creating

NEW YORK — What if the Dodgers never get a full season of pitching from Shohei Ohtani?

In his first season with the Dodgers, he did not pitch at all. In his second, he did not pitch until June. And, halfway through this third season, Dodgers manager Dave Roberts admitted Sunday he could not say when Ohtani might pitch again.

“Don’t know yet,” Roberts said.

October might be your immediate concern, and it should concern the Dodgers too. Of the four starting pitchers they would plan to use in the postseason — Yoshinobu Yamamoto, Blake Snell, Tyler Glasnow and Ohtani — Yamamoto is the only one pitching major league innings right now. It’s not Tarik Skubal or bust, but the Dodgers should trade for someone they would start in a playoff game.

Yet, for a player with seven years left on his $700-million contract beyond this one, there might be a lot fewer opportunities to celebrate Ohtani as a two-way player than the Dodgers and their fans envision.

Ohtani did not pitch in his first year and a half with the Dodgers as he recovered from elbow surgery. When his rehabilitation was complete, he was good to go.

This is different. Ohtani is battling irritation in his left knee. Roberts used three concerning words to describe it: “wear and tear.”

There is no easy fix. The lubricant injection Ohtani received a week ago relieves symptoms for a short period of time, usually a few months. It is repeatable, but its benefits are not always felt right away.

The Dodgers had announced Ohtani would start Wednesday. Roberts said Ohtani experienced discomfort while playing catch, and that was enough for the Dodgers to push back his next start to…

“I would say that it’s going to be some time,” Roberts said. “It’s not going to be a day-to-day thing.”

Shohei Ohtani warms up before facing the Tampa Bay Rays at Dodger Stadium on June 15.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

If it is a wear-and-tear thing, there might be no solution besides management over the remainder of his career.

“I think it’s a little bit, it’s just like all of us, all athletes, that kind of have wear and tear,” Roberts said. “That’s just part of it, and now it’s just kind of showing itself a little bit, and then you got to manage it. I think that it’s the years of sliding, pitching, hitting and all that stuff.”

Ohtani is aware of this. He is 32. This is his 14th professional season. He reported to spring training with the goal of winning the National League Cy Young award, in part because who knows how long you can do everything at an elite level on a baseball field?

“Inside, I’m assuming this is my last chance as a pitcher,” Ohtani told the Japanese sports magazine Number in an interview published last month.

In his first 10 starts this season, he posted a 0.74 earned-run average, never giving up more than two runs in a start. In the four starts since the knee irritation surfaced June 10, his ERA is 4.38, and he has given up at least three runs in each start.

Can he pitch effectively if he can tolerate the discomfort? Would he want to? Would the Dodgers want him to, given their investment in him as one of the most dynamic hitters in baseball history?

To this point, Roberts said, Ohtani has experienced the irritation only on the mound, not at bat. As a result, Roberts said, the Dodgers do not believe shutting down Ohtani as a hitter for a few days would help ease the discomfort.

Maybe this works, with the injection calming the knee long enough to get Ohtani through the season, or with the irritation waning. Even then, it’s going to take some time.

“The first step is getting him into a spot where he feels like, and we feel like, he can pitch and not regress,” Roberts said.

Ohtani has not pitched in 16 days, and let’s say he does not pitch for another 16. Then the Dodgers would be looking at building back Ohtani’s endurance as they ramp up for the playoffs. So, even if Ohtani can return, could he pitch deep into a postseason game?

Shohei Ohtani hits a home run against the Tampa Bay Rays at Dodger Stadium on June 16.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

The Ohtani Effect is real, and grand. It is measured in T-shirts and ticket sales, tourists and movie promotions, bobblehead dolls and international corporate sponsorships.

But all of that should not obscure Ohtani’s greatness as a player.

If Aaron Judge cannot hit, he cannot help the Yankees, and they entered play Sunday 18-20 since he suffered a rib injury.

If Ohtani cannot pitch … well, he has hit 11 home runs since then, for the team with the best record in the major leagues.

The Dodgers do not believe Ohtani’s viability as a pitcher is in jeopardy, but we can already hear the cynics: In a worst-case scenario, if he could not pitch well again, would the contract be worth it?

It already is: Two full seasons, two World Series championships.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says low availability of unnamed “legacy” aircraft has created hurdles for flight testing of the new AGM-181A Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear-armed cruise missile. The B-52 is the only platform known to be involved in this effort. The fleet of these bombers is highly in demand, underscored by heavy use in strikes on Iran earlier this year, and has also recently suffered a tragic loss. U.S. Air Force officials have previously highlighted how the relatively small number of B-52s in service and the heavy demands placed on them create challenges when it comes to modernizing the aircraft themselves.

GAO, a Congressional watchdog, provided new details about flight testing plans and other aspects of the LRSO program in an annual report published last week. The AGM-181A has been in active development since 2020, when the Air Force chose Raytheon to be the prime contractor.

“LRSO reported unfavorable cost and schedule changes over the past year,” GAO reported. “For example, flight testing challenges, largely due to the poor readiness rates of legacy aircraft supporting LRSO testing, resulted in a 4-month delay to its initial capability.”

The Air Force is now aiming to reach initial operational capability with the AGM-181 in November 2030.

GAO says that there have been nine LRSO test flights since October 2024. That is when developmental testing of the missile began. Six of those flight tests, along with seven ground test events, occurred last year. In a report dated December 2022, the Pentagon had previously disclosed nine more test flights as part of earlier phases of the program. Whether additional test flights occurred between December 2022 and October 2024 is unclear.

“Since our last assessment, program officials realigned the test schedule, leaving less time to complete the 27 remaining test flights before operational testing starts in September 2027,” the report GAO put out last week also notes. “However, they noted that some re-testing can still be accommodated.”

As noted, the B-52 is the only aircraft known to be involved in LRSO flight testing, and certainly meets the definition of a “legacy” platform. The last of these bombers rolled off Boeing’s production line in 1962, though the remaining examples have been upgraded repeatedly since then. The sighting last year of a B-52 carrying a pair of AGM-181s, or relevant test articles, on a pylon under its right wing offered the first public glimpse of the missile. Spotters have caught these bombers supporting LRSO tests on several other occasions since then.

The Air Force currently has 75 B-52H bombers in service, in total. The entire fleet is never available at any one time for taskings of any kind, due to routine maintenance and other factors. The mission-capable rate for the bombers has been hovering between 50 and 55 percent in recent years.

In addition, only one of the bombers is explicitly set aside to support test and evaluation efforts. B-52s from operational units are also used to support research and development and test and evaluation work on a more ad hoc basis. This is on top of the heavy operational demands put on the fleet, both for conventional combat operations and as a key component of the air leg of America’s nuclear deterrent triad. As mentioned, B-52s were heavily utilized just earlier this year for conventional strikes on Iran, adding to these strains.

Last month, the Air Force also lost one of its B-52s in a fatal crash at Edwards Air Force Base in California, which tragically killed all eight individuals onboard at the time. The aircraft in question was headed out on a flight test in support of a critical radar modernization program for the bombers when it went down, as you can read more about here.

The radar modernization effort is part of a slew of major upgrades for the B-52 fleet, which also includes all-new engines, improved communication suites, and more. The upgrades are so substantial that the bombers’ designations will change from B-52H to B-52J in the process. They are also in line to see their arsenals grow, including with the addition of the LRSO. The future B-52Js are set to continue serving through at least 2050.

B-52 Future Stratofortress: The Upgrades That Will Transform The B-52H Into The B-52J

Other aspects of the B-52 modernization plan have also been beset by cost growth and delays. Air Force officials have said this has been compounded by the total size of the fleet and operational demands placed on it.

“The challenge with B-52 that I think everybody forgets, it’s such a small fleet that has such a tremendous requirement in terms of readiness,” Air Force Gen. Dale White, the service’s Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, told TWZ and others at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. “You’ve got to have a certain number on the ramp. That’s a requirement.”

The question becomes “how do you get these through the depot while at the same time meeting the operational requirements?” Gen. White further explained at that time. “That choreography, I think, is going to be tough.”

It’s worth pointing out here that both the war with Iran and the crash at Edwards came after the cutoff date for GAO’s report, and further impacts on the LRSO flight test schedule would not have been recorded therein. There has also been a broader surge in demand across the U.S. military for flight test assets. This is being driven by the needs of modernization efforts for several aircraft beyond the B-52, including the F-22 Raptor, as well as next-generation developments, like the F-47 sixth-generation fighter.

Going back to LRSO, GAO’s latest assessment also highlights other challenges that the program has been facing that are unrelated to flight testing.

“Program officials stated that 12 of 14 software releases are delivered, with the final delivery planned for March 2026. According to program officials, nuclear certification of LRSO software continues to be a risk that they expect to fully address by November 2026. As we reported last year, the program risks delays if additional LRSO software development is needed to satisfy this certification requirement,” per the report. “LRSO cybersecurity testing continues with some delays reported during the past year. Program officials stated these delays did not bring about any cost or schedule changes, with the final cybersecurity assessment still planned for September 2027.”

“The missile’s technology maturity has advanced since our last assessment, with only two out of the six critical technologies still approaching maturity. They are both expected to be fully mature in fiscal year 2026, about 5 years after development start. DOE [Department of Energy] also identified critical technologies for the warhead, of which 80 percent are considered mature, more than double the percentage reported last year,” the report adds. “However, DOE may not mature all the remaining warhead technologies until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2026. As we previously reported, both the missile and warhead started development with immature technologies, requiring parallel technology and design maturity efforts. This method falls short of the best practice to start with mature technologies and would have minimized the risks of future cost increases and schedule delays associated with concurrency during system development.”

There is also cost growth, as well as cost discrepancies.

“Program costs increased by $347 million after Air Force leadership directed a 1-year extension to LRSO production due to near-term budget constraints,” according to GAO.

“As we previously reported, Office of the Secretary of Defense and Air Force officials continue to work together to resolve a $1.9 billion difference between their production cost estimates for future LRSO production,” the report also says. “While a fully updated estimate is not expected until later in 2026, program officials now agree that OSD’s higher cost estimate provides an appropriate basis for the program’s fiscal year 2027 budget request and future year procurement funding needs.”

Buoyed in part by the successful flight testing it has conducted to date, GAO says the Air Force remains confident that it can meet its goal of starting low-rate initial production of the LRSO next year. Hitting that milestone will be key to staying on schedule to start fielding the missiles in 2030.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Three Clausen brothers who were quarterbacks — Casey, Rick and Jimmy — have created a fall flag football league for boys and girls in an effort to help youth players learn the game. There also will be six Clausen children playing in the league.

Flag football continues to grow, with the Clausen brothers behind a fall league.

(Los Angeles Times)

Casey is a former head coach at Bishop Alemany. Rick is head coach at Westlake. And Jimmy is a former NFL quarterback.

Casey said the Rising Stars is a 7×7 league that will take place in the fall with focus on rising participation of girls playing. The breakdown of divisions for boys and girls ranges from third grade to eighth grade and will be played on Sundays beginning Aug. 16 at Agoura, Oak Park and Westlake.

Get ready for lots of Clausen cousins, brothers and sisters playing football in the coming years. The oldest is a sixth grader.

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email eric.sondheimer@latimes.com.

Western governments are pouring tens of billions of dollars into critical minerals projects as they attempt to reduce dependence on China for materials essential to clean energy, defence technology and advanced manufacturing.

But industry executives, analysts and investors are increasingly warning that poorly coordinated state-backed investment could create severe oversupply problems similar to past commodity booms that ended in market crashes.

The concerns come as countries including the United States, Australia, European Union and Japan accelerate efforts to build strategic reserves and expand production of rare earths and other critical minerals.

Governments Ramp Up Critical Minerals Spending

The United States has committed more than $20 billion toward critical minerals development through multiple financing programmes, including Project Vault, a strategic stockpiling initiative worth around $10 billion.

Australia has also allocated at least A$13 billion to support critical minerals projects and reserves through several government-backed programmes.

These investments are designed to secure supplies of metals used in electric vehicles, semiconductors, renewable energy systems, aerospace equipment and military technologies.

Particular attention has focused on rare earth elements, a group of 17 metals essential for producing powerful magnets used in advanced defence systems and high-tech manufacturing.

Although the global rare earths market was valued at only about $6.4 billion in 2024, combined Western financial commitments to rare earth projects have already exceeded that figure.

Fears Grow Over Potential Oversupply

Mining executives and analysts warn that aggressive subsidies and overlapping national strategies could eventually flood global markets with excess supply.

Brett Beatty of Resource Capital Funds said the biggest danger lies in governments pursuing independent strategies without coordination.

According to Beatty, simultaneous efforts to rapidly increase production could create volumes far beyond global demand, ultimately crushing prices and undermining the very industries governments are trying to build.

Analysts drew comparisons to historical commodity gluts, including Europe’s “butter mountains” of the 1980s, Russian aluminium oversupply and Australia’s wool crisis, where subsidies and state support distorted markets and triggered sharp price collapses.

Rare Earth Market Could Face Surplus Pressures

Consultancy Project Blue warned that several rare earth markets are already on track to move into surplus over the coming years due to expanding state-backed production.

However, analyst David Merriman said governments may still be able to avoid major imbalances if they carefully adjust subsidies, stockpiling programmes and guaranteed purchasing arrangements.

Industry leaders say current stockpiles remain relatively small, limiting immediate risks of market disruption.

Lynas Rare Earths CEO Amanda Lacaze recently said rare earth stockpiles around the world remain modest and are not yet large enough to destabilise markets.

Australian Resources Minister Madeleine King also argued that today’s critical minerals policies differ significantly from past commodity intervention failures because they are more targeted and linked to long-term industrial supply chains.

Global Coordination Emerging Among Western Allies

Concerns about duplication and oversupply are pushing Western governments toward greater policy coordination.

The Group of Seven is reportedly discussing the creation of a permanent secretariat focused on coordinating critical mineral strategies and ensuring continuity between rotating national presidencies.

Industry experts say such coordination could help prevent destructive competition between allied nations while supporting more stable investment planning.

Lessons From Congo and Indonesia

Governments outside the West have already experimented with aggressive intervention in mineral markets.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo boosted cobalt prices by introducing export quotas and stockpiling measures designed to increase mining revenues.

While the policy initially lifted prices, analysts warn prolonged restrictions could encourage manufacturers to seek alternative materials or suppliers.

Similarly, Indonesia dramatically expanded its dominance in nickel production after banning exports of raw nickel ore in 2020 to force domestic processing investment.

Indonesia’s production surged within just a few years, but authorities have since struggled with falling prices and oversupply, forcing Jakarta to tighten mining quotas and centralise export controls.

These examples highlight the difficulty governments face in balancing national industrial ambitions with long-term market stability.

Analysis

The global race for critical minerals is increasingly becoming a strategic contest shaped as much by geopolitics as by economics.

Western governments view supply chain independence as essential after years of relying heavily on China for processing capacity and rare earth production. The push is not simply about commercial competition — it is tied directly to national security, technological leadership and energy transition goals.

However, the very scale of state intervention now unfolding raises the risk of creating distorted markets. If multiple governments simultaneously subsidise production, guarantee prices and build stockpiles without coordination, supply could rapidly outpace actual industrial demand.

That scenario would likely trigger sharp price declines, weaken private investment and potentially create another boom-and-bust cycle in the mining sector.

At the same time, the market dynamics of critical minerals differ from traditional commodities. Many of these materials are essential for emerging technologies, and demand is expected to rise significantly over the next two decades as countries expand renewable energy infrastructure, battery production and semiconductor manufacturing.

This means governments are not only competing to secure supply today but also positioning themselves for future industrial dominance.

Another key challenge is that refining and processing capabilities remain heavily concentrated in China. Even if Western countries succeed in expanding mining output, they may still depend on Chinese infrastructure unless domestic processing networks are developed alongside extraction projects.

The growing emphasis on “friend-shoring” and allied supply chains reflects an attempt to address this vulnerability.

Industry experts also point to a more sustainable model emerging through byproduct extraction. Instead of building entirely new mines based purely on high prices, companies are increasingly looking to recover critical minerals from existing industrial operations, reducing the risk of uncontrolled supply growth.

Projects involving Alcoa, Sojitz and Trafigura illustrate how governments and corporations are experimenting with lower-risk approaches to expanding supply.

Ultimately, the success of Western critical minerals strategies may depend less on how much money governments spend and more on whether they can coordinate policies, manage supply carefully and build integrated processing ecosystems capable of competing with China over the long term.

With information from Reuters.