More proof Dayton Moore could be Carl Peterson II.. [Archive]

JohnnyV13

06-16-2006, 01:18 AM

Actually, back in the day I supported Carl pulling Don Fortune's credentials. The reason was that Christian Okoye had a bad year (90 i think) and Fortune kept harping on his speculation that Okoye's drop in play was due to him being unhappy with his contract. Fortune was right, Okoye was off his game because of an off the field issue, but it wasn't a contract dispute. Okoye had a child die that year but he didn't want to play this tradgedy out in the press. When Fortune wouldn't bug off and kept hounding Okoye, Carl pulled Fortune's credentials.

KCChiefsMan

06-16-2006, 02:07 AM

well it would be a step up at least

DeepSouth

06-16-2006, 06:29 AM

Okay, we had the pulled credentials last week, Carl Peterson has also pulled credentials, (note Jack Harry & Don Fortune), now the Royals have started a Rufus Dawes-type blog on their website.

Carl is probably getting misty eyed when he sees how quickly the young pup is catching on.
If the royals could win more games than almost every other team in a single decade like the Chiefs did in the 90's, then I'd say the comparison is a good thing for Royal fans.

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 07:17 AM

The Royals WON something meaningful AFTER the Chiefs have. Carl hasn't done shit, he just came along at the same time that football took off because of revenue sharing. No playoff wins in well over a decade and some think he's done a great job? That's laughable in my book.

Bootlegged

06-16-2006, 07:25 AM

The world should pull those two's credentials. I can't believe they're still around.

htismaqe

06-16-2006, 07:34 AM

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 07:37 AM

You could only HOPE Dayton Moore is like Carl Peterson.

Peterson's fault of faults is that he can't win in the playoffs and get us to a Super Bowl. With that in mind, the Chiefs won more games in the 90's than any other team in the league save one.

When you're as bad as the Royals are, Carl Peterson-like results would be a godsend.
Give Dayton Moore EQUAL revenue sharing and the Royals could improve by leaps and bounds. Carl was at the right place at the right time, he certainly hasn't done anything to warrant the ass-kissing his is receiving around here.

htismaqe

06-16-2006, 07:38 AM

htismaqe

06-16-2006, 07:39 AM

Give Dayton Moore EQUAL revenue sharing and the Royals could improve by leaps and bounds. Carl was at the right place at the right time, he certainly hasn't done anything to warrant the ass-kissing his is receiving around here.

Of course you'd think it's an ass kissing. The only person around here throwing around anything unwarranted is you.

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 07:43 AM

Revenue sharing started in 1992. Carl already had a 61% winning percentage with the Chiefs when it started.He's done a decent job, but using him as the "model" GM is laughable and why I called him out. Some act as if he's the measuring stick for GMs and he isn't even close.

Also comparing a 16 game schedule to a 160 plus game schedule seems futile at best.

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 07:46 AM

Of course you'd think it's an ass kissing. The only person around here throwing around anything unwarranted is you.
Dayton Moore was compared to Carl Peterson as the measuring stick of SUCCESS. How can you not see, that some are glorifying Carl's tenure, thus ass-kissing in the process?

jidar

06-16-2006, 07:51 AM

Dayton Moore was compared to Carl Peterson as the measuring stick of SUCCESS. How can you not see, that some are glorifying Carl's tenure, thus ass-kissing in the process?

Around here Peterson mostly gets jeers. You're full of shit.
I think it's undeserved, overall he's done a decent job. Wish he could get a ****ing Trophy though...

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 07:54 AM

Around here Peterson mostly gets jeers. You're full of shit.
I think it's undeserved, overall he's done a decent job. Wish he could get a ****ing Trophy though...

I deal with the threads as they come up and this doesn't have one person calling bull shit about Carl Peterson, so I did. That's not full of shit, that somebody who doesn't think Carl has done a great job and wants to say something about. Deal with it and then shove it.

jidar

06-16-2006, 07:57 AM

I deal with the threads as they come up and this doesn't have one person calling bull shit about Carl Peterson, so I did. That's not full of shit, that somebody who doesn't think Carl has done a great job and wants to say something about. Deal with it and then shove it.

Well I'm saying you're a dumbass. Deal with that.

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 07:59 AM

Well I'm saying you're a dumbass. Deal with that.

You drew first blood, than you expect me to sit back and take it? **** you, Jidar.

Eleazar

06-16-2006, 08:02 AM

If only the Chiefs could go back to the days before Carl arrived and started screwing everything up.

htismaqe

06-16-2006, 08:03 AM

He's done a decent job, but using him as the "model" GM is laughable and why I called him out. Some act as if he's the measuring stick for GMs and he isn't even close.

Also comparing a 16 game schedule to a 160 plus game schedule seems futile at best.

ROFL

Point out the post where ANYBODY used him as the "model" or "measuring stick" for GM's.

That's ridiculous, and further proves my point.

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 08:10 AM

ROFL

Point out the post where ANYBODY used him as the "model" or "measuring stick" for GM's.

That's ridiculous, and further proves my point.Your words..."When you're as bad as the Royals are, Carl Peterson-like results would be a godsend."

htismaqe

06-16-2006, 08:16 AM

Your words..."When you're as bad as the Royals are, Carl Peterson-like results would be a godsend."

My words:

"Peterson's fault of faults is that he can't win in the playoffs and get us to a Super Bowl. With that in mind, the Chiefs won more games in the 90's than any other team in the league save one."

So do you just selectively read the parts you want to hear and discard the ones you don't? Or are you just so blind by your hatred that you completely missed my 2nd paragraph.

Again, keep typing. Every time you post, you further drive home my point.

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 08:20 AM

My words:

"Peterson's fault of faults is that he can't win in the playoffs and get us to a Super Bowl. With that in mind, the Chiefs won more games in the 90's than any other team in the league save one."

So do you just selectively read the parts you want to hear and discard the ones you don't? Or are you just so blind by your hatred that you completely missed my 2nd paragraph.

Again, keep typing. Every time you post, you further drive home my point.

You asked for a comparision-I SUPPLIED that to you and now you want to squirm and act as if you didn't make the comparision. You should KNOW what YOU said, I didn't feel the other information was pertinent to the question you asked.

Again, I gave Carl CREDIT and said he's done a DECENT job, so apparantly, you like to be SELECTIVE as well. Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot.

htismaqe

06-16-2006, 08:24 AM

You asked for a comparision-I SUPPLIED that to you and now you want to squirm and act as if you didn't make the comparision. You should KNOW what YOU said, I didn't feel the other information was pertinent to the question you asked.

Again, I gave Carl CREDIT and said he's done a DECENT job, so apparantly, you like to be SELECTIVE as well. Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot.

ROFL

I asked for an example where anyone here held up Carl Peterson as the "model for success". Those were YOUR WORDS.

What you supplied to me was an EXCERPT of one of my posts with no mention of the QUALIFYING STATEMENTS made afterwards. It was absolutely pertinent to what I said for one reason:

I NEVER said Peterson was a great GM. In fact, I never said he was a GOOD GM. I just said that despite his post-season failures, he's won a ton of regular season games. That's something the Royals LONG FOR right now. Baby steps.

There's only one pot here and it's you. You've got nothing on me. It's all here in 1's and 0's.

melbar

06-16-2006, 08:33 AM

If the royals could win more games than almost every other team in a single decade like the Chiefs did in the 90's, then I'd say the comparison is a good thing for Royal fans.

Ya getting to the playoffs and losing would be better than what we've had to endure the past 10 years or so...

Moooo

06-16-2006, 08:37 AM

Let's see, within 1 year of Carl being the Chiefs GM, they were in the playoffs... That sounds really good to me about now. Hell, I'd go for a .500 season!

Moooo

jidar

06-16-2006, 08:39 AM

You drew first blood, than you expect me to sit back and take it? **** you, Jidar.

No, **** you and your little dog too.

banyon

06-16-2006, 09:04 AM

Here's the blog entry for any interested...

...It is being widely reported that the Kansas City Royals revoked the 2006 season credentials of two radio reporters last week for asking tough questions. The Royals have never stated this as fact. The credentials were not revoked because someone asked tough questions – we get those every day – but for reasons of decorum. The tone, the abruptness, and the forcefulness of which their questions and added commentary were presented, offended many at the news conference.

The Royals found that behavior to be particularly disruptive of the introduction of the club’s new general manager, the intended purpose of the meeting.

The Royals respect the journalistic obligations of the more than 200 credentialed media personnel who have followed and continue to follow the club. In performing their jobs, these reporters have followed the unwritten rules of proper etiquette and professionalism when asking questions.

One of the affected reporters has been quoted in the Kansas City Star as saying the credentials were pulled, “obviously because of the questions we asked at the Dayton Moore news conference,” later adding, “Maybe I could have changed my tone in a more civil way.” In each case, station management/ownership was provided with notice of the Royals concern about their reporter’s behavior and of the pending action to be taken. Given several comments by media personnel and others who attended the press conference, the Royals believe the overall situation is now improved.

With all of the media outlets in today’s world, stories often take on a life of their own. With that in mind, fans should feel they can come to this site to separate fact from fiction and hear the truth directly from the Royals

http://royals.mlblogs.com/

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 09:14 AM

ROFL

I asked for an example where anyone here held up Carl Peterson as the "model for success". Those were YOUR WORDS.

What you supplied to me was an EXCERPT of one of my posts with no mention of the QUALIFYING STATEMENTS made afterwards. It was absolutely pertinent to what I said for one reason:

I NEVER said Peterson was a great GM. In fact, I never said he was a GOOD GM. I just said that despite his post-season failures, he's won a ton of regular season games. That's something the Royals LONG FOR right now. Baby steps.

There's only one pot here and it's you. You've got nothing on me. It's all here in 1's and 0's.
Comparing is comparing, no matter how it's spun. It's a given that people are giving props to Carl Peterson, because he is the one that Moore is being COMPARED to, by saying we would do WELL to have a Carl Petersonish type season for the Royals. It's OBVIOUS that's the measuring stick or he wouldn't be the COMPARISION, now would he? You, yourself said the Royals would do well to have a CP type season, that is a COMPARSION and its understood that's what people want Moore to strive to attain otherwise why mention CP? Comparing him in the first place makes him the measuring stick by default.

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 09:15 AM

No, **** you and your little dog too.That's funny, but you can still **** off. ROFL

htismaqe

06-16-2006, 09:35 AM

Comparing is comparing, no matter how it's spun. It's a given that people are giving props to Carl Peterson, because he is the one that Moore is being COMPARED to, by saying we would do WELL to have a Carl Petersonish type season for the Royals. It's OBVIOUS that's the measuring stick or he wouldn't be the COMPARISION, now would he? You, yourself said the Royals would do well to have a CP type season, that is a COMPARSION and its understood that's what people want Moore to strive to attain otherwise why mention CP? Comparing him in the first place makes him the measuring stick by default.

I did say that.

Because it's TRUE. The Royals have lost nearly SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT OF THEIR GAMES over the last 4 seasons and haven't had but a handful of winning seasons in nearly a decade and a half.

They need REGULAR SEASON WINS before they even THINK about the playoffs. And that's precisely what Carl Peterson is good for.

In NO WAY does that mean Carl Peterson is the "model" or "measuring stick" for "SUCCESS". NOBODY HERE SAID ONCE that Carl Peterson was "successful", only that what he has accomplished with KC (lots of regular season wins) is precisely what the Royals need at THIS POINT IN TIME. The words "model", "measuring stick", and "success" were all added BY YOU in an effort to create something to attack.

It really is pathetic.

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 09:48 AM

I did say that.

Because it's TRUE. The Royals have lost nearly SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT OF THEIR GAMES over the last 4 seasons and haven't had but a handful of winning seasons in nearly a decade and a half.

They need REGULAR SEASON WINS before they even THINK about the playoffs. And that's precisely what Carl Peterson is good for.

In NO WAY does that mean Carl Peterson is the "model" or "measuring stick" for "SUCCESS". NOBODY HERE SAID ONCE that Carl Peterson was "successful", only that what he has accomplished with KC (lots of regular season wins) is precisely what the Royals need at THIS POINT IN TIME. The words "model", "measuring stick", and "success" were all added BY YOU in an effort to create something to attack.

It really is pathetic.

I think you want to blame me for, what you do yourself. You actually believe they I have some crusade against Carl and have nothing better to do that constantly bash him. Agreed, I'm not his biggest fan, but I do and have given him praise for some of his moves. I try and give credit where credit is due, however, when I see him making foolish moves, I voice my opinion about that as well. You ONLY see the negative things said. How convient.

Again, comparing is comparing. You put a stipulatiion to your comparision, but you still made CP the MEASURING-STICK of success that Moore should strive to attain, whether you think Carl is great or not. The COMPARISION was made and it was INDICATED that Moore would do well, to achieve as much success as CP. Whether the words measuring stick, success, or model were used is irrelevant-it's IMPLIED.

Why should Moore strive to be as good as CP, if that isn't the measuring stick of success?

Eleazar

06-16-2006, 09:49 AM

"straw man" comes to mind.

Mr. Laz

06-16-2006, 09:54 AM

actually the Royals could use a carl about now

we'll see if "carl" can turn around the Royals like he turned around the chiefs "without" the changes to sport to help him along.

htismaqe

06-16-2006, 09:54 AM

I think you want to blame me for, what you do yourself. You actually believe they I have some crusade against Carl and have nothing better to do that constantly bash him. Agreed, I'm not his biggest fan, but I do and have given him praise for some of his moves. I try and give credit where credit is due, however, when I see him making foolish moves, I voice my opinion about that as well. You ONLY see the negative things said. How convient.

Again, comparing is comparing. You put a stipulatiion to your comparision, but you still made CP the MEASURING-STICK of success that Moore should strive to attain, whether you think Carl is great or not. The COMPARISION was made and it was INDICATED that Moore would do well, to achieve as much success as CP. Whether the words measuring stick, success, or model were used is irrelevant-it's IMPLIED.

Why should Moore strive to be as good as CP, if that isn't the measuring stick of success?

Are you really THAT dense? Do you have no sense of TIMING?

You're still attributing my name to things YOU SAID.

Dayton Moore has just arrived, and should strive to do EXACTLY WHAT CARL DID WHEN HE ARRIVED. I certainly hope if Dayton Moore stays for 16 years, he's more successful that Carl Peterson has been. But I wasn't trying to compare Dayton Moore 2006 to Carl Peterson 2006, you were. The only valid comparison is Dayton Moore 2006 to Carl Peterson 1989, but that's obviously lost on you.

I don't care if you make stuff up in an effort to justify attacking Carl Peterson all day. It only continues to make you look like an idiot.

Predarat

06-16-2006, 10:25 AM

I wonder if he believes in the 5(25) year plan like Carl?

BigChiefFan

06-16-2006, 10:43 AM

Are you really THAT dense? Do you have no sense of TIMING?

You're still attributing my name to things YOU SAID.

Dayton Moore has just arrived, and should strive to do EXACTLY WHAT CARL DID WHEN HE ARRIVED. I certainly hope if Dayton Moore stays for 16 years, he's more successful that Carl Peterson has been. But I wasn't trying to compare Dayton Moore 2006 to Carl Peterson 2006, you were. The only valid comparison is Dayton Moore 2006 to Carl Peterson 1989, but that's obviously lost on you.

I don't care if you make stuff up in an effort to justify attacking Carl Peterson all day. It only continues to make you look like an idiot.1989, huh? Is that why YOU REFERRED to Carl's REGULAR SEASON record AFTER 1989? Also, you mentioned 1992, SPECIFICALLY. Did you forget that, too? Squirm a little more.

Mr. Laz

06-16-2006, 10:59 AM

I wonder if he believes in the 5(25) year plan like Carl?

who cares as long as the first 8 years show as much improvement as the chiefs did.

the royals can hire someone else then

the chiefs owner just kept Peterson too long because money was such a top priority.

htismaqe

06-16-2006, 12:18 PM

1989, huh? Is that why YOU REFERRED to Carl's REGULAR SEASON record AFTER 1989? Also, you mentioned 1992, SPECIFICALLY. Did you forget that, too? Squirm a little more.

ROFL

You just don't get it.

htismaqe

06-16-2006, 12:18 PM

who cares as long as the first 8 years show as much improvement as the chiefs did.

the royals can hire someone else then

the chiefs owner just kept Peterson too long because money was such a top priority.

EXACTLY.

teedubya

06-16-2006, 06:55 PM

man, the comments on this thing are SCORCHING. heh.

http://royals.mlblogs.com/around_the_horn_in_kc/2006/06/royals_address_.html

Halfcan

06-16-2006, 10:10 PM

Are you really THAT dense? Do you have no sense of TIMING?

You're still attributing my name to things YOU SAID.

Dayton Moore has just arrived, and should strive to do EXACTLY WHAT CARL DID WHEN HE ARRIVED. I certainly hope if Dayton Moore stays for 16 years, he's more successful that Carl Peterson has been. But I wasn't trying to compare Dayton Moore 2006 to Carl Peterson 2006, you were. The only valid comparison is Dayton Moore 2006 to Carl Peterson 1989, but that's obviously lost on you.

I don't care if you make stuff up in an effort to justify attacking Carl Peterson all day. It only continues to make you look like an idiot.

Another quality post of name calling-can't you get along with anyone??