fMLB Full Count 10

[Jongkers]

...a song

 

 

OF kasi ang hanap ni consig and I only have Coco, Milton and Pat available.

Ethier and Ichiro are my other OFs and I don't think I can give up any of them now.

[TripleDouble]

timeout...

 

f#&king funny s@%t...

 

[kingsville]

wow.. heto na ang good news for the champs.

ica-callup na ang kanilang best prospect.

 

 

hahaha, that was a good one, 3D!

[cheeselogger]

1. Did I say that Josh, or anyone else for that matter, did not have the prerogative to say that the trade is lopsided?

 

2. As for me defending the trade, didnt you just talk about prerogative?

 

Of course anyone has the right to say anything he wants to say about the trade. I dont know why that is even an issue.

 

1. You were vehemently pointing out otherwise why josh's opinion was "wrong". Now, isn't that almost having the same effect as just telling everybody they can never say it is lopsided?

 

2. Yup, never said you shouldn't say what you think about the trade. I was just asking why the strong urge to defend the trade when you're not even part of it?

 

I was just curious, for a second there while totally defending the trade I thought you were one of the two involved parties in the trade...

[consiglieri]

cheese i have an offer for lind...counter to your liking...

[Jongkers]

k-ville

Re MLP... it's about fuc king time!!

Last week pa dapat e. Ang gulo lang talaga ni Wedgie!

 

Sana lang maayos ang bata dahil my team now has a hole in LF after the Crawford deal.

And then I'm all set! :goatee:

[TripleDouble]

me pat the bat ka naman master J ah? good enough as an LF...

[Jongkers]

me pat the bat ka naman master J ah? good enough as an LF...

 

He isn't hitting as well as expected at Tropicana e.

I hope he turns it around soon.

[kingsville]

k-ville

Re MLP... it's about fuc king time!!

Last week pa dapat e. Ang gulo lang talaga ni Wedgie!

 

Sana lang maayos ang bata dahil my team now has a hole in LF after the Crawford deal.

And then I'm all set! :goatee:

pakisabihan na lang po yung franchise closer ninyo..

nagiging cute kasi sina s-shields and arredondo by the day eh.

thanks..

 

- kville (for my main league team )

 

 

me pat the bat ka naman master J ah? good enough as an LF...

+1

 

btw, im just getting a sneak preview of what the H4DH team can dish out..

how about 12 HR's and we haven't played the weekend games!

[Jongkers]

Yep... I have a serious closer situation.

Parang by ASB, wala na sa closing job ang closers ko.

[TripleDouble]

closers? what closers? do we need any?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cheeselogger]

cheese i have an offer for lind...counter to your liking...

 

Orlando Hudson and Connor Jackson for Adam Lind...

 

not really sure why I'm going to decline though, IMHO, you're overpaying for a hot bat. Jackson, again IMHO, isn't any different/upgrade to my recent pickup Feliz and Hudson won't be able to crack my squad with Uggla occupying that position...

 

with that, I suggest we get a 3rd party so we could all get what we want...

[consiglieri]

you want burell...

 

hey jongks...hudson goes to you lind to me and burrell to cheese

 

would that work

[gift_of_game]

walangjoe naman, sana nag-trade nalang kami ni snitch para hindi na nagamit yung waiver claim...tsktsk

[cheeselogger]

not interested in Burrell. I'd be better off keeping the hot Lind bat than Pat...

[consiglieri]

hehehe...anything in mind cheese?

[agentjackbauer]

1. Yeah, it was my opinion that Josh's opinion was wrong. I am entitled to my opinion right? In the same way that Josh is entitled to his. And if he thinks I am wrong, Im fine with it. (And by the way, it turns out Josh was arguing on the wrong premise. You know why? He thought Hanley was being traded for Fielder (and not Howard). He said so himself but then he edited his post)

 

No, I am not telling everybody that they can never say a trade is lopsided. Why would I say something as stupid as that? And c'mon, cant you do better than put words into my mouth? I'd be the first guy to say if a trade is lopsided. And I believe you have first-hand experience as to how vocal I can be if and when a lopsided trade happens.

 

 

2. Why the strong urge for me to defend the trade? Huh? Now I should I apologize for being vocal? Does it offend your sensibilities? Eh sa wala akong magawa ng araw na yun eh at trip ko magsulat. Bakit, bawal ba?Ang pwede lang ba magsalita tungkol sa isang trade ay yung mga managers na kasali sa trade? Last time I checked, trades are submitted to the league precisely because the approval or disapproval of each manager is required.

 

Oh by the way, why the strong urge to highlight my defense of that trade when everbody else was arguing on its substantive merits and not focusing on the ones arguing for or against it? Still smarting about something?

 

 

 

 

1. You were vehemently pointing out otherwise why josh's opinion was "wrong". Now, isn't that almost having the same effect as just telling everybody they can never say it is lopsided?

 

2. Yup, never said you shouldn't say what you think about the trade. I was just asking why the strong urge to defend the trade when you're not even part of it?

 

I was just curious, for a second there while totally defending the trade I thought you were one of the two involved parties in the trade...

[Jongkers]

@consig

I'm open to the three-way although I'm not sure if I have any piece that cheese would like.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Jongkers

[joshiasi]

@consig

I'm open to the three-way although I'm not sure if I have any piece that cheese would like.

 

three way daw :evil:

[Jongkers]

Err.. not that way, josh! :sick:

[cheeselogger]

1. Yeah, it was my opinion that Josh's opinion was wrong. I am entitled to my opinion right? In the same way that Josh is entitled to his. And if he thinks I am wrong, Im fine with it. (And by the way, it turns out Josh was arguing on the wrong premise. You know why? He thought Hanley was being traded for Fielder (and not Howard). He said so himself but then he edited his post)

 

No, I am not telling everybody that they can never say a trade is lopsided. Why would I say something as stupid as that? And c'mon, cant you do better than put words into my mouth? I'd be the first guy to say if a trade is lopsided. And I believe you have first-hand experience as to how vocal I can be if and when a lopsided trade happens.

 

 

2. Why the strong urge for me to defend the trade? Huh? Now I should I apologize for being vocal? Does it offend your sensibilities? Eh sa wala akong magawa ng araw na yun eh at trip ko magsulat. Bakit, bawal ba?Ang pwede lang ba magsalita tungkol sa isang trade ay yung mga managers na kasali sa trade? Last time I checked, trades are submitted to the league precisely because the approval or disapproval of each manager is required.

 

Oh by the way, why the strong urge to highlight my defense of that trade when everbody else was arguing on its substantive merits and not focusing on the ones arguing for or against it? Still smarting about something?

 

1. I did not put words in to your mouth, I said that that would have the same effect. Your defending that the trade is not lopsided should have the same result, that it was not lopsided. did I miswrote that?

 

2. What sensibilities? I rarely post here nowadays except for the last spirited exchanges with doc which I thoroughly enjoyed as it has been a long time I actually used some other logic I thought I have. As I've said I was just curious. Now, if you think I was smarting from something I would have just layed low again as I've done before.

 

If you want to keep on attacking me for something not really related to this league, fire away. Your aggression is obviously misplaced.

Edited May 2, 2009 by cheeselogger

[agentjackbauer]

1. You equated my pointing out that Josh's opinion was wrong as telling everybody that a trade can never be lopsided. Obviously, I never said that. It was you who arrived at such a conclusion. How, I dont know.

 

Be curious all you want. But dont misinterpet the things I say and dont tell me that I cant be vocal about a trade just because I am not part of it. That is just wrong. I can be "vehemently" vocal when I want to. You can be too. And neither I nor you need to explain why.

 

2. Me, attacking you? Ano to, pa-underdog effect? You have it the other way around. Lets rewind it a bit, shall we? I was arguing with Josh on the merits of the trade. Josh and I already ended our discussion. Then you came in, acting supposedly curious and all, not about the trade mind you, but why I was allegedly "vehemently" defending it. You could have chosen to add to the debate by pointing out why it was lopsided or not. But instead you focused your so-called curiousity on my motives in defending the trade. As far as I am concerned, you're the one focusing on me instead of the trade at hand.

 

 

 

1. I did not put words in to your mouth, I said that that would have the same effect. Your defending that the trade is not lopsided should have the same result, that it was not lopsided. did I miswrote that?

 

2. What sensibilities? I rarely post here nowadays except for the last spirited exchanges with doc which I thoroughly enjoyed as it has been a long time I actually used some other logic I thought I have. As I've said I was just curious. Now, if you think I was smarting from something I would have just layed low again as I've done before.

 

If you want to keep on attacking me for something not really related to this league, fire away. Your aggression is obviously misplaced.

[Jongkers]

Safe ba yung live stream channels nung Pacman-hatton fight?

Any suggested channels?

 

Thanks.

[gift_of_game]

safe?

 

when it comes down to it, it's a lot safer than Facebook.

 

http://manny-pacquiao-vs-ricky-hatton.blogspot.com/

[cheeselogger]

1. You equated my pointing out that Josh's opinion was wrong as telling everybody that a trade can never be lopsided. Obviously, I never said that. It was you who arrived at such a conclusion. How, I dont know.

 

Be curious all you want. But dont misinterpet the things I say and dont tell me that I cant be vocal about a trade just because I am not part of it. That is just wrong. I can be "vehemently" vocal when I want to. You can be too. And neither I nor you need to explain why.

 

2. Me, attacking you? Ano to, pa-underdog effect? You have it the other way around. Lets rewind it a bit, shall we? I was arguing with Josh on the merits of the trade. Josh and I already ended our discussion. Then you came in, acting supposedly curious and all, not about the trade mind you, but why I was allegedly "vehemently" defending it. You could have chosen to add to the debate by pointing out why it was lopsided or not. But instead you focused your so-called curiousity on my motives in defending the trade. As far as I am concerned, you're the one focusing on me instead of the trade at hand.

 

believe me or not, I was just curious. obviously, we misunderstood each other and read something else than we both intended. no need for us to continue this, unless you want to have your final say.