It was pointed out to us a number of times in many threads, including this one, "What are we supposed to do about the nasty emails we get calling us stupid" ...
apparently that angle works.
Talking with the guys logically as as been done in this thread by many people other than me, doesn't work.
One can only go by what I read.
The chances of Joey Votto playing this year are slim anyways, but hey at least they won't be getting any threating emails.
That would be one interpretation. But it is one that glosses over one important detail:
You were in the minority on this issue
If one person screams bloody blue murder about something, or even makes a rational, sound argument, they aren't likely to get their way if their opinion isn't shared by (enough) others. Our goal is to keep the majority of our customers happy. You were logical enough that I understood your point and passed it on, and next year it may well be that we can make all our customers happy. But that doesn't change the fact that if we did what you want, when you want it, the majority of our customers would react badly. I'm guessing you understand why we wouldn't get very far if we did things that made the majority of our customers angry. Yes? Particularly in this case where there is clearly no "right answer" to explain; both sides have valid opinions, and just play the game different ways.
Presenting logical discussion of feature enhancements can be really productive. Ironically enough, in this very case I think it will likely lead to a nice improvement in next year's game (time willing). Screaming and complaining, or sending "nasty threatening emails", however, will serve you no better if you're in the minority, and is less likely to get your opinion heard whether you are in the majority or the minority.