Havok1517 wrote: Nothing personal taken at all but to say something is incorrect when its practically impossible to be so at this point is without doubt incorrect in itself.
Just because no one knows doesn't mean your list can't be incorrect. It is assumed that the list is meant to represent the order in which pitchers are most likely to take over as closer as of right now. If someone is cleary more likely to be the closer than that would make your list incorrect. Some of it that you recently changed was quite obvious. I think your replies have become more and more defensive and those replies are only going to keep people from discussing and debating to some degree, which is not good for your thread IMO.
Not really, I do my best to keep the thread updated as best as I can. I think its the best because I maintain it regularly, unlike most closer threads and people with 1st hand knowledge regarding their teams post updates of closer happenings right after they hear it. Different opinions give people reading and me other view points to consider, which is welcomed. But just stating that something in incorrect without stating what that person thinks is incorrect is counter-productive.
Okay, lets end the bickering and continue the closer talk.
Don't mean to continue this either, but it's not like Havok makes commission off this thread. This is a free service somebody updates for the benefit of the public. Either use it or don't, but let's try to remain as constructive as possible.
In other news; Lindstrom, Devine, and Perez are all throwing off the mound again. If you already have drafted one of these 3, I wouldn't drop them just yet.
...Boston papers now and then suffer a sharp flurry of arithmetic on this score; indeed, for Williams to have distributed all his hits so they did nobody else any good would constitute a feat of placement unparalleled in the annals of selfishness. -Updike
Lets see...he's never closed in the majors before, he's a rookie, he's only had 11 IP in the majors, has only 1 MLB worthy pitch (albeit a high 90's fastball), most people believe that Perez is more talented, LaRussa could easily go with the vet Franklin, St. Louis has yet to announce a closer yet, final roster moves haven't been announced, spring training isn't over, and the season has yet to begin.
Havok1517 wrote: Nothing personal taken at all but to say something is incorrect when its practically impossible to be so at this point is without doubt incorrect in itself.
Just because no one knows doesn't mean your list can't be incorrect. It is assumed that the list is meant to represent the order in which pitchers are most likely to take over as closer as of right now. If someone is cleary more likely to be the closer than that would make your list incorrect. Some of it that you recently changed was quite obvious. I think your replies have become more and more defensive and those replies are only going to keep people from discussing and debating to some degree, which is not good for your thread IMO.
Not really, I do my best to keep the thread updated as best as I can. I think its the best because I maintain it regularly, unlike most closer threads and people with 1st hand knowledge regarding their teams post updates of closer happenings right after they hear it. Different opinions give people reading and me other view points to consider, which is welcomed. But just stating that something in incorrect without stating what that person thinks is incorrect is counter-productive.
Okay, lets end the bickering and continue the closer talk.
I didn't mean to bicker. I agree yours is probably the best source out there, hence I use it ALOT. I just thought you were getting a little defensive about the front page. Even you have commented at times about something needing to be updated. I see the first page as a starting poing and reading yours and everyone elses comments within the thread as being the part that makes it better than any other source. My advice was just to keep doing what you were doing but don't get too defensive. I don't think the comment that the front page is incorrect (atleast sometimes) is completely incorrect and I think you would agree with that but your reply was pretty darn rough.
Just curious about the Seattle situation and what prompted the switch to Aardsma at the front of the line. I took a last round flyer on Lowe but it looks like that closer situation up on the pacific northwest is anybody's guess at this point. Any info is appreciated.
The St. Louis situation looks more murky than I had originally thought also so I'm keeping me eye out for my favorite thread to see if anyone's got any good info on that one too.
Too bad historical stats suggest that Lowe and Aardsma both suck but maybe one of them has turned a corner?
horatio wrote:Just curious about the Seattle situation and what prompted the switch to Aardsma at the front of the line. I took a last round flyer on Lowe but it looks like that closer situation up on the pacific northwest is anybody's guess at this point. Any info is appreciated.
The St. Louis situation looks more murky than I had originally thought also so I'm keeping me eye out for my favorite thread to see if anyone's got any good info on that one too.
Too bad historical stats suggest that Lowe and Aardsma both suck but maybe one of them has turned a corner?
I believe Rothenthal (sp?) at foxsports reported Aardsma was in the lead for right now.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by j24jags » Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:26 am 
