Blue Jays Discussion: Winter Meetings: Because there's no more fitting time to talk baseball than December
- Thread starter The Nemesis
- Start date
- Status
SDig14
Registered User
Eyedea
The Legend Continues
Would be nice if Stammen to Jays news drops in the middle of these bigger deals. It'll send the fanbase into a flurry. 
Eyedea
The Legend Continues
I like this for the Cubs. Not for the guys they are getting but this allows Baez to either start at 2b or at least split time with Zobrist. He will also see time at 3b, SS and is playing a little CF in winter ball
Long term Baez will be better than Castro.
Warren ads some bullpen depth.
Muston Atthews
Bunch of Bangerz
SeaOfBlue
The Passion That Unites Us All
- Aug 1, 2013
- 35,591
- 16,776
What about Christian Bethancourt as our backup catcher? The Braves signed Tyler Flowers so there is nothing left in the FA pool besides Jeff Mathis and he's probably available. Could be a cheap trade option with a bunch of upside to groom behind Russell Martin. Use some of the depth we've got to pick him up, and you'd have 4 years before he becomes a FA.
Eyedea
The Legend Continues
No, like giving a bounce back candidate a contract with bonuses. Cliff Lee for example would target an incentive based contract.
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
FAIR WARNING: I'm going into lengthy rant mode a bit about some of the ongoing, nagging issues underpinning the trouble we have as a community in this thread. Be prepared to scroll if you don't want to read all of it.
If there's an attitude problem, you're part of it to. You didn't want to have a healthy discussion. You flatly stated you felt like Pompey probably wouldn't amount to anything, and when I challenged it on the basis of him still being young still you chided me with "I'll see who's laughing" similarly, SkiesOfArcadia commented that writing Pompey off at 22/23 is strikingly young, and surmised that maybe it's because the hockey mentality of this site looks at prospect aging curves from a hockey standpoint (where any reasonably worthwhile prospect should be a regular NHLer by that age). Immediately you shot to presuming that his response indicated you're not welcome here (which absolutely no one said).
If people get frustrated or dismissive of certain arguments, it's because we've had those arguments on here before, usually multiple times. The poster-base that is here and has been here long term is sick of hearing about pitching wins or RBIs as evaluative metrics. They're sick of "omg Rogers is cheap!" as a fallback any time a FA signs elsewhere or the Jays don't spend big money on free agents for guys with name value. They're sick of people evaluating things in hockey terms that don't really sync up well enough with Baseball to be viable. They're sick of over-reliance on intangible, unquantifiable, and unproveable "truths" being the foundations for arguments (because it leaves no real room for debate/discussion as long as both sides won't agree to how to treat those intangible "facts"), and they're sick of the hockey-esque attitude of writing off prospects just because they aren't breaking out at 20-21.
Now you're not guilty of all these things. No one poster is. But they occur often enough across the wider audience here that for those of us that have been here regularly for 5+ years, we lost the patience to deal with those retread arguments for the umpteen millionth time long ago. So yeah, we'll generally respond with snark or sarcasm or even just a little bit of frustrated terseness. And for my contributions to the latter, I apologize. But I'm also sorry for the fact that if I think an argument is funny in its poorness, incoherence, or outright lunacy, I'm going to make fun of it. It's nothing personal against the poster. I'll gladly make fun of the opinions of people I might normally agree with too. Ask Woodman. He and I are generally on the same wavelength, but it doesn't mean that I won't bust him when we're not. But doing that is in no way an indictment of him personally. I don't respect him any less if I'm jabbing at him for something I disagree on. Because it's all about the opinion/post and not the poster.
And to the other comment about people "wanting to have a discussion," I often feel like the people who complain about "I thought this was a message board, aren't we supposed to be discussing this?" seem to unfairly equate "discussion" with "agreement." The usual scenario is when a poster says something and a half-dozen posters all converge to refute it. Sometimes all with the same points, sometimes with differing approaches. But then it becomes "why is everyone ganging up on me? It's just my opinion." Contrary to what people tend to act like, opinions, subjective as they are, can in fact be wrong. If your opinion is an assertion of views on an objective topic, there's room for it to be incorrect. "Derek Jeter is my favorite baseball player" is an opinion. It is purely built on subjective qualities of enjoyment/respect/favortism/whatever. "I think Derek Jeter is a great defender" may be subjective opinion (hence the "I think..."), but it is opinion in the service of stating a fact ("Derek Jeter is a great defender.") The latter of which is something you can assess objectively and can prove true/false. Thus the opinion on the whole can be right or wrong based on the truth of that core fact.
so when someone says (just to pull the example that started this for me) "Dalton Pompey looks like he won't develop into an everyday player" when it seems to me that the underlying objective fact here (his ability to develop into an MLB starter) is undercut by something (the fact that he's not even 23 yet, which is quite young by baseball standards), I'm going to challenge it. And it's not meant to quash debate or conversation. It's a counter-point/rebuttal. Exactly the kind of thing you should be prepared for if you want to state your opinion on here or engage in debate. It's nothing less than I expect for myself if someone challenges what I say, short of my impatience for refuting tired, retreaded arguments that have long since been addressed and dealt with (like whenever someone brings up pitcher W-L as a measure for evaluating a pitcher's skill/usefulness/desirability)
Yeah. I think that about covers it for now.
If there's an attitude problem, you're part of it to. You didn't want to have a healthy discussion. You flatly stated you felt like Pompey probably wouldn't amount to anything, and when I challenged it on the basis of him still being young still you chided me with "I'll see who's laughing" similarly, SkiesOfArcadia commented that writing Pompey off at 22/23 is strikingly young, and surmised that maybe it's because the hockey mentality of this site looks at prospect aging curves from a hockey standpoint (where any reasonably worthwhile prospect should be a regular NHLer by that age). Immediately you shot to presuming that his response indicated you're not welcome here (which absolutely no one said).
If people get frustrated or dismissive of certain arguments, it's because we've had those arguments on here before, usually multiple times. The poster-base that is here and has been here long term is sick of hearing about pitching wins or RBIs as evaluative metrics. They're sick of "omg Rogers is cheap!" as a fallback any time a FA signs elsewhere or the Jays don't spend big money on free agents for guys with name value. They're sick of people evaluating things in hockey terms that don't really sync up well enough with Baseball to be viable. They're sick of over-reliance on intangible, unquantifiable, and unproveable "truths" being the foundations for arguments (because it leaves no real room for debate/discussion as long as both sides won't agree to how to treat those intangible "facts"), and they're sick of the hockey-esque attitude of writing off prospects just because they aren't breaking out at 20-21.
Now you're not guilty of all these things. No one poster is. But they occur often enough across the wider audience here that for those of us that have been here regularly for 5+ years, we lost the patience to deal with those retread arguments for the umpteen millionth time long ago. So yeah, we'll generally respond with snark or sarcasm or even just a little bit of frustrated terseness. And for my contributions to the latter, I apologize. But I'm also sorry for the fact that if I think an argument is funny in its poorness, incoherence, or outright lunacy, I'm going to make fun of it. It's nothing personal against the poster. I'll gladly make fun of the opinions of people I might normally agree with too. Ask Woodman. He and I are generally on the same wavelength, but it doesn't mean that I won't bust him when we're not. But doing that is in no way an indictment of him personally. I don't respect him any less if I'm jabbing at him for something I disagree on. Because it's all about the opinion/post and not the poster.
And to the other comment about people "wanting to have a discussion," I often feel like the people who complain about "I thought this was a message board, aren't we supposed to be discussing this?" seem to unfairly equate "discussion" with "agreement." The usual scenario is when a poster says something and a half-dozen posters all converge to refute it. Sometimes all with the same points, sometimes with differing approaches. But then it becomes "why is everyone ganging up on me? It's just my opinion." Contrary to what people tend to act like, opinions, subjective as they are, can in fact be wrong. If your opinion is an assertion of views on an objective topic, there's room for it to be incorrect. "Derek Jeter is my favorite baseball player" is an opinion. It is purely built on subjective qualities of enjoyment/respect/favortism/whatever. "I think Derek Jeter is a great defender" may be subjective opinion (hence the "I think..."), but it is opinion in the service of stating a fact ("Derek Jeter is a great defender.") The latter of which is something you can assess objectively and can prove true/false. Thus the opinion on the whole can be right or wrong based on the truth of that core fact.
so when someone says (just to pull the example that started this for me) "Dalton Pompey looks like he won't develop into an everyday player" when it seems to me that the underlying objective fact here (his ability to develop into an MLB starter) is undercut by something (the fact that he's not even 23 yet, which is quite young by baseball standards), I'm going to challenge it. And it's not meant to quash debate or conversation. It's a counter-point/rebuttal. Exactly the kind of thing you should be prepared for if you want to state your opinion on here or engage in debate. It's nothing less than I expect for myself if someone challenges what I say, short of my impatience for refuting tired, retreaded arguments that have long since been addressed and dealt with (like whenever someone brings up pitcher W-L as a measure for evaluating a pitcher's skill/usefulness/desirability)
Yeah. I think that about covers it for now.
No, offering players bonuses for reaching certain milestones (usually IP, games played, plate appearances, etc.) It negates some of the risk for team while helping high-risk players (like Lee, for example) get high-upside contracts.
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
You mean Dansby Swanson? Wow if that's true. Inciarte had a solid season last year and is probably a decent starting OF. And then Swanson was the #1 pick last year.
Man, that's sooooo Dave Stewart.
Eyedea
The Legend Continues
And Aaron Blair. That's pretty nuts that Miller would command that much value. Then again it's Dave Stewart running the team.
SDig14
Registered User
TF97
Registered User
p.l.f.
use the force
I wasn't referring to your post, and I am not going to get in to any argument, you being the moderator just might use your power to issue a warning (and I am being blunt)
I believe you haven't seen people making fun, and speaking of Pompey you go back and check it one more time what I said
Quote " Pompey is not a every day player at this point of his career and I am not sure if he is ever going to be" - so I am not sure what's the big fuss here
I am not sure what right you have to judge any body's intelligence and laugh at some one's comments, instead of giving logical answer
And if some of you are so sick and tired and frustrated of people posting (other then few of you) then you should limit the members and just allow who would agree with your views all the time (I am referring to the bolded part), but justifying making fun of other posters is not justified. Obviously not every one is as intelligent as you guys are
Last edited:
"That's ridiculous... there's no way we're willing to give up AJ Pollock for Shelby Miller.
We'll give you everything else, though."
We'll give you everything else, though."
JS19
Legends Never Die
No, there was an influx of comments where people applied their hockey knowledge as if it means the true for baseball. Some of them commented on contract values as if it were NHL contract values, same goes for age etc. 23 is remarkably young for an MLB talent. Most guys don't even get on the roster until their mid/late-20s. Look at Donaldson for instance, 2013 he managed to hit 24 HR/93 RBI at age 27, and two years later he's the AL MVP.
Eyedea
The Legend Continues
It's crazy enough that the DBacks traded away their SS of the future, but now it seems like Yasmany Tomas is projected to play in RF.
Mitchy
#HFOutcasts
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Why is Crosby considered a clutch SCF performer?- Latest: Honour Over Glory
-
