583 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

Yikes

[TwentyThirtyFive]

What line did I step over?

Out of curiosity, do you know how many people were online at the beginning of the Day 1 podcast?

Sure. Maybe its the 5 or 6 other posters that have commented that are wrong to be offended by your post.

[dude]

Sure. Maybe its the 5 or 6 other posters that have commented that are wrong to be offended by your post.

 

I don't really understand how anything that was said about that post actually applies to it, so help me understand it better.

 

Can you answer the second question too?  It's a simple answer.

[dude]

 Bob, regardless of the other silliness.  You asked a question about my earlier comment in regards to the specifics about why I characterize the draft as disappointing. Post #492.  Thoughts?

 

Comments on #495?  Would you have considered that better, worse? 

[mweb08]

I'm not sure which is worse, the initial post or the subsequent apparent lack of awareness of what was not cool about it.

[dude]

I'm not sure which is worse, the initial post or the subsequent apparent lack of awareness of what was not cool about it.

 

Same question.  That post isn't that long so where are your issues with it?  I see a bunch of comments about it that are out of context with what I wrote, but whatever....you tell me.  You want to have a conversation, let's have one.

 

Also...do you know how many people were on-line at the beginning of the Day 1 podcast?  

[mweb08]

Same question. That post isn't that long so where are your issues with it? I see a bunch of comments about it that are out of context with what I wrote, but whatever....you tell me. You want to have a conversation, let's have one.

Also...do you know how many people were on-line at the beginning of the Day 1 podcast?

Come on, dude.

[dude]

Come on, dude.

 

You come on. The post was only 5 lines....which one was the most [all the descriptors above].  Let's go through them one at a time.

 

Can you not answer the second question?

[mweb08]

You come on. The post was only 5 lines....which one was the most [all the descriptors above]. Let's go through them one at a time.

Can you not answer the second question?

Several people called you out in a way that should make it incredibly clear how you went over the line.

But if you are that obtuse, I will spell it out for you.

The problem is that you scoffed at the statement from people (who do a podcast for free and gave us podcasts after the first two days of the draft) that they didn't do one after day 3 because they're busy with their families and lives.

That should have been accepted, but instead you decided to scoff at it so you could continue making your point.

Btw, I largely agree with your overall position regarding this draft and the draft's relation to rebuilding.

But see Mashed Potatoes post for further perspective on how ridiculous you're being on this 'what happened to the day 3 podcast' approach.

Also acknowledge the point that's been made, which is that these guys have also shared views on Day 3 on Twitter and here.

Thus, they aren't running away and hiding because the last day of the draft didn't meet expectations. They shared views in different ways and you should accept that guys that do a podcast for free have families, jobs, and lives that get in the way of doing a pod after all 3 days of the draft.

For this question #2 you keep mentioning, I don't know the answer, or why you're asking that, and I don't really care either.

[dude]

Also acknowledge the point that's been made, which is that these guys have also shared views on Day 3 on Twitter and here.

 

I am not on Twitter.  Someone could post links to Twitter to prove the point, but I am comfortable acknowledging they exist.

[mweb08]

I am not on Twitter. Someone could post links to Twitter to prove the point, but I am comfortable acknowledging they exist.

That was supposed to be a post where dude apologizes to unpaid podcast hosts after questioning the integrity of their statements of not doing a third pod in as many days because they have families, jobs, and lives.

[dude]

Weber or anyone. 

 

If the Orioles had the Top or a Top draft, do we think there would have been a Day 3 podcast?  More likely? Wasn't happening regardless?

 

Here are the best draft hauls ranked "way too early (with caveats)" by Callis.  HERE.

 

Those teams in order were drafting 1, 3, 17, 16, 6, 8 and 7.  Ranking draft haul means nothing today, everyone will get their chance to shine and whenever we look at this draft a decade form now, the perspective will be more informed by actual results. 

 

...but our perspective is only today.  We evaluate (on a message board or through other media) with what we have (whatever perspective) today.

 

I want to bring the other question/comment in but I don't want each of these to be too long.... 

[Mike in STL]

That was supposed to be a post where dude apologizes to unpaid podcast hosts after questioning the integrity of their statements of not doing a third pod in as many days because they have families, jobs, and lives.

It was a valiant effort. Better, and kinder than what I was going to reply with that I ended up deleting.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I don't want to put words in dude's mouth, but I think he was just saying that if the O's draft had truly been exciting, then there would have been a day 3 podcast.  I don't think he was trying to demand one.

[mweb08]

I don't want to put words in dude's mouth, but I think he was just saying that if the O's draft had truly been exciting, then there would have been a day 3 podcast. I don't think he was trying to demand one.

Sure, but when unpaid pod hosts say the reason they didn't is because they're busy with life, you accept that.

[mweb08]

It was a valiant effort. Better, and kinder than what I was going to reply with that I ended up deleting.

Lol, thanks. I'm known for my kindness in these situations, so I figured I'd give it a try.

[makoman]

I don't want to put words in dude's mouth, but I think he was just saying that if the draft had been as exciting as people were claiming, then there would have been a day 3 podcast. I don't think he was trying to demand one.

No need comment on that. But in any case, I’m not sure any round 11-20 of any team in any MLB draft is going to be exciting enough for a podcast. Guys in these rounds went after the top 300 or so picks and have big flaws for various reasons, or are probably unsignable. Some of these guys will end up as stars for sure. But IMO throwing darts at a board of names would likely be similarly successful as the best drafting team in finding the next Cedric Mullins.

Also, if the guys want to discuss these draftees it would probably take more than a day to do research if we want some reasonable analysis. Likely nobody on this site has looked at any of these guys prior to this week due to the low or nonexistent rankings. If they wanted to look at these picks in like a month it’d make for a better podcast IMO.

[JeremyStrain]

I don't want to put words in dude's mouth, but I think he was just saying that if the O's draft had truly been exciting, then there would have been a day 3 podcast.  I don't think he was trying to demand one.

May have originally been his intent, but then when he complained that they had wives before day 3 and he didn't believe that they gained them ON day 3 it negated that.

 

He just went too far over a line, demanding of others free time, and doubled and tripled down by not admitting or understanding that he did. It was entitled and insulting.

[Mackus]

But in any case, I’m not sure any round 11-20 of any team in any MLB draft is going to be exciting enough for a podcast.

I am sure that no team has ever had draft picks in the double digit rounds that were so exciting that it merited local sports talk people assembling out of sequence to discuss them with their audience.

[dude]

For this question #2 you keep mentioning, I don't know the answer, or why you're asking that, and I don't really care either.

 

I think (Bob correct me if this is wrong) the answer is 40.  They had a momentary technical challenge at the beginning and Bob noted that they had 40 people watching online.  I wasn't one of them, I watched Day1 later.  Chris could likely tell you details about how many views (live) and total there were.....but 40 people tuning in to that live broadcast seems like a pretty good (really good) number at this stage of growth.

 

That's the purpose of the podcast and the larger platform.  That's the business model for Chris. Eyeballs equal opportunity. 

 

I can't speak for the specific motivations of Bob, Nick, Stephen and Zach in terms of this podcast, but it's certainly the most active podcast currently in the profile and they have done (are doing) a good job with it.  The podcast is routinely promoted on the Main Board to try and generate views. They have asked and Chris has asked for questions for the podcasts to cover (like Maury Brown one too...which was interesting and well done.)

 

I have no idea how many people watched Day2.  I had to watch it in parts and not live (because I had to go to dinner with my family ) but I thought Day1 and Day2 were both well done.  I think there was a definite change in the tone as it didn't appear that the Orioles had nailed that splashier pick (or picks).  They certainly didn't do anything exciting (not that something can't be good) on Day3.

 

I went back and listened to the end of Day2 to make sure I didn't miss somerthing...no mention of not doing a Day3....given the apparent success of Day1 (views) and Day2, Day3 would have seemed (at least to me) like the most reasonable assumption in terms of closing out the Draft.  

 

Guarantee those 3 have spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours over the last 4-8 months developing their information for this most-important-in-the-entire-year 3-day period.  I am not over-reacting to the draft in any direction.  I shared my summation word (disappointing) and Bob asked me to justify it.  As I was putting together post #492 a couple days ago, I was curious as to what the overall feel would be OnTheVerge....because it didn't seem like it was that exciting of a draft to me and I was curious what the other perspectives would be and that's how we develop better perspectives.   It struck me as odd that there wasn't one and I waited for 24 hours and then 48 hours before positing my 'short answer' to Bob....because if they were excited about the Draft, my guess would be they'd be sharing that on what seems to have been a fairly popular couple days of podcast, which is good exposure for them (whatever their personal goals are) and certainly adds value to the site.

 

There are some fairly straightforward wrap up questions, right?  Now that the names are in, what 'too early' grade do you put on it.  Who should we be watching near term, long term.  Best Day3 picks?  Do you think the Draft strategy worked? Who had the best drafts...I liked Bob's comment after Day2 about Cleveland because "he knew most of the guys they drafted." 

 

They spend thousands of hours getting there....do a 60 minute show on Day1 (good), a 72minute show on day2 (good) and we're leaving Day3 and the wrap up to hot takes in 160 characters or less on Twitter?  Seems a little anti-climactic to me....especially given they had 40 live views on Day1.

 

Seems like more excitement about the draft could have led to carving out a couple hours to produce a 30 minute show over 2 or more days to package up 8 months of fairly significant investment. 

 

Maybe I'm wrong.