RAB chat 12/9/11
Link to the Jack Curry interview with Wilson:
he said he lived on the lower east side last offseason, he loves new york and he wanted to be a Yankee. Combined with him pursuing the meeting I feel like Cashman may have made a pretty big mistake here.
Please explain this to me:
You are high on Eric Chavez coming back because he’s a good defensive 3B. The guy can’t stay healthy and hasn’t had a league average offensive season since 2006. He has virtually no shot at playing middle IF or OF. He’s averaged -0.125 fWAR the past 4 seasons.
Nick Punto, though, is not a good option. Punto rates as a good defensive 3B every season he plays more than 12 games there. He is also a passable at worst middle IF. He can play OF in a pinch. His offense is about on par with what Chavez’s recent output. He’s averaged 1.9 fWAR the past four seasons. B-R lists Punto’s 2011 salary as one half of Chavez’s.
How is Chavez a good option for the bench, but Punto is someone you will go to great lengths to bash as a bench option? How many other UTL are any better than Punto?
Once again, you’re putting words on my mouth. Never once said I was high on bringing Chavez back.
You really going to play that card when your words are archived here? Are you really going to play that card after earlier today you responded to my post that position is determined by skill-set rather than age: “So you’re saying age has no impact on skill-set?”
You literally said verbatim that you’d like to see Chavez back:
“I’d like to see him back, but he’s not that important to the team’s success.”
You don’t seem to understand what it means to be “high” on someone.
Did you seriously accuse ME of putting words in YOUR mouth? What I said was “How is Chavez a good option for the bench, but Punto is someone you will go to great lengths to bash as a bench option?” Not that you’re high on him, that you think he’s a good option.
You want Chavez back, but he’s not a good option? How does that work, Mike? Why do you want someone on the Yankees who is not a good option?
Again… I never said Nick Punto is awesome and I’m really high on him. I said he’s a decent option as a bench player. It’s like saying Nunez is a decent SS prospect. It doesn’t necessarily mean that player is good, it means his competition is terrible. Most of the candidates are old, injury prone, or just plain terrible. Punto played for $750,000 last season (B-R), and at least has some upside with his defense, versatility, and even bat as we saw in 2011.
I see it: “You are high on Eric Chavez coming back because he’s a good defensive 3B.”
High on him *coming back*… the difference between “I’m high on him coming back” and “I’d like him to come back” is semantics as far as I can see. If you’d like him to come back, it’s pretty hard to say you’re low on him coming back. Perhaps I should have used a different word, but I wasn’t trying to imply that you think Eric Chavez is the awesomest player ever… just that you advocate him as a solid bench option.
Why would someone go to all these lengths to point out how great Punto is and NOT be advocating they sign him at all costs.
Oh well, I guess it’s just semantics though.
Right, you figured me out… what I am saying is to give Punto $40 million per for 10, maybe 20 years… not that he’s a serviceable utility guy and I don’t understand Mike’s reaction to him.
I guess I have to dumb this down for you a little bit. When you say you are “high” on a player, that means you expect him to do well. I’m not “high” on Gio Gonzalez at all. Does that mean I wouldn’t take him on my team at the right price? No.
You really getting into personal insults over semantics? I refuse to go there. Let’s stick to the issue rather than argue over semantics and attach each others personalities.
It’s a subjective definition. “High,” “low,” “sort of high,” “sort of low,” “in between”… these aren’t well defined terms. I was not trying to imply you think Chavez is the greatest thing since sliced bread, just that he’s a serviceable utilityman… a point of comparison to a utilityman like Punto.
You are dodging my question through personal attacks based on semantics. I asked: “How is Chavez a good option for the bench, but Punto is someone you will go to great lengths to bash as a bench option? How many other UTL are any better than Punto?”
Why accuse me of putting words in you mouth when I wasn’t and then attack my word choices instead of just discussing the topic at hand? I don’t want to get into a personal conflict with you, Mike. I want to discuss why you are so sure Nick Punto is not an option for the Yankees even though you’d like to see Chavez back…
Dude, chill. There is literally no reason to be that upset over what is basically an issue of semantics. Eric Chavez sucks, Nick Punto also sucks. Mike likes Chavez okay, but doesn’t like Punto much. Seriously, think how upset you’re getting about Nick Punto. It’s hard to see Nick Punto being worth quite this much angst.
Too rational. Stop ruining the fun.
I’d bet $5 that Ted Nelson dropped out of law school.
You’re out 5 bucks I guess…
Couldn’t get in huh? Too bad, you would have been excellent in traffic court.
It’s pretty pathetic to lob personal attacks at people you have never met on an anonymous blog. I answered to clarify, but I’ll ignore you from now on and would appreciate the same courtesy.
Is that what you say when you tell people to get a life, tell them they are idiots, or call them assholes?
I’ll do what I want. If I want to reply to you I will.
P.S. I guess it’s a pretty sore subject huh?
You’re not being a dick for the sake of it here? Really?
Say I had dropped out of law school… it would be a nice thing, not a dick thing, to bring it up on the internet? Then to say “couldn’t get in, huh?” You were bantering there, not being a dick… and I’m the combative one?
I am totally being a dick here, but you insult people all the time too. I am not being combative here. I am being a dick. I guess that’s just semantics though.
I can promise you I’m not upset. I have made a very simple point: Punto is a “serviceable,” “decent,” whatever other word you’d like to use UTL. Mike disagreed. Instead of telling me why he’d like Chavez back and Punto isn’t a good option… he’s turned this into an argument over semantics and accused me of various things including lying and being dumb…
I’m not upset about Punto, though I do think he’s serviceable. I’m wondering if I’m missing something on him, actually. Doesn’t seem like it since Mike isn’t actually making any points about Punto. I am a bit upset (as far as internet blog upset goes) about being called a liar and idiot, sure.
It is impossible to read this thread and agree with you not being upset, or the idea that Mike turned this into an argument. Impossible. Have you noticed how you get into ten times more arguments than anyone else, and yet you always seem convinced that the other person is the one turning it into an argument? Does that say anything to you?
Yes, I realize I need to work on/stop that.
Rather than address his opinion on Chavez > Punto–which I thought was pretty clearly what I was asking about–Mike decided to make it a semantical argument about the intricate differences betwen “I’m high on him coming back” vs. “I’d like him to come back” vs. “he’s a good option to come back.” That’s not what I’m interested in arguing about. Just about the baseball side of it.
All I’m saying is that Punto is a good defensive 3B who can also play middle IF. You can only say half that about Chavez. I’m not trying to say Punto is a way better option… just that it seems like he should also be an option if Chavez is.
You are about as smooth as $5 vodka.
You based all your assumptions about Mike’s love for Chavez based on this one line: “I’d like to see him back, but he’s not that important to the team’s success.”
You would have a conniption fit if someone assumed you meant you were “high” on him or even thought he was good.
Instead of asking a straightforward question like, “I think Punto is as a good of an option as Chavez, here’s why… What do you think?” You assumed whatever would support your quest on a “point-proving” tirade. Simplify things and know what someone is saying before you use it in another tirade.
You are notorious for assuming someone’s connotation then ruthlessly attacking them based on that assumption. Why don’t you ask for clarification next time?
Where did I say Mike loves Chavez?
You don’t seem to be following this conversation to the beginning. The initial question was something along the lines of “Punto is a decent option, no?” to which Mike said “No.” I did not start assuming anything… I pointed out Punto’s positives to Mike in terms of defense/versatility. I was told he’s not a good defender based on metrics that in fact have him as a good defender over any meaningful sample. I then asked why Chavez is a good option and not Punto… to which I was told that though Mike would like Chavez back he’s not “high” on him. I said that maybe I should have used a different word once I realized what he was referring to… only for him to imply I am dumb.
Next time try A. reading the source of the conversation and B. not being a dick for the sport of it.
Did I run over your cat or something?
You’re missing the point. I tried, I really tried. You’re too combative. That’s what I’m trying to tell you.
Then you call me a dick right after you say it’s pathetic to lob personal attacks.
I did follow it from the beginning, and my point still stands.
You really maintain you are not purposefully being a dick to me? It certainly comes across that way.
Combative or not, your points are largely erroneous. Why would you make a bunch of erroneous points and then when I point out how they are erroneous say I missed the point?
I understand that I am combative and it’s annoying. I never said differently. What I said is that most of your points are blatantly wrong. I did not say Mike “loves” Chavez. I am not jumping to any assumptions: Mike literally said he “would like” Chavez back… he literally told me that defensive metrics that like Punto don’t based on 5 and 12 game samples. He made it pretty clear he does not view Punto as a good option when he said “No” when asked if he was.
“Loves” or “high on” I guess it’s just semantics. Sound familiar?
Ted Nelson is advocating that the Yankees sign Punto at all costs!
See how this works?
No. I don’t see how that works… I never said that. Mike said he’d like to see Chavez back… if Chavez isn’t a good option in Mike’s opinion, why does he want him back? He shot down every compliment I threw at Punto, ignoring circumstances such as you know… playing 5 games at the position in that season.
See how the truth works?
So wait, playing five games at a position in a season proves your point? Didn’t you say one of his good qualities was his versatility? You’re contradicting yourself.
What are you talking about? Why are you so passionate about disproving Punto as a serviceable utilityman?
What 5 games proves is that the sample is too small to take anything from it. You really want to argue that a 5 game sample is significant?
And do you really want to argue that a player controls roster construction and the manager?
Punto’s versatility is an asset because he can fill in when any number of guys are hurt, ineffective, or need a day off: Nunez, A-Rod, Jeter, Cano… even Gardner or Granderson if need be. Have to imagine he could play 1B or RF in a real bind.
Really, Mike is the one being too passionate about Nick Punto here?
He has accused me of putting words in his mouth about things he literally said and then told me he’d have to dumb down what he was saying in order to dodge my real question… yeah, he’s going to every length to make this an argument rather than simply discussing the issue of Punto’s merits as a UTL as far as I can tell.
You’ve gotten to the bottom of the matter already: Nobody is interested in discussing with you the merits of signing Nick Punto as a UTIL.
Then stop commenting on my comments.
No you stop.
Is this really Ted Nelson? Is there some way you can check IP addresses or something? This seems outlandish for even him.
How is calling Nick Punto a serviceable utilityman outlandish? How is calling a 5 game sample insignificant outlandish?
Oh, Ted Nelson. I wasn’t referring to your argument as much as the general insanity you splash onto the comment threads.
Carry on, you beautiful bastard.
Let’s save the utility-bench role conversation for February-March. The Yankees have a bid to win and starting rotation to upgrade for crying out loud, people.
I say we should have multiple chats, polls, podcasts, and posts about the utility bench role daily since it’s such a huge topic.
That pretty much already happens as the Yankees don’t have many other holes to fill.
Is this real Ted or is this hyperbole? With you I can never tell until you say it’s the opposite.
So you are not being a dick for the sake of it here? You really feel the need to ask whether or not it’s hyperbole when I say “pretty much” right before it? You were honestly confused whether by “pretty much” I actually meant “exactly?”
I can just assume you mean something and berate you for it. Sound familiar?
This is great stuff. I knew 720 would be involved since chats don’t usually get this many comments.
Subscribe to RAB by email
cforms contact form by delicious:days