Comments on: Am I supposed to reset the counter or what?

By: awolfgang

awolfgang — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:26:48 +0000

According to the Baltimore Sun we are giving up Jones, Sherrill, Tillman, Mickolio, and Butler. Are we only getting Bedard in return? Or has anyone heard if the Orioles are sending us back at least some minor league arms?

By: Jeff Nye

Jeff Nye — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:58:38 +0000

Taylor:

No worries, and thank you for the nice words.

I apologize, also, if I might have come across as less conciliatory than I might have been; criticism of me, I can handle (it’s par for the course doing this sort of moderation), but there have been a lot of rather personal attacks on the authors here lately, and Dave, DMZ, and JMB (even though we haven’t seen him in a while) have really done an amazing service to us as Mariners fans, and baseball fans in general, by putting their time and sweat into this site for little to no compensation; I have no tolerance for people being mean to them (not addressing to you, specifically, those people know who they are).

So, it’s been a frustrating few days all around, particularly with how emotionally charged this potential trade (should we still be calling it that?) has the potential to be.

Let’s all try to step up our game, moving forward, and remember that we can disagree and still be friends.

By: scraps

scraps — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:57:00 +0000

Taylor, that was well done.

By: Catherwood

Catherwood — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:18:08 +0000

I can’t be the only person who sees Richie — God love him, I’m sure he’s a very nice fellow — as a black hole on offense, and, alas, the very opposite on defense. It’s hard to imagine having a working lineup with him in it (unless one is ready to buy into the “he’s going to have breakout year” koolaid), nor a reasonable defensive infield.

I realize we’re all about the Bedard thing right now, but is that really going to matter if we’re stuck with this (very nice guy) boat anchor at first? Having even a major upgrade in our rotation doesn’t help if we have crappy defense and crappy offense behind improved pitching, right?

By: Taylor H

Taylor H — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:00:09 +0000

Sorry for being grumpy, guys. I am sorry for offending anyone here at USSM, I enjoy being part of the community here. I apologize to, namely: Jeff Nye, DMZ, Dave, and the rest of the crew. No more will I complain when there is discussion of differing opinions, since that is what makes this site so interesting. Anyway, I guess the whole point of USSM is to argue and discuss baseball, while being adult about it. Also, I guess comment 135 hit the bulleye, in that from now on, I think we all – especially myself – should be more studentlike when we post. I wouldn’t have disrespected my teachers, so I shouldn’t disrespect DMZ and Dave (who equivalent to our teachers), since they allow us all to post. I think someone said a while ago that Dave and DMZ have hitorically been right about the M’s moves, which is why they argue dilligently against the Bedard trade and the farm system and so on; I did some research, and you guys really have been right about nearly everything. To sum everything up: sorry guys. Please do not delete my comment, mods. This is important for me to say, and this post is almost dead.

Back to baseball:
The M’s let Guillen go most likely because they knew he might have to miss considerable playing time, such as 1/7 of the whole season.
The M’s ought to lock up Bedard for a while. My suggestion: 5 years, 60 million – then trade him during the fifth year of his contract for a certain young Oriole star outfielder. Hey, it could happen.

By: eternal

eternal — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:59:34 +0000

If the dollars for Sexson and Vidro go to the rotation, (and here I’m rehashing a previous comment I made), how do we upgrade three positions when there aren’t upgrades lurking in our farm system?

Is that what is happening? Bedard wants 100 million over 7 years. He probably won’t get that. Maybe 10-12 million a year. Wasn’t that Weaver’s salary?

I don’t understand why they let Guillen go. Was it just concern about his steroid use and “tainting” the good name of the Mariners. No, he wasn’t great but he seemed to be somewhat of a leader, with good pop

By: scraps

scraps — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:49:55 +0000

First, plenty of people come here and disagree with Dave and DMZ’s opinions. I guarantee you could count at least fifty different commenters disagreeing with Dave and Derek’s opinions about the Bedard trade alone. So while it’s true that there’s a lot of agreement among commenters here as a rule — as has been pointed out, we come here because we find the writing of the authors sensible and enlightening — it is obviously (unless you have a chip on your shoulder) untrue that you can’t express a contrary opinion. It’s true that if you simply repeat the opinions of others, or appear to ignore the arguments you disagree with, your opinions won’t meet with a lot of respect. It’s true that no one’s going to pretend your opinion is equal just because you expressed it. But people are happy to engage politely with polite and informed disagreement, as Desmond has shown in this thread, despite Diderot’s eagerness to claim Desmond as a persecuted brother in arms.

One further note about “groupthink” and the conversation here: I know a hell of a lot less about baseball than Dave and Derek. I’m not ignorant, but these guys are serious students of the game, spending a huge part of their lives thinking about it and observing it. I’m hear mostly to listen to them, and ask questions, and on occasion to disagree respectfully, as a student might. I think many people here feel the same way. If we agree a lot, is is because we’re learning from a couple of teachers. If you don’t like the idea of this being closer to a classroom than a free conversation among equals, you really ought to consider whether you’re going to be comfortable here. It’s okay to think that it makes this a snobby site run by people who brook no disagreement, if that’s how you want to deal with it; but having an attitude about it in the comment threads is just silly.

By: Sec 108

Sec 108 — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:47:38 +0000

FYI, Howard Lincoln was not involved in team management during the push for a new stadium. It was John Ellis. Also, Chuck Armstrong was not President for a stretch as he was running City Light. I do not remember when he returned to the team though.

Giving credit to Lincoln and Armstrong for Safeco is flat wrong.

By: gwangung

gwangung — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:47:29 +0000

Yeah, how silly of me. Keeping the franchise here gives Lincoln a free pass on any bad decision he makes for the rest of time.

Well, actually, he gets a slightly discounted pass.

Just means I’ll take the volume down one or two decibles when I think he does something stupid…

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:41:03 +0000

Carlos Triunfel ranked #18 on Keith Law’s prospect rankings this morning.