The First Professional Golf Draft : CHAT

[Nosferatu]

I'll text Smitty

 

[ehb5]

You forgot to mention that taking someone whos played only a few years means they will continue to do what they've done so far for 15 years and should be considered one of the greatest of all time now!

Are these matchups we vote on not about who wins in 1 game or 1 series though? And if they are, considering a players peak seems a lot more relevant and fair than considering a players longevity.

 

[Nosferatu]

Are these matchups we vote on not about who wins in 1 game or 1 series though? And if they are, considering a players peak seems a lot more relevant and fair than considering a players longevity.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why I HAVE NEVER liked drafting current players in all time drafts...

 

[ehb5]

And this ladies and gentlemen is why I HAVE NEVER liked drafting current players in all time drafts...

Because my way makes sense?

 

[Mebert]

Because my way makes sense?

The truth if it is actually in the middle ground somewhere between you and Nos. Sustained excellence is better than a brief peak, but the brief peak is not invalid, they had to be good to put together a couple of good years.

 

[Nosferatu]

Because my way makes sense?

Quite the opposite actually.

 

[Ritzarmy]

I'll text Smitty

I already texted Smitty at 9:30am. I texted Mebert because we are skipping Smitty (OTC for over 3hrs since being notified) Sorry Smitty blame Nos he told me to do it. I hate skipping people and always patient

 

[Nosferatu]

Players that have retired in our drafts are almost always drafted around the same time every draft, the only players that aren't always drafted around the same time are current players because they are ever changing. How do we decide when Trout should finally be taken ahead of Mantle until we have seen everything hes done? I'm all for having a current draft but including current players in all time drafts just isn't a good idea because we all judge them so differently. Obviously we judge past players differently but it's different because they cant do anything to affect where they are drafted in the next draft or in a draft next year. I understand what you're saying I just don't see it that way.

For me Trout could go on to play like he has for another 10 - 12 years and all of a sudden he's a first round pick 10 years from now or he could tear the hell out of his shoulder in spring training and never be the same player and 10 years from now we aren't even drafting him.

 

[ehb5]

The truth if it is actually in the middle ground somewhere between you and Nos. Sustained excellence is better than a brief peak, but the brief peak is not invalid, they had to be good to put together a couple of good years.

That's basically what I'm saying though.

 

[ehb5]

Players that have retired in our drafts are almost always drafted around the same time every draft, the only players that aren't always drafted around the same time are current players because they are ever changing. How do we decide when Trout should finally be taken ahead of Mantle until we have seen everything hes done? I'm all for having a current draft but including current players in all time drafts just isn't a good idea because we all judge them so differently. Obviously we judge past players differently but it's different because they cant do anything to affect where they are drafted in the next draft or in a draft next year. I understand what you're saying I just don't see it that way.

For me Trout could go on to play like he has for another 10 - 12 years and all of a sudden he's a first round pick 10 years from now or he could tear the hell out of his shoulder in spring training and never be the same player and 10 years from now we aren't even drafting him.

I get that but everyone's opinions are different on everybody and some times changing on retired players too. Some of us think bill russell is just a good defender some think he's one of the nest players ever. The disagreement on players shouldn't be a problem.

And I think if trout has another 10-12 years of great baseball we'really gonna look back and say wow that's really nuts what he did back in 2012. I don't want to wait 12 years to acknowledge that though. His next 12 years don't actually change what he did already even if they do change his legacy.

 

[Mebert]

That's basically what I'm saying though.

So is nos, you are both just coming at it from the opposite sides, but your views are not that far apart. The difference is not in the view, but how much weight should be put into it. I myself prefer sustained excellence, but in the case of Rory....4 majors is 4 majors. Sustained or not he is already up there for life time accomplishments, but I won't put any weight on perceived future accomplishments either.

Him and Spieth can stand on their own already.

 

[ehb5]

And if we ever get to a point where we aren't drafting him, we're all dumb.

 

[Ritzarmy]

Milk is OTC and has been texted

 

[Nosferatu]

And if we ever get to a point where we aren't drafting him, we're all dumb.

If he rips up his shoulder in spring training and never plays again 10 years from now he will be a late round pick in our drafts if at all, if he goes on to hit 500 Home runs and wins a few more MVP's he's gonna be a 1st or 2nd round pick, that's my point why draft a player who doesn't really fit into what an ALL TIME DRAFT IS ABOUT. I don't think he's an all time player yet and unless you got some kind of crystal ball neither should you.

 

[ehb5]

If he rips up his shoulder in spring training and never plays again 10 years from now he will be a late round pick in our drafts if at all, if he goes on to hit 500 Home runs and wins a few more MVP's he's gonna be a 1st or 2nd round pick, that's my point why draft a player who doesn't really fit into what an ALL TIME DRAFT IS ABOUT. I don't think he's an all time player yet and unless you got some kind of crystal ball neither should you.

I disagree. I don't think he'd really drop much and ideally he shouldn't at all.

 

[Nosferatu]

I disagree. I don't think he'd really drop much and ideally he shouldn't at all.

If he was in a car crash and lost his sight and never played another game is he a HOFer? The answer is not even close. So does he belong in an all time draft? Maybe as a late round hitter off the bench but certainly not as a starter or an early round pick in an all time draft. Therein lies my point, just no way to judge him fairly against players who's careers are done.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

So is nos, you are both just coming at it from the opposite sides, but your views are not that far apart. The difference is not in the view, but how much weight should be put into it. I myself prefer sustained excellence, but in the case of Rory....4 majors is 4 majors. Sustained or not he is already up there for life time accomplishments, but I won't put any weight on perceived future accomplishments either.

Him and Spieth can stand on their own already.

BUT here is the thing, longevity in an individual sport creates an expectation of pulling out at least one win... Winning so many in so little contests makes him great...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If he was in a car crash and lost his sight and never played another game is he a HOFer? The answer is not even close. So does he belong in an all time draft? Maybe as a late round hitter off the bench but certainly not as a starter or an early round pick in an all time draft. Therein lies my point, just no way to judge him fairly against players who's careers are done.

4 major championships are HOF worthy no matter how long your career is...

 

[Ritzarmy]

@Pack 500 vs Ritzarmy
@blstoker vs @Nosferatu

Any bets?

I bet 500 if Redskins lose I will put Packers as my favorite sport team under my avatar for a month. However since Pack is favored how about if Packers lose you have Redskins logo for 2 months?

 

[Nosferatu]

4 major championships are HOF worthy no matter how long your career is...

We aren't talking about McIlroy...