You wipe your *** with ****?

I use toilet paper.

But to each his own. :)

Posted by iain on 6/23/2010 5:33:00 PM (view original):
You wipe your *** with ****?

I use toilet paper.

But to each his own. :)

That made me laugh..thank you.  I stand corrected. 

Posted by apollo7 on 6/23/2010 5:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2010 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by apollo7 on 6/23/2010 4:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2010 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I'll print out a hardcopy that I can read on the throne when I get home from work in around 45 minutes. Maybe I'll also find another use for the paper once I've read it.

I don't understand why you resort to insults...really makes you look bad.

1)  Exactly what is the insult?

2)  I did read your post, in the manner described above.  Here's my response:

     a)  I fundamentally disagree with your basic premise that if DITR's are going to exist, they need to be "more meaningful".  Which makes the rest of the post moot, in my opinion.
     b)  From a typical draft under the current draft system, one should be able to get at least two, three, or maybe even four potential major leaguers (starters or role players).  Any proposal, such as yours, which suggests that one can get possibly get an additional five potential major leaguers is completely absurd.
     c)  You mention that your original position of boosting DITR without potential risk is off base.  Yet you offer a new system that seems to be full of possible reward but devoid of any risk.  Which smacks of . . . (can you guess where I'm going?) . . . "something for nothing".

3)  The hardcopy will be disposed of in a traditional recycling manner.  Didn't see a need to muck up my septic system.

1)  Saying that you plan on wiping you *** with my post, implying my post is ****.  Pretty insulting.

2)  a)  I disagree with you, in my opinion.
     b)  potential for 5 major leaguers in a season, very, very doubtful, did you read the post?  A couple, maybe, at the cost of IFAs, and better draft scouting.  
     c)  see b) risk = not seeing/getting ML quality IFAs, not seeing getting ML quality draft prospects, reward = an equal number of existing minor leaguers become ML quality draft prospects.

3)  Another juvenile insult?  Really?  Your profile says your are 45-54.  Is that a misprint?  I expect as much from little mikey, but come on now...

Did you even read the post or are you just being obtuse now?  The only one of your points that is valid is 2.a.  I can respect that opinion, I just disgree with it. 

1)  Actually, that's not what I was implying.  I was referring to reuse/recycle.  You know, making a "greener" planet?  Seems like you're a little touchy.  Persecution complex?  Were you picked on a lot when you were a child?

2)  a)  I'm all for agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that.  You seem to want to keep trying to sell me your point.  You're starting to sound like my wife when she tries to convince me that I need to buy new shoes for work when they go on sale, even though there's absolutely nothing wrong with my current shoes.  I guess she thinks new shoes are "fun".  I see them as something that's not necessarily needed just because they're on sale.  Constant attempts at justification for something that doesn't need to happen.  Just let it go.
     b)  If  I go high on advanced scouting and have great minor league coaches, I can get up to five ML caliber DITR's.  The better the scouting and the better the coaches, the more likely that I will be closer to 5 than to 0.  That's what your post says.  Did you even read what you wrote?
     c)  There's no mention of decrease of IFA quality or draft quality at all in your post.  If I keep my four scouting budgets exactly the same as they are right now, I would still see the same IFA's and HS/college draftees that I see today.  With a chance of getting between 0 and 5 ML quality DITR's.  Today, realistically, I have very long odds against getting a single ML quality DITR.  Remember: that's why you're clamoring for more; because more would be "fun"!

3)  Again, the persecution complex.  Caring about being responsible about my septic system is a "juvenile insult" directed at you?  Huh?

DAMN!!!!   He's asking for 5 good, free players per season now?   Why bother with the draft and IFA?  You'll be able to build a team thru DITR.  FANTASTIC IDEA!!!!!

The only change that should even be considered regarding DITR would be to make all players eligible for a bump. 1st rounders to 25th rounders. Just because a guy is already projected to be decent doesn't mean that he can't be even better than that. There really isn't any reason that I can see that overall rating should determine who can be a DITR.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/23/2010 4:00:00 PM (view original):
I've mentioned it before but one of my suggestions was something like this:  Up to  5 pitchers and 5 hitters each at RL, LoA, HiA, AA.   3 years or less pro experience.   Top 10 coach at that level(HC or PC).  First season at that level.   Winning record at that level.  Then base it off stats. 

That would give owners reasons to promote players, hire good coaches and monitor their minor league teams.   It would also reward the owners who are investing time and resources into the future of their teams.

It would not guarantee that the players would be of BL quality but, if it's based off stats, you'd think the better players would get the bumps. 

This is the answer IF anything has to be done.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/23/2010 9:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/23/2010 4:00:00 PM (view original):
I've mentioned it before but one of my suggestions was something like this:  Up to  5 pitchers and 5 hitters each at RL, LoA, HiA, AA.   3 years or less pro experience.   Top 10 coach at that level(HC or PC).  First season at that level.   Winning record at that level.  Then base it off stats. 

That would give owners reasons to promote players, hire good coaches and monitor their minor league teams.   It would also reward the owners who are investing time and resources into the future of their teams.

It would not guarantee that the players would be of BL quality but, if it's based off stats, you'd think the better players would get the bumps. 

This is the answer IF anything has to be done.

MikeT declares it to be so

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2010 8:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by apollo7 on 6/23/2010 5:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2010 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by apollo7 on 6/23/2010 4:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2010 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I'll print out a hardcopy that I can read on the throne when I get home from work in around 45 minutes. Maybe I'll also find another use for the paper once I've read it.

I don't understand why you resort to insults...really makes you look bad.

1)  Exactly what is the insult?

2)  I did read your post, in the manner described above.  Here's my response:

     a)  I fundamentally disagree with your basic premise that if DITR's are going to exist, they need to be "more meaningful".  Which makes the rest of the post moot, in my opinion.
     b)  From a typical draft under the current draft system, one should be able to get at least two, three, or maybe even four potential major leaguers (starters or role players).  Any proposal, such as yours, which suggests that one can get possibly get an additional five potential major leaguers is completely absurd.
     c)  You mention that your original position of boosting DITR without potential risk is off base.  Yet you offer a new system that seems to be full of possible reward but devoid of any risk.  Which smacks of . . . (can you guess where I'm going?) . . . "something for nothing".

3)  The hardcopy will be disposed of in a traditional recycling manner.  Didn't see a need to muck up my septic system.

1)  Saying that you plan on wiping you *** with my post, implying my post is ****.  Pretty insulting.

2)  a)  I disagree with you, in my opinion.
     b)  potential for 5 major leaguers in a season, very, very doubtful, did you read the post?  A couple, maybe, at the cost of IFAs, and better draft scouting.  
     c)  see b) risk = not seeing/getting ML quality IFAs, not seeing getting ML quality draft prospects, reward = an equal number of existing minor leaguers become ML quality draft prospects.

3)  Another juvenile insult?  Really?  Your profile says your are 45-54.  Is that a misprint?  I expect as much from little mikey, but come on now...

Did you even read the post or are you just being obtuse now?  The only one of your points that is valid is 2.a.  I can respect that opinion, I just disgree with it. 

1)  Actually, that's not what I was implying.  I was referring to reuse/recycle.  You know, making a "greener" planet?  Seems like you're a little touchy.  Persecution complex?  Were you picked on a lot when you were a child?

2)  a)  I'm all for agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that.  You seem to want to keep trying to sell me your point.  You're starting to sound like my wife when she tries to convince me that I need to buy new shoes for work when they go on sale, even though there's absolutely nothing wrong with my current shoes.  I guess she thinks new shoes are "fun".  I see them as something that's not necessarily needed just because they're on sale.  Constant attempts at justification for something that doesn't need to happen.  Just let it go.
     b)  If  I go high on advanced scouting and have great minor league coaches, I can get up to five ML caliber DITR's.  The better the scouting and the better the coaches, the more likely that I will be closer to 5 than to 0.  That's what your post says.  Did you even read what you wrote?
     c)  There's no mention of decrease of IFA quality or draft quality at all in your post.  If I keep my four scouting budgets exactly the same as they are right now, I would still see the same IFA's and HS/college draftees that I see today.  With a chance of getting between 0 and 5 ML quality DITR's.  Today, realistically, I have very long odds against getting a single ML quality DITR.  Remember: that's why you're clamoring for more; because more would be "fun"!

3)  Again, the persecution complex.  Caring about being responsible about my septic system is a "juvenile insult" directed at you?  Huh?

2. b)  If you go high on advance scouting, you would have to go low in other areas?  Right?  You and mikey are screaming "you can't have something for nothing".  Well, this is actually travisg's idea.  Tie the likelyhood of DITRs to your advance scouting budget so you have to make decisions between, IFA Scouting, College Scouting, High School Scouting, and now Advance Scouting.  If likelihood of DITRs is tied to Advance Scouting budgeting, how is that then "something for nothing", while the amatuer draft which is tied to High School/College Scouting is not?    Let me put it another way, how many more ML level projected rookies will you get with 20s in high school and college scouting, compared to how many you would get is 0s in those two areas?   I proposed that if you maxed out advance scouting you might identify up to 5 DITRs, not ML quality DITRs.   In your posts you are misrepresenting what I have stated by saying that I said you would to being able to get up to 5 ML quality DITRs.  That is NOT what I said, I said that you could get up to 5 DITRs, but the level of their increases would be tied to coaching.  Where in that statement do you get that I said you would get 5 ML quality DITRs per year?  I wouldn't want that for sure.  What I said exactly was that the formulas would need to be balanced so that regardless of how you allocated your budget the number of ML quality prospects added each year would remain the same.  You can put your budget into international scouting and add ML players through the IFA market.  Or you can put your budget into draft scouting and add ML players through the draft, Or you could put your budget into Advance scouting and coaching and try to add ML players through DITRs.. 

2.c) I again have to ask, did you read the post?  I would answer your hypothetical with:  yes, if you keep your budgets exactly the same as they are right now, you would still see the same IFAs and draftees you see today, with a chance of getting between 0 and 5 DITRs, but NOT ML quality DITRs.  Where did you get that?  If your advance scouting is currently 20 and you have the bought the best (and most highly paid) coaches around, then yes, maybe 1 or even 2 of those might have ML quality potential.  But if you have your advance scouting at 20 and have spent a boat load on coaching, you going to have to cut back in other areas, probably resulting 1 or 2 less ML quality IFAs or draftees. 

You just need to stick to the your basic point of "it ain't broke so don't fix it."  That argument I can respect and we can agree to disagree.  However, in your attempts to argue against the merits of of the particulars of my idea you are having to resort to mispresentations of what I said to make your point, which is easily refuted.

It just solves the problem of resources and effort.  It also guarantees a set number of DITR, most of which will be BL-quality before DITR, each season.  And, as I said, it encourages owners to attend to their minors. 

a7:

2b) You're assuming that if somebody is going to max out their advanced scouting to $20m that they are going to cut back on their other scouting budgets. Not necessarily so. I typically run with a $14m AS budget, so I only need to come up with $6m to get to $20m. Maybe I take $1m each from medical, training and prospect, and knock down my payroll by $3m. Most likely, I'm NOT going to cut back on my other scouting budgets. So again: your proposal does NOT necessarily involve the risk of seeing less ML quality IFA's or draftees. More potential gain at less (i.e. zero) potential loss in terms of obtaining potential ML talent.

2c) According to your post, if I max out my AS budget, I could get up to 5 DITR's. That's what you wrote here:

"Then after the all star break, 0 to 5 of your "potential" DITRs have a chance at becoming "realized" DITRs. The formula should be such that the more "potential" DITRs you have identified, the more likely you are to have closer to 5 realized than 0."

Then, if I have great minor league coaches, those DITR's could see their DITR bumps at major league levels. That's what you wrote here:

"The actual formula that determines the level of increase should be balanced such that if you have top line coaches the increases are of a level that produce ML quality projections."

Please explain to me how I have misinterpreted those two statements. It seems pretty clear that, when put together, they imply that getting up to 5 ML caliber DITR's is possible. Maybe not probable, but certainly possible.

I made it very clear in that post that it was just a framework that everyone could build on to try to find an idea that would work.  I'm sorry if the way I wrote it left it open to misinterpretation or gray areas.  I think by now you know what I was trying to say.  I"m growing weary of this.

no sweat apollo
and i'm glad you came back to life after what drago done to you

Posted by apollo7 on 6/24/2010 9:47:00 AM (view original):
I made it very clear in that post that it was just a framework that everyone could build on to try to find an idea that would work.  I'm sorry if the way I wrote it left it open to misinterpretation or gray areas.  I think by now you know what I was trying to say.  I"m growing weary of this.

Nothing you said is clear, or if it is, it's unwanted.
You grew weary of this on page 2, yet you continue to babble on, and on, and on.

He's done with this.  Don't make him come back!!!

I mean it!