sturt

Premium Member
  • Content Count

    8,878
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31
  • Country

    United States

sturt last won the day on August 28 2017

sturt had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,869 Excellent

1 Follower

About sturt

  • Rank
    Hawksquawk Founder
  • Birthday April 11

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.facebook.com/UnifyBaseball

Previous Fields

  • Fan since
    1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Beaumont, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

9,031 profile views
  1. Appreciate the extensive explanation, @Lurker. I've somewhat obviously been attempting to keep my remarks to a minimum. I'll just say this. In baseball, you have to have some proven upper tier starting pitching, the more you have, the more likely you can do something special. In football, you almost have to have some proven upper tier starting quarterback, the more proven, the more likely you can do something special. Basketball, you still have to have some proven upper tier players, but the advantage is, if you're able to get that first one, there at least are some viable avenues for a team that is in the Hawks' current posture to either acquire a second and a third, or develop them. And because there are only 5 men on the floor at a time, that on its own represents a significant slice of the roster. I'll eat crow, certainly... just provide the salt and pepper, and make it medium-well, please... but the Braves could easily plateau (not go down, but plateau) relatively soon if they don't feature some top shelf starting pitching in the near future. I like my Hawks to be that next Atlanta champion, and I also can't help but note that Trae's actually ahead of schedule for now on his 5 year prediction noted previously.
  2. One guaranteed, but the second is a player option for $27m (... which is largely why some observers have said NOP's cap situation for those two seasons is some very good discouragement from doing "whatever it takes" to keep you know who.)
  3. I like the player a lot. But he's in that category where he's just a tier below what we need in order to put us over the top, imo. Still, he's better than a JAG, or any of what I'll call the "plus-JAGS" that most people in this thread tend to talk about.
  4. Hey, hey, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy... post your own poll. This one is what it is. And certainly don't distract from the hard-to-argue points just made... ie, as-if it's not obvious that they're hard to argue, and thus subject to attempts at deflection (such as asking other questions). 🙂 Besides, I thought we were all Hawks fans first... shouldn't be that offensive to make those hard-to-argue points, right? Or are we?
  5. hehe... well by all means... post a poll question... I have no exclusivity on poll question posing authority 😄 (But I think I make a pretty solid argument for why "Hawks" is the more reasonable answer to this poll, given the bigger picture here.)
  6. Thanks, I guess, but I'm now perceiving that maybe some people may have taken the question to, indeed, be a victory lap in the form of a poll question. If (???) you go back and review, though, hopefully you'll notice this time that "someone" made the assertion that (paraphrasing) the baseball team has a more conceivable path, and therefore a quicker path, to a championship. The point would be, it's not just a matter of your team's current roster, but also a matter of some externals such as who is your immediate competition who you'd have to overcome. Pitching wins championships. Washington has 3 of the best and most proven starting arms in all of baseball, and that's not something the Braves can say, of course. Moreover, another fundamental external is who is your ownership and how likely is it that they're going to go to the financial mat to help push the roster into a World Series, a Super Bowl or an NBA Finals? Forgive the observation, but you just lost a 3B who wanted to play for you guys all his life, and actually did for last year, and reports (if reliable) were that he actually received as competitive an offer from your primary competition as he did Liberty Media. Then, yes, the Falcons are in a pickle. A big part of that pickle is that you have a great QB, but one who is going to be making a lot of money, ie, eating cap space, for the foreseeable future, in an environment where there is a hard cap. That's a fundamental problem. So, almost by default (but "almost," not completely), I see the Hawks as the franchise most likely to ascend to their sport's highest peak. They're about where the Astros were when they pivoted from 100-loser status to championship status. I mean, truly, they are. (Granted, perhaps we don't have the same capacity to win via cheating that they did.)
  7. @Spud2nique, if you're insinuating that what I said there is somehow a fraud, you're going to have to do better than referencing a link where I pointed out in the form of a word picture that sometimes it's not the sender who is the problem in getting a message across. That falls well short of being an attack on you as a person. Similarly, I've characterized your posts recently as "drive-by soft serve." That's a criticism of what you've said and how you said it. Not your character, not your intelligence, nothing inherent about you as a person. Prove me wrong with real examples/facts, and I'll very rapidly apologize. I don't want to be that kind of poster/person. But do prove me wrong, and don't presume that just because I've responded to something you've said that that on its own is automatic "proof."
  8. It didn't? You sure about that? You sure that I assumed anything at all? My friend, it was a genuine question, not a statement presented as a question. (You're to be forgiven, though--the tendency toward presumption is the Covid-19 of online sports forums.) And oh yeah... what's "Atlanta United?" (... now that's a statement presented as a question.)
  9. sturt

    Coronavirus!

    Hmmm. That's stunning news for all those who enjoy sex without any physical contact. Right? "I was going to have sex with him even though I knew he might be a carrier, but when I learned his semen could have the virus, that's when I said to my self "whoooa!"... that's far too risky." 😄
  10. Dang. The community normally gathered here must be pretty exhausted with typing or distracted with real life or both... there's no shortage of Woj- and Shams-tweeted meat above for us fans to chew on. Three weeks, for instance, seems to me to be a week too long, unless one envisions all these guys sat in front of their TVs and drank beer and ate pizza and Cheetos the whole time.
  11. Personally, I make it a practice to never use personal insults, particularly of the name-calling variety, because as you may have read me to say before, I consider that to be what a person defaults to when s/he doesn't have any actual substance in support of his/her assertion to offer. So, I never want to be accurately accused of that. Personally, I also make it a practice to analyze someone's comments thoroughly enough to understand when s/he might actually be leveling a personal attack at me versus when s/he is speaking about someone else (or "someone elses," if a group), and more typically, when s/he might actually be launching an attack on what I've said--using facts and/or logical lines of reasoning--versus an attack on me as a person, ie, my character, my intelligence and such. And the reason I do that is that it doesn't seem fair to other individuals to just paint with a convenient-to-me broad brush as-if any time someone is opposing my ideas, my thinking, it is a personal attack. That would be, in its essence, a personal attack on the other person, since it is effectively an attempt to stain that person as being immature and irrational. (So, in fact, it's a form of hypocrisy, when one bothers to peel that onion back and think.) That's why it's pretty offensive on those occasions when someone doesn't do that analysis. In effect, s/he obliges his/her own hypersensitivity, and perhaps in a lot of cases, also his/her own frustration that s/he has been unsuccessful in actually using substance to defend his/her conclusion. It's a too-easy out, and it's not right.