TPWW Forums - View Single Post - MLB 2005-2006 Offseason Thread

**VonErich Lives** · 12-25-2005, 07:02 AM

Miz, you gotta pick one side or the other.

You started with "what has beane done to make oakland look poorer" and then argue that only in 1 case could they not afford a player. So, hence in the others they could afford the players and Beane didn't get them, hence using his "money ball" system and making the team "look poorer" if we assume they could afford them, which according to you they could.

The one thing I found most amusing about your breakdown and you pick the situation to suit your argument.

Foulke has a bad year due to injury so, somehow that made it ok because Street came along, 2yrs later an unproven rookie, so they could have had Foulke who at the time was one of the top closers in the game, or nothing, (sorry, Arthur Rhodes) and they chose nothing.

Damon has a single bad season then bounces back.

In most those cases you were dealing provens for unprovens, experience for none.

I'm sure when they let Iggy go and then Foulke, they knew they'd have Street pitch lights out, heck, Street wasn't even the closer when 2005 started.

Yeah, Tejada didn't want to stay, why? becuase when ever a player gets real good and wants to get paid they get rid of them, they go for prospects, some pan out, some don't, it takes a few years for them to "come into their own". So, of course he didn't want to stay.

The issue isn't what he got in return for these players, the issue is the need to dump them, either via trade of not bidding on them via free agency.

That's what you're missing here, if they were willing and/or able to spend the money they wouldn't have lost Tejada, Damon, Dye, Giambi, they wouldn't have delt Mulder and Hudson. It would be a complete different approach.

So, you can keep saying BCWWF and I are wrong all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you keep making our argument for us.

Of course you could try the "you always say I'm crying when I tell you you're wrong", as usually when you say stuff like that I'll ask for examples, and as usually you'll probably have none. Although, it wouldn't shock me if I did tell you to stop crying at some point, you do have a habbit of trying to put yourself on the cross to somehow help your argument. You really know a lot about baseball/stats, but you can never accept that sometimes you might be wrong, or sometimes it's an opinion and their is no right/wrong, that's the only reason I take the shots at you once in awhile (which is no where as often as you seem to think) is you're "hollier then thou, I'm always right" attitude that you try to project, it makes me laugh.

anyway, back to the subject, I don't disagree they got prospects that turned out to be good players, but the issue is, if they had or were willing to spend the money, they never would have looked to make those deals, they would have kept their team intact, Tejada wouldn't have wanted out, etc... etc...

12-25-2005, 07:02 AM	#10
VonErich Lives WTF do you want? Posts: 14,760	Miz, you gotta pick one side or the other. You started with "what has beane done to make oakland look poorer" and then argue that only in 1 case could they not afford a player. So, hence in the others they could afford the players and Beane didn't get them, hence using his "money ball" system and making the team "look poorer" if we assume they could afford them, which according to you they could. The one thing I found most amusing about your breakdown and you pick the situation to suit your argument. Foulke has a bad year due to injury so, somehow that made it ok because Street came along, 2yrs later an unproven rookie, so they could have had Foulke who at the time was one of the top closers in the game, or nothing, (sorry, Arthur Rhodes) and they chose nothing. Damon has a single bad season then bounces back. In most those cases you were dealing provens for unprovens, experience for none. I'm sure when they let Iggy go and then Foulke, they knew they'd have Street pitch lights out, heck, Street wasn't even the closer when 2005 started. Yeah, Tejada didn't want to stay, why? becuase when ever a player gets real good and wants to get paid they get rid of them, they go for prospects, some pan out, some don't, it takes a few years for them to "come into their own". So, of course he didn't want to stay. The issue isn't what he got in return for these players, the issue is the need to dump them, either via trade of not bidding on them via free agency. That's what you're missing here, if they were willing and/or able to spend the money they wouldn't have lost Tejada, Damon, Dye, Giambi, they wouldn't have delt Mulder and Hudson. It would be a complete different approach. So, you can keep saying BCWWF and I are wrong all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you keep making our argument for us. Of course you could try the "you always say I'm crying when I tell you you're wrong", as usually when you say stuff like that I'll ask for examples, and as usually you'll probably have none. Although, it wouldn't shock me if I did tell you to stop crying at some point, you do have a habbit of trying to put yourself on the cross to somehow help your argument. You really know a lot about baseball/stats, but you can never accept that sometimes you might be wrong, or sometimes it's an opinion and their is no right/wrong, that's the only reason I take the shots at you once in awhile (which is no where as often as you seem to think) is you're "hollier then thou, I'm always right" attitude that you try to project, it makes me laugh. anyway, back to the subject, I don't disagree they got prospects that turned out to be good players, but the issue is, if they had or were willing to spend the money, they never would have looked to make those deals, they would have kept their team intact, Tejada wouldn't have wanted out, etc... etc...