5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I honestly can’t recall if they actually made a token offer or not.  It almost felt like when we lost out on Machado we were beyond our cap with Harper and never made a legit offer.

If I remember correctly they made a pitch to Harper at the Advocate Center early in FA, but I don't recall if they ever made a serious offer.  And after Machado signed there was some word of a pivot to Harper but it always felt way too late.

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by Tnetennba

3 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I know you think this is all hilarious but this is shitty discussion

Yep

3 minutes ago, Quin said:

Because you complain about something. You're proven that your complaint is wrong. Then you adjust it slightly. Then your complaint is still wrong. Then you adjust it again. Then your complaint is right, but only after changing the complaint from the original topic.

You said they never led the Machado bidding, which they did. Now it's they never signed a 9 figure contract. You moved the arguments until you were right, aka moving goalposts.

I see them as separate data points that support the argument. I still don't believe that they ever had any intention of signing Machado and that they always did just enough to stay relevant before finally bowing out. 

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

I see them as separate data points that support the argument. I still don't believe that they ever had any intention of signing Machado and that they always did just enough to stay relevant before finally bowing out. 

Do you really think they wasted months of negotations to intentionally come up short?  That is ludicrous.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Do you really think they wasted months of negotations to intentionally come up short?  That is ludicrous.

Yes. PR stunt, drumming up fan interest, social media hits, etc. 

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by Jack Parkman

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

Yes. PR stunt. 

You honestly believe they wasted resources that they could have used doing literally anything else that winter to help the team, so they could somehow win a PR campaign by intentionally failing AND you still call yourself a fan of a team that you believe would do that.

I just need to not respond.

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

You honestly believe they wasted resources that they could have used doing literally anything else that winter to help the team, so they could somehow win a PR campaign by intentionally failing AND you still call yourself a fan of a team that you believe would do that.

I just need to not respond.

Yes. You're naive. I also think that they're not the only team that does it. 

I don't think it's as ridiculous of a concept as you do. 

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by Jack Parkman

7 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Yes. PR stunt, drumming up fan interest, social media hits, etc. 

Haha you just think they’re the dumbest people ever 

10 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Yes. You're naive. I also think that they're not the only team that does it. 

I don't think it's as ridiculous of a concept as you do. 

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

4 minutes ago, fathom said:

Haha you just think they’re the dumbest people ever 

No, I think they think the fans are morons. Judging by the posts in this thread, they're right. 

11 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I see them as separate data points that support the argument. I still don't believe that they ever had any intention of signing Machado and that they always did just enough to stay relevant before finally bowing out. 

All right, I'm trying to work with you Jack.

You picked one point to argue - you may think that you're building a case, but you argued that one point, then went to the separate data point. That's what moving the goalposts means. 

What frustrates people is that you start an argument at Point A. They argue against it. Then you move onto Point B, C, D and E. To you, they're all data points supporting Argument A. The problem is, no one else was ever arguing B, C, D, or E until you moved it there, so it only appears that your argument is defeated, so you just move the argument until you are correct.

Wow, this conversation is still going huh.

Look, if some of you enjoy factually stating exactly how the offseason will play out instead of letting it play out, fine. Not my thing, but fine.

But to be bothered that others aren't doing the same? Like, who cares? 

The need for some to be the smartest person in the room takes so much joy out of this board, and the internet in general.

6 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

No, I think they think the fans are morons. Judging by the posts in this thread, they're right. 

We are honored to have you back here. Show us the way enlightened one! 

10 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

No, I think they think the fans are morons. Judging by the posts in this thread, they're right. 

Smh, uncalled for

13 minutes ago, Quin said:

All right, I'm trying to work with you Jack.

You picked one point to argue - you may think that you're building a case, but you argued that one point, then went to the separate data point. That's what moving the goalposts means. 

What frustrates people is that you start an argument at Point A. They argue against it. Then you move onto Point B, C, D and E. To you, they're all data points supporting Argument A. The problem is, no one else was ever arguing B, C, D, or E until you moved it there, so it only appears that your argument is defeated, so you just move the argument until you are correct.

You nailed it. 

It was never my intent to change the subject, but rather build a case based on multiple points of evidence. 

7 minutes ago, ron883 said:

Smh, uncalled for

Ron is on the case.  What, now you want to report this to get him banned again...when you've (supposedly/seemingly) been advocating his case for months?  Pick a lane.

You know he tends to lash out when cornered, yet bringing more attention to the past is going to help him move forward more productively? 

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by caulfield12

15 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Best reference in Soxtalk history!

Wow I think it’s time for a new offseason thread.

16 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

I know exactly what that word means and I am using it exactly as intended. 

Just now, maloney.adam said:

Wow I think it’s time for a new offseason thread.

Nah - this one has at least another 200 pages of life in it… at least.

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

I know exactly what that word means and I am using it exactly as intended. 

Fail.

15 minutes ago, Snopek said:

Wow, this conversation is still going huh.

Look, if some of you enjoy factually stating exactly how the offseason will play out instead of letting it play out, fine. Not my thing, but fine.

But to be bothered that others aren't doing the same? Like, who cares? 

The need for some to be the smartest person in the room takes so much joy out of this board, and the internet in general.

I'm fine discussing moves that have a chance of actually happening rather than wasting bandwidth on stuff that is a fantasy. Maybe I should just ignore those posts and let them indulge in their fantasy world. 

I just feel like some of the offseason discussion drags down the quality of the board. 

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by Jack Parkman

20 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

No, I think they think the fans are morons. Judging by the posts in this thread, they're right. 

I stuck my neck out for you Parkman. I put my reputation on the line here - don't ruin it for me. 

1 minute ago, ron883 said:

I stuck my neck out for you Parkman. I put my reputation on the line here - don't ruin it for me. 

Sorry Ron. Posts aren't allowed to be deleted or hidden anymore. 

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I just feel like some of the offseason discussion drags down the quality of the board. 

Where as your contributions are raising the quality of the board?

Are you serious?