Hitch

Well of course you do. I don't even recall seeing your post, so yes, you're correct. It is.

a700, when Kimmi asked would you accept a deal that was 7 years at $210 (in reference to our statement) you reiterated that it was unacceptable not getting the bat and standing still. You know damn well that reply indicates that you believe it is acceptable. Dress it up any way you like. Call it false choice and blah blah all you like. You're trying to scurry out of it, rather than just say, you know what actually there are situations where it is acceptable to stand still rather than give outrageously stupid contracts out. Constantly living in a situation where you simply cannot allow yourself to backtrack on a stupid statement or allow yourself to be wrong, must be incredibly tiring. Spudboy, I've not addressed you, so I have no idea why you're bringing up the validity of your points. Maybe strike that conversation up with somebody who quotes you.

It's a fair point. And I'd like to see us add, rather than do nothing, but offering out no deal is better than offering out a terrible one just so we don't stand still.

I'd take that deal right now. Slightly higher than I'd like, but completely acceptable. I reckon even, Kimmi takes that, begrudgingly.

I think there is virtually nobody that doesn't want him signed. The only concern is the price. Where is your cut off point, personally for this? When do we walk away? Because you seem to be of a similar opinion to - standing still is simply not acceptable this off season. Personally, if we can't make a big bat happen (and I hope we do), I would like to see us get one of the big pitchers signed up and leave Pom and Porcello walk over the next couple of years.

cp, I don't see you as having passive-aggressiveness as a characteristic, only that your post referring to me, while not actually addressing me, was. I wouldn't presume to say it's a constant thing as I know too little of you. I apologise for the e-fellatio comment. It was meant more with humour than malice, such can be my immature sense of fun. What say we put it all behind us and get back to just arguing about the baseball, or in our case, agreeing that we should pull out the stops and get Machado in. Be quiet Jackson. If we have to put up with your constant doom-mongering about anything Red Sox, you can put up with a little back and forth between us.

I don't try to come off as anything. I read opinions, look at facts, then make my own opinion on something. And crucially, I'm happy to have my opinion changed if the facts change or i think I've called something wrong. If you think that's 'trying to be intellectual' then carry on. Well, you stroke a700's ego so often, I have sometimes wondered if you retired from teaching to take that up full time instead. You're very good at it. Maybe that will upset you, too. But you should probably know, it's not meant personally, I don't know you and so my needling of you is more for my own amusement and to reply in kind. I'd call it more immature than offensive, but we all get to choose at what level our offensive buttons are tickled. As for the actual point - could you explain to me where I have shown that I leave no room for a middle ground? I don't believe I'm like that in any way. I like to think I am open to mostly anything. Calling somebody out on trying to fudge their position so not to admit they had gone to far in their view point is not offering no middle ground. It's challenging an already displayed position set by somebody else (which ironically) offered no room for middle ground.

I've explained it on the previous page, which you ignored. Unsurprisingly. Nope. No idea. Pleas explain how my comments are like so much we see in the print these days. I'm genuinely fascinated to hear the explanation.

I'll ignore the continued passive-aggressiveness and e-fellatio you routinely perform on a700, but could you please explain this? I'd be delighted to know what you mean?

'premise of your post was in correct'; 'not a binary choice''. Such convoluted, meaningless language to escape answering what was a straight forward question. Because giving the answer that you don't believe 7 years at $210m is acceptable flies directly in the face of your comment that preceded it - "Not getting a big bat is not acceptable. Status quo in a window period is irrational." Binary or not is irrelevant (as you well know), you was offered an option that showed quite clearly, that in this example, getting that big bat at this cost was unacceptable and not rational. It was clearly not a either/or, which again, you of course knew. Watching you tie yourself up in language to avoid having to pull back on a previous point is always fun, however.

I see, so in fact your reply to Kimmi's post of: Shouldn't have been this which pretty much indicates you would most certainly prefer it to standing still: And instead should have just said, "Sorry, no, on this occasion you're right Kmmy. Sometimes a bad contract is not worth it."

Over and over and over again, people complain about the stupid contracts weighing us down now. And then in the same breath advocate signing Martinez, even if it's a crazy 7 year contract. Because it has to be done, no matter the cost. Some logic at work right there.

Haha!

I don't know what you want me to say. I can only give you my opinion on what I know through experience and the agent world is pretty murky. I've said they are slightly slimier, but we shouldn't be singling people out. If you feel that's wrong, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I mean from a profession POV, not a personal one. I think agents, by profession, need to be a bit more slippery and conniving. Within the profession. I'm not saying outside of the game they are better/less as a person than their athlete counterparts. As a slightly connected aside: a guy who did the most to help me out in the last few years, was an agent - whom I would say I was friendly with, rather than him being a friend. He really went of his way to help me for no benefit to himself. I've been inside a room with that guy when he's working a transfer. It was not a pretty sight.

Yeah, I'm not sure that's a viable argument point.

That never stops people, however.

Yup in total agreement.

Not sure I agree with this. I know some soccer agents very, very, well. I've been in rooms watching them work. I've literally watched them ******** their clients. It's a different sport I know and in soccer agents get cuts from transfer fees which can be huge, but in all sports it is in their interests (in the main) to get players to move to where the money is. And in soccer, in Europe, there is a hell of a lot of illegal money exchanging hands to grease the wheels for moves. Aagin, different work structure to a point, but agents make their money from their players taking the absolute biggest deal. In a system where there is opportunity for greed, there will always be greed. Simple as that. I think agents top players on that.

Agreed. And as I say, there's enough greed from all involved, for one group not to be singled out.

That's just the nature of the game though, isn't it? Players want the most money they can get. Agents too. Owners, the same. Fans want the best players they can get and they don't care about budgets and what not. Just the way it is. I don't think it's fair to single out agents. Even though, they are the most, shall we say, slimey, of all the factions.

And yet you felt the need to get involved, strangely, backing up my point. But, so be it.

I simply stated that Europe too, has Capitalism, in response to your insinuation you are happy enough with capitalism and have no desire to escape it by going to Europe. I wasn't expecting such a reply to trigger a salute the flag moment, but there you go. Yes, despite some ideas suggesting otherwise, Capitalism isn't American. And there is quite a lot of socialism in America, also. It's just called something else and mainly for the wealthier among the population.

What a bizarre and overlysensitive reply. That's why Canada is such a great country.

Are you under the impression capitalism doesn't exist in Europe?