Eminor3rd

QUOTE (VAfan @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 05:17 PM) I'll reply here as well. McCarthy is not a reliable replacement for Floyd. In 7 seasons, he's averaging less than 100 IPs per year (654 innings total since 2005). Floyd has pitched 1127 innings since 2004. Both guys are 29 (Floyd is older by 6 months.). Right but now Floyd has elbow issues. His lowest season was his most recent. McCarthy missed most of last season with a freak head injury, which would have to be considered not to be a long-term issue if someone is willing to sign him. I don't think career innings makes sense here, I think we have to look at the situation and see how likely it is to be a problem going forward.

QUOTE (VAfan @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 05:13 PM) So, let's see if I have this right. The Baltimore bullpen finished 32-11 w-l in relief because their starting staff gave them more chances, and in most of those games they were already behind. But that's not better than the Sox bullpen, which finished 25-25 w-l in relief, even though the Sox starters were better and so turned over more games where we were ahead or tied? To my way of looking at it, to get to 32-11, the Baltimore bullpen had to pitch well enough for the team to rally to victories 32 times, and had to hold on when they did catch up enough to lose only 11 games. Both numbers indicate significantly better bullpen performance than the Sox' got, which lost 25 times when it was handed a lead or a tie. If someone wanted to do the game-by-game breakdown, I think it would bear this out. I'm not saying that the Baltimore pen wasn't better, I'm just saying that looking at W-L is a bad way to tell because W-L is a proxy, not a measure of isolated performance. How much more/less run support did the Baltimore bullpen get? What was the difference in leverage index? Which teams did they beat and which did they lose to? If you want to compare the bullpens, you should look at how their pitchers actually performed.

QUOTE (VAfan @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) This might explain Baltimore's wins. It does not explain Baltimore's AL-low 11 bullpen losses. That's the stat worth paying attention to. Baltimore's bullpen blew almost no games, and gave the team whatever time it needed to come back to win games. Sure it does. If the starting rotation is bad, the bullpen inherits fewer leads to blow in addition to more innings. More innings leads to more chances to regain the lead and take a win, fewer chances to blow a lead and take a loss. That's the problem with context stats, you can't reduce the variables enough to determine causality.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 03:40 PM) Besides, if McCarthy is that hot of a commodity, and so cheap to sign, why would they trade something for Floyd, when they could just sign Brandon themselves? Right, that's why hopefully the Sox jump on it. If you get that deal done, you increase Gavin's market. The advantage that the Sox have is that they're already $9.5m into that 4th pitching slot, whereas many other teams may be looking to guarantee less than that to McCarthy. So the Sox could feasibly pay him up to that much money if they're confident they can move Floyd. Ideally, they want to save what they can, but they gain the Floyd haul even if the money is a wash.

Part of the reason Baltimore's bullpen won a ton of games is because their rotation was a complete joke nearly all season. Their bullpen was snatching wins up that most team's starters would have been getting. Secondly, the volatility or RP performance from year to year is a reliable condition, and it makes it very risky and almost always bad to spend a lot of resources on depth guys there. You'd like to have an anchor or two, but the rest of it is just a crapshoot. You need cheap talent there, and we have it already.

Yeah, it's hard to argue that being the team to snatch up McCarthy on an incentive deal early so that you can move Floyd to someplace like Toronto isn't a great idea. It's not like you're asking either of them to be mid-rotation guys -- even a disaster has you with a revolving door 5th man, which is a pretty common thing. The upside, though, is really enticing. MCarthy has pitched like a 2/3 guy when healthy lately.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 08:51 AM) Not to mention, Brandon is the exact opposite type of pitcher you want in USCF. He's different now -- he started throwing sinkers and cutters and now he's a groundballer. He's a really interesting career turn-around guy because he re-invented himself. There have been some cool articles about him this year describing it.

I don't know how you guys think we can move Dunn. He's good, but there's no surplus value in the contract. Who doesn't have a better option than to take that contract? Also, if you go FA, you're going for either Hamilton or Swisher, and both are going to be a lot more expensive than you think they should be.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 29, 2012 -> 11:47 AM) Am I the only one here who would pick up Youk's option? I would.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 29, 2012 -> 02:22 AM) Move's I'd make in light of Twins possibly wanting Buehrle Trade Floyd for Prospects Trade Danks for prospects, low value, but you might get something back. Send some of these prospects + Viciedo + Molina + Santiago + young Non-Reed BP arm for Felix Rotation at this point: Felix Hernandez Chris Sale Jose Quintana Now, work out a deal with Peavy. Decline the option and try to work out a 3/$40M deal with incentives Trade Sanchez, Marinez, and a low level prospect for Burhle. Rotation: Felix Hernandez Chris Sale Jake Peavy Mark Buehrle Jose Quintana Now, sign Josh Hamilton for a lucrative contract WITH clauses (drug related ones). Resign AJ to a deal around 2/$20M Pick up the option on Youk Lineup: CF - Alejandro De Aza 3B - Kevin Youkilis DH - Adam Dunn 1B - Paul Konerko LF - Josh Hamilton RF - Alex Rios C - AJ Pierzynski SS - Alexei Ramirez 2B - Gordon Beckham Reed, Crain, Thornton, Myers (resigned, not option), Veal + 2 others in BP Payroll: A lot of money Attendance: Good (Buehrle back, AJ retained, two Cy Young candidate starters, MVP in the OF, etc.) Then Rick Hahn walks across town, b**** slaps Theo, comes back and we celebrate. Then I wake up. That's a contender alright, but at a payroll of $180m+

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 30, 2012 -> 10:12 AM) Hopefully the market for AJ is lmited and we get him back at a decent number. I agree, but I don't think it's likely, especially given how thin the market is for everything other than OF this year.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Oct 29, 2012 -> 08:23 PM) Are they a rival if you keep getting owned by them? So long as we continue to end up a few games apart at the top of the division, yes.

QUOTE (flavum @ Oct 29, 2012 -> 10:02 AM) I don't consider the Tigers a "rival". This isn't college football. But hey, if you want to hate teams out of jealousy, that's your right. How are they not a rival? They are the one team standing between the Sox and the playoffs. They were last year too and probably will be next year. Also, you mean envy, not jealousy. Common misuse: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Envy_vs_Jealousy

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) Hamilton wouldn't be that big of an add. They already have a great offensive OF, plus a gold glover in CF. I'll get scared if they add another front line starter or some defense in the IF. I wouldn't say they have a "great offensive OF." Plus, Hamilton would actually be a defensive improvement in a corner, he's just bad for CF. Realistically, he replaces Delmon Young's -0.7 WAR and they rotate all of their DHs through that hole to keep them all in the lineup. Swapping Hamilton for Young, Dirks, Boesch, Berry, or Garcia would actually be a pretty big deal, I think. Now, when these guys get older, the team would be a total disaster, but for next year, they could pick up 4-5 wins by adding Hamilton.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Oct 29, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) Scott Merkin ‏@scottmerkin Peavy and Pierzynski finalists at their respective positions for 2012 Rawlings Gold Gloves to be announced Tuesday. No Beckham or Ramirez Lol, what?

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Oct 25, 2012 -> 11:13 PM) Right now Carlos Sanchez is just a good average hitter and a good defender, let's not hype him up but let him develop instead IMHO. Sanchez is by no means a super prospect to get excited about, but my point is that he's going to be knocking at the door in 2013 or 2014 and if Beckham doesn't improve, there's no reason he isn't going to get his shot. I'm not saying we should hype Sanchez up, just saying Beckham's leash is limited.

This is his year to put up or shut up. He's a non-tender otherwise with Carlos Sanchez nipping at his shoes.

MOBILE STADIUM: Install rocket boosters underneath and on the side of the stadium so it can hover around and pick people up before game time. Five or six stops around the north and west sides should be plenty. PLUS it would create jobs, as I imagine a whole team of people would be needed to navigate.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 10:46 AM) I don't think he was the best choice for the #3 spot. The season is long and the second half Dunn was a shell of what you would consider a 3 hole hitter. The man had a .729 OPS with a .302 OBP for the second half of the season. So no matter what algorithm you use to optimize your lineup, Adam Dunn doesn't belong in the 3 hole. You didn't read my first post, did you? It does make sense in the algorithm where the ideal #3 hitter is your 5th best hitter who ideally has big time power and strikes out a lot more than he grounds out. Which is the algorithm I'm arguing for, and that is precisely what Adam Dunn was this year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) If they had Bears ticket prices? I doubt it. I strongly disagree. Just like the Bears wouldn't sell out 81 games at $50, though they'd have a better chance than the Sox since they're the only team in town and football is more popular. If the games are rare and a big deal, people value them higher and will pay higher prices. If they happen every day for six months, supply is way higher and you don't pay as much.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Oct 16, 2012 -> 11:49 PM) Debunked? Lol I love speaking in comedic absolutes as much as the next guy but ya gotta expect retorts for such silliness. I just hope some are provided. Dude was blown away by every fastball that mattered all year! One exception: that 2 homer game end of the year. One exception IMO. Choke city any other time my eyes watched. It was painful. KW only blunder in 10 years. I assume you're talking about Dunn here. To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against his acquisition at all. I'm just saying that, given the roster that we had in 2012, Dunn was the best choice for the #3 slot in the lineup based on type of hitter he is. And this opinion is based on base/out state and linear weights research done by Tom Tango, which I think is really solid.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 16, 2012 -> 07:28 PM) Except you can't draw that equivalency just because the math works. It is much harder to come up with $200 a ticket one time, than $50 a ticket four times over the course of a baseball season. The relationship behind how many games and how long seasons are is irrelevant if you are saying prices are too high. Just because of opportunity cost and limited resources comparing the two as if they are equal doesn't really make sense. The reality is that $50 is a number I plucked out of the air just for comparisons sake. The real average ticket price is MUCH lower than that, even without considering the umpteen million different ways to get cheaper tickets. Even comparing apples to apples with the two baseball teams, the Sox average ticket price is about 60% of the Cubs in 2012. And the last sentence of the edit is missing the individual decision making point, and turning into a fanbase one. With parking and food, it absolutely is not lower than $50. And you're right, it doesn't add up 1 to 1, but make any reasonable concession and the fact that the Bears sell 3.2 million is the difference. It's supply and demand; Sox sell 2 million+ tickets a year, they would absolutely sell out 8 games at Soldier field if that was their season.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 16, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) Yet getting people to spend five times that to go to a Bears game isn't a problem at all. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 16, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) When people are saying ticket prices are too high, they aren't saying that only if there were less tickets for sale, they could afford to buy tickets. They are saying the price of tickets are too expensive. Sox tickets are not too expensive for people to go to one game, they ARE too expensive for people to go to ten games. Here's an exercise assuming that Sox tickets are $50, Bears are $200, and those capacity figures from before are true. If you go to one Bears game at $200, you have gone to 1/8th of the games. The Bears need about 192,000 people to do that to sell every seat. If you go to one Sox game at $50, you have gone to 1/81st of the games. The Sox to about 3.2 million people to do that to sell every seat. If the Sox wanted every fan to go to 1/8th of the games, like the Bears fans do, they would need every person to go to 10-11 games, at the cost of $500-550. 192,000 Bears seats x $200 = $38,400,000 3,200,000 Sox seats x $50 = $160,000,000 The toal amount of money that would have to be spent to sell out the Cell every day is over four times what it would require to sell out Soldier field every day, even considering that tickets to Soldier field are four times more expensive. $38,400,000 / 3,200,000 Sox seats = $12 Sox tickets would have to be $12 apiece for you to be expecting the same amount of total spending from Sox fans as you would for Bears fans to go to the same fraction of the games that are played. Therefore, price is absolutely affected by the amount of home games involved and it is currently way too high to expect people to go to enough games to fill the place up every day. Even if the Sox expected fans to spend the same $200 as Bears fans and go to four games a year, they'd need 800,000 to sell the place out every day, which is almost a third of the entire city - in a town with two baseball teams and with the other team having a much more desireable location and much more affluent fan base. This is more than four times the size of all the seats available in a Bears season. EDIT: My point is that you can't draw conclusions about how dedicated much less dedicated the Sox fan base is than the Bears by comparing attendance figures and ticket prices. To say that a fan can or can't afford to go to a Sox game is NOT to say that a fan can or can't afford to sell the place out every night -- and in the case of the Sox, the numbers are too high to expect that to happen at ~$50 per seat. In other words, supporting the Sox to the tune of nightly sellouts is a much, much larger financial burden than supporting the Bears to the tune of nightly sellouts, and it has everything to do with how many games are played.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 16, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) Yet getting people to spend five times that to go to a Bears game isn't a problem at all. I feel like you're not reading what I'm posting at all.