Agreed. Hence the annoying back and forth, yo-yo effect, flip-floppiness. "Serving me crow" after multiple good appearances, "needs to be replaced" after one blown save. It's already stale and we still have the majority of the season left to go.
Giles already had Devo's job. He sucked at it and was demoted to closer per Hinch (he said it in a much nicer way than me). Devo comes into higher leverage situations than Giles on average. Harris comes into higher leverage situations than Giles on average. For the third most important relief pitcher on the Astros, Giles ain't half bad.
You just are not willing to understand or make any concessions whatsoever. After the good stretch he was serving me crow. That does not mean I was completely convinced of the other side of the argument. I was simply being humble, like "hey, he's proving me wrong right now, I'll admit that, after all I'm not a narrow minded individual." You somehow are taking that to mean my mind was changed permanently. I don't know why. That's not how season-long debates work. Then he performs poorly in three straight outings, and I observe that I still think something will be done about him eventually. Nowhere in any of that did I change positions or "flip flop", I just pointed out that for awhile there I was being proven wrong. Also, nowhere did I say after the blown save that he needs to be replaced. Only that, I think he will be eventually replaced which has been my stated position for some time now. I took your bait again, that's my bad.
Concessions? I'm not the one calling for change. Will certainly advocate for some when warranted. Till then, I won't live/die with every single run (hell, some here criticize every single hit) that Ken Giles gives up.
I don't either. I mean concessions in that you don't try to understand points of view, you just distort them to fit your arguments.