Question about Fans....

GM Bashing

I didn't completely follow all that, but I will relate that I recently got into a prolonged debate on another message board. The ultimate insult the other guys could think of was to sarcastically ask me for a job because they "always wanted to work for a MLB GM." LOL!!

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 21, 2006 9:48 PM EST reply actions

Do you mean...

... like when someone says (http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2006/12/21/141734/97):

"Good arguements guys. Makes me wonder why you aren't GM's already."

Yeah, I hate when that happens.

by igreen01 on Dec 21, 2006 9:53 PM EST reply actions

Haha

You are so funny.

by doublestix on Dec 21, 2006 9:56 PM EST up reply actions

Fans

It's fine to have an opinion, but you do have to realize at some point, you aren't privy to all that goes on in day to day operations.

I don't have much tolerance for someone who calls something stupid when they have no concept of what it's like to actually do that job. It's like the ditch-digger calling the design engineer a moron. Put yourself in their shoes. What would you think if someone who doesn't work in your field / have experience told you that you were doing a poor job? It's ridiculous.

I'm opinionated as anyone about GM's, but at the end of the day, humility and common sense makes me realize there's a good chance I don't have all the right answers. I would have to have OVERWHELMING facts to call something a GM does stupid.

by slurve on Dec 21, 2006 10:13 PM EST reply actions

Like

Zambrano for Kazmir?

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 21, 2006 10:14 PM EST up reply actions

That's a great example

Does that GM still have his job? You don't see too many of those trades happen.

by slurve on Dec 21, 2006 10:17 PM EST up reply actions

yes

and look how well the Os are doing with him.

by JD Sussman on Dec 22, 2006 2:11 PM EST up reply actions

Well...

Believe me, as A Mets fan I would never go out of my way to defend Duquette. But, he is really hamstrung by the ownership in that organization. Peter Angelos is notoriously slow in agreeing to dole out money for FAs, is extremely stubborn (arguably more so that Steinbrenner), and often decides to disallow a move that the previous night he had agreed to. It's damn near impossible to be a good GM for Angelos. He has a reputation for alienating good baseball people.

In all honesty, Duquette has done good for Baltimore. He brought in Corey Patterson who had a solid season, signed and then traded Conine for Angel Chavez (should be a nice utility infielder), singed Millar on the cheap (gave them a nice season), got rid of Javy Lopez for a toolsy outfielder (Stern) who still has a little upside, and picked up Jaret Wright, who if healthy should be solid for them, for a spare part in Britton.

This offseason, he's also signed Danys Baez, Bradford, and Scott Williamson to reasonable deals. I'd imagine their pen would be a lot better this season.

All in all, he's done well with the Orioles. I don't agree with everything he did as Mets GM, but he aside from the Kazmir debacle, he wasn't as terrible as people make him out to be.

by nyr2k2 on Dec 22, 2006 4:42 PM EST up reply actions

Wrong Duquette

That was Dan that was with the Mets. This be Jim we're talking about.

"What you're forgetting is that you need at least three DWIs before you're considered a 'dominant' drunk driver." (limozeen)

by drjayphd on Dec 23, 2006 12:18 AM EST up reply actions

Duquette

Actually, Dan Duquette (the Duke) was the Red Sox GM. His (cousin?) (brother?) (some sorta relative, anyway) is Jim Duquette, the guy who traded Kazmir for the wrong Zambrano and is now "helping out" Mike Flanagan and Peter Angelos in Baltimore. Talk about a meeting of the minds...

by igreen01 on Dec 23, 2006 12:32 AM EST up reply actions

heh

As a former ditch digger, I can tell you that some engineers really are morons.

No, it's going to drain down...no, not up...would you...ugh. OK, it's going to flow up. You got it, sir!

by bigfatdrunk on Dec 21, 2006 10:18 PM EST up reply actions

Haha

Yeah, I've actually ran into this as well.

How about, it's like the ditch-digger telling the astro-physicist he doesn't know WTF he talking about....

by slurve on Dec 21, 2006 10:25 PM EST up reply actions

But...

Unless you are Robert Adair, this ain't physics, much less astro-physics. It's baseball.

by bigfatdrunk on Dec 21, 2006 10:32 PM EST up reply actions

Tell that

to Theo and Billy.

Anyway, it was comp, maybe not the best but a comp.

How about the electrician tells the .... nevermind, I hope you get it....

by slurve on Dec 22, 2006 6:25 AM EST up reply actions

Am I the only person at work this morning? ugh.

I guess I find the whole moneyball thing over-blown. Billy and Theo (and others) simply developed new benchmarks and metrics in order to maximize the talent on their team within their budgetary constraints. This has been SOP in almost every industry BUT baseball with few exceptions (Earl Weaver and Branch Rickey being examples).

I do want to make one thing clear: I would be willing to be a baseball GM, to put myself up to the same scrutiny that we, on this board, hold GMs to. I'd do it for free if I didn't have a family to support. You can call it arrogance or whatever, but I am confident that I could be a GM. Heck, I think artie would be a good GM, too.

Now, slurve, if you have one about a nun, a rabbi, and a penguin walking into a bar...

by bigfatdrunk on Dec 22, 2006 9:38 AM EST up reply actions

I agree

I think a lot of that stuff is overblown as well. I should have said tell that to fans of Theo and Billy who many seem to think have re-invented the wheel.

I don't call it arrogance - I think ignorance is more like it. GM's do so much more than just decide which players to go after. I'm not doubting your ability/intelligence so don't take it the wrong way, just doubting/questioning your understanding of all the aspects involved.

by slurve on Dec 22, 2006 10:48 AM EST up reply actions

Perhaps you're right

What I often don't see are plans or a strategy. Looking at Purpura, he spent $100MM on Lee then he wasn't willing to go $2MM more on Pettitte, which also means we lose Clemens. So we made a short-term boost signing, but lost two short-term guys. THEN, they trade youth for mediocrity. So, are we playing for the short term? Or long term? I don't know. I don't see any master plan for dominance at all, but I do see a very expensive 75-win team.

Then, you see GMs like Beane or Theo or Schuerholz and you go, dang, I see what this guy is trying to do.

I don't know everything behind being a GM; I cannot deny the obvious. But I do believe I have a skill-set that would be successful in that role. It's like I say: if you don't want to hit in the bottom of the ninth, you shouldn't be playing the game. There's pressure and there's scrutiny, but I still want up.

by bigfatdrunk on Dec 22, 2006 11:01 AM EST up reply actions

Oh yeah...

Chances of that happening? Zero. HAHAHAHAHA!!! But I can dream, can't I? Cmon, Santa, give Papa a new job. HAHAHA!

by bigfatdrunk on Dec 22, 2006 11:05 AM EST up reply actions

Mis dos centavos

Back in school, I had a prof who heavily pressured me into going to grad school at an Ohio U. or FIU or another school that focused on Sports Management. I didn't, yet, I don't regret it.

I strongly believe that baseball jobs, like many other professions, is a matter of who you know versus what you know. Things are a bit different now than they used to be, but precisely how many major league teams are there? How often are the worst recycled ad nauseam (and ad stupidity and ad other non-Latin terms)? Just look at the debate between scouts and stat-heads. There is no way to settle that argument.

So, like my son would say: you know what? I enjoy the hell out of this hobby, I have been following baseball since I can literally remember (I think I even remember an AB by Roberto Clemente), and I will friggin' continue to do so.

To me, it's just like politics: some are right, some are wrong, but everybody deserves a voice. Except those who disagree with me, natch.

by bigfatdrunk on Dec 21, 2006 10:16 PM EST reply actions

bingo

the whole "sports management" degree is one of the most expensive scams around.

it's become more popular because of the emergence of the "regular guy GM" (Epstein, DePodesta, ect...), so guys like us think "I can do that".

The problem is, people don't realize that those guys got the jobs because they knew the secret handshake. Theo met Larry Luchhino through some Yale good-ol-boy network. That's how the other half lives. Either you're born with connections, or you're not.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Dec 21, 2006 10:25 PM EST up reply actions

Re:

Good question Lefty Ace. My 2 cents:

I am a Sox fan living in Boston, and it is a problem here. I admit that I am sometimes guilty of throwing around the "you aren't smarter than a scout/manager/GM ect..." when arguing baseball. I'm not trying to be condescending, that's the last thing I want to do.

The thing is, I just get so frustrated when fans complain about a particular move, but they do not have an alternative idea. Or, the whole 20/20 hindsight thing. "Why did we get rid of Haaaaanley!" Hanley had a .750 OPS in AA before he was traded. I guarantee you that nobody was worrying until he had his ridiculous fluke year in FLA (if you own him in roto...sell high, believe me).

It is really bad with SOx fans. SOme of them (and I'm sure you've heard it) are so goddam bitter and reactionary, and they complain about every little move, usually before the particular players get to prove them otherwise, and it gives me a splitting headache.

So, that is why I sometimes say that. It is just to squelch the WEEI sheep.

I have no problem with thoughtful, rational critique of a GM or manager... but sometimes, when it is just mindless ranting ("why did we sign nancy drew! long live trot nixon and his dirty hat!")... I need to shut them up.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Dec 21, 2006 10:33 PM EST reply actions

I will say

and I am sure it is no shock to anyone here.

That with the unlimited tools and resources most GM's have I could do an above average job as a GM. I also believe that several if not most of you think like this. If not, maybe you have settled in life.

Most GM's(or anyone with an unbelievable job) say you have to love it to be good at it. And after the first million I ensure you that they don't love it near as much.

"You hear a lot of things... because there are a lot of people talking." (Shamus original)

by Shamus on Dec 21, 2006 10:46 PM EST reply actions

also

Do any of you find it almost impossible to talk about baseball to your friends. Though I try to hide it, it is obvious that I get very frustrated when I do. And anytime anything ever goes on about baseball in the news everyone that knows me asks me what I think about it. This is ridiculous

"You hear a lot of things... because there are a lot of people talking." (Shamus original)

by Shamus on Dec 21, 2006 10:57 PM EST up reply actions

re:

"That with the unlimited tools and resources most GM's have I could do an above average job as a GM."

Hahaha, man, unlimited resources and tools? Outside of Boston and New York, GMs face lots of organizational constraints. That's what makes being a GM so hard, common sense cannot always prevail when you're limited by what the owner will give you to work with.

by nyr2k2 on Dec 22, 2006 12:14 AM EST up reply actions

bingo

you're right on and that right there is the essence of the difference between a real GM and an armchair. it's a much, much tougher job than any of us can imagine.

everyone in the world thinks they'd be a better elementary school teacher, Sec Gen of the U.N., architect, baseball G.M., President of the U.S. etc etc. than those in those positions now. But anyone with a job knows they tend to be a lot harder than they appear.

it's not that people in all of those positions shouldn't be criticized, but it's also a hell of a lot harder than it appears from the outside.

by scooter on Dec 22, 2006 9:35 AM EST up reply actions

Meow...

"Do any of you find it almost impossible to talk about baseball to your friends. Though I try to hide it, it is obvious that I get very frustrated when I do. And anytime anything ever goes on about baseball in the news everyone that knows me asks me what I think about it. This is ridiculous"

Actually around here, yes I do. Many of the people on message boards I've been on that I talk to are the only people I can stand talking baseball too.

I had a debate with a good, old friend about Soriano and Beltran. He loved bringing up the countables and completely ignored Soriano's two seasons in Texas, except of course, for HRs, RBIs, and SBs.

In the end we agreed to disagree.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 23, 2006 11:12 AM EST up reply actions

re

One of the best things about baseball is the second guessing. It has been a time honored tradition since the game's inception.

I do find some of the clowns on here who think they are geniuses a little tedious, but overall this is a good site to debate and argue the sport we closely follow and fell passionately about

by ScottAZ on Dec 22, 2006 12:54 AM EST reply actions

amateurs, etc.

"Always remember that the professional, whether paid or unpaid, is a skilled performer. The amateur is just a clumsy bastard." -- Stanley Woodward

OK, now there's a difference between that, one of my favorite quotes, and what I gather is the real subject of your post, the idea of intelligence as a rhetorical weapon.

I work in a field where the tools of the trade are arcane and difficult, but the product is supposed to be taken at face value. The average guy may not be able to tell A+ work from A- work, but he knows quality from dreck. When I was younger and had more to prove, I found it galling that my career depended on people who hadn't studied it the way I had, but even if they had nothing to tell me about my technique, they were eminently qualified to say if I was getting it right or not.

So I go both ways on the idea of the expert, because ever since I started keeping track of all the arguments I'd lost in retrospect, I've respected people who have gotten to the top of their field -- or even just lived a while and saw a lot of stuff -- and knew things I would never know.

I'm always suspicious of a debater who makes a show of his intelligence. Almost all of the truly brilliant people I've ever met are humble about their achievements; they know what they don't know, and they respect what's on the other side of their mental boundaries.

Meanwhile, everyone I've ever met who freely tosses around words like "stupid" could stand to get in touch with their mental boundaries. Without exception. It doesn't mean they're NOT smart -- a lot of them are -- but there's a limit to how much they can know because they've either closed off a lot of avenues or they've placed inordinate faith in the intellectual trend of the day (often someone else's). Maybe the word is "ignorant."

Anyway. "Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach," etc.

by whichthat on Dec 22, 2006 1:56 AM EST reply actions

Great post

You've articulated a lot of what I was unable to do.

Reminds me of something my dad used to tell me in my late teens/early 20's - that you have to cautious with knowledge when you're young. Most know enough to get themselves into trouble, but few know enough to get themselves out of it. Then he'd go into some rant about "I've forgotten more than you know" which seemed silly to me at the time. I can now see what what he was talking about.

by slurve on Dec 22, 2006 6:40 AM EST up reply actions

Nice post

I understand your message. I have always considered knowledge to be like a ball, and the surface area of the ball is what you know you don't know. The bigger that ball, the more you know you don't know. You know?

As a tribute to you, whichthat, I'll promise to not call purpura "stupid"...OK, I'll promise to try...for a week. :-)

by bigfatdrunk on Dec 22, 2006 9:25 AM EST up reply actions

specific example

i agree with much of that, as noted in another post. and, in summary, the truism 'the more you know about something the more you know you don't know" generally seems to be true.

---

to give one perhaps slightly disconnected specific example, on another thread there is a debate about Colletti and a number of posters -- myself included -- would say that DePodesta was a better GM who made better moves during his short term than Colletti has during his short term. And, yet, by any objective measure, DePodesta was a failure. He lost his job quickly and hasn't reappeared on any short-lists I've seen -- certainly the general opinion of him in L.A. is very low.

Which gets to the point that being a GM is about more than signing J.D. Drew rather than Juan Pierre. Team owners are selling a product in very competitive markets -- so part of that is working within budgets, overseeing large staffs, coordinating work flows -- etc etc. And, more to my point, it's convincing your fan base that your product is good and part of that is convincing the media covering your team to at least give you a fair shot. DePodesta, even his supporters admit, was an awful communicator. The media in town hated him and ripped him mercilessly in the papers and radio. Not his fault you say? A bunch of old dinosaurs? Sure...maybe...but no one promises these guys a rose garden: a team needs to convince the people who pay their salaries that they're putting a viable product on the field, and part of so doing is wooing the media to give your team a fair shake. If you don't have the ability to do that, then you'll be fired in short order -- i.e., you'll be a failure.

DePodesta couldn't (or didn't) succeed at that. Fair? Maybe not...but that's the real world. And, to the point of this thread, the J.D. Drew signings etc are just the fun, sexy part: could all the wanna-be G.M.s here communicate with the media? Could they hold their own at the negotiating table with Scott Boras, one of the world's great negotiators? Could they interface between competing factions in the minor league system and a major league coach who will go to the media and whine about you if he doesn't get what he wants? Can you handle a situation where your farm director refuses to speak to the draft director? Can you handle a true dinosaur like Tommy Lasorda pontificating in the media and to the fans on a daily basis?

I take it DePodesta wasn't much good at any of the above. He wasn't speaking to people in his own organization, there were tons of factions, etc. So his boss -- a Boston guy inclined toward a John Henry/Theo Epstein sabremetric model -- quickly dispensed with him for an experienced guy who, apparently, is much better at all that stuff.

One last comment: has anyone here ever met a 20 year old college kid who doesn't think they have the answer to each and every question in the world? That sort of critical perspective should be encouraged, but it shouldn't be mistaken for the experience to understand that...welll....they're so sure of themselves because they know so little. Of course the Pierre signing was awful and no one is saying that major league GMs have magic knowledge we don't. But they are dealing wth a lot of complications and variables that make things a lot more complex than listing a guy's trades and giving them a grade.

by scooter on Dec 22, 2006 1:08 PM EST up reply actions

+1

thoroughly agree, and it's why i would never REALLY want to be a GM or a politician.

the funny thing is, this is the very reason I stay away from politics, but yet I care too much about baseball to hold myself back from having an opinion.

i probably just made an entire generation of political activists throw up in their mouths.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 22, 2006 7:28 PM EST up reply actions

Another great post

I particularly like the parts about "holding their own" in negotiations and the last paragraph. I'm sure my goings back and forth with Lefty about Hendry as well as the Dayton Moore thread are at the root of this diary. It's good to see I'm not alone/crazy in many of my viewpoints & opinions.

In starting this diary, I think he was looking to drum up some vindication for some of his recent comments. Looks like he may not have gotten what he was hoping for. Maybe - maybe not - just a hunch.

No, when people throw out the "why aren't you a GM" it doesn't (always) mean they have "lost" the arguement or don't have any viable points left to offer. If anything, it can be frustration of dealing with a perceived know-it-all or someone that has false/over-confidence and/or is being arrogant. Lefty seems to be a smart guy and I hope if a baseball career is what he wants, he goes for it. At the same time, he has what one of my profs referred to as "raw knowledge" - which can contribute to over-confidence, close-mindedness and hasty conclusions. Three bad "intangibles" for any person, let alone a major league GM.

by slurve on Dec 23, 2006 10:12 AM EST up reply actions

What about the owners???

We seem to forget that GMs have bosses -- the guy (or guys) who own the team.

If the boss says, don't draft that guy -- you don't.
If the boss says, sign that guy -- you do.

We, even as the most die-hard of baseball enthusiasts are not privy to the whims of owners and certainly no GM is going to call out his boss and say, "I never would have done that on my own."

by Ur on Dec 22, 2006 10:33 AM EST reply actions

I Suppose I Should Say Something

... seeing as how I actually did get an MLB job by being a fan on a messge board. (In case you're wondering how that happens, a) you've got to be really good, and b) more importantly, the owner of the team has to read the board you post to.)

It's important to distinguish between being a GM and being a player evaluator. There's a lot more to being a GM than the latter. I couldn't and wouldn't want to be an MLB GM; I wouldn't have a clue as to how to put together the instructional staff of a farm system, for instance. A lot of GMs presumably have gotten and held jobs because they have achieved competence at the many aspects of the GM job other than player evaluation.

Now, when it comes to player evaluation, either you are sabermetrically informed or you're not. And if you are, you will kick the butt of anyone who isn't, regardless of their expertise in scouting. Most of the fans who post to message boards are sabermetrically informed. It is really obvious that at least a small percentage of MLB GMs are not. Still. This will not go on much longer, because the uninformed cannot compete.

Fans love to critique the GMS. If you're critiquing a sabermetrically informed GM, you had best consider whether they in fact know something you don't, because they probably know everything you do. If you are critiquing a sabermetrically ignorant GM, you know for certain that you know things they don't. It's a world of difference. (Of course the joker in this deck is that our assessment of their sabermetric knowledge often is a guess based on the apparent widsom of the very moves we wish to critique.)

Fans who offer the "why aren't you a GM?" counter-argument can probably be politely informed of the importance of sabermetric knowledge and of the odd set of circumstances that have allowed thousands of fans to become better player evaluators than a handful of old-generation GMs.

I can't help adding that I've been doing what I do since 1970 (after reading Percentage Baseball as a 16-year old), when almost no GMs were sabermetrically informed, probably because the word hadn't been coined yet. Lou Gorman was a terrific player evaluator from the scouting perspective, and made many good moves for the Red Sox. However, he clearly didn't know park effects from his elbow, and just his ignorance of the titanic effect at AA New Britain led directly to the Bagwell fiasco and probably to the ruin of the careers of Sam Horn and Greg Blosser. You think it's frustrating following basebal now, with all its inexplicable moves? Ha!

by Eric Van on Dec 22, 2006 4:34 PM EST reply actions

Nice

What a well though out, reasoned response. Thanks for that, Eric.

by nyr2k2 on Dec 22, 2006 4:45 PM EST up reply actions

I've got my fix

Thanks for a cool post, Eric. I think it's great that you work for the Sox, and everything you say rings true. You're to be congratulated, in all sincerity.

Personally, while I love baseball and evaluating players, I'm aware of the unique mix of skills, connections and luck that it takes to land an MLB job, and even more so of the fact that landing the MLB job entitles one only to some measure of input in how a billionaire plays with his toy.

I get more satisfaction out of exercising full control over my fantasy teams then I ever would working even for someone enlightened as John Henry. He can do as he pleases with his franchise, and I can do as I please with my own. And how many people root for our respective teams is entirely immaterial to the intellectual satisfaction that I receive from making the decisions. (I realize not everyone feels that way.)

I know you'll agree that any team's decisions are fair game for criticism, irrespective of whatever private considerations may have guided that decision. I'm just glad no one can fire me when I mess up, at least where baseball judgments are concerned!

by igreen01 on Dec 22, 2006 10:16 PM EST up reply actions

Wow!

There is some amazing wisdom here. Good topic. The post by "whichthat" is philosophical and wise, and "knowing what you don't know" is often a trait of the best in any field, from my experience.

I'd take one minor exception to "Eric Van"'s position about being "sabermetrically informed". I think that the truly skilled evaluators of the past developed an intuition that then informed their decisions smartly, as opposed to the more quantitative approach. In some ways, I think we're entering a "Golden Age", where the two can meet. Consider the somewhat recent assertion that BABIP=~LD%+12%. In the nascent days of SABRMetrics, if scouts said that a guy had a "good line drive stroke", but he hit .223 in A-ball, that player would get dismissed out of hand by many performance analysts, especially if he didn't draw walks. Yet, maybe he did have a good line drive stroke (and a good future)... maybe he was lacing a bunch of liners, and yet had an "unlucky" BABIP.

Anyway, here's my addition to the amateur v. professional thinking:

First, you clearly have the energy, Lefty, and I hope you end up in a career that you find rewarding. I agree with the people who comment here that networking is crucial.

I see the "amateurs" who post on blogs to be different from "professionals" mainly in accountability. I think it's a lot like an individual investor vs. a fund manager. If you or I pick a stock that is a dog, we could lose some percentage of our savings, which can be depressing (been there, done that, didn't even get a T-shirt). But if a fund manager makes a big gaffe, he's losing lots of money for lots of other people. I know baseball is "just a game", but in sports, both money and the hopes and dreams of a city (or bigger fan base) ride on the decisions. A successful GM can't let the fans make decisions for him, but his decisions need to make the fans happy over time, or he's (at the very least) crippling his own budget.

Having managed development projects for a big corporation, I will attest that there's another level of stress that comes about from having millions of dollars riding on your decisions. And there are hundreds of opinions from smart people to be balanced out. On the days when I did my job well, I was able to remember that those opinions which didn't agree with mine were usually made by smart people with the best intentions, and I would disregard them at my own peril.

by BobbyMac on Dec 22, 2006 8:24 PM EST reply actions

Wouldn't Disagree

I'd take one minor exception to "Eric Van"'s position about being "sabermetrically informed". I think that the truly skilled evaluators of the past developed an intuition that then informed their decisions smartly, as opposed to the more quantitative approach.

I actually almost said something similar when talking about Lou Gorman, who seemed to have some awareness of the importance of OBP vs. BA. You can figure these things out by watching the game and thinking critically as well as by running correlations.

In the interview I did for Interviews with Red Sox Nation I talk a lot about the role of sabertemtrics vs. scouting and how the two ideally work together. In brief, scouting is still the best way to assess how a player's future value will differ from his present value. But assessments of present value are done 95% by looking at the numbers as smartly as you can and 5% by watching baseball games.

by Eric Van on Dec 23, 2006 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

Damn...

Well one thing guys did better than others like Bill Shanks...

That whole "teens think they know everything" can apply to me. But it seems to me even thats going away the more people my age I talk to on other boards.

Anyway I just thought of the idea that I hate the "you're no GM" thing because it basically says "theres no point in debating this because its bigger than all of us."

Then we might as well take these boards down and not talk about baseball. Just let ourselves realize that anyone in baseball is smarter than us and knows more so dont criticize.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 23, 2006 11:42 AM EST reply actions

Ya still don't get it

"Then we might as well take these boards down and not talk about baseball. Just let ourselves realize that anyone in baseball is smarter than us and knows more so dont criticize."

Did what eveyone has said just fly right over your head? I don't think anyone here has said/implied that. What I got out of most of this from reading everyone's posts is that it's fine to critique, but there is a line. Questioning/raising eyebrows is one thing. Going right for the juggular and calling something stupid, idiotic, etc. is entirely something different.

Don't bash a man unless you've walked a mile in his shoes.

"That whole "teens think they know everything" can apply to me. But it seems to me even thats going away the more people my age I talk to on other boards."

This makes no sense. Teens "knowing everything" is not something that is simply going to "go away" because more teens are posting on boards. You've just re-inforced it with that statement. As long as there are teens with raging hormones that are armed with a little knowledge, this concept will be alive and well. The word "sophomoric" isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I figured if you heard some of this stuff from someone besides myself, it may start to sink in / change your outlook a bit. Looks like I couldn't have been anymore wrong.

by slurve on Dec 23, 2006 12:15 PM EST up reply actions

Who doesn't get what is open to debate

"Questioning/raising eyebrows is one thing. Going right for the juggular and calling something stupid, idiotic, etc. is entirely something different."

I'm sorry, but this is silly. Why would we want to stick to mealy-mouthed platitudes or Socratic questioning instead of our actual opinions? LeftyAce is absolutely right. Please don't tell me how I should feel, and I promise to treat you with courtesy as we discuss my real feelings about the sport's public figures, OK? Cause that's what they are - public figures, and not your favorite aunt.

by igreen01 on Dec 23, 2006 1:57 PM EST up reply actions

Silly, huh?

Lefty more or less asked what we thought about GM bashing. He got some answers. Many of them said basically the same thing. His most recent post still came off as a little defiant / brushing aside what people thought.

Nobody is telling you how you should feel. Opinions are fine, be they different or the same as mine or anyone elses. I really don't care how you feel. At all. I think what people take offense to is those feelings coming out unfiltered in the form of reckless / un-informed comments. When some people see something they don't like or agree with, they just start blathering on how this guy is stupid and they could do better. Spewing a bunch of empty insults when they really haven't taken anytime to mentally process anything doesn't impress anyone, nor does it really contribute to worthwhile conversation.

by slurve on Dec 23, 2006 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

Confused where you are going here

So does critical = reckless and uninformed? Lefty wasn't defending uninformed opinions. He was defending his right to have a critical opinion without someone dusting off the nonsequitur that he's "not a pro." The question is how much deference GM's deserve in our criticism of their decision-making because they're "pros." And the obvious, and overwhelmingly popular answer is, none. Whether our opinions are reasoned or not is an entirely separate matter, and one no one but you seems to be debating.

by igreen01 on Dec 23, 2006 4:41 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks....

igreen.

I've had a nice debate with slurve in which age meant the world to him, while also finding time to change my opinions to fit the way he thinks of me.

So therefore, with him I will never get it.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 23, 2006 7:20 PM EST up reply actions

By the way slurve...

if you really think my posts were just "Hendry is an idiot" thats your problem not mine. I gave specific reasons why I think Hendry is doing a horrible job as a GM, you chose to ignore that and take the "Hendry is an idiot" part to heart.

And sorry, since us "lesser" baseball people (fans) tend to be slightly volatile towards the much better and smarter people running the teams we love, it's pretty natural for me to blow up on Hendry more than anyone else. It's not like he's doing great htings for the Cubs.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 23, 2006 7:24 PM EST up reply actions

"Lesser"

"Lesser" - Your assertion, definatelty not mine. Never said it. I've made sure to say it plenty: I'm not questioning anyone's mental ability or level of intelligence. I only have pointed out that there is more to it than most armchairs take into consideration. You pointed out reasons you don't like Hendry. Yay for you. Have a party. You also repeatedly failed to offer up better solutions. I haven't ignored anything. Oh wait, I forgot about TJ Burnett. You have only damning things to say, no answers to what exactly you would have done. I pointed out that you (or most of us here) most likely have no concept of everything that controls how/why GM's do things they way they do. Post after post in this diary alludes to a similar sentiment, but obviously you had your mind set that you were right beforehand, regardless of what others were going to say or offer as advice.

The bottom line is you're criticizing someone doing a job you have no concept of how to perform yourself - and when someone calls attention to the probability you are armchair-ing/ignorant to everything involved as a counter-point, you can't take it because you know it all at the ripe old age of 18. I'm not going to sit here and insult you as some dumbass. I'll say it again. I think you're a pretty smart guy. I just hope for your sake that the lightbulb moment of "Hey, maybe I actually don't know it all" happens for you.

by slurve on Dec 23, 2006 8:45 PM EST up reply actions

No

critical does not equal reckless and uninformed. Lefty certainly is defending uniformed opinions. If you don't actually know what it takes to actually perform GM duties, yet are critical without knowing all pertinent aspects - you are in fact, uninformed. At age 18, I got serious doubts that he does know what all is entailed to being a GM, let alone a good GM. Age isn't everything, but is sure does go along way towards explaining why he thinks the way he does. Age aside, I doubt most of us know what goes on in a major league office. "Knowing what you don't know" as someone said. It's a fantastic concept that some here are oblivious to. Like I said in my original post, I have no problem with people forming opinions/questioning things. I do have a problem when they start carelessly throwing terms around like stupid or retarded, or implying they could do a better job - that's where my line is. Again - until you've walked a mile in another man's shoes...

by slurve on Dec 23, 2006 9:03 PM EST up reply actions

Meh....

You're getting on a soapbox for name calling when I've done it to one GM who has done little to show he is even a decent GM.

Seriously, NONE of us know what it takes to be a GM. What exactly is the point of bringing up that I'm 18?

And even then, do I, as a fan, care about what it takes to get the job? Considering that baseball is the ultimate "old boys" club, and McPhail loves Hendry enough to help save his ass before he left, I couldn't care less. The fact is he's a bad GM.

It's like saying "don't have an opinion because you aren't as smart as the guys doing the job." Sorry, but since none of us knows what a guy had to do to get his job, according to you we shouldn't talk about him or what he does because we have an "uninformed" opinion.

Thats horrible logic.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 24, 2006 11:53 AM EST up reply actions

Are you even reading?

Or are you just picking out key words that you want to argue about?

"GM who has done little to show he is even a decent GM."

Huh. Been on the doorstep of the WS. Won a division title. Nah. Nothin'.

"Seriously, NONE of us know what it takes to be a GM. What exactly is the point of bringing up that I'm 18?"

That's what I said. The point of age was only me trying to rationalize why you're so hard-headed.

"It's like saying "don't have an opinion because you aren't as smart as the guys doing the job."

No. Stop. How many times do I have to say something to the effect, I don't have a problem with opinions. Apparently I haven't said it enough yet. I'll paste the following from the previous post... Like I said in my original post, I have no problem with people forming opinions/questioning things. I do have a problem when they start carelessly throwing terms around like stupid or retarded, or implying they could do a better job - that's where my line is.

"Sorry, but since none of us knows what a guy had to do to get his job, according to you we shouldn't talk about him or what he does because we have an "uninformed" opinion."

Now you're twisting it to suit your arguement. I don't care how he got his job. At all. Whether it was by some birth-right into some perceived "old boys club" or he worked his way to the top from nothing. I don't care, nor did I say it mattered. What does matter is you, me or most here have little information to base an opinion on. Little information = uniformed.

I haven't once said GM's are off-limits to be scrutinized. Get that out of your head and quit playing that card like it's something I have or am saying. Aaaaaagain... criticism is fine, but there is a line that is crossed when armchairs start tossing out "retarded, idiotic" or "I could do better."

by slurve on Dec 24, 2006 12:26 PM EST up reply actions

Aye....

Are you even reading?

Or are you just picking out key words that you want to argue about?>>>>

The hilarious part about this to me is that you have done what you're accusing me of doing.

Huh. Been on the doorstep of the WS. Won a division title. Nah. Nothin'.>>>>

Pat him on the back for 2-3 years ago.

Does the fact that we have gotten progressively worse since those glory years bother you? Nah. He did some good 3 years ago, he's a very good GM, and I'm too uninformed and young to know what your great mind knows.

Does the fact that the team has spent over 200 million on contracts, all backloaded for the future owners, and would still be lucky to be a .500 team bother you? Nope. Again, thats just my uninformed young ass speaking.

No. Stop. How many times do I have to say something to the effect, I don't have a problem with opinions. Apparently I haven't said it enough yet. I'll paste the following from the previous post... Like I said in my original post, I have no problem with people forming opinions/questioning things. I do have a problem when they start carelessly throwing terms around like stupid or retarded, or implying they could do a better job - that's where my line is.>>>>

Follow your logic.

Fans don't know what it takes to be a GM. You have that.

The next logical step would be that we can't really criticize a GM then.

And yes, I get it, name calling offends you. In MY original post I said it myself, I've gained a new respect for GMs in the past few weeks. Name calling also bothers me to. It's why I haven't done it here.

BTW, you actually think no GM could do a better job? Buuullllshiiiiiit.

What does matter is you, me or most here have little information to base an opinion on. Little information = uniformed.>>>>

So then it comes back to we shouldn't form opinions no?

Again, I call bullshit. Fans have more info than ever, and if you look for the logic in a GMs moves and don't agree with it what should you do? Just be like "I'm an idiot, he's a pro" and thats that?

I haven't once said GM's are off-limits to be scrutinized. Get that out of your head and quit playing that card like it's something I have or am saying. Aaaaaagain... criticism is fine, but there is a line that is crossed when armchairs start tossing out "retarded, idiotic" or "I could do better.">>>>>

I think we just wasted each others time.

You're complaining about something I did weeks ago that I care little for. I called Hendry an idiot, he sure makes idiotic moves but I was out of line yes.

I get it. You have a thing for calling a GM an idiot. That wasn't the point of my post. My point was specifically for people who seem to think that people who aren't GMs can't talk baseball.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 24, 2006 2:09 PM EST up reply actions