Page 1 of 6
Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 18:57 pm
by Jobu's Rum
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
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 18:59 pm
by Ozziesfan41
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
lol
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:03 pm
by Jobu's Rum
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
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:12 pm
by Melville
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.
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:17 pm
by peterman'srealitytour
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.
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:18 pm
by RunSup
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.
How do you feel about the end of your career? Godspeed as you ride into retirement with Mo.
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:19 pm
by Hoosier59
Mo can’t be gone soon enough to suit me. Whether it’s the DeWitts tying his hands or what, there is no one who has done more to destroy the Cardinals than him! No One!
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:21 pm
by icon
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.
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:23 pm
by Ronnie Dobbs
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.
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:27 pm
by icon
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.
Plus, "blown away" has another meaning, but one can't expect mush mouth to know about double entendres.
And you really think "Noooooooot" is ever going to rebuild value? I hope Bloom doesn't give him more PT to prove he shouldn't be part of the future.
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:31 pm
by Ronnie Dobbs
icon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:27 pmAnd you really think "Noooooooot" is ever going to rebuild value? I hope Bloom doesn't give him more PT to prove he shouldn't be part of the future.
Yea, maybe. If he can go on another run like he did starting out the year to finish off the season, that would help. It's certainly gotta be better than trading him at his lowest point and also while he's on the IL.
Besides, the offseason might be a better time to trade a player like Nootbaar. Rosters are pretty locked up right now, especially for MLB ready type players that we'd like to get back. Maybe we get back another player that might need a change of scenery, but that team didn't want to give him up during the deadline. And the offseason means it's all Bloom's team to do with what he wants.
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:34 pm
by Goldfan
Fellas enjoy your Aug and Sept with this crew…..I think we’ve been given the preview the last couple weeks. Perhaps things have a different tone once MO is gone….I doubt it tho
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:35 pm
by Melville
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.
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:36 pm
by icon
Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:31 pm
icon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025 19:27 pmAnd you really think "Noooooooot" is ever going to rebuild value? I hope Bloom doesn't give him more PT to prove he shouldn't be part of the future.
Yea, maybe. If he can go on another run like he did starting out the year to finish off the season, that would help. It's certainly gotta be better than trading him at his lowest point and also while he's on the IL.
Besides, the offseason might be a better time to trade a player like Nootbaar. Rosters are pretty locked up right now, especially for MLB ready type players that we'd like to get back. Maybe we get back another player that might need a change of scenery, but that team didn't want to give him up during the deadline. And the offseason means it's all Bloom's team to do with what he wants.
That's a rational reply. Appreciate it. We shall see soon enough what Bloom thinks of this roster.
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:40 pm
by Bad14
So he should trade players for less than their value? Is that what you expect Bloom to do?
Re: Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo
Posted: 31 Jul 2025 19:44 pm
by icon
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".