Time to sell before the store closes?

[weenie]

catchers aren't that critical...really? 99% of all playoff teams are strong up the middle defensively...that starts with the catcher.....

while not the "best" player, every contending team has an above average catcher....if the wOes bothered to surrounded Weiters with real talent, he wouldn't be the "best" player on the team....

How exactly do the O's suddenly surround Wieters with talent before he reaches free agency? Machado, Bundy and Schoop all won't be ready until it's close to time for Markakis and Wieters both to enter the market. If the O's are lucky, maybe one of the young guys closes a hole just in time to see others open up. This team is now designed to be built around Adam. That's a good thing but he needs guys to get on base for him to bring them in and the young pitchers need solid D to enable them to stay steady.

Sometimes a success leads to long term failure when you stay with what you got and ignore your weaknesses hoping they'll just disappear on thier own. That's what happened in 2005. And 1989. And yes, even 1983.

How many offseasons have we seen in recent years when the entire infield had to be replaced? Hardy provides one answer and maybe Davis another (if they would start using him at first!) but the lineup too has needs and a good all around guy at 3rd or 2nd who can play 155 is essential. A good table setter and another high OBP guy batting third are needed before this team can really have a chance. And oh yeah, how risky is the catcher position relative to injury?

[Slidemaster]

My point was and is that teams do not win with a catcher as their most valued player. Your rhetoric relative to players, coaches etc. liking others better is simply unsubstantiated schtick on your part and you know it. Plenty of scouts and GMs drool over our catcher and project him as an anchor worth acquiring. Your a negative guy though and you like dumping on the local talent. It suits your wallowing routine.

It's not unsubstantiated rhetoric. Listen to any former players or coaches who are now analysts and they'll all, to a man, tell you that a catcher's true value isn't what he brings with his bat, but his defense, game calling, and on-the-field guidance. I like baseball, but those guys will and always will know more about it than I do. Are you saying that you know better?

As far as "dumping" on local talent, I've actually been pretty even keeled with regards to Orioles prospects. The ones that sucked I've openly said have sucked (Arrieta, Matusz, etc.). There are posts from not 2 days ago where I talked about how good I felt about Bundy and Machado, and I'm an unabashed Adam Jones fan (there's even a thread I put up before his extension talking about how the O's HAD to get that deal done), so please, spare me the hyperbole.

Ironically, you use that negativity to justify keeping Matt. In your world, he's not worth much to other teams but the O's need to keep him becasue he is so important and valuable to them. Now that's a bit schizophrenic huh?

He's absolutely worth a lot to other teams. I'm just not convinced that we should trade a guy who's already a top 5 catcher in MLB for 2 prospects who *might* turn into decent MLB players. What's the Orioles success rate with prospects they trade for again? Near zero, with Jones and maybe Davis being the exception? Right. So what makes you think the value we'll get in return will match the value we're trading away? Nothing at all schizophrenic about that. It's a bad gamble to trade a young, team controlled, proven top 5 commodity for 2 unproven commodities. That's why you basically never see anyone do it.

The O's need infielders right? Machado and Schoop are far from sure things and each has at least another 12 months in the minors regardless to work on their readiness. The O's cannot attract marquee FAs to them in their current state. FAs want to play for winners. Money is certainly important but only guys looking for a last paycheck (Vlad) choose based solely on money.

Agree, which is why they're going to need to overpay. They refuse to do it, but it's what they have to do. Look at what the Nationals did with Jayson Werth. Werth is worth literally half of the money he's getting paid, if that, but it made FA's begin to take them seriously, and then they made a big splash in FA this year, despite a dismal season last year. Until the O's decide to do that, they're ALWAYS going to be robbing Peter to pay Paul (though in this case, Peter is really robbing everyone, but I digress).

The O's have got to solidify their rotation, infield and OBP before FAs can be added to complement. With a rotation containing only one certain guy (Chen) but a multitude of possibilities, the infield continues to glare as the gaping hole. If Wieters begets a plus defender who can hit third or fifth and knock in 100 RBI an stays for more than two years I say it was worth it. Yes you rob Peter to pay Paul but any sane person understands the way to move a team or business forward is incrementally. If you try to do outlandish things or have ridiculous expectations you will end up with nada.

Sure, if you can guarantee yourself that you're getting an Evan Longoria type then maybe you make the deal. You can't, unless someone out there gets REALLY stupid. However, even if they made this deal they wouldn't be markedly better. You're not building incrementally, you're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as they say. The O's don't need superstars at 3rd and 2nd. They need guys who can field the ball and sport a .700-.750 OPS. That's it. You don't trade Wieters for those guys. You find them in FA, pay them 10-12 million a season, and just call it a business expense. Until the little king decides to do that, what we get is what we get.

[Slidemaster]

How exactly do the O's suddenly surround Wieters with talent before he reaches free agency? Machado, Bundy and Schoop all won't be ready until it's close to time for Markakis and Wieters both to enter the market. If the O's are lucky, maybe one of the young guys closes a hole just in time to see others open up. This team is now designed to be built around Adam. That's a good thing but he needs guys to get on base for him to bring them in and the young pitchers need solid D to enable them to stay steady.

a

And you think about trading Markakis and Wieters if you deem that neither will sign for a reasonable extension, in their contract year, and you'll still get a boatload for one, and a fair amount for the other. But you don't do that NOW.

Success leads to long term failure when you stay with what you got and ignore your weaknesses hoping they'll just disappear on thier own. That's what happened in 2005. And 1989. And yes, even 1983.

How many offseasons have we seen in recent years when the entire infield had to be replaced? Hardy provides one answer and maybe Davis another (if they would start using him at first!) but the lineup too has needs and a good all around guy at 3rd or 2nd who can play 155 is essential. A good table setter and another high OBP guy batting third are needed before this team can really have a chance. And oh yeah, how risky is the catcher position relative to injury?

No disagreements, I just don't think trading Wieters when he still has what...3 years of team control (?) is the way to do it. Also, catchers aren't really even that injury prone unless they're stupid with the way they block the plate like Posey was last year, and Wieters is one of the best in the business at that.

[weenie]

this notion really makes me scratch my head. and you're not the only person to say this.

it couldn't be further from the truth. a team may get lucky in a game, or even a series. but no team ever won a division because they were lucky. and no team stays within striking distance because of luck.

it's just not possible to luck up for 4-6 months. when they play well, they win. when they play poorly, they lose. luck is when a solid defensive OFer, on the opposing team, drops a routine fly ball and allows the O's to score the go ahead or winning run.

that hasn't happened 50 times this year.

I also disagree with your notion that catchers aren't important to a team's success.

Please understand, I never said a good catcher was not important. Rather, I inferred few good teams are built around a catcher who ranks as their most valued player. Posey fits that bill in SF perhaps but what happens if he gets hit again and turns into Fosse? How did SF do the year he recovered from the home plate collision?

Catchers have limited shelf lives, are prone to injury due to their volatile position and can't play every game. The O's need help in the field and in the lineup. They have to find a way to attract another Bedard like haul to provide the talent necessary to move forward and then they might be able to attract a free agent or two who really matters. And, if they make the right deal, maybe they might also have enough minor league talent at some point to be buyers instead of perennial sellers. But if they hold Wieters another year and a half and then bring in minor league talent, the timing will be off relative to team readiness. If they do something now, the adds could be ready when Machado, Schoop, Bundy, Delmonico, etc. are close too.

The O's have been playing .600 ball against the weak teams but they are playing .400 against the winning clubs and that stat is inflated by national league wins.

Does anyone really think this team has any chance against the Angels, Rangers or Yankees with their current talent and minor league prospects? OK, well maybe Moon does.

A few months of winning can fool a guy into believing things are OK when they just are not. I'll say again, look at Texas, Cal, NY, Det, Chisox and answer can the O's really afford to hold on to Matt and try to grow their competitiveness solely from within their current resources? Gausman and the 2012 draftees are rather tepid in that regard.

[weenie]

a

And you think about trading Markakis and Wieters if you deem that neither will sign for a reasonable extension, in their contract year, and you'll still get a boatload for one, and a fair amount for the other. But you don't do that NOW.



No disagreements, I just don't think trading Wieters when he still has what...3 years of team control (?) is the way to do it. Also, catchers aren't really even that injury prone unless they're stupid with the way they block the plate like Posey was last year, and Wieters is one of the best in the business at that.

So you think another 1.5 years and the O's will be on the verge of great things huh? Am I right to infer you imagine Bundy and Machado will both step up and be immediate anchors? And, the O's will then still have high value remaining in both Nick and Matt sufficient to attract major league ready talent if necessary to augment Adam Jones, Chen and the rookies. That's pretty optimistic....and completely out of character in relation to your other posts?

Funny, I always see you as the yang to Moon' yin. That sounds almost moonlike to me, save for the old song about Pete the greedy troll.

[weird-O]

Please understand, I never said a good catcher was not important. Rather, I inferred few good teams are built around a catcher who ranks as their most valued player. Posey fits that bill in SF perhaps but what happens if he gets hit again and turns into Fosse? How did SF do the year he recovered from the home plate collision?

Catchers have limited shelf lives, are prone to injury due to their volatile position and can't play every game. The O's need help in the field and in the lineup. They have to find a way to attract another Bedard like haul to provide the talent necessary to move forward and then they might be able to attract a free agent or two who really matters. And, if they make the right deal, maybe they might also have enough minor league talent at some point to be buyers instead of perennial sellers. But if they hold Wieters another year and a half and then bring in minor league talent, the timing will be off relative to team readiness. If they do something now, the adds could be ready when Machado, Schoop, Bundy, Delmonico, etc. are close too.

The O's have been playing .600 ball against the weak teams but they are playing .400 against the winning clubs and that stat is inflated by national league wins.

Does anyone really think this team has any chance against the Angels, Rangers or Yankees with their current talent and minor league prospects? OK, well maybe Moon does.

A few months of winning can fool a guy into believing things are OK when they just are not. I'll say again, look at Texas, Cal, NY, Det, Chisox and answer can the O's really afford to hold on to Matt and try to grow their competitiveness solely from within their current resources? Gausman and the 2012 draftees are rather tepid in that regard.

I still disagree. the best teams are always strong up the middle: Catcher, SS, CF.

There are few great catchers in the game at any given time. I mentioned this in another thread recently. There are only 13 catchers in the HOF. the only reason catchers are not usually the centerpiece of a team, is because there aren't many good ones. there's a comment you hear all around MiLB, If you want the quickest path to the majors, become a catcher.

as for the O's competing with the list of teams you mentioned, I agree with you. they aren't as strong as those teams. but that still doesn't mean they're lucky to have won against them. that would mean that Oakland is lucky too. and they aren't. they're playing very good baseball.

[Slidemaster]

So you think another 1.5 years and the O's will be on the verge of great things huh? Am I right to infer you imagine Bundy and Machado will both step up and be immediate anchors? And, the O's will then still have high value remaining in both Nick and Matt sufficient to attract major league ready talent if necessary to augment Adam Jones, Chen and the rookies. That's pretty optimistic....and completely out of character in relation to your other posts?

Funny, I always see you as the yang to Moon' yin. That sounds almost moonlike to me, save for the old song about Pete the greedy troll.

I said none of those things, and you know it. Literally none of them, save for the possibility of Markakis and Wieters still having value in a year and a half. Are some of them possible? Sure. Likely? Maybe not. Impossible? Also not. It all depends on when or if Pete decides he's tire of getting curb stomped by the rest of the league, and/or sells the team.

However, you certainly won't help any of the young players (and especially your young pitchers) by trading away one of the top 5 catchers in baseball and leaving them in the hands of Teagarden or some other replacement level player, and Wieters' value isn't going to go down much if at all between now and then. You give yourself a chance to resign him (unlikely though that may be), and still give yourself a good chance to improve now and later, rather than just later.

[weenie]

I said none of those things, and you know it. Literally none of them, save for the possibility of Markakis and Wieters still having value in a year and a half. Are some of them possible? Sure. Likely? Maybe not. Impossible? Also not. It all depends on when or if Pete decides he's tire of getting curb stomped by the rest of the league, and/or sells the team.

However, you certainly won't help any of the young players (and especially your young pitchers) by trading away one of the top 5 catchers in baseball and leaving them in the hands of Teagarden or some other replacement level player, and Wieters' value isn't going to go down much if at all between now and then. You give yourself a chance to resign him (unlikely though that may be), and still give yourself a good chance to improve now and later, rather than just later.

My mistake. You claimed to have confidence in Bundy and Machado's future. You also want to keep Wieters. I inferred that meant you had hope the O's are on the right track. But then you clarified your position by claiming the best course is to overspend on free agents and cross your fingers on the existing roster and minor league in-house options. But of course you don't think Angelos is willing to spend the big bucks so that feeds your woe is me rhetoric.

I love how folks like to spend others' money as if the expenditure guarantees success. That's the democratic way to better living right?

In baseball, that does not always work. And, your Washington example is bogus. That team is mostly built from within and Werth has little to do with their success. Nice try though.

That also really worked for Texas and the Dodgers a few years back with Rodriguez, Brown, Vaughn, etc. too huh. They all learned the hard way and ultimately focused thereafter on in-house growth until they accumulated enough to justify the final add ons via free agency.

The root of the O's downfall was when they started spending to solve problems in the mid-80s. They abandoned internal growth and threw money at a long list of veterans who mostly came up short. Unless you are the Yankees or Red Sox, one or two bad contracts can spell disaster. I know you know that. It takes a diversified approach for mid-level teams to win. And, they add the Prince Fielders once they've gotten the Cabrera's via trade and grown the Verlanders from within. Sorry, money can't buy success. Just look at the economy for some real world evidence of that.

Look it's easy to take another's comments apart and find the gaps. I know guys like you and Hector think you have no room for the ideas or thoughts of others. You have proven that enough via your incessant attacks. In the future just skip over my comments. You don't value them so why bother to read or respond?

[hector]

My mistake. You claimed to have confidence in Bundy and Machado's future. You also want to keep Wieters. I inferred that meant you had hope the O's are on the right track. But then you clarified your position by claiming the best course is to overspend on free agents and cross your fingers on the existing roster and minor league in-house options. But of course you don't think Angelos is willing to spend the big bucks so that feeds your woe is me rhetoric.

I love how folks like to spend others' money as if the expenditure guarantees success. That's the democratic way to better living right?

In baseball, that does not always work. And, your Washington example is bogus. That team is mostly built from within and Werth has little to do with their success. Nice try though.

That also really worked for Texas and the Dodgers a few years back with Rodriguez, Brown, Vaughn, etc. too huh. They all learned the hard way and ultimately focused thereafter on in-house growth until they accumulated enough to justify the final add ons via free agency.

The root of the O's downfall was when they started spending to solve problems in the mid-80s. They abandoned internal growth and threw money at a long list of veterans who mostly came up short. Unless you are the Yankees or Red Sox, one or two bad contracts can spell disaster. I know you know that. It takes a diversified approach for mid-level teams to win. And, they add the Prince Fielders once they've gotten the Cabrera's via trade and grown the Verlanders from within. Sorry, money can't buy success. Just look at the economy for some real world evidence of that.

Look it's easy to take another's comments apart and find the gaps. I know guys like you and Hector think you have no room for the ideas or thoughts of others. You have proven that enough via your incessant attacks. In the future just skip over my comments. You don't value them so why bother to read or respond?

I was enjoying this thread until you paired me up in the same sentence with Slidemaster. Now that hurts.

Hopefully I've never been disrespectful to you because that would be wrong. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about it being easy to spend other people's money. I've been one of the few posters who didn't buy into the "Angelos is to blame for everything" chorus that so many posters sing. I also agree that paying top dollar for premium free agents generally doesn't lead to great success. While there are a few that have earned their $20+ million contracts, most free agents with those kind of contracts tend to regress a bit. Must be this thing called human nature.

Keep the posts coming, Weenie. You're one of the top five posters in this forum. I'm not sure who the other three are.

[can you hear me now!]

How exactly do the O's suddenly surround Wieters with talent before he reaches free agency? Machado, Bundy and Schoop all won't be ready until it's close to time for Markakis and Wieters both to enter the market. If the O's are lucky, maybe one of the young guys closes a hole just in time to see others open up. This team is now designed to be built around Adam. That's a good thing but he needs guys to get on base for him to bring them in and the young pitchers need solid D to enable them to stay steady.

Sometimes a success leads to long term failure when you stay with what you got and ignore your weaknesses hoping they'll just disappear on thier own. That's what happened in 2005. And 1989. And yes, even 1983.

How many offseasons have we seen in recent years when the entire infield had to be replaced? Hardy provides one answer and maybe Davis another (if they would start using him at first!) but the lineup too has needs and a good all around guy at 3rd or 2nd who can play 155 is essential. A good table setter and another high OBP guy batting third are needed before this team can really have a chance. And oh yeah, how risky is the catcher position relative to injury?

they don't surround wieters with talent because the owner doesn't want to spend the money to get the type of talent that wins...you are ome of those who thinks the owner has little influence...well guess what? when it comes to the payroll, the owner controls everything and handcuffs the GM...

you post could have been written in any year between 1999 and present...nothing changes....

if you think trading wieters will improve the team then you too could be an over promising, under delivering fo person for the wOes...

[Slidemaster]

I can't figure out if you actually have serious reading comprehension issues, or if you just like arguing for the hell of it.

My mistake. You claimed to have confidence in Bundy and Machado's future. You also want to keep Wieters. I inferred that meant you had hope the O's are on the right track. But then you clarified your position by claiming the best course is to overspend on free agents and cross your fingers on the existing roster and minor league in-house options. But of course you don't think Angelos is willing to spend the big bucks so that feeds your woe is me rhetoric.

The best course is to build from within WHILE building from the outside. You trade away parts that don't fit for whatever reason (too old, too expensive, blocking a prospect, whatever), and rebuild as much as you can internally WHILE supplementing from FA. I don't know how you can possibly disagree with this philosophy unless you're either clueless about baseball or just trying to be a contrarian, because literally every team in the major leagues that's any good does it, outside of maybe the Yankees.

I love how folks like to spend others' money as if the expenditure guarantees success. That's the democratic way to better living right?

Don't waste your political crap on me. I don't want to hear it and I don't care what you think on those issues. Owners that buy teams should be willing to pay the costs associated with winning. If they're not, they shouldn't own teams. Period. Spending doesn't guarantee success, but NOTHING guarantees success. What spending does is give you is ANOTHER avenue to improve. Again, I don't know how you, or anyone, can disagree with this.

In baseball, that does not always work. And, your Washington example is bogus. That team is mostly built from within and Werth has little to do with their success. Nice try though.

Mostly from within? Sure, I never said that wasn't the way to go. Adam LaRoche, Jayson Werth, and Edwin Jackson say hello, though.

That also really worked for Texas and the Dodgers a few years back with Rodriguez, Brown, Vaughn, etc. too huh. They all learned the hard way and ultimately focused thereafter on in-house growth until they accumulated enough to justify the final add ons via free agency.

So your goal then is to stop trying to get better through free agency until you've deemed yourself "good enough" (is there anything more arbitrary than that phrase?) to spend money?

Man, am I glad you're not a GM. You get better any way you can. Period.

The root of the O's downfall was when they started spending to solve problems in the mid-80s. They abandoned internal growth and threw money at a long list of veterans who mostly came up short.

Abandoning internal growth has nothing to do with spending money. TEAMS CAN DO BOTH.

It takes a diversified approach for mid-level teams to win.

Where did I ever say anything that was contrary to this point? Go ahead. Show me.

Look it's easy to take another's comments apart and find the gaps. I know guys like you and Hector think you have no room for the ideas or thoughts of others. You have proven that enough via your incessant attacks.

If disagreeing with someone is the same as attacking in your mind, then I don't know what to tell you.

[weenie]

I was enjoying this thread until you paired me up in the same sentence with Slidemaster. Now that hurts.

Hopefully I've never been disrespectful to you because that would be wrong. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about it being easy to spend other people's money. I've been one of the few posters who didn't buy into the "Angelos is to blame for everything" chorus that so many posters sing. I also agree that paying top dollar for premium free agents generally doesn't lead to great success. While there are a few that have earned their $20+ million contracts, most free agents with those kind of contracts tend to regress a bit. Must be this thing called human nature.

Keep the posts coming, Weenie. You're one of the top five posters in this forum. I'm not sure who the other three are.

Pleae accept my apology. I have often found your posts relentless but I also found them optimistic and entertaining. My mistake in lumping you in with the other guy. Some folks simply enjoy being negative while you are a refreshingly positive respondee.

[hector]

Pleae accept my apology. I have often found your posts relentless but I also found them optimistic and entertaining. My mistake in lumping you in with the other guy. Some folks simply enjoy being negative while you are a refreshingly positive respondee.

"Relentless" - who, me?

On a slightly different subject, I just noticed that Thome has joined Nick Johnson on the disabled list. Hall of Famer Vlad played a full season last year without slack-off time on the disabled list. While I give DD full credit for setting high expectations for this year, he blew it when he decided that Nick or Jim were better than Hall of Famer Vlad.

[Slidemaster]

I can't figure out if you actually have serious reading comprehension issues, or if you just like arguing for the hell of it.

Ironic response. I think you are an expert in such. Early this season I defended your negativity thinking it was grounded. Now I know better.

That's all you have to say?

You deliberately misrepresented every point I made, and when I clarified and showed you that you were wrong, this is the best you can come up with?

Discussion with you is a waste of breath if that's the case.

[weenie]

That's all you have to say?

You deliberately misrepresented every point I made, and when I clarified and showed you that you were wrong, this is the best you can come up with?

Discussion with you is a waste of breath if that's the case.

Dude, you're a frog dissector. I'm no longer wasting my time with you. have the last word if you must. I'm embarrassed I wasted so much time on an inveterate hypocrite.

[Slidemaster]

Dude, you're a frog dissector. I'm no longer wasting my time with you. have the last word if you must. I'm embarrassed I wasted so much time on an inveterate hypocrite.

So because I gave you thought out responses to what you said, you're done debating these issues.

Gee, sorry I called you on the nonsense you posted and you had no good rebuttal. How rude of me.

[weenie]

So because I gave you thought out responses to what you said, you're done debating these issues.

Gee, sorry I called you on the nonsense you posted and you had no good rebuttal. How rude of me.

Hey Dude, my question was What is Wieters worth. Did you answer that? No, you chose instead to play your usual bully schtick. My mistake was in biting. You are a bitter, aggressive individual who picks other's comments apart and explodes selected out of context bits out of proportion to serve your superiority complex. You talk over the other respondees herein and show little regard for civility or the views of others. I have no interest in dissecting your rhetoric to the extent you relish. It serves no purpose with such a closed minded individual.

Ironically, I gave you far too much credit early this season in defending you. Your just a bitter guy/gal and I have learned my lesson. Of further irony, I like Wieters and appreciate him but the point relative to his value in trade is lost with you. No problem, time to move on to more entertaining commentary.

[Slidemaster]

Hey Dude, my question was What is Wieters worth. Did you answer that? No, you chose instead to play your usual bully schtick. My mistake was in biting. You are a bitter, aggressive individual who picks other's comments apart and explodes selected out of context bits out of proportion to serve your superiority complex. You talk over the other respondees herein and show little regard for civility or the views of others. I have no interest in dissecting your rhetoric to the extent you relish. It serves no purpose with such a closed minded individual.

Ironically, I gave you far too much credit early this season in defending you. Your just a bitter guy/gal and I have learned my lesson. Of further irony, I like Wieters and appreciate him but the point relative to his value in trade is lost with you. No problem, time to move on to more entertaining commentary.

You have some serious issues.

You didn't just ask what Wieters was worth - you advocated trading him because catchers aren't important, and I told you that was baloney. Both of us know that's what went down, and there's posts to prove it. Sorry if that bothered you, but it's the truth. That's not bullying. I didn't threaten you, or call you names or whatever else. I disagreed, presented the reasons why, and guess what? Virtually everyone on this board agreed with me that you were wrong. Furthermore, saying I think you're wrong doesn't mean I'm being a jerk OR being a bully. It just means I think you're wrong, and that's that.

As for blowing things out of proportion, all I did at first was show you a list of catchers on the last 10 world series winning teams, and you posted some unsupported stuff about how none of them were that good or that important to their team, and then proceeded to infer as many possible extreme views from my posts as possible because it supported a point you didn't actually have. I have a feeling that at that point you knew I was right, but you were too stubborn to just say "oh, damn, you might be right," and continued to push your point with no support. Admitting you're wrong is allowed.

Also, this is an internet forum. It's not physically possible to "talk over" someone, and if that's how you took it you need to lighten up a little bit. As for civility and the views of others, I didn't start to get a little testy until you started taking pot shots at me because I dared to disagree with you (the horror!). You're allowed to have any view you want, but if you make a thread about them, people are equally allowed to disagree with you and present reasons why, and that's what I did. I've been in the same position you are, and so have most people on this forum, and they all handle it the same way - debate, point counter-point, and move on. Instead you're getting all butthurt because someone disagreed with you and could support their arguments, and now you're so frustrated by that that you're taking your toys and going home. Whatever - I got over that kind of behavior in grade school, as I would think most adults have.

The bottom line is that I presented countering views to an opinion you clearly wanted commentary on, because you made a thread about it. That's what happens on a message board. If you can't handle that sort of debate you probably shouldn't post controversial opinions on the internet.

[weenie]

You have some serious issues.

You didn't just ask what Wieters was worth - you advocated trading him because catchers aren't important, and I told you that was baloney. Both of us know that's what went down, and there's posts to prove it. Sorry if that bothered you, but it's the truth. That's not bullying. I didn't threaten you, or call you names or whatever else. I disagreed, presented the reasons why, and guess what? Virtually everyone on this board agreed with me that you were wrong. Furthermore, saying I think you're wrong doesn't mean I'm being a jerk OR being a bully. It just means I think you're wrong, and that's that.

As for blowing things out of proportion, all I did at first was show you a list of catchers on the last 10 world series winning teams, and you posted some unsupported stuff about how none of them were that good or that important to their team, and then proceeded to infer as many possible extreme views from my posts as possible because it supported a point you didn't actually have. I have a feeling that at that point you knew I was right, but you were too stubborn to just say "oh, damn, you might be right," and continued to push your point with no support. Admitting you're wrong is allowed.

Also, this is an internet forum. It's not physically possible to "talk over" someone, and if that's how you took it you need to lighten up a little bit. As for civility and the views of others, I didn't start to get a little testy until you started taking pot shots at me because I dared to disagree with you (the horror!). You're allowed to have any view you want, but if you make a thread about them, people are equally allowed to disagree with you and present reasons why, and that's what I did. I've been in the same position you are, and so have most people on this forum, and they all handle it the same way - debate, point counter-point, and move on. Instead you're getting all butthurt because someone disagreed with you and could support their arguments, and now you're so frustrated by that that you're taking your toys and going home. Whatever - I got over that kind of behavior in grade school, as I would think most adults have.

The bottom line is that I presented countering views to an opinion you clearly wanted commentary on, because you made a thread about it. That's what happens on a message board. If you can't handle that sort of debate you probably shouldn't post controversial opinions on the internet.

Thanks for the validation! You made my case and for that I am grateful. Good job!

[weird-O]

Catchers are just not that critical.

My point was and is that teams do not win with a catcher as their most valued player.

This is what Slide is talking about. you made a comment and had several people disagree with you. then, as the conversation developed and people started using specific information to defend their opinion and dispell your's, you changed your statement, but continued the debate as if you had been making the same point all along. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it only took me about 2 minutes of re-reading the entire thread to pick up on this.

and even in your modified argument, you're still wrong. Veritek fits the bill of your modified description. he was the team captain. I don't know how much more of a "most valued player" he could be. he was to the Boston WS teams what Derek Jeter was to the NYY WS teams.

honestly, you're way off the mark on this one.