Great. Now look up the definition of "ad hominem."

 

 

You're making this way too easy.

 

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

Person 1 makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person 1 Therefore claim X is false

 

Very good.

 

Now point to the part where I made an objectionable comment about the character of another person and this should be wrapped up.

 

It appears he failed to recognize your clear sarcasm when saying Beinfest is getting screwed. Not sure how he missed that, but whatever.

Great. Now look up the definition of "ad hominem."

 

 

You're making this way too easy.

 

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

Person 1 makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person 1 Therefore claim X is false

 

Very good.

 

Now point to the part where I made an objectionable comment about the character of another person and this should be wrapped up.

 

No, no, no, my friend. I have made two claims: 1. That Lindstrom for Lowell and cash would be a good trade, and 2. That you are a hypocrite. Neither one of those can be nullified via ad hominem, which you have claimed. I am Person 1 making claim X in both scenarios. You claimed ad hominem about something, which I am still unclear, meaning you find something objectionable about me, making either one of my claims false. So, YOU point to the part where there is something objectionable about my character, and this should be wrapped up.

Great. Now look up the definition of "ad hominem."

 

 

You're making this way too easy.

 

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

Person 1 makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person 1 Therefore claim X is false

 

Very good.

 

Now point to the part where I made an objectionable comment about the character of another person and this should be wrapped up.

 

No, no, no, my friend. I have made two claims: 1. That Lindstrom for Lowell and cash would be a good trade, and 2. That you are a hypocrite. Neither one of those can be nullified via ad hominem, which you have claimed. I am Person 1 making claim X in both scenarios. You claimed ad hominem about something, which I am still unclear, meaning you find something objectionable about me, making either one of my claims false. So, YOU point to the part where there is something objectionable about my character, and this should be wrapped up.

 

 

This is why I hate this forum at times.

Mainly during the off season.

People with all the crap.

Who gives a sh*t of someone called you a name.

It's just an online forum.

Low K/Low BB guys just aren't all that impressive because it normally doesn't translate to the major league level. It's one thing to do that without "stuff" in the minors, that rarely floats in the majors though. hence why someone of our own like Elih Villenueva is not one of our upper tier specs

Low K/Low BB guys just aren't all that impressive because it normally doesn't translate to the major league level. It's one thing to do that without "stuff" in the minors, that rarely floats in the majors though. hence why someone of our own like Elih Villenueva is not one of our upper tier specs

 

I can agree with that. He could be a G. Taylor type.

This is good news for Lindstrom. Looks like he will have a good chance closing in Houston. And when they play the Marlins, if the Marlins dont have the lead by the 9th, ill be rooting for Matt all the way to shut the door on the fish.

 

 

 

....What?

 

Are you even a Florida Marlins fan? Or are you just looking for the "Matt Lindstrom Fan Club" forum?

Low K/Low BB guys just aren't all that impressive because it normally doesn't translate to the major league level. It's one thing to do that without "stuff" in the minors, that rarely floats in the majors though. hence why someone of our own like Elih Villenueva is not one of our upper tier specs

 

 

 

If you're referring to me, I never said that he would become a solid major league player, however there are always people like Joel Pineiro who end up succeeding. I'm just saying that his stuff could develop as time goes on since he is still very young, and could possibly have an MLB career down the road.

This is good news for Lindstrom. Looks like he will have a good chance closing in Houston. And when they play the Marlins, if the Marlins dont have the lead by the 9th, ill be rooting for Matt all the way to shut the door on the fish.

 

They just signed Brandon Lyon so I get the feeling we won't be seeing Matterz shutting the door on anything.

#marlins trade lindstrom to astros for 2 minor leaguers, rhp robert bono and ss luis bryan

 

 

- Clark Spencer

Yeah, those are nobodies.

 

We probably aren't getting that 3rd player, unless the Marlins find someone they really want to have on their 25-man roster for the entire 2010 season (unlikely).

 

You never know.....might find another Dan Uggla.

 

Lightning rarely strikes the same spot twice. Admit it, we got lucky with Uggla. Remember Uggla only got a chance because Pokey Reese decided to retire.

Just for you 03, since the Rule5 is like crack to you.

 

*The Washington Times reports that the Nationals will take Zach Kroenke from the Yankees with the first pick in the Rule 5 draft and then send him back to the Bombers to complete the Brian Bruney trade.

 

The Yankees must think they completely blew it when they left Kroenke available for the draft. The 25-year-old southpaw had a 1.99 ERA in 72 1/3 innings for Triple-A Scranton/Wilkes-Barre last season, though that came with a modest 55/30 K/BB ratio. The odd thing about this is that Kroenke will still have to pass through waivers if he fails to make the Yankees out of spring training. However, with Phil Coke gone, he may have a real chance of winning a bullpen spot.

 

Remember that name?

 

We took him last year in the Rule5. Guess we can't take him again!

I like these two spects the Marlins picked.

 

Shoot, we must be screwed then.

4 pages---2 of which is a god damn discussion out of a dictionary forum.

 

Pathetic.

Great. Now look up the definition of "ad hominem."

 

 

You're making this way too easy.

 

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

Person 1 makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person 1 Therefore claim X is false

 

Very good.

 

Now point to the part where I made an objectionable comment about the character of another person and this should be wrapped up.

 

No, no, no, my friend. I have made two claims: 1. That Lindstrom for Lowell and cash would be a good trade, and 2. That you are a hypocrite. Neither one of those can be nullified via ad hominem, which you have claimed. I am Person 1 making claim X in both scenarios. You claimed ad hominem about something, which I am still unclear, meaning you find something objectionable about me, making either one of my claims false. So, YOU point to the part where there is something objectionable about my character, and this should be wrapped up.

 

 

This is why I hate this forum at times.

Mainly during the off season.

People with all the crap.

Who gives a sh*t of someone called you a name.

It's just an online forum.

 

Hey man,

 

You'd care if someone singled you out and tried to belittle you in front of everyone else for something you said in a different thread.

Marlins outfielder John Raynor is gathering lots of attention; he has a career .299/.383/.452 line.

 

I'm pretty sure the Marlins want the 8th Pick to pick back up Raynor.

4 pages---2 of which is a god damn discussion out of a dictionary forum.

 

Pathetic.

 

 

Once I see your sig, I always move onto the next post without reading yours. FYI

Great. Now look up the definition of "ad hominem."

 

 

You're making this way too easy.

 

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

Person 1 makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person 1 Therefore claim X is false

 

Very good.

 

Now point to the part where I made an objectionable comment about the character of another person and this should be wrapped up.

 

No, no, no, my friend. I have made two claims: 1. That Lindstrom for Lowell and cash would be a good trade, and 2. That you are a hypocrite. Neither one of those can be nullified via ad hominem, which you have claimed. I am Person 1 making claim X in both scenarios. You claimed ad hominem about something, which I am still unclear, meaning you find something objectionable about me, making either one of my claims false. So, YOU point to the part where there is something objectionable about my character, and this should be wrapped up.

 

This is all kinds of fail.

 

The fact that person 1 allegedly has something objectionable about their character (i.e., penguino being a hypocrite), does not render that person's claim false. It's unrelated. Hence the fallicious nature of ad hominem.

 

Punching "ad hominem" into wikipedia doesn't mean you automatically understand what it means. You still have to "read" the text.

I always said that Lindstrom is just a GUY who can throw a triple-digit-mile fastball, not a PITCHER.

 

Career opp avg was .269

career allowed walk per 9inning was 3.7

career WHIP was 1.45

career opp avg against lefty was over .280

 

Pay 1.5m for him? Please look at the numbers. He could not be the 7th inning type guy, even

We've received C or C- type players from Astros, but I'm just happy about cut him out.

I don't know what's worse. People on this forum being so sad that Lindstrom is gone, or the fact that the Astros decided to sign Brandon Lyon for 5 million per for the next 3 years?

 

So much for Lindstrom being so dominant and immediately closing after leaving us, huh?

 

A 30 year old reliever making around 1.5 million coming off a terrible year...won't even close. How about we just appreciate the fact we got 3 players for this guy?

Waste of a trade. Not that Lindstrom is any good... but why trade him for what we believe is dead end players? Salary?

 

100% salary. He's going to make $1.5 million, give or take $150,000, and he's probably not $1 million plus dollars better than replacing him with Wood/Leroux/Tucker/etc.

 

What's going to suck is when Houston plays the Marlins and Matty kicks our a@#.

 

Nah. We have a roster full of fastball hitters. It's the off speed crap they can't hit and he can't throw.

I wonder where Tommy Mendoza (kid from here...went to Monsignor Pace High School) will go in the Rule V draft. He's a good prospect, and the Angels decided to let him go to the Rule V. Maybe we can get him tomorrow...

I say this because my brother coached him, obviously. But really, he is a good prospect.

 

 

A good prospect and someone that can stick on the 25 man are two totally different things.

 

My guess is they don't go for a pitcher in this draft. Too dangerous a pick. Most likely they go for a lefty bat off the bench, or that has a shot at becoming a starter.

Interestingly the Marlins have two picks in the first round of the Rule 5 draft but only one roster spot on the 40 man.

 

Makes you wonder if someone else - Pinto probably - gets gone by the morning.

 

They didn't take Houston's first pick (8th in the draft) without a reason, they have to have their eye on someone it was worth moving up 14 spots to grab. I'm thinking this isn't a "best player available" pick, they have their sights set on one or two specific players who they think, as with Dan Uggla, is a major league ballplayer waiting for an opportunity.

 

 

 

Couldn't they make a roster move before the draft sarts? Or was there a cut off date for that?

 

If there was a cut off date then it looks like they do have their sights set and are willing to move up, fill the spot, and lose their next pick. Could be interesting.

Low K/Low BB guys just aren't all that impressive because it normally doesn't translate to the major league level. It's one thing to do that without "stuff" in the minors, that rarely floats in the majors though. hence why someone of our own like Elih Villenueva is not one of our upper tier specs

 

 

In principal, or going straight by the stats, you may be right. But in real life it dosen't always work out that way. A guy that can get hitters to put the ball on the ground is very effective in so many ways. Not only does it usually result in an out, but it shortens his by inning pitch count allowing him to go deeper into games.

 

Not saying this is one of those guys. Just showing where your statement is flawed.

Interestingly the Marlins have two picks in the first round of the Rule 5 draft but only one roster spot on the 40 man.

 

Makes you wonder if someone else - Pinto probably - gets gone by the morning.

 

They didn't take Houston's first pick (8th in the draft) without a reason, they have to have their eye on someone it was worth moving up 14 spots to grab. I'm thinking this isn't a "best player available" pick, they have their sights set on one or two specific players who they think, as with Dan Uggla, is a major league ballplayer waiting for an opportunity.

 

 

 

Couldn't they make a roster move before the draft sarts? Or was there a cut off date for that?

 

If there was a cut off date then it looks like they do have their sights set and are willing to move up, fill the spot, and lose their next pick. Could be interesting.

 

Bob, the date for freezing team's 40 man roster was two weeks or so ago, from that date to the draft players can only be moved off and on the roster as the result of a trade. It's one of the reasons why you see so few moves including signing free agents between the two dates.

I don't know what's worse. People on this forum being so sad that Lindstrom is gone, or the fact that the Astros decided to sign Brandon Lyon for 5 million per for the next 3 years?

 

So much for Lindstrom being so dominant and immediately closing after leaving us, huh?

 

A 30 year old reliever making around 1.5 million coming off a terrible year...won't even close. How about we just appreciate the fact we got 3 players for this guy?

 

 

I really would have liked to see if we could have added a couple pitches to his arsenal and for him to show confidence in them. IMO, that's all it would have taken for him to be a dominate closer. But apparently time ran out for him here. We move on and wish him well.

Great. Now look up the definition of "ad hominem."

 

 

You're making this way too easy.

 

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

Person 1 makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person 1 Therefore claim X is false

 

Very good.

 

Now point to the part where I made an objectionable comment about the character of another person and this should be wrapped up.

 

No, no, no, my friend. I have made two claims: 1. That Lindstrom for Lowell and cash would be a good trade, and 2. That you are a hypocrite. Neither one of those can be nullified via ad hominem, which you have claimed. I am Person 1 making claim X in both scenarios. You claimed ad hominem about something, which I am still unclear, meaning you find something objectionable about me, making either one of my claims false. So, YOU point to the part where there is something objectionable about my character, and this should be wrapped up.

Hopefully this clears it up for you because this is going on far too long and you aren't making sense.

 

I didn't personally attack anyone. I was, but I didn't get worked up over it (by someone else calling me a d-bag and ridiculing me for my post count). I merely acknowledged it. It was obvious that you tried to brand me as a hypocrite because you first thought that I was personally attacking someone. Of course, that was nonsense and you are trying I cover yourself above which makes no sense.

 

The bottom line is that you made a very questionable prediction (that Lindstrom could net a fully paid for Mike Lowell) and you were very pompous about it. You tried to dismiss objections by evoking another poster's failed predictions, which is in itself not logically permissible. You severely overestimated Matt Lindstrom's value and I drew attention to this by making a sarcastic remark. I did not attack anyone's character; I attacked the lack of merit of your argument.

 

I'm sorry that you didn't know what the market rate for Lindstrom was, despite being so confident. I'm sorry that you couldn't recognize that nothing I've said amounts to a personal attack. Just take your lashings and move on.