a fight of it at final tribal than I expected.

Well, then the entire thing boils down to "Sark doesn't want to match the highest offer" and not any of the other stuff you've been talking about. I can't speak on Texas's willingness to pony up for a WR, but I can assure you that nothing about a Sark or Manning led offense can be construed as a negative to a player who is truly considering "a combination of variables."

I don't really know how to say this nicely, but there is not a single transfer WR who knows (or cares) who the fuck Silas Bolden is. And the idea that a Sark/Manning led offense will be anything other than enticing for a transfer WR is insane. Depth chart concerns (read: Ryan Wingo) are really the only thing potentially working against us, the rest of your post is genuine nonsense.

Anyone expecting a 5'8" featherweight to have a larger role on a National Championship caliber team (fifth leading receiver and main punt returner) than the one Bolden did this year needs to have their expectations recalibrated. He was never going to be drafted at that size, but sure - maybe he regrets leaving behind a 5-7, conference-less team to play for us.

If we are gonna open the pocketbook for a corner IF, I’d much rather pair Walker or Alonso with Paredes than Arenado.

Sark nailing a QB evaluation, can you imagine?

Not to mention putting a lot of faith in the injury gods.

Fun fact: Paredes is only three months older than Loperfido.

If they knew this was the last season with Tuck/Breg, then going all-in with the Kikuchi trade actually makes more sense… and this is coming from someone who absolutely hated that deal when it happened.

Assuming you meant Cubs in that last sentence, and 1) many wondered at the time why TB sold so low and 2) there's a top 100 prospect/recent 1st round pick and ML caliber pitcher coming with him this time.

To be fair, he was playing in college 6 months ago.

What? Rachel/Sam/Sue voted for Genevieve. Teeny (for some reason) voted for Sam, alongside Gen. And there was definitely some flashier way for Sue to use the idol but 1) to know that you need to be creative with an idol would require Sue to have an accurate view of how her game is perceived, which I'm not sure she does and 2) I'm not sure it would have even mattered in her case. Rachel would be one of the best recent winners. Sam would be fine. The show should be cancelled if it's either of the other two.

The “Rachel is gonna win” story line is so obvious that it’s making me wonder if it’s a fakeout.

One game in Austin between 9/27 and 11/22 is wild.

Crane deciding to spend like the Dodgers is the obvious best case scenario, it’s also a scenario that many of us refuse to even consider as a remote possibility.

The choice isn't between Kyle Tucker or prospects in 2025. It's between prospects or nothing in 2026 and beyond.

Almost every pundit is essentially saying that Texas would have a "better" resume if they had beaten Georgia in the first matchup but lost to Arkansas, which is an absolutely insane conclusion.

I'm wrong a lot with stuff that seems obvious to me, so it's nice to get confirmation on the thought that Venables was one of the most obvious busts in recent coaching history.