Red Sox 2012 Spring Training Thread.

[Bellhorn04]

The first garbage bag has been put out to the curb.

 

LOL

[User Name]

Death is death. Life after death or reincarnation is AFTER death' date=' this is another fact. Your previous identity in both cases are still effectively deceased, even if there is a life after death. This is factual, and this has never changed since the firat organism in the universe kicked the bucket.[/quote']

 

Can you prove the previous identity is effectively deceased? That's kinda the point.

 

Changed definitions and calling it something else don't change the fact of what's there/what's happening. The funniest thing about all of this is that without absolutes, any rule would be a complete crock. That's how your argument defeated itself pages ago. What else do I have to debunk for you?

 

Might just have to call you a troll and move on.

 

The literal definition of the phrase that coined the "The exception proves the rule" says, in its literal legal interpretation, that just because there are exceptions to the rule, it does not mean the rule is not important, or effective.

 

As for the changing definitions, if the literal meaning changes, then so does the nature of the fact, discrediting its existence as fact.

 

I also don't understand why you have to make this personal? It's a running gag for you to call anyone who disagrees with your opinion a "troll", or some other sort of witty adejctive.

 

How am i a troll? I am defending my opinion and not insulting anyone in the process.

 

Unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that something is an universal truth, and no other argument about it has merits, it's not absolute.

[Emmz]

Lol the actual discussion is in the other spring training thread. Kinda messed up it had to get to that point, so I'm going to just say I'm done discussing this. Really kind of pointless anyways.

[User Name]

You're using some outdated book you got in logic class to attempt to debunk scientific facts. Come on. Irrational comparison.

 

Those facts that may not be "facts" a couple years down the line.

[Emmz]

 

Those facts that may not be "facts" a couple years down the line.

 

Facts don't change, though.

[Emmz]

2+2=4. Dispute or cast doubt on that. I rest my case.

[User Name]

Then the sun still spins around the earth.

[a700hitter]

Silva is down. That was fast. They will fall quickly one by one. These guys: Silva, Cook and Maine are all badly damaged. Padilla is the only one with any shot of contributing. We have no depth in this department. If we think we do, we are deluding ourselves.

[User Name]

2+2=4. Dispute or cast doubt on that. I rest my case.

 

I already mentioned the "1 + 1" case in my response to Elktonnic. As you always say "don't be lazy and go back and read the thread".

[Emmz]

Then the sun still spins around the earth.

 

LOL

 

you're desperate now after I said I would drop it.

 

That's a spin on a fact, it does not revolve around the earth.

[User Name]

Desperate about what?

 

Also, the point is that it was a "fact" that the sun spun around earth, until it was disproven.

[Emmz]

I already mentioned the "1 + 1" case in my response to Elktonnic. As you always say "don't be lazy and go back and read the thread".

 

And it's incorrect. A single value plus the same single value is equal to two of the same value.

[User Name]

And it's incorrect. A single value plus the same single value is equal to two of the same value.

 

Is it really? If you believe that is the "absolute" definition of what happens when you put two elements together, then there is indeed no need to discuss this further.

[Emmz]

Desperate about what?

 

Also, the point is that it was a "fact" that the sun spun around earth, until it was disproven.

 

That was not a fact, it was a highly-believed opinion held by unadvanced people. It was never backed up by anything other than an unadvanced form of logic similar to what you're pushing. The earth revolves around the sun, fact and absolute.

[Bellhorn04]

Silva is down. That was fast. They will fall quickly one by one. These guys: Silva' date=' Cook and Maine are all badly damaged. Padilla is the only one with any shot of contributing. We have no depth in this department. If we think we do, we are deluding ourselves.[/quote']

 

I think it will all revolve around Buchholz's health. If he can give us 170-180 good innings I think we can work around the rest of it. If he goes down we're screwed.

[User Name]

That was not a fact' date=' it was a highly-believed opinion held by unadvanced people. It was never backed up by anything other than an unadvanced form of logic similar to what you're pushing. The earth revolves around the sun, fact and absolute.[/quote']

 

It was still considered fact back then. The point is that as definitions and technology changes so do "facts", including things that, through calculation and scientific method were considered "fact". If you don't want to admit to this, that's fine. But it's the truth.

[Emmz]

Is it really? If you believe that is the "absolute" definition of what happens when you put two elements together' date=' then there is indeed no need to discuss this further.[/quote']

 

The fact you answered it with a question means you're probably out of spin material. I also said two values, such as 1, you get double that value. That is the only answer. The only correct answer to 1+1 is 2. Simply put, you've lost. This is basically like a game of tag and you're that kid who got tagged and doesn't want to admit it.

[Emmz]

It was still considered fact back then. The point is that as definitions and technology changes so do "facts"' date=' including things that, through calculation and scientific method were considered "fact". If you don't want to admit to this, that's fine. But it's the truth.[/quote']

 

there's a difference between "considered fact" and "proven fact". This is a proven fact.

[User Name]

Extension Candidate: Jacoby Ellsbury

By Mark Polishuk [March 5 at 9:25am CST]

There was some talk out of Boston about the Red Sox exploring a multiyear deal with Jacoby Ellsbury this offseason, though it's perhaps no surprise the club decided to handle its front-office shakeup and more immediate player concerns before trying to lock up a player who is still under team control through 2013. There is likely also a sense of wanting to see exactly they really have in Ellsbury before committing to a major contract.

 

Last season, Ellsbury didn't only bounce back from an injury-riddled 2010, he dramatically raised his own performance ceiling. Ellsbury finished second in AL MVP voting after slugging 32 homers and hitting .321/.376/.552 in a league-best 732 plate appearances, just to erase any doubts about his durability. All three totals in his slash line were career highs but the power was particularly surprising --- Ellsbury had hit just 30 homers in his entire major and minor league career (2705 plate appearances) before 2011. To top it off, Elsbury also provided excellent center field defense (a 15.7 UZR/150 and a Gold Glove) and stole 39 bases.

 

The Red Sox avoided arbitration with Ellsbury by agreeing to an $8.05MM deal for 2012, a significant bump up from his $2.4MM 2011 salary. If Ellsbury comes even close to repeating his performance from last season, he'll earn another big raise for his last arbitration year; MLBTR's Ben Nicholson-Smith projected as much as a $13MM salary for Ellsbury in 2013.

 

For our long-term price range, let's look at the contracts received by Matt Kemp and Ellsbury's teammate Carl Crawford over the last two offseasons. Kemp was also heading into his last arbitration year when he signed an eight-year, $160MM extension with the Dodgers in November. Crawford, meanwhile, was 29 (Ellsbury hits that age in September) when he signed his seven-year, $142MM free agent deal with the Red Sox on the open market.

 

Hard as it would've been to believe 12 months ago, power is the key statistic in determining the size of Ellsbury's extension. If he puts up another 30-homer season, agent Scott Boras will argue that Ellsbury is now a proven five-tool threat and deserves a Kemp-like contract. If Ellsbury's homer total drops even to around 20 dingers, the Red Sox will have an argument for a slightly lesser but still-sizeable contract akin to Crawford's deal.

 

Of the five 2012 projections used by Fangraphs, all have Ellsbury's OPS dropping significantly next season, with three of five forecasting a drop of more than 100 OPS points. It's worth noting that Ellsbury's center field defense is also not quite a proven commodity. He posted a -10.0 UZR/150 playing the position in 2009, leading to the Red Sox signing Mike Cameron that offseason to take over in center.

 

Presuming Ellsbury, like most players, doesn't want to talk contract once the season begins, Boston has a month to work out an extension while they still have some leverage over the length of the deal. Right now, the Red Sox could aim for a six-year extension that covers Ellsbury's last arbitration year and his first five free agent seasons. This would cover Ellsbury through his age-34 season, sparing the club at least one year of paying $20MM to a player in his mid-thirties (though the Sox could add a club option). Of course, as noted earlier, if Ellsbury's power surge continues into the start of the 2012 campaign, the leverage swings back in his direction and Boras will look for a minimum of seven years in any new contract.

 

Boras usually advises his clients to test the free agent market, so it wouldn't be a surprise to see the 2012-13 offseason also pass without a multiyear deal between Ellsbury and the Red Sox. Two high-profile Boras clients have recently signed extensions prior to free agency -- Carlos Gonzalez's seven-year, $80MM deal with the Rockies and Jered Weaver's five-year, $85MM deal with the Angels -- but neither of those contracts matches Ellsbury's situation. Gonzalez was still four years away from free agency and Weaver specifically wanted to stay in Anaheim, even at the cost of leaving millions on the table in free agency.

 

Though Boston has been conscious of exceeding the luxury tax limit on payroll this winter, the team obviously has the money to pay Ellsbury fair value if they want to make him part of their long-term future. A lot depends on what Ellsbury does at the plate in 2012, but a seven-year, $133MM deal ($13MM in 2013 to match his arbitration number and then an average of $20MM in each of the following six years) is definitely within reach. Ellsbury would join Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez as Red Sox players locked up through at least 2017. With Jon Lester, Dustin Pedroia and Clay Buchholz all on reasonable contracts that include equally reasonable team options, Boston's long-term payroll is relatively flexible for such a big-market franchise.

[Dojji]

That was not a fact' date=' it was a highly-believed opinion held by unadvanced people. It was never backed up by anything other than an unadvanced form of logic similar to what you're pushing. The earth revolves around the sun, fact and absolute.[/quote']

 

Emms, you need to learn the difference between "fact" and "truth."

 

"The sun spills around the earth" used to be a fact. It is STILL a fact.

 

Nope, I properly understand the role of a planet and star in the solar system and the solar system in the galaxy as a whole. It's still a fact.

 

Why? Because all a fact is is a statement that is falsifiable. Meaning that if you say something that can be proven correct or proven incorrect, it is a fact.

 

And that's ANYTHING. ANY statement that has been proven wrong IS in truth a fact for that reason. In fact the vast majority of the world's facts are statements that have proven untrue.

 

I know you're kinda a victim of the culture. People just can't say "this is the truth" anymore because *ahem* certain of us get their jollies by pouncing on anyone who shows weakness these days, so lawyers hide behind "this is a fact" instead and advertisers follow suit, and we subconsciously follow the suit of the advertisers. Inclusive of the built-in smarmy loophole that comes with putting it that way.

 

I'd hope you'd take that cue to change your tactics, but I know you a bit too well. I fully expect the multiple ad homenims your next post will include, and pity you for them. And that is a fact.

[a700hitter]

Please take this truth vs relativism debate to a non-sports forum. It is just going in a ridiculous circle.

[Dojji]

It's going in a circle because two muleheaded people (one in particular who has herself a real problem with the concept of putting the words "I'm" and "wrong" together in that order under any circumstances) won't FREAKING DROP IT.

[Emmz]

Emms, you need to learn the difference between "fact" and "truth."

 

"The sun spills around the earth" used to be a fact. It is STILL a fact.

 

Nope, I properly understand the role of a planet and star in the solar system and the solar system in the galaxy as a whole. It's still a fact.

 

Why? Because all a fact is is a statement that is falsifiable. Meaning that if you say something that can be proven correct or proven incorrect, it is a fact.

 

And that's ANYTHING. ANY statement that has been proven wrong IS in truth a fact for that reason. In fact the vast majority of the world's facts are statements that have proven untrue.

 

I know you're kinda a victim of the culture. People just can't say "this is the truth" anymore because *ahem* certain of us get their jollies by pouncing on anyone who shows weakness these days, so lawyers hide behind "this is a fact" instead and advertisers follow suit, and we subconsciously follow the suit of the advertisers. Inclusive of the built-in smarmy loophole that comes with putting it that way.

 

I'd hope you'd take that cue to change your tactics, but I know you a bit too well. I fully expect the multiple ad homenims your next post will include, and pity you for them. And that is a fact.

 

Save the patronizing for when, you know, you're not just blathering s***. I'm not going to spend a bunch of pages discussing the meaning of the english word "factual", but the very fact that you're trying to tell me my definition of the word is incorrect means that you think I'm right, that absolutes are very much real.

 

That's not even the biggest hypocrisy, when you consider all the ad hominem your post is filled with. Thats one thing you seem to look too closely at. You think any personal attacks invalidate an opinion, and you have a tendency to obsess over whatever stupid detail you don't like about someone, and criticize them at every opportunity.

 

Oh, and btw, fact is a synonym of truth/reality in every dictionary I've been looking at since I began typing this. So, you ready for your crow too Dojji boy?

[Emmz]

It's going in a circle because two muleheaded people (one in particular who has herself a real problem with the concept of putting the words "I'm" and "wrong" together in that order under any circumstances) won't FREAKING DROP IT.

 

Watch that ad hominem bud.

[The Boomer]

Save the patronizing for when, you know, you're not just blathering s***. I'm not going to spend a bunch of pages discussing the meaning of the english word "factual", but the very fact that you're trying to tell me my definition of the word is incorrect means that you think I'm right, that absolutes are very much real.

 

That's not even the biggest hypocrisy, when you consider all the ad hominem your post is filled with. Thats one thing you seem to look too closely at. You think any personal attacks invalidate an opinion, and you have a tendency to obsess over whatever stupid detail you don't like about someone, and criticize them at every opportunity.

 

Oh, and btw, fact is a synonym of truth/reality in every dictionary I've been looking at since I began typing this. So, you ready for your crow too Dojji boy?

 

Wow, not sure how we got onto the meaning of life, but there you go. There are English usages of "facts" where it's synonymous with "statements" and has no bearing on the truth of the assertion (e.g., "the facts of life"). This is, IMHO, sloppy usage but it does happen.

 

If you want to claim that fact != truth, then by all means go ahead. But it's not congruent with the most common usages of the word. When people say "fact", they more often than not mean "something that is true".

 

Of course, what a fact means or implies is subject to opinion and interpretation. There, all bets are off.

 

BTW, Cecil Adams is a columnist who answers questions (any question) submitted by readers, usually things that are mundane but interesting, like: "Why do shower curtains billow in when you take a shower?"

[RedSoxNC84]

I'd rather talk about baseball. FACT.

[Emmz]

Yes, and thats my point, it's not that far-off where subjectivity says close enough. This isn't really about the word fact, its about whats implied. The Earth revolves around the sun, and this is fact, truth, absolute reality. 1+1 is 2, and that is the absolute truth. Thats the point, whether fact is the accurate term or not is just Dojji's way of saying he can't find anything to bring to this argument, so this is what I got.

 

The definition of fact is actually pretty irrelevant, but its close enough that you shouldnt really split hairs over it.

[Emmz]

Everyone wants to move on except for Dojji.

[seabeachfred]

Please take this truth vs relativism debate to a non-sports forum. It is just going in a ridiculous circle.

 

Glad someone mentioned it before I did, otherwise I would be accused to trying to cause trouble. BTW Ted, I do have an avatar on another board but the method to get one on there seemed different. If you could send me a PM telling me how to do it here I would appreciate it. I'm only about 50% computer literate.

 

3-0 so far. I know it is only pre-season but I get the feeling there is a new commitment in Fort Myers. Then, again, I am a Valentine fan; wasn't much of a Franconian. The one thing all of us might have a problem with is that BV likes to tinker from time to time with batting orders and I am one for a consistent batting lineup.

[Emmz]

Go to "user cp" on the upper left-hand corner, then there's an option to "modify avatar".