Yanks acquire Nady, Marte from Bucs for 4 prospects .

[jacksonianmarch]

must be a conspiracy. /sarcasm

[TheKilo]

Psst...it's stopped being funny.

 

KTHXBAI

[dreilly]

Anyone else want to chime in?

I do.

 

Did you ever take a class on logic? The very aspect that you are trying to pass off as scientific evidence such a small sample size as legitimate shows off one probable thing. If you passed the class, you probably cheated. [i really couldn't resist this one LOL!]

 

ROTFLMAO...Gom, you are such a smart ass. But I must give all credit where it is due.. You kicked ass on this one. If this were a battle of wits, I'd declare you the winner.

 

I am, however, surprised that you choose this moment to insult all Red Sox fans on a Red Sox board.

 

I'm not insulted and I am a Red Sox fan. You must have used the word all in error? That's a pretty broad conclusion to come to saying that all Sox fans are insulted. Could that be the same case here as in your previous posts on this thread?

 

To the contrary, it preserves your words in a post that you cannot edit.

 

Is there reason to believe that he would change the wording of his posts? I mean, come on, I think he has made it perfectly clear that he has no reservations about calling it like he sees it.

 

JHB, I'm going out on a limb here but I don't think the question is about who cheated and how,statistics, or about who has proof. It's about being adamant that you are right without considering the counter conversation from another party. In a nutshell, I'm not sure it is the message you are against as much as the messenger.

[Gom]

It has been unequivocably been proven that I am correct and JHB is wrong. Two votes are all we need. The sample size is obviously large enough to support the claim. In fact, I am slightly surprised that you have all agreed with me 100%, and with JHB, ZERO.

 

Thankfully. It's over.

[26 to 6]

It has been unequivocably been proven that I am correct and JHB is wrong. Two votes are all we need. The sample size is obviously large enough to support the claim. In fact, I am slightly surprised that you have all agreed with me 100%, and with JHB, ZERO.

 

Thankfully. It's over.

But don't you know that any vote in your favor is the result of a conspiracy.

[yankees228]

JHB, I really do think that I have been fair this entire time in terms of this argument. I went into this with an open mind, and I honestly did not make a conclusion up front.

 

On top of that, I think you've done a great job with all your research and analysis. You clearly know your stuff. I also admit that you bring up some interesting points. I don't disagree with all of them. I think it's possible, not definite, but possible that the Yankees are throwing money at some teams.

 

In the end (and I know that this will be viewed upon as Yankee bias) I think it's much more probable that nothing unusual is going. I don't know for sure either way, and none of us do, but I think the probability is that nothing is going on. This does not have any statistical backing or any type of analysis, however there just simply isn't any true proof that something fishy is going on.

 

On top of that, I believe that you have made a few errors. I think that you are proclaiming certain trades to be wins that aren't. But, and here's my main point, even if they are wins they do not help your case because the margin of victory is so incredibly small. The addition of guys such as Matt Lawton, Sal Fasano, and Tim Redding do not help your case. You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, but there is no use in us continuing to argue over those deals because we are both set on our opinions.

 

Lastly, I think another thing that you might be overlooking is something that Jacko mentioned earlier. The Yankees, more than any other team, and this cannot be argued, are in the best position to take on salary (because of their ownership). This allows them to do deals that other teams cannot, such as the Bobby Abreu deal, because they're willing to absorb a salary that other teams might not be so quick to.

 

Again, I think you've done a great job trying to prove your case, and I admit that it is possible that you're right. I just feel that it is more probable that you are incorrect, and because there is no proof either way (in my opinion) I'm going to go with the more probable (again, more probable in my opinion) option.

[ORS]

I am not requesting anything. I am saying that the idea of other teams trading players to the yankees intentionally for poor return is preposterous. If that were the case' date=' wouldnt those teams then be pissed at the yankees since their new stadium will kill a lot of revenue sharing?[/quote']

This is the reason I joined this discussion. Every Yankee fan in here has attempted to shout the issue down as something that is not possible, something that is unthinkable. Yet nobody responded directly to this post.

 

A baseball trade is the exchange of assets between two businesses. When you remove titles and names and lingo, it's a business swap. When it has been demonstrated that some of these businesses can benefit financially through the success of another due to the confederation that they have formed, the league, it opens a pandora's box where conflict of interest lies, with the conflict being that the goal to make money is sometimes at odds with the goal to be successful on the field.

 

We've all lamented the lower echelon payroll teams for pocketting the money distributed to them from profit sharing. The simple truth is that for some of these owners, it is more about the bottom line than it is about fielding a legitimately competitive team.

 

In such an environment, it's not possible to simply dismiss the idea that collusion could exist and call it common sense. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Common sense should recognize the conflict of interest and the nature of some teams who are more profit oriented, and accept that collusion is and should be part of a reasonable discussion, provided the discussion has merits through analysis of the transactions that occur.

For the idea to be preposterous, you'd have to demonstrate how no conflict of interest exists. This has not been done. Therefore, your attempts should be limited to providing your own analysis that either shows the Yankees have not benefitted to the degree JHB claims, this has been attempted but not accomplished, or shows other teams have benefitted as much as the Yankees, which has not been attempted.

[ORS]

I'm not insulted and I am a Red Sox fan. You must have used the word all in error? That's a pretty broad conclusion to come to saying that all Sox fans are insulted. Could that be the same case here as in your previous posts on this thread?

Apparently, you did not attend logic class with Gom. Gom's statement was that inane comments from Red Sox fans kill people just like cigarettes do. It's obviously hyprebole, and it's certainly an insult. He didn't say "some" Red Sox fans. When a plural is used and not quantified, it is assumed to imply "all". Gom's insult was directed at all Sox fans, thereore, JHB's statement is correct. Whether or not you feel insulted is not relevant, at least, not logically.

[jacksonianmarch]

One thing that confounds your theory, ORS, is the fact that the yankees have been in it for the past 13 yrs. If the yankees were out of it come July 30th, then someone else might benefit from the salary dumps or prospect packages that come our way when we bail.

[ORS]

One thing that confounds your theory' date=' ORS, is the fact that the yankees have been in it for the past 13 yrs. If the yankees were out of it come July 30th, then someone else might benefit from the salary dumps or prospect packages that come our way when we bail.[/quote']

This suggests that every one of those moves could only be done by the Yankees and their ability to absorb cost. None of the other big market clubs could pick up some of the salaries in question during a contending year?

[jacksonianmarch]

they can, but they dont.

[Gom]

Apparently' date=' you did not attend logic class with Gom. Gom's statement was that inane comments from Red Sox fans kill people just like cigarettes do. It's obviously hyprebole, and it's certainly an insult. He didn't say "some" Red Sox fans. When a plural is used and not quantified, it is assumed to imply "all". Gom's insult was directed at all Sox fans, thereore, JHB's statement is correct. Whether or not you feel insulted is not relevant, at least, not logically.[/quote']

My exact quote was:

 

"So do inane comments from Red Sox fans."

 

Your inability to read and to also defend an indefensible position boggles the mind of any astute reader. Using the simple rules of grammar, two things MUST occur for a person's life expectancy to decrease. They are:

 

a) Inane comments &

Coming from Red Sox fans.

 

So...unless both a & b occur simultaneously, the "insult" doesn't occur. An inane comment from a Yankee fan doesn't qualify. A smart comment from a Red Sox fan doesn't qualify.

 

Your quote once again:

Gom's insult was directed at all Sox fans' date=' thereore, JHB's statement is correct.[/quote']

This implies, by YOUR words, that if my insult was directed at all Sox fans, then the assumption is to be made that ALL RED SOX FANS COMMENTS ARE INANE. Your words. Not mine.

 

Glad to see what YOU think of your brethen.

 

Classic example of internet IQ. Ability to quote sources, inability to put it together in a coherent, intelligent manner.

 

Still waiting for proof of Yankee cheating.

[ORS]

My exact quote was:

 

"So do inane comments from Red Sox fans."

 

Your inability to read and to also defend an indefensible position boggles the mind of any astute reader. Using the simple rules of grammar, two things MUST occur for a person's life expectancy to decrease. They are:

 

a) Inane comments &

Coming from Red Sox fans.

 

So...unless both a & b occur simultaneously, the "insult" doesn't occur. An inane comment from a Yankee fan doesn't qualify. A smart comment from a Red Sox fan doesn't qualify.

 

Your quote once again:

 

This implies, by YOUR words, that if my insult was directed at all Sox fans, then the assumption is to be made that ALL RED SOX FANS COMMENTS ARE INANE. Your words. Not mine.

 

Glad to see what YOU think of your brethen.

 

Classic example of internet IQ. Ability to quote sources, inability to put it together in a coherent, intelligent manner.

 

Still waiting for proof of Yankee cheating.

Gom, I've read this at least a dozen times, what the hell are you talking about? It makes zero sense. None, not at least in relation to what I posted.

 

EDIT: I think I got it, but what a completely circuitous route to get to what could have been explained in one sentence.

 

You are saying that your use of "inane comments" is your quantifier. I'll buy that, I guess. I was getting more at the fact that you singled out Red Sox fans, thus insulting the mere fact of being a Red Sox fan, and thereby insulting the whole group.

 

As far as proof goes, you've established your arbitrary standard there, one that you know will not be realized. I think JHB has conceded that proof, as defined by you, will not be coming. You continuing to ask for it is nothing more than a tactic to sway perception.

[Gom]

My arbitrary standard, my dear old friend, is nothing more than showing me a shred of proof. A quote, or someone from MLB stating they would look into it, anything. His sample size is way too small for any educated person to accept such an outlandish suggestion of cheating.

 

ORS. Question for you. Do you think the Yankees cheated in the deadline deals, in other words by bribing or giving money or other valued items under the table? A one word answer will suffice. No explanation needed, nor wanted.

 

Basically, you have to decide what's more important. Your reputation here or your desire to protect a fellow Red Sox fan who's wrong over a Yankee fan who's right. My opinion here.

 

Yes or No?

[ORS]

It's not as simple as that, Gom. As I've been saying to you, I hold little value in the emotional response, the opinion, of something. My opinion, like yours, means little to me. What I'm interested in is taking the bits and pieces and connecting the dots.

 

Do I think they cheated? The best I can give you is, maybe. Don't know enough, but a reasonable case appears to be there.

 

I've got nothing to worry about re: my reputation here. Know why? Like in the analysis of this issue, opinions aren't my thing.

[Gom]

LOL! I knew you'd find a way out. You still look at things a little biased towards your team. Let me ask you the question another way. Which deal(s) do you think they MAY have cheated? Curious. At least the adults are back to talking here.

[ORS]

I've already posted that I think the case for collusion between the Yankees and Pirates appears to have the most merit. The Pirates fit the small market, money grubbing profile. Their last two trades have been severly lopsided when viewed at the time of the trade (not looking back with hindsight), which is especially weird because they practically set the market value for the players in their latest trade with the NYY.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

Do I think they cheated? The best I can give you is, maybe. Don't know enough, but a reasonable case appears to be there.

 

Personally' date=' I feel the notion of league wide collusion is not plausible. Too many people in the know to keep a lid on it. And several of the teams in his study do not fit the profile of having dependency on the Yankees through profit sharing. [/quote']

 

:dunno:

[ORS]

:dunno:

Man, you are f***ing ripshit stupid. In the one post I'm talking about league wide collusion. Cheating can be collusion between two teams, not all of them.

[yeszir]

And let's lay off the direct "You are...." insults please. On all sides (even if it's true)

[Jayhawk Bill]

And let's lay off the direct "You are...." insults please. On all sides (even if it's true)

 

The level of insults and rule violation in that thread is EQUAL on both sides. Please don't call me a hypocrite.

 

Quote all of the "you are" insults here, please, for the record. I wouldn't want a perception that you're a hypocrite to exist--just post a count, so that we all know that it's equal, as you attest.

[yeszir]

Quote all of the "you are" insults here' date=' please, for the record. I wouldn't want a perception that you're a hypocrite to exist--just post a count, so that we all know that it's equal, as you attest.[/quote']

 

I didn't say that the "you are" insults were equal. All I was saying that there's aggression on both sides, and that's normal in basically every thread that pits Yankees fans against Red Sox fans.

 

That insult rule doesn't apply to minor elements of an argument. "You're an Fing retard" is different than a lot of the backhanded stuff that's been going on. If you don't want to deal with Yankees fans, and you shouldn't have to, this is a Red Sox board after all, then stick to the Red Sox related threads. You yourself admitted that you've been living in this thread recently.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I didn't say that the "you are" insults were equal. All I was saying that there's aggression on both sides, and that's normal in basically every thread that pits Yankees fans against Red Sox fans.

 

That insult rule doesn't apply to minor elements of an argument. "You're an Fing retard" is different than a lot of the backhanded stuff that's been going on. If you don't want to deal with Yankees fans, and you shouldn't have to, this is a Red Sox board after all, then stick to the Red Sox related threads. You yourself admitted that you've been living in this thread recently.

 

What I'm saying is that the Yankees fans have made a mockery of your rules. The Yankees fans' quotes are outside your rules repeatedly; mine at least attempt to follow your posted guidelines. You know this, I believe; go back through the thread if you find yourself in doubt.

 

But you post,

 

"If you don't want to deal with Yankees fans, and you shouldn't have to, this is a Red Sox board after all, then stick to the Red Sox related threads."

 

Do your rules not apply in this subforum? Do your rules not apply if Yankees are involved? :dunno:

[26 to 6]

removed

[dreilly]

removed

[yeszir]

This thread has gone on long enough.