Jump to content

The trade ideas begin! Robert for Holliday ++


Recommended Posts

But seriously, at this point all we have is hope, so I'm gonna go ahead and pull for Getz and Thorpe and Montgomery and Albertus and Bonemer and Taylor, and me Taylor etc. It seems like a better path than circle jerking around shitting on kids just because they play for the Chicago White Sox. Being incessantly pessimistic isn't cool or edgy. This isn't Reddit and we aren't 17.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rest of us will be fine.  

38 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

But seriously, at this point all we have is hope, so I'm gonna go ahead and pull for Getz and Thorpe and Montgomery and Albertus and Bonemer and Taylor, and me Taylor etc. It seems like a better path than circle jerking around shitting on kids just because they play for the Chicago White Sox. Being incessantly pessimistic isn't cool or edgy. This isn't Reddit and we aren't 17.

The rest of us will be fine.  If all you are going to do is complain about having to look down on the majority of us who don't feel the need to pretend all is well, don't.   You aren’t going to change any minds by telling us all how stupid we are.  With all due respect, gtfoh with that BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

But seriously, at this point all we have is hope, so I'm gonna go ahead and pull for Getz and Thorpe and Montgomery and Albertus and Bonemer and Taylor, and me Taylor etc. It seems like a better path than circle jerking around shitting on kids just because they play for the Chicago White Sox. Being incessantly pessimistic isn't cool or edgy. This isn't Reddit and we aren't 17.

Here’s the thing - aside from Getz, who made it personal first by accepting the job and second by rewarding a player for beating up women which apparently he is a huge fan of - saying “Drew Thorpe will not succeed with a strikeout rate worse than late career Jamie Moyer and a walk rate 3x that high” isn’t personal at all. Saying “Colson Montgomery had a terrible season and counting on him as your opening day SS is a clear mistake” is a well supported opinion. But daring to point this out gets you described as part of a “circle jerk”. 

So who is being cool and edgy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The rest of us will be fine.  

The rest of us will be fine.  If all you are going to do is complain about having to look down on the majority of us who don't feel the need to pretend all is well, don't.   You aren’t going to change any minds by telling us all how stupid we are.  With all due respect, gtfoh with that BS.

I'm not trying to change any minds. I'm just existing with you as a Sox fan with a different take, and stating my opinions. Yeah, I think it sucks that this site has become a refuge for a guy that openly rooted for Cleveland in 2005, and I wish it was still as funny and light hearted as it was in the past, but I still find it a valuable place for Sox fans. I don't dislike any of you. I just present a different, optimistic viewpoint of the team. Like I said, we disagree about just about everything, but I'd still let you buy me a beer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Here’s the thing - aside from Getz, who made it personal first by accepting the job and second by rewarding a player for beating up women which apparently he is a huge fan of - saying “Drew Thorpe will not succeed with a strikeout rate worse than late career Jamie Moyer and a walk rate 3x that high” isn’t personal at all. Saying “Colson Montgomery had a terrible season and counting on him as your opening day SS is a clear mistake” is a well supported opinion. But daring to point this out gets you described as part of a “circle jerk”. 

So who is being cool and edgy?

I'm sorry but by every single investigation imaginable, Mike Clevinger never beat a woman. MLB has every reason to ban him, but they never did, because after every investigation they conducted they could find no evidence. I'm sorry that you convicted the guy simply because you don't like him, but by all evidence, he never actually did it. 

Yeah, I think Thorpe will be good because of his accolades, despite struggling in his first MLB stint while he was hurt. 

Yeah, I'm okay with a HS pick from Indiana, who was the 27th pick in the draft, struggling through his first year in AAA while still showing excellent pitch recognition and good power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

I'm sorry but by every single investigation imaginable, Mike Clevinger never beat a woman. MLB has every reason to ban him, but they never did, because after every investigation they conducted they could find no evidence. I'm sorry that you convicted the guy simply because you don't like him, but by all evidence, he never actually did it. 

By all evidence?

Here’s the bruises. They were published after MLB failed to do a prompt investigation.

IMG_8310.jpeg

Is this who you want the White Sox to be? This is your stuff? LOOK AT IT. 

Every other team knew to stay away from him. There were other police reports we learned about this year that were public as well.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

Yeah, I think Thorpe will be good because of his accolades, despite struggling in his first MLB stint while he was hurt. 

Yeah, I'm okay with a HS pick from Indiana, who was the 27th pick in the draft, struggling through his first year in AAA while still showing excellent pitch recognition and good power.

Notice the difference though: I said why I thought this was a horrible sign for the player, you described his accolades.

Only one of us then said what anyone who doesn’t agree is participating in a circle jerk for 17 year olds on Reddit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

By all evidence?

Here’s the bruises. They were published after MLB failed to do a prompt investigation.

IMG_8310.jpeg

Is this who you want the White Sox to be? This is your stuff? LOOK AT IT. 

Every other team knew to stay away from him. There were other police reports we learned about this year that were public as well.

 

Again, MLB has every reason to permanently ban Clevinger. He's not that good and he's completely unlikeable. I believe in due process. Like it or not, Clevinger passed every test imaginable. MLB would love to ban him for optics alone, but they couldn't actually find a reason to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Notice the difference though: I said why I thought this was a horrible sign for the player, you described his accolades.

Only one of us then said what anyone who doesn’t agree is participating in a circle jerk for 17 year olds on Reddit.

Yes, I believe high level AA stats and accolades correlate to MLB success. What's your point? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

Again, MLB has every reason to permanently ban Clevinger. He's not that good and he's completely unlikeable. I believe in due process. Like it or not, Clevinger passed every test imaginable. MLB would love to ban him for optics alone, but they couldn't actually find a reason to. 

We don't know this. We do not know what their process was. We do know that there was evidence, so don't you dare say there was none again.

What we do know is that MLB did not follow the process laid out in their rules, which calls for a player to be put on restricted duty temporarily during an investigation and for the investigation to be prompt.

There is no version of investigating something 6+ months after the fact that is prompt. Memory doesn't work like that, especially with traumatic events. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

Yes, I believe high level AA stats and accolades correlate to MLB success. What's your point? 

That you belittled anyone who disagrees with you as "circle jerking around shitting on kids just because they play for the Chicago White Sox. Being incessantly pessimistic isn't cool or edgy. This isn't Reddit and we aren't 17."

Gosh why would anyone have any problem with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

Again, MLB has every reason to permanently ban Clevinger. He's not that good and he's completely unlikeable. I believe in due process. Like it or not, Clevinger passed every test imaginable. MLB would love to ban him for optics alone, but they couldn't actually find a reason to. 

I agree with most of what you say about the White Sox, but Clevinger is truly a selfish POS. He doesn't deserve "due process". He's not in the criminal justice system. He's had the privilege of playing MLB baseball. He has put his teammates health and well being in danger, at the very minimum. He's also been accused of abusive behavior towards his children and their mothers. 

And MLB's investigation wasn't conducted to find out if he was "guilty" of what his baby mamas were accusing him of. It was conducted to see if they should suspend him for conduct. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

We don't know this. We do not know what their process was. We do know that there was evidence, so don't you dare say there was none again.

What we do know is that MLB did not follow the process laid out in their rules, which calls for a player to be put on restricted duty temporarily during an investigation and for the investigation to be prompt.

There is no version of investigating something 6+ months after the fact that is prompt. Memory doesn't work like that, especially with traumatic events. 

I recognize your belief in this, and I'm empathetic, but Clevinger's case just isn't the one. This isn't Brett Myers or Wil Cordero. It's 2024, and MLB isn't going to let an alleged abuser play without an intense investigation. By all evidence, he just didn't do what he's accused of doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TaylorStSox said:

I recognize your belief in this, and I'm empathetic, but Clevinger's case just isn't the one. This isn't Brett Myers or Wil Cordero. It's 2024, and MLB isn't going to let an alleged abuser play without an intense investigation. By all evidence, he just didn't do what he's accused of doing. 

By all evidence? TELL ME WHAT THE BRUISES ARE.

IMG_8310.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

I agree with most of what you say about the White Sox, but Clevinger is truly a selfish POS. He doesn't deserve "due process". He's not in the criminal justice system. He's had the privilege of playing MLB baseball. He has put his teammates health and well being in danger, at the very minimum. He's also been accused of abusive behavior towards his children and their mothers. 

And MLB's investigation wasn't conducted to find out if he was "guilty" of what his baby mamas were accusing him of. It was conducted to see if they should suspend him for conduct. 

And if they found he was actually guilty of being an abuser, they would have banned his ass faster than a Nolan Ryan 4 seamer. MLB has no incentive to protect Clevinger. None.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

I recognize your belief in this, and I'm empathetic, but Clevinger's case just isn't the one. This isn't Brett Myers or Wil Cordero. It's 2024, and MLB isn't going to let an alleged abuser play without an intense investigation. By all evidence, he just didn't do what he's accused of doing. 

Too many guys are too comfortable pretending that a victim of abuse testifying under oath isn't evidence. 

  • Like 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

And if they found he was actually guilty of being an abuser, they would have banned his ass faster than a Nolan Ryan 4 seamer. MLB has no incentive to protect Clevinger. None.

Their investigation wasn't about proving Clevinger "guilty". It was to see if his actions exceeded their threshold for discipline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Too many guys are too comfortable pretending that a victim of abuse testifying under oath isn't evidence. 

Accusations aren't evidence. That's the logic America used to hang every black man accused of SA before 1964. We've established due process for a reason, and part of that is protecting people that we presume are pieces of s%*#.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Their investigation wasn't about proving Clevinger "guilty". It was to see if his actions exceeded their threshold for discipline. 

Agreed that it wasn't a court of law, but these are the same evaluators that basically banned a CY Young winner for life. I don't believe they had any reason to protect Mike Clevinger - the king of mediocrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...