WCSox Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (dasox24 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 11:01 AM) What the f*** don't some Bulls fans understand about a salary cap? You can pay guys like that in baseball b/c there's no limit to spending (except for what the owner wants to spend). Not to mention that Reinsdorf is one of many board members who own minority stakes in the Sox, and that there's no way that he can unilaterally reallocate Sox assets to the Bulls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Not a fan of this article. It was a weird way to frame the salary argument. Why bring up Carlos Lee as your example when he is meeting expectations, and therefore, arguably, living up to the numbers on his deal. Why not bring up a real suck contract with a bad player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voros Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 By the way, I think what a lot of folks are hinting at here is a variation of the backpack problem. Valuing Peavy is a little more complicated than counting up how many wins he's worth and multiplying that by the value of a win. A major league baseball team only has a 25 man roster and can only play 9 (10 in the AL) players at once. So even if you could theoretically sign 100 players worth $2 million each, for only $1 million each, you wouldn't be able to reap the full benefits because most of those players would have nowhere to play. You'd make $9 million on the first 9 and lose money on most of the rest. But in the case of a superstar, not only do all the wins he adds have value, but being able to have all those wins come from a single roster spot and a single spot in the lineup carries with it additional value over and above. This is particularly true because a win that gets you from 93 to 94 wins is a hell of a lot more valuable than one that gets you from 83 to 84. So the more wins you pile up, the more each successive win from there is worth. Those sorts of considerations make it kind of a difficult thing to evaluate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) Richard's ceiling appears to be that of solid #3 starter Poreda, now that he's away from the team that drafted him, is going to start being looked at as bullpen-type because of his makeup Obviously we cant judge the deal yet, but the guys we sent are replaceable. Peavy does some things that are very hard to find, and JR gets to take on that type of starter with his preferred method -- 4 year contract or less. His point about the big contract is a good one, but we're the kind of team that has to overpay anyway. I would rather have this on the books than have another one of those offseasons where FAs turn us down and we have to settle for Nick Swisher. Actually, we underpaid Dye, Buehrle, Konerko, Alexei Ramirez, Viciedo, etc. All had bigger offers from other teams, or would have had them on the free or open market. The thing the author totally discounts is the positive affect on the fanbase, increased attendance (not quite the Halladay affect in TOR, but it will be interesting to see attendance in his home starts versus other starters, especially his first 2-3 starts), increased season ticket renewals for 2010, etc. In other words, renewed positive optimism for the future of this ballclub. Peavy, GQCQ and Beckham, for example....can sell tickets in a way that Richard or Poreda never could dream of. You're not a former Cy Young winner for nothing, and I like the "shot across the bow" aspect of ramming it down the throat of a Cubs' franchise that is very much paralyzed financially. Even if he is DEBATABLY overpaid by $3-4 million per year at the back end, I think he more than compensates by generating additional revenues, goodwill from other free agents that will give the Sox extra consideration now (someone like Figgins)...the type of starting rotation we have, of course other players would love to play here. Edited August 3, 2009 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Stupid article. Hardball Times ain't all that. Among the numerous flaws in the article, it fails to mention the value to a playoff rotation that the trade creates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 01:10 PM) Not a fan of this article. It was a weird way to frame the salary argument. Why bring up Carlos Lee as your example when he is meeting expectations, and therefore, arguably, living up to the numbers on his deal. Why not bring up a real suck contract with a bad player. It would have been stronger to say the money from Carlos Lee's contract brought a championship that Valentin, Lee, Ordonez and Thomas (out for most of that season) didn't.... Carlos LEE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 BeWareTheNewSox 5 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Lame. If the Sox win the World Series this year or next everything he wrote is worthless. Having everyone on the roster at fair value doesn't do much for you if you don't win it all. He is also overrating what we gave up. I find it hilarious how our farm system is always trashed until we make one of these deals. And this is coming from a guy who believed in the likes of McCarthy and Gio and thought Clayton was okay but didn't have a great ceiling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 06:26 PM) It would have been stronger to say the money from Carlos Lee's contract brought a championship that Valentin, Lee, Ordonez and Thomas (out for most of that season) didn't.... Carlos LEE they are talking about the Lee contract with Houston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatnom Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I think we need to take into account the economy as well. If it stays the way it is for a couple years, it won't be quite as difficult to fill in holes with a small budget as the author assumes it will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Did this guy seriously say that Poreda will lead a team to the WS? HAHAHAHA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 03:01 PM) Did this guy seriously say that Poreda will lead a team to the WS? HAHAHAHA! He said the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) He said the opposite. Wow, I suck at skimming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 01:09 PM) Not to mention that Reinsdorf is one of many board members who own minority stakes in the Sox, and that there's no way that he can unilaterally reallocate Sox assets to the Bulls. The argument there was that JR is willing to go above and beyond and be convinced about a Peavy while with the Bulls, he works with a hard cap and such. And in baseball, you lose in revenue sharing if you spend more than a certain amount. Basically, it was about Reinsdorf caring more about the White Sox and himself creating a hole on a team that he admitted that he doesn't care about as much, "I'd trade in my 6 championship rings for 1 world series". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 12:39 PM) The argument there was that JR is willing to go above and beyond and be convinced about a Peavy while with the Bulls, he works with a hard cap and such. And in baseball, you lose in revenue sharing if you spend more than a certain amount. Basically, it was about Reinsdorf caring more about the White Sox and himself creating a hole on a team that he admitted that he doesn't care about as much, "I'd trade in my 6 championship rings for 1 world series". I see. Ironically, many Sox fans made the opposite-but-equally-erroneous "He cares more about the Bulls than the Sox!" argument back in the '90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 This is a really stupid article. You can say what he said about any highly-paid player, really. Good players cost money, lots of young, not very good players cost little, but can fill out a roster. His article basically claims that teams don't need good players, but tons of bad ones making little. If he thinks we can't plug our roster with guys as productive as those traded he's got another thing coming. Stupid stupid article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 It's very short-sighted. And really, there are too many factors that go into a players "worth." I mean, at the time, Alex Rodriguez was the best player in baseball. One can argue that he still is. And he's had some pretty decent seasons...but no championships. Is that how a players' worth is measured? Butts in the seats? ERA/OPS? BABIP? I mean, there are WAY too many factors and no good way to determine it. So, unless you sign someone like Dewayne Wise to a $10 million/year contract or Jake Peavy to the league minimum...everyone is going to have their own way of measuring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 10:14 AM) So, to summarize, even though the trade will likely look good over the next few years, it's really bad? I don't get it. Not just really bad, the worst in recent memory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) Good players cost money, lots of young, not very good players cost little, but can fill out a roster. His article basically claims that teams don't need good players, but tons of bad ones making little. Maybe he works for Billy Beane? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 01:23 PM) Maybe he works for Billy Beane? he says he's a recent graduate looking to continue his career in baseball, and left his email address for employment offers. I just sent him this: http://www.keystonemascots.com/mascotcamp.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 01:27 PM) he says he's a recent graduate looking to continue his career in baseball, and left his email address for employment offers. I just sent him this: http://www.keystonemascots.com/mascotcamp.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) So, let me get this straight we traded from strength in order to get one of the best pitchers in the game, a pitcher who is out, not with an arm injury, but with an ankle problem. And we somehow compromised the future of our organization? A couple of years of Peavy, and the likes of Dan Hudson, Carlos Torres, Nevin Griffin and David Holmberg in our system beg to differ, Edited August 3, 2009 by Thunderbolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SockMe Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 none of the guys that we even traded would be a huge difference to the sucess, even though Peavy will miss some of this month, he will be here for the rest of september and hopefully the playoffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 01:10 PM) Not a fan of this article. It was a weird way to frame the salary argument. Why bring up Carlos Lee as your example when he is meeting expectations, and therefore, arguably, living up to the numbers on his deal. Why not bring up a real suck contract with a bad player. They are using statistical analysis to determine how much a player is worth. Carlos Lee makes $18.5 mill for the next 3 years following this one, in which he is also making $18.5 mill. I imagine they believe his offense is worth $15 mill a year due to the statistics he puts up, and that his numbers are inflated due to the ballpark he plays in, and with that extra $3-3.5 mill or so, they could get a very solid reliever on the free agent market, which will help win them more games if Lee is being paid a relatively good salary. This same argument goes for Peavy and the White Sox; both players could do well, but they won't live up to the stastical performances that their contract would demand. It's a pretty dumb line of thinking and goes against basic economic principles. As has been mentioned, there are times when this article is correct, such as when a team is much older, is tied down to bad contracts for a while, and has absolutely no minor league system. The Sox are in a transitional period, but are not in any 3 of those phases in particular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo's Drinker Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 03:27 PM) he says he's a recent graduate looking to continue his career in baseball, and left his email address for employment offers. I just sent him this: http://www.keystonemascots.com/mascotcamp.html another example of too many cooks in the kitchen. Just another media wannabee. hilarious that you sent him that mascot link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 My main problem is the superficiality of this article. You can’t look at this trade in a vacuum. 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.