28 minutes ago, hovertical said:

Yep. Every year more people grow sick of it on here but there are still the diehards that believe somehow next season will be THe OnE and run that same tired mantra out over and over.

Look, I was against the rebuild initially.  I didn't want to break up that hitting core we had. I, and a few others were in the minority in that opinion.  Most on here were thrilled to break up the club, and get all of these prospects back to rebuild the farm. 

We (the minority) kept asking, what if they miss? What if a 3 - 5 year plan turns into a 5 -7 year plan?  Most on here were sure that Jeter and company were going to get it done. 

Well, here we are.  They missed on most of the trades and the rebuild has been set back. And, Bryan Reynolds, good as he might be, wasn't going to take us to the world series, or even guarantee a playoff spot.  That's as delusional as the 2 pitchers away crowd of 5 years ago.

You're all casting judgement on this regime for the previous regime's errors and lies.  That's not fair.  Yes, they have to move the "goal posts".  But, not because they lied, but because they missed.

We can bitch and moan all we want, but it's not going to make a difference.  I choose to watch this team continue to grow, and enjoy their development.  Once the rebuild is complete, we are going to have some of the best teams we've ever had.  

7 hours ago, hovertical said:

This was also pretty much my point as well. She needs to start being held accountable for using the money she was allowed to spend on the WRONG players, building a bizarre lineup, and refusing to make a trade because omg prospects. 

Feels weird to say it but I though Hill did a better job as well and was pretty decent once Loria left. He seemed to have a better grasp on balancing a lineup for sure. Pretty much what @marlins_09 said above. So far Ng does not appear to a very good GM. She hasn't been awful but she hasn't been good (certainly not great) which is why I give her the C- grading as slightly worse than average.

 

 

We had plenty of criticisms of Hill over the years, so we shouldn't look at him with too rose colored glasses - after all, he was responsible for the Yelich disaster and Realmuto question mark sliding toward disaster (though on the opposite side, the Ozuna deal).  BUT, the moves during 2020 to keep the team competitive was impressive, unlike the polar opposite that we got under Ng last year of doing literally nothing to help the team as it was sinking.

 

6 hours ago, Michael said:

Yeah. I was willing to give her a try there but the seeming inability to try to fix more than one thing at a time and letting everyone just sign elsewhere while attempting to fix CF ... yeesh. At least the bullpen got a last second upgrade, once it was apparent to them that CF wasn't happening.

Oh well. 😞 Just another typical Marlins year I guess.

 

At least it'll be fun on the days everyone on offense is clicking? I mean we could see five homers in a row from Soler, Cooper, Sanchez, Aguilar, and Garcia. That'd be fun!

Maybe we'll get to see some of the kids as they get called up and cheer for any success they achieve. Maybe.

 

Yeah, it seemed like there was a checklist that everything had to be finished before moving to another item.

 

4 hours ago, CyggyMarlin said:

As a fan since the '92 Expansion Draft, I've been slowly getting to the point where I've been thinking "why should I be a fan anymore"? Other than the fluke 2020 season, this team has hardly been relevant much since 2003.  I posted before that this offseason would impact how I feel about this team going forward.  They did just enough that I said "OK.  Let's see how tis season goes."  The trade deadline will probably be the final dagger if they don't make big enough moves to be a contender.  If this season is a failure, the Marlins will still be my team, but I'll probably stop watching games and maybe once in a while peak at the standings, but that's about it.  4 games in and this season already feels like the same old bullshit with Don still managing and a reluctance to spend money or trade prospects to get big elite impact bats...

 

But they may not even make it to the deadline in a spot to contend, that's the problem with this idea of "we've done enough to skirt by until......"

 

3 hours ago, Rydawg said:

I think we just need to temper our expectations.  I'm in the minority, but I'm of the mind set that we don't blow out the farm system yet for one piece.  If it would make us legit WS contenders, I would be more open to the idea, but to just make the playoffs?  Making the playoffs is cool, but it's not the main objective. 

This rebuild was set back by the horrible Yelich trade.  Not only did we miss on getting a Superstar,  but we missed out on even getting a useful piece that we can control for a few years on the cheap.  The Stanton trade was a salary dump, but we also didn't get anything back there. Still have some hope that Devers can at the very least be useful.  The Realmuto trade is also trending in the wrong direction.  So, with all of the crap we got back, there's no way we can stick to that 5 year timeline.

Instead of doom and gloom, let's focus on the positives.  We have a great farm system with plenty of talent coming up soon. I can't wait to see Watkins, Salas, Cappe, etc. get to the show. They should be fun to watch.  We've drafted well, and we've spent money on IFA (just like the FO promised) in order to build the farm. 

We also signed our ACE to a contract extension.  Again, the front office promised they would lock up our talent, and not trade them when they get expensive. So far so good.

On the field, our SP staff is insane.  They are all good and young and controllable.  Also, if they ever need to trade Pablo for more offense, that's a great tradeable asset. 

There's also the emergence of Jazz and Jesus.  Two young players who have come up and are starting to live up to their Potential. They are both very exciting to watch.  We do need to lock them up long term, ASAP.

In summation, so what if this teams window for contention is moved back one season?  As long as the long term goal is to continue to grow so that we can have a sustainable contender, I'm all in.

 

 

But when do you actually make that move?  That target can always be shifted and then you never end up doing it.  In the meantime, you're using up another year of great pitching for nothing.  Sandy may be signed now, but you're still wasting a year of him and the rest of the gang for potentially another lost year and "maybe" some trade for ???? somewhere down the road?

 

1 hour ago, hovertical said:

yep. i've never said this was a bad team either.  I feel they MIGHT get to .500 but likely will  be a few games under.  They could go over .500 too if somehow Jazz, Cooper, and Sanchez suddenly go off and there isn't a rash of injuries to the starters. 

If Sherman had even been willing to spend up to 100mil on this years payroll they could have fielded a very GOOD to great team if they had spent wisely.  If he had bumped payroll to 120mil this team would have been a legit frontrunning WS contender and could have been all kept together at about the same price point for the next few years to get the fanbase going in S. Florida finally.

Again, instead of Garcia and Soler they could have signed Correa.  Ditch BA and go with Bryant.  Sign Rodon. Traded for Bryan Reynolds, traded for Wendle AND still completed the deal with the O's for Scott and Sulser.  They'd STILL be in the bottom third of payroll with some very high ceiling prospects in the minors.  That's what every fan of this team should realize and understand that why the team they are fielding is NOT acceptable.

 

 

I agree with all of this.

 

48 minutes ago, SilverBullet said:

Ok so next question, we're so sick of waiting, the eternal optimism has been wasted up, so what does that mean now? It's been 5 years, they still suck... what should we do? Everyone pack it in, delete their accounts here, go on and never watch the Marlins again?

If the team hasn't done well isn't the whole point of baseball "there's always next year?"

Like I'm not sure what the bitching is supposed to lead to, what's the end result there as a fan? Give up and get a new team and look away from the Marlins forever?

 

This ties into that letter I wrote - and many gave me a hard time about "I'd have made it harsher and not talked about how they'll still be your team, etc." - but that was my point, they are still my team, and as a true fan, it is hard to just cut all ties completely, which is also why the lack of urgency to do anything is infuriating, as we continually are stuck watching a loser.

 

25 minutes ago, Entendu said:

Do you not think the team is better this year than they were last? Do you have reason to believe this team, who is largely under club control for a very long time, has peaked?

They were 67-95.  It's hard not to be better than last year.  It just seems like even with new faces, the team has largely the same issues as last year.  Some of that comes from roster construction, some of that comes from Don, who should've never been retained.  I also don't think they were truly as bad as last season's record wound up being, so if anything in my eyes, they're treading water, and showed an unwillingness to take that next big step forward this offseason with so many big impact names on the market and they signed......none of them.  Not even an attempt at a Jayson Werth-type signing.

45 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

We had plenty of criticisms of Hill over the years, so we shouldn't look at him with too rose colored glasses - after all, he was responsible for the Yelich disaster and Realmuto question mark sliding toward disaster (though on the opposite side, the Ozuna deal).  BUT, the moves during 2020 to keep the team competitive was impressive, unlike the polar opposite that we got under Ng last year of doing literally nothing to help the team as it was sinking.

 

You know, I had forgotten about that piece last year too when Sanchez was tearing it up in the minors and we were desperately looking for an infusion on offense before we completely fell out of the race....it was there...and yet she did NOTHING.  Literally....NOTHING. 

Man, that was like THE hot topic on this board for at least what, a month? Where there was just no move being made to help the team as it faltered, floundered, and eventually fell completely out of the race. Phew.  Yeah I'm not impressed with Ng at all and I think i'll move her back to a D+ for a grade. Thanks for reminding me!

 

This team is not any better than last year. They aren't worse either.  I'm not saying they're only going to win 65 games again - but it's not out of the question that that's all they'll win either because they just DON'T score.  What happens if Sandy and Pablo get injured?  This is an easy 100 loss team in that scenario because of lack of offense.

 

I think on paper they are better than 2021 and they definitely did add a little in the off-season, but didn't add nearly enough. They don't get partial credit or a pass, this offseason was fucked up. Much like the previous off-season when they twiddled their thumbs and didn't even try to sign Realmuto.

2 minutes ago, hovertical said:

You know, I had forgotten about that piece last year too when Sanchez was tearing it up in the minors and we were desperately looking for an infusion on offense before we completely fell out of the race....it was there...and yet she did NOTHING.  Literally....NOTHING. 

Man, that was like THE hot topic on this board for at least what, a month? Where there was just no move being made to help the team as it faltered, floundered, and eventually fell completely out of the race. Phew.  Yeah I'm not impressed with Ng at all and I think i'll move her back to a D+ for a grade. Thanks for reminding me!

Oh yeah, that was a huge huge issue. Dickerson was doing terribly and we had hitters getting injured as well, and they just refused to call him up. To be fair that was the "group decision" front office last year, allegedly, but ... still. They definitely should have brought him up and even if he failed, it would have given us the impression that they were trying.

On top of that, the whole bullpen games twice a week thing - we can blame Don as much as we want for those but he had to work with what he was given last year, too. "Eh we're not even gonna sign anyone for innings." That was a problem, too.

(sigh)

2 minutes ago, Michael said:

Oh yeah, that was a huge huge issue. Dickerson was doing terribly and we had hitters getting injured as well, and they just refused to call him up. To be fair that was the "group decision" front office last year, allegedly, but ... still. They definitely should have brought him up and even if he failed, it would have given us the impression that they were trying.

On top of that, the whole bullpen games twice a week thing - we can blame Don as much as we want for those but he had to work with what he was given last year, too. "Eh we're not even gonna sign anyone for innings." That was a problem, too.

(sigh)

Makes me wonder if she'd do the same thing in regard to rotation arms again if there were some injuries that popped up by refusing to call up Meyer etc. this season?  Hope we don't have to find out. 

 

3 minutes ago, hovertical said:

Makes me wonder if she'd do the same thing in regard to rotation arms again if there were some injuries that popped up by refusing to call up Meyer etc. this season?  Hope we don't have to find out. 

 

Probably

3 minutes ago, hovertical said:

Makes me wonder if she'd do the same thing in regard to rotation arms again if there were some injuries that popped up by refusing to call up Meyer etc. this season?  Hope we don't have to find out. 

 

"We can't block Max but also we can't call up Max!"

29 minutes ago, hovertical said:

You know, I had forgotten about that piece last year too when Sanchez was tearing it up in the minors and we were desperately looking for an infusion on offense before we completely fell out of the race....it was there...and yet she did NOTHING.  Literally....NOTHING. 

Man, that was like THE hot topic on this board for at least what, a month? Where there was just no move being made to help the team as it faltered, floundered, and eventually fell completely out of the race. Phew.  Yeah I'm not impressed with Ng at all and I think i'll move her back to a D+ for a grade. Thanks for reminding me!

 

This team is not any better than last year. They aren't worse either.  I'm not saying they're only going to win 65 games again - but it's not out of the question that that's all they'll win either because they just DON'T score.  What happens if Sandy and Pablo get injured?  This is an easy 100 loss team in that scenario because of lack of offense.

 

Yup, they wouldn't call up Sanchez, they wouldn't sign a pitcher, wouldn't call up a pitcher - nothing.

Edited April 12, 20224 yr by rmc523

A few (moderating) thoughts:

As a fan, I want an owner like Steve Cohen who doesn't give a hoot and just spends, spends, spends.

I also understand that for a ~$1 Billion investment, most people would be look for something like a 7-12% annual return, so in the neighborhood of $100M of profit each year.

The team itself hasn't appreciated (per Sportico), and while the team gets a big chunk of change before even selling a ticket, if you take that amount (IIRC between $100-$150M?) and subtract out even this piddling payroll, you can see that this isn't necessarily some wildly profitable venture where he's just hoarding all the gold coins. "Opportunity cost" matters.

Would he end up making more if he spends money on payroll to field a better team? It's possible, but uncertain. Even if you think what I said makes sense, as a fan you don't have to like it. But maybe it gives some more context.

-----------------------------------------

With Ng, assuming Sherman doesn't have some actual bizarre $13m/year/player cap, I agree that Correa for like $9M more than Soler + Garcia would have been a better move for the team. And if she had the okay from Sherman to trade some top prospects for a CF (Reynolds or otherwise) but didn't do so, then that would greatly annoy me.

As fans of one team, we see their needs and failures when they don't make the move to address those needs. However, it's important to remember that there are 30 teams who could be interested in each player, so all else equal the odds are not particularly high that a given team lands a given player. To be fair, money talks with free agents, but it's not the only factor either.

-----------------------------------------

Who actually does make the day-to-day decisions of which players are called up or sent down? I could see a team's owner, president, VP of player operations, GM, and/or manager all having some part in it.

Edited April 13, 20224 yr by mystikol87

1 hour ago, mystikol87 said:

A few (moderating) thoughts:

As a fan, I want an owner like Steve Cohen who doesn't give a hoot and just spends, spends, spends.

I also understand that for a ~$1 Billion investment, most people would be look for something like a 7-12% annual return, so in the neighborhood of $100M of profit each year.

The team itself hasn't appreciated (per Sportico), and while the team gets a big chunk of change before even selling a ticket, if you take that amount (IIRC between $100-$150M?) and subtract out even this piddling payroll, you can see that this isn't necessarily some wildly profitable venture where he's just hoarding all the gold coins. "Opportunity cost" matters.

Would he end up making more if he spends money on payroll to field a better team? It's possible, but uncertain. Even if you think what I said makes sense, as a fan you don't have to like it. But maybe it gives some more context.

-----------------------------------------

With Ng, assuming Sherman doesn't have some actual bizarre $13m/year/player cap, I agree that Correa for like $9M more than Soler + Garcia would have been a better move for the team. And if she had the okay from Sherman to trade some top prospects for a CF (Reynolds or otherwise) but didn't do so, then that would greatly annoy me.

As fans of one team, we see their needs and failures when they don't make the move to address those needs. However, it's important to remember that there are 30 teams who could be interested in each player, so all else equal the odds are not particularly high that a given team lands a given player. To be fair, money talks with free agents, but it's not the only factor either.

-----------------------------------------

Who actually does make the day-to-day decisions of which players are called up or sent down? I could see a team's owner, president, VP of player operations, GM, and/or manager all having some part in it.

The bulk of MLB owners don't make their money off their teams though - owning a MLB team is often more of a "hobby" for lack of better term.  When someone goes to buy a team it's not like, or shouldn't be, because they think it's going to be an absolute cash cow for them that will supplant any other revenue streams they generated from their outside ventures that got them to the point where they can afford to own a sports team.  Owners should be required to at least spend up to what they get as "free money" each year from revenue sharing, licensing, broadcast, etc.  though or at least be required to not spend below what they get automatically for 2 years or more (to allow an occasional tear down when needed). 

The bulk of the time the person who offers the most money will get the player to sign.  I doubt that Colorado was Bryant's "dream job" and likewise Minnesota being Correa's dream destination. They outbid other teams for their services.  The payroll for the Marlins was so low they could have and SHOULD have offered a "Werth" contract to get a legit +++ bat in that lineup and some star power recognition for the casual fans they're supposedly so desperate to bring in.  I mean Correa's deal is so stupidly friendly that I'm going to guess they didn't even attempt to make an offer. 

and it REALLY FUCKING IRRITATES me they spent 30mil on Soler and Garcia of which NEITHER was needed but now (unless Soler opts out) they'll be stuck with that 30mil per season on the books for a few seasons which since Sherman is a cheap mofo, will severely cripple their ability to to bring in an impact player that they NEED - not that they appear capable of determining what one of those looks like.

8 minutes ago, hovertical said:

The bulk of MLB owners don't make their money off their teams though - owning a MLB team is often more of a "hobby" for lack of better term.  When someone goes to buy a team it's not like, or shouldn't be, because they think it's going to be an absolute cash cow for them that will supplant any other revenue streams they generated from their outside ventures that got them to the point where they can afford to own a sports team.  Owners should be required to at least spend up to what they get as "free money" each year from revenue sharing, licensing, broadcast, etc.  though or at least be required to not spend below what they get automatically for 2 years or more (to allow an occasional tear down when needed). 

I know that “hobby” idea gets passed around a lot, so I’m curious what evidence for this there is. But either way, this is where Sherman not being wealthier might hurt him, as other owners have the money to spare and so it’s easier to invest now in payroll to hopefully get a better product later.

I think if they want to require spending and penalize for not spending, they should base it off of a moving average of payroll, say over the last 3 or 5 years. This way you can rebuild and slash payroll, but you’d better be spending before and after that or else face penalties. 

5 minutes ago, mystikol87 said:

I know that “hobby” idea gets passed around a lot, so I’m curious what evidence for this there is.

I think Steve Cohen said it once and people ran with it.

That said ... hovertical is also correct for most owners. Been reading the book Lords of the Realm which is a deep dive into baseball's behind the scenes stuff during free agency times and beyond. Of the 26 owners at the time, only one was using a baseball team as their main income stream.

4 minutes ago, mystikol87 said:

I know that “hobby” idea gets passed around a lot, so I’m curious what evidence for this there is. But either way, this is where Sherman not being wealthier might hurt him, as other owners have the money to spare and so it’s easier to invest now in payroll to hopefully get a better product later.

I think if they want to require spending and penalize for not spending, they should base it off of a moving average of payroll, say over the last 3 or 5 years. This way you can rebuild and slash payroll, but you’d better be spending before and after that or else face penalties. 

I did say for lack of a better term in my defense.

but yeah a hobby is apt enough - it's a lot of extra work and time for something that is not going to likely be their primary or even secondary income source.  they are not going to make billions or even hundreds of millions off it from year to year like their other business ventures they have and again, a LOT of work and time has to be put into running a team.  It's a hobby for very wealthy businessmen. I'll stick by that.

5 minutes ago, Michael said:

Of the 26 owners at the time, only one was using a baseball team as their main income stream.

Who was that?

1 minute ago, SilverBullet said:

Who was that?

I'd have to check again. It was probably Charlie Finley.

3 minutes ago, SilverBullet said:

Who was that?

Sruce Bherman

3 hours ago, Michael said:

I think Steve Cohen said it once and people ran with it.

That said ... hovertical is also correct for most owners. Been reading the book Lords of the Realm which is a deep dive into baseball's behind the scenes stuff during free agency times and beyond. Of the 26 owners at the time, only one was using a baseball team as their main income stream.

That's a fascinating stat, but if there were 26 owners, then it sounds like it was pre-1993, no?

 

Also, there is definitely a continuum between "not main income stream" and hobby, you know? The question is really whether they take it seriously as an investment.

3 hours ago, hovertical said:

I did say for lack of a better term in my defense.

but yeah a hobby is apt enough - it's a lot of extra work and time for something that is not going to likely be their primary or even secondary income source.  they are not going to make billions or even hundreds of millions off it from year to year like their other business ventures they have and again, a LOT of work and time has to be put into running a team.  It's a hobby for very wealthy businessmen. I'll stick by that.

I don't dispute your definition of a hobby, I just wonder why we think/know that most or all owners treat their baseball (or other sports teams) that way. Even if they only work on it 10 hours a week, that doesn't mean it's a hobby, at least not necessarily.

6 hours ago, mystikol87 said:

A few (moderating) thoughts:

As a fan, I want an owner like Steve Cohen who doesn't give a hoot and just spends, spends, spends.

I also understand that for a ~$1 Billion investment, most people would be look for something like a 7-12% annual return, so in the neighborhood of $100M of profit each year.

The team itself hasn't appreciated (per Sportico), and while the team gets a big chunk of change before even selling a ticket, if you take that amount (IIRC between $100-$150M?) and subtract out even this piddling payroll, you can see that this isn't necessarily some wildly profitable venture where he's just hoarding all the gold coins. "Opportunity cost" matters.

Would he end up making more if he spends money on payroll to field a better team? It's possible, but uncertain. Even if you think what I said makes sense, as a fan you don't have to like it. But maybe it gives some more context.

-----------------------------------------

With Ng, assuming Sherman doesn't have some actual bizarre $13m/year/player cap, I agree that Correa for like $9M more than Soler + Garcia would have been a better move for the team. And if she had the okay from Sherman to trade some top prospects for a CF (Reynolds or otherwise) but didn't do so, then that would greatly annoy me.

As fans of one team, we see their needs and failures when they don't make the move to address those needs. However, it's important to remember that there are 30 teams who could be interested in each player, so all else equal the odds are not particularly high that a given team lands a given player. To be fair, money talks with free agents, but it's not the only factor either.

-----------------------------------------

Who actually does make the day-to-day decisions of which players are called up or sent down? I could see a team's owner, president, VP of player operations, GM, and/or manager all having some part in it.

I get the argument of wanting a return on their investment, and the desire for long term sustainability - but we're not even at a mid-pack payroll yet again, and they seemingly refuse to even TRY and spend more and see if fans react positively to the spending (as presumably it results in a better team).  This offseason was their chance to do that, and they botched it by again going with the usual mid-tier guys that just don't ultimately move the needle, either on field (as we've seen so far), or off the field (not big star-power names like a Correa would've been).

----

I see what you're saying, but in reality, it's not true that all 30 are potentially interested in player X, as each team is in a different spot and has different players.

Maybe 25 out of 30 teams may be set at 3B, so only 5 are potentially going after 3B Player X, and maybe 2 of those teams are rebuilding, so in reality it's 3 teams potentially going after player X.  It's different for each position and team.  But you're right, it's not a vacuum of us and player XYZ.

I don't know about you all, but I don't have a significant portion of my net worth tied up in my hobby

For owners of the professional sports ,they more often to check the scoreboards or more often to check the financial statements ?

15 hours ago, rmc523 said:

I get the argument of wanting a return on their investment, and the desire for long term sustainability - but we're not even at a mid-pack payroll yet again, and they seemingly refuse to even TRY and spend more and see if fans react positively to the spending (as presumably it results in a better team).  This offseason was their chance to do that, and they botched it by again going with the usual mid-tier guys that just don't ultimately move the needle, either on field (as we've seen so far), or off the field (not big star-power names like a Correa would've been).

----

I see what you're saying, but in reality, it's not true that all 30 are potentially interested in player X, as each team is in a different spot and has different players.

Maybe 25 out of 30 teams may be set at 3B, so only 5 are potentially going after 3B Player X, and maybe 2 of those teams are rebuilding, so in reality it's 3 teams potentially going after player X.  It's different for each position and team.  But you're right, it's not a vacuum of us and player XYZ.

Oh, I definitely think they missed an opportunity to excite the fan base AND improve the on-field product at the same time. And given the desirability of owning a team, I’d hope MLB picks owners who are willing and able to invest significant money to try and get a return rather than relying on what in this case amounts to corporate welfare (ie the guaranteed payments).

And I for sure agree that not all 30 teams will be in, but I do suspect the number is much higher than 3 for players like Correa or even nice bullpen arms, as most teams would benefit from those guys, even though some of those teams may not be willing or able to offer a “competitive” salary amount.

4 minutes ago, mystikol87 said:

Oh, I definitely think they missed an opportunity to excite the fan base AND improve the on-field product at the same time. And given the desirability of owning a team, I’d hope MLB picks owners who are willing and able to invest significant money to try and get a return rather than relying on what in this case amounts to corporate welfare (ie the guaranteed payments).

And I for sure agree that not all 30 teams will be in, but I do suspect the number is much higher than 3 for players like Correa or even nice bullpen arms, as most teams would benefit from those guys, even though some of those teams may not be willing or able to offer a “competitive” salary amount.

Regarding the first paragraph - remember that the owners vote on who gets to be in their club. We can complain that Jorge Mas or Steve Cohen or Mark Cuban didn't buy the team or didn't get offered the team from Loria, but it's also possible (definitely the case on Cuban) that the owners were rejecting them. Obviously Cohen got in with the Mets so good shot he wasn't trying to buy our team lol. Still. Owners vote, and we know how they are ...

Regarding the second paragraph - collusion, bay-beeee! Lol.

1 hour ago, Michael said:

Regarding the second paragraph - collusion, bay-beeee! Lol.

Made me think of this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI