GatewayRedbirds.com

skmsw wrote: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."

They don't defy objective analysis. They defy your subjective analysis. A number of people have made very good arguments about why they think the trade was a good move or why it makes sense. Are you saying that all of these people who disagree with your analysis are incapable of making an objective analysis or are you saying that their subjective analysis simply yields a different conclusion than your subjective analysis?

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.

Agreed. And while we're at it, let's not try to reduce the ones who think they are understandable or good as being incapable of thinking objectively about things.

Well, to any whom I've insulted with my occasionally know-it-all attitude I apologize. Certainly my opinion is but one of many.

I do leave open the possibility even for myself that some move or series of moves could still take place in which what we've seen so far finally becomes evident as some table-setting series of tapestries that position us better overall, and that in hindsight these decisions are someplace between defensible and productive. I don't see it so far, but as has been pointed out by others (whom I hope also recognize similar limitations of their own), things are not necessarily limited to what I perceive.

thrill wrote:Baseball wise, it's a non-move. We aren't going to get that much better production, nor worse. It gives Rasmus a year to season against MLB pitching, but that value is offset by early arby clock.

Sentimentality aside, this isn't something that deserves 50 pages.

/thread

All this before RC's had a chance to comment.


I should note this is also coming up on heyzeus' super happy fun thread in number of posts. I assume that's the record holder, but maybe I'm wrong.

skmsw wrote:Well, to any whom I've insulted with my occasionally know-it-all attitude I apologize. Certainly my opinion is but one of many.

I do leave open the possibility even for myself that some move or series of moves could still take place in which what we've seen so far finally becomes evident as some table-setting series of tapestries that position us better overall, and that in hindsight these decisions are someplace between defensible and productive. I don't see it so far, but as has been pointed out by others (whom I hope also recognize similar limitations of their own), things are not necessarily limited to what I perceive.

I appreciate the conciliatory thoughts, even as you stand fast by your opinions. I'm heartened by the responses the Edmonds trade has evoked, rather than shrugging it off.

ghostrunner wrote:All this before RC's had a chance to comment.


I should note this is also coming up on heyzeus' super happy fun thread in number of posts. I assume that's the record holder, but maybe I'm wrong.

Wait 'til Rolen's dealt.

I'm enjoying reading the thread, and happier still that I've completed avoided the discussion.

I've been left out of too many archived threads to sit this one out.

Once RC21 replies....the thread will be locked

TimeForGuinness wrote:Once RC21 replies....the thread will be locked

Is he RC21* yet?

(plus, I wanted to be responsible for making this a 50-pager)