moonslav59

Who is keeping it going?

Last word wins. You win! You are right, and I am wrong. Game over.

You're the best!

That wasn't a question of logic. It was about me saying you said something you never said or meant. I was wrong. I will not talk about your statement again. Get over it. You said what you said, and it meant what it meant. It's not about interpretation: it's about word meanings.

Yes. The shift increase radically, but the right to do so was always there and sometimes used. Changing the rule is wrong, IMO. I understand and respect your opinion. I'm fine with you not agreeing with my opinion. To me, it's not about what is more radical: it's about changing a long-standing rule that affected many players' stats over many years, and it changes something very fundamental to the game: positioning your defense to maximize your chances of getting an out.

I told you where is says it, but you won't listen. I'm done with this issue.

You don't get it. I give up. Re-read your post and the point is obvious. If it is not to you, then you just don't understand how language and logic work.

I know the shift has increased radically, so has the use of more and more RP'ers, batters taking a long time to get set and much more. Not allowing fielders to stand where they think the ball is most likely be hit is too radical for me. I respect your and others' opinions, but I'm firm on my belief, here.

There are many ways to shorten the game. Changing the shift is a radical change to the rules and history of the game. Do we go back and put an asterisk next to Ted Williams' stats denoting he hit is the shift era?

We all know what you wrote. It's clear as day. You agreed with everything except one thing, Then you went on to say what that one thing was. It's not mind reading: it's reading comprehension. I'm open to the idea you did not mean to word it that way, but what you said was interpreted correctly by me.

My guess is hitters would not want the shift and pitchers would. Maybe 3bmen hate it. I don’t think the rules should be changed

Read your post. You clearly imply you are disagreeing with me. That implies I hold the opinion players are poor and pitiful. Let’s move o .

The players likely agree, but that was not the point. (BTW, I agree on 2 of the three. No restrictions on shifts. They did it for Teddy Ballgame. They can do it now.) You don't just throw something into your final proposal that has never even been discussed.

Exactly. You implied I think they are poor and pitiful, then you say "I never said that. They were my words not yours." Make up your mind. I call you out for implying I think players are poor and pitiful. You then say you never said that. Now, you say I pretty much said that. It's hard to have a discussion with you. I do not come close to thinking anyone making $560K is poor. I am not pitying the players nor asking others to pity them. Not even close. I've never come close to even implying that, like you just said I did. Just because I take their side 100% does not mean I think they are poor or worthy of pity. The fact is the owners are greedy bastards seeking to keep player salaries in decline, like they have for several years, now. That is not asking for pity. It's a statement of fact. I'm not implying the players aren't greedy, too, but it's about context- something you don't seem to agree with me on, which is fine. The owners are negotiating in bad faith. They are trying to stiff the players bigtime after stiffing them the last time, too. That's my opinion, and the owners actions, thus far are showing their true colors.

See where the owners tried to sneak in a few things never even discussed- like a pitch clock, bigger bases and defensive shifts limited? These guys are being so obvious about not negotiating in good faith. You'd think their lawyers would be more careful. Some players said they think the owners think they are so dumb, they could slip it by them. This makes little sense, too, since the owners knew the players would never garee to this "best offer," anyway.

Yes, "your words" that you say you don'ta gree with and this was the one thing you did not agree with me on. This implies you think I feel players are poor and pitiful, and that's what you "disagreed with." Do you honestly read your post, again, and not see how you wording shows you think I believe the players are poor and pitiful and you disagree with me on that? If yes, I suggest you reread it closely.

It's you that are a day late and 2 dollars short. You said you agreed with everything I said, but where you "differ," which means you think I feel players are poor and pitiful, but you don't. Read what you wrote. The meaning is clear as day and not late or short on cash... "Moon I agree with everything you have said about the owners, and along what others on here have said as well, but where I differ is on the poor, poor pitiful players, which I don’t believe they are. ....

You clearly stated that you disagree with me on the players being “poor and pitiful,” which I never said or implied they were. You answered my post and specifically said this is where you disagree with me. That implies you think I said or think the players are poor and deserving of pity.

...and merchandizing and concession stands, and ...

How can they say their "final and best offer" is almost identical to the one they started with? If they really mean this, then MLB might be over, as we know it. I hope the players start their own league (not likely), even if it means there is no longer a team called the Boston Red Sox.

I've never called the players "poor," and you know that. "Pitiful" is not a word I'd use either. It's about what's fair. It's hard to think a group of people making an average of $4M deserve or should get a raise, but within the context of all the money baseball generates, they deserve way more than the owners "final and best offer." I've agreed to disagree, but please don't put words in my mouth. The players earn what they make and the owners make much much more without really "earning it." They make money because they have money. There certainly is no pity feelings towards them. Of course, this is not their last offer, but they worded it that way and at the same time called the players out for taking an aggressive stance. They have been playing the media all along. They knew this was where it would end up, and their unbridled greed is by far the major reason there will be baseball games cut from the season, or if there is a season, at all. They did not even give a slight impression they were willing to give anything. Their offer was a huge slap in the face, and IMO, the public should see it for what it is and call them out. I'd rather not see any baseball, this year, than to see the players accept anything close their "final and best offer." I really mean that. This filthy greed need to be checked.

You think they'll try scab-ball, again? That would be funny.

Maybe the farm will be the only baseball we see, this summer. #40 Eduardo Lopez: https://soxprospects.com/players/lopez-eduardo.htm Potential organizational outfielder. Low floor; has a chance to develop into at least an MLB reserve. Needs to stay healthy to make up for lost time in 2020 and 2021, which has created a wide variance in his future outcomes. Has a good feel for the game for his age [19], solid overall instincts, and a high baseball IQ.

Rays then O's were our first 2. (The Yanks, then Tigers and Twins, next.) Does anyone have 2 or 4 game series in their first two series? If yes, are we looking at unbalanced scheduled games again?

Well said.