Deleted

[auclairkeithbc]

Well, I'd say person A definitely wins the first debate. Person B is basically claiming that even though person A is using the terms "stud" and "5 tool" in the normally accepted way, those terms should now have different definitions.

In the second argument I'd say person A wins as well, because person B just added more information, and did not even attempt to disprove the original argument. The only argument that person B really makes in the second argument to disprove person A's point is that he points out that person A says the Marlins "knew" he'd be a stud. I think it is fair to assume that "knew" just meant "felt very confident" though I guess you "got" him on that one, because no one can know anything about the future. Eh.


Clearly person B is being a little more specific. But that doesn't mean that person A is unaware of the specifics. And the conclusions person A draws are at least accurate (short of the word "knew"), while the conclusions person B draws are less accurate.

[Yoda]

A
and
wash since a lot of baseball people believed that Hanley would become an absolute stud

[cordscords]

Situation 1: A

Situation 2: B

[NikkiSixx]

Definately person A for the first argument.



And the main part of the red sox-marlins trade was Beckett for Hanley, and with the way you draw it out Person A in the argument looks like AT MOST a casual baseball fan, Im sure the argument didnt end there...so no comment.

[Neato Torpedo]

Beltran's averaged 21 SB in the last 4 years, which isn't the true definition of a "speed guy". How many tools are we out? By my count 3......If Beltran isn't a 5-tool player then there are no 5-toolers in baseball. Nope, not Hanley either; poor fielding.

And as for #2, it's the Marlins. What was the reasoning behind like 97% of the trades in the organization's history?

I agree with everyone that says you're trying to make the other guy look like crap.

[METS 24]

Deleted

[bigh0rt]

For the first question A is right by far. Beltran is both a stud and a 5-tool player.
On question #2 I would probably lean towards B, but its speculation either way.

This.

[auclairkeithbc]

There was a debate. One person said one thing while the other person is trying to debunk it. Person A makes a statement & person B tries to explain why they disagree, which is the reason person B has more to say.

That is precisely what I was saying.

Person A attempts to debunk the first statement by attempting to change the generally accepted definitions of the terms "stud" and "5 tool." Person B used those terms correctly. Stud does not only apply to top 5 players. You don't have to bat .300 or hit 40 homers to qualify as being a 5 tool player.

Person A doesn't even really attempt to debunk the second statement in any real way. To debunk the second statement, Person B needs to show that the Marlins actually did not think Hanley Ramirez would become a very productive player. I seriously doubt you want to argue that. You could try to nitpick his statement, and argue that the Marlins did not "know" he'd be good, only that they were confident that he'd be good, but that is pretty weak in my opinion.

[CadensDad]

A for the first one and B for the second

[WyldStallyn]

first argument is just semantics. 2nd is conjecture (though i believe it was the salary thing, as with all their trades)