iortiz

+2

Ben, sign the goddamn Oswalt's check.

Seems like Pumpsie's prophesy is in effect. Damn you Pumpsie! :harhar: On the other hand, If we are already over the cap and we do not sign Oswalt I will be pissed off.

Does anybody know if Oswalt is already healthy.?

What worries me is the "Salty has been something of a disappointment as a Major Leaguer, hitting .244/.307/.406 in nearly 1,300 career plate appearances over parts of five seasons, although catchers are known the develop late" comment. How much can he improve?

+1... Way to go Boras.

Finally, we are agree. As I said, we were in different channels. I think we can move on.

I see where the problem is. We are in different channels. You base all my argument (Injuries-No excuses) on "they should have learned how to deal with injuries better after 2010". I encourage you to read the #5386, 5514, 5516, 5533 and the 5568 post, since the board do not let me quote all those posts. Notice that the debate began when Palodios posted "Gammons reported that Lackey might need TJ surgery in June 2011". The main point to me here is "Injuries are not an excuse". I've been saying that. They are not an excuse. We can't excuse the FO. I'm not sure what is your position on this, beyond the 2010 thing. To me, the 2010 thing is just an antecedent/fact to consider. Nevertheless I already made a whole analysis (read my posts). 2010 and 2011 should be antecedents/facts to consider in order to move forward and try to avoid this issue. They have made some decisions. They surly will make more. Are they going to work it out? did they make the correct decisions in order to absorb this issue? IMO those moves are not enough. We will have a huge risk. A lot of ifs and question marks. Only time will tell, but again, I encourage you to read my posts. (#5386, 5514, 5516, 5533 and the 5568) On the other hand, If you want to debate "Injuries-No excuses" based only on "they should have learned how to deal with injuries better after 2010", that's another kind/nature of discussion.

Now you are in stage 2. You commence to post funny things and ridicule others since you do not have solid arguments anymore. Wait, I remember.... you like to laugh at him. Is it your modus operandi? Will you pass to stage 3? Will you laugh at me?. If you want to debate, we can do that. If you want to ridicule me, sorry but I'm not in.

Yes, circles. Sorry, I have no clue what is your point anymore. You refuse to write it. You say that you are not in a desire. Instead you still saying this " I decided to end discussion with you because you lack the ability to recognize the legitimacy of those consequences". Those consequences are your opinion, I do not share your opinion. You have a lack of tolerance. It's not my job to teach you either.

He is clearly going in circles. I asked him to point his main argument. He wasn't in a "desire" to debate with me, fine. At this point and being honest, I have no clue of what his point is anymore. We failed. A lot of people walked. We must learn from the past. We have to plan better. We have to execute better. I think that all the board is agree with this. This is pretty much the substance of the debate, I think.

Jung, let me me clarify my position in this "Injuries - No excuses" thing. I want to begin saying that nobody is disputing Theo's "good intentions" in order to build a team. I want to take the debate further. We are debating his short/mid/long future holistic strategy in order to make this team a successful one. Since the Injuries are an important part (I would say a key matter) of the game they shall taken seriously in your business/sportive strategy beyond the period of time. Said that allow me reinforce my last arguments. I'm going to steal the "cause and effect" thing that ORS used, hopefully he doesn't charge me with a royalty . If you analyze deeply and carefully every decision that Theo and his crew made in order to avoid this "Injury thing" you always will find out an alternative/dilemma. You will always find out a cause and an effect. You will always find out a cause-and-effect chain. Unfortunately his choices and his management wasn't the optimal in order to address this issue. The effect wasn't the expected, reason why I can presume that his short/mid/long strategy in order to address this regard (injuries) among a lot others wasn't good. You can not grade a business plan without the final result. They must be linked in order to make a final analysis. This is a principle of management. You can not say that he had a good business plan if the result was a failure. You could have had a lot of good intentions but not a good business plan/strategy. Great CXO or top managements are often judged on the outcome (first tier) and how their business plans reflect the outcome (Second tier). If the outcome meet or exceed the business plan/strategy, your business plan is a great one, otherwise you are only full of good intentions and you know what they say about good intentions. (Hell is full of good intentions). That is my perspective and my opinion about this issue.

As always, you put the perspective in a much better way than I. I wish I can manage my English like this in the near future.

Sorry, his recap is not wrong but the opposite. 1. Bucholz's chances to pitch again in 2011 were almost reduced to 0. Whether true or not, you execute a plan B. You do not wait. They made the Bedard move in the edge of the trade deadline. 2. As I said, You had injuries concerns and they brought another fragile piece, who BTW at that time he was recovering from another injury. Sorry It doesn't make sense at all. 3.- Theo's administration in the last 3-4 years was horrible, reason why a lot people walked. The injury thing, the club house disarrey, the lack of leadership and profesionalism, the terrible FA signings, farm development, etc. were only some of the several things that he didn't managed properly and some of causes of the entire "cause" of the entire 2011 "effect". 4. Yes, the injury thing is not an excuse or justification. 5 You say "I'm not excusing anything via injury, no "loser's lament" from me" What is your point , then? As I said, if you do not excuse them and I definitely do not excuse them from the injury thing, what the hell are we arguing? 6. You sound like you heated. I'm not sure why. If I disrespected you in some way, please accept my apologies. I only tried to debate and share my point. On the other hand, I have not found any solid argument to change my position, thus far. So... My opinion stands.