Class of 17.2 ATG Card Add

It all boils down to this: Some want CARDS, Some want PLAYERS.

This argument is actually incorrect.
Everyone actually wants cards, SOME people just forget that what they are actually asking for is a player represented by his best card, or in some cases 'interesting' card.

You can lead a horse right to water, but it can still die of thirst.

also, some people may be confusing the words hateful and logical.
Hateful would usually include some sort of personal attack.

Suggesting rather rudely that I had not bothered to read the thread before responding and other statements you've made seem somewhat hateful to me. There is nothing especially logical about your argument, you just happen to see things differently than many of us do.

Either way, I just don't see what the problem is, other than you (and perhaps a few others) aren't getting what they want out of the card adds. Other people are though. Like Andy, I want a card for every player (I believe the threshold should be 5 years in MLB).

I thought rburgh provided a nice review of the new cards. I will use many of them and have already started. I'm sure many others will as well.

You can lead a horse right to water, but it can still die of thirst.

also, some people may be confusing the words hateful and logical.
Hateful would usually include some sort of personal attack.

Suggesting rather rudely that I had not bothered to read the thread before responding and other statements you've made seem somewhat hateful to me. There is nothing especially logical about your argument, you just happen to see things differently than many of us do.

Either way, I just don't see what the problem is, other than you (and perhaps a few others) aren't getting what they want out of the card adds. Other people are though. Like Andy, I want a card for every player (I believe the threshold should be 5 years in MLB).

I thought rburgh provided a nice review of the new cards. I will use many of them and have already started. I'm sure many others will as well.

I suggested this because similar to here- you are responding to whats being said in a tangential manner rather than address it directly, and are making some bad assumptions.

My default assumes that you are a) an intelligent person and b) if you make an assertion, that you are capable of giving a logical response to a counter-argument without pivoting to something related.

How would you suggest I handle it when B does not occur if its a direct answer to something Ive said?



PS-- seeming hateful to you does not make it hateful. If I had bunny and rainbow emojis to place around my commentary would that help?

PPS-- see Ive also addressed the problem with 'like andy I want a card for every player' argument, which leads me back again.

You can lead a horse right to water, but it can still die of thirst.

also, some people may be confusing the words hateful and logical.
Hateful would usually include some sort of personal attack.

Suggesting rather rudely that I had not bothered to read the thread before responding and other statements you've made seem somewhat hateful to me. There is nothing especially logical about your argument, you just happen to see things differently than many of us do.

Either way, I just don't see what the problem is, other than you (and perhaps a few others) aren't getting what they want out of the card adds. Other people are though. Like Andy, I want a card for every player (I believe the threshold should be 5 years in MLB).

I thought rburgh provided a nice review of the new cards. I will use many of them and have already started. I'm sure many others will as well.

I suggested this because similar to here- you are responding to whats being said in a tangential manner rather than address it directly, and are making some bad assumptions.

My default assumes that you are a) an intelligent person and b) if you make an assertion, that you are capable of giving a logical response to a counter-argument without pivoting to something related.

How would you suggest I handle it when B does not occur if its a direct answer to something Ive said?



PS-- seeming hateful to you does not make it hateful. If I had bunny and rainbow emojis to place around my commentary would that help?

PPS-- see Ive also addressed the problem with 'like andy I want a card for every player' argument, which leads me back again.

Only a rude jerk would feel the need to make the "bunnies and rainbow" comment.

I'm done...

PS-- seeming hateful to you does not make it hateful. If I had bunny and rainbow emojis to place around my commentary would that help?

PPS-- see Ive also addressed the problem with 'like andy I want a card for every player' argument, which leads me back again.

Only a rude jerk would feel the need to make the "bunnies and rainbow" comment.

I'm done...

okay, what should i have substituted instead to keep you from feeling it was the same kind of hateful statement you just made?

"No one has ever said they want a card in the set and have no intention to ever use it. Call me crazy but if someone wants a card in the set, I assume they have some intended use for the card"

Yeah, maybe once or twice...perhaps.

And still I see Ron Hunt, the 5L Mussina, the 5L Morris cards among many other in the FA pile. Or when these SP's are used, they are cannon fodders.

(I just picked out these 3 guys because I voiced my "WTF" opinion when these cards got voted in...

"Figgins will be on more teams than Vernon Wells"

Because of his price. Certainly not because of his "fine" defense.

He'll be on more teams. Then he'll get injured and injured again, and again...

And then the manager will realize they need another utility player.