RagahRagah

I like how you're literally making one of my points for me after I stated it and you somehow "missed" it.

You don't think players ever avoid going to shitty organizations? Like I said, one already turned down the most money.

You believe I have reading issues because you have a different opinion than me? That's an odd correlation you're making. What was it I didn't read? I provided reasons and he's ignoring all except 1.

I have to assume you have issues with reading at this point. I will restate: We attempted to lure a FA by signing his friends to justify a clear lowball offer. Our owner is loyal to a fault and always oversees hiring the wrong personal and constant lowball offers (and overlooking readily available quality resources), which includes LaRussa. A lot of this is the result of constantly crying poor. He also has a history of bamboozling the fans. And then, yes, there is LaRussa. A 76 year old who has not managed in 10 years and is earning ire socially with his stances on social issues, his shaky past with many players as well as his stubborn and arrogant nature, and some clearly contrived autopilot comments at the presser upon his hiring. I stated most of this right off the bat so I'm not sure where you are ignoring it, how you are missing it or why you "weren't following" when I answered your questions outright.

I didn't move the goal posts at all. I answered the question. And then you asked for the answers you already received. This is about as a bizarre an interaction as I've had on a message forum.

Lol "family reasons." The point really flew over your head. Yes, we signed his friends to try to sway him instead of offering him the money we knew it would take to sign him. You're not following because you're not trying to. When has the money ever really "been there?" I swear, some of you guys will never stop falling for this team's facades. The LaRussa hiring is the cherry on the ruse Sundae that Reinsdorf has been feeding the fans for years now. The Sox have been a notorious spot for star FAs to avid in the past and now that's only likely to continue. But just the bus league stuff this team has been resorting to lately makes this organization a clear embarrassment.

Lol. We signed 2 of Machado's buddies to try to sway him to sign with us instead of just paying him. That ALONE answers your question. But then we can add the fact that Reinsdorf is loyal to a fault and has hired a lot of the wrong people and now he's basically hired a 76 year-old who hasn't managed i 10 years as a favor for guilt. We offered Wheeler the most money and he still didn't sign. This all speaks volumes about this team.

What is it you're not following? Pretty self-explanatory.

Well, doesn't that sound familiar. Maybe we can sign a couple of Bauer's friends and sign him to a sweet, friendly discount multi-year deal. If I'm a big FA in 2020, honestly I probably stay away from this team.

This.

But as most of us know, anything that appears hopefully always ends up being a ruse.

Who said I was hurt or upset? Your constant deflections are tiresome. At least I'm trying to get somewhere. You're just pretending to toy with me at this point. Which is fine because you still have a lot of things to address. (But at this point you've drug on this act so long you've long since distanced yourself from them, which was probably the intent). When you feel you're right, I'm sure you press on. When you're under the microscope, my pressing of you is apparently "trivial." You'll never discover self-awareness, I suspect.

What you call ridiculous is easily reality. It also puts asterisks next to people's names on the team who might have hated what was happening but justifiably felt scared to say anything. You're grossly underestimating the effects these things have on people.

There's a time and place for humor. Humor is general is good. Humor used to deflect the argument or attack the person challenging you to get out of having to take it seriously is not. There is a big difference. And you ignored so many of my points for so long while doing this that it pretty much outs you as someone who can't handle it.

I pointed this out to you when you originally said it. So I could be a dick and say, "maybe you should have paid attention better when I originally said it and not make an ass of yourself with all the snarky comments." But I'm more reasonable than that. Are you? Really? You don't think it's ruining lives? You don't think some guys getting cheated out of many of their biggest dreams could have an effect on people to a tragic extent? And possibly affect their pay in future contracts? I don't think you've thought this through. And whether you care if I "like it" or not, it's poor logic. This is legitimately how children think, not adults. The fact you *assume* it happens all the time is logic flaw #1, and then you have the perception that since you *think* that is true, it's ok for others to do it, no big deal. Wrong on both accounts.

You missed plenty at the time. You're still ignoring virtually all of my points NOW so asking me what you missed in retrospect is frankly obtuse. You think I am babbling because you lack comprehension. You keep deflecting everything I say and keep responding with childish remarks. Over and over. I'm glad you are amused but I am not. I have already proved you wrong numerous times just by your unwillingness to even address most of what I say. Yet you keep responding to me. One of these days maybe you will post a response that actually is relevant and doesn't dodge everything. Whatever you want to call it. A few posters tend to resort to ad hominem and childish remarks and there's only one reason for it: lack of ability to actually argue a point. Period.

I am very "lightened." I have a sense of humor. But it's funny how people are so serious with their arguments until they get shown up and then suddenly it's nothing but petulance and attempts to soften the blows. "Hey, lighten up, man!" Yeah, people tend to say that when they get shown up. But if it was you that got the upper hand and I disappeared you think you'd still have the same feeling? Of course not. Just like no one is ever really sorry for cheating until they get caught. You keep deflecting everything I'm saying and failing to acknowledge it and then resorting to ad hominem (Oh hey, look... another fallacy) and snarky remarks because, AGAIN, you lack the reasoning ability. The act is transparent and I'm not fooled, and I know you can't admit when you've made a mistake. So better to move on. Why keep responding to me?

Yeah, that's such a pinpoint accurate, totally non-hyperbolic representation of how it happened. Saying something disgraceful doesn't bother you simply because you accept that it happens all the time is grade-school level stuff. "Everyone's doing drugs so it's totally ok." I've heard this nonsense regarding political figures. "Seriously, who cares that he cheated on his wife? They all do it." (I have heard people say that verbatim) It's absurd.

Again, transparent excuse. When someone asks you questions and requests explanations, gets them and then totally ignores them and ignores the questions you pose to THEM... you can say whatever you want but you're not fooling me. I wasn't presenting *my* logic, but just logic. Everyone who seems to have friction with me really loves their fallacies and are terribly unaware of how many they wrap their arguments around on a consistent basis.

Unaware of his history and missed the obvious playing to the black crowd today, I see?

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying they are forced to, but that the perception/narrative from many is that you have to do it simply because it's your duty. You know just as well as I do that a lot of people are actually militant with this shit. Which makes it feel forced/unnatural. Obviously this mentality leads to doing a lot of things for the same reason. And I have never understood how people allow themselves to be manipulated that way.

The actual managing is but one of many potentially combustible elements. The possible race issue, the arrogance, the inevitable decline due to his age, possible influence over the office, etc. are but some of these. I'm more worried about those.

Notice I don't do any of the name-calling around here. When someone has to call someone a "little man" it shows you how weak their arguing skills actually are. And then they only intensify that once you call them out for it. A person with strong comprehension skills doesn't need to enact such behavior. Period. I never have a problem with civil discussion. Unfortunately any debate eventually has to have a closing point and once an ego is bruised that usually tends to be it.

What constitutes that tends to be mere narrative for so many people. And so much crap people call "political" these days really isn't. What do you define as "love of country?" It doesn't have to mean standing up during a force anthem like a zombie just because it's implied that it's your "duty."

Again, this shtick is so transparent. You call it "pretentious" when I actually take your arguments/takes seriously after I've invalidated them and only after as a way of softening the blow to your ego. Only a person who has lost an argument attacks the other person's acuity and then fires childish remarks at them after disappearing from said argument; I'm not the one who ran away. I don't need to make snarky remarks about "SATs" and call someone "little man" like a schoolyard child because I don't have that insecurity and I don't ever quit on a discussion unless I'm conceding a point. You making these snippy remarks and attacks is only rationalized by a blow to the ego, there's literally no other reason to resort to that. A person always takes an argument seriously until they have lost, and then suddenly they have to puff their chest out, namecall and hurl childish remarks. Anyone smart can see right through it. Guess what? I never have to resort to that because I'm not insecure and I'm not afraid to be wrong like so many people are. That's why I pick and choose my arguments very carefully. I care very little about "opinions," but when I see something that's just plain incorrect I call someone on it. tl;dr version: If you have to walk away from an argument silently without a counterpoint, clearly you don't have one and you lost that argument. Clear as day. If you can't answer a question then it's obvious you just don't have the answer.