Asking Prices Beginning to Fall

[Marty34]

Wow, congrats on getting the concept finally.

 

Is there anyone here who wrote that Jimenez or Santana is the key to contending in 2014?

[Eminor3rd]

Is there anyone here who wrote that Jimenez or Santana is the key to contending in 2014?

 

Every time you say "they haven't filled the hole in the rotation" like you just did a couple posts ago, that is what you are implying.

[Marty34]

Every time you say "they haven't filled the hole in the rotation" like you just did a couple posts ago, that is what you are implying.

 

My point has been they should be proactive in filling the rotation hole because they will save money. If it turns out that the core isn't good enough to contend in the next 3 years they have bigger problems than a SP @ 12M per.

[southsider2k5]

My point has been they should be proactive in filling the rotation hole because they will save money. If it turns out that the core isn't good enough to contend in the next 3 years they have bigger problems than a SP @ 12M per.

 

Only if said pitcher will actually still be good in a few years, which is why the Sox were looking at young pitchers, and not older ones.

[Marty34]

Only if said pitcher will actually still be good in a few years, which is why the Sox were looking at young pitchers, and not older ones.

 

Sure, but there's minimal risk if the pitcher is bad and the core is good enough to contend because a $48M contract isn't going to be an albatross based on their future payroll committments. What happens if next offseason they need a couple of starters? It's either going to cost them a lot more or they will not fill both spots.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Marty34

[hogan873]

Sure, but there's minimal risk if the pitcher is bad and the core is good enough to contend because a $48M contract isn't going to be an albatross based on their future payroll committments. What happens if next offseason they need a couple of starters? It's either going to cost them a lot more or they will not fill both spots.

Meanwhile, you believe that the Adam Dunn contract is an albatross.

 

And it what world would a $12 million a year committment not affect a team's ability to sign more free agents.

 

You're not even trying anymore.

[ILMOU]

You're not even trying anymore.

And yet he's still succeeded brilliantly. Page 38 and counting...

[southsider2k5]

Sure, but there's minimal risk if the pitcher is bad and the core is good enough to contend because a $48M contract isn't going to be an albatross based on their future payroll committments. What happens if next offseason they need a couple of starters? It's either going to cost them a lot more or they will not fill both spots.

 

YOu keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Eminor3rd]

My point has been they should be proactive in filling the rotation hole because they will save money. If it turns out that the core isn't good enough to contend in the next 3 years they have bigger problems than a SP @ 12M per.

 

1. They have to give their young pitchers innings in order to let them develop and "see what they have." Singing declining veterans hinders this. You are arguing this vehemently in another thread AS WE SPEAK regarding Adam Dunn taking PT away from young players.

 

2. $48m IS an albatross because it is $48m they would NOT be able to spend to patch something else up. It might not be much in a vacuum, but this ISN'T a vacuum and there are other players we have and pay and will want to get later. Again, see every argument you've ever made about Adam Dunn. He "only" makes $14m per year.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[witesoxfan]

So if they have a good '15 or '16 we will be proven right I guess.

 

Naturally you simplify everything down as much as you can because you're an extremist and everything is either black or white. This is yes or no, and meets several qualifications.

 

1) Does said pitcher make a difference between the Sox winning and losing the division in 2014 and/or 2015? If the answer is no, then it's a bad move.

2) Does said pitcher either make a difference between the Sox winning and losing the division in 2016 OR pitch well enough so that they can be traded for prospects at this point in time? If the answer is no, then it's a bad move.

3) If neither of the above qualifications are met, then you are spending $36-40 million for 3 years of non-productive pitching when that money could be spent internationally, in the draft, or on wild cards (such as Paulino and Boggs) that can be used to build towards the future or to trade at the deadline to help build the team, which makes the move a bad move regardless of what said pitcher does in 2017. Nobody signs a player for 4 years and says "Gee, I sure hope they pitch well in 2017 so I can at least get something for them in return."

 

There's room for it to be a good move. The risk far outweighs the reward. That's why they haven't and won't sign them.

 

My point has been they should be proactive in filling the rotation hole because they will save money. If it turns out that the core isn't good enough to contend in the next 3 years they have bigger problems than a SP @ 12M per.

 

What rotation hole? They have question marks, including a huge one at the #5 spot (where they have *at least* 3 guys competing for 1 spot), but I surely do not see a hole. If you could describe this hole or the size of it, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

(and don't say "the #5 spot" because it's clearly not a hole but is instead a question mark and this was addressed above)

 

(you are still going to say "the #5 spot" even though I've made it a point to mention it 3 times)

 

(the 5th spot is not a hole...there's a 4th for good measure)

 

 

---

 

BTW, Josh Hamilton would sure look good in a White Sox uniform right now at $25 mill a year. I don't care if you've admitted you were wrong, you are making the exact same argument now. Is it your goal to sign every free agent on the market and then hope to be able to compete? That's now the way to build a team in today's MLB.

Edited February 19, 2014 by witesoxfan

[Feeky Magee]

I'm not the most active on this forum but it seems to me that roughly 70% of it seems to be people correcting silly things Marty34 says.

[Eminor3rd]

I'm not the most active on this forum but it seems to me that roughly 70% of it seems to be people correcting silly things Marty34 says.

 

Sometimes Marty signs on as greg775, so it's more like 85%

[shakes]

I'm not the most active on this forum but it seems to me that roughly 70% of it seems to be people correcting silly things Marty34 says.

 

He's a huge troll. And not a very bright or creative one. People need to stop indulging him.

[hogan873]

Sometimes Marty signs on as greg775, so it's more like 85%

Don't forget The Ultimate Champion. Now we're at about 95%.

 

The Ultimate GregMart

[Eminor3rd]

Don't forget The Ultimate Champion. Now we're at about 95%.

 

The Ultimate GregMart

 

Nah, TUC is a different person.

 

I believe that Marty/greg actually believe the things he/she says, because he/she avoids critical debate about his/her opinions. When the 'facts' pile too high, Marty/greg just lays low rather than confront the pile, surfacing again later to say the same things again as if no one disproved them before.

 

TUC, on the other hand, loves nothing more than pure entropy. He will back down from NOTHING because there is no argument that can stand up to the brute force of his fiery passion for stubbornness. TUC can seem like he wins arguments even when he is explicitly admitting defeat in said argument. This is a man that loves chaos and pain. A dangerous man, indeed.

[Kyyle23]

Nah, TUC is a different person.

 

I believe that Marty/greg actually believe the things he/she says, because he/she avoids critical debate about his/her opinions. When the 'facts' pile too high, Marty/greg just lays low rather than confront the pile, surfacing again later to say the same things again as if no one disproved them before.

 

TUC, on the other hand, loves nothing more than pure entropy. He will back down from NOTHING because there is no argument that can stand up to the brute force of his fiery passion for stubbornness. TUC can seem like he wins arguments even when he is explicitly admitting defeat in said argument. This is a man that loves chaos and pain. A dangerous man, indeed.

 

I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that they are two different people

[Marty34]

1. They have to give their young pitchers innings in order to let them develop and "see what they have." Singing declining veterans hinders this. You are arguing this vehemently in another thread AS WE SPEAK regarding Adam Dunn taking PT away from young players.

 

2. $48m IS an albatross because it is $48m they would NOT be able to spend to patch something else up. It might not be much in a vacuum, but this ISN'T a vacuum and there are other players we have and pay and will want to get later. Again, see every argument you've ever made about Adam Dunn. He "only" makes $14m per year.

 

1.) Who are these young STARTING pitchers you speak of? Dunn should be treated as a 1 year signing, seeing how they already have De Aza and Viciedo he is blocking players who need at bats.

 

2.) Classifying a $48M contract as an albatross with the Sox future payroll obligations being what they are is silly. Dunn's contract is not an albatross, playing him is the problem.

[Marty34]

Nah, TUC is a different person.

 

I believe that Marty/greg actually believe the things he/she says, because he/she avoids critical debate about his/her opinions. When the 'facts' pile too high, Marty/greg just lays low rather than confront the pile, surfacing again later to say the same things again as if no one disproved them before.

 

TUC, on the other hand, loves nothing more than pure entropy. He will back down from NOTHING because there is no argument that can stand up to the brute force of his fiery passion for stubbornness. TUC can seem like he wins arguments even when he is explicitly admitting defeat in said argument. This is a man that loves chaos and pain. A dangerous man, indeed.

 

Let me guess critical debate involves Wins Above Replacement or some such.

 

[Eminor3rd]

1.) Who are these young STARTING pitchers you speak of? Dunn should be treated as a 1 year signing, seeing how they already have De Aza and Viciedo he is blocking players who need at bats.

 

2.) Classifying a $48M contract as an albatross with the Sox future payroll obligations being what they are is silly. Dunn's contract is not an albatross, playing him is the problem.

 

1. Andre Rienzo (25), Erik Johnson (24), Eric Surkamp (26), Charlie Leesman (26), Scott Snodgress (24), Chris Beck (23), Nestor Molina (25), Chris Bassitt (24)

 

2. The $48m alone isn't the issue, it's committing to paying it to an inconsistent pitcher into his mid-30's. This type of player is MUCH more likely to be bad than good going forward, especially a couple years down the road.

[Eminor3rd]

Let me guess critical debate involves Wins Above Replacement or some such.

 

Oftentimes, yes.

 

For example, if you think WAR and its components are wrong, then you should make a case for why you think that. You don't, though, you simply dismiss them by saying you don't care as if that makes facts go away. We're all open to it being wrong, but you have to show it.

[witesoxfan]

1.) Who are these young STARTING pitchers you speak of? Dunn should be treated as a 1 year signing, seeing how they already have De Aza and Viciedo he is blocking players who need at bats.

 

2.) Classifying a $48M contract as an albatross with the Sox future payroll obligations being what they are is silly. Dunn's contract is not an albatross, playing him is the problem.

 

1. Paulino (who is the wild card, 1 year guarantee that if he doesn't work out, there's no big loss), Rienzo, and Surkamp. Hahn specifically mentioned Beck as a guy too. That's 4 guys for this year and next that they could, should, and will be trying.

2. Do you think they could even give Danks away right now?

[Marty34]

Oftentimes, yes.

 

For example, if you think WAR and its components are wrong, then you should make a case for why you think that. You don't, though, you simply dismiss them by saying you don't care as if that makes facts go away. We're all open to it being wrong, but you have to show it.

 

Prove to me that Wins Above Replacement is the end all be all.

 

Sabrmetrics has its place too often though people use it as a crutch.

[Eminor3rd]

Prove to me that Wins Above Replacement is the end all be all.

 

Sabrmetrics has its place too often though people use it as a crutch.

 

If I actually spend the time compiling information for you to read, will you read it?

[southsider2k5]

Prove to me that Wins Above Replacement is the end all be all.

 

Sabrmetrics has its place too often though people use it as a crutch.

 

Prove to me that it isn't useful.

[witesoxfan]

Prove to me that Wins Above Replacement is the end all be all.

 

Sabrmetrics has its place too often though people use it as a crutch.

 

Like seriously dude, there's a thread posted in the forum and stuff.

 

The idea of sabermetrics is not to create an end all, be all. It's primarily there to help us better understand the game and what makes a player good. The concept of WAR is not new or all that crazy. It's merely trying to put a numeric value on the contributions of a player compared to his peers. We've been doing that for 150 years, but we now have more complete information about what makes a player good compared to what we had in 1930 or 1960 or 1990. The data is incomplete and it's still flawed, as there are conflicting opinions on how to value both pitching contributions - baseball-reference uses what a player does on the field, which includes both luck and fielding contributions, which may ultimately be out of the pitcher's control, while FanGraphs uses fielding independent statistics, which does not account for all of the runs a pitcher gives up but just the runs a pitcher should have given up in a neutral context - as well as fielding contributions, which are flawed to begin with because it takes 3 years to establish a significant sample size, and by that time the player's fielding talent has likely changed. Neither bWAR or fWAR is wrong to use, but "junkies" will typically relate to fWAR on a much more consistent basis because it better represents the talent of a player and is a better predictor of production moving forward.

 

At the end of the day, games will not be decided by Pyth W-L. It will ALWAYS be about the number of games you win on the field. Games aren't played on paper, but the inferences we can make from the information provided by the play on the field will help us to better understand both the value and significance of plays on the field. I look back to a game back in 2010 between the Padres and the Cubs in which Chris Young was starting. He was credited with the winning percentage added (wPA) of two plays that, in the box score, look very unimportant but which in reality were incredible plays made by Will Venable to save at least one home run and maybe two. Here is the link to the article. Shouldn't Venable be credited with plays towards the win there? And if a player makes an error in a crucial spot, shouldn't that be deducted from their total winning percentage added? It's something that, like I said, I'm sure they either have and/or continue to work towards implementing, but it takes time to determine this information. Just as the rules of sports are constantly evolving to adapt to current societal standards, so are the numbers we use to interpret the game we love.

Edited February 19, 2014 by witesoxfan