Edmonds heading to San Diego

[maddash]

what purpose does the negativity serve?

I'm not saying we shouldn't question the moves. I'm not saying we shouldn't feel the team is headed in the wrong direction. I'm questioning why we need 40 page threads once or twice a week extolling how idiotic the team's moves have been.

I can't speak for everyone, but my process of team evaluation hasn't changed in the time I've been on this board. When we do good I say we do good, when we do bad I say we do bad. Why should anyone have to filter their thoughts based on positivity or negativity? When the Cardinals make a good move - like picking up Brian Barton in the Rule V draft - I don't think anyone who is questioning management withheld their joy because it would ruin their newfound "cool" image. I mean, that's what's being objective is all about.

[haltz]

I'm not taking the analogy literally. Your post reads like you think the organization is making a bet like a monkey could (pick the shiniest number and hope it hits). The team obviously feels the odds of this guy hitting are better than the odds of Jimmy helping the ball club next year.

A monkey can make a bet on a ten-sided die, and it would be the same odds as if the team has done years of research and pegged Freese's chances at ten percent.

They probably feel like Edmonds can't push them over the top in 2008 so it doesn't matter and Freese has "a shot." I don't mind this much if they weren't lowering the product, killing any upside, and pissing on sentimentality in a punt year. Maybe they were just after my money for when the Padres come to town.

I know the cool sentiment around here these days is to doubt the new management (and I agree that they haven't done much to inspire confidence so far), but I'm more and more seeing vibes that everyone thinks our team is run my people who have never had any baseball experience before and have no idea what they're doing. It's early.

I didn't know it was cool. I just get to read comments about how it's early (like that's news), which I guess means that I can't have an opinion about what's happened so far and what that might bode. Which is all I've claimed to have an opinion on, since having an actual opinion on what's happened in the future would make me quite insane.

[clevername]

what purpose does the negativity serve?

I'm not saying we shouldn't question the moves. I'm not saying we shouldn't feel the team is headed in the wrong direction. I'm questioning why we need 40 page threads once or twice a week extolling how idiotic the team's moves have been.

I can't speak for everyone, but my process of team evaluation hasn't changed in the time I've been on this board. When we do good I say we do good, when we do bad I say we do bad. Why should anyone have to filter their thoughts based on positivity or negativity? When the Cardinals make a good move - like picking up Brian Barton in the Rule V draft - I don't think anyone who is questioning management withheld their joy because it would ruin their newfound "cool" image. I mean, that's what's being objective is all about.

again, I'm not saying folks shouldn't question the moves nor feel "negative" about how the team is heading. I'm wondering how talking about it incessantly, frequently using the same arguments repetitively, helps anyone.

[jdk82]

what purpose does the negativity serve?

I'm not saying we shouldn't question the moves. I'm not saying we shouldn't feel the team is headed in the wrong direction. I'm questioning why we need 40 page threads once or twice a week extolling how idiotic the team's moves have been.

I can't speak for everyone, but my process of team evaluation hasn't changed in the time I've been on this board. When we do good I say we do good, when we do bad I say we do bad. Why should anyone have to filter their thoughts based on positivity or negativity? When the Cardinals make a good move - like picking up Brian Barton in the Rule V draft - I don't think anyone who is questioning management withheld their joy because it would ruin their newfound "cool" image. I mean, that's what's being objective is all about.

again, I'm not saying folks shouldn't question the moves nor feel "negative" about how the team is heading. I'm wondering how talking about it incessantly, frequently using the same arguments repetitively, helps anyone.

Thats what happens when there really isnt much going on, during the season it wouldnt get this big.

[maddash]

what purpose does the negativity serve?

I'm not saying we shouldn't question the moves. I'm not saying we shouldn't feel the team is headed in the wrong direction. I'm questioning why we need 40 page threads once or twice a week extolling how idiotic the team's moves have been.

I can't speak for everyone, but my process of team evaluation hasn't changed in the time I've been on this board. When we do good I say we do good, when we do bad I say we do bad. Why should anyone have to filter their thoughts based on positivity or negativity? When the Cardinals make a good move - like picking up Brian Barton in the Rule V draft - I don't think anyone who is questioning management withheld their joy because it would ruin their newfound "cool" image. I mean, that's what's being objective is all about.

again, I'm not saying folks shouldn't question the moves nor feel "negative" about how the team is heading. I'm wondering how talking about it incessantly, frequently using the same arguments repetitively, helps anyone.

Thats what happens when there really isnt much going on, during the season it wouldnt get this big.

And a number of us in the St. Louis area (including myself) are snowed in this weekend.

Plus, it's Jim Edmonds we're talking about here... it'd be pretty strange if the Cardinals shipped off a guy like Jimmy and there wasn't a 40 page thread.

EDIT: and what some call "talking about it incessantly, frequently using the same arguments repetitively" is what I call "refining your case".

[haltz]

again, I'm not saying folks shouldn't question the moves nor feel "negative" about how the team is heading. I'm wondering how talking about it incessantly, frequently using the same arguments repetitively, helps anyone.

Thats what happens when there really isnt much going on, during the season it wouldnt get this big.

This is true. I also think that part of using the same arguments is 1) because that's how people feel, and 2) because until you change your opinion, it's worthwhile to reiterate on a message board like this as new information comes to light or moves are made. For me anyway, no one is going to challenge my opinion from a month ago, but if it hasn't changed then I'm still interested in whether I'm wrong or right about what the Cardinals are doing. It may not seem like it sometimes, but having the correct interpretation is what I'm after. If some people that I respect for their objectivity didn't have similar opinions I would've decided that I was wrong a while ago.

[skmsw]

what purpose does the negativity serve? . . . I'm wondering how talking about it incessantly, frequently using the same arguments repetitively, helps anyone.

This is, no offense to Clever, another one of those cool points that get trotted out just like the "incessant" and "repetitive" "negativity." Which essentially boils down to, why are we still discussing Cardinals baseball on a Cardinals baseball discussion board?

[clevername]

Which essentially boils down to, why are we still discussing Cardinals baseball on a Cardinals baseball discussion board?

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I come here because I love the team and I love the game. I don't come here to discuss all the bad things the team is doing or has done all the time. There's obviously a place for that, but I don't even know if I think there's a big place for that; I don't know that any message board would be pleasant if it was.

[Fat Strat]

The negativity is getting to me as well, just because I think some on this board aren't being objective or consistent in their views at all when normally they are quite objective and quite consistent. No reason to stop discussing, but still, somewhat annoying.

And it is equally grating to see that as each contingent is met ("I'm going to wait til after the winter meetings, and if there's no useful move, THEN I'll be worried") get revised and melted into another contingency ("well, no one else made any moves either, and even with the meetings over it is still early").

Now, let me address this. I'm one of the ones that you're describing here. I'm not saying you were thinking of me when you wrong that at all, but I still think I have a worthwile perspective to add to this comment. I had and still have a "wait and see" attitude about this club. I even stated wait until after the winter meetings and then I'll be worried. I still maintain that. After the failure to do anything significant at the winter meetings, I essentially admitted that any chance of winning in '08 was dead in the water. You could say that I'm worried about '08, but that's not really true, since I've given up worrying in favor of resignation. MY stance has changed to and remains "it's early, so we can still make some significant moves that might help us win longterm, hopefully in '09".

I think those are very consistent attitudes and very reasonable takes on this offseason and its progression. I also think that others have the right to expect to win next season and have the right (reasonable right) to question managment's approach. I have liked some of their moves so far, but admit that there are two sides to every deal.

[skmsw]

Which essentially boils down to, why are we still discussing Cardinals baseball on a Cardinals baseball discussion board?

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I come here because I love the team and I love the game. I don't come here to discuss all the bad things the team is doing or has done all the time. There's obviously a place for that, but I don't even know if I think there's a big place for that; I don't know that any message board would be pleasant if it was.

I think that's why most of us come here. I don't come here to discuss all the bad things the team has done -- I come to discuss all the things the team has done, both good and bad. When a relatively objective attempt to understand the mvoes runs into a string of multiple decisions ranging from hard to understand to bad, it looks like negativity. But when the moves defy objective analysis, saying so is not necessarily the same as the conventional use of the phrase "being negative." If we play poorly and lose ten games in a row, and we discuss that, are we "being" negative? Or are we discussing something that is negative?

It seems to me that sizing these moves up as hard to understand or poor decisions -- with relatively non-provocative, relatively thought out supporting points -- should not be tossed away as "being negative." Reasonable people can disagree with whether these moves are good bad or too early to tell, but let's try not to reduce the ones who think they are hard to understand or bad as being negative. It's a disservice, equally unfair to suggesting that those who are waiting or OK with the moves are pollyanish.