anyone else not sold on Sherrill as closer?

[Sports Guy]

On the high walk rate, two have been intentional, 3 have been in rain soaked games. Not trying to use as an excuse, just saying. Yes, he needs to manage his control a little more. He is also trying to hit spots and has been squeezed a little. He is still earning his stripes in the bigs

Well, he has had a high walk rate in most years.

The high FB rate is overrated as I have stated previously. Last night (against the Angels) is just another example. 2 "fly" outs to one ground out. The two "fly" outs were pop outs to the infield. There were 4 ground balls, where only one was turned into an out and only one was a legit hit.

Its not overrated...Flyballs lead to home runs...Home runs mean the other team scores. The bottom line is your brother is an extreme flyball pitcher and that is not good in a HR hitters park.

[Lucky Jim]

I'm not saying he shouldn't be traded. Anyone should be traded, if they get the right deal. I was just answering the question that you had posed to the other poster, in order to state that some people don't realize how much it comes up for anybody of "age".

But you've only pointed out your brother. Age is a factor - but so is his role, his profile, his projection. Etc.

Because he's ducked odds/projection for years (and most of us love this about him) doesn't mean we should stop trying to figure out what the future holds.

You're right, however, that FBs can be overrated. I'm looking at the trend over the last few years, as well, though. It's just one factor, however.

[RShack]

Can you produce five posts from the last two months that say a guy over 27 should be traded solely due to age? From the past year?

If you can't, it's a strawman. Did anyone in this thread make that point? If not, it's a strawman.

Why? Because you decided that you're in charge of what words mean? Or because you think any discussion revolves around whatever your 2 cents is? It's gotta be one or the other... unless you don't even know what the term means.

A "strawman" means that you misrepresent an argument so you can shoot it down. I am not misrepresenting an argument. It is completely normal around here for people to argue for making McDeals for "prospects at the deadline" because a guy who's 30 or so is doing well. It happens all the time. People were saying that very thing about Sherrill before we even got him. The whole idea of "flipping" a guy is that you get somebody mainly so you can turn around and trade him. It's just part of the inane "buy and sell" fantasy mythology, as if that's why a GM trades for guys. It's a silly argument in the general case, and it's especially bogus in the case of why AM got Sherrill. He didn't get him to "flip him for prospects at the deadline". He got him to fix the BP. Anybody who thinks he's gonna blow up the BP so he can make a McDeal for "prospects at the deadline" is not paying attention. Like I said, I'll bet anybody $100 that AM does not "flip him for prospects at the deadline".

Saying that I need five direct quotes from a certain time window to demonstrate that something is true might be the dumbest thing you ever said. Anybody who went to law school should know better than that.

[CrimsonTribe]

Why? Because you decided that you're in charge of what words mean? Or because you think any discussion revolves around whatever your 2 cents is? It's gotta be one or the other... unless you don't even know what the term means.

A "strawman" means that you misrepresent an argument so you can shoot it down. I am not misrepresenting an argument. It is completely normal around here for people to argue for making McDeals for "prospects at the deadline" because a guy who's 30 or so is doing well. It happens all the time. People were saying that very thing about Sherrill before we even got him. The whole idea of "flipping" a guy is that you get somebody mainly so you can turn around and trade him. It's just part of the inane "buy and sell" fantasy mythology, as if that's why a GM trades for guys. It's a silly argument in the general case, and it's especially bogus in the case of why AM got Sherrill. He didn't get him to "flip him for prospects at the deadline". He got him to fix the BP. Anybody who thinks he's gonna blow up the BP so he can make a McDeal for "prospects at the deadline" is not paying attention. Like I said, I'll bet anybody $100 that AM does not "flip him for prospects at the deadline".

Saying that I need five direct quotes from a certain time window to demonstrate that something is true might be the dumbest thing you ever said. Anybody who went to law school should know better than that.

You've made this silly claim about these mysterious people who you claim want to trade a player based solely on his age many times, but you've yet to produce any evidence that they actually exist. Anyone who went to law school would want some evidence. Otherwise you're just making up some people to argue against to make yourself look smart.

[Anonymous]

Sherrill (your brother, right?) is the target of this conversation because he poses a fascinating dilemma. There's no one in this thread who doesn't like him or doesn't like what he's done so far - he seems like a good guy, with very good mound presence.

... and a mighty fine mound wardrobe

[Lucky Jim]

Why? Because you decided that you're in charge of what words mean? Or because you think any discussion revolves around whatever your 2 cents is? It's gotta be one or the other... unless you don't even know what the term means.

A "strawman" means that you misrepresent an argument so you can shoot it down. I am not misrepresenting an argument. It is completely normal around here for people to argue for making McDeals for "prospects at the deadline" because a guy who's 30 or so is doing well. It happens all the time. People were saying that very thing about Sherrill before we even got him. The whole idea of "flipping" a guy is that you get somebody mainly so you can turn around and trade him. It's just part of the inane "buy and sell" fantasy mythology, as if that's why a GM trades for guys. It's a silly argument in the general case, and it's especially bogus in the case of why AM got Sherrill. He didn't get him to "flip him for prospects at the deadline". He got him to fix the BP. Anybody who thinks he's gonna blow up the BP so he can make a McDeal for "prospects at the deadline" is not paying attention. Like I said, I'll bet anybody $100 that AM does not "flip him for prospects at the deadline".

Saying that I need five direct quotes from a certain time window to demonstrate that something is true might be the dumbest thing you ever said. Anybody who went to law school should know better than that.

I just asked you to point out some of these posts dealing only with age. You still haven't done it. Until you do it, you're creating a simplistic version of this argument only to reject it. It's a strawman. I know it. You know it. (Maybe you don't. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit.) Everyone reading this thread knows it.

[Lucky Jim]

Why? Because you decided that you're in charge of what words mean? Or because you think any discussion revolves around whatever your 2 cents is? It's gotta be one or the other... unless you don't even know what the term means.

A "strawman" means that you misrepresent an argument so you can shoot it down. I am not misrepresenting an argument. It is completely normal around here for people to argue for making McDeals for "prospects at the deadline" because a guy who's 30 or so is doing well. It happens all the time. People were saying that very thing about Sherrill before we even got him. The whole idea of "flipping" a guy is that you get somebody mainly so you can turn around and trade him. It's just part of the inane "buy and sell" fantasy mythology, as if that's why a GM trades for guys. It's a silly argument in the general case, and it's especially bogus in the case of why AM got Sherrill. He didn't get him to "flip him for prospects at the deadline". He got him to fix the BP. Anybody who thinks he's gonna blow up the BP so he can make a McDeal for "prospects at the deadline" is not paying attention. Like I said, I'll bet anybody $100 that AM does not "flip him for prospects at the deadline".

Saying that I need five direct quotes from a certain time window to demonstrate that something is true might be the dumbest thing you ever said. Anybody who went to law school should know better than that.

Which is still infinitely more rational and grounded than anything you've offered in this thread. Take a...er..."straw poll".

[RShack]

I just asked you to point out some of these posts dealing only with age. You still haven't done it. Until you do it, you're creating a simplistic version of this argument only to reject it. It's a strawman.

Look, if you want to do a bunch of direct-quote homework, have at it. Why do you think I'm doing homework assignments from you?

Let's see: first you put yourself in charge of making up goofy definitions of what words mean... and now you're assigning tasks for other people to do. What other jobs do you have around here?

I know it. You know it. (Maybe you don't. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit.) Everyone reading this thread knows it.

Ah, the ole "Everyone agrees with me, so there!" tactic.

Is that better or worse than "I hereby decree that you are obligated to provide 5 direct quotes over X-amount of time"?

Hmm... hard to say...

[Lucky Jim]

Look, if you want to do a bunch of direct-quote homework, have at it. Why do you think I'm doing homework assignments from you?

Let's see: first you put yourself in charge of making up goofy definitions of what words mean... and now you're assigning tasks for other people to do. What other jobs do you have around here?

Ah, the ole "Everyone agrees with me, so there!" tactic.

Is that better or worse than "I hereby decree that you are obligated to provide 5 direct quotes over X-amount of time"?

Hmm... hard to say...

YOU claim that people are "always" saying this. I'm saying prove it. It's not true because you claim it is.

Contrary to whatever self-deluding idea of the universe you're currently operating under.

And if you're going to assert this is the status quo, then the onus, the burden, the "homework" is on you to prove it. Otherwise you're just...well, you know.

[Boy Howdy]

I just asked you to point out some of these posts dealing only with age. You still haven't done it. Until you do it, you're creating a simplistic version of this argument only to reject it. It's a strawman. I know it. You know it. (Maybe you don't. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit.) Everyone reading this thread knows it.

I really don't want to get involved in today's featured pissing match headline bout, but as a good-standing member in the cult of 'everyone', you're not speaking for me.

Shack has a compelling case on this issue that he could win in any court of common sense, and it doesn't make what he's saying any less true when you go to the mat for your point of view like you're sparing a (guilty) death row inmate by parsing every word.

My take on this thread is:

1) Sherrill's doing a fine job as closer

2) The O's should trade him (or anybody for the matter) if they get the right offer

3) Everything else, including my two paragraphs above, is way off topic, and I'm back to one hell of a good game. Bear down Daniel!

[Lucky Jim]

I really don't want to get involved in today's featured pissing match headline bout, but as a good-standing member in the cult of 'everyone', you're not speaking for me.

Shack has a compelling case on this issue that he could win in any court of common sense, and it doesn't make what he's saying any less true when you go to the mat for your point of view like you're sparing a (guilty) death row inmate by parsing every word.

My take on this thread is:

1) Sherrill's doing a fine job as closer

2) The O's should trade him (or anybody for the matter) if they get the right offer

3) Everything else, including my two paragraphs above, is way off topic, and I'm back to one hell of a good game. Bear down Daniel!

What compelling point is that? Do you even know what the argument is? Do YOU have any examples of the legions of people who are claiming we need to trade people based on age alone?

[olehippi]

Because this has to come into play when determining if trading him is the best option for this team.

Sheesh!! It seems that it's even impossible to sort of agree with you. The general concensus, including yours, is that Sherrill's real value lies in his remaining good long enough to traded at the deadline. Barring some kind of miraculous turnaround by the O's this year, IMO Sherrill can't be considered a part of the this team in 2009 and beyond.

[DrungoHazewood]

What compelling point is that? Do you even know what the argument is? Do YOU have any examples of the legions of people who are claiming we need to trade people based on age alone?

There's a certain faction of people here who equate "using age as one factor in determining a player's future worth to the Orioles" with "trade anyone who's reached age 30."

If you buy into that silly, absurd vast oversimplification Rshack's points are dead on.

[Lucky Jim]

There's a certain faction of people here who equate "using age as one factor in determining a player's future worth to the Orioles" with "trade anyone who's reached age 30."

If you buy into that silly, absurd vast oversimplification Rshack's points are dead on.

Exactly. That's my entire point. Though apparently that argument "wins in the court of common sense."

If Boom and Shack = "common sense" it's the most narrow definition of "commonality" I've ever come across.

[RShack]

There's a certain faction of people here who equate "using age as one factor in determining a player's future worth to the Orioles" with "trade anyone who's reached age 30."

If you buy into that silly, absurd vast oversimplification Rshack's points are dead on.

Exactly. That's my entire point. Though apparently that argument "wins in the court of common sense."

If Boom and Shack = "common sense" it's the most narrow definition of "commonality" I've ever come across.

Well, according to Lucky Jim's very own so-called "logic" (or is it a so-called "argument"?) , Drungo just attacked a strawman, and he is therefore obligated (by "Lucky Jim's Law") to do a bunch of research (because Lucky Jim said so) to find at least 5 quotes over the last 2 months wherein people said "I equate 'using age as one factor in determining a player's future worth to the Orioles' with 'trade anyone who's reached age 30'." Otherwise, Lucky Jim's very own "logic" proves that it's just a strawman, and therefore Lucky Jim's entire point is exactly wrong. (If we choose to take Lucky Jim at his word, that is.)

Now, whether Lucky Jim's "logic" applies in the "court of common sense" is probably another matter entirely. (Maybe we should ask a lawyer?)

You guys are a hoot. BTW, my offer to bet you guys about Sherrill still stands. I've got $100 that says that AM is not gonna "flip him for prospects at the deadline". What? No takers? How could that be? You don't suppose there's a "faction" of big talkers who back pedal a lot, do you? (This kinda reminds me of when SG was claiming AM agreed with him about his kamikaze rebuilding scheme, so I tried to bet SG about how many new guys would be in the OD lineup. This was back before any of the off-season trades. I said, "4 max, but most probably 3". He wouldn't put his money where his mouth was either.)