Negativity

[brvama]

Jay, after reading some of the articles yesterday, I almost posted the same sentiments. I really don't mind reading about the criticism by other posters, per se. What troubles me most is the redundacy of the same, tired, old arguments for most issues of concern or moves that are made as of being the result of an incompetent FO; as if we know all the details. I have solved that by putting the negativity nellies on my blocked list of reading and it has made it easier to navigate through some excellent discussion, both pro and con. After my bout with depression I learned to avoid negative people to avoid the pit of despair and to enhance the pleasure of life, even to the point of leaving a job that I really enjoyed.

[Thrylos]

 

I think criticizing the Twins front office right now is the equivalent of my daughter deciding she doesn't like Chinese food before she ever tries it. You may not like what it looks like on the plate, but you shouldn't pass judgement until you give it a try.

 

Hold it for a second

 

I think that this Front Office has been pretty much intact for the last 3 seasons, so I think that it was not only tried, but  had a steady diet of it.   

 

I do understand the disappointment of what seems to Twins' fans as inertia by the Twins' ownership, as far as the front office is concerned, after huge disappointments three seasons in a row.  

 

We all hope that the Twins will be competitive.   I really believe that even the most "negative" posters will be "positive" as soon as the Twins do something that makes them.   I think that the Gardenhire firing is a step to the right direction.  Let's hope he was the only reason the Twins were not competitive the past years.

 

But, if that is not true, more people need to be held accountable. 

 

 

[biggentleben]

 

Whoa! I see some real benefit to low prices on tickets to baseball games.  Just trying to spin a negative into a positive.

 

'twas how I attended so many games during college! $5 could get you lower left field seats AND 2 dome dogs!

[biggentleben]

Can I borrow some negativity?

 

After today, the white flag is officially up.

 

The Nationals could win 100 this year even if half their roster is injured because the Braves and Phillies are in that division.

[jimmer]

 

1) No one is doing that.  No one is posting about rainbows, which should tell you something.  There was a post that linked to an article predicting Mauer to win the batting title.  The very first post said it was laughable. 

Did you read that whole post?  I wasn't saying it was laughable to believe he could.  My point was that there are so many people who slam Mauer continuously, including the 'experts' on tv, I was seriously wondering if they laughed when Dowd suggested that. I said I'm glad to see some predicting a good season for him. That's what I've been doing all over this site.

 

I am one of the biggest Mauer supporters on this site in terms of his ability. In fact, I may be the biggest supporter and the most optimistic about him.  I am always defending him and I have been predicting nothing but good things from him this year.  Yes, I doubt he wins the batting title, but that hardly means I'm expecting his season to be bad.

[jimmer]

'I have solved that by putting the negativity nellies on my blocked list of reading and it has made it easier to navigate through some excellent discussion, both pro and con.'-brvama.

 

 

If you can't see a grating different between endless optimism versus endless pessimism, I don't know what to tell you. Once is like being hit with a foam mallet. The other is like getting hit with a real mallet. Both are irritating but only one of them makes you want to turn around and punch the mallet bearer straight in the face.

 

Whether the negative nellies like it or not, negativity will attract more attention because it's negative and to some extent, negativity is expressed to stir controversy. Everyone, at one point or another, gets tired of reading never-ending pages of negativity and pessimism, not to mention that negativity is more likely to draw moderator ire after a prolonged stretch of time. It's human nature to notice dissent over agreement.

I thought we weren't supposed to label people on this site lest it be considered flame-baiting or something like that. Is that not true anymore? Isn't that rule in place to help avoid conflict between groups of people in order to facilitate civil debate?  Yet here's a whole thread dedicated to slamming the actions of 'negative nellies'.

 

Do you think that a thread like this will help or hurt the overall health of this site in regards to conflict between supposedly two different factions? Do you think this thread being allowed to exist will help or hurt the perception that there is bias in moderating? For example, would a thread bemoaning the continuous defending of the FO by the same people over and over be allowed? And If the term negative nellies is allowed here, what kind of label is allowed for people who always defend the FO?

 

Problem is, after 4 years of really bad baseball and a likely 5th on the horizon, one would/should expect more negative than positive.  If there was so much positive to talk about, we wouldn't be losing 90 games a season for the last 4 years. It's reality. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Did you read that whole post?  I wasn't saying it was laughable to believe he could.  My point was that there are so many people who slam Mauer continuously, including the 'experts' on tv, I was seriously wondering if they laughed when Dowd suggested that. I said I'm glad to see some predicting a good season for him. That's what I've been doing all over this site.

 

I am one of the biggest Mauer supporters on this site in terms of his ability. In fact, I may be the biggest supporter and the most optimistic about him.  I am always defending him and I have been predicting nothing but good things from him this year.  Yes, I doubt he wins the batting title, but that hardly means I'm expecting his season to be bad.

I didn't intend to single you out, so no need to defend yourself.   My point was that it's far more common for negativity to pervade than optimism; what optimism does emerge, well gets dashed pretty quickly, whether that's the crux of any one poster's intentions.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

I thought we weren't supposed to label people on this site lest it be considered flame-baiting or something like that. Is that not true anymore? Isn't that rule in place to help avoid conflict between groups of people in order to facilitate civil debate?  Yet here's a whole thread dedicated to slamming the actions of 'negative nellies'.

 

 

This sounds like the reasoning of Indiana lawmakers when they passed their recent, popular law.   

[jimmer]

 

I didn't intend to single you out, so no need to defend yourself.   My point was that it's far more common for negativity to pervade than optimism; what optimism does emerge, well gets dashed pretty quickly, whether that's the crux of any one poster's intentions.

I get your point, but I'm trying to point out that a post you chose to use as an example as negative wasn't at all negative. Maybe that's the case more than you think.

[Craig Arko]

Here's the simple problem with too much of either negative or positive posts: they are Boring.

 

Write about something new. People may like it. You may like it, too.

[jimmer]

 

This sounds like the reasoning of Indiana lawmakers when they passed their recent, popular law.   

Suuure it does. In any event, it wasn't my reasoning.

[Hrbowski]

I believe we should always be positive (about baseball) because it is better to be optimistic and have your hopes reached than be pessimistic and have your team meet your expectations.

[jimmer]

 

Here's the simple problem with too much of either negative or positive posts: they are Boring.

Write about something new. People may like it. You may like it, too.

well, I write both so yeah, it's good advice.

[jimmer]

 

I believe we should always be positive (about baseball) because it is better to be optimistic and have your hopes reached than be pessimistic and have your team meet your expectations.

and I just love the game period, no matter what.  even when I'm being realistic about my team.

[Hrbowski]

 

This sounds like the reasoning of Indiana lawmakers when they passed their recent, popular law.   

You have got to remember that more states than Indiana have that law.

[Squirrel]

 

and I just love the game period, no matter what.  even when I'm being realistic about my team.

Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

[Squirrel]

 

You have got to remember that more states than Indiana have that law.

Please, let's not go down this path and get side-tracked. That's what the sports bar is for. Have at it there.

[The Wise One]

Dear Jay

There has been a lot of negativity. For a site that seems to be driven by statheads there are an awful lot of posts that show a frustrating lack of analysis behind the thought.  Some  people appear to think whatever they think the rest of the world thinks that way, except for the crazy idiots . People are who they are. Read the articles and consider doing what my mother told me when I complained of someone's comments. "Consider the source" and dismiss the negativity.

[Mike Sixel]

I think we should strive to be realistic, neither positive to an extreme, or negative to an extreme.....but I can see where some view that as negativism. I don't know how anyone can look at the last 4 years, and the likely outcomes this year, and say "this FO is awesome at their job" right now. But, I'm willing to engage in that conversation and am open to changing my mind.....or not. To me, this site is about discussion, not about argument. 

 

when the Twins actually give me something to be excited about (the Twins, not one player or two, I no longer root for individuals, since they are both virtuous and flawed (see AP or Santana)), then I'll be excited about the Twins again.

[Mike Sixel]

I could swear we had this discussion last year......

[Shane Wahl]

I have an article about this being published tomorrow at 1 p.m., apparently.

[Squirrel]

 

I have an article about this being published tomorrow at 1 p.m., apparently.

Today. It's up. In the Twins forum.

[brvama]

I agree, Mike. A reasonable discussion, which ever side of neutral is promoted, usually is a good read. What gets old is the same arguments that are offered up for every situation or position. Things are seldom black and white and discussing the shades of grey seems good for the mind.

[PseudoSABR]

I just want to emphasize no one has an exclusive claim on realism.  I think we should avoid characterizing our own responses as realistic, which of course, begs the question that everyone else is simply being unrealistic.  

 

Example, while it is 'realistic' to suggest the Twins won't be very good this year; it is not 'realistic' to say that is because the FO is horrible at their job--the latter is an opinion.  

[ken]

 

 

 

Example, while it is 'realistic' to suggest the Twins won't be very good this year; it is not 'realistic' to say that is because the FO is horrible at their job--the latter is an opinion.  

The record isn't an opinion, it's real.  Four years of 90 losses and if the major improvement isn't occurring in the fifth year, I think it's reasonable to say the FO has done a horrible job.  It should be the job of the FO to build a winning organization, which makes failure to do that a direct reflection on their job performance.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The record isn't an opinion, it's real.  Four years of 90 losses and if the major improvement isn't occurring in the fifth year, I think it's reasonable to say the FO has done a horrible job.  It should be the job of the FO to build a winning organization, which makes failure to do that a direct reflection on their job performance.

No, it's still an opinion, supported by some facts, but could be disputed by a bunch of other facts.  I blame the four-year run of 90-losses on bad luck (concussions to Morneau, Mauer; injuries and ineffectiveness of Baker, Slowey, and Blackburn; TJ for Gibson and Wimmers, etc.) and drafting for so many times at the end of the first round (and largely not hitting on those), add some Bill Smith trades and wa-la.   What's important is that both takes are supported by facts, and there is a debate to be had.  You might feel that the evidence weighs in favor your opinion, but that's hardly determined by realism. 

 

What's also "realistic" is that the Twins will be competitive in the next two-to-three years, and it will because of the same vilified people in the front office.   Most of the negative complaints are really at the margins that won't effect our most competitive time frame.  Perhaps a better move here or there, the team is slightly more competitive slightly sooner than planned, but really, the FO evaluations are pretty short-sighted.

[old nurse]

 

No, it's still an opinion, supported by some facts, but could be disputed by a bunch of other facts.  I blame the four-year run of 90-losses on bad luck (concussions to Morneau, Mauer; injuries and ineffectiveness of Baker, Slowey, and Blackburn; TJ for Gibson and Wimmers, etc.) and drafting for so many times at the end of the first round (and largely not hitting on those), add some Bill Smith trades and wa-la.   What's important is that both takes are supported by facts, and there is a debate to be had.  You might feel that the evidence weighs in favor your opinion, but that's hardly determined by realism. 

 

What's also "realistic" is that the Twins will be competitive in the next two-to-three years, and it will because of the same vilified people in the front office.   Most of the negative complaints are really at the margins that won't effect our most competitive time frame.  Perhaps a better move here or there, the team is slightly more competitive slightly sooner than planned, but really, the FO evaluations are pretty short-sighted.

There can be the stubborn my opinion based on my facts as I see them attitude that gets in the way of discussing any form of what am outsider would call reality.

 

The implosion of the 2011 Twins is sort of unique in that it was mutiple injuies,bad trades catching up, bad luck in drafting catching up,  Liriano and Morneau;s brains being scrambled as well as age and attrition. Other teams went from first to worst and stayed down a while. The Texas Rangers may be on their second cycle if this. Cleveland went through it. Someone might have to talk Ben off the ledge if it Atlanta going to go though it. it happens to teams 

 

For wh

[Minniman]

 

If you look in the archives you would have found 99% of their readers demanding Mauer's contract be extended and later that Hicks be given the job in center after a good spring training.    Two years later 99% of the posters were calling the Twins morons for extending Mauer's contract and for promoting Hicks too soon.

 

I understand your point, but I find blanket statements like that as hard to read as any negativity. Although I was not on this website at the time, I was vocal that the contract given to Mauer was not a good one for the Twins. I did not mind a long term contract, but the size of the contract and the guaranteed money was too much for a player not yet on the open market who had only shown power for one season.

 

I was vocal about releasing David Ortiz and trading Rod Carew years ago as well. Both are low points in Twins history. I was upset about Ortiz on day one, but that front office mistake was worse in hindsight. Carew wanted out because the Twins were cheap, and Griffith showed just how cheap he was by trading Carew instead of trying to trade for better players around him.

 

I would have liked the Twins to play hardball with Johan Santana to keep him with the Twins rather than trade him to the Mets for failed players. The Twins were contenders, and one more year of Santana could have meant another playoff run - even if just for one season. The Twins had some leverage with that last season under contract. They could have said, "Play out this year, and lose potential money, or sign an extention, and get paid more now and later." Allowing the Mets to negotiate with Santana was a mistake. It would have been a gamble, but what isn't in baseball?

 

My point is that some people had differing opinions along the way. We did not agree to anything 99%, and that makes for a better fan base and a better board. It also makes some people sound negative while others sound optimistic. As long as posters stick to facts and make logical arguments, there should be room for discussion. Otherwise, we are all just blowing wind, and that is almost as bad as blowing hot air.

[big dog]

 

Only the fifth year? Everyone knows it takes 7 or 8 years to rebuild and be competitive again, man.  Have some patience. The FO is doing a GREAT job, all their moves have been right on point :-)

 

And if we aren't competitive after 7 or 8, just change the years in the above statement to read 9 or 10.  The rest can stay the same :-)

 

Remember '92-'00? And then what we got for the next 10 years? '92-00, totally worth it. 

 

P.S., you're selling our recent futility short.  It's been 92 or more losses the last 4 years. Which will make '17-'26 so worth it.  Or '18-'27.  Or '19-'28. One year soon (ish), we'll look back at all this losing and just laugh at the short-sighted comments of some fans.

Wait, we really lost that many games?  Whoa, why didn't anyone mention it?

 

The combination of negativity and sarcasm together gets particularly old.  Especially when the same topics pop up repeatedly in thread after thread.  There are many ways to discuss baseball and the Twins, but having someone scream "and the front office sucks", even if you are discussing the possibility of rain during a game next week or the possible signing of an international free agent or the color of the road jerseys (all hypothetical, don't search past threads in order to prove me wrong), just becomes really grating to anyone interested in anything else.

[jimmer]

 

Wait, we really lost that many games?  Whoa, why didn't anyone mention it?

 

The combination of negativity and sarcasm together gets particularly old.  Especially when the same topics pop up repeatedly in thread after thread.  There are many ways to discuss baseball and the Twins, but having someone scream "and the front office sucks", even if you are discussing the possibility of rain during a game next week or the possible signing of an international free agent or the color of the road jerseys (all hypothetical, don't search past threads in order to prove me wrong), just becomes really grating to anyone interested in anything else.

I'll go ahead and delete it, but gotta say, what also gets old is seeing some posters defend EVERYTHING this FO does at EVERY turn in ANY possible way at ANY time the FO is criticized.  And then, to boot, they get to slam anyone who says anything negative with no noticeable consequence.

Whole threads can be created and allowed to exist for the purpose of slamming the actions of people labeled 'negative nellies'.