APIAD wrote:

What is your opinion on company xmass parties or companies putting up xmass trees?  Xmass bonus or gift?  
 

And Christmas holiday, and the school Christmas pageant, etc.

I confess to being divided here, and I am not sure where the bright line gives way to common sense.  

For example, in Singapore, it's about 65% Chinese (mostly Christian), about 25% Malay (mostly Muslim), and about 10% Indian (mostly . . . not sure, Hindu, I think, becuase they make a big deal out of Deepavali).  Officially there is religious and ethnic tolerance, and they crack down hard on anything that might stoke tensions.  For example, one Chinese college student posted on his facebook how there were some Indians on the train and they stank (there is a stereotype of strong body odor among Indians in Singapore).  He got in serious trouble for that.  On the other hand, the authorities are wise enough to know that the majority should not feel overly imposed upon in the need to respect minorities.  So, they are able to bypass a lot of the hand-wringing that we go through in our society.

Personally, I would like to see a way that public school celebrations of religious holidays could return.    I remember my 4th grade class rehearsing "Bring a Torch Jeanette Isabella" for the Christmas pageant, and though it is kind of a lame song, I still enjoy the memory and wish that kids today could experience that, too. 

And, for what it's worth, in Indonesia it is common to receive a bonus equal to an entire month's salary at the end of Ramadan, and I gladly pocketed that . . . and gladly (or sometimes begrudgingly) went to religious celebrations.  In Indonesia, it has been the tradition for people of one religion to politely attend a celebration or two of their neighbor's religion.  But with the Saudi-funded infiltration of Wahabbism and the growth of political Islam, it is becoming less acceptable to do so . . . unless it is a minority religion attending the festivities of the Muslims.  

Last edited by Max (7/01/2013 2:28 pm)

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Corporal Upham"

Saving Pvt. Ryan?

We have a winner.  But it appears I disparaged poor Corporal Upham. At least he grew a pair by the end of the movie.

Last edited by forsberg_us (7/01/2013 6:25 pm)

"  And, yes, the debate back then WAS whether payroll could go up.  KC and others laid out whole lists of estimated revenue and expenditure, and the debate raged on and on as to whether the money was even there.  You are just forgetting."

I'm remembering just fine. There were questions as to whether the Cardinals could match payroll with Philadelphia (as suggested by Boras during the Holliday), but there was never a question as to whether payroll COULD increase. It's been widely reported and discussed plenty on these boards that the Cardinals choose to pay down about $30M/year in stadium debt. That's money that COULD be spent on payroll, but ownership chooses to spend elsewhere. No one has ever disputed that.

The issue was, if you increased payroll where WOULD it be spent, which was the question you refused to answer. In fact, at one point you responded to someone saying it wasn't your problem to figure out where, that was for Mozeliak to decide. Like now, you refused to answer because you didn't want to risk being proven wrong.

forsberg_us wrote:

" And, yes, the debate back then WAS whether payroll could go up. KC and others laid out whole lists of estimated revenue and expenditure, and the debate raged on and on as to whether the money was even there. You are just forgetting."

I'm remembering just fine. There were questions as to whether the Cardinals could match payroll with Philadelphia (as suggested by Boras during the Holliday), but there was never a question as to whether payroll COULD increase. It's been widely reported and discussed plenty on these boards that the Cardinals choose to pay down about $30M/year in stadium debt. That's money that COULD be spent on payroll, but ownership chooses to spend elsewhere. No one has ever disputed that.

We are remembering that differently.

Long ago, prior to the Holliday signing, I was a raging supporter of the ownership group.  The "DeWitt is a cheapskate" meme dates back to the selling of the urinals, and even a bit before.  KC had an argument that DeWitt was being a cheapskate, and that payroll could go up, rather than down as what happened in . . . maybe 2007 or 2008 (after that it started to go back up again).  I argued against him for a long time, but ultimately came to see things his way.  I admit I was probably wrong in my initial estimation of the DeWitt ownership group.  KC was probably right.  For those of you who are counting, that is one instance where I admit I was wrong.

forsberg_us wrote:

The issue was, if you increased payroll where WOULD it be spent, which was the question you refused to answer. In fact, at one point you responded to someone saying it wasn't your problem to figure out where, that was for Mozeliak to decide. Like now, you refused to answer because you didn't want to risk being proven wrong.

That is a separate issue (just as "which pitchers actually suffered" is a separate issue).  It is a good issue, and one response to KC's argument about cheapskate-edness on the part of ownership would be the "saving up dry powder" argument, or "there was nothing good to spend the money on that year."  That is a fine argument, and Mozelaik, or you are welcome to make that argument if that is what is being discussed.  As I said, I don't believe that was the discussion at its earliest.  In the very early days of the "DeWitt is being a cheapskate and pocketing the money" argument, it was being made largely by KC, I was arguing against it, and the issue was "is the money there to raise payroll, or not".  KC and/or others made long lists of estimated revenue and estimated expenditures to supprot the argument that there was ample room to raise payroll.   Much of it was on the Yahoo boards, which you tell me are now defunct, so there is probably no way to verify what was being discussed back around the time they were selling the urinals, so we might have to agree to disagree on what the subjext was, unless any of the other guys want to join the conversation.
 

Max, if there was a way to go back, you'd find that I was one of the loudest critics of Dewitt when it came to payroll.  That changed for me (and IIRC for KC also) when they re-signed Holliday.  Holliday was the premiere free agent available that off-season.  Rather than dumpster dive for a Cement-head-type player, they spent the money to retain legitimate talent.

Two issues came up after Holliday re-signed.  One was a rather heated discussion with a former Yahoo poster named Cowboy who hated Holliday and hated the signing because it was stupid to spend that much money on a left fielder.  The other was the concept of whether the Holliday signing indicated that the team was "all in."  Perhaps you took that as a "COULD they spend more" suggestion.  Again, I don't remember anyone ever suggesting that's what it meant.  For me, "all in" meant that they filled their biggest off-season hole with the best player available.  It was a significant departure from how they approached issues in the past.  For you, it was "rearranging the deck chairs."

The "rearranging the deck chairs" is what led to the idea of SHOULD they have spent more and, if so, on whom.  The 2009 team had dominated at the end of that season and, despite the sweep by the Dodgers, the team was considered strong headed into 2010.  The outfield was Holliday, Rasmus and Ludwick.  Pujols anchored the infield and Molina was the catcher.  The rest of the lineup was Schumaker (one year removed from his transition to 2nd base), Brendan Ryan (who had hit .292 the year prior) and David Freese (whom the team was determined to give first crack at the starting job).  There was some clamor about a veteran third baseman in case Freese fell flat (I think you suggested Miguel Tejada) and the team signed Felipe Lopez.  Larue was the backup catcher, AAAron Miles was also on the bench, meaning pretty much all but the last 2 spots on offense were determined before spring training (out of camp, those 2 spots went to Nick Stavinoha and Joe Mather).

In terms of pitching, the rotation was set (especially after spring training).  Carpenter, Wainwright and Lohse were healthy.  Brad Penny signed to be the 4th starter and Jaime Garcia won the 5th spot in the spring.  Ryan Franklin was re-signed to close following an All-Star 2009.  Kyle McClellan and Jason Motte anchored the right side and Trevor Miller and Denys Reyes had the left side.  I believe one of the remaining spots went to Blake Hawksworth.  Again, there was discussion as to whether the team would benefit from a veteran right-handed presence, but other than that, the team was set. 

So that's my recollection of the 2010 payroll discussion.  You thought payroll should have been closer to $110 and that the team wasn't really "all in" because payroll had actually gone down from the previous year.  My point, and I believe the point of TK and AP was simply where would you have spent the money before the year began. 

No doubt there were frustrations after the year ended and the team missed the playoffs.  Holes that appeared filled at the end of 2009 had opened by the end of 2010.  During 2010 we learned that Skip Schumaker wasn't a major league 2nd baseman and Brendan Ryan wasn't an major league shortstop.  Penny was injured which led to the Ludwick/Westbrook trade which opened up a hole in RF.  Plus, the Reds emerged as a new threat.  The fact that people were dissatisfied at the end of the year doesn't necessarily reflect how they felt at the beginning.

forsberg_us wrote:

You thought payroll should have been closer to $110 and that the team wasn't really "all in" because payroll had actually gone down from the previous year.

I am understanding  when you mischaracterize my argument because of poor memory, but why on Earth did you mischaracterize my argument when the clear proof that is NOT what I said is in the post just above?!?

Max wrote:

i forget the specifics, if there were any, but i believe my argument was along the lines that we needed make modest bumps from our previous high water mark of about $100-103, planning to get up to the $110-120 million range within 3-5 years.

and for the umpteenth time . . . this is exactly what happened.

Last edited by Max (7/02/2013 11:43 am)

artie_fufkin wrote:

http://www.wsfa.com/story/22733711/huntsville-stars-guns-wont-be-raffled-on-2nd-amendment-night

There's something ironic about three of the five stories under the "We Recommend" section at the bottom of the webpage all having to do with gun-related deaths.

Rec.  

The whole thing is just so telling.  American history in MLB.  
 

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

You thought payroll should have been closer to $110 and that the team wasn't really "all in" because payroll had actually gone down from the previous year.

I am understanding  when you mischaracterize my argument because of poor memory, but why on Earth did you mischaracterize my argument when the clear proof that is NOT what I said is in the post just above?!?

Max wrote:

i forget the specifics, if there were any, but i believe my argument was along the lines that we needed make modest bumps from our previous high water mark of about $100-103, planning to get up to the $110-120 million range within 3-5 years.

and for the umpteenth time . . . this is exactly what happened.

Max, I'm not trying to mischaracterize your position, nor do I believe I did.  The Cardinals opening day 2010 payroll was about $94M.  By your own words, you though a "modest bump" from $100-103M was needed.  A modest bump" from $100-103M would be "closer to $110M" which was all I said.

I really don't want to try to reopen a 3 year old discussion.  If you think the discussion was COULD they spend more, that's your recollection.  I simply remember it differently.  But I very much remember the "rearranging the deck chairs" comment first arose in the context of signing Holliday and a comparison of 2010 payroll to 2007-08 payroll and that conversation led to a discussion as to who else should have been signed to begin 2010.

"Now, with that, I hope that you and I can end this circular argument and bury the hatchet in something other than each other's head."

That's fine Max, but here's the thing.  I think it's pretty difficult (to use your example) to say "where do you spend the money" doesn't follow from a statement like "payroll can rise."  In my opinion, the former flows naturally from the latter.  There are only about 7-8 people who post on this board, and I suspect most of the rest would agree.

So if you go back to the issue of the rookie pitchers, I really wasn't looking to start a pissing contest with you.  Artie answered the question I asked and the discussion ended in 2 posts.  Even if you had simply given the answer you gave above, it probably could have saved several pages of posts.  As AP said, you can short circuit a lot of these issues yourself by simply answering a question put to you.  It's a message board.  You may not feel the question "logically follows," but the person asking it probably believed it did, otherwise it wouldn't have been asked.

 

"Yes, your questions make interesting follow-up questions, but, no, the comments of mine that you were questioning did not require answers to your follow-up questions to be valid points."

I don't think anyone ever said that was the case, but when you pose a question and someone answers it and follows up with a next question, your refusal (at times) to answer becomes frustrating or almost insulting.  It's as if you're saying your question was the only one of the two that was valid and therefore worthy of an answer.  That may not be your intent, but it's certainly how it comes off--at least to me.

"Not sure which came first, you thinking my responses to your questions are insulting, or me thinking you're trying to start pissing contests:"

Take a look at post #23 in the 6/22 thread. You clearly thought I was trying to start a pissing contest. I was simply asking a question. If you had answered what you said in post #168 above, we'd probably have avoided several pages of posts.

forsberg_us wrote:

"Yes, your questions make interesting follow-up questions, but, no, the comments of mine that you were questioning did not require answers to your follow-up questions to be valid points."

I don't think anyone ever said that was the case, but when you pose a question and someone answers it and follows up with a next question, your refusal (at times) to answer becomes frustrating or almost insulting.  It's as if you're saying your question was the only one of the two that was valid and therefore worthy of an answer.  That may not be your intent, but it's certainly how it comes off--at least to me.

not to jump in here but that is exactly what i will do and direct this to max.  For example when i asked how we should respect the minority opinion you side stepped that question.  You went back and noted that your qoute didnt inculde the word opinion.  You claimed it ment different things somehow.  what is annoy about that is that you cant even have a discussion with you.  You act like ur trying to win an arguement on a technicality.  Or trying to advoid the question on a technicality.  In fact i asked you several questions and they only got answered because i brought it back up.  you want to act like people dont understand you but in reality you try to be misunderstood or hard to understand.  When someone ask for clarification on a topic you side step the question and try to say that isnt exactly what you stated.  then you act offended when things get testy.  Same song and dance everytime.  It has lead to you leaving the board at least once.  I just dont get it.   
 

Last edited by APIAD (7/02/2013 7:13 pm)

I didn't say this thread. I said the 6/22 thread

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

I always knew you and I thought alike, Artie.

I expect some sort of discussion along these lines will begin among the fringe Cardinals journo/bloggers, and if any of the pitchers show delayed development in Memphis, the story will move the the PD.  

Other than Wacha and Martinez, both of whom pitched well in St. Louis and have since been sent back, none of the pitchers that were called up were "promising young rookies."

I suppose you could throw Maness in that group, but he's pitched pretty well also.

Who specifically are you concerned about?

Do you really want to do this, because I sure don't.
 

Did I want to do what?  I merely asked a question and you assumed something that wasn't there.