KingKat

It's getting a little dusty in here.

Sexual assault has nothing to do with it. The brain damage to the players is what has turned me off to the NFL. Watching the NFL makes me feel like I'm watching Christians being delivered to the Lions. I don't want my entertainment to come at the extreme cost that the players pay (despite the fact that they are financially compensated). I wouldn't watch pro wrestling for the same reason. I don't want people killing themselves for my entertainment dollar.

For the Jays to win, they need to have people like Gose who can fill a job for very little money. That's how you balance out the other financial commitments.

Well maybe I'm stupid then because I'm trying as best as I can to respond to your actual position whatever that is. As I understand it your position is that Lind is not worth keeping at the salary he's making and that the Jays would be better off spending money to cut ties with him? Is that wrong? If that's not what you believe then feel free to enlighten me.

Isn't that the type of discussion you enjoy? If you're trying to create other kinds of dialogue, you have a funny way of going about it.

Yeah. I haven't watched this year and I'm not planning to tune in at any point, not even to check on my fantasy players. I'm not dumb enough to think my personal boycott is meaningfull but I don't want to feel like a hypocrite and to be honest, I'm starting to find the violence of it more repulsive than entertaining. I find the sport increasingly gross both on and off the field and I'm done watching.

Damn. Not sure if I was below him or not but I'm terrible at checking the waiver wire. I would have definitely at least tried to snatch up a free closer if only to open up some trade scenarios. I was vactaioning in Alberta last week which doesn't help but I'm very negligent about monitoring waivers regardless.

I don't even think he's miserable. I just think he's an odd duck whose idead of communication seems limited to either mockery and/or antagonism. There are some pretty abbrasive posters on this board but usually if you sent them an olive branch you can actually have some kind of exchange, not agreement necessarily but at least a non aggressive, non mocking, exchange of ideas. Moogy doesn't march to that beat. There's no point in being nice to him. He doesn't care. Seems to even dislike that.

I have tried reaching out to Moogy. I've tried to have genuine dialogue with him and I've given him credit at multiple turns both directly to him and in conversations with other people. That being said I eventually reached the conclusion that there's not much point in taking him more seriously than he takes himself. He's just a guy who thinks he's funny. There's just doesn't seem to be much more to it. If there is, I certainly haven't found it and I grew tired of trying. Now I borrow from his playbook and call him logic challenged, etc. It doesn't really make a difference in the end. Moogy gonna Moogy. I have never ever on this board or the other found a poster that it was harder to have a genuine exchange with. He just seems to be in it to entertain himself. He says that he's not arguing that Lind defensive limitations cancel out his offensive contributions but he still maintains that Lind and his offensive contribution should be dumped because of his defensive limitations. It's basically an untenable position but he'll continue to argue it until he's blue in the face because again, Moogy gonna Moogy. He insists that he's not trolling so what are we supposed to conclude instead? I guess that he's a pretty smart guy who isn't content to be merely smart. He needs to be SMARTER even if it actually makes him look DUMBER.

No you're just logic challenged. You might have a player who plays the field sometimes and DHs other times, Navarro for instance could be such a player. Lind isn't the problem. He provides value. The real issue is that the bench over the last couple of years has been populated with players who provide next to no value on either side of the ball, guys like Sierra, Thole and Bonifacio. You stop doing that and rostering Lind isn't an issue. It's a shame you're too obstinate and obtuse to comprehend this but I suppose it can't be helped. You're not wrong that rostering a DH platoon player isn't ideal but to argue that it's so eggregious that it cancels out his offensive value and makes it worthwhile to spend money just to dump him is just not a reasonable position no matter how many times you try to make the argument. You're basically saying that if you put a value calculation on Lind's defensive inflexebility, it would be something in the neighborhood of - 1.5 WAR to - 2 WAR plus whatever a million dollars is worth. Do you really think that if someone did some actual research on this that that would be the conclusion? Since you're too simple minded to ever back down from an argument, I'll just have to assume that yes you do in fact believe this. In Moogy's world, not being proven wrong equals being right.

There's a certain complacency with Wilner. The fan base gets smarter and he just stays the same and comes off more and more ignorant and arrogant because he refuses to catch up to new research and refuses to even acknowledge the gaps in his knowledge.

If a player has defensive value, he can be used in the same lineup as Lind versus RHP when needed. He doesn't have to exclusively caddy. Heck if he's a good a enough defensive player, he might be in the lineup all the time and just push some other right-hander to DH. This scenario was discussed serval times vis-à-vis Kratz/Navarro. If the bench is put together properly, you can roster a guy like Lind. Stop being such a chicken little. It just makes you look stupid.

Why are so many people assuming that Lind's caddy has to be an otherwise useless player?

I didn't think he was trying to embarass his family. On the contrary, I suspect he thought she looked relatively attractive for someone whose father is Mike Wilner. I understand your concern but it's likely just a publicly availalable profile pic. No one's been dragged in the muck here or exposed in any new way. I'll admit that it's a little odd that he even thought to look for that but it's of no consequence.

Not it won't but don't deny us our pleasure in seeing the NFL embarassed. It makes it easier to live with the shame of supporting it.

I understand that concern. It's a legit concern. You're still wrong though.

It's not just his ability. It's also the bad FA context (turf, foreign country, two decades without playoffs). It would be a challenge for any GM but AA especially seems unable to effectively re-organize a payroll. Remember all the speculation that the roster would be radically reconstructed before this season?

It's one million dollars payed all at once to flush two reasonable contract years down the toilet. You argue against the likelihood of Lind bringing back a good return on a trade but what's the likelihood AA puts the Lind money to better use if he dumps him altogether? I like those odds a lot less to be frank.

I wonder if there were a lot of viable alternatives that would have signed under slot? I'll given him some credit for having one hand tied behind his back even though it was a handicap he embraced.

God damn Bautista always walks the walks. That's leadership. The rest is ********.

Bautista is boss. All his bashers can suck farts.

Bautista = GBOAT

It's doesn't matter. It's a moot point what the return is. The contract is reasonable. It's not the end of the world if you have to field him. It's prefferable than paying 1 million dollars to flush him down the toilet.

It's impossible to prove one way or the other whether there's a buyer. It's not a crazy assumption but as Moogy points out, it's impossible to prove through anything else than rumours so it's not a terribly productive avenue of discussion. I think the larger point is that even if there isn't a buyer, paying 1 million dollars to flush a reasonable contract down the toilet does nothing to improve this team's chance.

And apparently you didn't bother to read to the end of the sentence or read the next one. "At worst you trade him and even then only if the return is good. Being "forced" to keep him is not a negative scenario." Admittedly, I could have phrased that better but I underestimated the difficulty you have comprehending less than perfect grammar.