TheDude:

radio silence:

but as of now, this team is worse than 2008-2009.

My fears that I have stated quite often are coming true.  Melvin isn't being creative and utilizing all of his resources to the fullest potential. I'm thinking this is a trend that will not lead to a good ending.

 

I couldn't agree more.

radio silence:

It's rather significant that Gomez is a bad baseball player. 

And I don't think Brewerfanx was disagreeing that he is bad, but that he does have some potential.  There have been small pockets of sunshine in his numbers:  he has some power.  He's improved his BB rates.  His potential speed/power is somewhat intriguing...

There's not much there, but if you want to sit and keep repeating: "Gomez is a bad ballplayer" that's fine.  All you're doing is setting yourself up for an Alf-like "I told you so" moment.  If he never improves, you're right.  If he improves, you'll brush this off and be happy.

TheDude:

radio silence:

It's rather significant that Gomez is a bad baseball player. 

And I don't think Brewerfanx was disagreeing that he is bad, but that he does have some potential.  There have been small pockets of sunshine in his numbers:  he has some power.  He's improved his BB rates.  His potential speed/power is somewhat intriguing...

There's not much there, but if you want to sit and keep repeating: "Gomez is a bad ballplayer" that's fine.  All you're doing is setting yourself up for an Alf-like "I told you so" moment.  If he never improves, you're right.  If he improves, you'll brush this off and be happy.

 

In all fairness, how many "I told you so" moments have I actually had?

TheDude:

It's funny that Brewerfanx states that he sees both how this is bad and how this could turn out to be good; hence his 50/50 comment.  People tell him he needs to pick a side because it's unfair, so he say something along the lines of, "fine, I'll say it'll end up good for the Brewers."

Radio then questions why Fanx believes this is a good trade or that Gomez is good, when that wasn't even the guy's original statement to begin with.

Interesting way to have a discussion if you ask me.

You need to understand that there is some history between him and numerous others on here (myself included) where there is some serious frustration built up about how some discussions have unfolded. These things are not happening in a vacuum and the way this is unfolding has it's roots in a long and sordid history.

I think it's important to understand that when looking at what is being said.

brandx:

Einy: Hardy has shown the ability to really hit major league pitching and Lowrie hasn't, though he's not yet had a full set of chances to do so. I can't see how this is true and if I had to bet who would be more valuable for the next 3 or 4 years, I would bet on Hardy hands down.

I don't have a huge disagreement with you on this. What worries me about JJ are all of the different batting stances he had this year. He was totally lost at the plate. Add in Hardy's lack of foot speed, and I think Lowrie has a decent chance to be the better player

I haven't given up on Lowrie as a player, but I think Hardy is likely to be better than him the next few years. That's not damning with faint praise, either, because I think both will be good.

radio silence:

TheDude:

radio silence:

It's rather significant that Gomez is a bad baseball player. 

And I don't think Brewerfanx was disagreeing that he is bad, but that he does have some potential.  There have been small pockets of sunshine in his numbers:  he has some power.  He's improved his BB rates.  His potential speed/power is somewhat intriguing...

There's not much there, but if you want to sit and keep repeating: "Gomez is a bad ballplayer" that's fine.  All you're doing is setting yourself up for an Alf-like "I told you so" moment.  If he never improves, you're right.  If he improves, you'll brush this off and be happy.

 

In all fairness, how many "I told you so" moments have I actually had?

Not many.  So I guess you're due.

:)

radio silence:

TheDude:

radio silence:

It's rather significant that Gomez is a bad baseball player. 

And I don't think Brewerfanx was disagreeing that he is bad, but that he does have some potential.  There have been small pockets of sunshine in his numbers:  he has some power.  He's improved his BB rates.  His potential speed/power is somewhat intriguing...

There's not much there, but if you want to sit and keep repeating: "Gomez is a bad ballplayer" that's fine.  All you're doing is setting yourself up for an Alf-like "I told you so" moment.  If he never improves, you're right.  If he improves, you'll brush this off and be happy.

 

In all fairness, how many "I told you so" moments have I actually had?

Plenty, but I can't remember you ever rubbing anyone's nose in it.

You tend to focus more on how you can improve your incorrect predicitions/assumptions than gloating about how right you were when you were right.

We should all be so decent.

;-)

Einsteinhood:

You need to understand that there is some history between him and numerous others on here (myself included) where there is some serious frustration built up about how some discussions have unfolded

E, take a step back and realize this is a forum about a game.

How long and sordid can this actually be?

Einsteinhood:

I haven't given up on Lowrie as a player, but I think Hardy is likely to be better than him the next few years. That's not damning with faint praise, either, because I think both will be good.

Isn't that rather logical for two players that are relatively close in talent if one is older than the other?

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

You need to understand that there is some history between him and numerous others on here (myself included) where there is some serious frustration built up about how some discussions have unfolded

E, take a step back and realize this is a forum about a game.

How long and sordid can this actually be?

In the context of this forum, fairly long and sordid.

What that adds up to in the "real world" is very little, but it is possible to be frustrated with someone on the forum without wanting to hurt them in the real world, you know?

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

I haven't given up on Lowrie as a player, but I think Hardy is likely to be better than him the next few years. That's not damning with faint praise, either, because I think both will be good.

Isn't that rather logical for two players that are relatively close in talent if one is older than the other?

On the low side of the age curve, sure.

But I believe he said that Lowrie was the better player, which is what I was disagreeing with.

Einsteinhood:

...it is possible to be frustrated with someone on the forum without wanting to hurt them in the real world, you know?

I didn't take a swing at you the one time we met up for a game...

:)

Einsteinhood:

But I believe he said that Lowrie was the better player, which is what I was disagreeing with.

So you think he will be a better player or that if we put both players out there now that Hardy would be better?

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

...it is possible to be frustrated with someone on the forum without wanting to hurt them in the real world, you know?

I didn't take a swing at you the one time we met up for a game...

:)

Yeah, I didn't figure you would miss that.

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

But I believe he said that Lowrie was the better player, which is what I was disagreeing with.

So you think he will be a better player or that if we put both players out there now that Hardy would be better?

I think Hardy is going to be better for the next few (3-5) years overall. Lowrie will probably have a better performance or two in there, but the overall trend will be Hardy as better. Then Hardy will decline before Lowrie obviously and push the edge to him.