SaorsaDaonnan

The Cubs seem to believe that baseball ethics demand that they trade Jones. Their goal is to do what's best for the player while doing minimal damage to the team. While they would like to upgrade on-field performance while helping Jones move on, it does not seem like it is a requirement. Think of the Maddux trade last year: while Jimbo clearly believed that Izturis was a valuable player, he also gave the impression that he considered Maddux to be a better value. As he had at the time of the Corey Patterson deal, he spoke as though he saw himself as having a responsibility to look after Maddux's interests.

Please tell me Hendry is not that dumb. http://www.nypost.com/seven/07282007/sports/mets/on_your_mark_mets_joel_sherman.htm Jimbo would not deal Pie in a trade for Laird and Mahay. That much is clear. But would he deal Pie for Gagne or Gagne + spare parts?

Nothing personal, but that would have been a horrendous move. it would be a something for nothing deal But it assumes that the Cubs wil not give Soto a shot. How do we know that? Just b/c they acquired Kendall for almost nothing and in all likelihood will allow him to walk after this year? a strict reading of Tomy23's post would have to take note of the conditional word "if." consider the two possible meanings: A) since it is a fact that the Cubs will not give Soto a shot, they should have traded him for Lofton B) if it is true that the Cubs will not give Soto a shot, they should have traded him for Lofton If we assume that Tomy23 uses language precisely, the correct way to read his post is to understand him as advancing claim B, not claim A. If Tomy23 advances claim B and not claim A, it is obvious that he hasn't assumed that Soto will never be given a chance. If we assume that Tomy23 does not use language precisely, we are left with a 50-50 choice between options A and B. Don't you think it seems unkind to assume that he made the dumber choice, particularly when you yourself are so willing to criticize others for making assumptions? [/b]

You just love Posada don't you, Don't get me wrong it'd be great to have him here Not so much Posada; I'd just love to have a catcher with a .332/411/514 line. lots of lust for players you can't have, Vance...

we do have that and it's at 57 percent. Ahh yes, that stat. What exactly is the formula for it? its not a formula. it's essentially using a program that simulates the rest of the season millions of times. Asmodai refers to this, or something like it: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php

In general, this makes sense, but the argument you're giving is fairly abstract. It is possible, for instance, that Jon Daniels is an emotional man who would want to make sure that Sammy stays happy no matter where he is, or that Daniels made a verbal agreement with Sosa and is unwilling to break it without Sosa's consent. Although it is true that NTC-less players have no negotiating leverage built into their contracts, other factors sometimes apply. But there you go, you said it yourself. Sosa isn't the reason, it's the GM's. It's Ultimately them that decide what he wants to do with a player without an NTC. I dunno, it seems sort of facile to say that it depends only on the GM in a situation where the GM has decided to defer to the player. When a GM binds his future options by making a promise to a player, he gives up some of his decisionmaking power. When a GM promises a player that he will make every effort to accomodate him, then, insofar as the GM is honest, he has indeed transferred some power to the player. Fair enough, but I don't believe that to be the case here, where Sosa was who had to pitch to the GM, not the other way around. that may very well be true. I have no clue. I am arguing only for the abstract point. :D

In general, this makes sense, but the argument you're giving is fairly abstract. It is possible, for instance, that Jon Daniels is an emotional man who would want to make sure that Sammy stays happy no matter where he is, or that Daniels made a verbal agreement with Sosa and is unwilling to break it without Sosa's consent. Although it is true that NTC-less players have no negotiating leverage built into their contracts, other factors sometimes apply. But there you go, you said it yourself. Sosa isn't the reason, it's the GM's. It's Ultimately them that decide what he wants to do with a player without an NTC. I dunno, it seems sort of facile to say that it depends only on the GM in a situation where the GM has decided to defer to the player. When a GM binds his future options by making a promise to a player, he gives up some of his decisionmaking power. When a GM promises a player that he will make every effort to accomodate him, then, insofar as the GM is honest, he has indeed transferred some power to the player.

In general, this makes sense, but the argument you're giving is fairly abstract. It is possible, for instance, that Jon Daniels is an emotional man who would want to make sure that Sammy stays happy no matter where he is, or that Daniels made a verbal agreement with Sosa and is unwilling to break it without Sosa's consent. Although it is true that NTC-less players have no negotiating leverage built into their contracts, other factors sometimes apply.

Earlier in this thread, somebody said that they think Hendry often defers to his manager. If that's true, and I think it is to an extent, we should be asking ourselves what Piniella would think. So, what would Piniella think? Would he be happy to get an upgrade, upset at the major media distraction Sosa would produce, neutral, or what? (Obviously, I'm not including in this question Lou's opinion of the guys we would send to Texas) Edit: for the sake of clarity, let me say from the outset that I am not that exicted about Sosa and would prefer lots of other options, but that my opposition to getting Sosa is no different from how I would feel about a player with a comparable skill/injury/volatility set but none of the history)

The basic reasoning seems sound. Of course, most critics of the proposal will argue that the defensive costs of playing Glaus in right or, especially, at short would significantly exceed the totals you estimate. It would be to your argumentative advantage to provide a fuller description of your analysis of Glaus's defensive (dis)value.

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/schedule/index.jsp?c_id=chc&m=6&y=2007 Go here. Then count.

#-o

http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/athletics/2006/05/28/tRhMqKJk.jpg You know it

if, child, not when. perhaps the cosmos will see fit to give us our long-overdue karmic rebate.

Exactly. It's like buying lottery tickets. If you win, buying the ticket was a stroke of genius. If you lose, buying the ticket was stupid. :roll:

We forgot to use the singing puppets

I'm really getting tired of your stupid posts. This crap you keep spewing over the boards about "math" and "empiricism" completely elides the crucial difference between man-runs and girly-runs. In fact, your blatant refusal to affirm our not-at-all-homophobic distaste for men who won't swing their dicks, erm, bats, at every pitch comes dangerously close to implying that our masculinity should be put in chains by that frigid mistress known as reason. To claim that SLG does not have unique offensive value is to argue that the authentic display of traditional male traits of raw power and athleticism are not the primary purpose of baseball games. To challenge the relevance of our celebration of the positively bestial elements of athleticism is to propose that baseball should be desexualized, and thus it is to imply that baseball should be transformed into a more "fabulous" and, if you will, queered-up activity resembling dance more than sport. One suspects that your favorite baseball phrase is "going the other way." We should have known, all those years ago, that when we started letting baseball players wear long hair and stop wearing high socks it became inevitable that one day our whole hidden homoerotic culture would be unmasked and feminized...thank GOD for people like Steinbrenner who still try to keep up appearances

PM vance for pics

1) Do we know that this is a performance-related substance, rather than, say, cocaine? 2) When would Neifi! have taken this test? 3) Is it plausible to suppose that this test would have caught whatever Neifi took anytime? I'm sure the players union has made sure the test has few false positives, but with what frequency does the test give the right answer?

Yep; title fixed again. This is on Saorsa since he's the one who said Jeff Goldstein.[/passing the buck] :D And this, kids, is why you shouldn't drink....

Sorry, I seem to be taking crazy pills. THE ARTICLE IS FROM JEFF GOLDSTEIN, not Callis. Hopefully someone will change the title.... :oops:

Surprisingly hyperbolic. Not good. The context is that Callis wrote an article about an "all-disappointment team," by which he means a team consisting of at least semi-interesting players who have sucked hard this season. Injured players were not considered. He chose only two starting pitchers: a righty and a lefty, no backups. Of course, it's strange that Callis doesn't mention things like the fact that 'Shark' is throwing a higher percentage of offspead pitches than he would if the goal were to be maximally competitive. Nevertheless, this is not exactly a vote of confidence... http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6402

A longer series reduces, to some extent, the ability of an inferior team to win just because of a hot streak. I don't know whether the change would be satistically significant, but if it were I would favor it. I do not like seeing (comparatively) crappy teams win on the strength of luck.

As you might be discovering, this board is not very friendly towards posters who make claims without revealing their sources. If you really think it is worth discussing the sordid details of a marriage from so many years ago with anonymous posters on an internet message board, it might be helpful to provide some kind of documentation for your claims, if for instance you read them in a newspaper or magazine article, or, if the source was something other than professional media, by indicating in some other way how you came across this information. Otherwise you will surely continue to be a laughingstock. I would warn you, though, that the evidenciary standards on this board are, in general, rather high, and that Ryno's reputation as a straightforward, standup guy only adds to the difficulties you would face, should you to choose to continue press your point. Given these difficulties, it is difficult to envision a scenario in which your continued insistance on this point would be interpreted as anything other than surprisingly irrational behavior, since your efforts would in all probability be not only futile but directed towards an objective of apparently minimal value. After all, the opinions of the members of an internet message board about the private, decade-old martial events of public figures are quite meaningless: since they are neither in a position to know what they are talking nor in a position where their opinion should matter, the opinions they happen to have or express about this are little more than the most banal form of trivia.

As nice as it is to see people throwing out unsupported accusations, I'll bet you can't even 'substantiate' this with anecdotal evidence. Nice post, though. Edit: fixed spelling mistake