dew1679666265

I'll agree they were the least efficient. Whether or not that money was wasted is determined by the benefit they received in spending the money.

How so? Because they didn't gain the benefit of the playoffs for their money spent. I fixed that post.

How so? EDIT: I'm an idiot and forgot the Padres didn't make the playoffs. Different teams enter the season with different goals. I have trouble believing the Padres felt they had a great chance to win the World Series with their roster as constructed. It depends on what their goal was this season as to whether it was a waste.

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money. I'm sure the Cubs spending the money they did raised their chances from 2% to 5%, does that mean it wasn't a "waste?" as defined previously? How was it defined previously? $/win Did every team other than the Padres waste money then?

It's tough to reconcile the posts because I think I was wrong. I feel more comfortable with the first post than the second as I think it's difficult to call it a waste of money to gain a benefit. It it's worth it to the person, then it's not a waste. Inefficient, yes. But not a waste.

A silent auction for the burger would probably be a little more accurate. The Yankees may only have needed to bid $1 for the hamburger, but they made it more likely to get the burger by bidding $5. Conversely, the Cubs may have needed to bid $1 for a hamburger, bid $3 for it but then didn't pick up their winnings.

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money. I'm sure the Cubs spending the money they did raised their chances from 2% to 5%, does that mean it wasn't a "waste?" as defined previously? How was it defined previously? I'd say the Cubs didn't make the playoffs, the added payroll didn't get them there, so yes they wasted the money.

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money. It's a waste regardless. They did get some benefit, but you can still waste on your way to acquiring a benefit. It's kinda nitpicking, but it depends on what you feel "adequate return" is. My thinking is, if you made the playoffs you didn't waste the money. If you didn't make the playoffs, you wasted the money.

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money.

I like Bunting a lot. I probably followed his draft analysis more leading up to the draft than anybody else.

Len could pull a Vin Scully and do the games by himself.

Yeah, generally I'd say if that's all you could get then don't trade him - make him stick it out and get the production. However, Moss has shown that if he's unhappy and wants out, he simply won't produce. Given that, if he's quit on them then they don't have much choice but to get whatever they can. It has to be attitude related, I'd think.

Not the biggest fan of that from the Patriots' perspective, though they probably figure he won't re-sign with them so they better get something for him. I don't think they need him to have a good to very good offense, but I'm still not crazy about trading that kind of a talent without getting a premium return.

Belichick has a chance to get a shrewd haul here. Moss is still a great receiver, but he's not necessary to the success of the Patriots - they'll be fine with Welker, Edelman, etc. Especially considering that the Vikings are probably desperate and may just significantly overpay. That said, if the Vikings can get Moss it's a great move for them. An older team like them doesn't need to be giving up 1st to 2nd round picks lightly, but Moss is the kind of talent that can potentially elevate Favre back to being really good - and that makes the Vikings really good again.

I thought he was going to be a great receiver when he was drafted. Ouch. One of my friends who is a Vikings fan was super pissed when we drafted Sidney Rice instead of Jarrett. We had a bet on who would be more productive in their first three years. Needless to say, I won. I thought Sidney would be good, but I thought Jarrett was a little more polished and a little more athletic. Rice was clearly faster, though, I thought.

I thought he was going to be a great receiver when he was drafted. Ouch.

So the Seahawks have traded for LenDale White, Leon Washington, and Marshawn Lynch all in the last 6 months (and have signed Michael Robinson). Am I missing anybody? I think that got everybody, but keep in mind LenDale is now on IR with the Broncos. The Seahawks cut him shortly after acquiring him.

The completion percentage is nice, but I'd like to see a better TD:INT ratio in each of those years. I see Orton as a good fit for McDaniels' scheme, but not a highly naturally gifted QB. He's a system QB who has been fitted nicely into a system that suits him. I'd hesitate to call him "very good" because of that – he's only a fit for a certain offensive scheme and wouldn't be very good on most teams.

Curious to see Young against the Cowboys rush D. Almost worried they will over pursue leaving him with room to run. That would be really nice. Teams have a blueprint against us now, though – stack the box with 8-9 guys and don't let us run the football. The coaching staff won't adjust and get Vince outside or throw the ball more, so we keep running into the brick wall.

I just hope the Titans learn how to catch a kickoff this week. Also, I hope the Cowboys still don't remember they're a good football team.

If they're absolutely determined to trade Kosuke, then Drew might be a decent enough return. But I'd take a slightly younger, less injury prone Kosuke over Drew. wOBA: Kosuke .353; Drew .348 WAR: Kosuke: 1.5; Drew: 2.7 They're very similar players, but like I said, Kosuke is younger and less injury prone.

That's why I said I wouldn't include Cashner, Castro and B Jackson in a trade for Agonz – and you can include Archer in that. I'd be thrilled to base a trade around Marmol/Colvin, though, if the Padres were interested in them.

The average is terrible, but his OBP is quite good for a guy with a sub-.200 BA and he still managed a .433 SLG in a down year with a terrible BA. He seems to be a very up and down player (.843 and .892 OPS in 2007 and 2009, .779 and .753 OPS in 2008 and 2010), but his walk rate has improved each of the past 4 years and he generally has a decent or better slugging (.458-.543 from 2007 to 2009). His horrid average this year could make him pretty cheap as well, considering the possibility (probability?) of a rebound in production next year. The strikeouts don't concern me that much. He seems like a poor man's Adam Dunn, to be honest. My thought exactly. We need a 1B, not a 3B or pretend RF. Can you imagine Dunn, Reynolds, and Soriano in the same lineup? For the right price, I'd take that lineup. I would have interest in Reynolds if we could get him cheaply. If not, he's a little too up and down for my liking. That said, he's played a few games at first in his career, so it's possible he could be moved there. I'm not sure what his defensive strengths and weaknesses are, though.

The average is terrible, but his OBP is quite good for a guy with a sub-.200 BA and he still managed a .433 SLG in a down year with a terrible BA. He seems to be a very up and down player (.843 and .892 OPS in 2007 and 2009, .779 and .753 OPS in 2008 and 2010), but his walk rate has improved each of the past 4 years and he generally has a decent or better slugging (.458-.543 from 2007 to 2009). His horrid average this year could make him pretty cheap as well, considering the possibility (probability?) of a rebound in production next year. The strikeouts don't concern me that much. He seems like a poor man's Adam Dunn, to be honest.

It depends on how much Dunn ends up signing for, how much Gonzalez wants in an extension and how big of a gut-punch trading for him is to the system. If Dunn really wants to be in Chicago and shows it by signing a 2/20 deal with a team option for a third year and the Padres demand Castro, Colvin, Archer and McNutt for Gonzo, then Dunn's a much better option. But if the Padres fall in love with a package of Colvin, J Jackson, Marmol and Bibens-Dirx and Dunn demands no less than 4/60 to sign, then Gonzo is the better option. None of those scenarios are likely to happen, it mainly depends on what middle ground between those scenarios actually is the case. Keep in mind, if we traded for Gonzo and gave him a 6/120 deal, he'll be 34 when the contract runs out. If we give Dunn a 3/36 deal, he'll be 34 when the contract runs out. The biggest difference there, however, is we know we're getting a couple of the best years of Gonzalez in that trade, while we don't know that for sure with Dunn. Also, we'd lose prospects getting Gonzo, but we'd also have him, say, through 2016, whereas with Dunn, we'll have him for 3 years and then have to find somebody else from 2014 to 2016. That could be a farmhand or it could be another FA if we haven't developed a first baseman by then. You'd then have to add on the cost of the player to fill those three years to truly compare to Gonzalez's six year deal.