What is the matter with you people?

[paulcoates]

I wonder how many sports fans are bipolar compare to the average public? Gotta be higher

[SteveO]

I wonder how many sports fans are bipolar compare to the average public? Gotta be higher

I would guess its pretty close to the average public.

Baseball is a awesome game if your OCD though. So many stats and things going on to obsess over. Day after day

Trust me I know lol

[OFFNY]

Oh calm down. You couldn't pull a pine needle out of your ass with a tractor.

It's not preaching. And as someone who reads a lot of posts on the board, I do deal with it. You might want to drink some of your own medicine there dude.

Oo

[video=youtube;dp4339EbVn8]

[Tbone83]

I personally feel more of an urge to "vent" on the Hangout or elsewhere online when things are going bad. Rather than gush when all is going peachy. It is just therapeutic to vent and read others rants when things are rotten. Whereas I don't need that contentment when the Orioles are winning.

[SilentJames]

I can't possibly agree with Moose more.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[jjnono]

I can't possibly agree with Moose more.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Try harder!

[MemorialStadKid]

And I've pointed this out to you, I'll try it again. Nobody is disagreeing with your notion that the FO came up short this off-season. It's a widely held opinion that it was a less than perfect off-season. What people call in to question is your idea of "everything they could have done," and when you give us that, how exactly you expected the FO to do it. When you do, the general reaction is that you're reaching for the stars entirely too much, and that the cost of what you're espousing simply never would happen in the reality of the situation. The best way to think about it is that you seem to be operating on a fantasy baseball league level, where the players are just digital, and sometimes there's not even a monetary figure to think about. It's just a matter of "go go get him" when in the market out there, so much more goes on, players preferences, playing one GM off another, etc. If you would simply concede that you know your ideas for what to do are drastic and not the most realistic in the world, you'd get soooo much more slack on your stuff. But you hold such a hard line, and make it seem like everyone that tries to point out that you're basically kinda dreaming too big is not smart enough to understand (intended or not, it's how it comes off), that you tend to infuriate the people that try to help and debate with you.

Fine, I'll concede that some of my ideas might be a little drastic. But not all of them.

Some folks just like to be disagreeable for the hell of it.

MSK

[luismatos4prez]

This thread is actually a great read. A lot of well-stated opinions all over the spectrum.

My opinion over the winter was that Brandon McCarthy or Joe Saunders should have been signed. It was my only quarrel with DD and I stick by it.

[El Gordo]

Fine, I'll concede that some of my ideas might be a little drastic. But not all of them.

Some folks just like to be disagreeable for the hell of it.

MSK

Drastic? No. Clown ideas bro.:rolleyestf:

[MemorialStadKid]

Drastic? No. Clown ideas bro.:rolleyestf:

Clown ideas?

Let's see:

1) We should have gotten rid of MCab a year before we eventually did.

2) MacPhail's deliberate style cost us a lot of games in the end in terms of missed FA signings.

3) We should build our farm while making needed FA signings to ensure a long run in the future.

4) We should have added at least one TOR starter through trade or FA.

5) I still say we need another big bat in the lineup (think of the offensive power - potential - power of the Angels lineup).

6) The Orioles should market harder to younger people.

7) The Eaton and Atkins signings were the worst in the history of the Orioles.

8) The OH shouldn't be a clique-driven site.

9) OH members shouldn't be so combative with each other based on different philosophies.

Yea... "clown" ideas indeed.

MSK

[The Wedge]

Fine, I'll concede that some of my ideas might be a little drastic. But not all of them.

Some folks just like to be disagreeable for the hell of it.

MSK

This is undoubtedly true, but one doesn't predicate the other in this situation.

This isn't always a good barometer, but there are certain situations where sometimes "if you are the only one right, you're wrong" applies. Now, I'm not using this to say completely give up, because if you believe something, stand behind it. But you need to do that latter part consistently. The "stand behind it" aspect. The more you consistently stand behind your own opinions and arguments, the more the people here will respect your right to have them. But when I say "stand behind" I don't mean consistently say they're right. I mean consistently provide the necessary back up (especially when asked to, otherwise, there's no discourse or debate), the whos, whats, hows, and whys that help your argument stand up. Stand behind your argument positively like that, instead of negatively going "I know I'm right, you are all wrong." Because in a situation where people ask you over and over to please show them what you would do, who you would do it with, etc, and you don't do it (consistently) in order for there to be proper discourse and debate, being the only right one in the situation means you are wrong. Step back, and remember not everyone is out to get you, like you indicate you believe a lot, and simply answer peoples questions. Doing so will help them understand that you're here for honest debate, not to try and tell everyone what's what. The latter will never fly. The former will. Even if people don't agree with you, the more you stand firm with the proper responses full of examples and evidences to your theories and opinions they'll at least appreciate you're trying to debate a point.

I really do have some faith you can do that. If it helps, look at how threads go now for you, and how that's evolved. The more you've put up obstinate walls, the more peoples patience with actually debating you has dropped. Other posters have come to expect that when they challenge anything you've said, you'll get so defensive about it that you'll kinda lash out, but without actually answering any of those challenges with information they seek. The more that happens, the less amount of rope posters give you, as your reputation has grown in that direction. Reverse that direction, and get a reputation for someone who does answer questions and will give examples when asked to help back himself. Or, if you're like me and only half study that sorta thing, when you have more of a gut, heart felt fan like reaction, note it as such and not as any sort of all encompassing axiom. For instance, for the latest TOR thing, I think I woulda said:

There may have been several chances to grab at least one TOR guy this offseason. I wish they would have. Heck, you might even say two could have been had. I would've loved that, but that's really pushing it. I have no idea how much we'd even have to give up for some of the trade targets, though, would it even be worth it? How much value do our guys have to the other teams in relation?

etc. Now, I know you have more of an idea of what you'd do, so if it were me, I'd throw out "what do you think "x" "y" and "z" would get us, I *think* we could..." Stuff like that goes a loooooong way, man. A long way.

Sorry to write a dissertation, but like I said, I feel like you can really turn that around. There's no reason to keep doing what you've been doing, messing up your reputation in the community while alienating yourself, and if it takes me several posts to help bridge the gap back, well, I'm at least gonna try. I may not be the most knowledgeable stat guy, I was only so good at actually playing the game myself, but I love baseball and I love the Os, and that's the main reason why we're all here. So maybe I can contribute by helping everyone remember that we're on the same metaphorical boat.

Except for trolls, you guys I'll metaphorically help throw overboard.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'd have been fine with signing Reynolds and Saunders. Didn't really bother me very much that we didn't though, especially after getting Mclouth signed. I was fine with the plan for Betemit/Pearce/Reimold etc. at DH. I did realize much of the season would depend on squeezing the upside out of our young (and maybe not so young) starters. I still think that could turn out well for us ....... or not.

The baffling one for me is second base. I'm just not sure why we signed Casilla, paid him 1.8 mil, and don't have much interest or confidence in playing him.

On the FA side I'd have been fine with any one of Bourne, Swisher, and Lohse but I get why they weren't pursued more aggressively, if they were at all. Thankfully we didn't have a real chance at Hamilton.

On the trade side, I was really holding out for Dickey (who is coming around now), but I understand why they didn't want to give away the farm for him. I think he was our best shot at acquiring a true TOR and that stung when TOR got the TOR. I never really got into the MOO bat thing though guys like Butler and Willingham were interesting. I'd have been happy with a quality second base acquisition instead. Seems they did plan around Roberts to some extent and that was imprudent.

[Norfolk orioles]

And the other half is people making up statistics. :wedge:

Winner winner lee's chicken for dinner.

[El Gordo]

Clown ideas?

Let's see:

1) We should have gotten rid of MCab a year before we eventually did.

2) MacPhail's deliberate style cost us a lot of games in the end in terms of missed FA signings.

3) We should build our farm while making needed FA signings to ensure a long run in the future.

4) We should have added at least one TOR starter through trade or FA.

5) I still say we need another big bat in the lineup (think of the offensive power - potential - power of the Angels lineup).

6) The Orioles should market harder to younger people.

7) The Eaton and Atkins signings were the worst in the history of the Orioles.

8) The OH shouldn't be a clique-driven site.

9) OH members shouldn't be so combative with each other based on different philosophies.

Yea... "clown" ideas indeed.

MSK

b=]Board rules forbid me from speaking plainly to you, so I will answer you thusly:

[TiredofLosing20]

The reference to the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor is from Animal House....

Its why I assumed...

But you never know with some folks.