WC Qualification South America Tabarez won’t rule out Suarez return in key Uruguay qualifiers Ben Spratt Last updated 2 years ago 03:42 8/30/17 FacebookTwitterRedditcopy Comments(0) Getty Images WC Qualification South America Luis Suárez Uruguay v Argentina Paraguay v Uruguay Uruguay With World Cup qualifying reaching a crucial stage, Uruguay’s head coach says his star attacker could be risked against Argentina or Paraguay Luis Suarez could feature for Uruguay in the international break despite missing matches for Barcelona through injury, according to national team coach Oscar Tabarez.The former Liverpool forward suffered a knee injury in the Supercopa de Espana second-leg loss to Real Madrid, which kept him out of Barca’s opening two La Liga games against Real Betis and Deportivo Alaves.Uruguay 40/1 to win the World Cup Article continues below Editors’ Picks Brazil, beware! Messi and Argentina out for revenge after Copa controversy Best player in MLS? Zlatan wasn’t even the best player in LA! ‘I’m getting better’ – Can Man Utd flop Fred save his Old Trafford career? Why Barcelona god Messi will never be worshipped in the same way in Argentina The club allowed him to travel to Uruguay to continue his recovery while his country prepare for World Cup qualifying clashes with Argentina and Paraguay.Tabarez says he still needs to talk to Suarez about his progress and warns that any suggestion he could play is, at this stage, just speculation.”Suarez arrives tomorrow [Wednesday],” Tabarez told a news conference. [His situation] is summed up in the almost identical press releases from both the Uruguay and Barcelona medical teams.”He is going to continue his recovery here and we’ll see then. I haven’t had the chance to talk to him, I need some time to talk with him and we’ll await his arrival.”All this came as a consequence of the good relationship between the professionals of both medical teams and because the player showed some good signs in his recovery work.Esta tarde, @Uruguay entrenará con 24 futbolistas. Solo faltará Maxi Pereira, quien arribará esta noche debido a atrasos en sus vuelos. pic.twitter.com/CVAaLI0Ho7 — Selección Uruguaya (@Uruguay) August 29, 2017 “It was decided that instead of continuing his recovery in Barcelona he will do that in Montevideo. Everything else is just speculation and it is inconvenient to speculate.”We must always look at the reality of the situation and there are some aspects that we still don’t know. I cannot even compare this situation with other situations Luis has gone through previously where he showed an amazing recovery.”Uruguay are in third place — an automatic qualification spot, level on points with Chile and one clear of fifth-placed Argentina — in the South American section with four games remaining.
The Baltimore Ravens signed veteran tight end Dallas Clark to a deal Sunday, the team announced.“[General Manager] Ozzie [Newsome] has an agreement in principle with Dallas Clark as of today,” Head Coach John Harbaugh said Sunday. “So he’ll be in tomorrow to get a physical. Obviously, all of that is going to have to pan out for us to finalize it, but Dallas Clark is on his way to Baltimore right now.”Clark is a 10-year veteran who played nine years for the Indianapolis Colt. While there, he played under Ravens current Offensive Coordinator Jim Caldwell. Clark was one of quarterback Peyton Manning’s favorite targets in Caldwell’s offense.This signing will bring stability to a tight end position after the team has lost their two starters in that position in Dennis Pitta and Ed Dickson to injury.In addition to Clark, the Baltimore Ravens has also signed veteran Brandon Stokely. Harbaugh says even with the two players’ long-time status, they will still have to fight for roster spots.“They’re both really accomplished players. We’re excited to have them,” Harbaugh said. “By no means though is anything guaranteed, and they understand that. They want an opportunity to compete for a job. They’ll be in competition for a job with our guys that are here, and we’ll see how that plays out. That’s how we like it.”
Only in baseball can $2 million in cash, plus the Nos. 56 and 75 overall picks in the draft, seem like chump change. That’s what the St. Louis Cardinals were forced to give the Houston Astros as punishment for hacking into Houston’s scouting database several years ago. All told, it was an unprecedented penalty to be levied against a baseball team for an unprecedented act of espionage.Yet compared to cheating scandals in other sports, the Cardinals got off easy. Using the various draft-value charts floating around in the sports analytics blogosphere, let’s compare the relative value of the picks St. Louis relinquished with the consequences of some of the NFL and NBA’s biggest cheating scandals in recent memory. (We’ll put aside any monetary penalties, simply because each sport has its own salary structure, making those kinds of cross-league comparisons difficult.)According to research conducted by The Baseball Analysts, a sabermetric blog run by Rich Lederer, the 56th and 75th picks in the MLB draft tend to produce about 4.9 wins above replacement over their careers. How much is that? Losing 5 WAR over, say, a 10-year span decreases the average team’s odds of winning at least one World Series in the decade by 1.4 percentage points.1Based on a logistic regression for MLB teams since the 1994 strike.By contrast, consider the New England Patriots. For their role in Deflategate, they were stripped of the No. 29 pick in the 2016 NFL draft, plus a fourth-rounder (let’s say No. 1302That’s the final non-compensatory pick of the fourth round, which would go to the Super Bowl champion; our Elo prediction model currently favors the Patriots to beat the Falcons on Super Sunday.) in 2017. According to Chase Stuart’s draft value chart, those picks tend to produce about 43 total points of approximate value over their careers, the loss of which over a decade would cost a team 4 percentage points from their odds of winning at least one Super Bowl in that span.3Based on a regression since the NFL playoff field expanded to 12 teams in 1990. I also assumed a replacement-level NFL player would produce about 6 points of AV over that span. And the Patriots’ penalty for Spygate seven seasons earlier — losing the 31st pick in the 2008 draft — would lop 3.2 percentage points off a team’s odds of winning at least one championship in a 10-year period.(Similarly, the New Orleans Saints’ Bountygate scandal, which cost them a pair of second-round picks, carried a penalty that would decrease the average team’s odds of winning a Super Bowl over the next decade by a whopping 4.4 percentage points.)The granddaddy of all league-imposed draft-pick sanctions probably belongs to the Minnesota Timberwolves, who lost five first-rounders for an under-the-table agreement with forward Joe Smith that attempted to circumvent the NBA’s salary cap rules. Although two of the picks were eventually restored, those that weren’t were worth about 61 career win shares, according to research by Basketball-Reference.com founder Justin Kubatko.4Note that it’s impossible to reconstruct exactly where the Wolves would have drafted in an alternate universe without the penalty, because the sanctions changed their roster for years to come. But going from their actual records, they would have owned the No. 13 pick in 2001, No. 23 in 2002 and No. 28 in 2004 — which add up to a value of 61 WS. Losing that many wins over a 10-year period5While also adding back in the roughly 8 win shares generated by replacement-level players. would reduce an NBA team’s championship odds for the decade by 6.5 percentage points — a crushing blow that helps explain why Kevin Garnett had to leave Minnesota to win his first championship.In light of those comparable scandals in other leagues, the Cardinals got away with a relatively light slap on the wrist. But then again, in a sport where the World Series favorite only has a 15 percent chance of winning it all in any given year, every single point of championship probability counts. Share on Facebook
Dear Editor,As a Wilmington senior citizen who watches the Selectmen meetings weekly, I would like to offer my strong support and endorsement for Greg Bendel. He was elected to the Board of Selectmen three years ago and has shown by his action, knowledge, and deep concern for ALL of the residents of Wilmington.As an educator and coach, he is well aware of the needs of our children. Having served on the Wilmington Housing Authority, he is concerned and motivated to help our citizens. Raising a young family in Wilmington, he is aware of all the problems we share and all the great things Wilmington has to offer.Greg is available and makes it a priority to attend as many of the meetings and functions around town, knowing first hand of the wants and needs of the people. Along with Kevin Caira, who was elected to the Board three years ago and serves as Chairman this year, they have conducted the meetings in a very open, caring and transparent way.During public comments, Mr. Caira, in my opinion, is very generous, allowing everyone to speak and handles the sometimes unreasonable behavior with courtesy, civility, and patience. Mr. Caira has been involved in so many activities and volunteering in our town, including coaching Little League and Wilmington High School football and softball. And there are so many others.He was Vice Chairman of the Yentile Famr Recreational Development Committee, founding member and Vice President of the Wildcat Alumni and Friends Association member, and former Lodge President of the Wilmington Sons of Italy. (Also Past President and current National President of the Sons of Italy’s Committee for Social Justice.) And many more achievements for both Kevin and Greg to mention here.Both of these gentlemen are serving for the right reasons… and that is for you, for me, and for ALL of the townspeople of Wilmington.I would ask you to join me on April 27 and vote for Greg Bendel and Kevin Caira.Please know how very important your vote is.Thank you,Marilyn CoxLike Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email firstname.lastname@example.org.Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE GETS TO WORK: 20 Building Projects Happening In Town RIGHT NOWIn “Business”SELECTMEN NEWS: Board Supports Fire & Police Substation In North Wilmington; Town To Vote On Project In April 2020?In “Government”LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Bendel & Caira Are Trustworthy & Keep Their Campaign PromisesIn “Letter To The Editor”
Share X David Fulmer via FlickrA view from the South Rim trail at Big Bend National Park on a hazy day.Environmental groups say the Environmental Protection Agency is taking a “do-nothing” approach to dealing with pollution in Texas.On Friday, a coalition of groups sued the agency over the latest version of a rule meant to reduce haze in scenic parts of Texas and the U.S., saying it doesn’t go far enough.There is consensus on one point: that haze in national parks is a problem. The EPA acknowledged that when it finalized its new haze cleanup plan in October, saying that average visibility in many national parks and wilderness areas is “about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.”Stephanie Kodish is an attorney with the National Parks Conservation Association, which worries about pollution in the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains parks coming from power plants.“Not only do these sources compromise visibility, but they also affect visitor health, and they’re the same sources that have an impact on our climate,” Kodish said. Her group and others argue the Obama Administration’s approach to cleaning up haze would’ve had better results. The new plan gives Texas power plants alternatives to installing costly emissions controls, one of them being an emissions trading program within the state.The EPA said its policy is to not comment on pending litigation, but in deciding on the new rule, the agency had considered arguments from Texas power companies that the old version would’ve been unnecessarily costly, and that it was an example of federal overreach. The groups suing are also formally petitioning the EPA to reconsider the new rule. To embed this piece of audio in your site, please use this code: Listen 00:00 /01:06