TheLeviathan

I don't know how you guys remember those details. Then again, I only found the thread after it had been aflame for awhile already. The youtube links were the best.

That was a great quote you pulled jokin. Whining is all this really is.

Well, there goes one guy (Benson) I was really trying to be positive about this offseason.

There is no excuse great enough to deny humanity that thread RP. Link it up.

Shortstops can only bat ninth though right? Impact = minimized.

Gee, I thought anyone taking the idea of giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to unproven children and comparing it to kidnapping was going to have a sane, rational position that I would be interested in hearing. How wrong I was.

True but isn't there some high injury risks on our staff in Pelfrey and Gibson? Or at least injury aggravation concerns? My issue I that most of your hope is based on the odds of being that awful again more than on the actual talent. But in my eyes last year was far from a doomsday scenario. In many ways we could have been much worse in the ways Willihammer detailed. Last year had a very low floor and I see the same problem now. It wouldn't shock me to see similar results without the aid of a catastrophe.

I hear a lot of Arthur Brown talk.....what's the lowdown on him mike?

I don't need a deep breath I'm sharing honestly, openly, and respectfully. I am frustrated by inconsistencies that others share and I now know are being worked through. That's the only thing I was requesting. But the irony of that reply above in this thread is amusing, I will leave it at that and bite my tongue about what I really think.

Except under current rules being rude without naming names would in fact be a violation. As I continue to try and make clear - my issue is not their intent to foster better dialogue, my issue is inconsistent execution, refusal to elaborate and clarify, hypocrisy, and changing expectations. None of which your condescending post seems to have acknowledged. Please don't oversimplify my point to belittle it.

Except that the policy was changed mid-stream. If the effort is truly to persuade someone from not violating the policy, why is there such silence on better explanations of what is being policed? I've made three attempts to get someone to explain how I violated policies I was warned and banned for attacks on arguments, with language like "obtuse" and "not makes sense" apparently serious enough to qualify for a ban which caused discussion on the board for it being ridiculous and those concerns were largely met with silence. If this is truly the efforts of the moderators, perhaps a bit more transparency (even privately) would be nice. Hell, I took a seven day ban for calling an argument obtuse and the very obtuse-argument poster literally called other posters names and was back in three days. Sky posted earlier that he did the same thing to Fro that Fro was banned for and didn't receive a warning. Hell, his post actually got a like from an administrator. How does that happen? For one person the tact gets them a ban and for the other they get an admin like? I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that people are going to start really getting annoyed at this kind of inconsistency. Part of the issue is people not liking the policy, another is not liking enforcement. I still sit here, three private requests in and multiple requests here, waiting to hear that. I respect you and I know you have tried to do this to varying degrees glunn, but I think your version of the events here is a bit too rose-colored. But I'd be more than happy for someone to do more than pay lip-service to the inconsistencies. That would be swell.

Smerf, you could've much more clearly defined your stance on trade proposals with an outline of "The Duensing Rule" If every trade proposal you suggest includes someone that no other team in their right mind wants for any significant price but your fan base unrealistically believes has real and significant value....you should probably stop and rethink. Unless you're throwing Duensing into your proposed idea for snark purposes, which is heartily endorsed as good fun.

That's a good point. Except I'm not sure too many of us were "high" last year. Unless you had a different kind of "high" in mind? (See everyone in a week for all I know.....)

Hey, I'm all about Hendricks building. Maybe even Deduno. But your whole post seems to be intentionally missing the point, no?

Why would it get better?

I get what you're saying, but it lacks context. All of the new acquisitions are jumping from the NL (historically not a good thing), one is coming off a major injury, another is coming off a significant injury, and the other's career norm just isn't very good. I'm optimistic about Hendricks and Gibson, but given that we are walking into this season with Devries and Deduno in the rotation already (and that's with Pelfrey pitching) there are plenty of reasons to be very concerned that we are actually better. I guess, to me it's not about being a pessimist, it's that this team has a very low floor. Not unlike last year.

One thing to remember about the comparison of this year to last year is that several of the guys we are walking into this thing relying on this year were somewhere between 7 and 12 on the starting pitching depth chart for this team last year. Their ascension up the depth chart has little to do with talent and production and much more to do with having a pulse and being relatively indistinguishable from the rest of the options. It's great we added a few new names, but it remains to be seen if they are any better considering two guys like Deduno and Devries are getting rotation nods to open the season. Given that the cast of characters isn't that different, it's not hard to imagine the results being not much different as well.

Anyone but Duensing is my take. So he fits the bill insofar as that. He was entertaining to watch, though I could do without the endless chatter from Dick and Bert about how his fastball is something akin to a wild stallion yearning to be controlled.

Well, that's your opinion Dave, but in 2011 there was a lot of talk about him being a 2012 top ten pick. There is a lot of talent there, I'd love to gamble on that in the third.

Also -as good as hammer's analysis is the conclusion is still too strong. Some of that gap could be further reduced by any number of explanations other than speed. One example would be the number of those singles hit to RF vs LF.

I think before the whole drug fiasco he was considered a top 10 talent. Granted, that was almost two years ago. That's why I'm thinking you could snag him with a third, but who knows. Who are you referring to? Te'o? I wouldn't draft him with a seventh. I don't know if I deal up for a guy his size. I do think he could be a game breaker, but I think I worry about how often he's going to be useful and functional for this team. Percy was small, but he was physical as all hell for his size. I'm not sure he's the right fit for us at this point. I'd much rather have a big possession receiver and go for that small, scat-back/WR type later in the draft. Maybe Ace Sanders from SC or Josh Boyce from TCU instead?

I think this is a good point. I disagree with you Dave that we should let snark self-police. BYTO is gone and I think we can all move on with that. But that bolded text is basically saying "If we think someone might be maybe offended you could be banned" - which is so arbitrary I'm not sure where to start. Again, I'm just waiting for some clarity. I don't think that's too much to ask and should be the first milestone any moderation effort seeks to establish before going ban-happy. I get not wanting people to call each other idiots, but the moderation here has gone WAY past that. I would almost think it farcical nannyism if it wasn't actually happening.

Good god I hope not. I may actually break down and cry. Ponder would easily become my second least-favorite Viking. I'm hearing most mocks put Honey Badger in the fourth....am I just reading the wrong ones or is steam building on him?

My point was that the Twins, Gardy in particular, tends to go with some very old conventions rather than relying on OPS and OBP. The "play second-bat second" is obviously exaggerated, but there have been times where he has batted inferior players (see: Mike Redmond) in the same position as far superior players on the basis of nothing more than position. Carlos Gomez got quite a few ABs in the leadoff role based solely on his speed as well. If your point was that a team is overlooking speed in favor of OBP, the Twins are not a good example. (This coming from a guy who has long railed on the Twins for their ineffective use of team speed BTW) The issue with your suggestion isn't that speed can aid in run scoring, I think we can most all agree it can. But your hypothetical doesn't prove it, especially with how narrow you have it defined and how shallow your examples are. If there are two guys, one with a .340 OBP and one with a .355 OBP and Mr. .340 is MUCH faster, I think most people can get behind the idea of him batting second. But the far better general rule is to load your lineup in order of guys who make the least number of outs. I think the confusion in this thread is that you seemed to be taking issue with that. (And at times I think it's clear your language was doing precisely that)

Some mocks have him going in the top 15....are you seeing him slide in any? The resigned Erin Henderson as well. (Bleh) My dream scenario: We draft: MLB Ogletree, WR Justin Hunter, NT John Jenkins,CB Honey Badger, WR Robert Woods, FS Bacarri Rambo. Try to beat that kind of blind optimism Dave! But boy would that make my day. Not totally impossible either.