OT- Diogu unlikely to resign with Kings
- Thread starter Wheels
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 26,096
- Likes
- 9,073
- Points
- 113
way ot, but when minstrel says "my poor, confused friend" I think of the Chancellor talking to Yoda. 
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 16,262
- Likes
- 833
- Points
- 113
way ot, but when minstrel says "my poor, confused friend" I think of the Chancellor talking to Yoda.
lol wtf
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 26,096
- Likes
- 9,073
- Points
- 113
bottom of post #50
RR7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 18,778
- Likes
- 13,289
- Points
- 113
In my opinon, there is a difference in being moderately intrigued by acquiring a guy, and making arguments pushing for him to play over another. Those responses quoted are rather tepid. That is my contention. Getting him as filler: Hey, alright. Nice acquisition. Good pickup KP. Way to get him as a throw in, since he isn't a Michael Ruffin throw in, etc. But the actual discussion that he should be our backup, which was the argument I was making, didn't seem to occur until Channing began playing poorly. Only Ed's brief comment of him liking him more than Channing strictly as a 4 mentions Channing in it. In the regards of him being a decent throw in, I agree with that.
I'll also take a quick aside back to the Pujols discussion and point out that Pujols was by no means an "excellent defender" as you tried to say, and was not at all the clear superior 1B. In fact, he wasn't even a full time first basemen when he came up. He wasn't a full time 1B until his 4th year in the league. I'm not saying Howard was good at D at all, but Pujols got thrown to first because he also wasn't a good defender. Thome, was primarily a 1B for Cleveland, and has the exact same fielding % at 1B that Pujols does.
I'll also take a quick aside back to the Pujols discussion and point out that Pujols was by no means an "excellent defender" as you tried to say, and was not at all the clear superior 1B. In fact, he wasn't even a full time first basemen when he came up. He wasn't a full time 1B until his 4th year in the league. I'm not saying Howard was good at D at all, but Pujols got thrown to first because he also wasn't a good defender. Thome, was primarily a 1B for Cleveland, and has the exact same fielding % at 1B that Pujols does.
RR7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 18,778
- Likes
- 13,289
- Points
- 113
Or addressed points actually made in this thread, rather than making dismissive (and, ultimately, wrong) claims about "people you didn't know."
Novel concept.
Sorry, I didn't know that others weren't allowed an opinion on the interwebs, that they are only allowed to respond to the previous posts in the topic.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 16,262
- Likes
- 833
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 26,226
- Likes
- 14,407
- Points
- 113
The quotes there were to illustrate that, then as now, we thought Diogu could be a decent player and made similar arguments about his efficiency through his still-young career. There really isn't any significant change between then and now. Neither of us are now saying he's a great player and we weren't then. We were saying he's a useful player and could make a good backup. Which is identical to what we're saying now.
In other words, we don't value Diogu simply as a "grass is greener" syndrome in relation to Frye. We value Diogu because his (limited sample) performance record suggests he might (might, not will) be a useful backup.
He was moved to first base because he wasn't an excellent defender at third base and in the outfield. He's been considered a tremendous defender at first base since he began playing it. And fielding percentage is a poor measure of defense, since it completely neglects range. Pujols has ranked as a good to great defensive first baseman by UZR (a defensive measure who's creator has since been hired by major league teams to do statistical analysis) since he started playing the position. Thome did not rank well at the end of his Cleveland stint, because he was immobile. He didn't commit a lot of errors (thus fine fielding percentage), but he had little range.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 26,226
- Likes
- 14,407
- Points
- 113
RR7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 18,778
- Likes
- 13,289
- Points
- 113
So you and one other person on here expressed a thought that he was a good addition to a trade. That doesn't address my point that he was called to play not when we acquired him, but after Frye sucked. In none of the posts that you qouted did either of you go out of the way to call for him to start, and make your arguments for why he was a much better option that Frye. THAT is my point. THAT is what i am talking about. I don't really care that you thought he was a good throw in. That has nothing to do with my initial post. And if yoou thought he was better than Frye all along, than fuckin'-A. I wasn't referring to you then when I said he fell under the grass is greener type of player. I was referrign to the many on here that expressed their desire to see Ike primarily because Frye was playing poorly. And as he was the other option, he had to be better. Again, if that wasn't you, then just say I personally didn't fel that way. I saw many that did, which is what i was mentioning. Sorry if you take it as a straw man. Deny that it happened all you want.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2008
- Messages
- 483
- Likes
- 15
- Points
- 18
He's been on 4 teams in 4 years. He couldn't get playing time here ahead of CHANNING FRYE last year so I have no idea why he'd suddenly work as a backup this year. He's a little undersized, he's not that great defensively, he wouldn't make us tougher, and he's like a poor man's Zachary Randolph whenever he gets the ball on offense. Black hole.
I'd rather give Cunningham or Pendergraph or both a chance.
I'd rather give Cunningham or Pendergraph or both a chance.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 10,705
- Likes
- 2,837
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 10,705
- Likes
- 2,837
- Points
- 113
I really don't know what word could go in the place of "start". "Play", maybe? That makes no sense, though, since the quotes from Minstrel seem clear to me that I was looking forward to seeing him get a chance by playing.
There's no reason to make personal attacks... I don't know what you've been talking about the whole time, and you've ADMITTED that you don't, either.
We didn't start talking about Ike when Frye started sucking. That Minstrel didn't quote from months and months of posts doesn't mean that we suddenly thought that Ike was a decent option at the backup 4 merely because Frye was lousy.
And yet you've dismissed our current opinions as being mere "grass is greener" thinking. You don't know what you're talking about on that front, and yet you blame US for not posting everything we've discussed for the better part of a year re: Ike? That's very odd to me, and I'm not sure that that means I'm an idiot nor an ass.
Ed O.