Mike there are instances where a guy is not good at this game and his record will back that up.  But I don't think it works both ways.  You can't just look at a guy's record and arbitrarilly say he's really bad.  There are exceptions and there's no doubt I am one of them.  Even if I'm not an exception, or if you disagree with my first premise, just because a guy is really bad at a game doesn't mean his opinions or ideas are automattically wrong.  

I was watching a baseball game on TV with my fiancee and she knows NOTHING about baseball.  She said "this game would be better to watch if they didn't have 100 meetings on the pitchers mound every time a guy was on base."  She's right.  A lot of people who know a lot about baseball think the same thing.

You seem like a smart guy.  Don't resort to attacking a person rather than his argument.  You're better than that.

No he's not.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/16/2010 8:49:00 AM (view original):
Everyone has had bad team and bad times.    The point is simple:  You have an idea.  Some people disagree with you.   Your rebuttal?   "You're a stupid idiot!"

Now, really, who attacked the person and not the argument?

Anyway, if you hadn't been so jerk-like, I wouldn't have bothered.   Cash in trade really has nothing to do with your record.  Your record is based on not being good at HBD.   Cash in trade is just an opinion.

I ask again.   

Now, really, who attacked the person and not the argument?

Anyway, back to your contention that record doesn't indicate knowledge, I largely agree.    But, if an architect and a prostitute look at a building at say "That's a well-built building", I take the architect's opinion a little more seriously.  That doesn't mean the prostitute is always wrong, it just means she got one right.   Had she disagreed, I'm sure I'd have gone with the architect.   

A more reasonable analogy would be if you asked Bill Belichek, Bill Walsh, and Chuck Noll about a particular football strategy and get a consensus, but Tom Cable, Matt Millen, and Rich Kotite reach a different consensus, you should probably choose to follow the more successful three.

Unless the football strategy being discussed concerned beating on your coaching staff.  Then I'd listen to Tom Cable over the other five.  I'd also call in Buddy Ryan for some advice.

I'd listen to Cable first.  He beat the rap by doing it behind closed doors.  Buddy attacked Gilbride on national television.  Not too bright.

This might of been mentioned but I find cash trades at the All Star break to have a larger impact than during Free agency, many teams by the all star break because of transfers are cash strapped compared to during free agency when many teams are flushed with capital. During Free agency more teams consider themselves contenders and someone will bid up the worthwhile free agents. During the season contracts might be pro rated, but there is always teams willing to take on less in prospects to rid themselves of a multi year contract, the catch is that team must pay the salary for this season. Next thing you know 1 coach has added multiple starters to his roster without paying salary.

In my opinion cash trades should either be allowed 100% or 0% of the time.