SnB Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(toasty @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 04:06 PM) This isnt a trade, how's come its over here on trade winds and my post on soxtalk main forum got nixed? trade winds is the forum we use for everything hot stove, rumors, other teams signing (i guess it could also go in around the horn too). Pale hose talk is going to be used just for white sox talk. If you have any more questions, feel free to pm me or any other mod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthraxFan93 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Umm, how does this effect the sox.. Meaning Signing Garland to a long-term deal, resigning Jose next year, and Makry in the years to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchtower41 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 03:30 PM) http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...view=getnewpost He hasn't been on the Sox for awhile. word has it though, the Sox still plan out on giving out Loiaza bobbleheads during a promotion next year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 04:22 PM) Cinny for Dunn? not bad, not bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:22 PM) Cinny for Dunn? I see A's fans are hoping for Abreu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 04:14 PM) I disagree with it being a horrible deal, looks abotu right to me. I do however agree with you that something will likely follow and that could be Zito being traded at the GM meetings. 7 mill for a guy who is likely to post an era between 4.7-5? I'd call that a horrible deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 I bet the Cubs will be in the market for Zito. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 I am stunned that Esteban Loaiza continues to parlay his 03 season with the White Sox into the heavy contracts he has recieved from the Nationals and A's. Those contracts would seem to fit someone who had continued success, not a one year wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:29 PM) I am stunned that Esteban Loaiza continues to parlay his 03 season with the White Sox into the heavy contracts he has recieved from the Nationals and A's. Those contracts would seem to fit someone who had continued success, not a one year wonder. Loaiza was pretty good last year. I don't think he'll have a 5 era at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:37 PM) Loaiza was pretty good last year. I don't think he'll have a 5 era at all RFK is an extreme pitchers park and his numbers on the road were pretty brutal. That plus going back to the AL, I fully expect his era to be right around 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObamaKnowsBest Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 The A's have signed Esteban Loaiza to a 3 year deal for 21 mil. Solid starter for a staff that is already one of the best. THe A's should be dangerous next year they need to sign a big bat, dont see why they arent in the Konerko running. We all no what kind of trouble we have with the A's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChWRoCk2 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 i like the move on the A's part, hes a vet and can provide some good pitching in what is a pitchers park, nice sign by the A's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 The Padres should have signed Loaiza. He would pitch great in that ballpark. Sucky on the road though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 03:39 PM) RFK is an extreme pitchers park and his numbers on the road were pretty brutal. That plus going back to the AL, I fully expect his era to be right around 5. Well, at least last year...Washington was probably a better hitting park than Oakland, at least if you take the park factor points without analysis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 (edited) Well, at least last year...Washington was probably a better hitting park than Oakland, at least if you take the park factor points without analysis <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Look at the homerun factor. That's what killed Loaiza at the Cell in 2004. Edited November 28, 2005 by SSH2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:44 PM) Well, at least last year...Washington was probably a better hitting park than Oakland, at least if you take the park factor points without analysis ??? Do you know how to read these park factors? Oakland had 1.2% more runs scored than the average park, and had almost 9% more HRs than the average park. RFK had 14% fewer runs scored, and 22% fewer HRs than the average park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:44 PM) Well, at least last year...Washington was probably a better hitting park than Oakland, at least if you take the park factor points without analysis What am I missing here? Looks like the Colleseum was easier to hit in by far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:52 PM) ??? Do you know how to read these park factors? Oakland had 1.2% more runs scored than the average park, and had almost 9% more HRs than the average park. RFK had 14% fewer runs scored, and 22% fewer HRs than the average park. Thought I was going crazy for a second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 03:52 PM) ??? Do you know how to read these park factors? Oakland had 1.2% more runs scored than the average park, and had almost 9% more HRs than the average park. RFK had 14% fewer runs scored, and 22% fewer HRs than the average park. I'm not totally sure how to read the numbers...but somehow I think you and I have to be looking at different numbers. In 2005, when I sort by "runs scored", McAfee is ranked 28th...and RFK is ranked 23rd. Coors field is naturally ranked first. By just that metric, the way I'm looking at the data...McAfee gave up fewer runs on average than RFK. I guess I have to be wrong somewher,e but I don't see where that comes out of the numbers I'm seeing at all. Edited November 28, 2005 by Balta1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:57 PM) I'm not totally sure how to read the numbers...but somehow I think you and I have to be looking at different numbers. In 2005, when I sort by "runs scored", McAfee is ranked 28th...and RFK is ranked 23rd. Coors field is naturally ranked first. By just that metric, the way I'm looking at the data...McAfee gave up fewer runs on average than RFK. I guess I have to be wrong somewher,e but I don't see where that comes out of the numbers I'm seeing at all. The link you just gave us has completely different numbers then you're seeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 06:52 PM) ??? Do you know how to read these park factors? Oakland had 1.2% more runs scored than the average park, and had almost 9% more HRs than the average park. RFK had 14% fewer runs scored, and 22% fewer HRs than the average park. I would say anything +/- 5% is about the norm. So Oakland's is fairly close to the norm, but Washingtons is definitely a Pitcher's park. I know this is unrelated, but it is suprising to see Fenway with a 0.974 HR ratio. Also, San Diego's HR ratio is horrible 0.691. Edited November 29, 2005 by WinninUgly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Esteban Loaiza's three-year deal with the A's is worth $21.375 million. It includes a $3 million signing bonus, which will be spread out over the life the contract, and yearly salaries of $5 million, $6 million and $7 million. The A's have a $7.5 million option for 2009 with a $375,000 buyout. Nov. 28 - 6:43 pm et Source: The Associated Press per Rotoworld. He'll be moved before '08. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 04:00 PM) The link you just gave us has completely different numbers then you're seeing. How in the world can that be? Cutting and pasting: (sorted on the runs column, this is the bottom of the list, at that same ESPN Park factor link) Rk Park Name Runs HR H 2B 3B BB 21 Shea Stadium (Mets) 0.889 0.994 0.946 0.860 0.951 0.963 22 Comerica Park (Tigers) 0.865 0.749 1.005 0.762 2.194 0.919 23 RFK Stadium (Nationals) 0.860 0.775 0.851 0.888 1.051 0.953 24 Safeco Field (Mariners) 0.854 0.793 0.926 0.838 1.091 1.123 25 PETCO Park (Padres) 0.837 0.691 0.895 0.895 1.519 1.046 26 Dodger Stadium (Dodgers) 0.825 0.988 0.894 0.719 0.485 1.031 27 Angel Stadium (Angels) 0.818 0.612 0.828 0.925 0.292 0.825 28 McAfee Coliseum (Athletics) 0.703 0.622 0.678 0.686 0.407 0.594 29 Turner Field (Braves) 0.655 0.756 0.689 0.773 0.526 0.613 30 Bank One Ballpark (Diamondbacks) 0.540 0.477 0.553 0.644 1.278 0.559 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:57 PM) I'm not totally sure how to read the numbers...but somehow I think you and I have to be looking at different numbers. In 2005, when I sort by "runs scored", McAfee is ranked 28th...and RFK is ranked 23rd. Coors field is naturally ranked first. By just that metric, the way I'm looking at the data...McAfee gave up fewer runs on average than RFK. I guess I have to be wrong somewher,e but I don't see where that comes out of the numbers I'm seeing at all. The data fields from ESPN got broken somewhere along the way....They were fine in '04, but got all fished up sometime in early '05. They haven't been right since. B-R lists the 2005 park factor (which unlike the ESPN stats isn't a straight %) for the coliseum as 103 and RFK at 93, with 100 being neutral. Edited November 29, 2005 by Gene Honda Civic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 03:39 PM) RFK is an extreme pitchers park and his numbers on the road were pretty brutal. That plus going back to the AL, I fully expect his era to be right around 5. Oakland is a pitchers park as well (stats be damned). I don't anticipate much change in the numbers as long as he's healthy. That said it seems like a lot, but compared to Eric Milton getting what he got last year (and Odalis Perez) this seems pretty on par with the market. I'd think Beane would have opted for something else, but he isn't paying him too much in the 1st two years of the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.