anyone else not sold on Sherrill as closer?

[Sports Guy]

Sure. If the bet is an accurate representation of the disagreement. However, when the bet is "I bet X does not happen" when the discussion isn't whether X will happen or not, but rather whether or not an actor in the equation is open to X happening...it offers no value. None. Zilch. Squat. Nada. Nunca. Nyet.

Yep....Rshack saying AM didn't trade several guys is ignoring the key point...HE WANTED TO!

He TRIED TO!

Rshack and anyone else would be fools to think Millar, BRob, Mora, Huff and possibly Ramon would still be Orioles if AM got what he felt was a good enough offer to deal any of them.

He didn't, so he hung onto them. Maybe that works, maybe it doesn't but it doesn't change the fact that he(and in some cases DT) wants them all gone.

[Sports Guy]

Betcha I don't!

20 bucks???

[Sports Guy]

And it doesn't mean he would've either.

SG, you're often an intelligent poster, and you certainly add a lot to the board, but sometimes your slavish (apparent) belief in what you're able to conclude from raw data makes you look a lot more like Juan Epstein than Theo Epstein.

It's like the people who get all bent out of shape when a guy strokes a single after somebody got picked off second --saying 'that cost us a run'. Well, you don't know that the guy still would've singled. Sequence of pitches are different, etc...

The O's obviously saw something in Sherrill that convinced them he could succeed with OPACY as his home park, and so far the only results that matter are proving them correct.

Its all about dealing with the odds. You like to hope things won't happen...I prefer to reason what could happen based on facts at hand.

[Boy Howdy]

Its all about dealing with the odds. You like to hope things won't happen...I prefer to reason what could happen based on facts at hand.

Now, who's got the gambling problem?

[Baltimoron]

Sure. If the bet is an accurate representation of the disagreement. However, when the bet is "I bet X does not happen" when the discussion isn't whether X will happen or not, but rather whether or not an actor in the equation is open to X happening...it offers no value. None. Zilch. Squat. Nada. Nunca. Nyet.

The first paragraph of my post says:

Sure it can lend credence. Obviously there are people who are opposed to "gambling" or "wagering." And obviously there can be strawmen issues. And just because something happens doesn't necessarily mean someone was right or wrong.

Is this coincidental or ironic?

[Lucky Jim]

The first paragraph of my post says:

Is this coincidental or ironic?

I'm applying your general point to the discussion at hand. Is your post testy, or just for clarification?

Wait, sorry - your posts are often testy AND for clarification.

[Baltimoron]

Its all about dealing with the odds. You like to hope things won't happen...I prefer to reason what could happen based on facts at hand.

Its all based upon the fact that in life there is uncertainty. This is a major theme of No Country for Old Men, btw, a great movie.

Every decision we make involves an assessment of uncertain risks and probabilities. Its largely unconscious and inante, but its what we do, some better and worse than others.

We gamble a lot more than we think.

[Lucky Jim]

Now, now. You boys are both much too intelligent and lend too much to this board to fight.

I thought that was a compliment. Man, I've been fully de-socialized by internet message boards.

[Palmer Esque]

I realize this thread started with a lot of arguments about trading Sherrill, but I wasn't taking a position on that aspect at all. I actually think trading ANY closer who has artificially inflated stats (most of them do, but not all) is a smart business decision IF the other team is offering more value than the closer's value to his original team.

I think there is a chance that Sherrill will be moved this year. I don't think it has to happen due to his age or our circumstance, but I think we may get offered $1.50 on the dollar for him near the deadline. If we do, we'd be crazy not to trade him.

Definately, hope he continues this way, teams will be drooling over him at the deadline.

[Baltimoron]

I'm applying your general point to the discussion at hand. Is your post testy, or just for clarification?

Wait, sorry - your posts are often testy AND for clarification.

Hi.

I'm not sure what you think is testy. I pointed out that I had already agreed with your point in the post you had responded to. I then tried to make a joke about "irony."

[Lucky Jim]

Hi.

I'm not sure what you think is testy. I pointed out that I had already agreed with your point in the post you had responded to. I then tried to make a joke about "irony."

I was being self-referential, obviously:

Is this point testy or for clarification?

I'm kidding. Apologies all-around. My frustration with Shack has me at a heightened level of alert. Say, Orange Level.

I'm strip-searching everyone who comes aboard.

[Lucky Jim]

Let's be honest, this has nothing to do with your alert level. You're just a horny bastard.

Giggity-giggity.

[Sports Guy]

BTW, I'm coming to Baltimore at least once this summer to see a weekend's worth of games. I'll give some warning on my weekends for prep time. If a bunch of you guys don't come to have a beer with me, I'm going to be extremely upset and nitpick every one of your posts. What do you think about that?

I think you do that anyway, so what will be different?

[Sports Guy]

Damn, I lobbed that softball right across the plate, didn't I?

On a tee.....

[QWJay]

I'm fine with Sherrill being the closer. Every pitcher will go into a funk now and then.