PDA

View Full Version : Jimenez to Tribe



nate
07-30-2011, 07:55 PM
Check (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/07/indians-to-acquire-ubaldo-jimenez.html) it.

LvJ
07-30-2011, 07:58 PM
That's a good haul.

Brutus
07-30-2011, 07:59 PM
No idea what the Rockies would have needed to top the Indians' offer, but if the Reds didn't do a deal because of reluctance to keep prospects -- Mesoraco or otherwise, shame on them.

It's time the Reds stand up and address the things clearly lacking. Top-end starting pitchers chief among them.

MikeThierry
07-30-2011, 08:02 PM
Nice pickup by the Indians.

dougdirt
07-30-2011, 08:06 PM
No idea what the Rockies would have needed to top the Indians' offer, but if the Reds didn't do a deal because of reluctance to keep prospects -- Mesoraco or otherwise, shame on them.

It's time the Reds stand up and address the things clearly lacking. Top-end starting pitchers chief among them.

I would keep Mesoraco rather than trade him in a package for Ubaldo.... but I think the Reds could have kept him and still topped the offer the Indians made. You have to wonder though, if the Reds simply having better top end guys (rumored with Mesoraco/Chapman) left the Indians looking elsewhere rather than taking less touted Reds.

Brutus
07-30-2011, 08:12 PM
I would keep Mesoraco rather than trade him in a package for Ubaldo.... but I think the Reds could have kept him and still topped the offer the Indians made. You have to wonder though, if the Reds simply having better top end guys (rumored with Mesoraco/Chapman) left the Indians looking elsewhere rather than taking less touted Reds.

I tend to agree they probably could have topped the deal even without Mesoraco, but I would hate to think the Reds didn't do the deal because of that.

At this point, I don't care how good a prospect Mesoraco is or how good he could wind up being (and I think his ceiling is legit), but he's still unproven and it's time the Reds start favoring players that have actually performed at a high level if they want to get into the playoffs again and have success.

SirFelixCat
07-30-2011, 08:17 PM
I tend to agree they probably could have topped the deal even without Mesoraco, but I would hate to think the Reds didn't do the deal because of that.

At this point, I don't care how good a prospect Mesoraco is or how good he could wind up being (and I think his ceiling is legit), but he's still unproven and it's time the Reds start favoring players that have actually performed at a high level if they want to get into the playoffs again and have success.

This seems pretty short-sighted to me. Obviously, we all want the Reds to acquire help that helps the big club, but shrugging off Mes would be beyond foolish, imo.

It's pretty much a given that this season is lost, so as long as moves are made that improve this team for 2012 and beyond, fine. But I'm not too broken up not mortgaging the future for Jimenez. :shrug:

Tom Servo
07-30-2011, 08:17 PM
I just get the feeling that there's a reason (beyond your typical 'wanting to get better for the future' reasoning) why the Rockies are willing to trade Jimenez to begin with. Guess we'll see.

Brutus
07-30-2011, 08:21 PM
This seems pretty short-sighted to me. Obviously, we all want the Reds to acquire help that helps the big club, but shrugging off Mes would be beyond foolish, imo.

It's pretty much a given that this season is lost, so as long as moves are made that improve this team for 2012 and beyond, fine. But I'm not too broken up not mortgaging the future for Jimenez. :shrug:

But this is a move that would help them 2012 and beyond. He's under control for 2012 and 2013... so if the Reds don't want to trade for a rental, and don't want to trade for a guy that is affordable and under control for a few more years, who exactly do the Reds trade for?

Hoarding prospects will never get the Reds anywhere. Each window of opportunity will pass, the Reds will simply find themselves having to sell off, and at most the Reds might dabble in contention once in a while. They still have a good core... this kind of trade would send them into 2012 with something they don't have right now: a clear No. 1 starter.

I understand the reluctance to trade guys like Mesoraco, but sooner or later, unless you're the Phillies (apparently), you gotta part with your top prospects.

REDblooded
07-30-2011, 08:25 PM
But this is a move that would help them 2012 and beyond. He's under control for 2012 and 2013... so if the Reds don't want to trade for a rental, and don't want to trade for a guy that is affordable and under control for a few more years, who exactly do the Reds trade for?

Hoarding prospects will never get the Reds anywhere. Each window of opportunity will pass, the Reds will simply find themselves having to sell off, and at most the Reds might dabble in contention once in a while. They still have a good core... this kind of trade would send them into 2012 with something they don't have right now: a clear No. 1 starter.

I understand the reluctance to trade guys like Mesoraco, but sooner or later, unless you're the Phillies (apparently), you gotta part with your top prospects.

Or they could play for your mlb squad...

Brutus
07-30-2011, 08:26 PM
Or they could play for your mlb squad...

Counting on rookies to come up and fill holes right away often doesn't work well.

Ask the Phillies about Domonic Brown. They tried that, and it wound up not working so they traded for Pence and sent Brown back to the minors.

Brutus
07-30-2011, 08:26 PM
BTW, for what its' worth, Ubaldo is still pitching tonight in Colorado, at least for now. So apparently the trade isn't 'final'

MikeS21
07-30-2011, 08:38 PM
BTW, for what its' worth, Ubaldo is still pitching tonight in Colorado, at least for now. So apparently the trade isn't 'final'
Nope, and ESPN is still reporting the Reds and Rockies are talking.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6819477/colorado-rockies-ubaldo-jimenez-traded-start-saturday-sources-say

Story was updated at 8:07 PM tonight, Cincinnati time.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-30-2011, 08:50 PM
So that's what it looks like to go for it. Must be nice. And it's the Tribe of all teams. My goodness.

I really wanted the Reds to land this guy. Oh well.

wheels
07-30-2011, 08:51 PM
This is not a done deal, but even if it was, giving up White and Pomeranz seems a little steep.

Does Cleveland plan on ponying up to keep him in a couple of years? They haven't shown the inclination to do so in the recent past.

And what of Ubaldo's health? The Rockies aren't even allowing a physical. Why not?

nate
07-30-2011, 08:51 PM
Well, I just read a report that UJ is on the mound but the Rockies have a dude in the BP just in case.

wheels
07-30-2011, 08:52 PM
Well, I just read a report that UJ is on the mound but the Rockies have a dude in the BP just in case.

Change your thread title... You almost gave me a coronary.:laugh:

dougdirt
07-30-2011, 08:59 PM
I tend to agree they probably could have topped the deal even without Mesoraco, but I would hate to think the Reds didn't do the deal because of that.

At this point, I don't care how good a prospect Mesoraco is or how good he could wind up being (and I think his ceiling is legit), but he's still unproven and it's time the Reds start favoring players that have actually performed at a high level if they want to get into the playoffs again and have success.

And Jimenez is a pitcher who has lost velocity on his fastball and his team isn't consenting to physicals by other teams. I don't care how good of a pitcher he is, that scares the crap out of me.

Tornon
07-30-2011, 09:00 PM
Now if he gets taken out we won't know if it's due to a trade or ineffectiveness

Always Red
07-30-2011, 09:05 PM
Ubaldo just gave up a double to Ludwick- both rumored to be going to the Tribe.

Brutus
07-30-2011, 09:07 PM
And Jimenez is a pitcher who has lost velocity on his fastball and his team isn't consenting to physicals by other teams. I don't care how good of a pitcher he is, that scares the crap out of me.

I don't care much about the velocity. I think it's been established that he's been pitching better recently and his loss of velocity initially was because he was hurt (which everyone knew). So I think that velocity issue has been made too much into a big deal. The results have still been pretty good this season.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree if the reports are true about not being willing to allow physicals on Ubaldo, that's cause for conern.

Tornon
07-30-2011, 09:09 PM
Ubaldo was hugging his teammates.. looks like he's gone

Kc61
07-30-2011, 09:09 PM
Just keep Leake and Mes, Walt. Then do what you want.

OldXOhio
07-30-2011, 09:10 PM
Just keep Leake and Mes, Walt. Then do what you want.

And Aroldis

Kc61
07-30-2011, 09:10 PM
And Aroldis

Correct.

_Sir_Charles_
07-30-2011, 09:11 PM
And Aroldis

I agree with this...but on one condition. That he becomes a starter. If he's going to stay in the pen...he's available for trades IMO.

mattfeet
07-30-2011, 09:12 PM
At least he didn't go to another NL:C team! Im still not 110% sold on UJ. I think a lot of media hype made him be "the best" pitcher available this year before the deadline. Id much rather have Shields.

_Matt

Tornon
07-30-2011, 09:13 PM
Apparently Joe Gardner is also in the deal going to Colorado

Dan
07-30-2011, 09:13 PM
I just get the feeling that there's a reason (beyond your typical 'wanting to get better for the future' reasoning) why the Rockies are willing to trade Jimenez to begin with. Guess we'll see.

They refused to let the Yankees give him a physical. I think that says something there.

MikeS21
07-30-2011, 09:15 PM
At least he didn't go to another NL:C team! Im still not 110% sold on UJ. I think a lot of media hype made him be "the best" pitcher available this year before the deadline. Id much rather have Shields.

_Matt
Shields is having a career year. I'm not sold on him if we have to give up too much.

CTA513
07-30-2011, 09:18 PM
1 Inning, 2 Hits, 4 Runs, 4 BB, 2 K - 45 pitches in his final start for the Rockies

corkedbat
07-30-2011, 09:18 PM
I don't care much about the velocity. I think it's been established that he's been pitching better recently and his loss of velocity initially was because he was hurt (which everyone knew). So I think that velocity issue has been made too much into a big deal. The results have still been pretty good this season.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree if the reports are true about not being willing to allow physicals on Ubaldo, that's cause for conern.



I hadn't heard that. I actually don't see how that would do any good. Unless I'm mistaken, I thought all trades were contingent upon the players involved passing a physical by the new team;s medical staff. They would find any problem anyway, so why say no? In fact, the new team would probably twice as thorough wut the physicl and by the times you cancel the deal, the deadline has passed.

Any team that would agree to a deal without aphyscial should just grab their ankles and take what's coming to them.

klw
07-30-2011, 09:21 PM
I hadn't heard that. I actually don't see how that would do any good. Unless I'm mistaken, I thought all trades were contingent upon the players involved passing a physical by the new team;s medical staff. They would find any problem anyway, so why say no? In fact, the new team would probably twice as thorough wut the physicl and by the times you cancel the deal, the deadline has passed.

Any team that would agree to a deal without aphyscial should just grab their ankles and take what's coming to them.

this is the source
http://twitter.com/#!/Joelsherman1/status/97462386813960193
Joel Sherman of the NY Post

@Joelsherman1
Joel Sherman
Post has learned that #Yankees asked #Rockies 4 datys ago to do physical on Jimenez if deal agreed to, Col refused, so Yanks bowed out

_Sir_Charles_
07-30-2011, 09:23 PM
I don't know his source, but Marty is just now saying the Tribe is close to getting Ludwick too. This would be a sigh of relief for me. I want no part of Ludwick.

Brutus
07-30-2011, 09:50 PM
Kevin Goldstein:


Not joking. Sources indicate Ubaldo deal is not done "complications"

corkedbat
07-30-2011, 10:05 PM
this is the source
http://twitter.com/#!/Joelsherman1/status/97462386813960193
Joel Sherman of the NY Post

Wasn't doubting you. Just didn't see the angle in refusing a physical (or hiding an injury complication, for that matter). A physical will catch it when the player reports to the new team. Then the deal still falls apart, you'll have a tougher time dealing with that GM next time and you'll have a rep as a shady dealer.

Even if a pgysical isn't the new team's right, any team that would do a deal without one is megastupid. I'd love to have swung a deal for healthy Ubaldo, but I'm afraid that Colorado is dealing his gimpy brother. If there is a silver lining, if a TOR is a cquired between now and 4 pm tomorrow, it will probably be Shields, who was my first choice since the minute his name was thrown into the ring.

Dan
07-30-2011, 10:17 PM
Wasn't doubting you. Just didn't see the angle in refusing a physical (or hiding an injury complication, for that matter). A physical will catch it when the player reports to the new team. Then the deal still falls apart, you'll have a tougher time dealing with that GM next time and you'll have a rep as a shady dealer.

Even if a pgysical isn't the new team's right, any team that would do a deal without one is megastupid. I'd love to have swung a deal for healthy Ubaldo, but I'm afraid that Colorado is dealing his gimpy brother. If there is a silver lining, if a TOR is a cquired between now and 4 pm tomorrow, it will probably be Shields, who was my first choice since the minute his name was thrown into the ring.

The angle is that the Rockies suspect something, but if they don't do an examination, and don't allow one, it gives them an out if there is something wrong with UJ's shoulder. They simply didn't know, and the trade can't be reversed.

osuceltic
07-30-2011, 10:18 PM
The Rockies' site is reporting the deal as done.

Brutus
07-30-2011, 10:33 PM
The Rockies' site is reporting the deal as done.

FWIW, there have been reports since that report went live 45 minutes ago, that indicate the trade is not final.

Brutus
07-30-2011, 10:35 PM
Kevin Goldstein just posted this:


#Rockies/#Indians/Ubaldo will not be finalized tonight; noon tomorrow at the earliest; no changes, in or out as-is.

Based on his other tweets, it sounds like the Indians were getting cold feet, though he is being somewhat vague.

paulrichjr
07-30-2011, 10:39 PM
Indians beat writer Hoynes just tweeted that he must pass a physical.

http://mobile.twitter.com/hoynsie

BuckeyeRedleg
07-30-2011, 10:41 PM
Maybe this will give the Reds some much needed time to wake up Walt.

Brutus
07-30-2011, 10:50 PM
Indians beat writer Hoynes just tweeted that he must pass a physical.

http://mobile.twitter.com/hoynsie

Yep. Goldstein retweeted that too.

Basically Indians won't agree to deal if it's not granted/passed.

corkedbat
07-30-2011, 10:53 PM
The angle is that the Rockies suspect something, but if they don't do an examination, and don't allow one, it gives them an out if there is something wrong with UJ's shoulder. They simply didn't know, and the trade can't be reversed.

I thought all deals were pending players involved passing a physical upon arrival with the the players' new team. If the tribe were to find a problem upon examination, no matter whether the Rox were willfully ignorant or not - the league would still reverse the deal.

If Cleveland agreed to send out Pomerantz and White without the opportunity to "inspect the goods," their front office should be publicly executed. Sorry, just don't believe that Rockies would try to just act like they don't know anything's wrong and I find it even les believable that the Commissuner's office would let the deal stand.

If I were the commissioner's office, I would investigate this and the Rockies were trying to office through a deal without a physical or coverup an injury, I'd fine them into the stoneage. That is just slimy, if true.

Brutus
07-30-2011, 10:57 PM
I thought all deals were pending players involved passing a physical upon arrival with the the players' new team. If the tribe were to find a problem upon examination, no matter whether the Rox were willfully ignorant or not - the league would still reverse the deal.

If Cleveland agreed to send out Pomerantz and White without the opportunity to "inspect the goods," their front office should be publicly executed. Sorry, just don't believe that Rockies would try to just act like they don't know anything's wrong and I find it even les believable that the Commissuner's office would let the deal stand.

There is no such rule that I have found in the Major League Rules book to support this. It's completely up to the clubs to determine health.

Now, if reason is found that the trading club knew someone was injured and didn't disclose it, the commissioner could overturn a trade. However, as a general rule, physicals are not required.

SirFelixCat
07-30-2011, 10:58 PM
But this is a move that would help them 2012 and beyond. He's under control for 2012 and 2013... so if the Reds don't want to trade for a rental, and don't want to trade for a guy that is affordable and under control for a few more years, who exactly do the Reds trade for?

Hoarding prospects will never get the Reds anywhere. Each window of opportunity will pass, the Reds will simply find themselves having to sell off, and at most the Reds might dabble in contention once in a while. They still have a good core... this kind of trade would send them into 2012 with something they don't have right now: a clear No. 1 starter.

I understand the reluctance to trade guys like Mesoraco, but sooner or later, unless you're the Phillies (apparently), you gotta part with your top prospects.

Or it could be that Colorado wanted more than the Reds were willing to part with?

Just because they (the Reds) didn't make the trade doesn't mean they're inept. Come on now....

Brutus
07-30-2011, 11:00 PM
Or it could be that Colorado wanted more than the Reds were willing to part with?

Just because they (the Reds) didn't make the trade doesn't mean they're inept. Come on now....

Where did I say they were inept?

Nonetheless, I'm saying it's time to stop letting prospects get in the way of finally acquiring the caliber of pitcher that the Reds do clearly lack.

Dan
07-30-2011, 11:04 PM
Wasn't doubting you. Just didn't see the angle in refusing a physical (or hiding an injury complication, for that matter). A physical will catch it when the player reports to the new team. Then the deal still falls apart, you'll have a tougher time dealing with that GM next time and you'll have a rep as a shady dealer.

Even if a pgysical isn't the new team's right, any team that would do a deal without one is megastupid. I'd love to have swung a deal for healthy Ubaldo, but I'm afraid that Colorado is dealing his gimpy brother. If there is a silver lining, if a TOR is a cquired between now and 4 pm tomorrow, it will probably be Shields, who was my first choice since the minute his name was thrown into the ring.

The angle is that the Rockies suspect something, but if they don't do an examination, and don't allow one, it gives them an out if there is something wrong with UJ's shoulder. They simply didn't know, and the trade can't be reversed.

edabbs44
07-30-2011, 11:05 PM
Maybe this will give the Reds some much needed time to wake up Walt.

So he should swoop in and do the deal sans physical?

BuckeyeRedleg
07-30-2011, 11:13 PM
So he should swoop in and do the deal sans physical?

Well, if he were conscious that might be a start.

Oh yeah. I'm sure we'll just never know all the offers he made and he can't help it if the deals aren't perfect. And stuff.

corkedbat
07-30-2011, 11:14 PM
Even if a physical is not written in the rules, as the commissioner, I would take the refusal to allow a phyisical as admission that they belived something was wrong. I'd reverse the deal and fine the Rockies for Conduct Unbecoming of the Game. If there is an exam tomorrow and it urns up anything, the Colorrado Organization is going to have a huge blackeye.

If Walt had done a deal for Ubaldo, sending 4 premium propsects without demanding a physical (considering the reported velocity drop and the other red flags that have been going around), there would be know words for my anger. If Ubaldo does have to go under the knife, any team acquiring him would be lucky to get any quakity innings from him at ll.

If I'm the Cleveland organization (and their fans) I would be beyond livid if Jiminez does fail a physical.. Not only did Colorado try to scam them, he wasted their time leading up to the deadline and prevented them from possibly working another deal.

cincinnati chili
07-30-2011, 11:56 PM
Even if a physical is not written in the rules, as the commissioner, I would take the refusal to allow a phyisical as admission that they belived something was wrong. I'd reverse the deal and fine the Rockies for Conduct Unbecoming of the Game. If there is an exam tomorrow and it urns up anything, the Colorrado Organization is going to have a huge blackeye.

If Walt had done a deal for Ubaldo, sending 4 premium propsects without demanding a physical (considering the reported velocity drop and the other red flags that have been going around), there would be know words for my anger. If Ubaldo does have to go under the knife, any team acquiring him would be lucky to get any quakity innings from him at ll.

If I'm the Cleveland organization (and their fans) I would be beyond livid if Jiminez does fail a physical.. Not only did Colorado try to scam them, he wasted their time leading up to the deadline and prevented them from possibly working another deal.

Easy does it. The only guy in the deal that we know is hurt is Alex White. I imagine the Rox don't get a physical on him either. Three months for a middle finger. I dunno.

Very interesting deal. I love the 2 key pitchers the Rockies got, and the Indians got a very team friendly contract on a guy who started the AS game a year ago.

Yes Jimenez's veolocity is down, but I'm still seeing him topping out at 98 recently. Sure it was 101 last year, but I can live with 98.

corkedbat
07-31-2011, 12:17 AM
Easy does it. The only guy in the deal that we know is hurt is Alex White. I imagine the Rox don't get a physical on him either. Three months for a middle finger. I dunno very interesting deal. I love the 2 key pitchers the Rockies got, and the Indians got a very team friendly contract on a guy who started the AS game a year ago.

Yes Jimenez's veolocity is down, but I'm still seeing him topping out at 98 recently. Sure it was 101 last year, but I can live with 98.

I won't argue with the facts of the deal, and if Kosher it is a very good deal for both parties. If I find though that one pasrt asked for a physical and the other team said no, I'm gonna be figurung the other team (Colorado here knows something or strongly suspects something and doesn't want to know. In either case, I'm coming down hard on them for bad faith bargaining.

Now one scenario I jsut thought of would excuse the Rockies. If a team like the Yankeeswanted to do a physical on Ubaldo, before agreeing to a deal, then I'd tell the Yanks to stuff it. You want to exam him first, fine, but agree to the deal (and its principals) first, then check him out all you want.

Its going to be interesting to see what really went down when the Smoke settles.

I actually would rather the Reds had gotten Colorado's side of the bargain that the Indians.

fearofpopvol1
07-31-2011, 01:43 AM
What a shame for the Reds.

Phhhl
07-31-2011, 02:17 AM
I still can't believe the Rockies traded him. I can't understand it. By all outward appearances, no franchise should expect to draft, develop and actually realize the type of talent that Jiminez represented in an entire decade of operation. The Rockies had three more years of Ubaldo Jiminez under control at a reasonable price, and yet decided to part ways.

Somthing MUST be wrong with him. Pomeranz or whatever his name is be damned, this looked like a legitimate TOR starter in his prime. This has the potential to be a tragic story for the Cleveland Indians.

savafan
07-31-2011, 02:47 AM
Now, if reason is found that the trading club knew someone was injured and didn't disclose it, the commissioner could overturn a trade. However, as a general rule, physicals are not required.

Has Selig ruled on Krivsky's protest over Majewski and the Nats yet?

Big Klu
07-31-2011, 02:58 AM
I still can't believe the Rockies traded him. I can't understand it. By all outward appearances, no franchise should expect to draft, develop and actually realize the type of talent that Jiminez represented in an entire decade of operation. The Rockies had three more years of Ubaldo Jiminez under control at a reasonable price, and yet decided to part ways.

Somthing MUST be wrong with him. Pomeranz or whatever his name is be damned, this looked like a legitimate TOR starter in his prime. This has the potential to be a tragic story for the Cleveland Indians.

Cleveland is used to that...

Red Right 88
The Drive
The Fumble
Jordan over Ehlo
Renteria singles in Counsell
Art Modell moves the Browns to Baltimore
The Decision

nemesis
07-31-2011, 03:14 AM
Cleveland is used to that...

Red Right 88
The Drive
The Fumble
Jordan over Ehlo
Renteria singles in Counsell
Art Modell moves the Browns to Baltimore
The Decision

I hate Cleveland, but that was hard to read.

jmcclain19
07-31-2011, 03:25 AM
Two years ago Mes was overweight, out of shape, no glove waste of a high draft pick. Now he's treated like the franchise savior.

Could he still be an impact bat? Sure, but in two years he could also just as easily resort to that fat kid who can't hit with no position to play.

Way too often, this board is populated by folks in love with the sun coming over the next horizon, the tease of the prospect. All the while ignoring whats right in front of their face.

The Reds had a chance here to get a cheap, top of the rotation starter who's locked up for years and they passed.

Decisions like those could seriously come back to bite them in the future.

jmcclain19
07-31-2011, 03:29 AM
I still can't believe the Rockies traded him. I can't understand it. By all outward appearances, no franchise should expect to draft, develop and actually realize the type of talent that Jiminez represented in an entire decade of operation. The Rockies had three more years of Ubaldo Jiminez under control at a reasonable price, and yet decided to part ways.

Somthing MUST be wrong with him. Pomeranz or whatever his name is be damned, this looked like a legitimate TOR starter in his prime. This has the potential to be a tragic story for the Cleveland Indians.

Reports out of Colorado mention that Ubaldo signed his way under market contract before the team went out and gave mega deals to Tulo & CarGo. Combine that with the other rumored aspect, that's he is difficult to coach, and maybe they are cutting bait. They do seem to have a nice track record lately of screwing up quite a few young potential studs. Outside of Tulo, the organization jerks guys up and down with regularity, talk dirt about them in public and don't seem to have any clear plan. See Dexter Fowler this year, Ian Stewart the last several years. Chris Iannetta as well.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the "something has to be wrong with him" theory.

edabbs44
07-31-2011, 07:21 AM
Well, if he were conscious that might be a start.

Oh yeah. I'm sure we'll just never know all the offers he made and he can't help it if the deals aren't perfect. And stuff.

Walt knows how to get a deal done. I'm not worried about that. If there is a deal there, it will happen.

PuffyPig
07-31-2011, 07:45 AM
The Reds had a chance here to get a cheap, top of the rotation starter who's locked up for years and they passed.



He might be damaged goods.

He's locked up for 2 years only.

They didn't necessarily "pass", they felt that the return didn't justify the risk of creating other holes.

MikeS21
07-31-2011, 10:12 AM
I'm not going to be upset if the Reds don't make any major deals. I'd rather see how the team plays when a healthy Cozart comes back, and with a Heisey/Alonso platoon in LF.

Move Chapman into the rotation, and the Reds have their TOR starter.

Tom Servo
09-01-2012, 01:26 AM
So between this thread, and this thread
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90725


Sooooo, I'd say many Redszoners were wrong. Not even counting yet another terrible performance tonight (which is how I remembered this discussion) Jimenez has given Cleveland 37 starts of a 5.43 ERA with a 1.573 WHIP, good for a -1.1 WAR. Good job by Walt to not do this deal and instead get us Latos in the winter. :beerme:

OnBaseMachine
09-01-2012, 01:31 AM
Funny you should bring this up, I was just thinking earlier how glad I am the Reds didn't unload the farm for Ubaldo. Walt acquired the right guy in Mat Latos.

Brutus
09-01-2012, 01:34 AM
So between this thread, and this thread
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90725


Sooooo, I'd say many Redszoners were wrong. Not even counting yet another terrible performance tonight (which is how I remembered this discussion) Jimenez has given Cleveland 37 starts of a 5.43 ERA with a 1.573 WHIP, good for a -1.1 WAR. Good job by Walt to not do this deal and instead get us Latos in the winter. :beerme:

Guilty as charged. In fairness, though, my issue wasn't just whether they got Jiminez but whether they went out and got a frontline starter in general. I'm glad the Reds invested their resources in Latos instead of Jiminez in hindsight. It's not even remotely a debate as to who got the better of that turn of events between the Indians and Reds. My frustration was not necessarily with not getting Jiminez, as much as not letting prospects get in the way of acquiring a pitcher. My first preference last summer was Shields, followed by Jiminez (Latos would have been ahead of Ubaldo for me but he really wasn't on the radar). Turns out they went out and used those prospects on Latos, which I'm thrilled about.

As far as Ubaldo, the velocity has taken another nosedive but while he's still missing some bats, the big problem is that his command is awful. He's getting the ball up in the zone (when he can even find it), and he's no longer the groundball pitcher he once was.

corkedbat
09-01-2012, 01:41 AM
Guilty as charged. In fairness, though, my issue wasn't just whether they got Jiminez but whether they went out and got a frontline starter in general. I'm glad the Reds invested their resources in Latos instead of Jiminez in hindsight. It's not even remotely a debate as to who got the better of that turn of events between the Indians and Reds. My frustration was not necessarily with not getting Jiminez, as much as not letting prospects get in the way of acquiring a pitcher. My first preference last summer was Shields, followed by Jiminez (Latos would have been ahead of Ubaldo for me but he really wasn't on the radar). Turns out they went out and used those prospects on Latos, which I'm thrilled about.

As far as Ubaldo, the velocity has taken another nosedive but while he's still missing some bats, the big problem is that his command is awful. He's getting the ball up in the zone (when he can even find it), and he's no longer the groundball pitcher he once was.

Pomerantz isn't tearing it up this season, but I'd have rather had him than Ubaldo in a deal last year and still would.

Brutus
09-01-2012, 01:45 AM
Pomerantz isn't tearing it up this season, but I'd have rather had him than Ubaldo in a deal last year and still would.

I'm not sure who the Reds had that would have given them a chance to acquire Pomeranz, especially if the Reds wanted to contend this season. Pomeranz definitely would not be a guy helping the Reds to win a pennant this year, although I don't disagree with you on his long-term prospects.

The Reds needed a guy with a proven track record. Fortunately they found one.

cincinnati chili
09-01-2012, 02:03 AM
Every Reds fan who's riding on the Aroldis Chapman cloud should take a look at the demise of Jimenez. I was here to witness his three-month meteoric rise from a guy who was already pretty good to a guy throwing 99 mph start after start and putting it right where he wanted to. It was amazing. Then, just like Kaiser Sosay... poof. He was gone. Some other guy started wearing his uniform.

Brutus
09-01-2012, 03:12 AM
Every Reds fan who's riding on the Aroldis Chapman cloud should take a look at the demise of Jimenez. I was here to witness his three-month meteoric rise from a guy who was already pretty good to a guy throwing 99 mph start after start and putting it right where he wanted to. It was amazing. Then, just like Kaiser Sosay... poof. He was gone. Some other guy started wearing his uniform.

I'm not sure how there's any comparison. For starters, Ubaldo never averaged 99. The highest his fastball ever averaged in a season was 96.1. Chapman averaged 99 in 2010 and just shy of 98 the past two seasons. But secondly, what happened with Jimenez is the exception more than the rule. Very rarely do guys lose six MPH on their fastball in the course of three seasons.

Cooper
09-01-2012, 07:19 AM
Brutus: i may be misunderstanding your post, but pitchers lose velocity on their fastball all the time. I would venture that what's happened to Jimenez is the rule. It's the first thing that goes south for all pitchers. Losing that velocity over time is the reason that a pitcher like Bronson will slowly over time have to leave the league- his fb doesn't look that much different than the rest of his pitches and he ends up striking out 4 per 9 innings rather than 6.

I also believe Jimenez is a good comp relative to physical stature. My guess is they would look more a like in similiar roles - make the adjustment - If Jimenez is a reliever he would gain some velocity on his fb.

Brutus
09-01-2012, 07:39 AM
Brutus: i may be misunderstanding your post, but pitchers lose velocity on their fastball all the time. I would venture that what's happened to Jimenez is the rule. It's the first thing that goes south for all pitchers. Losing that velocity over time is the reason that a pitcher like Bronson will slowly over time have to leave the league- his fb doesn't look that much different than the rest of his pitches and he ends up striking out 4 per 9 innings rather than 6.

I also believe Jimenez is a good comp relative to physical stature. My guess is they would look more a like in similiar roles - make the adjustment - If Jimenez is a reliever he would gain some velocity on his fb.

A mile per hour or two? Sure. That's not uncommon. But you'd be hard-pressed to show that it's common for a pitcher to lose 4-6 MPH off his fastball in a couple of seasons. That's not normal.

You used Bronson as an example. He's lost 1 MPH over the course of his entire career on average, according to Fangraphs. He hasn't really lost much velocity.

It's not normal for a guy to lose 4-6 MPH in 2-3 years time. That's not at all the rule.

Cooper
09-01-2012, 08:26 AM
It's not the rule because when it happens the guy has to leave the league and they stop measuring it when said pitcher leaves the league. John Rocker threw 96 mph when he was at the top of his game. When he had arm problems he went to winter ball to work it out and the highest he could throw was 88 mph. But the data wasn't there to show that because he wasn't in the league anymore.

They don't gather the data on guys that can no longer pitch in the league. You're looking at data points and assuming that's all the information there is. An effect can still take place but be outside the measured data points. Pitchers lose 6 mph in 3 years all the time.

traderumor
09-01-2012, 08:55 AM
Every Reds fan who's riding on the Aroldis Chapman cloud should take a look at the demise of Jimenez. I was here to witness his three-month meteoric rise from a guy who was already pretty good to a guy throwing 99 mph start after start and putting it right where he wanted to. It was amazing. Then, just like Kaiser Sosay... poof. He was gone. Some other guy started wearing his uniform.
Yet there are power guys who have long, productive careers also. I'm not sure I get the correlation between "Jimenez has lost it" and "Chapman is lights out now, but beware, he might lose it tomorrow." Sure, he might pop an elbow tendon, or blow out his shoulder, or get wild, fall in love and lose his committment, or other things. But to use Jimenez as a "take heed" example, that is just faulty logic.

Brutus
09-01-2012, 09:03 AM
It's not the rule because when it happens the guy has to leave the league and they stop measuring it when said pitcher leaves the league. John Rocker threw 96 mph when he was at the top of his game. When he had arm problems he went to winter ball to work it out and the highest he could throw was 88 mph. But the data wasn't there to show that because he wasn't in the league anymore.

They don't gather the data on guys that can no longer pitch in the league. You're looking at data points and assuming that's all the information there is. An effect can still take place but be outside the measured data points. Pitchers lose 6 mph in 3 years all the time.

If it happens so often, why are you using a guy that last pitched almost 10 years ago as an example?

Show where all these pitchers are that lose 6 mph in 3 years "all the time." Where are they all? If it is the "rule" then you should have no problem looking up dozens and dozens of examples in the last 10 years alone. After all, there are hundreds of active pitchers in any given year, so if it's the rule and not the exception, then you should have a list that's overflowing with examples, yes?

Cooper
09-01-2012, 09:40 AM
Brutus: my only point worth discussing is that the data may not show the guys that lose it may not be pitching in the MLB. They may be outside data collection end points (in the minors, sitting at home, in an announcers booth, etc...), thus you cannot collect the data -- i guess i could try to list all those guys to prove a point, but it would take a long, long time.

In my 2nd post, I gave the major reason as to why it may not show up in the data. The pitchers that lose the velocity are no longer in the league....you're post following mine attempted to reframe the end points that were the basis of my reasoning. Asking me to prove something after you have reframed the the argument is contrarian at it's best and intellectually dishonest at it's worst.

Brutus
09-01-2012, 09:47 AM
Brutus: my only point worth discussing is that the data may not show the guys that lose it may not be pitching in the MLB. They may be outside data collection end points (in the minors, sitting at home, in an announcers booth, etc...), thus you cannot collect the data -- i guess i could try to list all those guys to prove a point, but it would take a long, long time.

In my 2nd post, I gave the major reason as to why it may not show up in the data. The pitchers that lose the velocity are no longer in the league....you're post following mine attempted to reframe the end points that were the basis of my reasoning. Asking me to prove something after you have reframed the the argument is contrarian at it's best and intellectually dishonest at it's worst.

Intellectually dishonest? Here was my comment you quoted, "But secondly, what happened with Jimenez is the exception more than the rule. Very rarely do guys lose six MPH on their fastball in the course of three seasons."

You replied: "i may be misunderstanding your post, but pitchers lose velocity on their fastball all the time. I would venture that what's happened to Jimenez is the rule."

I clarified: "A mile per hour or two? Sure. That's not uncommon. But you'd be hard-pressed to show that it's common for a pitcher to lose 4-6 MPH off his fastball in a couple of seasons. That's not normal."

So who's being intellectually dishonest? You're accusing me of reframing the argument. I've been very clear and consistent with my position. You stated that it is in fact a rule, i.e. common, for players to suddenly lose 4-6 MPH off a fastball in a couple of seasons. So I'm asking you to show that it's common with more than a couple of isolated examples.

Fangraphs has data on velocity for any pitcher that's pitched since around 2000 or 2001, including guys that are no longer in the league. So if it's so common, you have a 10-year dataset to find all of these examples of guys losing velocity so rapidly. A 10-year dataset should be plenty if it's the rule as you're suggesting. There's nothing intellectually dishonest or contrarian about this. You stated this was common, and I'm asking you to show that.

Cooper
09-01-2012, 10:13 AM
My original point was/is the data may not capture all the info -and i gave you some reasons as to why that might be the case (the pitcher may no longer be in the league), thus it may be nary impossible to see this effect. Yet, you continue to ask me to use the data to make my point...why would i use the data when i think it may be missing a big piece of information?

Surely, you would agree that pitchers lose velocity. My point is, when they do, it may happen to such an extent that it may not get measured.

I will agree that within the scope of the numbers you're looking at -that your premise is correct. I think it would be wise to ask "does this information measure everything?" If you'd rather not go down that path and ask that question then i understand - but the approach is rather narrow and uninformed - that's not to say you are doing that. But to not ask that question "what's missing here?" Can cause one to make some faulty assumptions. I was attempting to point that out.

traderumor
09-01-2012, 10:41 AM
Tim Lincecum

Vottomatic
09-01-2012, 11:35 PM
Another thread that seems to be derailed

camisadelgolf
09-02-2012, 06:18 AM
My original point was/is the data may not capture all the info -and i gave you some reasons as to why that might be the case (the pitcher may no longer be in the league), thus it may be nary impossible to see this effect. Yet, you continue to ask me to use the data to make my point...why would i use the data when i think it may be missing a big piece of information?

Surely, you would agree that pitchers lose velocity. My point is, when they do, it may happen to such an extent that it may not get measured.

I will agree that within the scope of the numbers you're looking at -that your premise is correct. I think it would be wise to ask "does this information measure everything?" If you'd rather not go down that path and ask that question then i understand - but the approach is rather narrow and uninformed - that's not to say you are doing that. But to not ask that question "what's missing here?" Can cause one to make some faulty assumptions. I was attempting to point that out.
Of all things, how could you argue that a decline in velocity may not be measured?

oregonred
09-02-2012, 01:21 PM
Another classic RZ read... Not sure what made me chuckle more - "Walt wake up, shame for the Reds, can't count on rookies, etc."

What a disaster this deal would have been.

kaldaniels
09-02-2012, 01:41 PM
Another classic RZ read... Not sure what made me chuckle more - "Walt wake up, shame for the Reds, can't count on rookies, etc."

What a disaster this deal would have been.

Don't let the "I want no part of Ludwick" slip by. Actually that doesn't bother me.

Playing the "shame" card bothers me. When you say that, you'd better be right.

Brutus
09-02-2012, 01:44 PM
Don't let the "I want no part of Ludwick" slip by. Actually that doesn't bother me.

Playing the "shame" card bothers me. When you say that, you'd better be right.

The Reds acquired Latos instead. So the Reds apparently agreed with the idea they needed an upgrade in the staff.

kaldaniels
09-02-2012, 01:49 PM
The Reds acquired Latos instead. So the Reds apparently agreed with the idea they needed an upgrade in the staff.

That has nothing to do with the statement that "if the Reds didn't want to give up prospects for UJ - shame on them".

Brutus
09-02-2012, 01:51 PM
That has nothing to do with the statement that "if the Reds didn't want to give up prospects for UJ - shame on them".

Yes it does considering that's the exact reason I made the comment. The whole premise of the statement was that the Reds shouldn't count on rookies and needed an upgrade in the staff.

The Reds showed in the offseason that they shared that opinion, which rendered my concerns moot. After all, I did say "IF" (emphasis added). And as I explained earlier, it's not just whether they gave up prospects for Ubaldo, but whether they didn't acquire another pitcher in general for lack of parting with prospects. But it seems you aren't interested in context, you're just picking out one comment without any attempt to find out the motivation behind it.

Brutus
09-02-2012, 01:55 PM
Another classic RZ read... Not sure what made me chuckle more - "Walt wake up, shame for the Reds, can't count on rookies, etc."

What a disaster this deal would have been.

It's interesting to me that people that didn't give input on a thread when it was happening would come to it and criticize later. I think that's poor form, frankly. If the thread wasn't on your radar at the time, I don't think someone has any business taking the thread out of context a year later.

kaldaniels
09-02-2012, 01:56 PM
It's funny Brutus you advocated trading top prospects for UJ. Had that happened I think we can agree that Latos would not be here.

I understand your premise, but you zeroed in on UJ and made your shame remark just concerning him. It is right there to see. Poor choice of words perhaps? But like I said, if you play the shame card you better be spot on.

Brutus
09-02-2012, 02:01 PM
It's funny Brutus you advocated trading top prospects for UJ. Had that happened I think we can agree that Latos would not be here.

I understand your premise, but you zeroed in on UJ and made your shame remark just concerning him. It is right there to see. Poor choice of words perhaps? But like I said, if you play the shame card you better be spot on.

No you don't come back a year later and twist the context of a comment based on the end result. Either you discuss this in its original context or you should leave it alone.

The comment was based on whether the Reds only didn't trade for a top pitcher because of prospects. If they didn't trade top prospects because they were concerned about Jimenez or his health, then I had no problems with that. At the time, though, Shields was ruled out as Tampa wasn't going to trade him and there weren't any other guys on the radar that we knew of. My issue was not that they didn't trade for Jimenez, but rather if not wanting to part with prospects to acquire any top pitcher.

They later showed that wasn't the issue, which rendered my "if" statement null and void.

Again, don't twist the context after the fact. That's poor form. You didn't seem too concerned addressing this last year, so don't bother to do it now. No one raised a major issue with the comment last year, because they understood the context. So people showing up a year after the fact should stop playing Monday morning QB.

Vottomatic
09-02-2012, 02:06 PM
Yeah.This is something I think this message board needs less of.
Pointing fingers and telling someone they were wrong a year or more later. What purpose does it serve? The only purpose is to stroke the ego of the one doing the attack.

I come one here looking for some info on Jiminez and how he's doing in Cleveland a year later, and I get a "you said this and you were soooooo wrong" debate. It gets old.

I feel like complaining to the mods about it quite often. Does it fit under trolling?

dougdirt
09-02-2012, 02:21 PM
Yeah.This is something I think this message board needs less of.
Pointing fingers and telling someone they were wrong a year or more later. What purpose does it serve? The only purpose is to stroke the ego of the one doing the attack.

I come one here looking for some info on Jiminez and how he's doing in Cleveland a year later, and I get a "you said this and you were soooooo wrong" debate. It gets old.

I feel like complaining to the mods about it quite often. Does it fit under trolling?

Quoted for truth.

kaldaniels
09-02-2012, 02:24 PM
Extreme words should only be used in extreme circumstances.

"Fire him"
"incompetent"
"shame"
Etc.

When using a word like the above, tread carefully. That is all I am saying...I don't care if Brutus wanted to trade Mes and/or others for Ubaldo.

It's all fair game to me if you ask me however. No statute of limitations on any of my posts...go dig if you like.

Brutus
09-02-2012, 02:33 PM
Extreme words should only be used in extreme circumstances.

"Fire him"
"incompetent"
"shame"
Etc.

When using a word like the above, tread carefully. That is all I am saying...I don't care if Brutus wanted to trade Mes and/or others for Ubaldo.

It's all fair game to me if you ask me however. No statute of limitations on any of my posts...go dig if you like.

If you were co concerned by the words "if" and "shame" then why didn't you express it at the time instead of waiting until you had a year of hindsight? And further, who made you the arbitrator of what words are extreme and which ones should be used only in extreme circumstances?

nate
09-02-2012, 02:40 PM
I feel like complaining to the mods about it quite often. Does it fit under trolling?

To me it does, yes.

kaldaniels
09-02-2012, 07:34 PM
Let me just say my piece here and that will be it from me on the matter (unless prodded further :D)

Look, you guys are the greatest. Brutus, you are the go-to guy for roster/procedural rules for me. Doug, you are the minors guy. Nate, you, along with Rick are the metric/analytical guys for me. Whenever I straight up ask a question you guys come through. So p-ing you all off is not my intentions, believe me.

I can't remember the last time I dug up a quote to say "I told you so" to someone. So please don't think that is my MO. However, the thread had been bumped up and the "shame" remark referenced and like a bad wreck, I couldn't look away. Reading my initial, "I have a problem with that" post, I wasn't trying to come off as a tough guy, but posts like that really do bug me. Slice it/dice it however, the UJ deal just came through and the "shame on them" remark was made. Now context or qualifers can be disputed, but the post says what it does, and at mimimum to me, that is a pretty loaded post right after the Reds "missed out" on UJ. Brutus, you may disagree, but if so, we will agree to disagree.

Here's the root of the matter though. The Reds are my team. The Reds front office is my front office. I love them. So, when I feel shots are taken at them, I am gonna speak up. After the Rolen deal several outrageous things were said ex. "Walt should be fired", that just seem silly now. On the game threads if a runner gets thrown at home, you can bet a "Fire Berry" remark is coming. And so on and so forth...

So, as much as "dragging up old posts" might irk you guys, extreme reactions to moves irks me. Thats just how I am. I fully stand by my thought that if you don't want something to be drug back up, don't say it in the first place. Now again, I'm not advocating bringing back stuff up from the past on a regular basis by any means...however I do think at times outrageous remarks should be put in perspective after the fact.

So I apologize for a lack of tact earlier, but I simply ask that you at least understand where I am coming from. The Reds are my team, and if I think a shot is being fired in their direction unfairly, I may speak up about it. I do hope that I handle it better than earlier today however.

edabbs44
09-02-2012, 10:04 PM
Yeah.This is something I think this message board needs less of.
Pointing fingers and telling someone they were wrong a year or more later. What purpose does it serve? The only purpose is to stroke the ego of the one doing the attack.

I come one here looking for some info on Jiminez and how he's doing in Cleveland a year later, and I get a "you said this and you were soooooo wrong" debate. It gets old.

I feel like complaining to the mods about it quite often. Does it fit under trolling?

I think it has value but it likely will never work out for obvious reasons. For all the strong predictions/criticisms/assessments/etc on what a manager/GM/entire FO should do at any given time, I for one would probably pay attention more to those with a better track record. If someone throws around very opinionated comments on a regular basis and is proven to be incorrect fairly often, that is very relevant to the conversation.

REDREAD
09-02-2012, 11:20 PM
Yeah.This is something I think this message board needs less of.
Pointing fingers and telling someone they were wrong a year or more later. What purpose does it serve? The only purpose is to stroke the ego of the one doing the attack.


I agree.. It's ok to say "Wow, I'm glad we didn't get UJ", but it's bad manners to start making fun of people that were in favor of the trade over a year ago.
The board could use less of this....

traderumor
09-02-2012, 11:22 PM
I think it has value but it likely will never work out for obvious reasons. For all the strong predictions/criticisms/assessments/etc on what a manager/GM/entire FO should do at any given time, I for one would probably pay attention more to those with a better track record. If someone throws around very opinionated comments on a regular basis and is proven to be incorrect fairly often, that is very relevant to the conversation.Agreed. I am not understanding why it is out of bounds to "keep score" when several paragraph posts are made to support positions and they turn out to be inaccurate. I have no problem chuckling at all the experts who were frothing at the mouth to acquire Bedard at any price for example, with the obligatory "somebody wake up (insert GM name here)" snarky remark to boot. There are a lot of dogmatic and aggressive opinions presented on here. I think its fair game to dredge that up. If one doesn't want anyone to point out their inaccuracies, then back off when coming on so strong when the opinion is at the "what they should do" stage. It is cowardly to post stuff on here and not be willing to stand behind it later.

After all, not too many opportunities are missed to slide in "I was right about that one" when it occurs.

Scrap Irony
09-02-2012, 11:26 PM
I don't understand why posters get offended when they're shown to be wrong.

If you're wrong, so be it.

It's like we, as a society, don't want to be held to our former words. You have enough courage to type them. Own them. Accept them. Roll on.

I don't know how many wrong-headed comments I've made in the decade-plus I've been on this board, but, should anyone bring them back up, I'll gladly accept whatever "shame" they bring because they're my words. There may be a thousand of them. So be it.

Cedric
09-03-2012, 12:10 AM
Let me just say my piece here and that will be it from me on the matter (unless prodded further :D)

Look, you guys are the greatest. Brutus, you are the go-to guy for roster/procedural rules for me. Doug, you are the minors guy. Nate, you, along with Rick are the metric/analytical guys for me. Whenever I straight up ask a question you guys come through. So p-ing you all off is not my intentions, believe me.

I can't remember the last time I dug up a quote to say "I told you so" to someone. So please don't think that is my MO. However, the thread had been bumped up and the "shame" remark referenced and like a bad wreck, I couldn't look away. Reading my initial, "I have a problem with that" post, I wasn't trying to come off as a tough guy, but posts like that really do bug me. Slice it/dice it however, the UJ deal just came through and the "shame on them" remark was made. Now context or qualifers can be disputed, but the post says what it does, and at mimimum to me, that is a pretty loaded post right after the Reds "missed out" on UJ. Brutus, you may disagree, but if so, we will agree to disagree.

Here's the root of the matter though. The Reds are my team. The Reds front office is my front office. I love them. So, when I feel shots are taken at them, I am gonna speak up. After the Rolen deal several outrageous things were said ex. "Walt should be fired", that just seem silly now. On the game threads if a runner gets thrown at home, you can bet a "Fire Berry" remark is coming. And so on and so forth...

So, as much as "dragging up old posts" might irk you guys, extreme reactions to moves irks me. Thats just how I am. I fully stand by my thought that if you don't want something to be drug back up, don't say it in the first place. Now again, I'm not advocating bringing back stuff up from the past on a regular basis by any means...however I do think at times outrageous remarks should be put in perspective after the fact.

So I apologize for a lack of tact earlier, but I simply ask that you at least understand where I am coming from. The Reds are my team, and if I think a shot is being fired in their direction unfairly, I may speak up about it. I do hope that I handle it better than earlier today however.



Mark Berry is terrible at his job.

traderumor
09-03-2012, 10:47 AM
I don't understand why posters get offended when they're shown to be wrong.

If you're wrong, so be it.

It's like we, as a society, don't want to be held to our former words. You have enough courage to type them. Own them. Accept them. Roll on.

I don't know how many wrong-headed comments I've made in the decade-plus I've been on this board, but, should anyone bring them back up, I'll gladly accept whatever "shame" they bring because they're my words. There may be a thousand of them. So be it.Yes. And dude, you're wrong a lot ;):p

dougdirt
09-03-2012, 10:54 AM
I don't understand why posters get offended when they're shown to be wrong.

If you're wrong, so be it.

It's like we, as a society, don't want to be held to our former words. You have enough courage to type them. Own them. Accept them. Roll on.

I don't know how many wrong-headed comments I've made in the decade-plus I've been on this board, but, should anyone bring them back up, I'll gladly accept whatever "shame" they bring because they're my words. There may be a thousand of them. So be it.

Because "I told you so's" are what 10 years old do, not what adults do.

edabbs44
09-03-2012, 12:47 PM
Because "I told you so's" are what 10 years old do, not what adults do.

Does the same go for when the comments are made about decisions made by the Reds FO?

Tom Servo
09-03-2012, 12:48 PM
Because "I told you so's" are what 10 years old do, not what adults do.
But making a statement like "Zach Stewart will win a Cy Young for Toronto. Bank on it. Seriously" is totally an adult way to say that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

alloverjr
09-03-2012, 12:59 PM
Because "I told you so's" are what 10 years old do, not what adults do.

Agreed. I was thinking middle school girls (don't have any boys, sorry) when I was reading through this. I don't get the "need" for some on here to point out when people are wrong about an opinion they had. Just strikes me as very small and insecure.

Screwball
09-03-2012, 01:21 PM
Agreed. I was thinking middle school girls (don't have any boys, sorry) when I was reading through this. I don't get the "need" for some on here to point out when people are wrong about an opinion they had. Just strikes me as very small and insecure.

Actually, I'd say the ones who are small and insecure are the ones who can't handle being told they were wrong.

RANDY IN INDY
09-03-2012, 01:26 PM
I don't understand why posters get offended when they're shown to be wrong.

If you're wrong, so be it.

It's like we, as a society, don't want to be held to our former words. You have enough courage to type them. Own them. Accept them. Roll on.

I don't know how many wrong-headed comments I've made in the decade-plus I've been on this board, but, should anyone bring them back up, I'll gladly accept whatever "shame" they bring because they're my words. There may be a thousand of them. So be it.

Agree.

Scrap Irony
09-03-2012, 01:40 PM
Because "I told you so's" are what 10 years old do, not what adults do.

I think this is slightly backward thinking.

Refusing to accept responsibility for what you've said in the past is the ten-year-old act. Pointing it out is what both children and adults do. Accepting past words and the fact that you're wrong is a sign of maturity.

dougdirt
09-03-2012, 01:43 PM
But making a statement like "Zach Stewart will win a Cy Young for Toronto. Bank on it. Seriously" is totally an adult way to say that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Yes. Exactly.

dougdirt
09-03-2012, 01:44 PM
Actually, I'd say the ones who are small and insecure are the ones who can't handle being told they were wrong.

It isn't about being told they were wrong. Most of us can accept it. The problem is going out of your way to do it. It is small. Petty.

dougdirt
09-03-2012, 01:45 PM
I think this is slightly backward thinking.

Refusing to accept responsibility for what you've said in the past is the ten-year-old act. Pointing it out is what both children and adults do. Accepting past words and the fact that you're wrong is a sign of maturity.

Going out of ones way to go back and find something that is completely irrelevant to anything going on today to point out where someone is wrong is something I equate to what a child would do. If you know adults who also do that, I would feel that you hang out with a bunch of immature adults.

dougdirt
09-03-2012, 01:48 PM
Point is, we have all been wrong. Very wrong. A little wrong. And every kind of wrong in between.

Going around and saying I told you so doesn't do anything except divide people.

RANDY IN INDY
09-03-2012, 01:54 PM
Like it or not, the tone that people make statements with in the present might have an effect on how much someone else might want to dig something up to remind them about it later. That tone can be as divisive as the reminder.

nate
09-03-2012, 01:58 PM
To me, narco-neenering is like a painting of a sad clown: sad and creepy.

http://sweetandweak.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/the_sad_clown1.jpg

Screwball
09-03-2012, 02:28 PM
It isn't about being told they were wrong. Most of us can accept it. The problem is going out of your way to do it. It is small. Petty.

Oh, right. Jimenez got crushed again and Servo was reminded of the thread that, at one point, discussed unloading top prospects to get him. Bumping that thread is so small and petty of him. How dare he.

dougdirt
09-03-2012, 02:35 PM
Oh, right. Jimenez got crushed again and Servo was reminded of the thread that, at one point, discussed unloading top prospects to get him. Bumping that thread is so small and petty of him. How dare he.

I don't recall calling anyone out in my posts. Nor do I have a problem with bumping up a discussion thread to point out that Jiminez got shelled and that it was probably not going to work out for the Reds had they traded for him.

I have a problem when people start going back and saying "see you were wrong", or something similar to that (which also includes "see, I was right")

Screwball
09-03-2012, 02:39 PM
It isn't about being told they were wrong. Most of us can accept it.


I have a problem when people start going back and saying "see you were wrong", or something similar to that

Ok, so it isn't about being told you were wrong, it's about being told you were wrong. Got it.

westofyou
09-03-2012, 02:40 PM
If you take it out and swing it around like it's the only one in the room then of course people will talk about it forever and ever, it's more a reality in community settings than people not remembering, not needling, not noticing you swinging it around like it's the only one out there.

It's human nature, happens in all aspects of life.

dougdirt
09-03-2012, 02:45 PM
Ok, so it isn't about being told you were wrong, it's about being told you were wrong. Got it.

No, you don't. I don't mind being wrong, everyone is. I just think it is petty to come back after long periods of time to tell someone they are wrong. It is one thing to tell me I am wrong when I say that Johnny Cueto has 10 wins as of September 3, 2012. It comes off as petty to go find something one said 12 months ago and tell them they were wrong, even if they turned out to be wrong.

Screwball
09-03-2012, 03:05 PM
No, you don't. I don't mind being wrong, everyone is. I just think it is petty to come back after long periods of time to tell someone they are wrong. It is one thing to tell me I am wrong when I say that Johnny Cueto has 10 wins as of September 3, 2012. It comes off as petty to go find something one said 12 months ago and tell them they were wrong, even if they turned out to be wrong.

Oh ok, thanks for setting me straight. Quick question, though -- how long is this statute of limitations on being wrong? 11 months? 6 months? How about we just make it 3 minutes? You now have 3 minutes to tell someone they're wrong, else you're labeled small and petty and you suck.

Whatever though, we already had this argument in another thread. WOY's post pretty much hit the nail on the head. I don't think much is being added at this point.

kaldaniels
09-03-2012, 03:16 PM
Oh ok, thanks for setting me straight. Quick question, though -- how long is this statute of limitations on being wrong? 11 months? 6 months? How about we just make it 3 minutes? You now have 3 minutes to tell someone they're wrong, else you're labeled small and petty and you suck.

Whatever though, we already had this argument in another thread. WOY's post pretty much hit the nail on the head. I don't think much is being added at this point.

I just wish I was half as eloquent as WOY....he absolutely nailed it. Well done.

RANDY IN INDY
09-03-2012, 03:19 PM
If you take it out and swing it around like it's the only one in the room then of course people will talk about it forever and ever, it's more a reality in community settings than people not remembering, not needling, not noticing you swinging it around like it's the only one out there.

It's human nature, happens in all aspects of life.

:thumbup: I like your version better than mine.

dougdirt
09-03-2012, 03:21 PM
I just wish I was half as eloquent as WOY....he absolutely nailed it. Well done.

Of course human nature doesn't make something right. Just because it happens "everywhere" doesn't make it right.

dougdirt
09-03-2012, 03:29 PM
Oh ok, thanks for setting me straight. Quick question, though -- how long is this statute of limitations on being wrong? 11 months? 6 months? How about we just make it 3 minutes? You now have 3 minutes to tell someone they're wrong, else you're labeled small and petty and you suck.

Whatever though, we already had this argument in another thread. WOY's post pretty much hit the nail on the head. I don't think much is being added at this point.


There is no statute of limitations on being wrong. I just don't see a point in going back in time to tell someone that their opinion was wrong. Either someone is trying to pat themselves on the back or trying to put someone else down.

You also seem to be confusing doing things that are small and petty with people who are those things.

edabbs44
09-03-2012, 03:35 PM
There is no statute of limitations on being wrong. I just don't see a point in going back in time to tell someone that their opinion was wrong. Either someone is trying to pat themselves on the back or trying to put someone else down.

You also seem to be confusing doing things that are small and petty with people who are those things.

So for all the in depth, painfully detailed, ridiculously broken down discussions that happen in here, it doesnt matter if they end up being right or wrong? It's only about how it is presented at the time?

That's pretty weak. Hold yourself out, own it for life. If you get called out down the road, who cares? It's a friggin message board.

RANDY IN INDY
09-03-2012, 03:35 PM
Having strong opinions and stating them strongly tends to get you smacked around when they turn out to be wrong. Just sayin'........

dougdirt
09-03-2012, 03:40 PM
So for all the in depth, painfully detailed, ridiculously broken down discussions that happen in here, it doesnt matter if they end up being right or wrong? It's only about how it is presented at the time?

That's pretty weak. Hold yourself out, own it for life. If you get called out down the road, who cares? It's a friggin message board.

It isn't about owning it or pretending it never happened. It is that going out of the way to either pat yourself on the back or try to put it back in someones face. That might not bother you. It bothers me. Even if they aren't doing it toward me.

kaldaniels
09-03-2012, 03:44 PM
Of course human nature doesn't make something right. Just because it happens "everywhere" doesn't make it right.

I agree Doug. But WOY was simply stating the reality of the situation.

Being aware of the environment one is in is a cruical skill in life. I think everyone on this board knows that making an outrageous remark could very well get thrown back in their face. So my belief is "post carefully and don't feign outrage when something is brought back up".

I know if improperly done, it can be a petty thing to drag up an old post...no question about it so I agree with that. However, if you describe doing so as "petty", how would you go about describing know-it-all and/or extreme posts in the present. The "leave the past alone" guys in this thread have called the other side several names in this thread...but have pretty much remained silent on how they describe inflammatory/extreme posts to begin with. I'm not a total idiot...I know it can be immature to say "I told you so" so I agree with that sentiment. But take your saying "I told you so" is for 10 year olds remark. That is a post that is gonna stick in my head for a long time...an example of what WOY was referring to. Is dougdirt not going to have an "I told you so" moment in the years to come...maybe, maybe not? But if I notice you "tooting your own horn" (as you wrote in the above post) or saying "I told you so" to some effect...it is human nature that I'm gonna remember your 10-year old remark and this thread.

Every post I make on this board I realize is archived and could be re-introduced at any point...something I rarely lose track of. While it may not be "ethical", if someone wants to drag one of my old posts up I will never cry victim or call someone a troll. I will own up to anything I have ever posted...and yes at times in the past 6 or 7 years I have been petty and immature and can admit that.

kaldaniels
09-03-2012, 03:48 PM
It isn't about owning it or pretending it never happened. It is that going out of the way to either pat yourself on the back or try to put it back in someones face. That might not bother you. It bothers me. Even if they aren't doing it toward me.

And with all due respect I think that is where we differ. It doesn't bother me all that much when people have to answer to their old posts. But it does bother me with people act like know-it-alls. Just a difference in personality I truly believe.

Having said that I really do think there is a huge gray area in regards to each side of this discussion so there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

Vottomatic
09-03-2012, 03:59 PM
Telling someone "I told you so" or "you were wrong" typically ends up eating up 3 or 10 pages of childish arguing that derails a thread. And this thread is a great example.

traderumor
09-03-2012, 04:51 PM
Because "I told you so's" are what 10 years old do, not what adults do.Geesh, my being wrong on this board and being shown where I was in error is part of where I have learned a lot about the game I didn't realize. I consider it accountability. I don't like being told I'm wrong, but there are times I am and am "adult" enough to learn from it. I would consider it childish to just say whatever you want and not want anyone to say "dude, that's just not accurate. You don't have your facts straight. You need to consider these things."

I had a lot of false presuppositions about the game, esp. at the analytical level that opened my eyes to a different, better way of looking at the inner workings of the game. If people hadn't pointed out the number of ingrained myths that led me to false conclusions, I'd still know very little about breaking this game down and "seeing" games. If people would try a little humility and laughing at themselves, maybe they'd experience the same thing.

Wonderful Monds
09-03-2012, 04:57 PM
When did this message board get so thin skinned?

camisadelgolf
09-03-2012, 05:52 PM
When did this message board get so thin skinned?
It happens every time the Reds lose a close game.

Nathan
09-03-2012, 06:16 PM
Does every thread that is resurrected from the dead have to turn into a pissing contest? Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong, and they can usually see for themselves which side they are on, without someone who happened to be right bragging they weren't wrong--this time. But, who am I? Carry on.

mth123
09-03-2012, 06:21 PM
Does every thread that is resurrected from the dead have to turn into a pissing contest? Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong, and they can usually see for themselves which side they are on, without someone who happened to be right bragging they weren't wrong--this time. But, who am I? Carry on.

:thumbup:

Seems everybody remembers when others are wrong and never when they are right, yet they have the opposite memory of their own posts, remembering only the right ones.

If we played this game every time somebody is wrong, the board would be as cluttered with this junk every day as it was today.

Tom Servo
09-03-2012, 06:28 PM
FWIW, my intention in topping this thread was to start a discussion on Jimenez's disastrous Cleveland run and credit Walt. I was not looking to call out anybody, especially since just about all of us were on board with the idea of trading for him. But Walt was right not to unload the farm and instead addressed the need for a guy with ace potential in the offseason.

Brutus
09-03-2012, 06:37 PM
FWIW, my intention in topping this thread was to start a discussion on Jimenez's disastrous Cleveland run and credit Walt. I was not looking to call out anybody, especially since just about all of us were on board with the idea of trading for him. But Walt was right not to unload the farm and instead addressed the need for a guy with ace potential in the offseason.

Personally, I didn't think your post was to call out anyone else. There were a few subsequent follow-ups that were meant to chastise without any grasp of the context of the comments, and much worse, made no attempt to clarify or engage the comments when they were made.

Some of the replies in this thread have been addressed toward my comments last summer. As I've said, I never implied that the Reds were shameful for not trading for Ubaldo. Rather, I said that if they were merely unwilling to part with prospects in order to acquire a pitcher of Ubaldo's caliber (hence why I used the word "IF" when mentioning parting with prospects), then that would have been a shame. But Walt showed it wasn't that he was unwilling to part with prospects and wound up acquiring Latos instead. So that was the whole gist of my concern, and it was proven moot. Yet people who were not involved in the conversation last summer are suddenly playing Monday morning QB without any grasp of that context. Funny thing is, no one seemed concerned by the context of my comments last summer.

cincrazy
09-03-2012, 06:47 PM
Does every thread that is resurrected from the dead have to turn into a pissing contest? Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong, and they can usually see for themselves which side they are on, without someone who happened to be right bragging they weren't wrong--this time. But, who am I? Carry on.

Amen brother

nate
09-03-2012, 07:05 PM
Interestingly, Cleveland's record is 56-78. The Rockies: 55-77.

Obviously, the Indians "won" the trade!

:cool:

Always Red
09-03-2012, 08:28 PM
Does every thread that is resurrected from the dead have to turn into a pissing contest? Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong, and they can usually see for themselves which side they are on, without someone who happened to be right bragging they weren't wrong--this time. But, who am I? Carry on.

This place used to be a nice neighborhood bar, where one could come in, give an opinion, and either be ignored or welcomed or gently corrected with fact.

These days, every single opinion is challenged, no matter what back up facts one has (which are usually wrong by one metric or another).

It's no longer a comfortable neighborhood bar. It's a pissing contest that I no longer which to contest. There are a lot of folks here who are right, always, no matter what (per them), and that is the single reason that other posters bring it up when they are wrong. This has become a place where some folks think their opinion is better than others opinions are. And, as it turns out, they are all just opinions.

When some folks get ridiculed for their opinions, and as it turns out, they are right, well then it's natural for them to point out that they indeed were right.

Or, as some say, what goes around, always comes around. :D

oregonred
09-04-2012, 12:13 AM
Another RZ thread that got derailed and resulted in another peeing contest, which certainly wasn't the intent. I think WOY and others nailed it succinctly. Brutus you bring a lot to the board and no personal insult was intended.

Everyone was frustrated about 2011 and how the season progressed. Seeing the Brewers grab Grienke, Marcum in the offseason and then KRod during the deadline en route to the playoffs while the Reds did little in the offseason was very frustrating and led to a lot of redundant posts last summer - heck there wasn't a whole lot else to talk about when the team couldn't win back to back games for months on end... Reds needed a hammer at the top of the rotation to play with the big boys. Context fully understood.

There were countless deadline threads last July and Did Walt Fail polls...but sometimes the best action and result was not being part of the action at the high stakes table. 2011 was a lost cause and that was evident by late July so the Reds wisely sat out the overinflated deadline deals in 2011 saving fire for better timing in the offseason (Latos, Marshall). Facts are facts and trading for Jimenez would have set the franchise back greatly and would have been an absolutely terrible decision with major impact to the organization's 2012 and beyond success. Hindsight, yes but there were flags that many pointed out on this particular deadline deal during a season that wasn't salvagable. The long term results of this deal would have been disastrous.

This used to be a place where people didn't take things so seriously or personally. Heck, before many of the most prolific posters in this particular thread were part of Redszone, I was so beaten down and humbled by the Lost Decade and the annual pitching rotations from Bowden's junkyard that for a fleeting thread or two I thought signing Eric Milton was actually a half decent idea...

The club is 82-54 and on a run like none of us have seen in a generation. So let's move on from this thread and have the moderators shut this one down...

Vottomatic
09-04-2012, 08:50 AM
We already have a thread titled "I was wrong about......".

Maybe we should start a thread titled "YOU were wrong about........". Then those who like to thump their chests and point out others mistakes can lump it all in there. :D ;) :thumbup:

(Just kidding, of course)

dsmith421
09-04-2012, 09:44 AM
This place used to be a nice neighborhood bar, where one could come in, give an opinion, and either be ignored or welcomed or gently corrected with fact.

These days, every single opinion is challenged, no matter what back up facts one has (which are usually wrong by one metric or another).

It's no longer a comfortable neighborhood bar. It's a pissing contest that I no longer which to contest. There are a lot of folks here who are right, always, no matter what (per them), and that is the single reason that other posters bring it up when they are wrong. This has become a place where some folks think their opinion is better than others opinions are. And, as it turns out, they are all just opinions.

I would co-sign on this. RZ was a good-natured community when I signed on, it doesn't feel like that any more. Maybe that's because the team is now good, maybe it's because the regulars I enjoyed then have largely signed off, but it's different now. Get off my lawn.

REDREAD
09-04-2012, 09:47 AM
Well.. we can see the results speak for themselves.. There's a lot less regular posters on this board than there was years ago. IMO, Redszone is a less friendiler place to post.

I guess I don't see what purpose is served by people pointing out that Poster X thought the Reds should've emptied the farm for Jimmeniz.. It's going to annoy the person who said that.. What other purpose does it serve, other than perhaps providing some entertainment for the person that calls out the other person? Just doesn't seem like a constructive exercise.

This used to be a discussion board for entertainment purposes.. is it supposed to be some kind of evaluation board now?

mdccclxix
09-04-2012, 11:15 AM
I'm glad the Reds didn't get Ubaldo, but the fact they were in on him should give anyone pause. The Reds didn't do well to not acquire Ubaldo, they were in some sense lucky the Rockies asked for too much.

Scrap Irony
09-04-2012, 12:12 PM
I'm glad the Reds didn't get Ubaldo, but the fact they were in on him should give anyone pause. The Reds didn't do well to not acquire Ubaldo, they were in some sense lucky the Rockies asked for too much.

Maybe.

Depending on cost, an acquisition of Jimenez made sense then and does now as well.

For example, I'd love to see the Reds roll the dice on someone like Ubaldo for, say, Todd Redmond and Neftali Soto this off-season. (This assumed most of the salary would be paid by the Indians.)

However, if the cost of Ubaldo is two top-flight young starters-- say, Cingrani and Corcino-- the answer is obviously no.

mdccclxix
09-04-2012, 12:26 PM
Maybe.

Depending on cost, an acquisition of Jimenez made sense then and does now as well.

For example, I'd love to see the Reds roll the dice on someone like Ubaldo for, say, Todd Redmond and Neftali Soto this off-season. (This assumed most of the salary would be paid by the Indians.)

However, if the cost of Ubaldo is two top-flight young starters-- say, Cingrani and Corcino-- the answer is obviously no.

I agree. Bad trades happen to good people. However, the too good to be true aspect of his availability coupled with his declining velocity was a decent enough warning. That said, too, there were some dark clouds around Volquez and Latos as well. Seemingly, the only top flight players traded have some kind of background noise the seller is trying to get rid of. Buyer beware. I'd like to believe the Reds were diligent enough to perhaps have backed away after digging into more info. That's the thing, we'll never know any of the particulars, although it looked good on paper last July.

REDREAD
09-04-2012, 12:57 PM
Maybe.

Depending on cost, an acquisition of Jimenez made sense then and does now as well.

For example, I'd love to see the Reds roll the dice on someone like Ubaldo for, say, Todd Redmond and Neftali Soto this off-season. (This assumed most of the salary would be paid by the Indians.)

However, if the cost of Ubaldo is two top-flight young starters-- say, Cingrani and Corcino-- the answer is obviously no.

That's an interesting hypothetical.
Let's say the Reds could make that trade.
I don't think I'd do it. Ubaldo would likely displace someone that's more effective than him. Sure, there's a chance Ubaldo might bounce back and be better than Homer or Leake, but why take the chance that he becomes a black hole..

Boss-Hog
09-04-2012, 02:06 PM
This is just my two cents, but I agree with those that said bumping up past threads to say 'you were wrong' doesn't make for a friendlier community.

Wonderful Monds
09-04-2012, 02:17 PM
Maybe.

Depending on cost, an acquisition of Jimenez made sense then and does now as well.

For example, I'd love to see the Reds roll the dice on someone like Ubaldo for, say, Todd Redmond and Neftali Soto this off-season. (This assumed most of the salary would be paid by the Indians.)

However, if the cost of Ubaldo is two top-flight young starters-- say, Cingrani and Corcino-- the answer is obviously no.

Creative. I like it.

Granted it'd probably take more to get him, especially if they're paying a good amount of his salary. But I like the idea.

camisadelgolf
09-04-2012, 02:28 PM
This is just my two cents, but I agree with those that said bumping up past threads to say 'you were wrong' doesn't make for a friendlier community.
Although I agree with this, I think some context is important. For example, it's possible to say "I told you so" in a friendly or lighthearted manner. If someone can't handle that, maybe he should avoid putting himself in that situation.

Wonderful Monds
09-04-2012, 02:32 PM
Creative. I like it.

Granted it'd probably take more to get him, especially if they're paying a good amount of his salary. But I like the idea.

I guess they're talking about exercising the 1 mil buyout on his contract so he might end up as a FA anyway.

Vottomatic
09-04-2012, 03:26 PM
Well.. we can see the results speak for themselves.. There's a lot less regular posters on this board than there was years ago. IMO, Redszone is a less friendiler place to post.

I guess I don't see what purpose is served by people pointing out that Poster X thought the Reds should've emptied the farm for Jimmeniz.. It's going to annoy the person who said that.. What other purpose does it serve, other than perhaps providing some entertainment for the person that calls out the other person? Just doesn't seem like a constructive exercise.

This used to be a discussion board for entertainment purposes.. is it supposed to be some kind of evaluation board now?

Yeah, I've had several posters reach out to me by private message and say the same thing about the board going downhill. They both said there used to be alot of good posters who quit posting because they got annoyed by stuff like this among other things.

westofyou
09-04-2012, 03:32 PM
Yeah, I've had several posters reach out to me by private message and say the same thing about the board going downhill. They both said there used to be alot of good posters who quit posting because they got annoyed by stuff like this among other things.

I'd venture to guess "they" (the eleven IIRC) didn't leave because threads were brought back up but instead were bored with the absoluteness of positions that dictate conversations.

That.... or they forgot their passwords.

PuffyPig
09-04-2012, 04:11 PM
I'd venture to guess "they" (the eleven IIRC) didn't leave because threads were brought back up but instead were bored with the absoluteness of positions that dictate conversations.



This 100%.

RFS62
09-04-2012, 04:21 PM
I nominate this thread for the "Redzoniest thread of all time"

In my humble opinion, it has surpassed the previous holder of this distinction, in which we debated the scintillating topic of whether it was faster to dive head first into first base or run through it.

E pluribus zonimos

dougdirt
09-04-2012, 04:25 PM
Although I agree with this, I think some context is important. For example, it's possible to say "I told you so" in a friendly or lighthearted manner. If someone can't handle that, maybe he should avoid putting himself in that situation.

How does one do that? By not having an opinion on anything?

camisadelgolf
09-04-2012, 04:37 PM
How does one do that? By not having an opinion on anything?
I'd like to encourage people expressing opinions, but if you can't handle people disagreeing with you, maybe you should keep them to yourself.

cincrazy
09-04-2012, 04:42 PM
So.... who wants to join me in talking about Ubaldo Jimenez?

westofyou
09-04-2012, 04:45 PM
So.... who wants to join me in talking about Ubaldo Jimenez?

I think he needs a nickname, therefore.... Vowel Man gets my vote

camisadelgolf
09-04-2012, 04:46 PM
I think he needs a nickname, therefore.... Vowel Man gets my vote
That's better than my first attempt: Oobie Himmy.

oregonred
09-04-2012, 04:52 PM
The best (only good) part of this thread was getting to hear from RFS62. That alone made it worth the thrash... WOY nailed it - although it was the repeated and incessant absoluteness of positions by a few posters in thread after thread that was the problem.

cincrazy
09-04-2012, 05:25 PM
The best (only good) part of this thread was getting to hear from RFS62. That alone made it worth the thrash... WOY nailed it - although it was the repeated and incessant absoluteness of positions by a few posters in thread after thread that was the problem.

I do feel the problem has much to do with the absoluteness of opinions at times. But I wouldn't call that a relatively new problem. I've been around since 2005, and it was apparent then to me. I can't speak for before then, but I imagine it's always been around to some extent. I think maybe the reason some regular posters are leaving is because it's so frustrating to see this board resort to threads like this consistently when it's been SUCH A GREAT YEAR for the Reds. We have less to complain about than ever, yet somehow the vitriol and negativity is a constant flow. It gets tiring. It will never cause me to leave, but some days I just need a break from it all.

Brutus
09-04-2012, 05:32 PM
This 100%.

How ironic...

Brutus
09-04-2012, 05:35 PM
The best (only good) part of this thread was getting to hear from RFS62. That alone made it worth the thrash... WOY nailed it - although it was the repeated and incessant absoluteness of positions by a few posters in thread after thread that was the problem.

Where was this incessant absoluteness you speak of? And if it was such a problem then, how come no one spoke of it?

Funniest thing is, no one complaining about it now had any problem with it then... or at least they sure didn't contribute to the thread. This thread was peaceful last summer, though not everyone agreed with one another.

cincrazy
09-04-2012, 06:45 PM
Where was this incessant absoluteness you speak of? And if it was such a problem then, how come no one spoke of it?

Funniest thing is, no one complaining about it now had any problem with it then... or at least they sure didn't contribute to the thread. This thread was peaceful last summer, though not everyone agreed with one another.

I'm not sure that he was singling out this particular thread, although I don't want to speak for him. It's an overall problem on this board.

A lot of discussions on here can be summed up thusly: "This stat says this, and this stat says this, and if you can't see that or understand it, you're an idiot." Sometimes it's more math class than baseball. People get ridiculed for opinions simply gleaned from watching the game, as opposd to punching things into an Excel worksheet.

oregonred
09-04-2012, 08:05 PM
No not referncing this thread. A few ex-posters from years back in "the trade" and before era come to mind. No sense naming names of the long since excommunicated...

nate
09-04-2012, 08:19 PM
I'd venture to guess "they" (the eleven IIRC) didn't leave because threads were brought back up but instead were bored with the absoluteness of positions that dictate conversations.

That.... or they forgot their passwords.

Haha!

High five!

Brutus
09-04-2012, 08:37 PM
No not referncing this thread. A few ex-posters from years back in "the trade" and before era come to mind. No sense naming names of the long since excommunicated...

OK fair enough. I appreciate your clarification on that.

oregonred
09-04-2012, 08:43 PM
Besides, I could never get mad at a poster named Brutus

(OSU grad)

Brutus
09-04-2012, 08:44 PM
Besides, I could never get mad at a poster named Brutus

(OSU grad)

lol no biggie. I just couldn't figure out why this thread caused such a stir, though I see now it wasn't really much about this thread as in the subject in general. I was (thankfully) wrong about Ubaldo and I'm glad, in hindsight, the Reds stayed away. My concern was more about the principle of not trading for an upper-level starter than not acquiring Ubaldo specifically. But that Reds made that a moot point and it turns out they invested their resources in a better option.

oregonred
09-04-2012, 09:09 PM
Or we got lucky and a deal that would have been a disaster fell through at the last minute. I assume that Walt wasn't going to overpay at the deadline knowing 2011 was likely a lost cause - one of those frustrating years. We'll never know what happened, but yes lucky that we didn't get Jimenez and were able to focus on Latos in the offseason.

Latos looking good again tonight, but hard to win when the offense puts up a zero through the middle innings... Time to move the Phillies out of town and get on with the other 14 NL teams that we can beat. Stubbs and Valdez in the 1-2 hole, that's LOL funny. Almost as if Dusty is saying we are 28 over .500 and its a Tuesday so who cares...

oregonred
09-04-2012, 09:13 PM
That might be a reverse jinx record with non-controversial Redszone discussion point Jay Bruce homering within 90 seconds of posting...

Brutus
09-04-2012, 09:14 PM
That might be a reverse jinx record with non-controversial Redszone discussion point Jay Bruce homering within 90 seconds of posting...

It's a proven fact that the Reds hit homers more often when I divert my attention away from the game for a few moments lol

savafan
09-05-2012, 01:50 PM
A lot of discussions on here can be summed up thusly: "This stat says this, and this stat says this, and if you can't see that or understand it, you're an idiot." Sometimes it's more math class than baseball. People get ridiculed for opinions simply gleaned from watching the game, as opposd to punching things into an Excel worksheet.

I fought against this trend for several years, but then grew tired of it when it seemed no one was listening. Like a lot of things in life, I just learned to either accept or ignore.

camisadelgolf
09-05-2012, 02:02 PM
I'll give up on sabermetrics when those who oppose them give up on confirmation bias.