a700hitter

What's psycho is that you challenged me to take a stance on Buchholz, which I did very clearly for everyone to see, but you are still arguing about flip-flopping. That's psycho or stupid or something. Get a grip.

More psycho nonsense from you Dipre. This type of stuff wrecks your credibility, so keep researching my supposed hatred of Buchholz, you psycho. BTW I still have the special edition paper handed out at Fenway when I saw his debut in 2007. I can't believe that I had so much fun and saved it considering that I hate him so much. http://www.talksox.com/forum/general-baseball-forum/13409-2009-world-series-phillies-yankees-130.html#post499088

You are desperate picking out a reactionary post from a Game thread during the World Series when Cliff Lee was dominating the Yankees. Good Stuff, Dipre! Go back to July again to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that i hate Buchholz. You are showing your psycho side. Why would I hate any player, never mind a Red Sox? What is it that you are trying to prove? What point is it that you are trying to make? Really, you are acting like a psycho. You need to stop. You asked me to tell you clearly my opinion about Buchholz and I clearly stated it numerous times over the last couple of days. I did what you asked, and yet you are still arguing. You are acting like a psycho. You need to stop.

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

Read some biagraphies on Gehrig. There you will find documented Gehrig's and his mother's opinions about Ruth's neglect of his daughter. He was a great player-- a titan, who helped save the game, but he was low-life scum in his personal life.

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

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.

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

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.

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."

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?

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

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.

Surprise surprise. Extreme fame and fortune does not lend itself to marital fidelity.

He probably stayed there in the offseason. he ocassionally had to go home to his wife. After his playing days, the Yankees had nothing to do with him. The owner of the Yankees when asked about the possibility of Ruth managing the Yankees said he couldn't be trusted to manage the ball team when he couldn't manage himself. He was a disgrace in his personal life.

It couldn't be too serious if he has been released from the hospital already.

Maturity? Nice to see, but will it last?

Can we be objectively critical about their mistakes? If so, then why when there is mild criticism of continuing bad decisions at SS for years, do you feel the need to post a snarky response in bold typeface? Have they f***ed up the SS position? Yes, big time. There's no question about. To conclude otherwise would be anything but objective.

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?

:harhar:

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.

?