Emmz

I really wanted Jim to retire with the Twins, but he deserves better, much better. Go to the Red Sox! HES CHEAP! GET A BENCH BAT!!

HAHAHAHAHA!

It's not a very good contract because he would have to produce at 2006-2010 levels into his 30s to be worth more than his contract in WAR. It's not out of the question, it's just sort of questionable whether he can. Crawford usually plays a lot every year, he's played mostly around 150 games or so per season, a good clip, and I think his skill set translates well into his 30s. It's still a big risk contract like any high paying contract that stretches into a player's 30s. I think he will come close to fulfilling his contract value when it's up personally, but he will really have to produce starting next year. I have full faith that he will be back kicking ass and quite possibly taking a few names.

Because you took me out of context and tried to make a fool out of me, you make it personal, don't even try that s***. This isn't many thousand posts ago, this is 8 pages ago, when this thing started, it's not very hard to take into account my stance before you try and jump me for s*** that I didn't even know I was saying. I did not say his overall SLG% is unsustainable, I felt his SLG% during his hot streak was way over the top. I addressed early on that I felt he was capable of the overall season he's had, which is that of a decent offensive catcher. You did not even listen to this reasoning, you just kept being a pest, you kept putting words into my mouth. You drew first blood, not me. I did say that he is not the answer at catcher, here's why: I would much rather have either a plus defensive catcher or plus offensive catcher, than a slightly above average in both areas catcher. It's the most valuable position, and it's very rare to get above average overall talent at catcher. I am spoiled, and I also do not like inconsistency, which I've stated I'm not so sure if Salty is going to be consistent yet. He was hot for three months and pitiful for 2 months. Overall he was above average offensively for a catcher, but .750 OPS still is not very good overall, only from the catcher position. Also, that inflated SLG%, was a reference to his hot streak that boosted it by 50 points overall above his career norms. The rest of his stats are fine, but like I said, this was always about how everyone jumped on the wagon when he got hot. He was hot for 3 months, and everyone thought he was the real deal, .530 SLG% over those three months essentially, I do not think this is sustainable. And I could easily see his overall SLG% going down unless he has another 3-month hot streak like that next season. This is unless he becomes more consistent. You don't take into account anything other than the sole statement, you just forget the rest of my argument. You need to make a more conscious effort to read people's arguments before you try to attack their positions, and even worse, attempt to make a fool out of them. This is disrespectful, and I will only show respect to your argument if you show respect for mine.

I had this same experience, my grandma forgets who I am now, she didn't remember how I was related to her, it was one of the saddest things I've ever heard when she asked me "what am I to you?".

Then you shouldn't put words into my mouth, which you did. I wouldn't have to argue about semantics if you didn't put words that I never said. It's really a shame, that all those hundreds of times, it is relevant. When you distort someone's argument to make it easier to defeat knowingly, then I'm going to call you out on it. SFF has countless posts trying to make stuff up, just like you did here. Look at the thread, read my posts, you're the one who's full of s*** on this one. You knew full well what I was talking about or you simply chose not to read. You're really sapping my patience on this one, I'm not going to lie. This is very simple: If you're not getting the picture of what I'm actually discussing, then I'm forced to explain this to you. I tried several times, you copied old posts and pasted them without even bothering to do a research on previous statements, effectively taking my words out of context. You do not twist someone's words then tell them to not argue semantics, that's ******** and you know this.

He is not going to come even close to his career averages man. 20 points off is not close. His OPS will be down by at least 100 points total, probably closer to 150-200 points off. He has been terrible this season, don't try to deny that. I'm not calling him a bust at all, it's one year, he's got time, he can still redeem himself if he gives it the real Carl Crawford for the rest of the deal. This isn't out of the question, considering he's produced the value of his contract or better since 2006 for the most part, he was hurt for one year in 2008.

When Pedroia is at the number 2 spot, no chance in hell that he should be hitting 2nd in the order. Pedroia is better suited hitting 2nd, but if Pedroia has to fill the void for the injured Youk or whatever, then yes I would have to say Crawford is better batting 2nd. However, this thread was made when Pedroia was struggling, but still a better fit for hitting 2nd than Crawford. At the moment, Pedroia is back in business, and if this lineup were 100%, I would not want anyone but Pedroia hitting 2nd, unless Crawford can start playing up to his capabilities. (.850 OPS, lots of SBs, etc.)

I said this way back on page 8.

Hot streak, hot streak, it was always about the hot streak, I said this very early on. You all jumped on the wagon when he got hot, as if he was going to sustain his hot streak, which is BS. During the hot streak, the only thing inflated was his SLG%, and it was inflated by almost 200 points at some times versus his career norms. Thems the facts.

He's at my expectations *overall*. How many times do I have to say that though before one of you understands that? BPEF, you don't even know what I was talking about. They completely spinned my argument. It's not when people disagree with me, it's when people put words in my mouth, which happens ALL THE TIME on this site. It's always a battle of straw men on this site, especially when SFF is involved, and half of my fights on this site are with him. BPEF, you unknowingly just took what I said out of context. That's the point, which most of you don't seem to understand. When I said "you didn't read my posts, you picked the spots that support your argument", it's pretty clear if you read my post that I'm referring to the spinning of my posts, not whether or not they disagree with me. I've had plenty of arguments where I don't say "you didn't even read my post", unfortunately, there's so few people who actually know how to make a argument on this site without trying to pretend they know what you're saying more than you do. This is called a straw man, when you knowingly alter someone's argument to make it more defeatable. If it's not intentional, it just plain old means you did not read properly. For the past 3 or 4 pages I've unfortunately had to explain this at least 10 times, and even now, it still gets lost.

Lol, I was never digging a hole, your lies and word-twisting dug a hole in your own minds. Let Palo defend himself with an actually sound, legitimate argument instead of trying to tell me what the context of my own posts were. All of the quotes I've used in this argument are substantiated with further comments, and are pretty rock solid, that's the difference, I have earlier posts that contradict my supposed hypocrisy, Palo on the other hand has posts of himself bashing Salty for being a piece of junk, AND him admitting that he jumped ship as soon as he got hot. This is pretty much argument-breaking stuff. It's not my fault you guys didn't read my posts, and only picked the spots that support your argument. Either way, I've repeated myself enough in this argument, you guys have ignored it, I'm sure nothing's going to change. Unless you can start making actual points, instead of trying to manipulate my argument against me, I'm going to have to drop out of this one.

Christ guys, was it really so hard to go back to the beginning of the discussion to look this stuff up? Was it so hard to try and, you know, get a accurate view of my argument instead of trying to twist my words and jerk me around about how much you know what I'm saying more than I do?

PC is BS.

Because inconsistency isn't really something that should be used when your argument that Salty is good is based almost entirely on his trends.

.... and Vice President.

You are the subject.