nilodnayr

I didn't assume a decline. You're right I didn't use EqA to justify my claims. Oh wait... being risk adverse won't help you win in the playoffs. 17 16.26794258 15.56740917 14.89704227 14.25554284 13.64166779 13.05422755 12.49208378 [/b] Woohoo, my brain is as smart as Excel!!!! Seriously, life and especially work is debilitating without Excel. God, that is nerdy. Ummm... did you miss third grade math class? 12.49 rounds down to 12. 12 != 13 You were way off. ha, actually, I was thinking about his last 3 years, which average to 13.06. So excuse me for being off by 60K/year. :D

2) Bruce and Lou say hes playing right 3) word was that it was a no trade clause for the first 5 years, which is stupid because after that he can invoke the 10/5 rule to block any trade.

I didn't assume a decline. You're right I didn't use EqA to justify my claims. Oh wait... being risk adverse won't help you win in the playoffs. 17 16.26794258 15.56740917 14.89704227 14.25554284 13.64166779 13.05422755 12.49208378 [/b] Woohoo, my brain is as smart as Excel!!!! Seriously, life and especially work is debilitating without Excel. God, that is nerdy.

uh somewhere in this thread theres a point i made where 122 games of JD Drew is a heck of a lot better than 162 games of Soriano in CF. You can like up all of the GM's in baseball, and if you provided them a choice of Drew for 122 games, or Soriono for 162 games, they will take Soriono for 162...all of them. I know of 3 at the very least that wouldn't.

There have been a few sources say the Cubs got him wanting him to bat leadoff. Also, his stats seem to show he's more comfortable and performs better batting leadoff. Didn't Bruce say he'd be leading off?

Because he chose to opt out of his contract? Thats the reason I see. What about the other two? Listen, I know Drew is easily more productive than Sori when on the field, but even Kerry Wood strung together a full few seasons. I'm far from convinced Drew's DL days are behind him. I think giving Drew 3-5 guranteed years at the same price as Lee or Ramirez is at least as high on the lunacy scale as giving Sori 8/136. Doesn't that just prove that there are lots of teams out there that want him? Its not like hes getting put on waivers or non-tendered.

You'll have to forgive me for not thinking. Between the two papers I'm simultaneously writing while trying to keep up with this the Soriano stuff, my head is fried. On a side note, I might be the only person here who's read every single post in this thread. I have...and its really hard to do it while posting as well.

Would it then be fair to assess the expected CPIB (consumer price index of baseballplayers) to be about 4.5%? My excel is broke, but using that, could some one create a present value of the last few years of Sorianos contract assuming no money deferred and its not front or back weighted? Off the top of my head I would say in the last few years, his contract will be the equivalent of about 13M/year. So then the question is, do you think Sori will be as good then as Sheff is now. Its an interesting way of looking at things. Of course that would mean that Sori would actually have to improve.

Rirruto? Thanks, I needed that!

Who said Soriano is not a good player? I must have missed that. Barrett is good, let's give him that 7/$100 contract that was suggested earlier HAHAHA I believe that was a TT post you are referring to and in that post he says (I'm quoting from memory) "Soriano is a good player getting paid like an elite player" So taht was about the poorest post to quote if you are countering my claim that no one said said soriano is not a good player (although im not exactly sure thats what you are trying to do). actually, I was supporting you. I apologize. A couple of us have been fighting out of a corner for the entire day.

If this is true regarding MacPhail, he is a downright SOB in my book. I think he just realized how crippling something like the Hampton contract can be and thanked his lucky stars that he turned down the cubs offer. I believe that caused him to be so risk adverse.

Who said Soriano is not a good player? I must have missed that. I agree. Of course Soriano is a huge upgrade, but it's something we could have done a different way for a cheaper price. So my reaction would be "Love having him, but I hate the money and know it could have been used much better so I hate the deal." Yup

Who said Soriano is not a good player? I must have missed that. Barrett is good, let's give him that 7/$100 contract that was suggested earlier HAHAHA I believe that was a TT post you are referring to and in that post he says (I'm quoting from memory) "Soriano is a good player getting paid like an elite player" So taht was about the poorest post to quote if you are countering my claim that no one said said soriano is not a good player (although im not exactly sure thats what you are trying to do).

Who said Soriano is not a good player? I must have missed that.

Negative = Me, KC, Jon, TT, Navin, CubsinNY, Rob (might have missed a few) Positive= Everyone else

New land speed record? Yeah, I suspect the only thing that comes close are the '03 playoff game threads. No way, had to be sammy day.

You should meet my friend, Mr. Facts. Hmmm, Mr. Facts shows that out of 8 seasons for Drew, 4 of them were seriously hampered due to injury and 2 others were less than 140 games. That's what is known in the real universe as a player with injury problems. It also shows he was healthy the last three years except for being hit on the hand by a pitch, which you surely can't fault him for.

ive already said it. career averages for soriano, drew and some estimation on pie. I must have missed it. great methodology for a sabr guy. really shows the trends with those career averages. KC, would you mind using an average of the last 3 years like you did with Pie? that doesn't get it done either. it doesn't account for Soriano's three year upward trend and Drew's three year downward trend. And what qualitative rationale do you have that Drew is regressing and Soriano is progressing? And you are right, credibility weighting should be applied to the three years, not a straight average since after all the most recent the experience, the better the predictor. Most recent year= 45% Previous year =35% 2nd previous year =25%

Well he reportedly met the BoSox offer. I think Hendry is more interested in Soriano for 2 reasons. One is because he views him as less of a risk. Hendry's job is on the line and if he signs Drew and he gets hurt for a substantial amount of time, he's screwed. For the record, I don't think Drew is injury prone anymore. At least not enough to make it not worth the risk. The 2nd reason is that Soriano's numbers are sexier to the casual baseball fan. The casual fan hears 40/40 and think he's god. Drew doesn't have crazy homerun or stolen base totals and therefore the average baseball fan doesn't value him as highly as someone like Soriano. Those are probably good assumptions.

ive already said it. career averages for soriano, drew and some estimation on pie. I must have missed it. great methodology for a sabr guy. really shows the trends with those career averages. KC, would you mind using an average of the last 3 years like you did with Pie?

Probably is the key word there. You, nor I know what could have been done and how much money could have/have not been spent. It isn't our money, if the Trib wants to spend it then let them. Actually I am certain it could have been done. The Cubs got an EqA of roughly .208 from their SSs last season in 486 outs. Julio Lugo's career EqA is .265. The difference between those two over 486 outs is roughly 41 runs. The actual should be higher because for the most part Lugo's been a better hitter the last couple of seasons. The Cubs got an EqA of roughly .250 from their CFers last season in 526 outs. Alfonso Soriano's career EqA is .287. The difference between those two over 526 outs is roughly 30 runs. Julio Lugo could be had for what, 32 million max? Soriano was had for what, 100 million more. You can say shove EqA in your ass all you want. You can do this with any stat and find a similar outcome. But comparing to what SS did last year isn't really the proper comparison. It makes more sense to compare to what could reasonably be expected out of SS this year, which is a hell of a lot better than .208 just on a dead cat bounce. Already brought up, taking Izturis into account it takes 9 runs away from the difference, meaning that acquiring lugo would be a two run increase over acquiring sori. Don't get hung up on the minutia, the point is that upgrading from bad to Ok is going to help your team out more than upgrading from Ok to good.

I understand that, but by the same notion, one should adjust up if it looks like there has been improvement throughout those three years and adjust down if there looks to be regression in those three years. should one not? If there is reason for the trends to continue, absolutely. so then shouldn't we ask "are there reasons for the trends to continue?" I know the answer, of course we should, and I think that's what PECOTA is all about. so it comes back to my original question, what was he using to compare Soriano and Drew? did he use numbers that show these trends, or did he pluck those that best made his points. his silence on the matter is deafening. KC, in the Sori>2006 cubs CF vs Lugo>2006 cubs ss analysis, what did you use for Sori and Lugos #s? Also, in the Drew/Pie>Sori, what did you use for Drew and Sori's numbers. Edit: Nevermind, you posted before I saw.

I understand that, but by the same notion, one should adjust up if it looks like there has been improvement throughout those three years and adjust down if there looks to be regression in those three years. should one not? If there is reason for the trends to continue, absolutely.

Good point Chocolate Milk! Weren't there alot of people last year arguing that batting position didn't matter? Not saying those are the same people who say Soriano at lead-off is a bad idea though. . That was the prevailing thought unil The Book please elaborate on what said book says so I don't have to read said book. Basically that there is an optimal way to construct a batting order. Something like your best hitter should be in the 2 hole, second best leading off, third best in the cleanup stop, 4th best in the 3 hole. But thats completely based on memory...but you get the basic principle, batting order matters, just like you said a page ago. I'll look for more specifics and post them here. http://www.hardballtimes.com/daily/article/constructing-lineups/

Good point Chocolate Milk! Weren't there alot of people last year arguing that batting position didn't matter? Not saying those are the same people who say Soriano at lead-off is a bad idea though. . That was the prevailing thought unil The Book please elaborate on what said book says so I don't have to read said book. Basically that there is an optimal way to construct a batting order. Something like your best hitter should be in the 2 hole, second best leading off, third best in the cleanup stop, 4th best in the 3 hole. But thats completely based on memory...but you get the basic principle, batting order matters, just like you said a page ago. I'll look for more specifics and post them here.