Socnorb11 wrote:
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Kyle wrote:
Fat Strat wrote:
This isn't a special thread nor is it a restricted one. We should never foster an environment where someone can ask a legitimate question -- one that frankly isn't clearly answered by the information we have on hand -- and then is essentially told to go away. That's happened numerous times in this discussion.
That's just my opinion. But you guys might want to take a step or two down from your high horses and enable and further the discussion and spread of knowledge on the subject, rather than telling the less informed essentially that they can't play in your clubhouse until they meet the entry requirements.
I have to agree. I realize this is a horrific issue and people are sensitive about it, but people are being incredibly rude in this topic. This is especially true when taking into consideration the fact that the Grand Jury report is like 20+ pages long (and for what it's worth, yes, I have read the report and did so before entering this topic).
I mean, if this were a political or religious thread I could understand people getting angry over personal views, but we're all on the same side on this one, so I think it's over the line and unnecessary.
It's really not outrageous for people to ask that others be on the same page in terms of their knowledge of a situation before commenting and especially questioning things that those folks bring up. If I go start a thread in Baseball Talk titled "What if the Cards traded Pujols to the Yankees?", what do you think the response would/should be?
I don't think that's similar.
I think it's more like someone suggesting that we trade Matt Holliday, and getting a response like "Matt Holliday has a no-trade clause - maybe you should go to Cot's and read his contract details before commenting in this thread".
Close. It's like there's a thread about trading Holliday, then someone pipes in with a link to Cot's that says "he has a no trade clause" then that trade clause is discussed (I can't believe Moz gave that to him, what a bad move, this is awful etc) for multiple pages, at which time a new poster pipes in with "we should trade Holliday" and then someone pipes in with "no offense, but we already discussed this, either read the whole thread or read his contract details" and then it continues to get discussed for multiple pages among other things regarding his contract and then someone else pipes in with "we don't know in fact if Holliday would waive his no-trade clause but I bet he would" and then someone pipes in with "look, no offense, but you need to read his contract details, he has a no trade clause and that's all we know. Everything else is purely speculative" and then that person responding with "Hey that's not nice to tell me whether he would or would not waive it. You don't know. No one knows. And quite frankly, earlier in this thread you shouldn't have told people to look up whether or not he had a no-trade clause in the first place, you should have linked people to his Cot's page!"
Never mind the fact that Cot's had been linked to multiple times at the onset of the contract discussion on like page 3.
Login
Register
FAQ
