Hosak8

This, from todays Knoxville News Sentinel (knoxnews.com): From top itching prospect to AA middle reliever in the span of a year? Ouch.

If this happens... I will just.... ](*,)

I don't think it has anything to do with that. I think it's entirely due to the way I tried to tap into the auth system. I'm getting the same thing on a MacBook. You sure it isn't that?

I'd rather they kept at least one of the teams there, preferably Miami. You can't really blame those guys for not wanting to go and support that team given the way their owners have treated it. If they had an owner who wasn't a jackass and would at least attempt to privately finance a stadium and not "Huizenga" the team after a WS, then people might start showing up to games and caring. Miami is a far better market than Tampa Bay, from what I understand. I used to have this cooky idea that the MLB should equalize the leagues to 15 teams per, until I realized that would cause a scheduling conflict. It went something like move the Devil Rays to Portland or Las Vegas, add them to the AL West, then move the Marlins to the AL East, then move Pittsburgh to the NL East. 5 teams per division, 15 teams per league. I'm not even really sure why I thought it was a good idea... OCD? It could still work out, logistically. You just have two interleague series per week, that's all. You let the Cubs open with the White Sox, or the Mets and Yankees, or the Marlins and Rays, while everyone else plays within their division. Every 7 weeks or so, your team plays an interleague series. You would still need a week devoted exclusively to interleague games, but it could still work.

It's official. The DRays are now just the Rays, and they've jettisoned those awful green and black unis. I'm too lazy to post pics of their new unis, and they're nothing special. It would have been hard to make them any worse than they were, I guess.

Brandon Wood will be a Marlin soon enough. Miguel Cabrera, come on down!

That's an awful "matter-of-fact" statement for someone who doesn't work in the Reds front office, and therefore has little to no idea what they would consider. How do you know what the Reds would do? It's a fact that the Reds want pitching. It's a fact that to get a #2 starter, you will have to give up value. It's a fact that releasing Ryan Freel in no way fetches you anything at all in return. So, again, how can you be so certain as to what the Reds would do? Perhaps my language was inexact. "I believe there is a greater chance that the Reds release Ryan Freel than trade Hamilton for the proposed package." I am flattered that you take my posts so seriously. I was under the impression that this was a fan's board. The tenor of your reply indicates that I am under some obligation to check with the Reds' front office, assuming I do not work for them, before publishing such a post. Maybe one of the moderators can clear that up. And what was the tenor of your reply to the original post? You belittled him for suggesting that Hamilton might be available. How is your reply fine and dandy, while mine is not? Honestly, I don't see the difference in "tenor" between your post and mine. Well I apologize to BacktoBanks (BtB) if he was offended. But he was only quoting Phil Rogers. As such the statement does not even reflect on BtB. I believe Rogers' statement is the throwaway statement. I am obviously fine with BtB running with it, and my comment on it is that it is highly improbable that Hamilton is going anywhere. My issue was not with the first half of your statement. It was the last sentence, which was directed at BtB. That said, I don't want to get into a pissing match over this, because it's silly. And, for the record, I can see the Reds dealing Hamilton. They have plenty of OF, and with the scenario suggested above, they get a #2 starter to go between two decent righties, and if Willis were to have one of his good seasons, that pitching staff would look very, very good. Dontrelle Willis for a guy who might spend half the year on the DL? Yeah, I can see a team making that trade. Especially if you can get a reliever, and we all know how much middle relief is valued in Cincy.

That's an awful "matter-of-fact" statement for someone who doesn't work in the Reds front office, and therefore has little to no idea what they would consider. How do you know what the Reds would do? It's a fact that the Reds want pitching. It's a fact that to get a #2 starter, you will have to give up value. It's a fact that releasing Ryan Freel in no way fetches you anything at all in return. So, again, how can you be so certain as to what the Reds would do? Perhaps my language was inexact. "I believe there is a greater chance that the Reds release Ryan Freel than trade Hamilton for the proposed package." I am flattered that you take my posts so seriously. I was under the impression that this was a fan's board. The tenor of your reply indicates that I am under some obligation to check with the Reds' front office, assuming I do not work for them, before publishing such a post. Maybe one of the moderators can clear that up. And what was the tenor of your reply to the original post? You belittled him for suggesting that Hamilton might be available. How is your reply fine and dandy, while mine is not? Honestly, I don't see the difference in "tenor" between your post and mine.

That's an awful "matter-of-fact" statement for someone who doesn't work in the Reds front office, and therefore has little to no idea what they would consider. How do you know what the Reds would do? It's a fact that the Reds want pitching. It's a fact that to get a #2 starter, you will have to give up value. It's a fact that releasing Ryan Freel in no way fetches you anything at all in return. So, again, how can you be so certain as to what the Reds would do?

I'm on board with this pick. I'll even go a step further and say it will be for somewhere around $10 mill. Well, if we can go ahead and start, I've got schilling to the Red Sox for, oh, about 8 million. (I'm officially winning, so far!)

I realize that me making this statement in this particular thread looks like I have issues with this specific conversation, which I do not. Jacque Jones IS more valuable in CF than in RF. My issue is much more general, which I should have stated.

Exactly. It's funny. I was in the NSBB League this past season, and metrics (or new-age stats) were heavily favored there, to my dismay. In our scoring, a player got more points for getting ground ball outs than he did winning games. The logic was that "teams win games, and you should not get points for a guy winning a game in which he gave up 11 runs, simply because his team scored 12." If every game were won that way, I might agree with that logic. And, if a guy gives up 11 runs, the other stats that make up the scoring formula would indicate the poor performance, and relegate the points that siad player got for winning to obscurity. No single statistic or metric, when viewed by itself, is relevant or meaningful. The only way for any stat to be relevant is for it to be seen in context of all the other stats that make up the game. I think we can all agree on that.

You're missing the meaning. The idea isn't to be removing those factors, it's to be able to properly see how much they help or hurt players. Wouldn't it be real nice if a GM knew what taking a player like Dante Bichette out of Coors Field would do before signing him to a nice contract? Or how about what would happen if you took Chan Ho Park out of Dodger Stadium and put him in Arlington? We already know which players are good and bad. Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez are good no matter what numbers you're trying to use. Neifi Perez and Jose Macias aren't. The metrics are more designed at trying to separate those guys in the middle of the pack, where ballparks and other things the players have no control over can make a much bigger difference. Ok, let's run with this. Jamie Moyer has 230 career wins. Sandy Koufax had 165. Now I'm not going to insult you and try to say that your logic would mean that Moyer is a better pitcher than Koufax. I know you wouldn't buy that. But you know Koufax is a better pitcher because you look past just the wins. You take a look at the ERA, you take a look at the difference in games pitched. That's all these metrics are doing. They're grabbing all the pertinent information and putting them into nicer numbers. They certainly aren't ridiculous. They're just how you separate guys like Juan Pierre (career .301 batting average and not a very useful player) from Joe Cronin (career .301 batting average and an extremely useful player). What is it you "old school" guys like to talk about? The "little things"? Well the little things like ballparks, league scoring environment, etc... all add up to be pretty important when valuing a player correctly. It's how you know Yaz was fantastic in 1968, and how you know Three Finger Brown isn't exactly Pedro Martinez, despite the 2.06 career ERA to Pedro's 2.80. I think it's time to start giving a little more credit to these metrics than you currently do. I agree that GM's should look at certain metrics that remove factors specific to their situation. However, what good does it do for us to remove those factors for current Cubs? Removing things like park factors from current players is irrelevant. They play half their games at Wrigley field, so why attempt to remove park factors from their metrics? Why discount RBI's? Aren't RBI's dependent upon the lineup in which you play? If so, it's relevant. NOw, if you played last season on a team where you hit 4th, and your top 3 hitters in the order had ridiculous OBP's, that would definitely skew those numbers. If you were the GM of a team looking at that free agent, you would want to know that about him. BUT, when that player remains on your team, in your lineup, with those same 3 guys batting in front of him, why do you dismiss his RBI numbers as something meaningless? Dante Bichette is a perfect example. He benefited from playing at Mile High Stadium. But, as long as he played half of his games there, he was a valuable player. There are metrics that would dismiss "park factors", making him appear to be a less valuable player. However, because he played at Mile High, he WAS valuable, period. My bottom line is this: Certain metrics, that seek to isolate REAL BASEBALL FACTORS, are less relevant, in my opinion, than other stats, like RBI (I use RBI because it was pointed out earlier). Many- not all, but many- metrics are intended to tell you how good an individual is, independent of factors that are a real part of the game. Chan Ho Park is not as good a piutcher in Texas as he was LA. Duh. But, as long as he was in LA, metrics that indicated that truth were irrelevant. That's my point in all this. All metrics aren't bad. However, simply dismissing old time stats, and belittling those who still account for them (as is the widespread mentality around here) is ridiculous.

Time until player/team options have to be picked up?

You said it. Some metrics are intended to evaluate individuals discounting team, park, and league based factors. That would be fine, if baseball were played in a vacuum. However, since games are played by teams, in parks, and in leagues, I don't see the validity of metrics that attempt to remove actual factors from their overall results. Just doesn't make much sense. And, the age old argument that stats like W/L are not accurate stats, is flimsy. Can bad pitchers win 20 games? Sure. Do they win 200+? Not very often. Do poor relievers save 40 games? Sometimes. Do they notch 300 saves in their careers? No. Do bad hitters produce a .315 season from time to time? Yes. Do hey bat .315 for a career? No. Age old, accepted stats tend to balance out over time. Thus the reason why I think some metrics are ridiculous. They are mathematical formulas intended for a vacuum.. not a baseball field.

We'll see. I'm keeping about 30 guys. I'll draft for 6 rounds and be done. Thanks for the draft pick and the youngsters!!! Wow, I actually went back and looked at my players, and their eligibility per league rules, and I only have 4 NON exempt players, and they only totaled around 1400 points, so I am likely not going to release anyone. I LOVE my infield going into next year. LOVE IT.

Look up at the sticky... that will tell you all you need to know.

I figured that I would post this, just in case people want to keep up the interest over the winter. So, post your hot stove stuff here! For me (assuming last year's offseason rules will apply), I only have 4 non-exempt players, and they total just 1384 points. So, I won't have to release anyone. Every non-exempt player I have is on the block: Austin Kearns, Aaron Heilman, Jake Westbrook, and Ted Lilly. I am also offering several exempt players. So, if you have tons of guys you will have to release, I may be the perfect trading partner. I have all kinds of young talent available, and I am looking to contend in 2008. I will trade for draft picks as well, though I am ONLY interested in picks in the first 6 rounds. In fact, I will offer my entire draft AFTER the 5th round AND Austin Kearns AND Aaron Heilman for a 2nd rounder. Any takers?

We'll see. I'm keeping about 30 guys. I'll draft for 6 rounds and be done. Thanks for the draft pick and the youngsters!!! I'll likely have around 30 guys back as well. IF the rules remain the same as last year, I will only have to release about 900 points. I only have 7 non-exempt players. I am looking to deal some exempt guys for draft picks and/or upgrades in the OF or SP.

Perhaps I'm just old school, but I think it's laughable that metrics have become the measure of how good a baseball player is, as opposed to baseball statistics. It's like the kids who never could make the team got together and created a bunch of convoluted mathematical formulas to determine who could play and who could not. And now, these formulas are the accepted measure of a player's value. It's like the guys from "The Big Bang Theory" have taken over baseball.

Is it just me, or does it look like Mangini ate Phil Fulmer?

I hear that maple is pretty solid.

Did you consult Dr. Evil when drafting this seriously over-complicated scenario? How about you simply sign A-Rod be done? Ahh, yes. If only "simply signing ARod" would magically create a leadoff hitter for the club, I would be all for it.

What if it were to NY? ARam for Cano? Would that be palatable for all parties?

Yeah, because why would you want a .393 OBP when you can have Soriano's .337 OBP in the leadoff spot?