Value: some simply can't understand the concept

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]Sonics, I understand your point about value, but I think you are making a mistake.  A team still needs guys that perform at a high level, regardless of what they make.  Which is the better team, a team with a $60 million payroll performing at a $100 million level or a team with a $170 million payroll performing at a $150 million level?  The better bargain is the former, but the better team is the latter, outperforming them by 50%.
    Posted by fizsh[/QUOTE]

    fizsh - I get your point and agree to some extent.  But we live in a baseball world of budgets and too many people - around here and elsewhere - live in a fantasy pre-Andy Messerschmidt world where all that matters is that the Dodgers got AGon and we got stuffed.  That's both ignorant and stupid.  I've posted about 25 times over the years about how NO TEAM TOOK MANNY FOR FREE IN 2003 when we waived him. What more is there to say? 

    Sure, teams need some stars to succeed and sometimes you have to pay over the odds (see:  Manny) to get them.  But generally you succeed in baseball and elsewhere by being efficient with your resources unless your resources are unlimited....and the Red Sox - and Yankees - are working to budgets.

    It's not fun, it's not glamourous, it's not Teddy Ballgame's baseball...but it is the reality.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]The Dodgers get one of baseball's best hitters, and a Gold Glover, they get a guy who will likely help them next year in the outfield, and they got a pitcher who will probably regain his mojo now that he's out of the toxic Sox environment. The Sox got back a weaker hitting version of Tony Clark. Magic Johnson and Ned Colletti just helped the Dodgers for years to come. The Sox, oh Kansas City Royals East, Pawtucket ClownCar Prime Time....woo-hoo, here we come!!!...You like losing, fans, admit it. You like to see the team go rock bottom. It's really sick.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Whats really sick is the failure of some to comprehend that the trio of Gonzalez/Beckett/Crawford does not represent value. Losing Gonzalez hurts a bit, but he was the only one of the three who was worth anything like what he was being paid. In return we get two top pitching prospects and a ton of salary flexibility. We will only be able to accurately judge this retrospectively, but I would bet money that in three years we will look back at this as the right thing to do.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from boboinfla. Show boboinfla's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

     The interesting part of the trade was the take by ESPN analyst Tim Kurchian(SP) who said that every GM he talked to said they would never make the trade. Obviously Dodgers are trying to buy a WS but it ain't that easy. They sure will look like stiffs if they don't. I have faith that the RS are not dead and will be a contendah in 2 years.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE] The interesting part of the trade was the take by ESPN analyst Tim Kurchian(SP) who said that every GM he talked to said they would never make the trade. Obviously Dodgers are trying to buy a WS but it ain't that easy. They sure will look like stiffs if they don't. I have faith that the RS are not dead and will be a contendah in 2 years.
    Posted by boboinfla[/QUOTE]

    Do you mean they said they wouldn't make the trade from the Dodgers' perspective or the Sox'?  I have to assume they meant from the Dodgers' perspective.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from boboinfla. Show boboinfla's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept : Do you mean they said they wouldn't make the trade from the Dodgers' perspective or the Sox'?  I have to assume they meant from the Dodgers' perspective.
    Posted by SonicsMonksLyresVicars[/QUOTE]

    Tim said no GM would take Dodgers risk. Sorry for the confusion.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stan17. Show stan17's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    The Red Sox are a business. They made a business decision and it was a no-brainer decision. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept : Tim said no GM would take Dodgers risk. Sorry for the confusion.
    Posted by boboinfla[/QUOTE]

    Ok, I agree with those GMs 100%.  I can't believe the Sox got away with this.  It's an astonishingly high risk taken by the Dodgers at huge cost, and a virtually riskless move by the Sox at virtually no cost.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    Pink hats do not have the baseball knowledge to understand VALUE players.

    Crawford?  Remove a minus player & add 2 value 2nd teir guys in his place. +3

    Beckett?  Remove a malcontent troublemaker not producing. Add w $  +2

    A-Gon?  -1 top teir guy.  Add 2 HIGH VALUE 2nd teir guys +1

    THIS IS A +6 HIGH VALUE PLAYER MOVE!!!!  All contingent upon future smart spending!  I hate to see A-Gon go, but his $$$$$$  can still be turned into a big plus!!!!!

    NO WAY Pink Hats get it!  Give up!
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]When you start with fangraphs, you have no clue about value.
    Posted by TrotterNixon[/QUOTE]

    You don't need fangraph or any other outside influence to determine a VALUE player.  Sackless guys like Softy rely on it, then when he's wrong, as usual, he'll argue it to death.  AD NAUSEUM!!!!!!!!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    What part of:

    * - like it or not, just treat it as a benchmark and follow the overall concept"

    is so hard to understand?

    As it obviously is for some, the point is that AGon's value was immense when he was paid $3-6m/year.  Now that he's fully priced....eh, you pay $2 for $2 worth of apples.  They might be fine apples, but they are no longer a bargain.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]The marketing guys rule the roost! Two monetary factors from having AGon: 1.  If AGon wasn't Mexican/American he would still be in Boston 2.  A long playoff run is worth $70m all together!   http://vincegennaro.mlblogs.com/ Magic Johnson is the public face of a franchise determined to woo back Dodgers fans by spending whatever it takes to win -- and what better time than now? Gonzalez was the piece they coveted, a Southern California native and Mexican-American who will have the chance to re-enact the closest thing to Fernando-mania the club has seen since Fernando Valenzuela was the darling of Angelenos. EDES Crawford/Lackey were signed in large part for marketing purposes. "When you’re in a big market, and you win, and you’re up against the  Yankees , and  ratings are what they are , and attendance is what it is; no one wants to go backwards as a business," Epstein . http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1221215-theo-epstein-defends-red-sox-tenure-blames-lackey-signing-on-the-monster We all know how that went.
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]


    Tom,

       Of all the emotion involved about that the deal, this was a post that gave me pause to think. I appreciated it's originality.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    " When you start with fangraphs, you have no clue about value."

    Translation: the only person that gets to talk about value on this board is me, Trotter Nixon. 

    OP: well done, we could tell simply with the eye and basic number test that Agon was not providing value to what he was signed for, thanks for fleshing it out. 

    As for softy, I realized why he's so upset about this trade. Becuase we didn't get former pre-Upton BFF Matt Kemp back in return....

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    "  Can you sit there and honestly say the Red Sox won this trade or better yet robbed L.A. ?"

    Yup - everyone thought the Crawford contract was utterly untradeable. AGon was way overpaid and was a terrible fit in Boston and a clubhouse loser. Beckett was finished. You always take a risk in a big trade so we'll see what the Sox do with the money and how the pitchers turn out. 

      This team will be a doormat 4th or 5th place team for 3-5 years.

    Well, that's the direction they were clearly headed in, so a change of direction was clearly called for. 

    You have no idea whether you are right or not, it all depends on who they sign and how good some of the prospects turn out to be. 

    You're in the minority of entitled fans who can't enjoy a baseball game unless some phony superstar is making you feel like you're a part of some big market team. 

    Most of the rest of us are even ok not making the playoffs if we have a likeable team that plays their tails off - two things we have not had that we may now get. 

    A trade like this takes several years to play out, no idea why you would want to dismiss it now. You can still wear your Crawford jersey, no one's asking you to take it off.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept : Tom,    Of all the emotion involved about that the deal, this was a post that gave me pause to think. I appreciated it's originality.
    Posted by SinceYaz[/QUOTE]

    Thanks S.Y.  It comes down to money, not just saving it but making it.  Theo has blamed himself for not fighting the marketing forces (Larry) for the signings of Lackey/CC.  Look at the reaction when he said bridge year.  After chickengate, the marketing data probably tells them Sox fans would rather watch the kids.

    The LAD have a TV contract to sign soon and some attendance problems, and new owners (the perfect storm).  A playoff push and a Mexican-American face of the franchise is a perfect fit. 

    Can Magic Johnson save the LA Dodgers? – Business 360 - CNN ...

    business.blogs.cnn.com/.../can-magic-johnson-save-the-la-dodgers/
    28 Mar 2012 - Yet even with a clean slate, the Dodgers have serious problems to address. Most pressing is the worrying slide in attendance at Dodger Stadium. The average ...

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    I think I will wait to see what the FO does this winter with all the money they just saved themselves before seeing whether the move was intended to benefit the fans or the FO.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]A team with a 175 million doesn't need to be talking about "no longer a bargain". It's about fit and value, in that order. Bean counters have ruined a lot of baseball brands.
    Posted by TrotterNixon[/QUOTE]

    The winter of 2011/2012 and the 2012 season seem to prove you wrong.  From all accounts, the Sox' increased spend on AGon and Buccholz' extensions prevented them from taking on any new major contracts.  Budgets exist, like it or not.  And ours was busted, effectively, 2 years ago.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]There are some weeping and gnashing their teeth over the loss of AGon....they simply are unable to understand the concept of value, esp. value-for-money. Consider AGon: 2009:  Paid $3.125m, Fangraphs* value $28m 2010:  Paid $4.875m, Fangraphs value $20.8m 2011:  Paid $6.3m, Fangraphs value $29.5m 2012:  Paid $21m, Fangraphs value $12.5 (so far) AGon used to be an extremely valuable player i.e. before he became fully priced. That $23m gap between pay and performance in 2011 is huge value and is one of the reasons the Sox were willing to deal good prospects for him rather than wait to compete for him in Free Agency. Now?  He's nowhere near as valuable as he was pre-2012 because he's fully priced now.  We lose AGon, we spend the money (hopefully wisely) elsewhere.  They only real "value" is pre-arb & (to a lesser degree) arb players and long term, lower-cost buyouts like Pedroia and Longoria....which is why it is extremely difficult and costly to acquire such players. * - like it or not, just treat it as a benchmark and follow the overall concept
    Posted by SonicsMonksLyresVicars[/QUOTE]

    Sell that to the Yankees and their fans, and the Dodgers and their fans.

    Looks like the Sox got 41 million dollars of value for around 27 million.  Not too shabby.  Unfortunately, with the collapse of their pitching, the Sox became a below .500 team. 

    You do realize that this is someone's calculation and really has no bearing on who wins or who loses, don't you?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept : The winter of 2011/2012 and the 2012 season seem to prove you wrong.  From all accounts, the Sox' increased spend on AGon and Buccholz' extensions prevented them from taking on any new major contracts.  Budgets exist, like it or not.  And ours was busted, effectively, 2 years ago.
    Posted by SonicsMonksLyresVicars[/QUOTE]


    Why blame AGon and Buchholz for that?  How about if Ben had let Papi walk and used his money to sign Kuroda?  Then, at mid-season he still would have had some money left over to add to payroll, and likely the need to do so as they would have been much more clearly in the hunt.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept : Why blame AGon and Buchholz for that?  How about if Ben had let Papi walked and used his money to sign Kuroda?  Then, at mid-season he still would have had some money left over to add to payroll, and likely the need to do so as they would have been much more clearly in the hunt.
    Posted by parhunter55[/QUOTE]
    Have you taken a look at this team's record since Ortiz has been out of the line-up?  I doubt they would have a better record with Kuroda and no Ortiz all season. Ortiz was having a terrific season, anchoring the line-up through the injuries and the 1st half struggles of A-Gon, Pedroia, Youk, etc... 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    They were a below .500 team all year, with Ortiz in the lineup and having one of his better seasons.  They are only slightly worse off now, after Ortiz has missed a month, plus.  Kuroda would have been the ace of this staff, had he pitched the same in Boston as he has in NYC.  The much needed ace all here were hoping for.

    But my overall point is that you could name several players who put the Sox in a budget crunch, if that is what they truly have (its conceivable the owners just want to maximize profit, too).  And unless it is an overpaid pitcher, I don't think that money has any reflection on the poor record of this season's team.

    Pitching, pitching, pitching.

    It's ALL about the pitching.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    It's easy in hindsight, but I don't remember anyone screaming for kuroda this winter, in fact, most laughed at the Yanks for signing such an old pitcher who would be moving from a big park and "weak division/league" to the tough AL East.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Value: some simply can't understand the concept

    Well, I posted that I thought he would be a good addition, certainly better than Oswalt.  And on that I was correct.  Kuroda's record has been consistently very good.  There was some thought his talents might not translate to the AL expressed by some of the pundits at the Globe, but for the money he was most certainly the best talent available.  And for me that is not 20-20 hindsight.
     

Share