Author Topic: Good new for the payrolls?  (Read 634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4341
  • #EatFace
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #25: September 24, 2012, 11:14:33 PM »
Their window was nine years long which included five straight playoff runs and a WS title. You said that constituted a short run.

There's really nothing left to discuss here.

Show me where I said the Phillies window in the 2000s was short.  And then when you can't do that realize that you put words in my mouth since I was referring to the window they had moving forward that they destroyed.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33768
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #26: September 24, 2012, 11:16:13 PM »
Show me where I said the Phillies window in the 2000s was short.  And then when you can't do that realize that you put words in my mouth since I was referring to the window they had moving forward that they destroyed.

You said the Phillies window was short. You did not specify that we should ignore all their winning seasons, which were built the past three/four years by sacrificing their talent to acquire Lee and Halladay and other high price talents.

If you can't put together a specific thought for others to discuss, don't expect others to read your mind.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4341
  • #EatFace
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #27: September 24, 2012, 11:23:45 PM »
You said the Phillies window was short. You did not specify that we should ignore all their winning seasons, which were built by sacrificing their talent to acquire Lee and Halladay and other high price talents.

If you can't put together a specific thought for others to discuss, don't expect others to read your mind.

Cliff Lee was acquired in 2009 and Halladay the year after that.  So right now you've gone back a total of four years that included no World Series wins and don't look to be producing any in the future which is exactly the point I'm making.  I'm not referring to the past Phillies teams.  If I was referring to the Phillies of the last decade I would have indicated that.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33768
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #28: September 24, 2012, 11:25:17 PM »
Cliff Lee was acquired in 2009 and Halladay the year after that.  So right now you've gone back a total of four years that included no World Series wins and don't look to be producing any in the future which is exactly the point I'm making.  I'm not referring to the past Phillies teams.  If I was referring to the Phillies of the last decade I would have indicated that.

Right.

You had no clue the Phillies had a winning record the past nine years, including the past five being a division winner. Admit it.

I make gaffs like that... we all do. But fighting it tooth and nail doesn't help anything.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4341
  • #EatFace
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #29: September 24, 2012, 11:26:13 PM »
Right.

You had no clue the Phillies had a winning record the past nine years, including the past five being a division winner. Admit it.

Okay I admit it.  I live under a rock and am not a rabid fan of an NL East team.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33768
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #30: September 24, 2012, 11:27:56 PM »
Okay I admit it.  I live under a rock and am not a rabid fan of an NL East team.

Like I said... we all make mistakes and forget things from time to time.

You can continue to fight it... but what you said, and what you claim you said are two different things. If you can't admit that... you're just fooling yourself.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4341
  • #EatFace
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #31: September 24, 2012, 11:29:01 PM »
I make gaffs like that... we all do. But fighting it tooth and nail doesn't help anything.

This is why I said it's too nuanced for you.  If I was referring to the Phillies from the 2000s who didn't empty their farm and built from the ground up why would I be using them as an example of a team that sacrificed the farm for high-priced talent that shortened their window tremendously?  What examples from the mid-2000s Phillies teams would I have to make that argument.  I was obviously referring to their giant prospect for player trades and general disregard for the farm system in the last couple of years since that is when they have done exactly what I was talking about them doing.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33768
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #32: September 24, 2012, 11:31:44 PM »
This is why I said it's too nuanced for you.

Rule of thumb... when you result to insults... which is not the first time you've tried to insult me... it shows a weakness in your argument.

So, continue... but it only contributes to weaken your argument.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4341
  • #EatFace
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #33: September 24, 2012, 11:34:29 PM »
Rule of thumb... when you result to insults... which is not the first time you've tried to insult me... it shows a weakness in your argument.

So, continue... but it only contributes to weaken your argument.

Not an insult, just seems to be the fact especially considering you didn't address anything about my saying it was nuanced and pointing out why logically speaking you clearly misunderstood my statement.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4341
  • #EatFace
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #34: September 24, 2012, 11:36:00 PM »
And I'm hardly the first person to refer to the Phillies as a team with a short window in this exact same context.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33768
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #35: September 24, 2012, 11:37:56 PM »
Not an insult, just seems to be the fact especially considering you didn't address anything about my saying it was nuanced and pointing out why logically speaking you clearly misunderstood my statement.

The only fact in this thread has already been quoted.

You can endlessly explain away your poorly worded statement all you want... but what you said, and what you claim you meant are two wildly different things.

When I told you as much, you resulted to multiple insults.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4341
  • #EatFace
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #36: September 24, 2012, 11:39:53 PM »
That is hardly the point.  The point is that the worst case scenario for a baseball franchise is a bad team AND a bad farm.  So they chose to fix the farm first to create a solid base so that when they did fix the major league product it would be sustainable instead of buying a few high-priced veterans and killing the farm system to create a very short window (see Philadelphia Phillies).

Here is the original quote.  I referred to buying high-priced veterans and killing the farm system creating a short window.  Now show me what that could possibly refer to before 2009.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33768
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #37: September 24, 2012, 11:43:53 PM »
Here is the original quote.  I referred to buying high-priced veterans and killing the farm system creating a short window.  Now show me what that could possibly refer to before 2009.

You can keep arguing with yourself... cause I'm done with you.

Online houston-nat

  • Posts: 16236
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #38: September 24, 2012, 11:46:45 PM »
My point isn't about their window in the 2000s.  That has nothing to do with it.  My point is that because they let their farm system get so weak their success is unsustainable now in the 2010s because of their own self-mutilation.  If the Nationals hadn't strengthened the farm system first and instead just invested in veteran major league talent they would be in the same boat as the current Philadelphia Phillies.

Given the age of the Phillies' core group of players, and the amazing success the Phillies have had (sigh), the Nationals should be trying to avoid the Phillies' fate in 2018. In 2008, they were more like this year's Astros.

Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't realize it was just you two boys in here. I'll turn off the light on my way out ;)

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4341
  • #EatFace
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #39: September 24, 2012, 11:46:55 PM »
You can keep arguing with yourself... cause I'm done with you.

/thread ;)

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 16816
  • Mantra of the SSS
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #40: September 25, 2012, 11:08:56 AM »
This turned from a payroll thread into a Phillies discussion.  Shame on you both.

PHILLIES SUCK!

Offline BH34Natural

  • Posts: 2687
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #41: September 25, 2012, 12:53:20 PM »
Good news for locking up Harper long term

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 54467
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #42: September 25, 2012, 01:02:46 PM »
^  Isn't there a number you can call to help priapism? 

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 11288
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #43: September 25, 2012, 01:04:50 PM »
Good news for locking up Harper long term

:lmao: :lmao:

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5209
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #44: September 25, 2012, 01:05:57 PM »
Good news for locking up Harper long term

No its more money the Yankees can spend. Now they can sign him for 10/350 instead of 10/300

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37348
  • LAC 8)
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #45: September 25, 2012, 01:13:46 PM »
LAC

Online tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28110
  • Hell yes!
Re: Good new for the payrolls?
« Reply #46: September 25, 2012, 08:09:34 PM »
Inflation is not the same thing as equal opportunity.

Exactly.  It does nothing to even out disparities in revenue, does it?  A rising tide lifts all boats, but some of those boats are still a hell of a lot nicer than other ones.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 16816
  • Mantra of the SSS