STLtoday.com

icon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 21:23 pm

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 20:00 pm

icon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:44 pm

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:35 pm

icon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:21 pm

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:12 pm

Jobu's Rum wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 18:57 pm John Mozeliak on why he retained his position players, despite significant interest:

"We got hit a lot on our left-handed hitters ... but we were not motivated to move players that we had under control unless we were, to put it mildly, blown away. And we just weren't."


Expecting to be blown away for f'in Nootbaar!?!?!?!

Un f'in real this dude man

I know Mo better than Mo know Mo.
When Mo falls in love, he falls hard.
When it comes to whomever is the latest object of his affection and obsession, Mo the eternal romantic remains faithful until his heart is broken.

"Whoever," please. It's the subject of the clause here. That takes precedence. Just thought I'd educate you a bit. You see, I was an editor for decades. Watch your language around me.

Nope.
The subject of the clause was Mo.
The player is the subject of the verb - making "whomever" the correct word.

You're wrong. You're out of your league on grammar with me. I know it backward and forward. The object of the preposition is the entire clause consisting of "whoever is the lastest object of his affection and obsession."

This is straight from AI if you need further proof that exactly what I stated to you was correct.


The grammatically correct word in the sentence "When it comes to whoever is the latest object of his affection and obsession, Mo the eternal romantic remains faithful until his heart is broken" is whoever.
Here's why:
"Whoever" acts as the subject of the verb "is" within the dependent clause "whoever is the latest object...".
"Whomever" is an object pronoun, functioning as the object of a verb or preposition. While "to" is a preposition in your example, the entire clause "whoever is the latest object..." acts as the object of the preposition "to," and within that clause, "whoever" is the subject of the verb "is".

Hmmm...
On one hand you know it backward and forward.
On the other, you need 'AI" to give you the answer.
That said, I accept the point - "whomever" of you is providing it.

I did not need AI. I know the grammar. It has been part of my business for decades. I just used it to confirm to you I was right. You know, when you think you know everything, you never learn anything. I wouldn't try to argue with you on management strategies. You shouldn't argue with me on grammar. And I don't correct others' grammar on here. But you can use a comeuppance now and again. Have a good evening.

And I promise not to correct your grammar henceforth.

Wow, that's tricky. You'd say "When it comes to him, Mo is faithful," so it seems like you'd say "When it comes to whomever, Mo is faithful." But the dependent clause changes it.

The bottom line is, I didn't have to defend Mel, and I dig that.

russellhammond wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 20:39 pm

peterman'srealitytour wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:17 pm He didn’t trade them because he’s a chicken [redacted]. Gotten smoked so many times in the past in the trade market. Scared of his own shadow.

Such a hypocrite. Spent all offseason talking about “runway” for young players. Keeping Nootbaar only takes away ABs from Gorman, Wetherholdt and his prize acquisition from 2023 selloff- Saggese.

Taking ABs from Gorman can only be a good thing for the Cardinals. But I fail to see how keeping Nootbaar takes any ABs from the aforementioned players, as Noot is an OF, Gorman is a DH and the others are IFs, one of whom is in Memphis.

As far as taking ABs away from Gorman being a good thing, that’s your opinion and you are obviously entitled to it. Cardinals haven’t given up on him and I think that’s a wise move at this point. Brant Brown has made progress with some other young players and Gorman was showing improvement before latest injury.

You really shouldn’t have to connect too many dots to see how trading Nootbaar opens the door for Gorman and/or Wetherholt and/or Saggese. Donovan is solid LF. Take him off 2B and plug one of those guys in there. Not rocket science.

peterman'srealitytour wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 21:38 pm

russellhammond wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 20:39 pm

peterman'srealitytour wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:17 pm He didn’t trade them because he’s a chicken [redacted]. Gotten smoked so many times in the past in the trade market. Scared of his own shadow.

Such a hypocrite. Spent all offseason talking about “runway” for young players. Keeping Nootbaar only takes away ABs from Gorman, Wetherholdt and his prize acquisition from 2023 selloff- Saggese.

Taking ABs from Gorman can only be a good thing for the Cardinals. But I fail to see how keeping Nootbaar takes any ABs from the aforementioned players, as Noot is an OF, Gorman is a DH and the others are IFs, one of whom is in Memphis.

As far as taking ABs away from Gorman being a good thing, that’s your opinion and you are obviously entitled to it. Cardinals haven’t given up on him and I think that’s a wise move at this point. Brant Brown has made progress with some other young players and Gorman was showing improvement before latest injury.

You really shouldn’t have to connect too many dots to see how trading Nootbaar opens the door for Gorman and/or Wetherholt and/or Saggese. Donovan is solid LF. Take him off 2B and plug one of those guys in there. Not rocket science.

Keeping Nootbaar doesn't prevent anything you've said.

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:12 pm

Jobu's Rum wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 18:57 pm John Mozeliak on why he retained his position players, despite significant interest:

"We got hit a lot on our left-handed hitters ... but we were not motivated to move players that we had under control unless we were, to put it mildly, blown away. And we just weren't."


Expecting to be blown away for f'in Nootbaar!?!?!?!

Un f'in real this dude man

I know Mo better than Mo know Mo.
When Mo falls in love, he falls hard.
When it comes to whomever is the latest object of his affection and obsession, Mo the eternal romantic remains faithful until his heart is broken.

Mo is finito in 2 months. Winter is going to be on Chaim's dime. If he needs to trade Noot, there will be plenty of time.

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:23 pm Eh, I'm thinking "blown away" is just an expression.

Plus, exactly what do you think you're going to get for an injured Nootbaar who's currently in a down year? If you were disappointed in not getting what you thought we should get for the relievers, what are you thinking he's gonna get you? MLB level talent or a top prospect? Come on.

I agree. I have not been a Mo fan for a while, but some on the board are unable to accept ANYTHING he says as possibly reasonable.

He explained that: “The goal of these moves was to position the organization for future talent — not necessarily just guys that are knocking on the door for big-league opportunities next year. It was really about trying to create as much prospect value as possible, and we felt we achieved that.”

It may be GM-speak, but if I had a categorize what I was looking for it would be similarly stated: 1) build for 2+years away and 2) take a risk on higher ceiling guys, as this team needs a star and that takes risk to find that diamond in the rough (highest prospect value).

I also can’t criticize the non-trades of the three mentioned. He said it was a good point that there would be a logjam, and that they would have to address this in the next six months.
I took him to mean that Bloom was going to deal with it in the off-season. This puts the “blown away” in a different context, which is that, although they were going to allow Bloom to decide what to do later, they would be stupid not to ask for a big return now, even if other GMs would deem the ask ridiculous, in case one GM gave it to them.

Jobu's Rum wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:03 pm I can understand needing to be blown away for Donny, and Burly is a competent enough hitter to keep around, but f'in Nootbaar?!?!?!

What planet is this dude on

So you'd give Noot away for nothing? This place is absurd today!

kyace wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:59 pm One thing for sure, those who said it was a brilliant move by Mo to hold on to Helsley and Feddee this off season so we could get a haul of top prospects at the trade deadline were proven wrong.

It was beyond stupid.

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 21:32 pm

icon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 21:23 pm

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 20:00 pm

icon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:44 pm

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:35 pm

icon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:21 pm

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:12 pm

Jobu's Rum wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 18:57 pm John Mozeliak on why he retained his position players, despite significant interest:

"We got hit a lot on our left-handed hitters ... but we were not motivated to move players that we had under control unless we were, to put it mildly, blown away. And we just weren't."


Expecting to be blown away for f'in Nootbaar!?!?!?!

Un f'in real this dude man

I know Mo better than Mo know Mo.
When Mo falls in love, he falls hard.
When it comes to whomever is the latest object of his affection and obsession, Mo the eternal romantic remains faithful until his heart is broken.

"Whoever," please. It's the subject of the clause here. That takes precedence. Just thought I'd educate you a bit. You see, I was an editor for decades. Watch your language around me.

Nope.
The subject of the clause was Mo.
The player is the subject of the verb - making "whomever" the correct word.

You're wrong. You're out of your league on grammar with me. I know it backward and forward. The object of the preposition is the entire clause consisting of "whoever is the lastest object of his affection and obsession."

This is straight from AI if you need further proof that exactly what I stated to you was correct.


The grammatically correct word in the sentence "When it comes to whoever is the latest object of his affection and obsession, Mo the eternal romantic remains faithful until his heart is broken" is whoever.
Here's why:
"Whoever" acts as the subject of the verb "is" within the dependent clause "whoever is the latest object...".
"Whomever" is an object pronoun, functioning as the object of a verb or preposition. While "to" is a preposition in your example, the entire clause "whoever is the latest object..." acts as the object of the preposition "to," and within that clause, "whoever" is the subject of the verb "is".

Hmmm...
On one hand you know it backward and forward.
On the other, you need 'AI" to give you the answer.
That said, I accept the point - "whomever" of you is providing it.

I did not need AI. I know the grammar. It has been part of my business for decades. I just used it to confirm to you I was right. You know, when you think you know everything, you never learn anything. I wouldn't try to argue with you on management strategies. You shouldn't argue with me on grammar. And I don't correct others' grammar on here. But you can use a comeuppance now and again. Have a good evening.

And I promise not to correct your grammar henceforth.

My previous post was in the spirit of humor.
I suspect you will see that when you re-read it.
You are welcome to correct any grammatical errors.
Forthwith.

No, I won't do it anymore -- just for fun this one time, though I do have a pet peeve about that particularly common grammatical error. But I don't want to waste another million gallons of water and a thousand kilowatts of electricity on AI proving I'm right.

And I'm happy now to see the humor in what you wrote. And besides, your grammar is usually impeccable.

Have a good one.

icon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:21 pm

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:12 pm

Jobu's Rum wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 18:57 pm John Mozeliak on why he retained his position players, despite significant interest:

"We got hit a lot on our left-handed hitters ... but we were not motivated to move players that we had under control unless we were, to put it mildly, blown away. And we just weren't."


Expecting to be blown away for f'in Nootbaar!?!?!?!

Un f'in real this dude man

I know Mo better than Mo know Mo.
When Mo falls in love, he falls hard.
When it comes to whomever is the latest object of his affection and obsession, Mo the eternal romantic remains faithful until his heart is broken.

"Whoever," please. It's the subject of the clause here. That takes precedence. Just thought I'd educate you a bit. You see, I was an editor for decades. Watch your language around me.

That one helped me, but confuses me a bit still (I haven't studied English in over 30 years now)...but clarify me this, please. If one were to make a similar statement like the following: "The latest object of his affection and obsession is whomever steals the most bases." (or hits the most home runs, etc.). Would this be correct? One wouldn't use whoever in that instance, would one?

If so, why would it switch when at the beginning of the sentence even though it's using the same general structure?

I can only imagine the spelling, grammar that you see on this site, as the stuff I see makes my skin crawl at times, and you likely see/cringe infinitely more

I can only guess but there must have been a lot of calls on Donovan and Burleson and not as many calls on Nootbaar.

imadangman wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:07 am I can only guess but there must have been a lot of calls on Donovan and Burleson and not as many calls on Nootbaar.

It only takes one call. And there were reports of interest in Nootbaar.

JuanAgosto wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:14 am

imadangman wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:07 am I can only guess but there must have been a lot of calls on Donovan and Burleson and not as many calls on Nootbaar.

It only takes one call. And there were reports of interest in Nootbaar.

Very true

RamFan08NY wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 22:08 pm

Jobu's Rum wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:03 pm I can understand needing to be blown away for Donny, and Burly is a competent enough hitter to keep around, but f'in Nootbaar?!?!?!

What planet is this dude on

So you'd give Noot away for nothing? This place is absurd today!

There was reportedly interest in Nootbaar, which means at least one team is offering something reasonable at minimum. You take it, you dont need to be ‘blown away’ by some overrated 4th OF who can’t stay healthy. Especially with guys like Church, Koperniak and even Chase Davis behind him that can easily take his place. Not saying those three would be solutions, but you have to eventually see what you have in them. No better time than now and moving forward since this current team is toast anyway

imadangman wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:18 am

JuanAgosto wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:14 am

imadangman wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:07 am I can only guess but there must have been a lot of calls on Donovan and Burleson and not as many calls on Nootbaar.

It only takes one call. And there were reports of interest in Nootbaar.

Very true

I just don't see a place for Nootbaar on the roster next year.

hoosiercardfan wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 23:52 pm

icon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:21 pm

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:12 pm

Jobu's Rum wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 18:57 pm John Mozeliak on why he retained his position players, despite significant interest:

"We got hit a lot on our left-handed hitters ... but we were not motivated to move players that we had under control unless we were, to put it mildly, blown away. And we just weren't."


Expecting to be blown away for f'in Nootbaar!?!?!?!

Un f'in real this dude man

I know Mo better than Mo know Mo.
When Mo falls in love, he falls hard.
When it comes to whomever is the latest object of his affection and obsession, Mo the eternal romantic remains faithful until his heart is broken.

"Whoever," please. It's the subject of the clause here. That takes precedence. Just thought I'd educate you a bit. You see, I was an editor for decades. Watch your language around me.

That one helped me, but confuses me a bit still (I haven't studied English in over 30 years now)...but clarify me this, please. If one were to make a similar statement like the following: "The latest object of his affection and obsession is whomever steals the most bases." (or hits the most home runs, etc.). Would this be correct? One wouldn't use whoever in that instance, would one?

If so, why would it switch when at the beginning of the sentence even though it's using the same general structure?

I can only imagine the spelling, grammar that you see on this site, as the stuff I see makes my skin crawl at times, and you likely see/cringe infinitely more

To whomever:

No, whoever is even more applicable here. The same rule applies. Whoever is right because it's the subject of the dependent clause. Also, if you wanted to just end that sentence with the word whoever, that would be correct because it now follows the state of being verb is. Likewise, it is correct to say "this is he," and not "this is him."

So in short, whom and whomever are often overused by folks thinking that they sound grammatically correct or whatever.

Now, on the contrary some people like to incorrectly use the word "I" because they think it sounds more intelligent. This happens often with the correct phrase "between you and me." There is nothing wrong with the word me except when it's used as a subject of a sentence such as in "Me and Mo just disagree."

Rock musicians, of course, are excused for purposely being ungrammatical. You can break the rules if you know them, though I'm not quite sure every rock musician knows them. "I Can't Get Any Satisfaction" just wouldn't be the same as "I Can't Get No Satisfaction."

Today's lessons are over. And they won't be here tomorrow or the next day, either. I was just having some fun with Melville.

From whomever

JuanAgosto wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:27 am

imadangman wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:18 am

JuanAgosto wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:14 am

imadangman wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:07 am I can only guess but there must have been a lot of calls on Donovan and Burleson and not as many calls on Nootbaar.

It only takes one call. And there were reports of interest in Nootbaar.

Very true

I just don't see a place for Nootbaar on the roster next year.

I'm in the same boat.