2018 St. Louis Cardinals Top Prospects Voting

Home The Cardinal Nation Forums Open Forum 2018 St. Louis Cardinals Top Prospects Voting

Viewing 25 posts - 326 through 350 (of 560 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #35358
    Cards1776
    Participant

    Free

    “Saying” that 24 hours is a short time frame is not “bogus”. “Saying” that 24 hours is too short a time frame is an opinion. Each participant should be respectfully afforded the opportunity to share his or her own opinion as long as he or she follows rules of civility and of the website itself.
    My opinion, stated in simpler terms for those who may not have gotten it the first time, is this: To make the voting period longer or shorter mid way thorough the voting process at someone’s whim is unfair to the prospects AND the participants.
    Irregularity and/or changes in time frames for voting when a precedent has been set could give the impression that the voting is being manipulated, which, in turn, decreases the validity of the results. If we started with a plan, then stick with it … or at least announce that a change will be taking place in the time frame at the start of a round instead of midway through it.

    #35359
    Cards1776
    Participant

    Free

    I can live with what rules are set but I would think the moderator needs some flexibility.

    Sooner, I agree with you 100 percent. Pads has graciously volunteered to be in change and his effort and time are greatly appreciated. I thank him profusely for that hard work!
    One way to guarantee flexibility would be to begin a round with a statement such as this: Voting for prospects #x through #y will begin at midnight on a certain date and end at a certain time on a future date. This sort of exclaimer at the beginning of voting would make the voting window time frame clear for all. Those votes posted during the window of opportunity would be counted, those outside of it would not count. There would be flexibility in counting and posting final results without irregularity in the process.

    #35360
    BlackHillsCard
    Participant

    Free

    When a voter goes into different threads and posts there while ignoring this thread for days, dragging out the voting it’s ridiculous. And I’ve seen a few of these voters doing it. That’s the point. How do have time to post in other threads wand not vote here for days? Saying these guys are busy is disengenurous.

    #35361
    BlackHillsCard
    Participant

    Free

    Furthermore we’ve already changed the voting once when we went from voting one prospect at a time to grouping the votes.

    #35365
    Cards1776
    Participant

    Free

    When a voter goes into different threads and posts there while ignoring this thread for days, dragging out the voting it’s ridiculous. And I’ve seen a few of these voters doing it. That’s the point. How do have time to post in other threads wand not vote here for days? Saying these guys are busy is disengenurous.

    Did you mean disingenuous, which means not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does? Some people have mentioned that they ARE busy. Perhaps that makes the argument above MOOT.

    When the voting was changed from single prospect to groups of 5 prospects, Pads announced that it would change before the voting for prospects 5-10 started. Pads made it clear from the get-go that the rules would be changing for future rounds. I had no problem when that change took place because the change was announced. I chimed in when someone suggested voting be closed for this current round when the vote had been open for the round for a little less than 24 hours. I am standing by my original opinion which stated that suggesting that the voting should end in the middle of a voting round, when a precedent has been set, is wrong.

    I repeat, my major concern regarding the closing of a voting round at 24 hours, when a precedent has been set for a longer time frame, is that it is unfair to both PROSPECTS AND PARTICIPANTS to change the rules mid-stream.

    It is my continued opinion that maintaining consistency in the voting process AND announcing a specified window of time for voting will ensure that the process is fair and equitable for all. I hope that this will be considered for next year’s voting process.

    I will comment no more regarding the issue. Let’s get back to talking about the exciting prospects the Cardinals have in their future AND continuing the voting process in a manner that is professional and fair.

    #35369
    14NyquisT
    Participant

    BHC. Last year we ranked prospects 1-20 individually and then went five at a time. I recall hearing something pertaining to a time constraint in which we would need to be finished 1-50 by. We later went to 70 (unofficially). At that point there were only a handful or so of participants.

    Last season we had 14 +/- participants on a regular basis. (8 of which are participating this year). Since this is an open forum, there were some others that submitted votes along the way. I don’t remember there being the amount of side comments we are witnessing this year. Some chose to post the reasons why they were voting for certain prospects. There was no discussions questioning the selections of others. As I recall, the rankings were “called” punctually when all the regs had voted.

    All that being said, I agree with 1776’s comment regarding Pads’ handling of this forum. After all, he has agreed run it using his time. There has to be some respect shown to him for that. I will just say that the exercise seemed to flow more consistently last time around.

    #35378
    Cards1776
    Participant

    Free

    Please note that I am very appreciative of Pads and the time and effort that he has put forth in running things. I would probably not have even commented, but the suggestion that we end the vote for the current round (at a little over 24 hours into the round) slightly ruffled my feathers. The intent of my comments has been to suggest ways to keep things consistent, fair, and to improve the process in the future. I have tried to do so in a manner that states facts without questioning anyone else’s opinions or casting blame. My sincere apologies are offered should I have offended anyone.

    #35381
    CariocaCardinal
    Participant

    Paid - Monthly

    Nyquis, to say there was no questioning the selection of others last year is simply revisionist history.

    I purposely did not call out any voters by name and purposely never questioned the ranking of any player until more than one person had voted for that player as to not be construed as personal. I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that was not the case last year as at least one voter was questioned specifically related to a top 10 vote that was an outlier (pretty sure I didn’t question it). There were other questioning along the way.

    For the record, I believe there is no specific criteria for voting. If you choose to vote for Herget as the #1 prospect because you like his name I will support your right to do so. I dont think asking why is out of line though. If I think Denton is getting votes much higher than I think justifiable, what is wrong with asking why? Maybe I am missing something and someone can enlighten me. Maybe in the end we will just have differing opinions. If someone takes that personally that is on them.

    #35386
    BlackHillsCard
    Participant

    Free

    My problem isn’t with Pads. Its with the posters who post in other threads while dragging the voting process out. If they’re not going to vote they should announce it and if you’re going to vote why wait 3 days when you are still active in the forum posting in other threads. That’s my beef. And we all know who the voters are. Its not like we’re getting new voters in at this point in the process so if someone’s feathers got ruffled I don’t get it as all of the voters had voted. Everyone’s voted that’s going to vote.

    If you’re going to vote on prospects its odd you wouldn’t take negatives about a prospect into consideration. There are a lot of votes being tallied that I don’t agree with and I don’t make it a big deal. Everyone has an opinion and its important we all take those into consideration. Its one reason we have 18 guys being voted for this round. The only time I’ve said anything is when I’ve noticed a poster vote for a prospect during one round and not vote for him the next. It was more curiosity than anything.

    #35389
    14NyquisT
    Participant

    1776…. I feel that your opinion counts. To me it shows that you are serious about the proceedings and in the credibility of the process. This polling represents 1/3 of the tally for the official CN ranking so there is some worth placed on this community poll and it to be as accurate an aggregate as possible.

    This is one of the earliest polls to be compiled. Most polls are done after rule-5 and a period of time allotted for the 40-man roster to be settled and for trades etc. There is a consensus view that after the top-20 or so prospect ranking they should be looked at in groups of five or so. As you can see here the voting is very close, with a matter of just one or two votes deciding placements. I, myself use the placement numbers to determine the progress of players. That placement number becomes relatively more important by doing so. I would hate to feel that credibility is being compromised.

    I trust that the participants have a certain amount of knowledge, or take some time to gain it, to be a part of this exercise. One comment here disturbed me, and I don’t know if anyone else found it to be disturbing also, “Hey, it’s not a big deal to guess even!. “. It took some of the wind out of my sail to see that sort of message here. Obviously, there are some varying ideas as to what this polling is all about. I think that Brian Walton puts some value on it, as it is part of the CN’s compilation and to some extent his signature. Note: he puts out his own personal list.

    That’s my 2 cents. I hope that others don’t feel that I am going overboard. :). Just trying my best to keep it real.

    #35391
    CariocaCardinal
    Participant

    Paid - Monthly

    There seem to be a lot of people on this board who have advocated for Wisdom being added to the 40 man roster – yet not one vote for him here so far.

    #35394
    14NyquisT
    Participant

    BW put him at #35 in the last group. I know what you are saying about Wisdom, for me he is a tough read. After zooming up the prospect ranking early on, he just descended gradually until his comeback this season. It was my opinion that he was on the verge of being cut last season. Will the real PW please stand up.

    #35398
    bccran
    Participant

    He has the glove. If he can cut down on his Ks and up his OBP while maintaining his power he could be a nice addition.

    #35401
    Derek Shore
    Participant

    Paid - Annual
    #35412
    CariocaCardinal
    Participant

    Paid - Monthly

    I read that However, the article did not match the headline. Mo responded as Mo does to a specific question about Wisdom being added by saying he would be strongly considered.

    I have no problem with keeping Wisdom in the system. I think it would be a mistake to put him on the 40 man roster. I doubt anyone would take him if they did, I doubt he would stick, if he did, I wouldn’t be upset.

    #35413
    Cards1776
    Participant

    Free

    Thanks, 14! 🙂

    #35430
    BlackHillsCard
    Participant

    Free

    CC I was having some trouble understanding your previous comment about Wisdom and the 40 man. Specifically this quote: “I have no problem with keeping Wisdom in the system. I think it would be a mistake to put him on the 40 man roster. I doubt anyone would take him if they did, I doubt he would stick, if he did, I wouldn’t be upset.”

    #35463
    14NyquisT
    Participant

    It seems that the air has been cleared. Did we start voting for #36-40 yet? What’s going on here? Are we waiting for someone to post their selections?

    #35465
    CariocaCardinal
    Participant

    Paid - Monthly

    BHC, if the Cards leave Wisdom off the 40 man roster there are 3 possible outcomes 1) he doesn’t get selected by another team and the Cards retain his rights – most likely in my opinion. 2) a team selects him in the rule 5 draft but he is unable to stay on the 25 man roster all year and gets returned to the Cards, and 3) another team selects him and he stays on the 25 man roster all year and the selecting tesm retains his rights – and if this happened, I would be ok with that.

    Hope that clears it up.

    #35478
    BlackHillsCard
    Participant

    Free

    Ahh makes better sense now. I thoughts what you meant but wasnt sure. Thanks for the clarification.

    #35560
    14NyquisT
    Participant

    I guess this turned out to be a top-30 list.

    #35565
    BlackHillsCard
    Participant

    Free

    Let me just add: Its been over 4 days since the voting for this round opened.

    #35567
    14NyquisT
    Participant

    I think we’re done and done here.

    #35568
    PadsFS
    Participant

    Hey sorry all! I have been travelling this past weekend. Fall break and all with a ten year old.

    #35572
    PadsFS
    Participant

    We are pretty ahed of schedule this year with the 5-at-time voting so I’ve been letting the window widen.

    Seriously though, ANYONE here can close the vote if they want to add all the votes up. This is all for good fun if you ask me.

    I have the votes for #31-35 as follows:

    #31 – Evan Mendoza
    #32 – Daniel Poncedeleon
    #33 – Mike O’Reilly
    #34 – Wadye Ynfante
    #35 – Chase Pinder

Viewing 25 posts - 326 through 350 (of 560 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.