Braves Acquire Matt Adams From Cardinals

[Enscheff]

I actually do think you need to explain how they're meaningfully different, because if this wasn't something the FO had considered prior to Freeman suggesting it, then I'd say he'd be pretty fairly called the "driver" of the experiment.

He just wants to be "right" about something. Gov used to do the same thing when he didn't have an actual point to argue and would resort to bickering about the meaning of words.

Now he and Garmel are patting each other on the back "thanking" every contrarian post each one makes haha.

Those kids in class really were the most annoying ones...but they sure did catch a lot of spelling errors made by the professor!

[Garmel]

LOL!

[Hawk]

He just wants to be "right" about something. Gov used to do the same thing when he didn't have an actual point to argue and would resort to bickering about the meaning of words.

Now he and Garmel are patting each other on the back "thanking" every contrarian post each one makes haha.

Those kids in class really were the most annoying ones...but they sure did catch a lot of spelling errors made by the professor!

Well, I am right.

The difference between me actually being right and you claiming to be right is that I'm actually willing to defend myself as opposed to simply claiming that I'm right and resorting to juvenile retorts as a kind of sad-sack way to deflect my intellectual shortcomings.

[Hawk]

LOL!

You contrarian, you.

[Enscheff]

Well, I am right.

The difference between me actually being right and you claiming to be right is that I'm actually willing to defend myself as opposed to simply claiming that I'm right and resorting to juvenile retorts as a kind of sad-sack way to deflect my intellectual shortcomings.

Yes, well done. You are right...Freeman only "suggested" the move to 3B, he didn't necessarily "drive" the decision.

You have successfully pointed out nsacpi's spelling mistake on the blackboard, congrats. Here's your gold star for the day Little Sally.

Too bad you missed the actual lesson he was teaching.

[Garmel]

You contrarian, you.

Just a born rebel I guess.

[Hawk]

Yes, well done. You are right...Freeman only "suggested" the move to 3B, he didn't necessarily "drive" the decision.

You have successfully pointed out nsacpi's spelling mistake on the blackboard, congrats. Here's your gold star for the day Little Sally.

Too bad you missed the actual lesson he was teaching.

Well, when the (baseless) claim is made that the front office is 'indulging' Freeman by letting him play 3B then it's important to obtain a relative set of facts.

I realize words are difficult for you, quant. Gov did too, and that's how he was able to push all your buttons and get you frothing at the slack jaw. I'm just interested in talking about Freeman at 3B, though.

[jpx7]

There's a distinction between Freeman being the catalyst for the change (my interpretation of 'the driver') and Freeman proactively pushing (driving) the change.

I'm not sure that's meaningfully distinct, though. Freeman's simply being a "catalyst," in that he raised an idea that the Braves' brass embraced, versus Freeman "proactively pushing" the idea, with the Braves's brass having some reservations, but not enough to deny him the opportunity—well those seem like two equally plausible scenarios, and two which I don't view as meaningfully different I think the latter scenario could be fairly called "indulging" the player. I'm not sure anyone is maintaining that Freeman pushed hard, and repeatedly, against strong opposition, until he forced his way and could play hot-corner—but if you think that's what nscapi is implying, I'm sure he'd be willing to clarify.

[Hawk]

I'm not sure that's meaningfully distinct, though. Freeman's simply being a "catalyst," in that he raised an idea that the Braves' brass embraced, versus Freeman "proactively pushing" the idea, with the Braves's brass having some reservations, but not enough to deny him the opportunity—well those seem like two equally plausible scenarios, and two which I don't view as meaningfully different I think the latter scenario could be fairly called "indulging" the player. I'm not sure anyone is maintaining that Freeman pushed hard, and repeatedly, against strong opposition, until he forced his way and could play hot-corner—but if you think that's what nscapi is implying, I'm sure he'd be willing to clarify.

How are those two scenarios not distinctively and importantly different in the context of this discussion? It's complicity versus a kind of good intentioned coercion. It's the crux of the entire debate; was this a smart baseball move greenlit by the FO, or was it a move that the FO (or elements therein) was resistant to but opted to allow because they didn't want to demoralize/disenchant a star player?

Nsacpi specifically labeled the move as an indulgence that was influenced by Freeman's perception of Adams' value. I don't see what needs clarification there. It's pretty straightforward.

[chop2chip]

How are those two scenarios not distinctively and importantly different in the context of this discussion? It's complicity versus a kind of good intentioned coercion. It's the crux of the entire debate; was this a smart baseball move greenlit by the FO, or was it a move that the FO (or elements therein) was resistant to but opted to allow because they didn't want to demoralize/disenchant a star player?

Nsacpi specifically labeled the move as an indulgence that was influenced by Freeman's perception of Adams' value. I don't see what needs clarification there. It's pretty straightforward.

My wife suggesting once that we could consider buying a boat and me taking that as permission to secure a loan and find a seller is entirely different than my wife consistently bringing it up and following through on me taking each step of the way.

That's a poor example, but in other words I agree wholeheartedly with the point you made. The key question being how would/did Freeman respond if/when the initial answer was 'no'?

[Julio3000]

I dunno, man. That's pretty far in the weeds. (@ Hawk, I mean).

[smootness]

Ho. Ly. Crap.

Who cares, playing Freeman at 3B is dumb. Parsing out exactly why it was made doesn't matter.

[Enscheff]

I'm not sure that's meaningfully distinct, though. Freeman's simply being a "catalyst," in that he raised an idea that the Braves' brass embraced, versus Freeman "proactively pushing" the idea, with the Braves's brass having some reservations, but not enough to deny him the opportunity—well those seem like two equally plausible scenarios, and two which I don't view as meaningfully different I think the latter scenario could be fairly called "indulging" the player. I'm not sure anyone is maintaining that Freeman pushed hard, and repeatedly, against strong opposition, until he forced his way and could play hot-corner—but if you think that's what nscapi is implying, I'm sure he'd be willing to clarify.

I would suggest just letting Hawk be "right" on this one so Garmel can thank his post and they can pat each other on the backs. Again, he caught the professor's spelling mistake, so let him chalk up a win for himself.

Freeman to 3b is a silly idea regardless of who "drove" the decision. It's a bit like southcrack defending the FO's sub optimal moves during the rebuild by claiming it's better to lose 94 games than lose 100 games.

[Hawk]

Ho. Ly. Crap.

Who cares, playing Freeman at 3B is dumb. Parsing out exactly why it was made doesn't matter.

Are you kidding me? You sit around here arguing about prospect placement on arbitrary lists but you don't think it's important to dissect the motivations behind a potentially franchise altering decision? Ok.

[Hawk]

I would suggest just letting Hawk be "right" on this one so Garmel can thank his post and they can pat each other on the backs. Again, he caught the professor's spelling mistake, so let him chalk up a win for himself.

Freeman to 3b is a silly idea regardless of who "drove" the decision. It's a bit like southcrack defending the FO's sub optimal moves during the rebuild by claiming it's better to lose 94 games than lose 100 games.

If you want, I'll like your posts too. Would that make you feel validated, stimulate your human emotions, quant?

[smootness]

Are you kidding me? You sit around here arguing about prospect placement on arbitrary lists but you don't think it's important to dissect the motivations behind a potentially franchise altering decision? Ok.

I like to discuss prospect lists because they're fun. This argument is where fun goes to shoot itself in the face.

I don't care about the distinction between suggesting a move and driving a move. Regardless, it's dumb.

[Hawk]

I like to discuss prospect lists because they're fun. This argument is where fun goes to shoot itself in the face.

I don't care about the distinction between suggesting a move and driving a move. Regardless, it's dumb.

Sure, it's fun, but it's trivial.

This is actually happening. You might find it dumb, but that's completely irrelevant.

[jpx7]

How are those two scenarios not distinctively and importantly different in the context of this discussion? It's complicity versus a kind of good intentioned coercion. It's the crux of the entire debate; was this a smart baseball move greenlit by the FO, or was it a move that the FO (or elements therein) was resistant to but opted to allow because they didn't want to demoralize/disenchant a star player?

Nsacpi specifically labeled the move as an indulgence that was influenced by Freeman's perception of Adams' value. I don't see what needs clarification there. It's pretty straightforward.

I guess I just don't see those as importantly different. It was Freeman's notion, pretty surely, from what we've read. The question of whether the front-office was, from the outset, fully enthralled with the idea, or whether they "indulged" an idea, despite some doubts re viability, because it had little risk this season, seems pretty inconsequential, even to me (and I love semantic quibbles). I would only be concerned if the front-office pursued an idea it believed to be definitively bad, simply to "indulge" their star player—and that doesn't seem like it happened at all.

[Trumps' twitter guy]

Maybe consider replasing the word "drove" with "covfefe"???

[Hawk]

I guess I just don't see those as importantly different. It was Freeman's notion, pretty surely, from what we've read. The question of whether the front-office was, from the outset, fully enthralled with the idea, or whether they "indulged" an idea, despite some doubts re viability, because it had little risk this season, seems pretty inconsequential, even to me (and I love semantic quibbles). I would only be concerned if the front-office pursued an idea it believed to be definitively bad, simply to "indulge" their star player—and that doesn't seem like it happened at all.

"I think the issue is not the FO lacking an understanding of what you have pointed out. It is the FO indulging a star player who does not understand the above.