Church for Francouer

[Guest Edgy DC]

Why are people giving logic and semantic lessons over this?

[metirish]

Why are people giving logic and semantic lessons over this?[/quote:1ohlgo84]


There comes a point when I tune out these threads , it usually occurs when the old reading comprehension jab is thrown in. It happens with all of these threads.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Nice work, Centerfield.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Not my opinion.

CF says:

One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot.

Ralph says he thinks Francoeur can improve. Ergo, Ralph is an idiot.

Just doin' the math, here.

[Centerfield]

Nice work, Centerfield.[/quote:3todp77b]

Sorry. What Irish basically means is that he asks the bartender for the tab as soon as he sees me stumble in.

Getting back to the point, it drives me crazy when people distort my position when it's right there for them to read. It's one thing to misremember, but to quote my language and still get it wrong...that's sloppy and a waste of everyone's time.

Secondly, I hate the "Well I must be an idiot then...and [insert name of announcer/reporter/columnist] must be an idiot too...because he agrees with me" line of reasoning. If you disagree with me, back it up. Tell me why we should expect improvement from Franceour. Or more specifically, why the Mets are justified in such expectations. Tell me what we can hang our hats on beyond just blind hope.

Thirdly, if I point out a distinction between what I wrote, and how you interpreted it, address it.

Why are people giving logic and semantic lessons over this?[/quote:3todp77b]

Because logic and semantics are the centerpieces of good debate. I ask that my GM exercise good logic when deciding whether or not to pull the trigger on a proposed trade. I ask that people on this forum exercise good logic when evaluating that trade.

Semantics are just as important during evaluation of a trade. Semantics is, as far as I know, another way of saying "meaning". And when you are debating a point, the words you choose, and more specifically, the meaning of the words you choose, are critical.

You cannot say "The Mets were expecting him to be better", then state that I am bringing up irrelevent semantic points when I point out that the Mets had no basis for "expecting" anything.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

When your position includes language like "One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot" it does not inspire debate. It inspires anger.

You are not demeaning a position, you are demeaning a person or persons. I am not misinterpreting that, and I am offended by it whether I agree with you or not. I don't think that pejorative comments make for good debate, but on that point it appears we disagree.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Because logic and semantics are the centerpieces of good debate.

Logic and semantics maybe. But logic and semantics lessons are the centerpieces of patronizing claptrap.

You cannot say "The Mets were expecting him to be better", then state that I am bringing up irrelevent semantic points when I point out that the Mets had no basis for "expecting" anything.

Firstly, I don't recall writing that. Secondly, I'm objecting to your tedious and twisting definition of "expect." Your distinguising of hope and think from expect. Not your rebuttal. Give me. A fucking. Break. I'm not a child.

By expect, I simply mean somebody considers the likelihood of something happening to be better than half.

I imagine the Mets consider the likelihood of Francoeur putting up an OPS+ of better than 68 to be better than half.

Why we have to talk like this, I have no idea.

[Centerfield]

When your position includes language like "One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot" it does not inspire debate. It inspires anger.

You are not demeaning a position, you are demeaning a person or persons. I am not misinterpreting that, and I am offended by it whether I agree with you or not. I don't think that pejorative comments make for good debate, but on that point it appears we disagree.[/quote:1sg1g7co]

If my language angers you, chastise me for my lack of manners.

Making illogical arguments centered around a distortion of my thesis does nothing but waste time. If I offended you with that statement I apologize. I did not think anyone here actually had an expectation that Franceour would improve.

[Frayed Knot]

There comes a point when I tune out these threads.

[Guest holychicken]

The only reason this trade does not make me come right out and say hate is that Francoeur is younger so maybe we are looking towards the future (even so, I don't think it is a great "getting younger" move).

However, what scares me is that this may be Omar actually thinking that he is improving our chances this year with this move.

[Centerfield]

Because logic and semantics are the centerpieces of good debate.

Logic and semantics maybe. But logic and semantics lessons are the centerpieces of patronizing claptrap.

You cannot say "The Mets were expecting him to be better", then state that I am bringing up irrelevent semantic points when I point out that the Mets had no basis for "expecting" anything.

Firstly, I don't recall writing that. Secondly, I'm objecting to your tedious and twisting definition of "expect." Your distinguising of hope and think from expect. Not your rebuttal. Give me. A fucking. Break. I'm not a child.

By expect, I simply mean somebody considers the likelihood of something happening to be better than half.

I imagine the Mets consider the likelihood of Francoeur putting up an OPS+ of better than 68 to be better than half.

Why we have to talk like this, I have no idea.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

The only reason this trade does not make me come right out and say hate is that Francoeur is younger so maybe we are looking towards the future (even so, I don't think it is a great "getting younger" move).

However, what scares me is that this may be Omar actually thinking that he is improving our chances this year with this move.[/quote:3jbaklyx]

Exactly. Either it's an apparently cynical move, or it's one that betrays severe flaws in the org's player evaluation... again.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Are you saying that I should not point out the distinction between those words? They mean entirely different things.

[Fman99]

[insert cock joke here]

[Centerfield]

Are you saying that I should not point out the distinction between those words? They mean entirely different things.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Actually, can we wager first? Because this would make an EXCELLENT shame bet.[/quote:3k4uus7z]

Who am I betting?

[Guest Swan Swan H]

I've moved from an idiot to a child. Progress, I suppose, providing we're talking about a fully functional child.

My point was always about your choice of words, one word specifically, and the condescending attitude it implied to me. If I didn't make my point clear, mea culpa. I think it's clear enough now.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Actually, can we wager first? Because this would make an EXCELLENT shame bet.[/quote:27c7sxps]

Who am I betting?[/quote:27c7sxps]

I had thought VCF or Ceetar at the time. But depending on the terms, I'll be the other guy.

Difference in WAR, then (as calcu-moo-lated by the good mathies at Fangraphs)?

[Centerfield]

You made the distinction in your earlier post that you took offense to my characterizing persons as "idiots", rather than positions. In response, I made it a point to criticize your arguments, and not you. Nonetheless, you took it personally. Why point out a distinction if you intend to ignore in anyway?

Let me be clear, I don't think you're an idiot. Or Edgy or anyone else. I said if anyone expects Franceour to improve they are an idiot. Expectations must be supported by some rationale. Nothing I have seen, or been offered in this thread, gives me any reason to expect improvement. As I said before, his declining numbers would suggest just the opposite. I don't believe any of you really expect improvement.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm just betting that he reaches 0.0 WAR (Good God, y'all! What is it good for?) over a three month period within the two years he has left on his contract.

If he doesn't by the end of 2010, or he doesn't and gets released and unclaimed, or he gets non-tendered, his contract is over and I lose thataway also. I'll bet my new Mr. Met lunchbox I just won on e-bay.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I'm just betting that he reaches 0.0 WAR (Good God, y'all! What is it good for?) over a three month period within the two years he has left on his contract.

If he doesn't by the end of 2010, or he doesn't and gets released and unclaimed, or he gets non-tendered, his contract is over and I lose thataway also. I'll bet my new Mr. Met lunchbox I just won on e-bay.[/quote:3n8pc5sh]

Gotcha.

Hmm.

Will have to get back to you on what I'll stake... as I'm not sure I have anything cool that you'd want which isn't beaten all to hell.

[Guest Edgy DC]

For clarity, change "contract" to something like "Mets control."

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

For clarity, change "contract" to something like "Mets control."[/quote:g6xnj3fk]

I got your meaning.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Who else wants some Mr. Met? All you have to do is root for the new Mets rightfielder to perform at a sub-replacement level. Piece of cake right?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

As explained in the Game Thread, we came through the turnstyles too late to get that giveaway but were able to gather one in that was carelessly left in our row. Until then I was willing to part with $10 for it and was about to ask the guys sitting next to us.

Lunchpail loves his lunchpail by the way. He put his wooden subway cars in it, which means something.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

And, for the last time, my objection is to your characterization not of the position but the person.

Were you to have said "... if anyone expects Franceour to improve they are taking an idiotic position" I'd have no problem with that. I take idiotic positions on many things on a daily basis; road rage, petty jealousies and envies, vague feelings of paranoia, annoyance with the kids playing on the dead end where I bought a house so my kids, when they were kids, could play. I'm fine with that.

Instead, you said "... if anyone expects Franceour to improve they are an idiot." You may not see the difference. I do, and it offends me.

That said, I have wasted too much of my time and yours on what offends me. I am fairly certain that no one here gives a damn about what offends you, me or anyone else, nor should they. Well, maybe Cooby does, because she's that kind of person, but even that's a stretch.

If I mischaracterized your position I apologize. If I didn't, well, I'm letting it go. Either way, I'm gonna work a few more hours, go see Wilco and Yo La Tengo, and forget about all this. Getting myself involved in arguments like this are the reason I stopped posting here, and I'm enjoying myself too much to get wrapped up in this sort of thing again.

[Guest holychicken]

That lunchbox is pretty pimp. Well, as pimp as a lunch box can be. Fill it with nickles and I will trade pretty much any player for it.

[metirish]

and I'm enjoying myself too much to get wrapped up in this sort of thing again.[/quote:rqmlcp9b]

Go and watch your music , let your hair down and forget this. Your reemergence here has brought some much needed life to this place, that's how I feel anyway.

To put it another way , your reemergence here is like that long term DL guy coming back , it's like making a trade, or an in-season call up that brings energy to the squad....

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Have you seen my hair? Not enough to let down, that's for sure.

[metirish]

Have you seen my hair? Not enough to let down, that's for sure.[/quote:3cdidhcn]


Of course I didn't mean literally let it down.