PDA

View Full Version : Long Term Goals



GoReds33
02-05-2008, 10:27 PM
I have many long-term goals for this team. I feel that there are certain things this organization must do to capitalize on this abundance of young talent. This is a team that hasn't had much success recently with developing players, and they finally got some good young guys all the way to the majors without injury.

My Goals:
1. Lock up Dunn
This should be obdvious. He's the centerpiece of this team right now. He would be a middle of the order bat on any MLB team.

2. Continue the patience
The Reds have been patient in not rushing the youngsters so far. We have got to continue this. If that means another sub .500 season, then so be it. I don't want to do like the Cubs did, and risk the long-term future for one season.

3. Fill up the bench
We need a righty with some power off the bench. As a matter of fact, we need more than that. We also need more speed, because Freel's likely to get hurt at sometime next season.

4. Plan ahead
Don't wait until the last minute, and realize that we may lose Bailey, Bruce, or any of this young talent. Have backup plans if we do. If they are truely the future of this organization, we will find some way to keep them.

So with my goals being said, what are your long term goals?

Bip Roberts
02-05-2008, 10:59 PM
My Goals:

1. Give less long term deals to players unless its buying out arbitration years. How many times have we regretted signings over the years.

2. Continue to try to find reclamation projects. Low risk high reward and best of all it doesnt cost much in terms of talent.

3. Continue with the marketing ploys and trying to expand the fan base. More fans = more money and more money = never a bad thing.

4. Lower Beer prices.

Reds Fan Chris
02-05-2008, 11:17 PM
I have many long-term goals for this team. I feel that there are certain things this organization must do to capitalize on this abundance of young talent. This is a team that hasn't had much success recently with developing players, and they finally got some good young guys all the way to the majors without injury.

My Goals:
1. Lock up Dunn
This should be obdvious. He's the centerpiece of this team right now. He would be a middle of the order bat on any MLB team.

2. Continue the patience
The Reds have been patient in not rushing the youngsters so far. We have got to continue this. If that means another sub .500 season, then so be it. I don't want to do like the Cubs did, and risk the long-term future for one season.

3. Fill up the bench
We need a righty with some power off the bench. As a matter of fact, we need more than that. We also need more speed, because Freel's likely to get hurt at sometime next season.

4. Plan ahead
Don't wait until the last minute, and realize that we may lose Bailey, Bruce, or any of this young talent. Have backup plans if we do. If they are truely the future of this organization, we will find some way to keep them.

So with my goals being said, what are your long term goals?

Totally agree with you on Dunn. We need to lock up what talent we have and yes filling our bench with players that can get us out of a pinch would be awesome.

Gunner44
02-06-2008, 01:50 AM
amen to the lower beer prices, lol

Nasty_Boy
02-06-2008, 11:08 AM
My Goals:

1. Give less long term deals to players unless its buying out arbitration years. How many times have we regretted signings over the years.

2. Continue to try to find reclamation projects. Low risk high reward and best of all it doesnt cost much in terms of talent.

3. Continue with the marketing ploys and trying to expand the fan base. More fans = more money and more money = never a bad thing.

4. Lower Beer prices.


I agree with 3 & 4, but not on 1 & 2. Isn't the idea of having more money being able to sign better players or keep the good players you already have? With the way free agency is set up and with the way players are being paid, only long term contracts will attract the players that other wise wouldn't come to Cincinnati.

I really don't remember any long-term signings that the Reds have truly regretted... Milton sucked but he was only here for 3 years. I think the key is not overpaying for mediocre players or players that are passed their prime.

GoReds33
02-06-2008, 11:24 AM
I agree with 3 & 4, but not on 1 & 2. Isn't the idea of having more money being able to sign better players or keep the good players you already have? With the way free agency is set up and with the way players are being paid, only long term contracts will attract the players that other wise wouldn't come to Cincinnati.

I really don't remember any long-term signings that the Reds have truly regretted... Milton sucked but he was only here for 3 years. I think the key is not overpaying for mediocre players or players that are passed their prime.I regret them signing Griffey longterm. Now it's gonna take a boatload to buyout his deal next year.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 11:42 AM
I agree with 3 & 4, but not on 1 & 2. Isn't the idea of having more money being able to sign better players or keep the good players you already have? With the way free agency is set up and with the way players are being paid, only long term contracts will attract the players that other wise wouldn't come to Cincinnati.

I really don't remember any long-term signings that the Reds have truly regretted... Milton sucked but he was only here for 3 years. I think the key is not overpaying for mediocre players or players that are passed their prime.


Lets put it this way what long term deal has worked out for the Reds in recent years?

I say less long term deals, that doesnt mean zero at all.

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 12:33 PM
Depends on what you call "long term". 3 years or over? I've LOVED all the deals the new FO has signed:


Dunn, 3 years $30.5M (including option year)
Harang, 4 years $36.5 + 5th year $12.75M option
Gonzo, 3 years $14M + $6M mutual option
Arroyo, 2 years $25M (includes $2.5M bonus) + 3rd year (2011, same as Harang) option for $11M
Cordero, 4 years $46M + 5th year $12M option

It's actually the SHORT TERM (under 3) deals that I HATE - given guaranteed money to fringe/unproven players:

Stanton, 2 years $7M, with a third year that can vest for $2.5M
Freel, 2 years $7M
Ross, 2 years $4.5M + option for 3rd at $3.5M
Castro, 2 years $2M (05-06+07 option), 07 was buyout for $50K, and INSTEAD they signed him to a new contract in 07 for 2 yrs $2M + option for 09 at $1.1M

Talk about wastes of space, that money could have been spent better. Arguably, only Ross is worth anything, but his hitting was a one-year wonder, so we're stuck with paying him $2.25M in 08 for defense and a HOPE.

I'd rather be taking fliers on those reclamation projects and scrap-heap pitchers with that cash.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 12:53 PM
Id consider 2 year deals for bench and older players long term deals.

Anything long term deals for starters that are going to pass the age of 34 during the course of the deal scares me.

Of course its not a rule just a guideline.

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 01:40 PM
Id consider 2 year deals for bench and older players long term deals.

Anything long term deals for starters that are going to pass the age of 34 during the course of the deal scares me.

Of course its not a rule just a guideline.

I'll buy that.

I like your ideas, especially the "marketing ploys" for getting fans to the park. I have always thought "Winning More Games Than You Lose" was a good marketing ploy :beerme:

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 01:47 PM
I'll buy that.

I like your ideas, especially the "marketing ploys" for getting fans to the park. I have always thought "Winning More Games Than You Lose" was a good marketing ploy :beerme:

PEACE

-BLEEDS
Its not so much just winning more games its expanding the fan base in general. Farther we reach out from the Cincy/tri-state area the better. Sure some of that comes with winning but areas like northern Ohio, western and northern Indiana and parts of Kentucky will need extra work than just winning.

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 01:57 PM
Its not so much just winning more games its expanding the fan base in general. Farther we reach out from the Cincy/tri-state area the better. Sure some of that comes with winning but areas like northern Ohio, western and northern Indiana and parts of Kentucky will need extra work than just winning.

Agreed. They're also going to need a lot more than "bring your dog to the ballpark" to get people to drive in. Even dogs don't like to watch free bad baseball.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Nasty_Boy
02-06-2008, 02:46 PM
I regret them signing Griffey longterm. Now it's gonna take a boatload to buyout his deal next year.


I know he's missed a lot of time, but without Jr the Reds would probably be where Pittsburgh and KC are now. His HR milestones and his play the past few seasons have given Reds fans a reason to go to the ballpark. He is still a draw, he does tons for the kids, and he's still the most popular Red. No, Griffey being a Red hasn't translated to many W's. But I don't think Uncle Carl would have put Griffey's contract money towards making this team competitive. And if it takes a boatload to buyout his contract next season, so be it. Castellini has the money and if the Reds win this season it won't be an issue.

RSNtransplant
02-06-2008, 02:52 PM
I regret them signing Griffey longterm. Now it's gonna take a boatload to buyout his deal next year.

@ 8.5 Mil for his 2007 production he was a bargain. The fact that he was so cheap in 2007 and there was not a rumor of him being traded @ deadline to contender that could use him, leads me to believe you won't be buying out his contract, that it is more likely some type of renegotiation takes place and he's extend so he can retire as a Red.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 02:56 PM
Girffey and Larkins money caused more harm to this team than it did good for sure.

BLEEDS
02-06-2008, 02:56 PM
$4M = boatload?!?!? Hardly. Not for Griff. I imagine we will also try to trade him - to an AL team that could use him as a DH.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:01 PM
Griffey would have to put up some career season numbers for me to pick up that option.

Nasty_Boy
02-06-2008, 03:09 PM
Girffey and Larkins money caused more harm to this team than it did good for sure.


That's because the rest of the personel was handled so poorly. The Reds signed 2 players for their fair market value (maybe a little more for BL) and they tried to cut back in other areas. The Reds payroll when they moved into the new ballpark was nearly the same as it was in 1995. Linder didn't care about winning, he cared about making money. He knew that Jr and Larkin put butts in the seats... He never made an attempt to improve the team in other areas. The Reds were never strapped for cash, and with revenue sharing and the new TV/radio deals they have more money than ever. The only harm Larkin and Griffey's money did was it gave Reds ownership an excuse (even with a new ballpark) to not go out and spend money.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:11 PM
Still doesnt change that with out Griffey and Larkin we could have had a better team while being cheaper.

Nasty_Boy
02-06-2008, 03:18 PM
Still doesnt change that with out Griffey and Larkin we could have had a better team while being cheaper.


Who was better? Who was cheaper? The Reds wouldn't have signed anybody with their money. I don't see anyway the Reds, even as bad as they wer, would have been better without these two players. They would have signed scrap heap players and placed the blame on the fans for not showing up and supporting the Reds.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:22 PM
Who was better? Who was cheaper? The Reds wouldn't have signed anybody with their money. I don't see anyway the Reds, even as bad as they wer, would have been better without these two players. They would have signed scrap heap players and placed the blame on the fans for not showing up and supporting the Reds.

You are forgetting they were injured pretty much the whole time. Its not like they were putting up complete seasons.

Nasty_Boy
02-06-2008, 03:32 PM
I realize they were injured, but who's to say that their replacements would not have been hurt? I will give you that Larkin should not have been signed to that contract. That was a Sean Casey situation, only Dave O. did the right thing and moved the mayor before he declined anymore. Griffey was still in his prime and had some terrible luck, but Griffey should have been moved after the 2006 season. He was mostly healthy and showed his bat was still dangerous. But I still insist that trading/signing Griffey was not even close to a bad move, nor do I regret the Reds making that move. Milton, Cormier, Stanton, Castro, Freel's extension are bad signing's, KGJ was not.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 03:38 PM
I realize they were injured, but who's to say that their replacements would not have been hurt? I will give you that Larkin should not have been signed to that contract. That was a Sean Casey situation, only Dave O. did the right thing and moved the mayor before he declined anymore. Griffey was still in his prime and had some terrible luck, but Griffey should have been moved after the 2006 season. He was mostly healthy and showed his bat was still dangerous. But I still insist that trading/signing Griffey was not even close to a bad move, nor do I regret the Reds making that move. Milton, Cormier, Stanton, Castro, Freel's extension are bad signing's, KGJ was not.

Griffey if healthy was a good move but giving any player that big of a contract for that many years leaves you open to a lot of bad scenarios.

Look at the big long term deals in baseball over the years. Not many have worked out.

kbrake
02-06-2008, 04:08 PM
The Griffey deal has not been even close to the problem holding this franchise back the last 15 years or so. As Nasty said too many horrible deals like the guys he listed cost this franchise far more than Junior has.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 04:10 PM
The Griffey deal has not been even close to the problem holding this franchise back the last 15 years or so. As Nasty said too many horrible deals like the guys he listed cost this franchise far more than Junior has.

Junior makes more than those guys combined.

Handofdeath
02-06-2008, 04:38 PM
Totally agree with you on Dunn. We need to lock up what talent we have and yes filling our bench with players that can get us out of a pinch would be awesome.

For a team like the Reds, who don't have boatloads of money to spend, locking up Dunn long term is not the best of ideas IMO. He is one of the best power hitters in baseball, there is no doubt. But for the money you would pay him, you are basically making him the centerpiece of the franchise. He doesn't have the all around game to justify making more money than anyone else on the ballclub.

RSNtransplant
02-06-2008, 05:01 PM
Junior makes more than those guys combined.

Milton made about 2 mil more than KGJ last year.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2007&team=18&order=Salary+desc

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 05:05 PM
Milton made about 2 mil more than KGJ last year.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?year=2007&team=18&order=Salary+desc

I didnt see Miltons in the post :(. I wouldnt have said he made more if I did.

Nasty_Boy
02-06-2008, 05:13 PM
For a team like the Reds, who don't have boatloads of money to spend, locking up Dunn long term is not the best of ideas IMO. He is one of the best power hitters in baseball, there is no doubt. But for the money you would pay him, you are basically making him the centerpiece of the franchise. He doesn't have the all around game to justify making more money than anyone else on the ballclub.


I know its tough to change people's way of thinking, but the Reds HAVE money! We are used to the old ownership talking about not having the money to spend on players while they continued to finish in the black every year. Now the Reds don't have the money to throw 5 mil at Stanton, 9 mil at Freel, and other marginal player's but the Reds have plenty of money to give their best offensive player. I would love to see the Reds sign Dunn for 3-4 years 50-60 million. A guy like Dunn should be the face of your franchise. He's homegrown, he's well like by teammates, he's not a trouble maker, he plays everyday, and he could end up hitting 600+ HRs... I don't see the downside.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 05:16 PM
I dont think resigning Dunn is a bad idea but you have to see that he doesnt have much shelf life left after his next deal. Anything more than 5 years for Dunn doesnt seem like a good idea.

Nasty_Boy
02-06-2008, 05:24 PM
I agree that anything over 4 years is risky. But Dunn is only 28 and right in the middle of his prime years. I think its imperative that the Reds lock him up for the next 3 seasons at a minimum.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 05:27 PM
I agree that anything over 4 years is risky. But Dunn is only 28 and right in the middle of his prime years. I think its imperative that the Reds lock him up for the next 3 seasons at a minimum.

Yep, with Dunn he needs to hit the ball a mile because if his power numbers start to drop he has little value anywhere else. A switch to 1st base needs to happen for him mostly but hes too unwilling to give it a real try and work hard at it.

Once Dunns knees start to wear out from his big frame pounding on them hes going to fall quickly.

Nasty_Boy
02-06-2008, 05:31 PM
If Dunn's body starts to go, which I think will happen in his mid 30's, he'll still have value as a DH. If Frank Thomas can still find a job, I would think that Dunn would be very comparable to the Big Hurt at his age.

GoReds33
02-06-2008, 05:34 PM
Yep, with Dunn he needs to hit the ball a mile because if his power numbers start to drop he has little value anywhere else. A switch to 1st base needs to happen for him mostly but hes too unwilling to give it a real try and work hard at it.

Once Dunns knees start to wear out from his big frame pounding on them hes going to fall quickly.That's a good point. He's a big guy. Knees aren't built to carry that much weight, especially during a 162 game season. We can only hope it comes if/after he goes somewhere else.

Handofdeath
02-06-2008, 06:26 PM
If Dunn's body starts to go, which I think will happen in his mid 30's, he'll still have value as a DH. If Frank Thomas can still find a job, I would think that Dunn would be very comparable to the Big Hurt at his age.

Adam Dunn (Age 27) Career Season Average
40 HR's 95 RBI's .248/.381/.519

Frank Thomas (Age 38) 2006
39 HR's 114 RBI's .270/.381/.545

I'm sorry but there is no comparison. When Dunn's body starts to give out, it's going to get ugly.

GoReds33
02-06-2008, 07:08 PM
Adam Dunn (Age 27) Career Season Average
40 HR's 95 RBI's .248/.381/.519

Frank Thomas (Age 38) 2006
39 HR's 114 RBI's .270/.381/.545

I'm sorry but there is no comparison. When Dunn's body starts to give out, it's going to get ugly.I guess I forgot how good last year was for Thomas...

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 07:10 PM
They really dont have the same career path.

Nasty_Boy
02-06-2008, 09:18 PM
You guys are pretty awesome!

Look at Frank's surrounding seasons. Once Frank turned 32 in 2000 (the age Dunn would be at the end of a 4 yr deal) he has had 2 maybe 3 above average seasons. Why? Due to injury... It's great that Frank was so good in 2006, but he regressed a little last season. And I wasn't comparing them as players, I was comparing their body types.

My point was that once Dunn gets into his mid 30's he's likely to start having more injuries and therefore his production would decline. Couldn't Dunn be healthy at 37-38 and put up a big season? Of course he could... and why do you guys think Dunn's knees will give out? Yes he's big, but he has a huge frame that is meant to carry more weight. It's not set in stone that he will have knee problems.

Bip Roberts
02-06-2008, 09:22 PM
I dont know if his knees or back or body will start to wear down but big guys tend to break down and you would be silly not to worry about it.

Id rather miss out on a few years of a good player than be stuck with multiple years of a drain on the payroll.

AdamDunn
02-07-2008, 01:01 PM
If Dunn puts up similar numbers to what he did last year, I'd give him a four year deal. I'm just not sold on the fact he can put up .380 OBP ever year. If he can do that his year and still slug 40 HR, his offensive production majorly overcompensates for his lack of defensive ability.

Handofdeath
02-07-2008, 02:38 PM
If Dunn puts up similar numbers to what he did last year, I'd give him a four year deal. I'm just not sold on the fact he can put up .380 OBP ever year. If he can do that his year and still slug 40 HR, his offensive production majorly overcompensates for his lack of defensive ability.

I disagree with that last sentence. If you want to make someone the centerpiece of your franchise, and for the money you would be paying Dunn you would be, it is a bad idea IMO to do that for a 275 lb one dimensional player.

Stephenk29
02-07-2008, 04:59 PM
maybe if he starts putting up Ortiz numbers, then that would make since

GoReds33
02-07-2008, 07:04 PM
maybe if he starts putting up Ortiz numbers, then that would make sinceThe best thing for Dunn would be a move to the AL. I think in a DH role, he could put up similar numbers to Ortiz.

kbrake
02-07-2008, 07:12 PM
I disagree with that last sentence. If you want to make someone the centerpiece of your franchise, and for the money you would be paying Dunn you would be, it is a bad idea IMO to do that for a 275 lb one dimensional player.

Please define one dimensional, I would love to hear this.

Bip Roberts
02-07-2008, 07:13 PM
The best thing for Dunn would be a move to the AL. I think in a DH role, he could put up similar numbers to Ortiz.

Oh I doubt that very much. Dunn could put up good numbers as a DH though.

GoReds33
02-07-2008, 07:14 PM
Oh I doubt that very much. Dunn could put up good numbers as a DH though.Well, maybe I should have been more specific. He could put up similar power numbers to Ortiz.

Bip Roberts
02-07-2008, 07:17 PM
Well, maybe I should have been more specific. He could put up similar power numbers to Ortiz.

I think he would put up the same numbers he is putting up now honestly. Nothing really similar to Ortiz at all. Ortiz is a whole different beast.

Handofdeath
02-07-2008, 07:55 PM
Please define one dimensional, I would love to hear this.

As you wish...

Adam Dunn offers you nothing from a defensive standpoint in the OF. The Reds know this, which is why they have tried to move him to 1B. Offensively, his game revolves around his ability to hit homers. He offers you little speed and after 7 seasons still has not shown the ability to put the bat on the ball on a consistent basis. He has prodigious power and is someone I definitely think would be a nice complement player but his overall game is about his power. You don't build a winning team with a limited payroll around a player like that.

kbrake
02-07-2008, 09:47 PM
I would argue his game revolves around his ability to not make outs. His game is not just the long ball. The guy will walk 100 times a year, score a 100 times a year, and drive 100 runs in a year. He will play in 160 games a year and even though he is unfairly torn apart by everyone in this town from Marty to every casual fan he keeps his mouth shut and plays everyday. The guy has done nothing but come across as a class act sounds to me like exactly the guy you build a franchise about. And can we please quit with this limited payroll crap, this isnt your 1999 Reds. Bob will spend whatever it takes to win as long as he can break even.

Bip Roberts
02-07-2008, 10:40 PM
I think people overly defend Dunn just as much as people unfairly bash him.

kbrake
02-07-2008, 10:52 PM
I think people overly defend Dunn just as much as people unfairly bash him.

What do people say to overly defend Dunn?

Bip Roberts
02-07-2008, 10:56 PM
What do people say to overly defend Dunn?

When anyone bring up his flaws people like to point out his positives. It goes both ways. Hes a polarizing player.

kbrake
02-07-2008, 11:01 PM
My original point is that there is a difference between pointing out his positives and negatives and then going over board. The things that are said by Marty and way too many fans. "He is simply not a productive player" - Marty Brennamen. Come on, what kind of crap is that? The people that think he is the worst LF in baseball. The people that think he strikes out too much to be a good player.

I admit Dunn has his faults as a player, but if this team is 10 games out going into June, it will not be Dunn's fault but you can bet he will be the one taking the bulk of the blame.

Bip Roberts
02-07-2008, 11:04 PM
My original point is that there is a difference between pointing out his positives and negatives and then going over board. The things that are said by Marty and way too many fans. "He is simply not a productive player" - Marty Brennamen. Come on, what kind of crap is that? The people that think he is the worst LF in baseball. The people that think he strikes out too much to be a good player.

I admit Dunn has his faults as a player, but if this team is 10 games out going into June, it will not be Dunn's fault but you can bet he will be the one taking the bulk of the blame.

Well its always going to be easier to bash a player and not listen to the counter argument.

Nasty_Boy
02-08-2008, 01:07 AM
I think the point to be made about Dunn is that he is the Reds only consistent productive player. Yet when the starters and bullpen combine for a 5+ ERA he is the player people love to bash. He is a home grown talent and people treat him like A-Rod in New York... "The Reds suck! It must be Dunn's strikeouts!"

I am excited to see Jay Bruce turn into a great player, but I'm worried that he will never live up to people's expectations.

RSNtransplant
02-08-2008, 01:46 PM
I think the point to be made about Dunn is that he is the Reds only consistent productive player. Yet when the starters and bullpen combine for a 5+ ERA he is the player people love to bash. He is a home grown talent and people treat him like A-Rod in New York... "The Reds suck! It must be Dunn's strikeouts!"

I am excited to see Jay Bruce turn into a great player, but I'm worried that he will never live up to people's expectations.

I think the treatment Dunn and some other Reds get is part of the culture here in Cincinnati. I think kbrake is right and that it starts with announcers, like Marty Brennamen and local sports talk guys on AM radio. It seems there are definitely some circles where a HOF announcer can do no wrong, yet needlessly bash a player during the Winter Carrivan. While the local radio host do nothing original or creative besides inflame the listeners for ratings. I cannot even listen to the local radio sports programming b/c it is so bad and as there is little to no TV broadcast baseball in the area, I can thank Marty for being equally annoying to listen too, driving me to buy season tickets. Despite the occasional drunk in the stands the game is far more enjoyable outside the Cincinnati media's sphere of influence.

Handofdeath
02-08-2008, 03:03 PM
I would argue his game revolves around his ability to not make outs. His game is not just the long ball. The guy will walk 100 times a year, score a 100 times a year, and drive 100 runs in a year. He will play in 160 games a year and even though he is unfairly torn apart by everyone in this town from Marty to every casual fan he keeps his mouth shut and plays everyday. The guy has done nothing but come across as a class act sounds to me like exactly the guy you build a franchise about. And can we please quit with this limited payroll crap, this isnt your 1999 Reds. Bob will spend whatever it takes to win as long as he can break even.

You know the archives on this board are full of the Adam Dunn arguments. I would suggest looking through them. Having been a part of quite a few, I just don't see the need to rehash it. I'm tired of it. People on both sides have their opinions that deserved to be respected and I'll just let it go at that.

kbrake
02-08-2008, 04:46 PM
You know the archives on this board are full of the Adam Dunn arguments. I would suggest looking through them. Having been a part of quite a few, I just don't see the need to rehash it. I'm tired of it. People on both sides have their opinions that deserved to be respected and I'll just let it go at that.

Fair enough and that is something we can agree on for sure.