Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[Dipre]

Finally...a decent post from you.

 

I do see the value of player development. However, I put less emphasis on it since I am a Yankee fan, and we can buy what we need better than any other team. To me, a farm system should be used to "feed" the major league club. Whether it is by bringing the players up, like Jeter, Mariano, Posada, Bernie, or Andy....that's fine. Whether using those players to get a Justice, a Swisher, a Chacon, etc., that's also fine.

 

However, and we can agree to disagree here, I, like SFOC, put more value in veterans with a track record than prospects who project.

 

If you get a chance to get one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball, and one that has dominated both the Yankees and Red Sox in his career, as well as drastically shifting the balance of power in your favor, for a couple of high-end prospects, I don't hesitate. It was the very drafting and scouting and development that allowed you to make the deal in the first place. Buchholz will never be a Halladay...ditto Hughes, and Joba.

 

It's no different than stocks, or any other speculative deal. Sell high, buy low. Every once in a while, you'll get burned...but baseball history shows that acquiring veterans for prospects is more likely to result in a win for the team getting the veterans.

 

Here's the issue.

 

If a trade for Felix came up, i would send my mother as part of the prospect package. My issue is specifically with Halladay because of the logistics behind acquiring him.

 

A) He is 32.

 

B ) He is not cheap.

 

C) He will require a monster extension.

 

Under that scenario, he shouldn't be worth more than a decent package. Not an earth-shattering one.

[a700hitter]

What part of this do you not get? Did I use those numbers to prove that Buchholz has a bright future? No. That wasn't the point.

 

I used them to prove that he isn't precluded from having a bring future merely because of his age.

 

Should I put this argument into some sort of logical notation or something so you can understand it on some simple, conceptual level? It seems so apparent to me, so blindingly obvious, that I struggle conceptually to step back far enough away to show you what I'm talking about.

 

Gom said people are drastically overvaluing Buchholz. He based this on the claim that no pitchers his age have started poorly and then gone on to do great things. He didn't say "no pitchers of the 2000s" or "no pitchers of the last two decades", he said no pitchers. Then he challenged someone to find someone who did.

 

This was not an attempt to prove that Buchholz would be like Halladay. In Gom's world, pitchers like Halladay or Carpenter, Gibson, Koufax or any of the other DOZENS of pitchers like that don't exist. I showed that they do.

 

To me, and many others apparently, this shows that it is not beyond the realm of possibility--as Gom attempted to argue--that Buchholz could still, even with his mediocre start, go on to be a star.

 

It does not answer (nor even attempt to answer) whether or not Buchholz is a star in waiting. It merely says that he hasn't been eliminated by historical precedent, as Gom claimed he had.

 

It really isn't that complicated.

 

I would challenge you to do some research on your own, but you have shown through years and years of posting that you would rather pontificate about your fantasy baseball prowess and years of watching the game than "waste" your time actually looking up numbers to support your claims.

 

You insult people who actually make this board a more interesting place, while adding virtually nothing to the discussion other than the Vaudvillian alter-ego, the yin-to everyone's yang, and it doesn't make this place better.

I get it. Gom baited you into an argument by using irrelevant stats and you answered with equally irrelevant stats. I called you on your use of irrelevant statistics. You should have called Gom on his, but you didn't. Instead you sought to counter his pointless and irrelevant stats with some well-researched stats of your own. He's laughing up his sleeve that you took the bait and engaged in such an inane argument. I get it. You don't. He got under your skin.

 

BTW Example, while I think your argument on this point is all wet, I have not accused you of adding nothing to this forum. I think you are getting overly sensitive, and thank you for denigrating all of my contributions to this forum.

[example1]

Bingo. Thank you.

 

Look example1, I'm not saying that Buchholz is a huge pile of suck. I asked this board to come up with one pitcher who had a similar track record, and you found one in Schilling. Good job.

 

So Halladay and Carpenter don't count?

 

How many need to be found before you drop this line of argument. One is enough to prove you wrong, how many do you need before you will just admit your initial reasoning--with all it's holier than though undertones--was faulty?

 

However, like I said, and SFOC concurs, that most "can't miss" or "blue chip" prospects do not live up to expectations. Also, like he stated, with with experienced players, there is a track record, and that in the majority of cases, a proven track record is more reliable than projections.

 

1. You have to pay for a track record. You have to pay a lot for a track record. You dont have to pay much for 5 years of Clay Buchholz.

 

2. There are "blue chip" prospects and then there are former #1 overall prospects. Totally different. By the "blue chip" vs. "not-blue chip" argument you and a700 (and apparently SFOC) have no way of distinguishing between really good blue chip prospects and guys who stand a chance to flame out. In this instance, I would say that Clay Buchholz stands a much better chance of being a MLB star than Casey Kelly because he's come father. Your argument seems equally applicable for both.

 

Those are SFOC's words....and what I've been saying all along.

 

Why does someone else saying what you are trying to say give your argument any more validity? You were trying to stiffle optimism. I feel that I'm being reasonably optimistic given Clay's stuff, his success in the minors and majors, and the consensus that he's a front of the rotation starter. You don't believe the consensus among scouts and execs, the same people who are trying to trade for him. That's fine, but I'm not going to be the one accused of having overly rosey glasses.

 

I don't even think you could quantify what my expectations are for Buchholz, even after all this time. Perhaps knowing that information would help you make a better argument.

 

As you guys get older, and more experienced, you'll see what we've seen. A win today is better than two possible wins tomorrow.

 

What the hell does this mean? Why do you think you've used your baseball watching years better than me? In fact, are you older than me at all? What are you talking about?

Also, for the one who questioned a700's fandom....you're an ass. You're not even worth me scrolling back to find out who you are. First of all, everyone is entitled to root for his team as he sees fit.

 

All I know, is that so far, I've heard for 4 years how Buchholz is the real deal, just wait and see. Still waiting...

 

Right, because just like most of the other blue chip prospects, Buchholz is completely irrelevant now and teams have written him off. He's certainly not going to be starting for the Red Sox rotation next year and his career--just like all other 24 year olds who didn't appear to be setting the league on fire--will be a failure.

[example1]

I get it. Gom baited you into an argument by using irrelevant stats and you answered with equally irrelevant stats. I called you on your use of irrelevant statistics. You should have called Gom on his' date=' but you didn't. Instead you sought to counter his pointless and irrelevant stats with some well-researched stats of your own. He's laughing up his sleeve that you took the bait and engaged in such an inane argument. I get it. You don't. He got under your skin. [/quote']

 

I could have argued against the importance of his stats to prove his point wrong, but instead I used his own argument (the specific #'s he apparently found important) to prove that he was wrong. I could go either way--one of them attacks the logic and rationality behind the poster, one of them attacks the points the poster makes. I generally find the first approach to be bordering on personal attacks about intelligence. I find the second to be the substance of baseball discussion.

 

 

BTW Example, while I think your argument on this point is all wet, I have not accused you of adding nothing to this forum. I think you are getting overly sensitive, and thank you for denigrating all of my contributions to this forum.

 

You consistently degrade the work I put into my posts, even though I try to actually QUANTIFY s*** when so few people do. It isn't some foreign approach and if you want to deconstruct my ideas, do so in the language I'm speaking. Not saying "Koufax was from another generation so his numbers don't matter." They DO matter, when the argument is that no players have had career starts like Buchholz, it matters that players have--and not just one or two, and not just 5 years ago or 20 years ago, or 40 years ago. Consistently.

 

Would you trade for a player who had Koufax's numbers through 29? I bet you would. Yes, he's from a different time but that should only impact the stats as a whole. It doesn't change the fact that Koufax put more people on base and had worse control than Buchholz through the same age. They are both 24 year olds, they are both pitchers throwing the same ball 60'6. I realize there are differences, but there are a lot more similarities than differences and those similarities matter.

 

I appologize for saying you don't add anything to this forum. I'm truly frustrated at the lack of research that you or Gom do for your posts sometimes. This isn't school, but there are things you can use to back it up... especially when you're both clearly here so often.

 

Then when Gom tries--by using s***** stats and comps--and asks someone to refute him, and I do, you jump down my throat without trying to understand the context of my reply, and without giving any respect for the work I consistently try to put in looking stuff up, putting it in tables, etc.,

 

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving.

[a700hitter]

Then when Gom tries--by using s***** stats and comps--and asks someone to refute him, and I do, you jump down my throat without trying to understand the context of my reply, and without giving any respect for the work I consistently try to put in looking stuff up, putting it in tables, etc.,

 

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving.

I do respect and appreciate the work you put into your posts. I don't like when you generalize about my views by trying to show some predisposition on my part whether it be that I don't follow or know about prospects or I don't like young players, etc. It reminds me of political leaders and special interest groups that make accusations of racism, sexism, or some other discrimination because they don't like the way an issue has been decided. It's a cheap shot technique and you engage in it all the time.

 

I have attempted to clarify these issues several times by stating that I do follow our prospects. I just don't get excited about AA guys that I don't see play until they hit the majors and they succeed. I have made all sorts of posts about young guys that I have liked from the beginning, e.g., Papelbon, Ellsbury, and Bard. I also liked Buchholz. I saw his debut against the Angels in '07. I was impressed by him in ST '09, but I remain cautious about declaring him to be a star after seeing how bad he was in '08. I am hoping those were growing pains. Would I be thrilled about trading him now? No, because this should be a year when he finally becomes a productive major leaguer. I'd like to get Halladay and keep Buchholz to pitch in the #5 slot and send Wakefield to an Assisted Living facility. How does this jive with my so-called predisposition against young players? Oh, I forgot. I hate Wakefield too. It shows very poor debating skills or just laziness to pin labels on people rather than to debate the issue. For instance, I watched Lars Anderson for a week in Ft. Myers. I watched his batting practice and his ABs for a week and I reported back that he looks over matched. I get back these posts about how I hate all the young kids, and as proof I get the examples of my impressions about Pedroia etc. I never said that I am always right about these evaluations, but I am right more than I am wrong, so to point out the times when I have been wrong as proof that my opinion is invalid is demeaning and intellectually lazy and dishonest. It's called smearing in politics.

 

BTW I was spot on about Anderson who suffered through a miserable year in '09. Will he bounce back? I hope so. I realize that when I see a guy in ST, that he may be getting his timing down etc. , but to me he looked awkward and confused in every aspect of the game. He looked raw. In 2011 or 2012, if he is playing 1B for the Sox, you'll be telling me that I was wrong about him, even though I was right and he needed seasoning.

 

You didn't like it when I posted that you think every Sox prospect is going to be a star. I didn't believe that when I posted it, but I wanted to see how you like your views to be ridiculously generalized. Yet, you do it to me all the time. If you want to persist with that tactic, I can play that game too and I will dismiss your posts with ridiculous generalizations of your views. How about arguing an issue based on the merits in its current context. That's how an issue is debated. You would rather research my posts to try to find some statement where I said something different about that issue or some other issue, and use it to invalidate my opinion. You spend a lot of time trying to get "gotcha material" on me. Usually, you can't find anything, because I tend to be consistent about issues unless the facts have changed. If the facts have changed, the prior opinion is irrelevant in the new context. Yet, you will use a post from years ago as some sort of invalidation of my opinion. If I was skeptical about Pedroia in March 2006 and love him now how is that discrediting? Changing the facts changes the discussion.

 

For instance, I get people telling me how I want to get rid of Buchholz and I have wanted him gone since July. No, wrong. I would have been okay with trading him in July for Halladay (probably even Lee), but facts have changed since then. Nevertheless, I am told to take a position about Buchholz and stick to it. How ridiculous. Should my opinion be the same about him next August whether he is 15-2 with a 3 ERA or he is 2-15 with a 7 ERA? How could it be?

[Gom]

So Halladay and Carpenter don't count?

Not really, no. They really aren't comparable, not at the same age.

How many need to be found before you drop this line of argument. One is enough to prove you wrong, how many do you need before you will just admit your initial reasoning--with all it's holier than though undertones--was faulty?

One. I already admitted that. Try reading sometime. You're arguing a point I conceded. However, I was showing a trend. The trend is that most pitchers, by 25, are already established. I was too lazy to do a lot of research, and you did it. The only one was Schilling really. Good job.

1. You have to pay for a track record. You have to pay a lot for a track record. You dont have to pay much for 5 years of Clay Buchholz.

Completely agreed. However, in 3 years, you haven't gotten much. As Dipre said, it was a cup of coffee in 2007. 2008 and 2009 have been bad and injury plagued. Would you rather have bad and cheap, or average and cheap, or great and expensive? Everyone has their answer here, and it's a sliding scale. This is more of a rhetorical question.

2. There are "blue chip" prospects and then there are former #1 overall prospects. Totally different. By the "blue chip" vs. "not-blue chip" argument you and a700 (and apparently SFOC) have no way of distinguishing between really good blue chip prospects and guys who stand a chance to flame out. In this instance, I would say that Clay Buchholz stands a much better chance of being a MLB star than Casey Kelly because he's come father. Your argument seems equally applicable for both.

I never even heard of Casey Kelly until he was mentioned a couple of days ago as a potential chip for Halladay. I don't even know what position he plays. What is relevant is the results. He could be the next big thing, or just a flame out. When people "project" things, it's wrong at such a significant rate that for the most part, you'd be just as successful flipping a coin.

Why does someone else saying what you are trying to say give your argument any more validity? You were trying to stiffle optimism. I feel that I'm being reasonably optimistic given Clay's stuff, his success in the minors and majors, and the consensus that he's a front of the rotation starter. You don't believe the consensus among scouts and execs, the same people who are trying to trade for him. That's fine, but I'm not going to be the one accused of having overly rosey glasses.

Someone else, who supports the team that I hate and vice versa, is seeing eye to eye with me. This is the reason, or one of them, that I joined Talksox. You see, it's much easier to join a board that supports your team. You flow with the masses. I got tired of Yankee fans who thought along the same lines as you, no disrespect intended on this national holiday. One's who preached that every prospect was a future All-Star, and that the rest of baseball was their as an extended farm team. You don't do it nearly as much, but you are guilty of this to an extent. It may not be the most fair of insinuations, but I'm sure you get the drift.

 

By the way...if the consensus among scouts and execs is correct, he would have been traded already. Could it be that the so-called consensus is pretty much limited to the Red Sox front office? The Yankees were masters of this. They would hype their prospects so much that other teams would fall for it. The Red Sox are engaging themselves into this game, and doing it quite well, it seems. You fell for it.

I don't even think you could quantify what my expectations are for Buchholz, even after all this time. Perhaps knowing that information would help you make a better argument.

Ok, so do it for me. What do you expect?

What the hell does this mean? Why do you think you've used your baseball watching years better than me? In fact, are you older than me at all? What are you talking about?

That years of life have shown me not to believe everything I read. Not just in sports, but in everything. I take everything I read with a grain of salt, and trust raw statistical data as well as my own eyes more than anything else.

Right, because just like most of the other blue chip prospects, Buchholz is completely irrelevant now and teams have written him off. He's certainly not going to be starting for the Red Sox rotation next year and his career--just like all other 24 year olds who didn't appear to be setting the league on fire--will be a failure.

Once again, don't put words in my mouth. I never said he's completely irrelevant, and that teams have written him off, nor did I say he would be an abject failure and be written off. I said that I believe that he would be a #3 in the AL East, and probably a #2 elsewhere. Is that what you would call a failure.

 

I think the rest of baseball, as well as the Red Sox themselves, would have to admit that Buchholz's star has dimmed a bit. I think this is 100% undeniable. This does not mean that he won't be a star, or that he will fade away into obscurity. If he has a good season, he automatically becomes the one pitcher all teams want. This is also true of Joba and Hughes. If any of the aforementioned pitchers goes 15-9 with a 3.46 ERA and throws 180 IP with a 1.29 WHIP...well...they will be pretty close to untouchable as well as the player everyone asks for. However, two came up with a lot of expectations [Hughes and Buchholz], one came out of the blue and was lights out [Joba]...and all three stars have dimmed a bit.

 

Happy Thanksgiving all.

[Gom]

I do respect and appreciate the work you put into your posts. I don't like when you generalize about my views by trying to show some predisposition on my part whether it be that I don't follow or know about prospects or I don't like young players, etc. It reminds me of political leaders and special interest groups that make accusations of racism, sexism, or some other discrimination because they don't like the way an issue has been decided. It's a cheap shot technique and you engage in it all the time.

 

I have attempted to clarify these issues several times by stating that I do follow our prospects. I just don't get excited about AA guys that I don't see play until they hit the majors and they succeed. I have made all sorts of posts about young guys that I have liked from the beginning, e.g., Papelbon, Ellsbury, and Bard. I also liked Buchholz. I saw his debut against the Angels in '07. I was impressed by him in ST '09, but I remain cautious about declaring him to be a star after seeing how bad he was in '08. I am hoping those were growing pains. Would I be thrilled about trading him now? No, because this should be a year when he finally becomes a productive major leaguer. I'd like to get Halladay and keep Buchholz to pitch in the #5 slot and send Wakefield to an Assisted Living facility. How does this jive with my so-called predisposition against young players? Oh, I forgot. I hate Wakefield too. It shows very poor debating skills or just laziness to pin labels on people rather than to debate the issue. For instance, I watched Lars Anderson for a week in Ft. Myers. I watched his batting practice and his ABs for a week and I reported back that he looks over matched. I get back these posts about how I hate all the young kids, and as proof I get the examples of my impressions about Pedroia etc. I never said that I am always right about these evaluations, but I am right more than I am wrong, so to point out the times when I have been wrong as proof that my opinion is invalid is demeaning and intellectually lazy and dishonest. It's called smearing in politics.

 

BTW I was spot on about Anderson who suffered through a miserable year in '09. Will he bounce back? I hope so. I realize that when I see a guy in ST, that he may be getting his timing down etc. , but to me he looked awkward and confused in every aspect of the game. He looked raw. In 2011 or 2012, if he is playing 1B for the Sox, you'll be telling me that I was wrong about him, even though I was right and he needed seasoning.

 

You didn't like it when I posted that you think every Sox prospect is going to be a star. I didn't believe that when I posted it, but I wanted to see how you like your views to be ridiculously generalized. Yet, you do it to me all the time. If you want to persist with that tactic, I can play that game too and I will dismiss your posts with ridiculous generalizations of your views. How about arguing an issue based on the merits in its current context. That's how an issue is debated. You would rather research my posts to try to find some statement where I said something different about that issue or some other issue, and use it to invalidate my opinion. You spend a lot of time trying to get "gotcha material" on me. Usually, you can't find anything, because I tend to be consistent about issues unless the facts have changed. If the facts have changed, the prior opinion is irrelevant in the new context. Yet, you will use a post from years ago as some sort of invalidation of my opinion. If I was skeptical about Pedroia in March 2006 and love him now how is that discrediting? Changing the facts changes the discussion.

 

For instance, I get people telling me how I want to get rid of Buchholz and I have wanted him gone since July. No, wrong. I would have been okay with trading him in July for Halladay (probably even Lee), but facts have changed since then. Nevertheless, I am told to take a position about Buchholz and stick to it. How ridiculous. Should my opinion be the same about him next August whether he is 15-2 with a 3 ERA or he is 2-15 with a 7 ERA? How could it be?

 

I couldn't have said it better myself. Spot on a700. Maybe the prerequisite for intelligence on this board is living in NY. :harhar:

[Dipre]

In all fairness, a700 should take a position on Bucholz and stick with it.

 

He knows what i meant when i told him that, so i fail to see where his futile attempt at turning my words around will take him. In fact, it shows yet another change of heart in his actual view of Bucholz.

 

That is all.

[Gom]

In all fairness, a700 should take a position on Bucholz and stick with it.

 

Why? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Dipre]

Why? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

You'd need to read the whole shitstorm to understand what i meant by it.

[a700hitter]

In all fairness, a700 should take a position on Bucholz and stick with it.

 

He knows what i meant when i told him that, so i fail to see where his futile attempt at turning my words around will take him. In fact, it shows yet another change of heart in his actual view of Bucholz.

 

That is all.

My position on trading Buchholz for Halladay has changed since July. The FO has probably changed its position since then too. Halladay's current contract is not worth now what it was in July. It's too bad you can't understand that. Maybe you should let someone else invest your money for you.

 

I couldn't have been more clear yesterday. I would trade Buchholz for Halladay with a reasonable extension through 2013 (3 year extension-- $60 million) with options and buyouts for a 4th year. I'll be more specific. The 4th year option would be a team option for $20 million with a buyout for $8 million. Could I be more specific. Oh, and BTW, if Halladay hasn't been traded by July, I'll probably change my position to reflect the new facts. That's what smart people do.

 

For the record, you have said that you would give him 4 years $84 million, but wouldn't trade Buchholz for him.

 

Finally, with regard to the bold statement, I have no idea what you mean or what point you are trying to make.

[Spudboy]

I think that if Talksox were to have an official drink, it would have to be named "The Shitstorm".

[Dipre]

My position on trading Buchholz for Halladay has changed since July. The FO has probably changed its position since then too. Halladay's current contract is not worth now what it was in July. It's too bad you can't understand that. Maybe you should let someone else invest your money for you.

 

I couldn't have been more clear yesterday. I would trade Buchholz for Halladay with a reasonable extension through 2013 (3 year extension-- $60 million) with options and buyouts for a 4th year. I'll be more specific. The 4th year option would be a team option for $20 million with a buyout for $8 million. Could I be more specific. Oh, and BTW, if Halladay hasn't been traded by July, I'll probably change my position to reflect the new facts. That's what smart people do.

 

For the record, you have said that you would give him 4 years $84 million, but wouldn't trade Buchholz for him.

 

If you don't understand why exactly i told you that, then i don't know what to tell you.

 

And i explained 100 times the reasons why, in this instance, i wouldn't give up Buch to the Jays, and it holds no relevance to the topic at hand.

 

If you've so explained your position and are so certain of it, why the butthurt when i said what i said?

[a700hitter]

You'd need to read the whole shitstorm to understand what i meant by it.

Is this your way of saying that you don't even know what your point is, because I don't. What a cop out!

[Dipre]

Is this your way of saying that you don't even know what your point is' date=' because I don't. What a cop out![/quote']

 

No.

 

I simply don't want to sit down and explain the multiple ramifications of your supposed "Stance". Yet another diversion attempt trying to steer away from the main point of the issue since you can't directly tackle the points i raised in the first place.

 

The very definition of cop-out.

[a700hitter]

If you don't understand why exactly i told you that, then i don't know what to tell you.

 

And i explained 100 times the reasons why, in this instance, i wouldn't give up Buch to the Jays, and it holds no relevance to the topic at hand.

 

If you've so explained your position and are so certain of it, why the butthurt when i said what i said?

No butthurt. Just frustrated that you didn't read and/or comprehend my posts about buchholz since this latest rumor has surfaced about Halladay. I was clearly on record that the jays would not get anything close to Buchholz at this point. Even when I told you that I had posted that, you refused to beleive my stated position. That's the reason for the frustration. I don't like people putting words in my mouth. Do you?

[Dipre]

No butthurt. Just frustrated that you didn't read and/or comprehend my posts about buchholz since this latest rumor has surfaced about Halladay. I was clearly on record that the jays would not get anything close to Buchholz at this point. Even when I told you that I had posted that' date=' you refused to beleive my stated position. That's the reason for the frustration. I don't like people putting words in my mouth. Do you?[/quote']

 

*Sigh*

 

Cop-out.

 

You don't need to be frustrated. You just need to not change your argument every time you're proven wrong about something you've said in the past.

 

Your stance on Bucholz has been modified multiple times to suit your current argument:

 

Example:

 

In response to someone saying Buch's 2009 was "Solid" you responded with, he had "Mixed results" because he had been "Bombed in several outings".

 

When confronted yesterday, you said you weren't all about trading him now because you thought he might have "Turned a corner" which is a far cry from "Mixed results" and "Bombed in several outings".

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you're simply not keeping a single stance on the issue like e1, or, it pains me to say so, Gom.

[a700hitter]

No.

 

I simply don't want to sit down and explain the multiple ramifications of your supposed "Stance". Yet another diversion attempt trying to steer away from the main point of the issue since you can't directly tackle the points i raised in the first place.

 

The very definition of cop-out.

You couldn't explain the ramifications of my "stance" , because you don't even know what my stance is. I clearly stated my position in post #1931. Go ahead take a crack at telling me the ramifications of my "stance."

[Dipre]

You couldn't explain the ramifications of my "stance" ' date=' because you don't even know what my stance is. I clearly stated my position in post #1931. Go ahead take a crack at telling me the ramifications of my "stance."[/quote']

 

Read above.

[a700hitter]

*Sigh*

 

Cop-out.

 

You don't need to be frustrated. You just need to not change your argument every time you're proven wrong about something you've said in the past.

 

Your stance on Bucholz has been modified multiple times to suit your current argument:

 

Example:

 

In response to someone saying Buch's 2009 was "Solid" you responded with, he had "Mixed results" because he had been "Bombed in several outings".

 

When confronted yesterday, you said you weren't all about trading him now because you thought he might have "Turned a corner" which is a far cry from "Mixed results" and "Bombed in several outings".

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you're simply not keeping a single stance on the issue like e1, or, it pains me to say so, Gom.

Mixed results was an improvement over 2008 which was total suck. He showed flashes, but he had some games where he flat out sucked. Mixed doesn't mean suck. I already explained that. I'm not ready to declare him a star in waiting yet. I've also said several times that this will be a cross-roads year from him. This will be the year where we will learn what kind of career he'll have. What is not clear about this, and where have I been proved wrong about any of this? You are so intent on being right that you have to disagree even when someone posts something that you couldn't possibly disagree with.

[a700hitter]

Read above.

I read the above. It doesn't explain the so-called ramifications of my "stance". Maybe you should look up the meaning of "ramifications".

[Dipre]

Mixed results was an improvement over 2008 which was total suck. He showed flashes' date=' but he had some games where he flat out sucked. Mixed doesn't mean suck. I already explained that. I'm not ready to declare him a star in waiting yet. I've also said several times that this will be a cross-roads year from him. This will be the year where we will learn what kind of career he'll have. What is not clear about this, and where have I been proved wrong about any of this? You are so intent on being right that you have to disagree even when someone posts something that you couldn't possibly disagree with.[/quote']

 

No.

 

You are now showing a completely different side to the argument i mentioned.

 

If you want to, i'll look up the post where you clearly outlined the negatives of his year, mentioning in very specific fashion the ugly outing in Baltimore.

 

You've taken two completely different stances, i called you out on it, and now you look to take it on a tangent.

 

I'm pretty much done with this argument, i proved what i wanted to prove, and unless you can show me evidence that disproves what i have stated here, i suggest you simply admit to massively undervaluing the kid, and now attempting to save face when confronted about it.

[Dipre]

I read the above. It doesn't explain the so-called ramifications of my "stance". Maybe you should look up the meaning of "ramifications".

 

 

So "TRADE HIM"-------->Mixed results------------------------------>Turning a corner/ Sucked most of the time .does not equal an argumentative ramification?

 

 

And this is just an example.

 

I suggest looking for the definition of the term yourself.

 

That is all.

[Spudboy]

I'm against trading Buck for anyone other than Adrien Gonzalez. And only then if the Sox make another move to acquire a healthy 2-4 starting pitcher. I don't know if they have the chips for all this. But it's what I'd like to see.

 

I don't see Buck as a #1. Not now, anyway. Maybe never. But he does have the stuff to be a very good 2-3 for years to come. From what I've seen and what I have heard from guys like Lou Merloni.

 

Would I like to see Halladay with the Sox? You betcha! I just don't see it happening if the Sox have to extend him for 4/80. I don't believe the Sox are willing to pay that kind of money for a pitcher, regardless of his credentials, who is in his thirties. I'd rather see them extend Beckett.

[a700hitter]

No.

 

You are now showing a completely different side to the argument i mentioned.

 

If you want to, i'll look up the post where you clearly outlined the negatives of his year, mentioning in very specific fashion the ugly outing in Baltimore.

 

You've taken two completely different stances, i called you out on it, and now you look to take it on a tangent.

 

I'm pretty much done with this argument, i proved what i wanted to prove, and unless you can show me evidence that disproves what i have stated here, i suggest you simply admit to massively undervaluing the kid, and now attempting to save face when confronted about it.

Here's the way it went. If you've got the wrong sequence, the conclusion you reach is bound to be wrong, which you are in this instance. First off, I stated that he had mixed results in 2009. You and others jumped all over it like "mixed" meant suck. I went into detail about his bad outings to show that his 2009 had some blemishes to counter the "he's a star" euphoria which is totally out of line with his performance. He may become a star, but he is not yet.

[Dipre]

Here's the way it went. If you've got the wrong sequence' date=' the conclusion you reach is bound to be wrong, which you are in this instance. First off, I stated that he had mixed results in 2009. You and others jumped all over it like "mixed" meant suck. I went into detail about his bad outings to show that his 2009 had some blemishes to counter the "he's a star" euphoria which is totally out of line with his performance. He may become a star, but he is not yet.[/quote']

 

How you just went from people saying he had a "Solid performance" to people saying "He's a star" is beyond me.

 

He had a "Solid performance" people said, you countered with "Mixed results" and he got "Bombed several times". If a below solid performance where you get bombed several times isn't suck, i don't know what is.

[a700hitter]

How you just went from people saying he had a "Solid performance" to people saying "He's a star" is beyond me.

 

He had a "Solid performance" people said, you countered with "Mixed results" and he got "Bombed several times". If a below solid performance where you get bombed several times isn't suck, i don't know what is.

Here's where the shitstorm started. I used the term "mixed results" and you immediately went ape. Follow from the beginning and you will see the sequence of events. You are 100% wrong in this case. Sorry dude.

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/talk-sox-forum/13177-wakefield-2010-season-20.html#post500940

[Dipre]

Here's where the shitstorm started. I used the term "mixed results" and you immediately went ape. Follow from the beginning and you will see the sequence of events. You are 100% wrong in this case. Sorry dude.

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/500940-post288.html

 

Your argument was based on the teams he pitched well against "Pretty much sucking", effectively downplaying his performance.

 

You were proven wrong in that instance.

 

However, that was not the first time you indicated that Buch's performance was no more than "average". Hell, you changed your tune in the middle of that thread, right after using Brad Penny as a benchmark for his performance.

 

Who's 100% wrong again?

[Dipre]

2 starts in a row in September were awful. In 4 of his 16 starts he gave up 6 or 7 earned runs.

 

He had 9 QS in 16 starts. A bag of garbage like Penny had 11 QS in 24 starts.

 

By the end' date=' those terrible teams were mailing it in. You can't put too much stock in good performances against them in September when they were making golf and fishing plans..[/quote']

 

My argument is this. Buchholz did not go through the league like a buzz saw. His performance was encouraging after he s*** the bed in 2008' date=' but his 2009 performance was far from star caliber. 2010 will definitely be a crossroads year for him. If he doesn't breakout this coming season, we may have to reconsider his star potential.[/quote']

 

I suppose these 3 gems should go unnoticed.

 

Also, the repeated use of the phrase "Star Caliber" are particularly interesting as well, seeing as you use that as part of your argument when you were, in fact, the only person to ever utter those words.

[a700hitter]

I suppose these 3 gems should go unnoticed.

 

Also, the repeated use of the phrase "Star Caliber" are particularly interesting as well, seeing as you use that as part of your argument when you were, in fact, the only person to ever utter those words.

If you can't get the sequence right, your argument is bound to be wrong. I directed you to where the argument started. I can't do more than that.

 

Here it is again if you want to read it through in sequence again:

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/talk-sox-forum/13177-wakefield-2010-season-20.html#post500940