STLtoday.com

icon wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 00:39 am 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

redbirdfan51 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 09:49 am If Helsley would have become a FA and signed with another club, wouldn't the Cards be in line for either another first or second round draft choice in next seasons draft from the team that signed him?

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

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:22 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:00 am

JDW wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 07:47 am Surprisingly, enjoying the grammar lessons, although I'm a lost cause with proper English, as some version of gibberish is apparently my first language.
Anyway, imo the key phrase with Noot is "while cost controlled." Posters still complain about Bader, but he was a very good value while he was here b/c he was cost controlled while providing good WAR levels and never got extended.
A lot of investment goes into player development. When one makes it to the show, it's prudent to strive to find out what you have before trading away. Noot has considerable talent, and possibly can provide decent value next year, or possibly provide good value this offseason if he is traded.
We should be hoping he has a good couple months here to finish this season to provide better value going into this offseason.

I think all it comes down to is the potential return wasn't worth the trade. So he wasn't traded.

Bader was always a decent complementary piece. Problem was Mo treated him like a 150 game starter and depleted (or didn't obtain) other outfielders to supplement. Bader wasn't a Cardinal simply because 'he was good value.' He was a Cardinal because Mo thought he had something special.

Mozeliak has often thought “he had something special”:
Bader
O’Neill
Carlson
Reyes
DeJong

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:25 am

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:22 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:00 am

JDW wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 07:47 am Surprisingly, enjoying the grammar lessons, although I'm a lost cause with proper English, as some version of gibberish is apparently my first language.
Anyway, imo the key phrase with Noot is "while cost controlled." Posters still complain about Bader, but he was a very good value while he was here b/c he was cost controlled while providing good WAR levels and never got extended.
A lot of investment goes into player development. When one makes it to the show, it's prudent to strive to find out what you have before trading away. Noot has considerable talent, and possibly can provide decent value next year, or possibly provide good value this offseason if he is traded.
We should be hoping he has a good couple months here to finish this season to provide better value going into this offseason.

I think all it comes down to is the potential return wasn't worth the trade. So he wasn't traded.

Bader was always a decent complementary piece. Problem was Mo treated him like a 150 game starter and depleted (or didn't obtain) other outfielders to supplement. Bader wasn't a Cardinal simply because 'he was good value.' He was a Cardinal because Mo thought he had something special.

Mozeliak has often thought “he had something special”:
Bader
O’Neill
Carlson
Reyes
DeJong

Grichuk
Piscotty
Hudson
Adams

Cranny wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:33 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:25 am

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:22 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:00 am

JDW wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 07:47 am Surprisingly, enjoying the grammar lessons, although I'm a lost cause with proper English, as some version of gibberish is apparently my first language.
Anyway, imo the key phrase with Noot is "while cost controlled." Posters still complain about Bader, but he was a very good value while he was here b/c he was cost controlled while providing good WAR levels and never got extended.
A lot of investment goes into player development. When one makes it to the show, it's prudent to strive to find out what you have before trading away. Noot has considerable talent, and possibly can provide decent value next year, or possibly provide good value this offseason if he is traded.
We should be hoping he has a good couple months here to finish this season to provide better value going into this offseason.

I think all it comes down to is the potential return wasn't worth the trade. So he wasn't traded.

Bader was always a decent complementary piece. Problem was Mo treated him like a 150 game starter and depleted (or didn't obtain) other outfielders to supplement. Bader wasn't a Cardinal simply because 'he was good value.' He was a Cardinal because Mo thought he had something special.

Mozeliak has often thought “he had something special”:
Bader
O’Neill
Carlson
Reyes
DeJong

Grichuk
Piscotty
Hudson
Adams

Is that the Hudson who was 16-7 with a 3.35
ERA in his first year as a full time starter for the Cards?

Melville wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:42 am

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:12 am

Melville wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 20:02 pm

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.

"Those who said it" do not exist.

No, but last offseason plenty of posters said the best move was to keep them until the deadline, including you.

And many of them said the return would be greater at the deadline because contending teams would pay more.

They were wrong.

Incorrect.
I know Mo better than Mo knows Mo.
Brilliantly and perfectly explaining his thought process (and thereby accurately predicting what he will and will not do) is a far cry from endorsing it.
Thank goodness.

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.

Cranny wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:33 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:25 am

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:22 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:00 am

JDW wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 07:47 am Surprisingly, enjoying the grammar lessons, although I'm a lost cause with proper English, as some version of gibberish is apparently my first language.
Anyway, imo the key phrase with Noot is "while cost controlled." Posters still complain about Bader, but he was a very good value while he was here b/c he was cost controlled while providing good WAR levels and never got extended.
A lot of investment goes into player development. When one makes it to the show, it's prudent to strive to find out what you have before trading away. Noot has considerable talent, and possibly can provide decent value next year, or possibly provide good value this offseason if he is traded.
We should be hoping he has a good couple months here to finish this season to provide better value going into this offseason.

I think all it comes down to is the potential return wasn't worth the trade. So he wasn't traded.

Bader was always a decent complementary piece. Problem was Mo treated him like a 150 game starter and depleted (or didn't obtain) other outfielders to supplement. Bader wasn't a Cardinal simply because 'he was good value.' He was a Cardinal because Mo thought he had something special.

Mozeliak has often thought “he had something special”:
Bader
O’Neill
Carlson
Reyes
DeJong

Grichuk
Piscotty
Hudson
Adams

Is that the Hudson who was 16-7 with a 3.35
ERA in his first year as a full time starter for the Cards?

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 11:56 am

Cranny wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:33 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:25 am

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:22 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:00 am

JDW wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 07:47 am Surprisingly, enjoying the grammar lessons, although I'm a lost cause with proper English, as some version of gibberish is apparently my first language.
Anyway, imo the key phrase with Noot is "while cost controlled." Posters still complain about Bader, but he was a very good value while he was here b/c he was cost controlled while providing good WAR levels and never got extended.
A lot of investment goes into player development. When one makes it to the show, it's prudent to strive to find out what you have before trading away. Noot has considerable talent, and possibly can provide decent value next year, or possibly provide good value this offseason if he is traded.
We should be hoping he has a good couple months here to finish this season to provide better value going into this offseason.

I think all it comes down to is the potential return wasn't worth the trade. So he wasn't traded.

Bader was always a decent complementary piece. Problem was Mo treated him like a 150 game starter and depleted (or didn't obtain) other outfielders to supplement. Bader wasn't a Cardinal simply because 'he was good value.' He was a Cardinal because Mo thought he had something special.

Mozeliak has often thought “he had something special”:
Bader
O’Neill
Carlson
Reyes
DeJong

Grichuk
Piscotty
Hudson
Adams

Is that the Hudson who was 16-7 with a 3.35
ERA in his first year as a full time starter for the Cards?

Yes.

It’s also the Hudson who stunk it up after his first year as a full-time starter.

Are you sure you’re not NL Cards?

Cranny wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 12:12 pm

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 11:56 am

Cranny wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:33 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:25 am

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:22 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:00 am

JDW wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 07:47 am Surprisingly, enjoying the grammar lessons, although I'm a lost cause with proper English, as some version of gibberish is apparently my first language.
Anyway, imo the key phrase with Noot is "while cost controlled." Posters still complain about Bader, but he was a very good value while he was here b/c he was cost controlled while providing good WAR levels and never got extended.
A lot of investment goes into player development. When one makes it to the show, it's prudent to strive to find out what you have before trading away. Noot has considerable talent, and possibly can provide decent value next year, or possibly provide good value this offseason if he is traded.
We should be hoping he has a good couple months here to finish this season to provide better value going into this offseason.

I think all it comes down to is the potential return wasn't worth the trade. So he wasn't traded.

Bader was always a decent complementary piece. Problem was Mo treated him like a 150 game starter and depleted (or didn't obtain) other outfielders to supplement. Bader wasn't a Cardinal simply because 'he was good value.' He was a Cardinal because Mo thought he had something special.

Mozeliak has often thought “he had something special”:
Bader
O’Neill
Carlson
Reyes
DeJong

Grichuk
Piscotty
Hudson
Adams

Is that the Hudson who was 16-7 with a 3.35
ERA in his first year as a full time starter for the Cards?

Yes.

It’s also the Hudson who stunk it up after his first year as a full-time starter.

Are you sure you’re not NL Cards?

Probably injured. Give credit where’s credit is due.

Cranny wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 12:12 pm

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 11:56 am

Cranny wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:33 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 10:25 am

Bomber1 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:22 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 08:00 am

JDW wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 07:47 am Surprisingly, enjoying the grammar lessons, although I'm a lost cause with proper English, as some version of gibberish is apparently my first language.
Anyway, imo the key phrase with Noot is "while cost controlled." Posters still complain about Bader, but he was a very good value while he was here b/c he was cost controlled while providing good WAR levels and never got extended.
A lot of investment goes into player development. When one makes it to the show, it's prudent to strive to find out what you have before trading away. Noot has considerable talent, and possibly can provide decent value next year, or possibly provide good value this offseason if he is traded.
We should be hoping he has a good couple months here to finish this season to provide better value going into this offseason.

I think all it comes down to is the potential return wasn't worth the trade. So he wasn't traded.

Bader was always a decent complementary piece. Problem was Mo treated him like a 150 game starter and depleted (or didn't obtain) other outfielders to supplement. Bader wasn't a Cardinal simply because 'he was good value.' He was a Cardinal because Mo thought he had something special.

Mozeliak has often thought “he had something special”:
Bader
O’Neill
Carlson
Reyes
DeJong

Grichuk
Piscotty
Hudson
Adams

Is that the Hudson who was 16-7 with a 3.35
ERA in his first year as a full time starter for the Cards?

Yes.

It’s also the Hudson who stunk it up after his first year as a full-time starter.

Are you sure you’re not NL Cards?

Probably injured. Give credit where’s credit is due.