SB Nation User Blog: Chase Irwin

Post-Adam GDT 2

Chase Irwin — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:37:43 -0000

Post-Adam GDT 2

The Escape Safely GDT Thread 6

Chase Irwin — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:57:46 -0000

The Escape Safely GDT Thread 6

Porcello absorbs helmet toss, gives Youkilis a lesson.

Chase Irwin — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:02:58 -0000

Porcello absorbs helmet toss, gives Youkilis a lesson.

Monday Afternoon Video!

Chase Irwin — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:36:28 -0000

Monday Afternoon Video!

OT: Cowboys - Eagles Thread

Chase Irwin — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:54:35 -0000

Well this is it. There is really nothing to be said. Fill it up with 75. 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up Fill it up with 75. 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up Well this is it. There is really nothing to be said. Fill it up with 75. 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up Fill it up with 75. 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it upWell this is it. There is really nothing to be said. Fill it up with 75. 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up Fill it up with 75. 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it upWell this is it. There is really nothing to be said. Fill it up with 75. 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up Fill it up with 75. 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it upWell this is it. There is really nothing to be said. Fill it up with 75. 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up Fill it up with 75. 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up 75 fills it up. Fill it up with 75. 75 Fills it up

OT: Cowboys - Giants Thread 2

Chase Irwin — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:24:34 -0000

We might win the game. You play to win the game. We might win the game. You play to win the game. 755555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 75 75 57575757777777777777777777777777777777777777777 755555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 75 75 57575757777777777777777777777777777777777777777 755555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 75 75 57575757777777777777777777777777777777777777777 We might win the game. You play to win the game. 755555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 75 75 57575757777777777777777777777777777777777777777 755555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 75 75 57575757777777777777777777777777777777777777777 755555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 75 75 57575757777777777777777777777777777777777777777 We might win the game. You play to win the game. 755555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 75 75 57575757777777777777777777777777777777777777777 755555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 75 75 57575757777777777777777777777777777777777777777 755555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 75 75 57575757777777777777777777777777777777777777777

OT: Cowboys - Giants Thread

Chase Irwin — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:26:22 -0000

NY:

Injuries	more
Player (Pos)	Injury
Jonathan Goff (LB)	O - Hamstring
Brandon Jacobs (RB)	O - Knee
Domenik Hixon (WR)	Q - Ankle
Fred Robbins (DT)	Q - Shoulder

DAL:

Injuries	more
Player (Pos)	Injury
Montrae Holland (G)	O - Ankle
Adam Jones (CB)	O - Neck
Miles Austin (WR)	Q - Knee
Marion Barber (RB)	Q - Toe

We've bitched enough. Let's see if this team can put it together.

If last week was any indication, some people think the Giants may struggle a bit without Plaxico. It will be interesting to see if Eli can keep it up.

OT: Argumentation

Chase Irwin — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:42:57 -0000

Howdy Doody.

Hey miles, I learned something at college, too!

I'm curious as to LSB's opinion (especially the lawyers and future brettgardners) on the actual argument, in general. I figure if we spend a significant amount of time doing just that on this site, we could probably benefit from Hermagoras' breakdown, from classical rhetorical theory.

Hermagoras of Temnos's Stasis System

- Developed around 150 BCE; variations used for next 2000 years. All arguments will essentially boil down to the following four questions:

1. Question of Fact (conjectural stasis): whether something was, is, or will be.

2. Question of Definition (definitional stasis): what is the proper definition of something, its essence, nature, name, proper conception, or placement within a classification system. There are common ways to argue for a specific definition:
a) common usage: our definition has wide use and acceptance.
b) authority: our definition is used by those with highest sanction or authority.
c) good and evil consequences: our definition does not produce unfortunate results, such as confusion, error, inconsistency, etc.
d) defective definition: opponent's definition is opposed by obvious facts, is too narrow or broad, incompatible with other definitions, contains an equivocation, etc.

3. Questions of Quality (qualitative stasis): what value or appreciation properly attaches to a thing or act. Here are some common ways to argue that our evaluation of something is correct:
a) facts: sometimes parties don't know or believe the same facts about a case: the addition of the new fact will give a new evaluation to the object under dispute.
b) example: sometimes we argue that if we believe A to be of certain quality, then we must also believe B to have the same, since it is so similar to or of the same type as A.
c) authority: something has a certain value because some authority figure says it does.
d) consistency: something in the past has been given the same value: or, principles now held require you to value this according to those principles.
e) good and evil consequences: something is of a certain quality because of the harmful or beneficial outcomes related to it.

4. Questions of Procedure (procedural stasis): argument or charge is made in the wrong place or manner and so should be dismissed.

These are the potential sticking points or issues about which you might dispute in all arguments, in descending order of strength: these may overlap or exist simultaneously in a single argument. The question of fact is usually the strongest position to defend. However, the majority of disputes will boil down to definitions, naturally. The question of quality always looms because you can step back and argue that "it's not that big of a deal, ..." However, if you skip the first three sticking points, your argument will most likely be ruined.

I think this accurately describes the majority of disputes anywhere, so I thought I would solicit opinions. As always, the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

OT: NFL Week 2 Thread

Chase Irwin — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:10:17 -0000

Week 2
SUN, SEP 14	TIME (ET)
Tennessee at Cincinnati	1:00 PM
Green Bay at Detroit	1:00 PM
Oakland at Kansas City	1:00 PM
NY Giants at St. Louis	1:00 PM
Indianapolis at Minnesota	1:00 PM
New Orleans at Washington	1:00 PM
Chicago at Carolina	1:00 PM
Buffalo at Jacksonville	1:00 PM
San Francisco at Seattle	4:05 PM
Atlanta at Tampa Bay	4:05 PM
New England at NY Jets	4:15 PM
Miami at Arizona	4:15 PM
San Diego at Denver	4:15 PM
Pittsburgh at Cleveland	8:15 PM
MON, SEP 15	TIME (ET)
Philadelphia at Dallas	8:30 PM
·Bye: Baltimore, Houston

SBN Visitor w/ Buchholz Inquiry

Chase Irwin — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:26:39 -0000

What up. Just a visitor from lonestarball (Rangers) and trying to gauge the value of Buchholz.

Boston and Texas have been linked -- at various times -- as potential trade partners this year. The only reason I even consider floating Buchholz is that Boston appears to have a surplus of ML-ready SP's.

Texas appears to have a surplus of ML-ready catchers. Between Saltalamacchia, Laird, Max Ramirez and Taylor Teagarden, it's going to be a matter of time before bodies are moved. I think one of that group would suit Boston as the heir to Tek. I'm not sure which one you would prefer, though.

Salty -- Elite hitting prospect; struggled in a small, platooned sample; under control

Laird -- average offensively; oldest of group; above-average defensively

Ramirez -- exploded offensively; quite young; serviceable defensively (good enough)

Teagarden -- GG defensively; power potential; durability is only concern

One of those listed would likely have to be the centerpiece of any deal for Boston's SP's. Of course, much more would be required.

Adding Milton Bradley to an already elite offense causes my mind to boggle, but I don't see how he could be a fit when Ortiz returns. However, I think C.J. Wilson would be of value to your club, going forward. He is currently our closer, but a young power-arm who is under control for a while could pair nicely with Papelbon in the years to come.

Catcher of your choice + Wilson + high-ceiling minors player ... is that enough? I know Boston's system is fairly deep, so I'll let you all suggest what they might target, prospect wise. If Buchholz is untouchable, please suggest viable proposals for Lester.

A few additional, well-regarded, potential trade chips in Texas' system:

LHP Derek Holland; OF Julio Borbon; OF/1B John Mayberry; RP Warner Madrigal; RHP Blake Beavan; SS Marcus Lemon.

Thanks for any input.