12-24-2009, 11:08 AM
<!--quoteo(post=72922:date=Dec 24 2009, 09:05 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 09:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72920:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You said the team that wins more consistently (Red Sox) has a person making better decisions than the team not winning as consistently (Cubs).
I disagreed or opposed that thought. I said sometimes things just don't work out for you such as Soto/Soriano sucking dick. That has very little to do with the decision making of the GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you were talking about ONE OR TWO seasons, I would understand. But we're talking about FIVE YEARS. How is this unclear?
Teams that have spent comparably - COMPARABLY - over the past FIVE SEASONS have generally - GENERALLY - won more games than the Cubs.
It can't all be luck. There is a single common factor.
I'm literally going insane.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Dodgers spent more comparably than Boston and had more similar results Ace.
I disagreed or opposed that thought. I said sometimes things just don't work out for you such as Soto/Soriano sucking dick. That has very little to do with the decision making of the GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you were talking about ONE OR TWO seasons, I would understand. But we're talking about FIVE YEARS. How is this unclear?
Teams that have spent comparably - COMPARABLY - over the past FIVE SEASONS have generally - GENERALLY - won more games than the Cubs.
It can't all be luck. There is a single common factor.
I'm literally going insane.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Dodgers spent more comparably than Boston and had more similar results Ace.