KirbyDome89

It sure fits the bill for what can be considered a rant; one that was aimed directly at specific members and engaged in that aforementioned bickering. There were pages of off topic comments in that thread by multiple members. It had been going on for days. That wasn't why my post was deleted. It was deleted because a sentence in one post was deemed to be disrespectful. That is directly from the mod that deleted it. Its absurd to think that if I called another members comment sad and boring I would be warned? I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on that one. Again: My response to another poster was removed because of one line. The mod post was edited because only one line is deemed offensive. One policy violation by me results in 2 warning points, a content creation ban, and entire content deletion. The other policy violation by a mod results in a sentence being edited. That is inconsistent.

It was a self proclaimed rant directed towards a few of us with a warning thrown in at the end. My response to another poster was removed because of one line. The mod post was edited because only one line is deemed offensive. One policy violation by me results in 2 warning points, a content creation ban, and entire content deletion. The other policy violation by a mod results in a sentence being edited. Again, that seems very inconsistent.

Thats funny because I would say the post to which I replied was equally "disrespectful," yet it was allowed to stand and no action was taken until I responded to it. If you want to pm we can go over exactly how I felt that thread was going, but this is starting down a tangential path. I've already pointed out what I see as the biggest issue with the way the situation unfolded.

The second mod post came occurred in conjunction with the 1st warning point. I'm not fighting that. The issue I have is that the second mod post contained quite obviously the same tone and language of the posts that were removed and issued points. For pointing that out I received another 2 points and was banned from content creation. The mod post was edited and then allowed to stand. If a mod can break posting policy yet simply edit the original and allow their post to stand while regular posters are issued 2 points and banned from content creation for breaking posting policy I take issue with the standard that is being set.

Ha, the first I considered a badge of honor.

Hear ya. It wasn't so much the fact that action was taken, rather it was the severity and lopsided nature of said action that raised concern.

No prob. In fairness I wasn't aware this forum was even "a thing," until it was brought to my attention. I get it, people make mistakes. My response to the mod warning was more about my distaste for the way we were called out in the public forum. Ha, I'm not sure how to take the fact that it wasn't unilateral action that was taken. In most cases I would say thats great. In this case I'm hoping it was more of a 51/49 split. Thats true. Really the only concern I had was regarding myself (selfish) I was only using the "we," pronoun because the original thread involved a handful of us posting.

I understand the human aspect. I'm not personally angry at any of the mods or even remotely offended by anything that was said. I already owned the back and forth earlier in that thread. Regardless, I don't think it explains or sanctions the mod post and what transpired after. I'm certain lots of posters have to restrain from posting how they really feel or think, I wouldn't say that is unique to mods. If mods are allowed to break posting policy then simply make alterations to their post and allow it stand while others have their content deleted and are banned from content creation that is heavily favoring one side.

I’ve taken issue with the recent handling of a thread and I have some concerns. Before I elaborate, I’m going to be VERY CLEAR that this isn’t an admonishment of all moderators (or even those involved) so there is no need for posts referencing the work mods do or how thankless the job is; this isn’t a trial and I’m not looking for evidence to condemn or exonerate. I was directed here via pm by one of the mods involved. Lastly, I’m not going to specifically name other posters, mods, or the thread as the concerns have to do with policy application and therefore calling out someone else by name is irrelevant. I received an initial warning point in a thread because the discourse was deemed too personal. The pm sent by the mod explained why the point was issued. While I dispute some of the details involving the overall tone of the conversation and the timeliness of the action taken I can accept the point and that the thread was dominated by a small group of us and move on. What I initially took issue with was the self-described rant posted by the mod in addition to the pm sent. “You know, locking up a thread shouldn't be the solution to disagreement. It's actually kind of sad if that is the solution. Why not just shrug, agree to disagree, and just end your part in the discussion without saying anything further and walk away. This need to prove another wrong or prove yourself right or keep arguing until others agree with you or so you can have the last word is sad and boring. Yeah, I get it, you passionately believe you are right. So what? The other believes that, too. But making your arguments personal toward another is not going to fly. And if anyone is wondering ... a few posts and/or comments were removed that would make my rant make sense.” I subsequently responded to the post and pointed out the hypocrisy. The post was full of the same condescension and attacking dialogue that we were penalized for. If I, or another poster, were to call the opinions of others in a forum sad and boring it would most certainly be taken as a personal attack. For pointing out that fact I was awarded another 2 warning points by another mod, my post was deleted, and I was banned from posting content for 24 hours. The second mod was the one that pointed me here. We exchanged a series of messages. I expressed that I felt bounds had been overstepped by the initial moderator post and that issuing 2 extra warning points for pointing that out seemed excessive. I was told that I was awarded more points because I don’t have the right to vent publicly about other posters or moderators. I was also told that if I had pm’ed the mod directly about the inappropriate post there would have been no need assigned the extra points. My response was to again point to exactly how the initial mod post violated the policy that was just stated to me. I also made the point that using the same logic; had we (the handful of posters involved) been pm’ed by the original mod there would have been no need for the rant either. Eventually the original mod post was amended, and allowed to stand as it was no longer deemed offensive. I propositioned that if the post was edited then my claim obviously carried merit. I also made the case that it had to have bearing on the excess points I was awarded, but apparently not. I feel that the application of posting policy in this matter was both heavy handed and extremely uneven. It feels very much like a standard has been created where mods aren’t held to the same scrutiny that regular posters are. Our posts are deleted, we’re issued warning points for getting personal, then we’re flamed by mod rant that was every bit what we were critiqued over. I post and point out the hypocrisy; my post is deleted, I’m awarded more points, and I’m banned from content creation. Meanwhile, only after a back and forth via messages with the second mod, is the original post slightly amended. It was then allowed to stand. It was a very vexing handling to say the least. Posting policy was often cited to me, which leads me to believe it is very important to those who moderate on this site. Assuming that is case, I can’t understand how it is deemed acceptable for those policies to only apply in one direction. When my content is removed, I’m awarded warning points, and I’m banned from creation while the other party is allowed to simply alter their original post and this is considered justifiable I’m not sure how to view it as anything other than inconsistent.

"The Twins could wait until the trade deadline and hope there are more teams willing to deal away their top talent. This would also require Dozier to continue to play the way he did in the second half" Please lets not....

We've gone over where the farm stands, the fact that Porcello and Smyly were once a part of it is irrelevant to the point I was making about the trades.... Yes, I think that constantly trading prospects along with losing picks has weakened the farm system. Yes, I think that unloading prospects right now like they did to get Cabrera and Fister would be extremely difficult. Again, their current farm isn't the same as 2007, so I'm not subscribing to the "they did it already, they'll just continue to do it," logic. Whats odd is that to bring in a player like Cespedes or Price the headline piece in the deals was a young MLB player rather than a prospect. Detroit was detached from their prospects as previous trades suggest; so why not flip more of them for those players rather than give up a starting pitcher? A trade that brought in MLB talent was absolutely what they needed the last couple years, so why didn't it happen? If they're that capable, why weren't they making the same trades the past few years that they were previously. The case has already been made that they have no trouble using a bad farm system to return MLB talent so why give up the starters; unless their farm really is that weak or/and they're moving in a different direction as evidenced by comments the GM made and the fact they're shopping players. Stop acting like there is no risk associated for the team bringing on the MLB player. You might have a better idea of what you're getting but there is no guarantee of production from the players you acquire on either side. Getting a generational talent in a trade is a steal. If Sale maintains his current pace for another 7 seasons he'll match Cabrera in WAR. Scherzer had started almost 40 games over 2 seasons when they traded for him. He wasn't a prospect, and the trade obviously paid off. Norris hasn't even pitched a full season for the Tigers yet. I would hold off on both comparisons....Its one thing to say they're following the same blueprint, its another to expect they'll get similar results.

That example isn't even comparable to the value they received in the deals I was talking about. Do you seriously think they can go out and make more trades similar to what brought Cabrera and Scherzer in? C'mon....I thought your whole thing was being honest and real. Again, if you argument is that they don't have to build because they'll steal another 1st Ballot HOFer and pick up another 2 time Cy Young winner before he blossoms then I'll strongly disagree.

Whether he signs a minor or major league deal doesn't matter. He signed as a FA. That was the point of the list. There is nothing dishonest about including him in a list of FA signings, but pretending that list doesn't exist and trying to invalidate it because you don't like one of the players included just might be... "They have kept many over the years." You didn't say that in reference to the amount of talented young players Detroit has? You must have a different idea of what "very rare," means.

That farm system is terrible BECAUSE they constantly trade for veterans....The Tigers farm in 2007 wasn't the same as the 2017 version. Every trade and every forfeited pick adds up. By 2014 the headline players they gave up (Porcello, Smyly) in trades were already in MLB. In 15' prospects netted them Cameron Maybin (who was good), and in 16' they picked up Erick Aybar. Apart from the Maybin revival, those moves aren't the same type as the earlier trades that brought in guys like Cabrera, Gose, Anibal Sanchez, Johnny Peralta, Iglesias, Fister, ect... You're treating those 2 trades as if they're the same as flipping some prospects for a 2.5 WAR player. They stole Cabrera from Miami and Scherzer blew up into a Cy Young pitcher. Those type of trades are extremely rare and they definitely set them up for that playoff run. I'm not missing the point, I disagree with the notion that you can lump all their trades into the same category and say "they've done it before and were successful, they'll continue to do it." Banking on those types of trades isn't reliable. Its like looking at the Twins and thinking they'll find another Johan for Jared Camp. You need a base from which to build.

You must've forgotten the comment otherwise you would know I read it. Those 4 were/are fine players. Castellanos was good last year, Avila had a couple nice years, but if Ryan Raburn and James McCann are two of the better players you can point to them calling up over the last 10 years I don't see reason to applaud. That to me says more about a lack of talent than development acumen. I realize they brought in value via trades, that was never in dispute. At some point you need to have that core. Even the Tigers had players that they built around. Bringing in a solid 2.5 WAR OF'er is nice, and they did a great job of bringing those players in, but those are support players. The Tigers won massively in the Scherzer and Cabrera trades and that laid the foundation for the 2011-2014 playoff run. There is a huge difference between squeezing value out of a depleted farm system and trading for a 1st ballot HOFer and a two time Cy Young winner. Credit to Detroit for snagging those guys but if the argument is that they don't need to build because they can continue to make those kinds of trades I'm going to disagree.

I'm not really sure what the argument is that you're making. First you said they've kept a lot of their talented young players. Now, you're going on about how many they've traded away. I've been saying this entire time that they've sacrificed prospects for FAs and trades. You seem to be reinforcing that....so we agree? You also didn't address the question I asked. If Detroit is so much better at finding and developing talent, why would they be so eager to let it go? If you can develop elite young talent at the rate you suggest, and have them on rookie contracts why would the Tigers be interested in trading them for older, more expensive players? That makes 0 sense... I think a much more likely scenario is that they did have talent in the minors, but the system has been thinned out due to trades and losing picks and as a result they're consistently rated as one of the worst farms in baseball. They very well may be one of the better teams at recognizing talent, and that would explain how they've been able to pull off some of those trades, but I think the degree to which you think they have an advantage is exaggerated. I really doubt that a smart team like Detroit could have such an edge but continually choose to pay more. They're mislabeled? Magglio Ordonez Ivan Rodriguez Johnny Damon Kenny Rogers Victor Martinez Prince Fielder Torii Hunter Joaquin Benoit JD Martinez Justin Upton Jordan Zimmerman These guys seem like pretty "real," players to me.....

If they've kept so many and they're also great at developing them then why hasn't there been an influx of young players on the MLB team? It has gone from they traded away talented prospects for proven MLB players, to the farm was never that great, to they're excellent at talent development and they've kept plenty of young players. It can't be all three. I think Detroit did trade away talented prospects; Rick Porcello, Jair Jurrjens, Drew Smyly, and Andrew Miller are just some of those players. What I'm skeptical of is the notion that Detroit is superior to other teams in drafting and developing. If that were the case why would they not use that to their advantage and build a team full of young talent on cheap contracts? Why constantly overpay for FAs if you're that capable? It makes no sense to me that you state they have such an advantage in that area, but then assert they can't miss any of the prospects they've traded. I agree, if you don't have a spot for a prospect you trade that prospect. However, the question becomes did they not have a spot for a prospect because a FA signing was in place already, or did they sign a FA because there wasn't a prospect to take that spot?

Honestly if their talent identification and development was that superior you would think it would be in their best interest to keep their prospects. Good players on rookie contracts would be a huge advantage.

I realize that, but like I said the 2017 Tigers aren't the 2012 Tigers. Whether they said it ten years ago or I'm pointing it out now, it doesn't make the challenges this team faces less real.

I don't why everybody is so hung up on "10 years." That was never the argument and I've never said they weren't successful during that run. So its time to move past that. Like you said they made trades and signed FAs, and yes it was successful, but it was also at the expense of the farm system. They have an aging core and aging FAs who are being shopped or will soon walk. i think the lack of young, cost controlled talent to promote to the MLB team hurts them. The point of the argument isn't about their teams 10 years ago, its about where this team is today and moving forward. I think the challenges they face are made more difficult by actions earlier in the decade. I can criticize the negative aspect of their approach but still recognize their level of success. Those are not mutually exclusive.

You just said the 2015 trades look a lot like the Granderson/Scherzer swap...thats a comparison. Brennan Boesch, Andy Dirks, McCann, Infante, and Ramon Santiago over a 10 year span isn't exactly inspiring. Porcello had a good year in 14' but he certainly wasn't anything special overall during his time in Detroit.Trading away prospects for Fister isn't getting younger or cheaper. Were some of the players they brought in either young or prospects? Sure, but was that the norm? No. Again, go back and look at those rosters over that span of time. Its dominated by FA signings and players they brought in via trade. Making trades to get younger, cutting payroll, and developing their own players to plug in clearly weren't top prioritized. Roster construction and team payroll clearly indicate that. I can go back and point out players that a team has missed on due to losing comp picks and use that as evidence against giving them up if thats the game we're going to play. If there is risk involved in both signing FAs and drafting prospects why double down on it? If your plan to acquire young talent is to sign big FAs, have them live up to or exceed the contract, then trade them at the right time for prospects equal to or better than you would have been able to draft you're assuming much risk than either drafting or signing. Its one thing to buy low and sell high, its another to pay a premium price and think you'll get equal to greater value back. The Granderson trade worked out, and the Norris and Fulmer very well might end up in the same boat but I wouldn't hold those deals up as examples of a great way to acquire young talent to build a farm. Wasn't the argument just that they used their good drafting to bring in the proven players via trade? Now their farm has been bad all along yet they've been able to trick other teams into giving them MLB talent for peanuts? I would give them a little more credit than that. Its obviously more difficult to mine talent in later rounds; then when you add the fact you're trading multiple prospects per 1 MLB player that puts a lot of stress on the development staff. Even if prospects really are just a coin flip, having those picks in your system increases your chances of developing talent. Ugh Pelfrey...don't know if they forgot about his time with the Twins or what but that contract was highway robbery. That said it didn't really hurt them apart from having to suffer through watching him "pitch." Zimmerman likely won't be as bad as last season. What win projection system has them at 85 wins?

You just said they restocked the farm system to make the team younger and cheaper. When they consistently had one of the highest payrolls in baseball that isn't true. You can trade for less expensive contracts but if you're pouring money into other players you aren't getting cheaper. That isn't a theme, its exactly what Detroit did.... The strategy might be the same but I would hold off on the comparisons until Fulmer turns into a pitcher who wins muiltiple Cy Young awards.. Your last paragraph is exactly my point. They committed to winning now and it was often at the expense of the "later." Now that "later," is starting to become a reality. The challenges this team faces are a direct result of those decisions.

Their farm system is bad because they continued to do that.... Yeah we clearly have different ideas of where this team is at... Idc if they've held off the "negatives," longer than most teams (although Idk how you would even determine that) the point was to rebuild in a way that doesn't set you up to face those challenges down the road.

Go look at those team salaries and tell me how cheap they became....they had the 4th highest salary in baseball the last couple seasons to boot. I'm not ignoring them. The 2015 trades weren't the type they were making during that mighty ten year run so Idk why you're trying to make that comparison. I don't think your idea of the Tigers building a younger/cheaper team through the years fits at all...

Look at that list you just posted. Nearly every trade apart from the 2015 deadline is sending younger players away and bringing in older MLB players. Those teams weren't getting younger and they certainly weren't getting cheaper. They didn't actually start to bring in prospects until they tanked in 15'. So I guess we have a very different definition of what it means to restock if we agree that the farm system has been weak. When you said that their farm system routinely produced decent to good players/prospects to plug holes or be traded you weren't talking about bringing anybody up? Why not just say they traded prospects to bring in MLB players then... Nobody questioned whether the method could work. Where did you read that? You can point out a negative without revoking credit. I'm a Sano fan, but I criticize his defense at 3B. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate him as a player. You're conflating criticism of one aspect of a rebuild with disdain for everything involved in it. I would prefer a different rebuild style and I've stuck by that, in the same way you've stuck to the Detroit side. Whats your point? Again, the 2017 Tigers aren't those teams of the last decade. They aren't even close. You're obviously of the mind that their long term future is set. i disagree. I see a core that has aged past their prime, FAs that are aging or underperforming, and a serious lack of young players to bring up. I wouldn't say their future is set.