Trade Rumors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asianinvasion

Either way, we get Wilson, plug him at short, Yuni at second and Lopez at third. We get Sanchez, put him at either third or second, Yuni at second and Lopez at the other position.

---

Haven't you seen that Betancourt was pulled right before tonight's Rainiers game. I'm not saying it's definite, but I'm assuming that he'd be going the other way in any trade with Pittsburgh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

Haven't you seen that Betancourt was pulled right before tonight's Rainiers game. I'm not saying it's definite, but I'm assuming that he'd be going the other way in any trade with Pittsburgh.

---

Lets get Sanchez and Wilson then. Lowe + Betancourt + _______ for them

And lets get this done before the break. Then the Pirates will have to send in another rep which should suck and lose the game for the NL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asianinvasion

Lets get Sanchez and Wilson then. Lowe + Betancourt + _______ for them

---

I doubt they would trade BOTH for Lowe/Betancourt. I could definitely see a Betancourt/Lowe/??? for Wilson type deal though. The Pirates GM had interest in YB a little while ago and the fact he was scratched could mean something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You're right. Clearly, discussing impossible, unrealistic trades is a more reasonable and realistic discussion than comparing players of different eras using perfectly valid methods such as comparing how they fared against their competition.

Are you still hung up on that nonsense? You still don't get it that it's possible to compare players without using a retarded time machine scenario?

---

There is no "perfectly valid methods" lmfao.....all it is, is nonsense bar fodder. Yes, trade discussions is mroe reasonable and realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You're right. Clearly, discussing impossible, unrealistic trades is a more reasonable and realistic discussion than comparing players of different eras using perfectly valid methods such as comparing how they fared against their competition.

Are you still hung up on that nonsense? You still don't get it that it's possible to compare players without using a retarded time machine scenario?

---

Well when they invent a time machine you will be sorry. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Well when they invent a time machine you will be sorry. ;)

---

probably not, since it is he trying to use one.

can you say who was the best of each era...most certainly yes.

thats where it ends though....its great bar fodder to say "he(1) was better against his era than he(2) was against his thus he(1) must have been better but it really means zero, nada, nothing...and there's no real way to prove any of it. Each era has had major changes. With each era, the talent has improved...making todays era the most talented (and by that i mean harnessed talent) of alltime.

Babe Ruth was amazingly better than his counterparts..in an era where the game wasn't "professionalized" (to many it was just a game), many had 2nd jobs and were paid peanuts, a large segment of society wasn't allowed to play the game, and many with the talent didn't have the availability at an early age to join and harness their talents.

It is he that wishes to take a time machine and compare players of today to those of yesteryear. I just think its stupid...and if you want to do that you shouldn't preface the discussion with "who's the best player off alltime" type jargan, because todays players are superior. I say...don't compare, its futile and proves nothing. There is no comparison of apples to oranges, except for that they are round i guess???? Babe was the best of his era, Barry's arguably the best of todays. You want to compare the best of "eras"...thats legitimate. Leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

probably not, since it is he trying to use one.

can you say who was the best of each era...most certainly yes.

thats where it ends though....its great bar fodder to say "he(1) was better against his era than he(2) was against his thus he(1) must have been better but it really means zero, nada, nothing...and there's no real way to prove any of it. Each era has had major changes. With each era, the talent has improved...making todays era the most talented (and by that i mean harnessed talent) of alltime.

Babe Ruth was amazingly better than his counterparts..in an era where the game wasn't "professionalized" (to many it was just a game), many had 2nd jobs and were paid peanuts, a large segment of society wasn't allowed to play the game, and many with the talent didn't have the availability at an early age to join and harness their talents.

It is he that wishes to take a time machine and compare players of today to those of yesteryear. I just think its stupid...and if you want to do that you shouldn't preface the discussion with "who's the best player off alltime" type jargan, because todays players are superior. I say...don't compare, its futile and proves nothing. There is no comparison of apples to oranges, except for that they are round i guess???? Babe was the best of his era, Barry's arguably the best of todays. You want to compare the best of "eras"...thats legitimate. Leave it at that.

---

If you guys start this again, I'm going to find both of your houses and savagely beat you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

If you guys start this again, I'm going to find both of your houses and savagely beat you.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

There is no "perfectly valid methods" lmfao.....

---

Uh, yes, there is. Just because you're intelectually incapable of acknowledging it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

all it is, is nonsense bar fodder.

---

Just because you have this weird phobia of ranking players doesn't make it nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

thats where it ends though....its great bar fodder to say "he(1) was better against his era than he(2) was against his thus he(1) must have been better but it really means zero, nada, nothing...and there's no real way to prove any of it. Each era has had major changes. With each era, the talent has improved...making todays era the most talented (and by that i mean harnessed talent) of alltime.

Babe Ruth was amazingly better than his counterparts..in an era where the game wasn't "professionalized" (to many it was just a game), many had 2nd jobs and were paid peanuts, a large segment of society wasn't allowed to play the game, and many with the talent didn't have the availability at an early age to join and harness their talents.

It is he that wishes to take a time machine and compare players of today to those of yesteryear. I just think its stupid...and if you want to do that you shouldn't preface the discussion with "who's the best player off alltime" type jargan, because todays players are superior. I say...don't compare, its futile and proves nothing. There is no comparison of apples to oranges, except for that they are round i guess???? Babe was the best of his era, Barry's arguably the best of todays. You want to compare the best of "eras"...thats legitimate. Leave it at that.

---

Nobody's attempting to compare players based on the time machine scenario in your last paragraph. Nobody. Babe outclasses his era to a greater degree than, say, Ken Griffey Jr. Therefore, Babe was better in comparison to his era than Griffey was in comparison to his. Therefore, in an all-time ranking, the Babe ranks above Griffey. This is not meant to say that the Babe would perform better than Griffey if magically teleported into 1996 without the benefit of anything all the other players in 1996 had access to. You're just apparently intellectually incapable of identifying the difference between an all-time ranking and a stupid ****ing time machine scenario. That doesn't make all-time rankings useless, nonsensical, unrealistic, etc. It just makes you look silly.

Seriously. I feel dumber that I even have to explain this AGAIN to you. I really don't think you're that dense that you don't understand what I'm saying, so the logical conclusion is that you're just trolling with this, and I hope that's the case, because it's sad if you seriously don't get it.

I dont know whats worse, the time machine scenario, or that the fact blacks were not allowed to play like its Babe Ruths fault for all of that.

Quote:

---

Seriously. I feel dumber that I even have to explain this AGAIN to you. I really don't think you're that dense that you don't understand what I'm saying, so the logical conclusion is that you're just trolling with this, and I hope that's the case, because it's sad if you seriously don't get it.

---

I fully understand what you're saying...and you should feel dumb because frankly its DUMB. Meaningless and pointless.

Quote:

---

Babe outclasses his era to a greater degree than, say, Ken Griffey Jr. Therefore, Babe was better in comparison to his era than Griffey was in comparison to his. Therefore, in an all-time ranking, the Babe ranks above Griffey.

---

So in all-time rankings, because babe was better against his contemporaries than griffey was against his contempories...the babe is better?? See...it is you comparing era's, thus using your time warp. Every era is different. Griffeys contemporaries were not the same as Babes. Babe was ahead of his time...but also played in an era where there were no african americans, where many played baseball as a second job and more played it merely as a game. few as a profession. Maybe Griffey isn't as far ahead of his contempories than Babe was of his because the game has grown exponentially and the competition is much much more significant? Your retarded equations don't account for that....meaning what i've said all along. Babe was the best of his era...Bonds is arguably the best of his. The ONLY rational way to look at it is to leave it at that. You can't do a time warp and compare apples to oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I dont know whats worse, the time machine scenario, or that the fact blacks were not allowed to play like its Babe Ruths fault for all of that.

---

nobody said it was babes fault...but how can you not consider the era people played in and the talent level when trying to say X was better than Z by Y amount?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I dont know whats worse, the time machine scenario, or that the fact blacks were not allowed to play like its Babe Ruths fault for all of that.

---

I'll go with the 2nd one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

nobody said it was babes fault...but how can you not consider the era people played in and the talent level when trying to say X was better than Z by Y amount?

---

Well I always get the argument that if blacks were allowed to play Babe wouldnt be as good. Its just annoying and a cop out argument.