Bard to Rotation a Mistake?

[a700hitter]

Oh yeah, all long term contracts have inherent risks. The thing is that I see different risk levels in each contract since each one is different.

 

I see less risks in Pap's contract than in CC's or Lackey's contracts for example. Some think different and that's fine but it doesn't mean that I'm correct or wrong. It is only an opinion in the end.

No, no, no, you must be proved wrong!

[iortiz]

It's what he's doing. A spade is a spade.

 

I do not want to fight. I'm just sharing my ideas and opinions.

[ORS]

And without provocation' date=' you have been very confrontational today. That's a spade too. A little more Chianti might be in order.[/quote']

Sure, any time you challenge an idea you are "confronting" someone with a different view, particularly when it is an inconsistency with their train of thought. I haven't been arbitrarily nasty, though.

[iortiz]

No' date=' no, no, you must be proved wrong![/quote']

 

 

Hell, We need baseball.

 

Where are you going to watch the opening game?

[a700hitter]

Sure' date=' any time you challenge an idea you are "confronting" someone with a different view, particularly when it is an inconsistency with their train of thought. I haven't been arbitrarily nasty, though.[/quote']Inconsistency with train of thought? You are just assuming what I would think. I stated nothing in regard to what you assumed and then based on your assumption you concluded inconsistency. That's just obnoxious.

 

Edit: Plus your tone is just nasty at times in unprovoked situations.

[a700hitter]

 

Hell, We need baseball.

 

Where are you going to watch the opening game?

I had an invitation to Mets opening day, so I was going to DVR the Sox game. However, a friend of mine lost his mom the other day, so it looks like I will be at funeral wake.

[a700hitter]

 

Hell, We need baseball.

 

Where are you going to watch the opening game?

What are your plans for opening day?

[ORS]

Inconsistency with train of thought? You are just assuming what I would think. I stated nothing in regard to what you assumed and then based on your assumption you concluded inconsistency. That's just obnoxious.

Actually, in your case, I assumed consistency, that you don't like giving roles to rookies. Where you called me confrontational was in my discussion with iortiz, where I noted inconsitency.

[iortiz]

What are your plans for opening day?

 

In Mexico the holidays for some of us started today "Semana Santa holidays". I think I will go to a bar today and for the RS game I think I will watch it in my place with a couple of six packs . You?

[a700hitter]

Actually' date=' in your case, I assumed consistency, that you don't like giving roles to rookies. Where you called me confrontational was in my discussion with iortiz, where I noted inconsitency.[/quote']Just stop assuming what I would think. I have asked you that several times before. You really suck at it, and it is obnoxious. Really nice try: What's that, you had assumed consistency on my part which is why you noted the inconsistency? How much Chianti have you had?

[a700hitter]

In Mexico the holidays for some of us started today "Semana Santa holidays". I think I will go to a bar today and for the RS game I think I will watch it in my place with a couple of six packs . You?

Tonight's game I will probably watch with my son over a few cold ones. He's 26 so I can have a drink with him.

[iortiz]

Actually' date=' in your case, I assumed consistency, that you don't like giving roles to rookies. Where you called me confrontational was in my discussion with iortiz, where I noted inconsitency.[/quote']

 

Inconsistency? I do not think so.

[ORS]

Just stop assuming what I would think. I have asked you that several times before. You really suck at it' date=' and it is obnoxious. Really nice try: What's that, you had assumed consistency on my part which is why you noted the inconsistency? How much Chianti have you had?[/quote']

Man, you are really reaching. I never said you were inconsistent. In fact, if you were, I wouldn't make any assumptions. There'd be no basis for them. The fact that you are so consistent in your view of rookie players makes assumption, one you still have not denied, perfectly reasonable and not in any way obnoxious. Now you are just trying to point fingers and take the attention away from how nasty you've been today on a personal level.

[ORS]

Inconsistency? I do not think so.

Absolutely.

 

I'll give you credit for one thing, though. You are remarkably consistent in your ability to call it "different situation" when your posts have you talking on both sides of an issue.

[iortiz]

Man' date=' you are really reaching. I never said you were inconsistent. In fact, if you were, I wouldn't make any assumptions. There'd be no basis for them. The fact that you are so consistent in your view of rookie players makes assumption, one you still have not denied, perfectly reasonable and not in any way obnoxious. Now you are just trying to point fingers and take the attention away from how nasty you've been today on a personal level.[/quote']

 

I think this is the Lav thing.

 

I think everybody in this board prefer Ortiz over Lav offensively, but if you have other issues/priorities to address, sometimes you have to sacrifice something. In our case, Ortiz was the piece we should sacrifice. A700 has been consistent in this position. This has no relation with his rookie player view/perspective. That is another discussion.

 

I think you have to read and go deeper in threads in order to assume what a poster thinks or mean. This is only an advise. Hopefully you do not take this as an attack.

[iortiz]

Absolutely.

 

I'll give you credit for one thing, though. You are remarkably consistent in your ability to call it "different situation" when your posts have you talking on both sides of an issue.

 

Because they are. I already showed you, but probably I did not convinced, but it doesn't change my point of view unless I find out valid arguments.

[ORS]

I think everybody in this board prefer Ortiz over Lav offensively' date=' but if you have other issues/priorities to address, sometimes you have to sacrifice something. In our case, Ortiz was the piece we should sacrifice. A700 has been consistent in this position. This has no relation with his rookie player view/perspective. That is another discussion.[/quote']

His view of rookies absolutely has relevance, IMO, which is why I asked the question he has yet to answer. Because, in my opinion, the team was either going to bring Ortiz back or give the job to Lavarnway, a rookie. Yes, there were other options, such as signing another, cheaper alternative, which is what a700 has stated is what he would have done, but I don't think that was going to happen, and is why I asked the question.

 

Given a choice of Ortiz/No Pitcher or Lavarnway/Some Pitcher, who would he chose? Is it so difficult to answer this?

[ORS]

Because they are. I already showed you' date=' but probably I did not convinced, but it doesn't change my point of view unless I find out valid arguments.[/quote']

You didn't "show" me anyting. You stated your opinion. I disagree with it. To me, the inconsistency still exists.

[iortiz]

You didn't "show" me anyting. You stated your opinion. I disagree with it. To me' date=' the inconsistency still exists.[/quote']

 

Yes, I showed you . I don't see inconsistency anywhere, but again, that is you opinion.

[a700hitter]

Man' date=' you are really reaching. I never said you were inconsistent. In fact, if you were, I wouldn't make any assumptions. There'd be no basis for them. The fact that you are so consistent in your view of rookie players makes assumption, one you still have not denied, perfectly reasonable and not in any way obnoxious. Now you are just trying to point fingers and take the attention away from how nasty you've been today on a personal level.[/quote']I think you are confusing my consistent philosophy about prospects with a philosophy about rookies. My philosophy about prospects is that with few exceptions, their highest and best use is as over-hyped trade chips. The few exceptions are the prospects who will become stars at the major league level -- a very small minority of prospects. Good organizations know who to keep and who to trade. Rookies that become stars. I love those guys. Papelbon, Ellsbury, Pedroia ... give me more.

 

If you are going to make assumptions about me, get it right. At least, make your assumptions about the right topic. Better yet, it is safer to throw your assumptions out the window when it comes to me. I am much too complex for your linear scientific thinking to figure out.

[a700hitter]

His view of rookies absolutely has relevance' date=' IMO, which is why I asked the question he has yet to answer. Because, in my opinion, the team was either going to bring Ortiz back or give the job to Lavarnway, a rookie.[/quote']Because this is your opinion doesn't meant that the organization ever seriously considered that. They are probably reluctant to turn a young kid into a full time DH when he would be more valuable if they can get him competent at the catching position. I disagree with your opinion on this. I don't think that is the way the organization would have gone if Ortiz left. I think it would have been more likely if Lavarnway stayed as the backup catcher who could also get some DH ABs, but they would pursue a low cost DH to take most of those DH AB's. Maybe someone like Abreu, as I mentioned previously. He could play some OF on occasion too. So, pardon me for not letting my opinions be limited to a choice that you presented.

[ORS]

Because this is your opinion doesn't meant that the organization ever seriously considered that. They are probably reluctant to turn a young kid into a full time DH when he would be more valuable if they can get him competent at the catching position. I disagree with your opinion on this. I don't think that is the way the organization would have gone if Ortiz left. I think it would have been more likely if Lavarnway stayed as the backup catcher who could also get some DH ABs' date=' but they would pursue a low cost DH to take most of those DH AB's. Maybe someone like Abreu, as I mentioned previously. He could play some OF on occasion too. So, pardon me for not letting my opinions be limited to a choice that you presented.[/quote']

Don't agree with the options, fine then caveat it, but the longer you avoid answering the question, the more it makes it look like my assumption was correct.

[iortiz]

Because this is your opinion doesn't meant that the organization ever seriously considered that. They are probably reluctant to turn a young kid into a full time DH when he would be more valuable if they can get him competent at the catching position. I disagree with your opinion on this. I don't think that is the way the organization would have gone if Ortiz left. I think it would have been more likely if Lavarnway stayed as the backup catcher who could also get some DH ABs' date=' but they would pursue a low cost DH to take most of those DH AB's. Maybe someone like Abreu, as I mentioned previously. He could play some OF on occasion too. So, pardon me for not letting my opinions be limited to a choice that you presented.[/quote']

 

I think he wants you to choose only from Ortiz/No Pitcher or Lavarnway/Some Pitcher.

 

You already put other scenario which is interesting as well. I'm not sure what he wants to prove if you choose one of his scenarios.

[a700hitter]

I think he wants you to choose only from Ortiz/No Pitcher or Lavarnway/Some Pitcher.

 

You already put other scenario which is interesting as well. I'm not sure what he wants to prove if you choose one of his scenarios.

Yes, I did answer it. In his world there are only two choices. Of course, the organization never gave the slightest indication that they were considering his alternative. I think some might call that a straw man. I reject both of his choices (including the straw man) and offer a different solution/possibility.

[a700hitter]

Don't agree with the options' date=' fine then caveat it, but the longer you avoid answering the question, the more it makes it look like my assumption was correct.[/quote']Yes, my refusal to chose option A or B is wery wery suspicious. I am a waskly wabbit.:harhar:

[ORS]

Yes' date=' my refusal to chose option A or B is wery wery suspicious. I am a waskly wabbit.:harhar:[/quote']

It's fitting that you resort to the Looney Tunes in your attempts to introduce levity. Afterall, you did act like a child when you poked fun at my medical condition.

[a700hitter]

It's fitting that you resort to the Looney Tunes in your attempts to introduce levity. Afterall' date=' you did act like a child when you poked fun at my medical condition.[/quote']Childish? Maybe so, but I do find amusement in the visual of a military guy with a rifle sitting on an ass-donut. Have some sense of humor. You are going to live.

[ORS]

Childish? Maybe so' date=' but I do find amusement in the visual of a military guy with a rifle sitting on an ass-donut. Have some sense of humor. You are going to live.[/quote']

I have plenty of sense of humor. In fact, I've had my wife and friends in stitches with my comments about my condition. It's not funny when someone overreacts and uses it to tell me to calm down in a not so friendly way, when I am not at all upset or aggravated in any way. But, it's par for the course with you. You overreact, say something s*****, and then spend the next few comments trying to make the other person look like they are oversensitive. Nothing new here.

[a700hitter]

I have plenty of sense of humor. In fact' date=' I've had my wife and friends in stitches with my comments about my condition. It's not funny when someone overreacts and uses it to tell me to calm down in a not so friendly way, when I am not at all upset or aggravated in any way. But, it's par for the course with you. You overreact, say something s*****, and then spend the next few comments trying to make the other person look like they are oversensitive. Nothing new here.[/quote']As usual, you have my motivations all wrong.

[ORS]

As usual' date=' you have my motivations all wrong.[/quote']

These aren't assumed motivations. It is observed behavior.