jjgman21

sure Gary. grabbing a receivers arm has always been allowed. I'm sure you wish DBs could have done that to receivers back when you were a QB

I've said they were over rated all along. Louisville is the team that should be in the game vs Ohio State. my gawd will you give it a rest already. every damn week. Louisville should sniff the jocks of a second tier big conference school. it has nothing to do with good old boys, it has nothing to do with unfairness. it has to do with refusal to play defense and a style of offense that would not fly in a real conference.

regardless of the outcome of this game, anyone that says this Florida team is more deserving of the national championship game than Michigan is on crack.

gimme a replay. naked eye said to me that was not a touchback.

let the ball go.

Urban Meyer melting down.

chaos reigns regardless, why would it reign more if Florida wins? I personally am hoping both Florida and Oklahoma lose and more than half of the top ten goes home, while half of teams ranked 11-20 go to the BCS. ballsy play by Florida right there.

that's what I was sayin'. got a little Thomas Jones in him.

damn. go straight ahead strong instead of dancing and they have an easy first down.

so as to not screw up with a chance to go ahead of the number 2 team in the country?

right on. nice escape and scramble there.

i agree... i would love this... but DEFENSE??? :shock: By some metrics, Bonds was a better than average fielder last year. He was certainly better than Carlos Lee, and no one in Houston is upset about Lee's defense (yet). I dont see Lee struggling to play defense that much with that short fence in LF. there's alot more variables. I can see him getting sucked into the fence only to have the ball bounce away from him right now. trying to negotiate the well in center will be an adventure. the corner is shallow but runs straight out to standard depth in left center, so there is still some ground to cover, and the angel of the fence and the scoreboard, overhangs, etc. will create some bounces he won't be able to handle.

I was going to throw his name out there the other day, but I couldn't think of a decent argument either way. his splits flip back and forth, his IsoD fluctuates. you just don't know what you are going to get from this guy.

you know, MacPhail is no longer around, but there very well may be an element of Trib management that really likes bringing guys in to set milestones. I wonder if the extra marketing money would make him too tempting for the Trib to resist.

because he would be coming to a team with two pitchers with good enough stuff to show up Barry Bonds.

but Schmidt was never as good as Clemens, Morris, Wynn, Gibson, Carlton, or Seaver to begin with... These lists of comparables are based on performance, so how can you make this claim? Wynn - I'll retract him, had no idea how overrated he was until now. seven best seasons of ERA+ up to and including their 33rd year Schmidt - 183, 139, 125, 110, 109, 106, 103 Clemens - 211, 177, 175, 169, 164, 154, 142 Morris - 133, 127, 126, 124, 122, 117, 109 Gibson - 258, 164, 149, 148, 136, 127, 126 Carlton - 182, 164, 151, 126, 117, 113, 111 Seaver - 193, 175, 166, 150, 145, 142, 137 aside from Morris, the appropriate question is how BP has Schmidt in the same class as these guys.

so then you put in Pagan? give me Craig Wilson against a righty in that situation over Pagan v. either a righty or lefty every single time. if not a platoon player, where exactly do you expect to get production from the bench without spending money? guys who hit righties and lefties well do not sit on the bench in the major leagues.

If a team has two guys for one postion it is ineficient based on a 25 man roster. I suppose, if the guy on the short end could play other positons that would be ok. However, he is still only valuable N -2/3 of the time becuase of his poor splits. If the palyer is inexpensive the differnce is less. Last year Nixon made $7.5 JJ makes $6 million Last year Craig Wilson made $3.3 million I think you just made my point. 10M/year gets rightfield production that is likely in the top 5 of all of baseball http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=9&seasonType=2&type=type1&sort=OPS&split=85&season=2006 it also gives you a masher waiting to pinch hit for Izturis or Blanco in the late innings of a close game, as opposed to Angel Pagan. please don't lose track of the fact that baseball is played three outs per inning, nine innings per game. while it is useful to evaluate players based on their career because of sample size, a deep bench is valuable 100% of the time the game is close. seems pretty damn efficient to me.

They do and they do they should and if they do, are really fricken good (depending on who gets the platoon time)

I don't disagree that the chances of both are poor, but your ultimate preference doesn't necessarily follow. it goes back to 'who will deserve,' discussed above, so you have to look at the other side, which stands the better chance to be a complete disaster? age and changes in 'stuff' certainly suggests Schmidt may be more likely to be a disaster. let's assume Schmidt at 15M, aka #1 money. the likelihood of him actually being a #1 is pretty poor. more likely a good 2 for a year and a 2-3 for the other years, a good chance of 3 throughout, and a chance of complete disaster. let's assume Padilla at 9-10M, aka #3 money (in this market). the likelihood of him actually being a #1 or a #2 is not much farther behind the likelihood of Schmidt doing so. but most probably a solid #3, and probably a little lesser of a chance of complete disaster. I want as good of a teams as possible from the git go, but I am not willing to let go of a lesson from Moneyball that almost everyone agrees on, the playoffs are a crap shoot and the key to getting to and winning the WS is multiple playoff appearances. the contract suggested for Schmidt, when combined with the backloaded contracts already on the books, really hurts the chances at the playoffs in 09-10. I don't think we really disagree much here, I think its more a matter of preference. Schmidt provides us with a little better chance the Padilla at making the playoffs. It all depends on if you think Padilla as our #2 can do that. I am more sure that Schmidt can do that than Padilla. I would sure love both though. It definitely all depends on what we would do with that extra 5M though. But it doesn't look like that gets you much in this market. that 5 M might mean the difference between say Izturis or Lugo. or the difference between Matteo/Marshal/Marmol and Tomo Ohka who we discussed last night.

if your point centers on strictly a platoon of Murton and Nixon, I don't disagree and can see the opportunity costs. if your discussing a platoon of Jones and say Craig Wilson, I think your argument about platoons loses all validity.

It is meaningless to pay two guys to play one postion and to pay one guy to sit on the bench @100 games a year? The opportunity costs: The platoon player is taking a roster spot that could otherwise be filled by someone better You have one less player to use on your bench How do you propose to get "people on board"? why do you assume that two platoon players will be paid the same as two full time players? chances are that a given level of production costs the same whether it takes two or one players. re: the bench, it's not like you go with 24 players because you are platooning. you still have a guy capable of playing at least part time as a starter. and again with the getting people on board stuff. who cares, as long as they perform.

but Schmidt was never as good as Clemens, Morris, Wynn, Gibson, Carlton, or Seaver to begin with and Siebert and Scott both fell of the face of the earth at Schmidt's age

I don't disagree that the chances of both are poor, but your ultimate preference doesn't necessarily follow. it goes back to 'who will deserve,' discussed above, so you have to look at the other side, which stands the better chance to be a complete disaster? age and changes in 'stuff' certainly suggests Schmidt may be more likely to be a disaster. let's assume Schmidt at 15M, aka #1 money. the likelihood of him actually being a #1 is pretty poor. more likely a good 2 for a year and a 2-3 for the other years, a good chance of 3 throughout, and a chance of complete disaster. let's assume Padilla at 9-10M, aka #3 money (in this market). the likelihood of him actually being a #1 or a #2 is not much farther behind the likelihood of Schmidt doing so. but most probably a solid #3, and probably a little lesser of a chance of complete disaster. I want as good of a teams as possible from the git go, but I am not willing to let go of a lesson from Moneyball that almost everyone agrees on, the playoffs are a crap shoot and the key to getting to and winning the WS is multiple playoff appearances. the contract suggested for Schmidt, when combined with the backloaded contracts already on the books, really hurts the chances at the playoffs in 09-10.

I have not problems with a platoon. it's all about dollars spent at a position. if you can get an .Y OPS out of a position for X dollars, I go with a platoon everytime over an everyday player because it strengthens your bench. I also have a hard time reconciling the players don't like it statement NY. are you not someone who does not believe in chemistry? what the players want is essentially a chemistry argument. who cares what they want, as long as they produce.