I'm never surprised when the chat bends angry or mad or foul. It tends to be the medium, right? When are you moved to write a letter or email just to share how content you are with something? Nope. You expect to be content and when you're content you enjoy the content-ness. When you're not content -- you find a way to comment on this and demand your content-ness back. That's how it goes. That was true when it came to Letters to the Editor. That's true when it comes to Twitter. And it's true when it comes to the chat. You come here with questions and criticisms more than compliments. No biggie. It's the vehicle.
1. That's not true. We saw that team a few years ago.
2. It's not good, but it's not the worse. Some bad teams in the past, pal.
3. Not true. Jordan Hicks exists.
4. You're going to have a hard time making this argument when people will just throw up the brick wall of winning percentage and use that bat away your assertion or questions.
5. History suggests otherwise. Girsch doesn't even have a year in the role.
6. It's not even the worst roster I've covered.
7. The is empirically untrue. The San Francisco Giants spent $181 million on last year's team, and as a result got a club that wow'd the world with a ... oh, no, they went 64-98. They finished 40 games out of first place. Forty games, man.
I expect the chat to be a little caustic week to week, especially after a loss like Monday's to a better team, like Milwaukee. That tends to put a cul-de-sac of Cardinals Nation off the axis because success from another team in the NL Central and a smaller market cannot be stood for, nope, nope, nope. But if it's going to be caustic and you're going to bring the anger and barbed criticism -- against the team, against me, against the coverage, whatever -- at least have your feet firmly planted in facts. Thanks.