TheLeviathan

I'm not claiming to be objective, I'm claiming to be realistic. At the core of liberalism is this incessant need to paint everyone who says the truth as a cynic. Some people are just not very intelligent. There is nothing controversial about that. No amount of "help" makes them more intelligent. We can help them to be more skilled, but they're still not intelligent. Just more skilled - which is precisely the manner in which we should approach it. And while it's cute that you are pulling the classic attack of making me a monster to say that, it isn't true that I want to cast these people into the gutter. I'm just not willing to orient everything in life to the misguided idea that everyone is the same and capable of the same. They aren't. It's that childish delusion that is something out of a Care Bear cartoon that really makes me despise liberalism. You can't fix stupid by hoping they figure it out while we provide everything they need - they won't. To a liberal that probably sounds like awful, evil conservatism. It's just realistic, nothing more. You let me know when everyone has the same talents, intelligence, and work ethic and I'll gladly endorse your ideas though. As for Obama - there is nothing hidden about his liberalism. While I would certainly call certain aspects of his belief system moderate (military use comes to mind), I would not call his beliefs about the role of government anything but significantly left of center. Clinton was a moderate. My beliefs about government are right of center, that doesn't make my evaluation off. You are just further left of Obama, it doesn't make him moderate. That's the misperception here.

It's not "conservative", it's simply realistic. Not everyone is intelligent. Or hard working. Or talented. Unless you want to start manipulating genetic code it's never going to be the case. (Certainly not with today's breeding rate for the college educated vs. the poor. Idiocracy baby) I have no problem giving people opportunity when they are hard on their luck and providing help that can do that. I won't, however, cross the line into doing it for them. No matter how much you socially program you, as the old saying goes, "can't fix stupid" Not everyone fails for that reason, hence why we need programs that give those that are unlucky or from unfortunate circumstances all the tools we have. The issue is that the system lefties push is oriented to "fix stupid" rather than "help those that need". That's my issue. You want the best case of this in the country? Look at student loans and our education system.

Maybe the Texans, but I don't think Schaub stays healthy to the Super Bowl. And losing Cushing hurt that team a lot.

How about everything associated with the bailouts? Not that Republicans wouldn't have done it to, but it was more the methods behind it. I'm hardly "far right" about people. Unless you consider not being a pollyanna "far right". I'm just realistic about people, if we spent more time doing that we might really make some progress. Compassion doesn't have to end because you acknowledge the limitations of humanity and refuse to indulge them. You just change your orientation. That underlying assumption (compassion = indulging) is a major reason why we have so many problems with education and social welfare. And that foundational belief has flooded left-wing thinking to the point of making it so obnoxious and counter-productive that I rail against it every opportunity I have.

You mean like when I've reamed Hornhead for privitizing education, gay marriage, drug legalization, abortion law, etc? You and I have very different ideas of what a Republican is apparently.

Yeah, I think Romney falls short. Only state vote I care about is voting in favor of gay marriage, that and seeing Bachman go down.

Try and keep up - my opinion is that you are over-valuing him. Necessarily so? No, you could be right in the end.

Nope, was suggesting a plausible scenario in which your aggressive attitude about Span's value was false. You've gone out of your way to go after anyone that suggests Span isn't as attractive a commodity as some are suggesting. I've shared my opinion, you're welcome to yours as well. I hope yours is right, because then we'll turn Span into better value than I believe we will. But citing stats does not lead to a factual conclusion of trade value and it's silly to assert that.

Obama isn't moderate. That's not coming from a conservative, that's coming from a libertarian independent. He's far more liberal than Clinton. Clinton was probably the last sensible, moderate President we've had. There's a reason why Obama is parading him around to do the heavy lifting. I appreciate Obama being tough on the terrorism angle in terms of military action, but the guy still talks like a liberal. He tries really hard to hide it, but it's there. This country is in genuine need of someone who won't just talk it come the main election cycle, we need someone who's no-nonsense and common sense to the core. Once again we don't get that choice.

Heh. Well at least we got to the crux of it. I'm not saying you are necessarily over-valuing him. My point is that trade value is a very hard thing to pin down because it is built on perception and a number of contingent variables that we don't always have access to. It's not as simple as saying Player X has a WAR of Y, therefore his trade value is Z. It doesn't work like that. Span is a very solid player but I don't believe his value as a player is going to be fetched in the trade market. Some players fetch more than their value, some don't. But that is merely my opinion, one I'm entitled to without being drummed over the head with statistics that only matter tangentially. In simpler terms for you - there is no fact-based argument about player trade value. It's nice that we think Tampa is in the market for CF, it makes it an option worth exploring, but to assert that anyone's doubts about Span's ability to fetch a particular player (Minor or Shields) is really something based more on a gut feeling. The numbers you post exist, but Tampa doesn't have to care about them. Tampa could also care greatly about them, but still more about his concussions. We, on a message board, don't know that. Getting high and mighty about someone else's gut feeling about trade value is trying to punch air. It won't work and you look stupid doing it.

There are plenty of ways they could address things. They could put Jennings in CF and look for another OF to bat leadoff. There are a multitude of ways any team could do things. You're getting caught over-valuing a player you watch every day. Span is a player with concussion issues who is very solid, but unspectacular. You're not going to get anyone's prime trade bait with him alone. If Ryan pulls that off, great, but attacking anyone that questions that kind of speculation has plenty of flaws too.

The NFC, I know that much.

So first to back up your point you make an assumption that is extremely favorable to your viewpoint? Cmon. The Rays have never acted in a way that is restricted by such limited, conventional thinking. They won't be taken to the woodshed in a Span deal because of some perceived "need" for a certain type of player at one position. Leadoff hitters don't have to play CF - they can address their OBP needs in other ways without Span. Your entire premise in this thread is built on the idea that we have Tampa right where we want them. That's hardly the case. The deal makes some sense for both sides and is worth exploring, but it is a bit far fetched to think you'll land Shields for Span. Just as it is that you'll land a top SP prospect for him.

I want to believe that, but public pressure and budget availability leave me a bit worried.

The Walking Dead and most anything else on AMC sunday nights is really my only prime watching these days.

If you're going to add competition for Plouffe I'd rather have it be a left-handed hitter or a guy that can play SS/2B option like Keppinger.

The problem isn't your opinions. The problem is your style of sharing them causes nasal hemorrhaging. Clean up your posts, articulate yourself, and you may find your opinion very much appreciated. But it won't be in this ridiculous manner you've been posting. Nothing but constructive criticism because it doesn't pay to be posting in a message board if you can't actually communicate your message.

I fully expect this to happen. And I fully expect to be depressed about it and reiterate that this is what happens when you concentrate on winning now and not building a quality organization.

Clearly you don't understand the nature of this option.

Middle of the pack offense isn't exactly something to sit back on your laurels with either.

Getting to a world series involves a lot. But first let me again point out the fact that you didn't do your research. Mike Leake started Game 4....do you know why? Probably not since once again you posted nonsense without fact-checking. When Cueto went down Matt Latos (the would be Game 2 starter) pitched 4 innings. Which forced Game 3 starter Bronson Arroyo up. Which then forced Cincy's 5th starter Leake to pitch in a situation that would have been Arroyo with Cueto going in a do or die Game 5. If you don't think that kind of adjustments were an advantage for the Giants and a big stroke of luck....well I'll keep my current opinion of your mental fortitude to myself. Between the Giants lack of pitching injuries, gifts from "god" (Giants players themselves admitting to getting lucky breaks), and severe injuries to their regular season and postseason opponents - they've had plenty of good fortune. Good to know though that dribbling grounders through your legs are flukes but broken bats and funny hops "happen in any game." I'd ask where that difference is, but I'm really just hoping you realize how embarrassing this has been for you and just move on.

Hooray offseason analysis! You just saved us saved us several dozen inane threads! Your work will not soon be forgotten, thank you sir.

Actually, I've compared players specifically as well. I never claimed team ERA was the end-all, be-all. Go back and (since you finally, 6 posts in demonstrated the ability to research the BS you throw on the screen) and see - it's just what I chose to use because it has a strong sample size and is comparable. No stat is perfect, but all of your charges against it (fifth starters, backend bullpen, Jeff Gray's win total) were stupid and unfounded. So your easily explained pre-disposition as a Twins fan to see them as the worst vindicates your choice of statistic? Well, you didn't top Jeff Gray, but good effort. I have no problem using those stats too. To me it doesn't matter what the stat is, there isn't one that shows the Giants are clearly the best. I picked team ERA (because, for the fun of it, let's just say my litmus test was the Rockies were baseball's worst pitching team. Subjectivity is fun!) because it represents the runs the team allowed with some independence from poor defense. Not as much as other stats, but a simple go-to stat. Team ERA could certainly be criticized based on park factors, FIP, and a few others but because of fifth starters, unresearched bullpen assertions, and Jeff Gray's win total? No, that's stupid. Absolutely. Luck plays in on a number of factors. The Giants are lucky to have had their entire starting rotation the entire season. They had a grand total of 2 starts by guys not planned to be in their rotation. That is flukey and lucky. Having your first round opponent (a superior team IMO) lose it's best starter and possible Cy Young winner in the first inning of Game 1 was lucky. Bochy and Blanco have both credited "god" for breaks this postseason. It happens in baseball that flukes and things tend to just go your way (broken bat hits, funny hops, etc.) - denying this can play a role in the postseason is silly.

Nice edit - I repeat - name another. This changes nothing - take any stat you want. Fact is all stats are subject to the same flaws so your distinction is meaningless. We can do this anyway you want and your arguments are still nonsense. So post your analysis tool - it isnt hard.

Not working that way. You claimed season team ERA was flawed - name another. You got caught with your embarrassingly stupid Jeff Gray and bullpen reasoning and still have yet to provide an unrefuted reason. I have posted stats and analysis to consistent shoot down your stupidity. Name what you use to assess the teams instead. Just make sure its better than Jeff Grays win total so you recover some face here. Hell I'm annoyed with you and still fell bad for how ignorant you have looked. So let's hear it and I will be happy to answer. I've put plenty of effort in (in clear contrast to your laughable attempts) so no need to worry. This was an amusing attempt to use a fallacy to wiggle out though. Nice try, no dice.