Its Scary Quiet

[Danny82]

What in the world are you talking about?

 

Also, I thought we aren't supposed to make things personal on this board?

 

Where have I done so?

[Danny82]

With all due respect to Bruce Miles, he posted: "That's what amuses me about some of these Ryan Church posts. It's not that easy to make a trade."

 

Surely you don't think he is calling people stupid, do you?

 

How is what he said any different than the gist of my post?

[Keener98]

With all due respect to Bruce Miles, he posted: "That's what amuses me about some of these Ryan Church posts. It's not that easy to make a trade."

 

Surely you don't think he is calling people stupid, do you?

 

How is what he said any different than the gist of my post?

 

No I dont think Bruce was calling people stupid, however your little " obvious point" crap and how people here need to think about that here, I do think was a direct slam at posters here.

[jjgman21]

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

[RichHillIsABeast]

With all due respect to Bruce Miles, he posted: "That's what amuses me about some of these Ryan Church posts. It's not that easy to make a trade."

 

Surely you don't think he is calling people stupid, do you?

 

How is what he said any different than the gist of my post?

 

No I dont think Bruce was calling people stupid, however your little " obvious point" crap and how people here need to think about that here, I do think was a direct slam at posters here.

 

Most of those trade proposals are good for a laugh.

 

Marshall, Dempster, and Ohman for Dunn!! Oh, and throw in Jacque Jones for Ryan Freel.

 

lmao

 

Fantasy GM can be fun, but it quickly goes overboard. The thing that really rubs me is some of the posters making these ridiculous trade proposals are arrogant enough to criticize Hendry/Cubs on their lack of moves. Blasting moves that have been made is ok. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but creating fanciful scenarios to discredit another's POV on baseball deserves ridicule.

[cheapseats]

 

Most of those trade proposals are good for a laugh.

 

Marshall, Dempster, and Ohman for Dunn!! Oh, and throw in Jacque Jones for Ryan Freel.

 

Reds get: Royce Clayton, Gary Majewski, Bill Bray, and Brendan Harris.

Nats get: Austin Kearns. And Felipe Lopez. Oh, and the Reds will throw in Ryan Wagner.

 

:pig:

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Marshall, Dempster, and Ohman for Dunn!! Oh, and throw in Jacque Jones for Ryan Freel.

 

lmao

 

Fantasy GM can be fun, but it quickly goes overboard. The thing that really rubs me is some of the posters making these ridiculous trade proposals are arrogant enough to criticize Hendry/Cubs on their lack of moves. Blasting moves that have been made is ok. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but creating fanciful scenarios to discredit another's POV on baseball deserves ridicule.

 

First point of order. The proposal you're mocking was Murton, Marshall, Dempster, and Ohman for Dunn. Hardly the poster(DKWG for anyone that cares) living in a fantasy land trying to rip off another team. If you're going to use a hyperbolic example to make a point, please get it right.

 

What really rubs me the wrong way is when people make generalizations like you just did about the entire board. Do people come up with unrealistic trade scenarios? Of course. Do people bash Hendry for a lack of moves? Of course. However, those are not all the same people. This is a very large message board, literally thousands of people are registered. Just because you see a lot of ill-advised trade proposals and see a lot of Hendry bashing does not mean it's the same people. And then, even if it is the same people, it's not even close to an arrogant POV. A lack of moves by Hendry does not prove that there wasn't anything worthwhile available. A person can have the opinion that Hendry should have made moves to improve the team, and simultaneously suggest a trade that he/she thinks will improve the team(however realistic or unrealistic they are).

 

Getting a trade done assumes that the team wants to move the player and is asking for a reasonable amount in return.

 

A great point.

 

An obvious point.

 

And one that could stand to be considered a little more often here.

 

You got that, stupid people?

 

It's unfortunate that you went that route in responding to my post.

 

What's truly unfortunate is you continually posting digs at the entire posting community. It would be one thing if you continually tried to explain that some/most suggested proposals were realistic and were ignored before saying something like this, but that's not even the case. If you think someone is being unreasonable, then say so, state your case. Don't pull crap like "people on this board are.....". That doesn't accomplish anything. And even if you thought every last person had a wrong outlook on this topic, it would be much more civil to suggest that "we could stand to consider..." instead of from a condescending angle of you educating the ill-informed masses of everybody.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Marshall, Dempster, and Ohman for Dunn!! Oh, and throw in Jacque Jones for Ryan Freel.

 

lmao

 

Fantasy GM can be fun, but it quickly goes overboard. The thing that really rubs me is some of the posters making these ridiculous trade proposals are arrogant enough to criticize Hendry/Cubs on their lack of moves. Blasting moves that have been made is ok. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but creating fanciful scenarios to discredit another's POV on baseball deserves ridicule.

 

First point of order. The proposal you're mocking was Murton, Marshall, Dempster, and Ohman for Dunn. Hardly the poster(DKWG for anyone that cares) living in a fantasy land trying to rip off another team. If you're going to use a hyperbolic example to make a point, please get it right.

 

What really rubs me the wrong way is when people make generalizations like you just did about the entire board. Do people come up with unrealistic trade scenarios? Of course. Do people bash Hendry for a lack of moves? Of course. However, those are not all the same people. This is a very large message board, literally thousands of people are registered. Just because you see a lot of ill-advised trade proposals and see a lot of Hendry bashing does not mean it's the same people. And then, even if it is the same people, it's not even close to an arrogant POV. A lack of moves by Hendry does not prove that there wasn't anything worthwhile available. A person can have the opinion that Hendry should have made moves to improve the team, and simultaneously suggest a trade that he/she thinks will improve the team(however realistic or unrealistic they are).

 

First of all, I just made up an unlikely trade scenario off of the top of my head. If I actually took someone's trade scenario, I'm sure someone would point out that I am "attacking a poster," which is an obvious no-no here on NSBB. The fact that it was even close to an actual trade scenario proposed by someone is hilarious to me.

 

Second, it's not a generalization. You want me to keep a list? I'm sure you'd/others would find a way to point out how pathetic that is. And, yes, it is pretty arrogant to think you know more than scouts/baseball insiders who have decates of experience in baseball. Yes, I do see a lot of Hendry bashing and ridiculous trade proposals from the same people.

 

It's all good. Keep doing what you're doing. It's not fostering an atmosphere of diverse opinions - just a bunch of posters debating points of contention from the same side. This board is very specialized, and I enjoy reading it, but geez, anyone that expresses an opinion that is borderline anti-stats and they get dogpiled on. It's absolutely amazing.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Second, it's not a generalization. You want me to keep a list? I'm sure you'd/others would find a way to point out how pathetic that is.

 

That's not what I said. If you disagree or think something isn't right, then say so when it happens, instead of vague generalizations that don't accomplish anything more than you coming off with condescension.

 

And, yes, it is pretty arrogant to think you know more than scouts/baseball insiders who have decates of experience in baseball. Yes, I do see a lot of Hendry bashing and ridiculous trade proposals from the same people.

 

It's all good. Keep doing what you're doing. It's not fostering an atmosphere of diverse opinions - just a bunch of posters debating points of contention from the same side. This board is very specialized, and I enjoy reading it, but geez, anyone that expresses an opinion that is borderline anti-stats and they get dogpiled on. It's absolutely amazing.

 

Haha, where in the world did you get that? I'm talking about making remarks about groups of people as a whole, whether they're pro-stat, anti-stat, or think stats aren't real. But if it makes you feel better to invent a pro-stat task force that snuffs out any opposing opinion, feel free. There's a lot of people who debate here passionately, if you don't bring it strong(no matter what your opinion is), people are going to call you on it.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Second, it's not a generalization. You want me to keep a list? I'm sure you'd/others would find a way to point out how pathetic that is.

 

That's not what I said. If you disagree or think something isn't right, then say so when it happens, instead of vague generalizations that don't accomplish anything more than you coming off with condescension.

 

And, yes, it is pretty arrogant to think you know more than scouts/baseball insiders who have decates of experience in baseball. Yes, I do see a lot of Hendry bashing and ridiculous trade proposals from the same people.

 

It's all good. Keep doing what you're doing. It's not fostering an atmosphere of diverse opinions - just a bunch of posters debating points of contention from the same side. This board is very specialized, and I enjoy reading it, but geez, anyone that expresses an opinion that is borderline anti-stats and they get dogpiled on. It's absolutely amazing.

 

Haha, where in the world did you get that? I'm talking about making remarks about groups of people as a whole, whether they're pro-stat, anti-stat, or think stats aren't real. But if it makes you feel better to invent a pro-stat task force that snuffs out any opposing opinion, feel free. There's a lot of people who debate here passionately, if you don't bring it strong(no matter what your opinion is), people are going to call you on it.

 

And I'm sure that when I claim that a trade is unrealistic you will be right there to defend my right to say so. Right, TT?

 

Oh please, you know this board leans pro-stats. I don't see a group of anti-stat or pro-scout people here to argue with every pro-stat comment that is made. You can be sure that any semi-denouncement of stats will draw more than a few opposing posts in short order. I don't need to invent anything. Are you that clueless as to your posting environment?

 

Not that this board is bad. Far from it. But it is what it is. Pro-stat. Sometimes overwelmingly so.

[Yeti]

You can be sure that any semi-denouncement of stats will draw more than a few opposing posts in short order.

you can be sure that any opinion stated on this board will draw more than a few opposing posts

[Bruce Miles]

For the record, I don't think anybody is stupid here. I wouldn't be here otherwise. I have a little bit of an insider's perspective, and I try to share that at times. That's what I was trying to do with the trade thing. These days, there is a lot of stuff that goes into making what might seem to be a simple deal.

[Backtobanks]

Some trade proposals are ridiculous, but then again many are trades that could be considered on both sides. If one team is "down" on a player, he might be acquired for a "lesser" package of players. There are all kinds of variables (attitude, contract status, team needs, scouting reports, etc.) that might figure into a trade. Many of "us" have been accused of overvaluing our prospects, yet I see other teams doing the same thing. I think many of the proposed deals for Church seem to make sense to me, but I'm not the one making the decisions. As much as I would like to have Church as our CF, he's never really been more than a "journeyman" OF. The Nationals seem to overvalue him when it comes to trade talks.

[RynoRules]

Getting a trade done assumes that the team wants to move the player and is asking for a reasonable amount in return.

 

A great point.

 

An obvious point.

 

And one that could stand to be considered a little more often here.

 

You got that, stupid people?

 

 

Both of you get :roll: for those posts.

[RynoRules]

Getting a trade done assumes that the team wants to move the player and is asking for a reasonable amount in return.

 

A great point.

 

An obvious point.

 

And one that could stand to be considered a little more often here.

 

You got that, stupid people?

 

It's unfortunate that you went that route in responding to my post.

 

Its unfortunate, that every post you make is basically a shot at how "stupid" we here at nsbb are.

 

You too. :roll:

[RynoRules]

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

[CubinNY]

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

 

That's ridicilous

 

If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here?

[UK1679666180]

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

 

Everyone has the right to be critical as well as praising. As far as being critical as far as a GM not getting it done, is that for the overall picture or a getting a specific player via trade?

 

I think a person can be fairly critical towards a GM if the team isn't progressing like it should or a trade or FA signing that has already happened.

[RynoRules]

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

 

That's ridicilous

 

If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here?

 

You are really overreacting to my post and completely missing the point. My point is that I appreciate measured criticism based in fact (like stats) rather than pure speculation such as, "That Hendry stinks because he didn't trade for Chruch. I know they were only asking for (names of players)".

 

I also prefer criticism based on actual results (such as guys we have actually acquired, the team's performance, etc.) rather than "Hendry sucks - he didn't sign Schmidt!"

 

EDIT: For example, many of us (myself included) took shots at Hendry for the contracts he gave to DeRosa and Lilly. I don't have a problem with that. What bothers me is when people slam Hendry for things he cannot control, such as the fact Schmidt apparently preferred to sign on the Coast in spite of the fact that the Cubs offerred him more money and an extra year. Nothing he can do about that, IMO.

 

EDIT No. 2: Please show me where I referred to anyone here as "unknowledgeable".

Edited December 15, 2006 by RynoRules

[RynoRules]

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

 

Everyone has the right to be critical as well as praising. As far as being critical as far as a GM not getting it done, is that for the overall picture or a getting a specific player via trade?

 

I think a person can be fairly critical towards a GM if the team isn't progressing like it should or a trade or FA signing that has already happened.

 

Look at my post above. I agree people have the righ to be critical. Its the methedology of some that I don't like.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And I'm sure that when I claim that a trade is unrealistic you will be right there to defend my right to say so. Right, TT?

 

What does this even mean? Why would anyone even challenge your right to say something is unrealistic? But sure, I'd do so. Anything to avoid the continuing vague "you all" stuff that's been happening.

 

 

Oh please, you know this board leans pro-stats. I don't see a group of anti-stat or pro-scout people here to argue with every pro-stat comment that is made. You can be sure that any semi-denouncement of stats will draw more than a few opposing posts in short order. I don't need to invent anything. Are you that clueless as to your posting environment?

 

Not that this board is bad. Far from it. But it is what it is. Pro-stat. Sometimes overwelmingly so.

 

First of all, this is unrelated to my initial point about making sweeping generalizations. That said, you're making it sound like there is a pro-stat cabal out to get everyone with an opposing opinion. Everyone here agrees with other people on some things, and disagrees with others on something else. Is there a lean towards statistics? Yes, because they help harbor objective/rational discourse. Many of the same pro-stat people you're talking about are the ones who scour the minor league forum to find updates from BA about how Patterson's defense looks according to scouts, and what velocity Gallagher's been hitting. It's about information. And when people come up with something that challenges that, especially if they're not prepared to defend their position, it's going to be met with opposition. It goes the both ways as well, and failing to see examples of people harping on the misuse of statistics would be(dare I say) "clueless to your posting environment" as well.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

 

That's ridicilous

 

If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here?

 

You are really overreacting to my post and completely missing the point. My point is that I appreciate measured criticism based in fact (like stats) rather than pure speculation such as, "That Hendry stinks because he didn't trade for Chruch. I know they were only asking for (names of players)".

 

I also prefer criticism based on actual results (such as guys we have actually acquired, the team's performance, etc.) rather than "Hendry sucks - he didn't sign Schmidt!"

 

EDIT: For example, many of us (myself included) took shots at Hendry for the contracts he gave to DeRosa and Lilly. I don't have a problem with that. What bothers me is when people slam Hendry for things he cannot control, such as the fact Schmidt apparently preferred to sign on the Coast in spite of the fact that the Cubs offerred him more money and an extra year. Nothing he can do about that, IMO.

 

EDIT No. 2: Please show me where I referred to anyone here as "unknowledgeable".

 

I don't get why the criticism has to be so limited in scope. Getting the job done in the big picture requires getting the job done on specific moves. Under your rules, we can't complain that Hendry went after guys like Perez, Rusch, Burnitz, Jones etc instead of getting a player like Vlad, Tejada or Beltran when they were available.

 

Why can't people just let fans react how they want to the ineptitude of Cubs management?

[RynoRules]

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

 

That's ridicilous

 

If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here?

 

You are really overreacting to my post and completely missing the point. My point is that I appreciate measured criticism based in fact (like stats) rather than pure speculation such as, "That Hendry stinks because he didn't trade for Chruch. I know they were only asking for (names of players)".

 

I also prefer criticism based on actual results (such as guys we have actually acquired, the team's performance, etc.) rather than "Hendry sucks - he didn't sign Schmidt!"

 

EDIT: For example, many of us (myself included) took shots at Hendry for the contracts he gave to DeRosa and Lilly. I don't have a problem with that. What bothers me is when people slam Hendry for things he cannot control, such as the fact Schmidt apparently preferred to sign on the Coast in spite of the fact that the Cubs offerred him more money and an extra year. Nothing he can do about that, IMO.

 

EDIT No. 2: Please show me where I referred to anyone here as "unknowledgeable".

 

I don't get why the criticism has to be so limited in scope. Getting the job done in the big picture requires getting the job done on specific moves. Under your rules, we can't complain that Hendry went after guys like Perez, Rusch, Burnitz, Jones etc instead of getting a player like Vlad, Tejada or Beltran when they were available.

 

Why can't people just let fans react how they want to the ineptitude of Cubs management?

 

You just completely misstated my position, which is that it is very reasonable to kill Hendry for signing guys like Burnitz, Jones, Rusch, neifi, macias, etc. rather than Vlad and Miggy, simply b/c that is something that actually happened. What I don't like is when people say its Hendry's fault that we can't acquire a guy like Church; these people don't understand Bruce's point, which is that "it takes two to tango".

 

I agree that getting the job done means getting the job done both with specificity and in the "big picture". I don't think I am stating rules and I don't think I am creating some unworkable standard or one that does not subject Hendry to crticisim. Rather, I dislike arguments based on pure speculation and without any ("any" meaning "none", "nada, "zip") basis in reality.

 

People can fire away at Hendry in any way they choose, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it. As I understand it, I am free to feel that way.

[BigbadB]

I don't get why the criticism has to be so limited in scope. Getting the job done in the big picture requires getting the job done on specific moves. Under your rules, we can't complain that Hendry went after guys like Perez, Rusch, Burnitz, Jones etc instead of getting a player like Vlad, Tejada or Beltran when they were available.

 

Why can't people just let fans react how they want to the ineptitude of Cubs management?

 

Criticism does not need to be limited in scope. People need to come to terms with this so that these threads quit going off on ugly tangents like this one has. It was a pleasant discussion with a lot of input from many different perspectives,

 

then we have people claiming this isn't fantasy baseball, etc... It isn't needed or welcomed.

 

I criticize Hendry because he's a tools guy and the tool thing hasn't been working. If the tool thing was working, I probably wouldn't be criticizing.

 

To sit there and tell me that Hendry could not over the last 3 years go out and get some stats guys because they weren't available, and then criticizing my opinion in a way to say I spend too much time playing fantasy baseball is out of line.

 

Just stop already.

 

On a separate note, I am having a tough time understanding why every post must be backed up with facts. This is an opinion based discussion board. Facts are nice, but not required. Quit asking for proof.

 

And finally, below is all courtesy of just Rotoworld. I'm sure I could dig up much more on how Ryan Church is available this offseason, but I should have to. He certainly looks available to me, and we certainly have the arms to get him. If they are asking for too much, then so be it. But, I haven't seen a quote from them either way that they are asking for too much or too little.

 

More Player News

 

Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 13 - 8:43 pm et

 

 

Chris Snelling's imminent arrival in Washington will likely further increase the chances that Ryan Church is dealt this winter.

 

Snelling and Church are both left-handed hitters who fit best in left field, though they do have some experience in center. It's unlikely that the Nationals will need both, and Church appeared to be on the way out anyway. We're guessing the starting job will be Snelling's to lose in spring training. Michael Restovich could act as his platoon partner.

 

 

Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 11 - 12:14 pm et

 

 

New Nationals manager Manny Acta called Ryan Church on Friday to let him know he's still in the team's plans for 2007.

 

"I've always gotten along with Church when I was in Montreal," Acta said. "It's going to be up to him. This is a make or break year for him to show the world what he can do or go in the other direction by becoming a fourth [outfielder]." We're still guessing he's dealt for pitching, as he's one of the few expendable and fairly valuable players on the roster. If he is kept, it sounds like Acta will give him the first crack at the starting job in left field.

Source: Nationals.mlb.com

 

 

Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 10 - 10:46 am et

 

 

Talks between the Cubs and Nationals regarding Ryan Church have reportedly cooled.

 

The Pirates are also showing less interest in Church. The Phillies may still want him, but it's unclear whether they'll part with Ryan Madson. The Royals and Tigers are among the other teams reported to have discussed Church with the Nationals.

Source: Chicago Sun-Times

 

 

Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 7 - 12:34 am et

 

 

A source told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the Pirates are no longer showing much interest in Ryan Church.

 

The team reportedly thinks Nate McLouth and Jody Gerut are nearly equivalent options in left field. Of course, this is the same organization that felt Jeromy Burnitz was a major upgrade a year ago. In the Pirates' defense, they finished with a .500 record as recently as 1992.

Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

 

Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 6 - 11:06 pm et

 

 

The Nationals and Phillies have discussed a trade that would send Ryan Church to Philadelphia for Ryan Madson.

 

Madson might receive another opportunity to start if he becomes a National. The Phillies would use him strictly as a reliever if they keep him.

Source: Nationals.mlb.com

 

 

Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 6 - 4:06 pm et

 

 

The Cubs are talking to the Nationals about Ryan Church, who could be an option to platoon with Matt Murton.

 

The Nationals will want pitching back, which could mean Angel Guzman, Sean Marshall or Carlos Marmol. The Cubs surely won't consider parting with Sean Hill for the 28-year-old.

Source: FOXSports.com

 

 

Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 5 - 11:31 pm et

 

 

The Phillies and Cubs have reportedly joined the Royals in looking into Ryan Church's availability.

 

Both teams have the young starters the Nationals desire, though Church isn't likely to bring back a top prospect. The Phillies could offer up Gavin Floyd or Ryan Madson. The Cubs have Angel Guzman or Carlos Marmol to part with.

Source: Nationals.mlb.com

 

 

Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 5 - 4:50 pm et

 

 

The Royals reportedly have some interest in Nationals outfielder Ryan Church.

 

There hasn't been much interest in either Reggie Sanders or Emil Brown to date, so it's hard to see how the Royals could make room for Church. They're also expected to move Mark Teahen to left field at some point to open up third base for top prospect Alex Gordon.

Source: MLB.com

 

 

Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 4 - 10:07 pm et

 

 

Even with Frank Robinson gone, Ryan Church remains in the Nationals' doghouse, sources told MLB.com.

 

The Nationals are upset the 28-year-old declined to play winter ball on the advice of his agent. Church clearly needs a trade and seems pretty likely to get one. The Nationals will likely go with Kory Casto in left field if they move Church. They might choose the rookie anyway.

Source: Nationals.mlb.com

 

Respect the other person's opinion, whether you agree or not.

[BigbadB]

I also prefer criticism based on actual results (such as guys we have actually acquired, the team's performance, etc.) rather than "Hendry sucks - he didn't sign Schmidt!"

 

You are also welcome to ignore the threads that posters aren't saying the exact thing you would want them to say, which is basically what you are saying.