David

Money not being a factor, it would be a push. With money being a factor, the farmhands win out by a longshot.

Meh. I don't see a big deal. Braun is more deserving, IMO.

You want Kaz??

No fair, you stole my comparison before I had a chance to use it. Infante could be a worthwhile gamble, but does anyone else think his value isn't quite at what Jones' is? Please explain to me how Infante is anything like Barrett? Barrett's bat wouldn't play at a corner infield postion and he was athletic enough to move to catcher. Infante's bat isn't even that good for a middle infielder and he's played some in CF. I don't see the comparison. The comparison has nothing at all to do with defense or the positions they play. That what has it do with? Their bats.

No fair, you stole my comparison before I had a chance to use it. Infante could be a worthwhile gamble, but does anyone else think his value isn't quite at what Jones' is? Please explain to me how Infante is anything like Barrett? Barrett's bat wouldn't play at a corner infield postion and he was athletic enough to move to catcher. Infante's bat isn't even that good for a middle infielder and he's played some in CF. I don't see the comparison. The comparison has nothing at all to do with defense or the positions they play.

he is definitely growing, but he has some work to do as far as shot selection. he has to resist chucking up an 18 footer just because his defender is playing back What he really needs to do is to develop that shot. I bet you they are encouraging him to take those. He probably hits them all day in practice. Once he gets (if ever) that shot down and the defenders have to respect it, the floodgates are open to superstardom.

It is still not a benefit. He isn't playing for free. I really cannot understand this. Baseball shouldn't be a fraternity club. It might help Fukudome transition better. If it's for a few pennies, why not. if its 3 years 12 mil...jim hendry's probably murdered before sundown, unfortunately. What do you mean unfortunately? Poorly worded. He was referring to the contract.

Somebody jacked off an elephant lawl

Am I the only sicko that noticed the subtle differences in the shaping of the infield/dirt area? The area around home plate is more circular, whereas it used to be a straight edge in front of home plate. Also, the cutoff areas by the bases are rounder and smaller. Nothing major. I'm just a loser like that.

It probably helps that with each year, we're a year closer to the end of that deal. FWIW, I dislike him a lot less than I did when we first signed him too.

While you might have a point in that they are unlikely to reach 800 runs next year, this is a pretty stupid reason to use as support for your argument.

Heyman lists us as one of the chief pursuers, but I just don't see it happening. Not unless you are going to give up Hill, Pie, Marmol, Cedeno, and Gallagher. Probably the same package for Cabrera. Thanks, but no thanks. I'd give that up in a heartbeat, particularly if, like Meph suggested, we got a window for extension talks. The only player I'd even miss significantly is Marmol (who is really just a reliever) and maybe Pie.

Is Matsui even that much of an improvement over Theriot? I want to improve at SS, but that would actually involve improving. How has Matsui done outside of Coors?

What if you could use the extra 12 million to get Fukodome/JD Drew (just an example). So you would have Soriano and Fukodome/Drew for 30 million compared to A-rod for 30 million. ARod and Murton for 30.5 million.

I approve, as well.

I'd actually be really interested in hearing what Will Carrol might know about Prior's situation right now. He seems to be pretty spot on in these cases.

Problem is, this wasn't a slam dunk surgery. It was exploratory. Who knows if it will be successful or not. It started out as exploratory, they found a bunch wrong (what a surprise), and from all reports, were able to fix everything up nicely.

I think this is a difficult situation. If Prior doesn't want to accept the 20% pay cut of (does anyone know what his salary is?) he can refuse. Isn't that a lot of money to spend on a guy that won't pitch for 2008? I'm guessing 3.75 or so. Huh? Isn't it possible that he won't pitch in 2008? I think it's quite possible. Possible. It seemed like you were stating it as fact, which would've been news to me. Seems unlikely, though, unless he just flat out has some major complications in his recovery from surgery, in which case it probably would be time to completely give up on him. Otherwise, he's slated to pitch competitively early next season (not opening day, though). To me, it's just a question of how well he'll pitch and what kind of stuff he has. I'd be interested in seeing how long it took Carpenter to get his stuff back after he started pitching again.

I think this is a difficult situation. If Prior doesn't want to accept the 20% pay cut of (does anyone know what his salary is?) he can refuse. Isn't that a lot of money to spend on a guy that won't pitch for 2008? I'm guessing 3.75 or so. Huh?

I'm not talking about the playoffs. I'm talking about the regular season. But more importantly I'm talking about wins in the regular season. The Diamond Backs had to be doing something right to win all those games. I think I read somthing in heardball times to suggest that Pyth. is not a good model for teams with a shut down bullpen. Something to the effect that the bullpen will not be utilized in low leverage situations where the team is up or down by a significant amount of runs. It is just those variations that throw off a model like that. But anyway, I'd go for a little good process on the part of Hendry, who has displayed little of any process what-so-ever. Fine. You've got the point. The thing is, a full season isn't "the long run" either. Teams can overachieve for an entire 162 games and playoffs, believe it or not. They can underachieve over that sample size, too. Players can, too. Think in terms of the big picture. I can agree with you on Hendry, too.

Wrong. The better team does not always win. That's absurd. There's so many examples that blow this idea out of the water that I won't even bother listing them. Aside from that, you missed the point, entirely. BS. How do you judge who was better. How do you judge good process. Baseball isn't a beauty contest. Do the Mets get a pass from their fans becuase they were supposed to win? It's just ridicilous. Good outcomes are function of good process, most of the time. You cannot ignore outcome. I guess you can, but I wouldn't know why you'd want to. It goes if A then B not if B then A A= Outcome B = process Most of the time. But not all of the time. How do you judge good process? There are several ways. History. Odds. Math. Certainly not, however, a single outcome. The best way to ensure good outcomes in the long term is a sound process. In the short run, variance will have it's impact, but in the long run the right way will win out. The best process is the way to give yourself the best chance at success. After that, you just have to let them play the games. I already gave plenty of examples. You've pretty much ignored them and refuse to acknowledge them. I'd say I'm about done here.

Hell, you, yourself, just said that the playoffs are a crapshoot. This pretty much completely implies that the best team isn't necessarily going to win.

Wrong. The better team does not always win. That's absurd. There's so many examples that blow this idea out of the water that I won't even bother listing them. Aside from that, you missed the point, entirely.

Great example is the 2001 Chicago Cubs team that won 88 games. With so many bums getting major playing time it's a miracle that team won 78 games, let alone 88. Regardless of W-L record, that was NOT a good team. Exactly. That was also an example of just how sick Sammy was that year. :shock:

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life. I think this is a horribly misguided and wrong way of thinking that will never lead to any long-term success in any avenue of life. EDIT - and it's the exact same type of thinking that leads to Jim Hendry trying to somehow copy the latest lightning in a bottle team every year. No the Cubs are a bona fide example of process over product, unless I am reading your "they should've won" supposition incorrectly. Forget the Cubs. That's a separate argument. Process is more meaningful than outcome. Period. Variance can impact a single outcome. Sound process is the only way to ensure long term success in anything. I'll use a poker (Hold 'em) analogy. If you have pocket aces, and somebody acting before you goes all in, you call. 100 times out of 100, the correct play is to call. Now, say the other guy flips over 6 3 offsuit. The board winds up being 4 5 7 9 Q and he wins this hand with 6 3 offsuit. This doesn't mean that calling with AA was the incorrect play. It means that the best hand didn't hold up. Long term, you will win far more often than not when you make this same play. The outcome of the hand (a loss) means nothing (other than the fact that you lost some money in the short run). The math says that you made the correct play, and that is all that matters. Now apply that to baseball. If team A is better constructed than team B but, due to variance, winds up winning fewer games than team B in a given season, that does not mean that team B was the better team. In terms of GMing a team, what matters is how the team is put together, not necessarily how that team winds up performing. If my team were looking at two candidates for GM, one who has sound baseball philosophies but, for whatever reason, has an under .500 record, and one who has a .600 record, but has flawed philosophies, I would take the former every single time. I liken this to a bad pitcher with a good W-L record vs. a good pitcher with a bad W-L record. There's a far better chance that the good philosophies will lead to future success than the naked bottom-line success. Obviously, I'm talking extreme ends of the spectrum here, but it does a good job of illustrating the point.