dnosco wrote:Maybe if you would have taken this tone originally instead of making it a personal attack on Paulie people would have been more inclined to listen to what you were saying.
Remember, as I said above, he started it with his comment clearl directed to me (I was the only one making those proposals). If you are looking for the second guy in, you nabbed me.
The thing about Paul's column was that it was so slanted, glossing over the important details, saying never mind to the facts that we have too many players at his position and taking a slap at my article. It was as much of a FO-written article as I have ever seen on this site and obviously I have seen hundreds of columns. I challenge you to find even one column, most of which are on less controversial topics than what was fair value for your Cy Young pitcher, that was that slanted toward management. In fact, it was the kind of column I would expect from Scout.com which ran a column saying that this scout tells fans not to believe their eyes on this trade and 'to give it time because in a few years we could be really happy wiht it'.
Hey, have an opinion but at least present both sides (see my column with disclosure about Colon, etc.). Paul didn't come close to balance and, with his slap at my column, I reacted.
Yeah, and your piece was very balanced, right?
It was nothing but a straw man to set up more bashing of the Indians’ FO. You set unrealistically high expectations for the imminent CC trade – expectations that would never come close to being fulfilled – so that you could then, after the trade, compare the deal to those expectations and say that the FO blew it.
Listen, I ran it. I'm somewhere in between you and Paul on this. I respect both viewpoints.
But don't try and act like your piece was any more objective than his. You think we're all idiots?