Outshined_One

Poor Rich Hill. :(

So what's the dividing line between young and old? I'm 29, am I an old young guy, or an young old guy? Modestly aged.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c77/Mr_G77/urf.jpg

Your opinion has my curiosity piqued. I would truly be grateful if you expounded upon it so as to further enlighten me. Only when an observation has been repeatedly validated can it be considered a fact. Even then I'd stick an asterisk by it. You also need compitent data takers, which is not a given in a "stat" for it to become a "fact." A stat is very close to becoming a fact, but I don't think you can make that leap in confidence. It's a minor point, but since this thread has run amok, I thought I'd throw that in there. I don't have a problem with stats. They're wonderful things, but you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from your data. I understand where you are coming from in this split hair, but I would strongly disagree with you on the following basis: The question is not whether Soriano hit a home run on any given day. The question is whether or not the governing body in question gave him credit for hitting a home run. The first question may be challenged on your basis above. The second cannot be reasonably questioned as it is documented and reported through many, many independent sources. The accumulation of baseball events is all done on this basis and therefore baseball statistics are actual facts. You are saying that in one case, the data is true and therefore the stat must be a fact. You are reasoning from the specific to the general, but that is not a valid argument. The confidence level in HR data taking has nothing to do with defensive data confidence or any other baseball data confidence. I believe Tantotiger even said (in your chat forums) that defensive stats are arguably not better than the scout's judgement b/c they are both involve human subjectivity. Obviously that data and the resulting stats are not facts as they can differ depending on who is taking them. It's also another thing to say that a certain stat is a "fact" and then to draw conclusions from it. Those conclusions may or may not be true depending on how you use facts to justify an argument. ^^^ Yes, I know it's PHIL 101 junk. :lol: Don't make me bring out causation analysis and David Hume...those days are long behind me and you're both tempting me. :cry:

...but can he walk and chew gum at the same time?

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/1157/1137228575093lh1.jpg

:evil: I was just about to post that!!!!!

Is that chick having butt sex with a cat? Oh, sure, take the cuteness out of the picture why don't you!

22, imo.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9865/1161549551837sc2.jpg

Guaranteed that you are wrong. :P

http://img307.imageshack.us/img307/1884/caughtmo8.jpg

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/898/image2cf9.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/4644/forumfmj4aord3.jpg

This is a big budget team. Eating a few million dollars a year shouldn't be an issue for them, especially considering how effectively this team has wasted its money in the past.

I think we have $20m left to spend.

I like.

Wow...I like the fact that this team signed Soriano. They got the big bat they needed. Problem is, 8/$135m is crazy. Let's hope that there are option years on that deal, otherwise this contract will be dicey in a few years once his production begins dropping off.

Rich Hill in Coors doesn't bring up any comforting images. Ouch.

I wonder how much they'd value Eyre, Dempster, and Howry?

no, they have to have played in the minors for a certain number of years. also, a player on the 40 man starts to use up options - once added to the 40 man roster, a player has three option years where they can play in the minors without being exposed to waivers. Also, this has the added benefit of allowing a team to send a player back and forth between the majors and minors during those three option years. The Rule V draft is relatively simple. After being drafted and signed, a team has a certain number of years before they are required to add that player to the 40 man roster (I can't remember how long exactly since the new Collective Bargaining Agreement changed it). If that team does not add that player within that time period, that player is exposed to the Rule V draft, where other teams follow a draft format and can pick up any players put in this pool. In order for a player to remain with his new team, that team has to keep him on the 25 man roster for the length of an entire season. If the player is put on the DL, he has to make up those days with the team. If the team decides to remove the player from the 25 man roster, he is sent back to his old team.

I still maintain that Dusty's complete and total lack of accountability led to that. It was NEVER this team's fault when something went wrong! It was always something else, be it the fans, the announcers, or the grass.

Unfortunately, Hendry has to. This team will have touble competing if the rotation is Z/Hill/Prior/Miller/Marshall (or whomever). If everyone is healthy, then that could be a good rotation. However, three of those five guys missed noteworthy time due to injury last season. That's a bit problematic.

Really? I was under the impression they had Barret signed through 2008. I could be wrong and just misinterpreting some statements I heard somewhere on the board here. Barret signed a 3 year contract in 05. That makes 07 his last year under the current contract. Hm, there you go.

Really? I was under the impression they had Barret signed through 2008.