Here, smell this: I think the Astros should listen to trade talks for everyone, including Michael Bourn. That is far from saying they should "trade" him. You need to read a lot better than you do.
See if you recall writing these words regarding Lindstrom:
"Trading a commodity like Lindstrom is insane. Next."
"Forget the "closer" role, a young, solid power arm. yeh, trade him. That just smacks of dumb to me."
"Let me repeat, you don't trade a power arm that is basically under contract at this point".
"You don't even have to use "closer" to justify keeping Lindstrom around. Shrewd move in the offseason by Wade, it would be dumb to undo the good he did on that one."
"Hey, since the operative word is "listen", then heck why not listen to offers for Oswalt and Lindstrom from the Twinkies. Better be a great deal though. A very great deal."
Now, I anticipate that you are going to use that word "listen" as a disclaimer to disqualify what you previously wrote so consider that I wrote at 1:05pm May 19th which was before your "let me repeat, you don't trade a power arm that is basically under contract at this point" and every other posted comment following that one:
"He's not that young (Lindstrom), two years younger than Oswalt. The Astros have prospective closers in their system like Lo. I wouldn't give him away but I'd listen."
So, I'm not sure it is me that has reading comprehension problems.
I would have let your comment on Lindstrom last night go by totally if not for your smug, superior condescension throughout this whole discussion. You may be an administrator of this board, you may be a Pope, but to me you are just a fan with a megaphone. And that Pavlov's dog comment, nice diversion to change the subject. Totally senseless but very clever. And since I've wasted way too much time on this stupidity, Good day, sir.