Is it a bad thing that the Angels keep winning?

[NrM]

shep, do you want the players to tank to get higher picks?

 

See, I doubt you do.  I'm guessing there are only a couple of posters who are actually wanting players to play poorly to move up in the draft.  I'm guessing it's more like "oh well, they lost.  At least they will get a better pick."

 

If there is anyone who actually believes that players should or will tank on purpose probably hasn't played sports very much.  These guys still have to play for their futures too.

I never said I think they should tank. Hell, I hope the players who have a future with the angels play well.

 

That still doesn't mean I can't root for them to lose to get a protected pick.

[mtangelsfan]

You actually want the players to fail then?

[NrM]

You actually want the players to fail then?

Nope. I want the players to play great.

I wouldn't care if they find ways to lose though.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Poozy

[mtangelsfan]

That doesn't make sense to me.  But maybe it's just semantics.

 

Usually somebody has to fail for the team to lose.

[tdawg87]

Jason Castro and Homer Bailey are two more top 10's that have turned into pretty good players. Zach Wheeler looks like he's going to be pretty damn good. Gerrit Cole has been good in his rookie year so far and looks like he will be very good.

[mtangelsfan]

Great, but this isn't about draft picks really.  It's about whether a fan should want to see players who are in the uniform they root for fail.  It's about whether players should lose on purpose.

[tdawg87]

Have you read the thread?

[m0nkey]

The last page and a half was about whether or not a top 10 pick would be a "bust"

[mtangelsfan]

Have you read the thread?

 

Yes, it's called "Is it a bad thing that the Angels keep on winning?".  Pretty self explanatory if you ask me.  

[tdawg87]

So, no?

[m0nkey]

That's the title. The thread took a left turn

[mtangelsfan]

So, no?

 

My response was to your post and the one previous to that, so I'm guessing I read them.  

 

To me, (see I am making my own point here) the OP is about winning and losing.  I'm not going to apologize for having my own opinion even if your going to be a smart ass.

[tdawg87]

And my post was in response to mancini and jshep, which if you actually read the thread and not just the title you would understand. It's really not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

[mtangelsfan]

and my response was my own.  If you don't feel it is following some dumbass rule you have made up for threads then ignore it.

 

Grasp that dillweed.

[tdawg87]

Oh cool, a personal attack from a moderator. Very mature.

 

Also I have no clue what the hell you are talking about right now and I honestly don't think you do either. You responded to my post saying it had nothing to do with the thread, when in fact it did considering the posts that had been contained within the thread. Apparently, this was a much more difficult thing to understand than I thought.

[mtangelsfan]

Quit whining.  Don't act like you weren't being a prick too.

 

Maybe it's you that can't grasp anything.

Edited September 8, 2013 by mtangelsfan

[tdawg87]

No I think I understand what has been going on in this thread pretty well actually.

[mtangelsfan]

Or maybe not...........

[markb]

tdawg's post was completely relevant to the direction the thread had taken for at least a full page.  Being so dismissive of his post is a bit of a head-scratcher.

[mtangelsfan]

I'm not trying to be dismissive of his post, I was actually trying to respond to it.

[m0nkey]

[Tank]

On pages 1 and 2, the negative Nancys around here weren't terribly happy about our team winning. Kinda weird.

I didn't read page three.

[tdawg87]

You aren't the only one who didn't read page 3.

[mtangelsfan]

I'm pretty sure I can read.  Again, is there some policy I'm unaware of that dictates how one is supposed to respond in a thread?

 

Again, was my post not following the OP?

[m0nkey]

You were responding to tdawgs post. This ia a big deal and needs to be sorted out