Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:07 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 382 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5181
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
Jocketty will keep winning with other people's players. Outside of Ryan Ludwick and the reanimated corpse of Scott Rolen, everyone on the 2012 Reds' starting lineup was acquired by Wayne Krivsky. And while he did obtain Matt Latos, the Reds' 2012 rotation was primarily built around Krivsky's players. (That's likely to remain the case unless the experiment of Chapman starting actually returns dividends, which is an optimistic thought.) Jocketty has never had the experience of taking a team bereft of talent and turning it into a winner; he's always had other people's toys to play with.


J_C_Steel wrote:
Yup. Jocketty didn't acquire the players the Cardinals used in their amazing run from 2000-2007, even though Jocketty became the Cardinals' GM in 1994. Riiiiight. Those players he inherited in 1994 must have had some unreal longevity to help Jocketty's Cardinals win the 2006 World Series, huh?

;)


How 'bout you answer that one, Willton? What players did Jocketty inherit from 1994 that allowed him to turn the Cardinals into a MACHINE from 2000-2007?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:44 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5676
J_C_Steel wrote:
What players did Jocketty inherit from 1994 that allowed him to turn the Cardinals into a MACHINE from 2000-2007?


You're making two different arguments here.

Yes, the players Jocketty inherited in 94 were not the same as 00-07. However, many the players he inherited in 94 (Brian Jordan, Ray Lankford, John Mabry, Ozzie Smith, Tom Pagnozzi, Alan Benes...) were a key factor in their run to the NLCS in 96.

Furthermore, if your case is that by year six that Jocketty turned the Cards into a machine, then you can't definitively say that NH hasn't done that because it is still unknown (it appears unlikely, but it is still unknown).

For all we know the Bucs version of Pujols could still be yet to arrive and/or the seeds of the previous six years are about to flourish as abundantly as they did for Jocketty in STL after year six.

It appears as if everyone has conceded that Jocketty's first six years in both CIN and STL have been better than NH's tenure in PIT. The only debate has been because you're using a fairly faulty comparison.

If the crux of your case is that a GM can turn around a downtrodden team in less than six years, then you should have started and ended your debate with Billy Beane and/or Andrew Friedman.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
Jocketty will keep winning with other people's players. Outside of Ryan Ludwick and the reanimated corpse of Scott Rolen, everyone on the 2012 Reds' starting lineup was acquired by Wayne Krivsky. And while he did obtain Matt Latos, the Reds' 2012 rotation was primarily built around Krivsky's players. (That's likely to remain the case unless the experiment of Chapman starting actually returns dividends, which is an optimistic thought.) Jocketty has never had the experience of taking a team bereft of talent and turning it into a winner; he's always had other people's toys to play with.


J_C_Steel wrote:
Yup. Jocketty didn't acquire the players the Cardinals used in their amazing run from 2000-2007, even though Jocketty became the Cardinals' GM in 1994. Riiiiight. Those players he inherited in 1994 must have had some unreal longevity to help Jocketty's Cardinals win the 2006 World Series, huh?

;)


How 'bout you answer that one, Willton? What players did Jocketty inherit from 1994 that allowed him to turn the Cardinals into a MACHINE from 2000-2007?

Ray Lankford, Blake Stein and TJ Matthews (who Jocketty traded with Eric Ludwick to get Mark McGwire). Admittedly, Jocketty did a fine job converting the Cardinals from a middling organization into a perennial contender after 6 years. But, again, he had 6 years.

Also, something to keep in mind: Jocketty was probably one of the best in the business from 1994-2006, but that doesn't mean that he is among the best now or will be among the best as the years go on. Andrew Friedman and Theo Epstein are among the GMs who have surpassed him, in my view. More could follow.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Last edited by Willton on Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5181
Location: Washington, DC
OK. If Neal Huntington leads the Pirates to 95 wins and the NLCS this year, and then leads them to win 93, 97, 85, 105, 100, and 83 games the next six seasons, including a World Series title, then I will personally write him a letter of apology and start a thread on this board calling myself "The Dumbest Man Alive."

Does anyone believe that Huntington has positioned the Pirates for that kind of success?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:03 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5516
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
You are reading my post far too narrowly. And you're incorrect. My statement is "Trades are made to improve your team. That is the relevant barometer of success." Obviously, if you trade Babe Ruth for Francisco Cabrera, that's a bad trade because it made your team worse.

Moreover, you're not thinking like a GM. You're thinking like a fan or media member, who like to decide who "won" or "lost" trades. That doesn't matter. What matters is what's best for your team. For example, say you're the GM of a team with two excellent first basemen, a popular established veteran signed to a long-term contract who can be expected to put up .280/.350/.550 for years to come and a prospect whom your analysts believe is capable of .280/.340/.500 for the next few years. If you trade that prospect to another team for a solid starting pitcher, that prospect out-performs those expectations (going, say, .300/.360/.520), and the pitcher you trade for performs well enough to help your team win a championship, then who cares how well the prospect you traded performed? Your trade did what it was supposed to do -- it IMPROVED your team and helped you win a title. It doesn't matter if the prospect you traded becomes a perennial All-Star. Mission accomplished.

Each trade must be evaluated within the context of the GM's overall strategy and the team's current goal. If the trade improved the team and helped it achieve its goal, then it was a good trade, regardless of how well the players traded away performed.

So if the Red Sox record improves this year, they made a good trade for Hanrahan, even if Melancon puts up the same numbers in Pittsburgh that Hanrahan does in Boston, plus Sands hits 25 home runs for the Pirates? I'm sorry, but that's a bad trade for the Red Sox any way you look at it. They improved, but not as much as they would have by standing pat with what they had. It isn't that the guy you traded away becomes and All-Star that matters, it's that he would have helped you win more games than the guy you got.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5181
Location: Washington, DC
sisyphus wrote:
So if the Red Sox record improves this year, they made a good trade for Hanrahan, even if Melancon puts up the same numbers in Pittsburgh that Hanrahan does in Boston, plus Sands hits 25 home runs for the Pirates? I'm sorry, but that's a bad trade for the Red Sox any way you look at it. They improved, but not as much as they would have by standing pat with what they had. It isn't that the guy you traded away becomes and All-Star that matters, it's that he would have helped you win more games than the guy you got.


If Melancon pitches as well for Pittsburgh as Hanrahan does for the Red Sox, then the Red Sox did not improve their team with the trade. As for Sands, if the player the Red Sox have manning 1B or RF (whichever position you optimistically forecast Sands playing while hitting 25 home runs) hits better than Sands, then they didn't really lose that production.

The ONLY relevant question post-trade is: Did the trade make your team better and more able to meet its goal? If yes, then it was a good trade, even if you gave up good players. If no, then it was a bad trade, even if you gave up bad players.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5181
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
Also, something to keep in mind: Jocketty was probably one of the best in the business from 1994-2006, but that doesn't mean that he is among the best now or will be among the best as the years go on. Andrew Friedman and Theo Epstein are among the GMs who have surpassed him, in my view. More could follow.


I never said Jocketty was better than Andrew Friedman or Theo Epstein. He may be. I can't say for sure. I just said he's better than Neal Huntington.

Now that Huntington is entering his sixth year, do you believe that, going forward, he's positioned the Pirates for the kind of success that the Cardinals experienced in their sixth year and beyond under Walt Jocketty?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
Also, something to keep in mind: Jocketty was probably one of the best in the business from 1994-2006, but that doesn't mean that he is among the best now or will be among the best as the years go on. Andrew Friedman and Theo Epstein are among the GMs who have surpassed him, in my view. More could follow.


I never said Jocketty was better than Andrew Friedman or Theo Epstein. He may be. I can't say for sure. I just said he's better than Neal Huntington.

Well congratulations for being proven right thus far. We'll throw a party in your honor because you apparently don't feel like you get enough attention around here.

J_C_Steel wrote:
Now that Huntington is entering his sixth year, do you believe that, going forward, he's positioned the Pirates for the kind of success that the Cardinals experienced in their sixth year and beyond under Walt Jocketty?

No, not yet. We need more talent in the organization in order to have sustained success going forward. But given the team's performance last year, I believe this team has a chance at contending in 2013, even if it is only an outside one.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5181
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
No, not yet. We need more talent in the organization in order to have sustained success going forward. But given the team's performance last year, I believe this team has a chance at contending in 2013, even if it is only an outside one.


We disagree here. In 2012, the Pirates finished fourth in the division behind the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers. The team went 12-5 against the last-place Astros, who are now gone. We can only identify one area in which the Pirates truly upgraded, and that's catcher. The rotation has more question marks (Francisco Liriano, James McDonald, and one of Kyle McPherson/Jeff Locke) than sure things. The 61-win Cubs have definitely improved, particularly with their pitching. The Reds are even better after their trade for a Shin-Soo Choo. The Cardinals have great pitching depth and a solid lineup. The Brewers can hit with the best of 'em.

What makes you think the Pirates can do any better than fourth in the division in 2013?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
No, not yet. We need more talent in the organization in order to have sustained success going forward. But given the team's performance last year, I believe this team has a chance at contending in 2013, even if it is only an outside one.


We disagree here. In 2012, the Pirates finished fourth in the division behind the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers. The team went 12-5 against the last-place Astros, who are now gone. We can only identify one area in which the Pirates truly upgraded, and that's catcher. The rotation has more question marks (Francisco Liriano, James McDonald, and one of Kyle McPherson/Jeff Locke) than sure things. The 61-win Cubs have definitely improved, particularly with their pitching. The Reds are even better after their trade for a Shin-Soo Choo. The Cardinals have great pitching depth and a solid lineup. The Brewers can hit with the best of 'em.

What makes you think the Pirates can do any better than fourth in the division in 2013?

The Reds are almost certainly going to see some regression from their pitching staff. Dusty Baker worked Cueto and Bailey very hard last year, as they threw more innings and more pitches last year than they ever had in their entire respective careers. Bailey in particular threw 3334 pitches last season, which is 1,200 more than he had thrown in any of his previous years in the majors. And given the physical build of Cueto (5'10', 215 lb.), I don't think his arm can take much more of Dusty. Plus, I'm expecting Arroyo to regress due to age, and I'm also expecting the Chapman starting experiment to be a disaster.

The Brewers will likely still have a terrifying lineup. But their pitching is loaded with question marks. Michael Fiers looks like the real deal, but Gallardo's control is slipping, Marco Estrada was impressive but is still a converted reliever, and Greinke and Marcum are both gone. Tom Gorzelanny was signed to presumably take a rotation spot, but he is fragile (as we know) and his peripherals are unimpressive. And the pitchers from their farm system (Tyler Thornburg and Wily Peralta) show some promise but are likely to be inconsistent. And that's just their rotation; their bullpen is a disaster.

The Cubs have improved, but not enough to get them out of the basement. Adding Edwin Jackson is not going to catapult them into being an average team. They're two best hitters are still Anthony Rizzo and Starlin Castro, Alfonso Soriano's resurgeance in 2012 is not likely to continue into 2013, they no longer have Ryan Dempster, and their rotation still can't stay healthy, which means they are still relying on guys like Travis Wood and Justin Germano to eat innings.

The Cardinals are a legit contender and most likely to win the division. But that doesn't mean that the Pirates can't win a wild card spot, particularly when there are now two such spots available and given the uncertainty of the NL Central.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2175
Willton wrote:
The Reds are almost certainly going to see some regression from their pitching staff. Dusty Baker worked Cueto and Bailey very hard last year, as they threw more innings and more pitches last year than they ever had in their entire respective careers. Bailey in particular threw 3334 pitches last season, which is 1,200 more than he had thrown in any of his previous years in the majors. And given the physical build of Cueto (5'10', 215 lb.), I don't think his arm can take much more of Dusty. Plus, I'm expecting Arroyo to regress due to age, and I'm also expecting the Chapman starting experiment to be a disaster.

The Brewers will likely still have a terrifying lineup. But their pitching is loaded with question marks. Michael Fiers looks like the real deal, but Gallardo's control is slipping, Marco Estrada was impressive but is still a converted reliever, and Greinke and Marcum are both gone. Tom Gorzelanny was signed to presumably take a rotation spot, but he is fragile (as we know) and his peripherals are unimpressive. And the pitchers from their farm system (Tyler Thornburg and Wily Peralta) show some promise but are likely to be inconsistent. And that's just their rotation; their bullpen is a disaster.

The Cubs have improved, but not enough to get them out of the basement. Adding Edwin Jackson is not going to catapult them into being an average team. They're two best hitters are still Anthony Rizzo and Starlin Castro, Alfonso Soriano's resurgeance in 2012 is not likely to continue into 2013, they no longer have Ryan Dempster, and their rotation still can't stay healthy, which means they are still relying on guys like Travis Wood and Justin Germano to eat innings.

The Cardinals are a legit contender and most likely to win the division. But that doesn't mean that the Pirates can't win a wild card spot, particularly when there are now two such spots available and given the uncertainty of the NL Central.

Picking winners in January is a crap shoot, but I sure hope your optimism pans out. I just don't see it. Again this is just "on paper" but I don't see how the Pirates can compete with the Reds, Cards, or even the Brewers. Cubs...maybe. As JC pointed out there are just too many question marks and not enough talent. Hopefully we have a bunch of guys step forward. If Snider, Alvarez, Marte, and JMac all reach their "potential" then you might have something. Let's hope that happens.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
PirateParrot wrote:
Willton wrote:
The Reds are almost certainly going to see some regression from their pitching staff. Dusty Baker worked Cueto and Bailey very hard last year, as they threw more innings and more pitches last year than they ever had in their entire respective careers. Bailey in particular threw 3334 pitches last season, which is 1,200 more than he had thrown in any of his previous years in the majors. And given the physical build of Cueto (5'10', 215 lb.), I don't think his arm can take much more of Dusty. Plus, I'm expecting Arroyo to regress due to age, and I'm also expecting the Chapman starting experiment to be a disaster.

The Brewers will likely still have a terrifying lineup. But their pitching is loaded with question marks. Michael Fiers looks like the real deal, but Gallardo's control is slipping, Marco Estrada was impressive but is still a converted reliever, and Greinke and Marcum are both gone. Tom Gorzelanny was signed to presumably take a rotation spot, but he is fragile (as we know) and his peripherals are unimpressive. And the pitchers from their farm system (Tyler Thornburg and Wily Peralta) show some promise but are likely to be inconsistent. And that's just their rotation; their bullpen is a disaster.

The Cubs have improved, but not enough to get them out of the basement. Adding Edwin Jackson is not going to catapult them into being an average team. They're two best hitters are still Anthony Rizzo and Starlin Castro, Alfonso Soriano's resurgeance in 2012 is not likely to continue into 2013, they no longer have Ryan Dempster, and their rotation still can't stay healthy, which means they are still relying on guys like Travis Wood and Justin Germano to eat innings.

The Cardinals are a legit contender and most likely to win the division. But that doesn't mean that the Pirates can't win a wild card spot, particularly when there are now two such spots available and given the uncertainty of the NL Central.

Picking winners in January is a crap shoot, but I sure hope your optimism pans out. I just don't see it. Again this is just "on paper" but I don't see how the Pirates can compete with the Reds, Cards, or even the Brewers. Cubs...maybe. As JC pointed out there are just too many question marks and not enough talent. Hopefully we have a bunch of guys step forward. If Snider, Alvarez, Marte, and JMac all reach their "potential" then you might have something. Let's hope that happens.


Its pretty clear that if things don't go well in 2013 NH will be fired.

I think we are a 83-85 win team, good for 3rd in the NL central close to Cincy, behind St. Louis.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:52 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5516
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
So if the Red Sox record improves this year, they made a good trade for Hanrahan, even if Melancon puts up the same numbers in Pittsburgh that Hanrahan does in Boston, plus Sands hits 25 home runs for the Pirates? I'm sorry, but that's a bad trade for the Red Sox any way you look at it. They improved, but not as much as they would have by standing pat with what they had. It isn't that the guy you traded away becomes and All-Star that matters, it's that he would have helped you win more games than the guy you got.


If Melancon pitches as well for Pittsburgh as Hanrahan does for the Red Sox, then the Red Sox did not improve their team with the trade.

Okay, now you're making my argument for me. Thank you.4

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5181
Location: Washington, DC
sisyphus wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
So if the Red Sox record improves this year, they made a good trade for Hanrahan, even if Melancon puts up the same numbers in Pittsburgh that Hanrahan does in Boston, plus Sands hits 25 home runs for the Pirates? I'm sorry, but that's a bad trade for the Red Sox any way you look at it. They improved, but not as much as they would have by standing pat with what they had. It isn't that the guy you traded away becomes and All-Star that matters, it's that he would have helped you win more games than the guy you got.


If Melancon pitches as well for Pittsburgh as Hanrahan does for the Red Sox, then the Red Sox did not improve their team with the trade.

Okay, now you're making my argument for me. Thank you.4


Because Hanrahan was brought in to be an upgrade to Melancon. It's Hanrahan's performance that matters to the Red Sox.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:21 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
If Melancon pitches as well for Pittsburgh as Hanrahan does for the Red Sox, then the Red Sox did not improve their team with the trade.

Okay, now you're making my argument for me. Thank you.4


Because Hanrahan was brought in to be an upgrade to Melancon. It's Hanrahan's performance that matters to the Red Sox.

So you don't ascribe to the notion that a team can overpay for a particular player? For instance, if Hammer is only marginally better than Melancon, was the trade still a good one for the Red Sox, despite the fact that they also gave up a 1B/OF prospect in Sands?

Would you call the 2005 Mark Mulder trade a good one for the Cardinals because it improved the team, even though they gave up Dan Haren, Kiko Calero, and Daric Barton in the process?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:19 am 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5516
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
Because Hanrahan was brought in to be an upgrade to Melancon. It's Hanrahan's performance that matters to the Red Sox.

And Holt's. And the four players who they traded away.

Hanrahan was not brought in to be an upgrade to Melancon. He was brought in to be a closer.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5181
Location: Washington, DC
sisyphus wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
Because Hanrahan was brought in to be an upgrade to Melancon. It's Hanrahan's performance that matters to the Red Sox.

And Holt's. And the four players who they traded away.

Hanrahan was not brought in to be an upgrade to Melancon. He was brought in to be a closer.


Which is an upgrade to what Melancon was for them. Geez. Do you argue just to argue?

The point is this: If Hanrahan performs GREAT as a closer for the Red Sox, and Holt becomes a solid utility infielder, it doesn't matter to the Red Sox if Melancon is a solid 8th inning relief pitcher for the Pirates and Sands hits 25 home runs. What matters is that they improved their club in the way that they desired through the trade. I assure you that the Red Sox already have a first baseman who will out-perform Jerry Sands, so they're not "losing" his production.

If Pimentel becomes a solid MLB pitcher in 4 years, that doesn't matter to the Red Sox either -- they have a bunch of lottery ticket pitchers in the minors, too. The trade was made to improve the Red Sox in 2013. If it does that, then the trade worked for the Red Sox. It doesn't matter to them if the Pirates "win the trade" in the long run; that wasn't the point.

This should not be difficult to understand.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5181
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
So you don't ascribe to the notion that a team can overpay for a particular player? For instance, if Hammer is only marginally better than Melancon, was the trade still a good one for the Red Sox, despite the fact that they also gave up a 1B/OF prospect in Sands?


Of course a team can overpay for a player. My point is that an overpay can, on occasion, still be a good move if it helps a team achieve its goal.

Would you "overpay" for a player if, in advance, you knew that doing so would result in a World Series win? Of course you would. That's why these teams play the game.

As for Hanrahan/Melancon, see my prior response to sisyphus.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7284
Quote:
I assure you that the Red Sox already have a first baseman who will out-perform Jerry Sands, so they're not "losing" his production.


They might be on the market looking for another one since they haven't officially signed Napoli yet...LaRoche signed with Washington. Garrett Jones must be looking nice right about now.

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
So you don't ascribe to the notion that a team can overpay for a particular player? For instance, if Hammer is only marginally better than Melancon, was the trade still a good one for the Red Sox, despite the fact that they also gave up a 1B/OF prospect in Sands?


Of course a team can overpay for a player. My point is that an overpay can, on occasion, still be a good move if it helps a team achieve its goal.

Would you "overpay" for a player if, in advance, you knew that doing so would result in a World Series win? Of course you would. That's why these teams play the game.

Sure, but here's the thing: nobody knows whether executing a trade for a particular player will result in a World Series win. And if you overpay and fail to reach the World Series, even if the received player plays well, is it still a good trade?

Did Boston execute a good trade in 1990 when it traded minor league prospect Jeff Bagwell to Houston for major league reliever Larry Anderson, even when Anderson pitched well for Boston? Would your view of the trade change if the Red Sox had won the 1990 ALCS against Oakland?

I'll go back to the Mark Mulder trade. Do you view the 2005 Mark Mulder trade as a good one for St. Louis? Would your view be any different if St. Louis had beaten the Astros in the NLCS and made it to the World Series?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 382 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Bucfan, sisyphus and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits