Justify keeping Bedard or Roberts

[Cokeman]

Like everyone else who disagrees with you?

You might be surprised how many have been cheering silently for the other side.

At one time, I kind of felt the same way...until the "other side" started acting like those they were railing against...and running threads into the ground at an alarming rate. We are at the point where there is rarely a thread that doesn't devolve into a repetitive argument.

[RShack]

At one time, I kind of felt the same way...until the "other side" started acting like those they were railing against...and running threads into the ground at an alarming rate. We are at the point where there is rarely a thread that doesn't devolve into a repetitive argument.

I agree with your point. What I don't know is a good way to fix it. Here's why...

One is faced with a dilemma when people try to just shout you down. Here's an example: Various folks have expressed the view that arguments about D, and the stats related to D, have become repetitive and get run into the ground. But if you look at how things play out, what exactly is the right thing to do? In one thread, MP expressed the view that he didn't trust D-stats and he then said why. So, in an effort to give him a way to think about them in a way where he could see where the hold-up is with D-stats without just dismissing them wholesale, I told him a way to think about them that makes sense to me. My honest-to-God intention was to say "here's what we've got so far, and here's what we're still missing". I think that's a perfectly constructive thing to do. People can agree or disagree, but it's not like I was trying to cause a big fight, I was just trying to explain something that I think is useful. Afterwards, MP told me that he thought it was useful. So, you might think that was an OK thing, right?

Well, when you actually look at the thread, here's what you see. I contributed what I had to contribute, then somebody takes a potshot at me. So, I point out that it's a potshot and I ask that person to try to do better by actually contributing something helpful instead of just potshots. At which point, one of the Usual Suspects shows up and starts dissing me for discussing D-stats again and suggests I take it elsewhere, and does it in a way that is entirely personal and not about substance, and without contributing anything. I respond by defending the validity of the good stuff I was saying, which doesn't work because the attacks are personal, they aren't about substance. Then somebody else mentions that they can't imagine a better way to do D-stats, and I describe a way that I think would be better. Again, maybe people agree or maybe they don't, but at least I was being constructive. Then, next thing you know, somebody's giving me crap for making repetitive posts about D-stats and ruining threads.

So, it seems to me that the choice often boils down to either letting the Usual Suspects win by content-free bullying and name-calling, or else standing up to them about their cheap-shot bullying and insisting that they say something substantive instead of trash-talking. What else can you do? AFAIK, the only way to *not* have it be repetitive stuff with bullies is to let them get away with shouting people down and talking trash, and that doesn't seem right either. Bottom line: I agree with you, but the obvious way to resolve it is to just let a small number of people get away with empty bullying. In other words, you're right but I'm stuck about how to fix it. I want things to be discussed on the merits, but I don't see how to actually make that happen without standing up to the name-callers and us-vs-them people who rely on cheap shots and being mad whenever they don't get their way.

The point of this is *not* to put the onus on you for a solution, but rather to let you know that I hear you, and that I agree that you have a point.

[SrMeowMeow]

Wait. People keep talking about 'the other side' and other euphemism type things. What are the actual positions? What are the sides?

Please save me from reading the entire 14 pages of this thread

[mweb]

The problem is, most times someone mentions defensive stats, defensive value, blowing it up, and minor league stats translating into major league stats, an argument ensues. I'm not talking about someone mentioning one of these things in a way that is a potential argument starter either.

[RShack]

Wait. People keep talking about 'the other side' and other euphemism type things. What are the actual positions? What are the sides?

Please save me from reading the entire 14 pages of this thread

Trust me, you don't want to know.

You'd be better off finding a rerun of the Rockford Files on TV and watching that instead.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is a totally disgusting reference, particularly from an OH staff member. I checked out your link: here is the first reference to your Smear the Queer "Well known homophobic recess game...".

Is this what the OH is about and that a staff member can use this homophobic and bigoted reference because you can't take the comments from a poster? This should be a banning offense and I hope that you are also dismissed from your position from the OH.

And to think that I had a lot of respect for your opinions.

If I've offended anyone I'm sorry, but are you telling me you never played this game at recess in elementary school? The only reason it's called that is that the name rhymes. It has nothing to do with homophobia.

[baltfan]

If I've offended anyone I'm sorry, but are you telling me you never played this game at recess in elementary school? The only reason it's called that is that the name rhymes. It has nothing to do with homophobia.

Drungo I am sure that when you played this game, as I did, growing up you never really thought of the significance of the name. But now looking back I can see how patently offensive it is. It probably is even more offensive to gays because of its insidiousness in this context. You are in effect teaching children that they should gang up on "queers."

In most places today I believe the game goes by a different name such as "Bulldog" or something else.

[mefogus]

Drungo I am sure that when you played this game, as I did, growing up you never really thought of the significance of the name. But now looking back I can see how patently offensive it is. It probably is even more offensive to gays because of its insidiousness in this context. You are in effect teaching children that they should gang up on "queers."

In most places today I believe the game goes by a different name such as "Bulldog" or something else.

I am fairly certain that this game predates the notion that you are attaching to it. I imagine that its root lies in the etymological meaning of the word "queer". That is, the original meaning was "strange" or "unusual", which makes sense giving that the person you are supposed to smear is the one that stands out in the game (i.e. has the ball). It was only later that the term was used to refer to homosexuals.

-m

[DrungoHazewood]

I've had a little time to step back and think over this thread, and the other related ones. Although I think many of my criticisms are valid, I'm also sure that I helped lower the tone and content of the discussion and the debate. As a member of the staff and someone who's been here a long time I need to strive to raise standards, not lower them.

To those I've offended, I apologize. I'll try harder to maintain an even keel, and hope everyone else tries to do the same.

[Delduck]

I've had a little time to step back and think over this thread, and the other related ones. Although I think many of my criticisms are valid, I'm also sure that I helped lower the tone and content of the discussion and the debate. As a member of the staff and someone who's been here a long time I need to strive to raise standards, not lower them.

To those I've offended, I apologize. I'll try harder to maintain an even keel, and hope everyone else tries to do the same.

That and respect each others opinions is about all anyone can ask for. Because it is the varying opinions that makes for great discussion.

[Migrant Redbird]

To those I've offended, I apologize. I'll try harder to maintain an even keel, and hope everyone else tries to do the same.

Apology accepted. I will also apologize for using loaded language like "losers". My intent was to try and jar some minds open, but it probably had more of the opposite effect.

I should emphasize that I was not trying to say that Roberts and Bedard absolutely should not be traded. If some team wants to give the O's more than these guys are worth, then the O's ought to take the deal.

My opinion is that a "top five" pitcher, especially a southpaw, is just too difficult to develop anymore to give up the contract negotiation leverage the team has over him while he's under their control. If you're giving him up for nothing but prospects, then a couple of those prospects better be virtually lead pipe cinches to be worth as much in a year or two as Bedard is now. Lead pipe cinches are hard to find -- especially among pitching prospects. Look at Matt Riley and Rick Ankiel, for example.

But if you really believe that what you're getting back is worth more than you're giving up, and you're confident in your evaluations of the players, then you ought to go ahead and do it.

My beef was with those couldn't concede that alternatives really do exist. Apparently Bedard would be willing to remain in Baltimore too, as long as he feels "wanted" and the O's prove that by offering him enough money.