example1

I heard Bartman has a cannon and can strikeout from both sides of the plate.

You don't need to agree or disagree. Do what you like. I'm not stopping you from posting, I'm just pointing out that withholding judgment is actually an option. There is still plenty you could post about, it just wouldn't have such an authoritative tone.

I don't see people writing off the season, but I see people getting close to writing off the GM with some pretty harsh language. I think it is hasty and really unnecessary, and more of a reflection on those posters' reactivity than on anything the GM has done. I would just like to see people assume that more of what the FO does is intentional rather than stupid or poorly thought-out. If we started from the assumption that they know what they are doing the discussion could be pretty intelligent because there are plenty of intelliegent possibilities to follow for each decision. As it has been lately, it occasionally makes a brief appearance in the intelligent category only to plummet back into mind-numbing accusations to the ownership or FO or GM. Does the board really assume that they traded Scutaro without realizing that he's their starting SS or that the other options aren't as good as him? Do we really think that they said "okay" to trading Scutaro only to then remember that they have to get a pitcher? I mean, let's assume they've looked a couple miles down the road here, maybe? And I don't take it as a reason to assume that they don't look down the road because they have finished 3rd the past few seasons. That's not a logical jump. It makes no sense.

I'm just glad I had something to contribute to the 7375 post thread today.

There's the spirit!

Ha. I find you reaction humorous. I'm holding others to the standards they so haughtily held others to not more than a few months ago. If results are all that matters then results are all that matters. Apparently they are not all that matters. Apparently, how the team looks on paper matters too. As does what the media says. I'm doing all of this tongue in cheek, as I'm sure a700 has picked up on, but I do think it is important that people realize when they make bold proclaimations like "results are all that matters" that will be the standard they are evaluated against moving forward. WHen people are ridiculed for saying the 2011 team was "good" and someone comes along with a "results" perspective and says they sucked, and imply that anything other than a results perspective is faulty, they will be called out when they use something other than a "results" perspective... Even if it is in the "fun" of hot-stove discussion. I will drop it because clearly it got under plenty of peoples skins and I strive to be easy to get along with...

You can. It just means some people might not take your opinions seriously because you want to have it both ways. A700 sees no problem with this. Plenty of other people do. It's inconsistent and, coming only a few months after "results are all that matters", "you don't understand the business world" etc., it rings both hollow and hypocritical. If results are all that matters then wait for the damn results before casting judgment. Otherwise it is not true that results are all that matters. Results are all that matters, only when it is convenient to switch your measuring stick.

No, there is another option. Witholding judgment. If you are truly going to do your evaluations based on results, you should say "I am going to withhold judgment until I see the results". Otherwise you aren't doing your evaluations based on results. You are doing them on the same criteria as everyone else, until there are results, and then you are changing your evaluation criteria in mid-stream...

I'm perfectly capable of pontificating about what I think the season will be like. I think that how they put together the team on paper actually matters and is driven by the logic about how to assess and build a baseball team. I'm not the one who was touting "results are all that matters" when the season ended. I think baseball and strat-o-matic baseball aren't that different. The best you can do is construct teams based on previous performance and likely future performance. The season is essentially a series of dice-rolls and exists in a game by game, out by out, pitch by pitch world. The "results" crowd evaluates the team based on the dice-rolls, I evaluate it based on the players and their previous/likely performance, and the dice-rolls. Results gives no room for the construction of the team, only the way the cards fall (to mix my metaphores). I'm not blaming the messenger. I'm just advocating for people to see how this plays out, rather than littering the board with the same pessimistic nonsense based on the most recent post on mlbtraderumors.com. They either will get another decent SP or they won't. It's not that complicated.

If you were consistent you wouldn't play the forecasting game. You would withhold judgment until the end of the season. You guys are acting as if it matters which particular mix of players the team has when, by your own logic, a teamful of Kelly schoppachs that wins 91 games is superior to a teamful of Dustin pedroias that wins 90. I'm smart enough to recognize that all this talk of "haven't done enough..." will be swept aside by the all powerful "resultsianism" at the end of the season. It's just a matter of time.

When it is possible to find reasonable explanations for things I see no reason to jump to people being stupid as the leading cause. Cherington isn't stupid; or, we don't have the data to know either way. Until we do I'm not going to specialize in drawing conclusions with insufficient data. You can, and probably will, while then contradicting yourself at the end of the season saying that results are the only thing that matter. Right now you are saying that all that matters is how the team hypothetically will do, on paper. A logically consistent argument would be to say " I withhold judgment until the results are in, because as I have said ad nauseum, results are all that matter.".

The way it looks now there are plenty of experienced MLB starters for the 5 spot, between Cook, silva, Padilla, etc your concerns about rookies starting won't materialize unless Aceves does very well in ST.

Totally. Drake Britton. My bad. I wasn't confused about who I was referring to, just used the wrong first name.

When was this and how old was Iglesias at the time? Every scouting report I've ever seen lists his defense as superb. This deduction seems like a stretch. Perhaps the other Cuban SS would have been more of a liability making a switch to 2b than Iglesias was.

I'm not discouraged. I thought this team was pretty damn good before and I think they are damn good now. I think Bard has the potential to be a very good pitcher in the rotation. People are down on the potential for Buchholz to come back due to "back problems" but Oswalt has... "back problems" and he's viewed as Oswalt circa 2006. I still hope they get him, I just understand not breaking the bank or acting as if the entire season rests on signing Oswalt. I don't think it does.