Marcum signing just got "cuirouser" and the Twins have some 'splainin' to do

[TheLeviathan]

Twins Daily logic: "I'll just continue to ignore the possibility that Marcum might have legitimate, obvious health risks, and continue to hate on the Twins."

 

Who is ignoring it? That very real possibility is why he was as available as he was for that price. It's huge risk....but it also comes with tremendously more upside than the deals we inked. I thought you understood all this already?

[PseudoSABR]

We don't need to pretend anything to know that the Mets medical staff passed him and that the Mets were then willing to risk (up to) $8M. General knowledge about the history of TJS pitchers is pretty well-documented, again not a guessing game, and certainly not specious, paramaters of medical hisotry are established for likely outcomes.

1) They risked 4 million. 2) You're point is proof to the contrary--that no other team would even risk four million. 3) Yes, TJS is well known, recovery from TJS surgery might be a better bet than troubling medicals on an arm--in any case, we can't make that decision without the medicals. That's what's specious, is that some people are determining risk without really having tangible evidence.

 

We also know that Marcum pitched well after his DL stint, we have a variety of potential outcomes on the predictability scale for Pelfrey. But you're right, Marcum might never pitch again, oh but wait, you haven't looked at the medical records either, right?

Again, I'm willing to admit that Pelfry won't work out, but that doesn't mean that Marcum isn't even riskier. I really can't make the determination if Pelfry's recovery from TJS is more or less risky than Marcum's current health. Nor can anyone else. Which is my point.

 

We also know that Pelfrey hasn't been effective since 2010, Marcum was effective 4 months ago. You're trying way too hard to overthink this one and coming up short, save for the flowery perjoratives, substituting for logic.

Everyone understands this. Yet. Yet, 29 other teams wouldn't take that risk. That seems to belie something pretty troubling in the medicals (and yes, I'm making an inference here).

 

And flowery perjoratives? I didn't use any pejorative language in the last post whatsoever, and I think I've been pretty careful to attack ideas and reasoning rather than trying to discredit people. But whatever.

[PseudoSABR]

Who is ignoring it? That very real possibility is why he was as available as he was for that price. It's huge risk....but it also comes with tremendously more upside than the deals we inked. I thought you understood all this already?

There is no upside, if it's obvious that he's not healthy. That's a distinct possibility, maybe even a likely one considering the contract. But we don't know, so there's no real way to measure the risk, other than the contract he actually received.

 

We're all surprised that Marcum signed so cheaply, but rather than read that contract as meaning A) that there is near universal concern about Marcum's health, that indeed his medical prognosis is just that bad, we choose that it means the Twins were derelict in their diligence. The second option seems totally unreasonable to me, especially when the Twins have signed a pitcher like Harden for far less risk.

[TheLeviathan]

There is no upside, if it's obvious that he's not healthy.

 

This is bizarre thinking. You're removing a critical component of the debate simply because it doesn't fit the narrative you want. The upside exists because as of right now, he's walking into ST ready to pitch. He's not recovering from a surgery, he's not having surgery before then. So the upside exists, dismissing it to make your argument have merit is disingenuous.

 

As for the rest of your post: I would suggest C) The Twins preferred Correia to Marcum because Correia is "more reliable" and Pelfrey is a "innings eater" whereas Marcum has had a few more off and on bouts with injuries so Marcum was never on their radar. He isn't their style of guy. So they were never interested regardless of cost because he was too risky.

 

Hard to assert the Twins medical insight into his situation given they had virtually no contact with him of any formal kind. No, this was an issue of him not meshing with our philosophy, not with our medical standards. Your continued campaign to frame this otherwise has ZERO merit. I can't speak to the reasons of the other 29 teams, I don't know them intimately and neither do you. Positing their reasons as being a universal disdain for his health is predicated on absolutely no facts whatsoever. Whereas I at least have the fact that the Twins were utterly disinterested despite significant need and significant payroll flexibility.

[mcrow]

There is no upside, if it's obvious that he's not healthy. That's a distinct possibility, maybe even a likely one considering the contract. But we don't know, so there's no real way to measure the risk, other than the contract he actually received.

 

We're all surprised that Marcum signed so cheaply, but rather than read that contract as meaning A) that there is near universal concern about Marcum's health, that indeed his medical prognosis is just that bad, we choose that it means the Twins were derelict in their diligence. The second option seems totally unreasonable to me, especially when the Twins have signed a pitcher like Harden for far less risk.

 

That's basically how I feel about the situation. You can make an argument either way but being mad about them not signing him is pretty unreasonable.

[PseudoSABR]

This is bizarre thinking. You're removing a critical component of the debate simply because it doesn't fit the narrative you want. The upside exists because as of right now, he's walking into ST ready to pitch. He's not recovering from a surgery, he's not having surgery before then. So the upside exists, dismissing it to make your argument have merit is disingenuous.

Only going on the information we have. Yes. But more information is out there, that would give us more complete picture of the likelihood of his continued health. If the guys arm is hanging by a thread, it might start throwing pitches in ST, but it doesn't mean we can't earnestly predict the arm falling off when looking at the medicals. The possibility of potential actually has a ceiling by the health of Marcum's arm. It's just hard for me to go even that far without knowing more about why so many team shyed away. I don't think that's disingenuous, I think that's smart.

 

As for the rest of your post: I would suggest C) The Twins preferred Correia to Marcum because Correia is "more reliable" and Pelfrey is a "innings eater" whereas Marcum has had a few more off and on bouts with injuries so Marcum was never on their radar. He isn't their style of guy. So they were never interested regardless of cost because he was too risky.

I don't disagree with this. And I also think timing was in affect here, that the Twins weren't willing to wait out a 'health risk' guy. So when Pelfry and Harden signed, Marcum's price might have been much higher than what he signed for. The Twins might also prefer Pelfry form May to Sept. than starting with Marcum and waiting for his arm to fall off. There's nuance here, for sure.

 

Hard to assert the Twins medical insight into his situation given they had virtually no contact with him of any formal kind. No, this was an issue of him not meshing with our philosophy, not with our medical standards. Your continued campaign to frame this otherwise has ZERO merit. I can't speak to the reasons of the other 29 teams, I don't know them intimately and neither do you. Positing their reasons as being a universal disdain for his health is predicated on absolutely no facts whatsoever. Whereas I at least have the fact that the Twins were utterly disinterested despite significant need and significant payroll flexibility.

It's hard to assert either way. I'm not suggesting that Marcum is healthy or not. I don't know. I'm suggesting given the context of Marcum's contract, it's hard to assert that the Twins have any explaining to do. Something made Marcum so cheap. (And IRCC, the Twins did have contact with Marcum, just no contract offer (unless that was just made up stuff to throw the fans off the real scent of the Twins intent)).

 

You're completely guessing that it was the Twins philosophy that made it impossible to sign Marcum (and really that's the kind of stretch that seems rampant throughout this thread). Does Harden fit our pitching philosophy? Meyer? Mays? Even Worley? I'm not willing to separate our minor league acquisitions because such acquisitions speak to what our pitching philosophy actually is, not what it used to be. You can poo-poo the 28 other teams, but that's 29 pitching philosophies not taking the risk on Marcum.

 

Again, the Marcum contract seems to mean to you (evidently) A) the Twins philosophy prevents signing such high-risk pitchers rather than that medical records on Marcum don't even warrant four million dollars of risk. That seems like a weird conclusion to draw.

[Badsmerf]

The attempts to ratify this situation is an obvious result of the negativity piling up about FO decisions. I don't hate on the Twins because I like it, neither does anyone else IMO. I hate on the Twins because they deserve it. They conduct their business with arrogance and they now have been one of the worst teams in the MLB for 2 years because of it. I use 'arrogance' because they have always been shrewd and now have a new ballpark on taxpayer money and continue to make decisions based on a philosophy they call "Twins Way." Doesn't get much more arrogant than that IMO. Marcum is a clear example of this. I don't care if the Twins felt he doesn't fit their mold or whatever their position on him. Fact is that he signed a cheap contract and the Twins (not the other 28 teams that passed on him) should be asking themselves why they let this one slip. Shoot, they sign him and he is successful they might have an average rotation. Or he gets injured and you tell your fans "see, we are trying to everything possible and it just hasn't been working out." Either way, its money well spent on a guy with talent. Thats it. Some of us just want the Twins to bring in guys that actually have a chance to help the team, not just be ****ing waste of a roster spot like most everyone they sign. We're sick of this **** (I'm speaking for everyone else that is sick of this ****, regardless if it has anything to do with baseball).

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think that's disingenuous, I think that's smart.

 

You are being disingenuous to deny the upside advantage or to outright dismiss it. We all know the health risks that may be coming with him, the problem is that once again the Twins assumed less risk and less upside - a pattern that we have seen with Ryan for the better part of his entire career. It's completely in line with everything they did formerly under the guise of being a small market.

 

I don't disagree with this. And I also think timing was in affect here, that the Twins weren't willing to wait out a 'health risk' guy. So when Pelfry and Harden signed, Marcum's price might have been much higher than what he signed for. The Twins might also prefer Pelfry form May to Sept. than starting with Marcum and waiting for his arm to fall off. There's nuance here, for sure.

 

Nothing about their situation should have precluded them from pursuing him much like they are now doing with Saunders. That excuse doesn't fly.

 

You can poo-poo the 28 other teams, but that's 29 pitching philosophies not taking the risk on Marcum.

 

You are the one bringing 28 other teams into the mix. I don't know their reasons and don't pretend to, I know how this team operates and we have a long standing pattern of ignoring guys like Marcum because they are "too risky" or "not reliable" enough. In other words - that they totally ignore upside in FA in favor or reliability. That is maddening and frustrating.

[PseudoSABR]

The attempts to ratify this situation is an obvious result of the negativity piling up about FO decisions. I don't hate on the Twins because I like it, neither does anyone else IMO. I hate on the Twins because they deserve it. They conduct their business with arrogance and they now have been one of the worst teams in the MLB for 2 years because of it. I use 'arrogance' because they have always been shrewd and now have a new ballpark on taxpayer money and continue to make decisions based on a philosophy they call "Twins Way." Doesn't get much more arrogant than that IMO. Marcum is a clear example of this. I don't care if the Twins felt he doesn't fit their mold or whatever their position on him. Fact is that he signed a cheap contract and the Twins (not the other 28 teams that passed on him) should be asking themselves why they let this one slip. Shoot, they sign him and he is successful they might have an average rotation. Or he gets injured and you tell your fans "see, we are trying to everything possible and it just hasn't been working out." Either way, its money well spent on a guy with talent. Thats it. Some of us just want the Twins to bring in guys that actually have a chance to help the team, not just be ****ing waste of a roster spot like most everyone they sign. We're sick of this **** (I'm speaking for everyone else that is sick of this ****, regardless if it has anything to do with baseball).

Feel better?

 

Honestly, Smerf, it's hard for me to get worked up about this Marcum or Correia or Pelfry. When the Twins traded Span and Revere for Meyer, Mays, and Worley. That's ****ing LIGHT YEARS of progress to prior off-seasons. However distasteful lamely treading water is in 2013 and how cheap it is for management, I see a real legitimate shift in their pitching the philosophy. In some ways, this is an extension of what we saw in the draft, with more high-risk and high-velocity arms (maybe they'll even turn one of the bullpen arms into a starter, at least the approach is somewhat novel). The tone of your post just seems to miss the forest for the trees and unreasonably harsh.

[jokin]

This is bizarre thinking. You're removing a critical component of the debate simply because it doesn't fit the narrative you want. The upside exists because as of right now, he's walking into ST ready to pitch. He's not recovering from a surgery, he's not having surgery before then. So the upside exists, dismissing it to make your argument have merit is disingenuous.

 

Positing their reasons as being a universal disdain for his health is predicated on absolutely no facts whatsoever. Whereas I at least have the fact that the Twins were utterly disinterested despite significant need and significant payroll flexibility.

 

Warning- gratuitous perjorative to follow- but not "specious", 'cause calling one's argument "specious" isn't a perjorative....

 

This is the Pseudo-Universality-of-Soplipsism-Syndrome, or P.U.S.S.

 

Here's a good read on the situation: Home - Is Reality Real?

 

To summarize his thought process:

 

*Poor you, "You" just don't know you can't use elementary logic to quantify risk, my "universal logic" is all that matters and requires absolutely no facts to put in place.

*I ignore facts that don't fit my concept of Truth because my opinion is all that matters, disagree with me and you're a hater.

*We can never know what we don't know, that's me figuratively with my hands over my ears, what with all your futile attempts at quantifying risk

*Why would anyone ever take an unquantifiable risk on a pitcher with more upside over taking virtually the same unquantifiable risk on one with no upside? See, that's logical!

*There are 32 MLB teams in my Universe, so suck on that!

*And you're an inflammatory and hateful dum-dum.

[PseudoSABR]

You are being disingenuous to deny the upside advantage or to outright dismiss it.

I'm not dismissing it. If Marcum's actually healthy, he has upside.However, at what point can we discount upside when the chances of succeeding it are very remote? The contract that he received suggests to me (this is my reading of it) that the chances of Marcum meeting his potential is very remote, surprisingly remote, so remote that his upside might be foolhardy to invest in. That's not disingenuous.

We all know the health risks that may be coming with him, the problem is that once again the Twins assumed less risk and less upside - a pattern that we have seen with Ryan for the better part of his entire career. It's completely in line with everything they did formerly under the guise of being a small market.

This reading seems stuck in the past. How do explain Harden? I'm sure you'll dismiss him, but Ryan did take risks on injury-concern arms the past couple years, along with Pelfry and Zumaya. It's not true that the Twins don't take chances.

 

Nothing about their situation should have precluded them from pursuing him much like they are now doing with Saunders. That excuse doesn't fly.

Except that their aren't the injury concerns with Saunders.... And really I'm not listing excuses, I'm providing context. If you choose to believe that the Twins are willfully set against high upside pitchers, I guess go ahead, but I think that flies in the face of a number of other offseason moves.

 

You are the one bringing 28 other teams into the mix. I don't know their reasons and don't pretend to, I know how this team operates and we have a long standing pattern of ignoring guys like Marcum because they are "too risky" or "not reliable" enough. In other words - that they totally ignore upside in FA in favor or reliability. That is maddening and frustrating.

I don't need to know the other 28 teams' reasons for not taking the risk, to know that they didn't take the risk. The conclusion I can draw from that is that a potential number 2 starter is too risky at four million dollars for 29 teams. I'm not going to analyze this contract in isolation; that's just silly.

[Badsmerf]

Feel better?

 

Honestly, Smerf, it's hard for me to get worked up about this Marcum or Correia or Pelfry. When the Twins traded Span and Revere for Meyer, Mays, and Worley. That's ****ing LIGHT YEARS of progress to prior off-seasons. However distasteful lamely treading water is in 2013 and how cheap it is for management, I see a real legitimate shift in their pitching the philosophy. In some ways, this is an extension of what we saw in the draft, with more high-risk and high-velocity arms (maybe they'll even turn one of the bullpen arms into a starter, at least the approach is somewhat novel). The tone of your post just seems to miss the forest for the trees and unreasonably harsh.

I don't think its that harsh. I agree that those moves were positive signs and we haven't seen moves like that in a while. If 2013 doesn't matter why will people spend money to see a team that doesn't matter? Its frustrating that these types of moves hold too much risk for the Twins when the reward is so high. I'm not going to jump off a bridge because they didn't sign this guy, its just more of the same that got the Twins where they are now. Luckily, they have a lot of talent in the minors and a high draft pick to help bring them back. I hope when the talent makes it to the MLB they have modified their approach. That said, lets see if Marcum can stay healthy. If he fails I will give the Twins a little more credit (would still have advocated signing him was the right decision).

[PseudoSABR]

calling one's argument "specious" isn't a perjorative....

'Specious' is a criticism not a perjorative. I'm saying that the facts don't meet the conclusion (definitions vary). I'm not intending to disparage, though I'm intending to criticize. There's a difference.

 

I see you took the high road with the rest of your post, congrats on your restraint, precision, and talent. Really, cheers.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not dismissing it. If Marcum's actually healthy, he has upside.However, at what point can we discount upside when the chances of succeeding it are very remote? T

 

I'm not dismissing Harden, he's just not even in the same universe as Marcum for upside. So it's a completely different conversation. Back to the point, you ARE dismissing it. We KNOW what his upside is and you are minimizing it to the point of dismissal based on an inferred level of risk that you have no basis for other than speculation and flies in the face of how he finished last season.

 

Except that their aren't the injury concerns with Saunders.... And really I'm not listing excuses, I'm providing context. If you choose to believe that the Twins are willfully set against high upside pitchers, I guess go ahead, but I think that flies in the face of a number of other offseason moves.

 

None of those moves had anything to do with free agent signings did they? Your point was about timing. If the timing wasn't right to sign Marcum...why pursue Saunders? Ask yourself....and you already answered it in what I quoted above....why are they choosing Saunders over Marcum. Then, maybe you actually will understand the frustration.

[PseudoSABR]

I'm not dismissing Harden, he's just not even in the same universe as Marcum for upside. So it's a completely different conversation. Back to the point, you ARE dismissing it. We KNOW what his upside is and you are minimizing it to the point of dismissal based on an inferred level of risk that you have no basis for other than speculation and flies in the face of how he finished last season.

I'm not dismissing. I'm saying that upside probably doesn't outweigh the risk, I'm basing this on the surprisingly low guaranteed money he got BASED on what I know his upside to be. I'm totally waffling on it, because I haven't seen the medicals. That's not going to change, so I see no point in trying to pin me down here.

None of those moves had anything to do with free agent signings did they?

So what? The Twins are being cheap, perhaps, but their other pitching acquisitions seem to undermine the notion that the Twins philosophy prevented them from signing him.

Your point was about timing. If the timing wasn't right to sign Marcum...why pursue Saunders? Ask yourself....and you already answered it in what I quoted above....why are they choosing Saunders over Marcum. Then, maybe you actually will understand the frustration.

Why are they choosing Saunders over Marcum? Oh, I don't know. Maybe, health.

 

Snarkiness aside, I really don't feel we are all that far a part, my problem is where people use this non-signing as an extension of the Blackburn-Twins, and I'm actually happy to see that the Twins are making tangible pitching acquisitions that says otherwise. It's just hard for me to get worked up about.

 

You know, maybe's because I don't live in the Twin Cities, that the product on the field means less to me, and that's something I really haven't been thinking about.

[jokin]

'Specious' is criticism not a perjorative. I'm saying that the facts don't meet the conclusion (definitions vary). I'm not intending to disparage, though I'm intending to criticize. There's a difference.

 

I see you took the high road with the rest of your post, congrats on your restraint, precision, and talent. Really, cheers.

 

I see. In your Universe, your use of "specious" in conjunction with all the other Pseudo-perjoratives-laden attacks through these 7 pages exempts you on the use of "specious". One would think that you are not only at war with Twins Daily dissenters to the contrary to your version of "Truth", but as you failed to demonstrate that the opposing views are, in fact, specious, you appear to also be at war with Reality and the English Language, as well (See below):

 

 

pejorative (also term of abuse or derogatory term) is a word or grammatical form that connotes negativity and expresses contempt or distaste

 

specious 1. apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false, erroneous, fallacious, spurious, delusive, unsound, nugatory ......

PseudoSabr-Universe-antonym to specious: genuine

[jokin]

 

 

Snarkiness aside, I really don't feel we are all that far a part, my problem is where people use this non-signing as an extension of the Blackburn-Twins, and I'm actually happy to see that the Twins are making tangible pitching acquisitions that says otherwise. It's just hard for me to get worked up about.

 

You know, maybe's because I don't live in the Twin Cities, that the product on the field means less to me, and that's something I really haven't been thinking about.

 

No, I think it's fair to say that people on the other side from you use the signing of Correia as an extension of the Blackburn-Twins.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm totally waffling on it, because I haven't seen the medicals. That's not going to change, so I see no point in trying to pin me down here.

 

So then marching in here to wag your finger at people being pissed at missing on this upside isn't really warranted methinks.

 

So what? The Twins are being cheap, perhaps, but their other pitching acquisitions seem to undermine the notion that the Twins philosophy prevented them from signing him.

 

WE....ARE....TALKING....ABOUT......FREE....AGENCY!!!!!!! Cmon Pseudo, you told us all that you get it and that this is unnecessary to keep repeating. Everyone loves and appreciates the trades. Ryan has a history of aggressive trading, no one is worried about that. We ARE worried about how this team utilizes free agency to improve the club now that the small market excuse is no longer valid. All evidence from this offseason points to this team having a stubborn, narrow view of how to utilize this important aspect of team building. Choosing Saunders over Marcum at this stage of free agency only highlights the problem even moreso. Reliability > Talent in free agency for this team. That is really disturbing for hope of future aggressiveness to help the core this team is building around. When there is no downside and only upside....and still we go with the same old strategy? That's not a good sign.

 

I cannot say it any more simply than that.

[PseudoSABR]

I see. In your Universe, your use of "specious" in conjunction with all the other Pseudo-perjoratives-laden attacks through these 7 pages exempts you on the use of "specious". One would think that you are not only at war with Twins Daily dissenters to the contrary to your version of "Truth", but as you failed to demonstrate that the opposing views are, in fact, specious, you appear to also be at war with Reality and the English Language, as well (See below):

 

 

pejorative(also term of abuse or derogatory term) is a word or grammatical form that connotes negativity and expresses contempt or distaste

 

specious 1. apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false, erroneous, fallacious, spurious, delusive, unsound, nugatory ......

PseudoSabr-Universe-antonym to specious: genuine

Saying that someone's logic seems faulty to me is not derogatory, distasteful, nor contemptible. We're allowed to disagree with each other's reasoning. You're being ridiculous.

 

When I called you 'asinine,' that was a perjorative, 'specious,' is not.

[PseudoSABR]

WE....ARE....TALKING....ABOUT......FREE....AGENCY!!!!!!!

Sorry, Captain Discourse. It was wrong of me to suggest you were overreacting to the Marcum signing.

[TheLeviathan]

Sorry, Captain Discourse.

 

Well jesus man, how many times does it have to be clarified? I specified it at least twice.

[snepp]

I know this isn't exactly original thinking, but is it possible that the payroll flexibility that they say is still there, really isn't there? That ~$80 million is the new payroll ceiling and they don't want to make that known?

 

I guess I'm just curious what "flexibility" really means in terms of actual dollars.

[TheLeviathan]

I know this isn't exactly original thinking, but is it possible that the payroll flexibility that they say is still there, really isn't there? That ~$80 million is the new payroll ceiling and they don't want to make that known?

 

I guess I'm just curious what "flexibility" really means in terms of actual dollars.

 

Hard to say, but St. Peter and Ryan have acknowledged it and tried to tease a mid-season acquisition with it. (Which, to me, sounds a lot like more hope being sold ala pre-offseason talk) So seems pretty real to me.

[PseudoSABR]

Well jesus man, how many times does it have to be clarified? I specified it at least twice.

I was being sarcastic. I think it's completely unreasonable to restrict the conversation to free agency when we are speaking about things as grand as the Twins pitching philosophy and their motives in regards to 2013. I prefer looking at a broader context when wanting to make evaluations about the FO's competence. Last years offseason, this years draft, this years trades, the acquisitions of Pelfry and Harden all undermine the notion of the Twins being risk adverse. But if you prefer to limit your frame of reference to signing Corriea, not signing Marcum, and pursuing Saunders (?), I suppose you've really been right all along.

[TheLeviathan]

But if you prefer to limit your frame of reference to signing Corriea, not signing Marcum, and pursuing Saunders (?), I suppose you've really been right all along.

 

Pseudo...that has been the point! We all got on here and praised the Twin's trades. You can search my Ryan posts - I'm a fan of his. I like his emphasis on the organization, I really do. BUT.....we are not a penny-pinching small market anymore. He has financial resources and this team is going to have significant financial room. This offseason was started with a promise of aggression and was completed with the same old, risk-averse, poor allocation of resources, limited upside moves. Again, if their approach to this critical component of team improvement (FA...not trading) is this narrow and stubborn - I have serious concerns as a fan. That's the vibe I get that others are trying to communicate as well.

[mcrow]

I know this isn't exactly original thinking, but is it possible that the payroll flexibility that they say is still there, really isn't there? That ~$80 million is the new payroll ceiling and they don't want to make that known?

 

I guess I'm just curious what "flexibility" really means in terms of actual dollars.

That's my thinking. I think TR was given a number that was substantially less than the 50% to work with and I'm sure that's supposed to be a secret. I don't think they ever intended to approach 50% this season.

[jokin]

Saying that someone's logic seems faulty to me is not derogatory, distasteful, nor contemptible. We're allowed to disagree with each other's reasoning. You're being ridiculous.

 

When I called you 'asinine,' that was a perjorative, 'specious,' is not.

 

You missed the part about you originally denying that your opening gambit in debate is always to use the perjorative and the fact that I stated that you use other perjoratives in conjunction with "specious", thus making its intent also perjorative.

[jokin]

Sorry Captain Discourse.

 

 

But if you prefer to limit your frame of reference to signing Corriea, not signing Marcum, and pursuing Saunders (?), I suppose you've really been right all along.

 

Pseudo-passive? Meet your cranial neighbor, SABR-agressive.

[Guest USAFChief]

Twins Daily logic: "I'll just continue to ignore the possibility that Marcum might have legitimate, obvious health risks, and continue to hate on the Twins."

You seem to have missed the obvious...why did "the possibility that Marcum might have legitimate, obvious health risks" suddenly become an issue on the day Marcum signed with the Mets, but wasn't an issue right up until that point? Where were all the don't-sign-Marcum posts before he signed elsewhere?

[PseudoSABR]

You seem to have missed the obvious...why did "the possibility that Marcum might have legitimate, obvious health risks" suddenly become an issue on the day Marcum signed with the Mets, but wasn't an issue right up until that point? Where were all the don't-sign-Marcum posts before he signed elsewhere?

Because the contract tells us something that we didn't know before.