What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    do you have links to the articles that stated this?

    I have the fact. The Phillies could have kept this bum, but they got rid of him. The Dodgers could have traded Ethier and paid this bum. The fact is that any big market team that wanted this bum could have kept him. Instead, Cherry offers 3 years and 39 million. The Dodgers and Phillies did not want this 2013 bum.




    conjecture...

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from raider3524. Show raider3524's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    do you have links to the articles that stated this?

    I have the fact. The Phillies could have kept this bum, but they got rid of him. The Dodgers could have traded Ethier and paid this bum. The fact is that any big market team that wanted this bum could have kept him. Instead, Cherry offers 3 years and 39 million. The Dodgers and Phillies did not want this 2013 bum.


    your bulb is not to bright...you are the only bum here...trade ethier? who would take his contract? you have no facts...fact is you not so smart...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    The Dodgers already have Crawford,  Kemp and Ethier under contract

    And they haven't traded Ethier and spent 3 years and nearly 40 million on Shane. Thank you for making my point.

     




    No, LA instead spent 5/85M and 5/102M on two LHH OF'ers that should be platooned vs LHP. Im sure if a team could have Crawford, Ethier, or Victorinos contract they would take Shanes at 3/39...

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    I don't think anyone wanted Shane at $40M/3. That's about all I will guess.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I don't think anyone wanted Shane at $40M/3. That's about all I will guess.




    Cleveland wanted him at 4/44...I would much rather have Shanes contract than the other two, which was my point. I never said I liked either contract.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I don't think anyone wanted Shane at $40M/3. That's about all I will guess.

     




    Cleveland wanted him at 4/44...I would much rather have Shanes contract than the other two, which was my point. I never said I liked either contract.

     



    Yes, and my point was that just because nobody offered Shane $40M/3, it doesn't mean they were "kicking him to the curb". Perhapos they might have wanyed him at $38M/3, or $35M/3, or $28M/2...

    My guess is that many teams would have loved to have SV on their team, but the cost was too high.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I don't think anyone wanted Shane at $40M/3. That's about all I will guess.

     




    Cleveland wanted him at 4/44...I would much rather have Shanes contract than the other two, which was my point. I never said I liked either contract.

     

     



    Yes, and my point was that just because nobody offered Shane $40M/3, it doesn't mean they were "kicking him to the curb". Perhapos they might have wanyed him at $38M/3, or $35M/3, or $28M/2...

     

    My guess is that many teams would have loved to have SV on their team, but the cost was too high.




    agreed

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I don't think anyone wanted Shane at $40M/3. That's about all I will guess.

     




    Cleveland wanted him at 4/44...I would much rather have Shanes contract than the other two, which was my point. I never said I liked either contract.

     

     



    Yes, and my point was that just because nobody offered Shane $40M/3, it doesn't mean they were "kicking him to the curb". Perhapos they might have wanyed him at $38M/3, or $35M/3, or $28M/2...

     

    My guess is that many teams would have loved to have SV on their team, but the cost was too high.



    nobody could've topped the sox offer. that's how FA works.... you pay the most, you get the player. Stiffy can't comprehend the concept.

    Besides, SV wasn't signed to "save the team". he is Ells insurance and a placeholder. that's it. In the meantime he will give us GG defense, an advantage on the basepaths and will crush LHP. i'll take it. Feel free to jot that down in your notebook stiffy.

    Appearantly, if a player he doesn't like is traded or was not retained that means said player was thrown into a dumpster. BUT, if a player he likes is traded that means something else altogether.. said player "was traded for prospects". Weird how that works... sounds a lot like his "median average" blather and "value & fit" ratings.. Just nonsense he created to attempt to justify him saying a good player is bad and a bad player is good.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    The Dodgers already have Crawford,  Kemp and Ethier under contract

    And they haven't traded Ethier and spent 3 years and nearly 40 million on Shane. Thank you for making my point.




    They also extended Ethier long before trading for Victorino.  You have no point, unless of course we ponder why they felt the need to acquire Victorino in the first place...

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    nobody could've topped the sox offer. that's how FA works.... you pay the most, you get the player. Stiffy can't comprehend the concept.

    It's amazing how such a simple concept escapes so many people.  The team that gets the player usually offered him more money.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    JBJ looks good, but still only had a .809 in AA.

    So, you think he'll do worse than all our sub .700 OF'ers of last year, and he won't be as exciting to watch as Byrd, Pods, Nava, DMac, and others from 2012?

     

    Brentz is also another guy from AA you're looking to promote, and his plate discipline is horrible.

    OK, you want to throw Iggy and JBJ's recent minor league numbers, but are ignoring this:

    Brentz:

    2011: .365 OBP

    2012: .349 OBP

    Or, are you just looking at Ks?

    You're going off the Softy cliff a little on this.  Ellsbury should be one of the best CFs in BB.  Saying that we should waste a control year of JBJ because he is better than Byrd is difficult to even respond to.

    The point I was making was that the fans kept watching last year with much lesser players out there than JBJ, Iggy and Brentz. 

    As for Ellsbury vs JBJ, it's not just about playing JBJ and maybe losing a year of service on the back end, it's about getting a top prospect for Jacoby and the draft pick, if we move fast.

    It's Jacoby in MLB/JBJ in AAA

    vs

    JBJ in MLB and a good prospect

     

    IRT Brentz, yes, it is all in the K/W.  He is not quite a kid at 23 in AA, and still had a 130/40 K/W.  That projects to about 175 Ks for 600 ABs, in AA.  What does that project to in the pros?

     




     

    Plate discipline is not just about K rate. To me, OBP is more important.

    I'll take a guy with a .370 OBP and 200Ks anyday over a guy with a .330 OBP and 50 Ks.

     



    You're ignoring what I said.  It is all about K/W  I'll take 200Ks and a .370 OBP, but how many guys have a K/W> 3:1 with a .370 OBP?  -0- over a 3-year period.  And Brentz' OBP, in th eminors, is still only .335.

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

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    JBJ looks good, but still only had a .809 in AA.

    So, you think he'll do worse than all our sub .700 OF'ers of last year, and he won't be as exciting to watch as Byrd, Pods, Nava, DMac, and others from 2012?

     

    Brentz is also another guy from AA you're looking to promote, and his plate discipline is horrible.

    OK, you want to throw Iggy and JBJ's recent minor league numbers, but are ignoring this:

    Brentz:

    2011: .365 OBP

    2012: .349 OBP

    Or, are you just looking at Ks?

    You're going off the Softy cliff a little on this.  Ellsbury should be one of the best CFs in BB.  Saying that we should waste a control year of JBJ because he is better than Byrd is difficult to even respond to.

    The point I was making was that the fans kept watching last year with much lesser players out there than JBJ, Iggy and Brentz. 

    As for Ellsbury vs JBJ, it's not just about playing JBJ and maybe losing a year of service on the back end, it's about getting a top prospect for Jacoby and the draft pick, if we move fast.

    It's Jacoby in MLB/JBJ in AAA

    vs

    JBJ in MLB and a good prospect

     

    IRT Brentz, yes, it is all in the K/W.  He is not quite a kid at 23 in AA, and still had a 130/40 K/W.  That projects to about 175 Ks for 600 ABs, in AA.  What does that project to in the pros?

     




     

    Plate discipline is not just about K rate. To me, OBP is more important.

    I'll take a guy with a .370 OBP and 200Ks anyday over a guy with a .330 OBP and 50 Ks.

     

     



    You're ignoring what I said.  It is all about K/W  I'll take 200Ks and a .370 OBP, but how many guys have a K/W> 3:1 with a .370 OBP?  -0- over a 3-year period.  And Brentz' OBP, in th eminors, is still only .335.

     



    Also when it comes to minor leaguer, OBP alone is sort of useless.  You really have to look at OBP-BA.

     

    If a player has a .370OBP in the minors, it is not necessarily good plate discipline, especailly not if it is carried by a .325BA.  Hitting is good, but varies from year to year.  (and natually, level to level) Plate discipline less so, and that same .325 hitter can hit a repsectable .275, but his plate discpline will lower his OBP to .320.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    Plate discipline is not just about K rate. To me, OBP is more important.

    I'll take a guy with a .370 OBP and 200Ks anyday over a guy with a .330 OBP and 50 Ks.

     

     



    You're ignoring what I said.  It is all about K/W  I'll take 200Ks and a .370 OBP, but how many guys have a K/W> 3:1 with a .370 OBP?  -0- over a 3-year period.  And Brentz' OBP, in th eminors, is still only .335.

     

    If you want to hold Brentz's first season against him (2010), then you have a point. His OBP then was .259 in 286 PAs in single A. Since then he has gone...

    2011  .365   in single A

    2012  .349  mostly in AA  and 18 PAs in AAA.

     

    (BTW...You are making judgements based on K's in minors, but seem to not accept his improved OBP numbers, because they are in the minors.)

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    You're ignoring what I said.  It is all about K/W  I'll take 200Ks and a .370 OBP, but how many guys have a K/W> 3:1 with a .370 OBP?  -0- over a 3-year period.  And Brentz' OBP, in th eminors, is still only .335.

     

     



    Also when it comes to minor leaguer, OBP alone is sort of useless.  You really have to look at OBP-BA.

     

     

    If a player has a .370OBP in the minors, it is not necessarily good plate discipline, especailly not if it is carried by a .325BA.  Hitting is good, but varies from year to year.  (and natually, level to level) Plate discipline less so, and that same .325 hitter can hit a repsectable .275, but his plate discpline will lower his OBP to .320.

    So, notin, how do you view a player with these numbers:

    OBP/BA

    .365/.306  (.574 SLG)

    .349/.290  (.465 SLG)

     

     

    While we're at it, what about these?

    2012  .316/.364  (.510 SLG) in 412 PAs

    2011  .233/.281  (.500 SLG) in only 64 PAs

    2010  .246/.281  (.377 SLG) in 64 PAs

    (Linares)

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: What Team Would Have Been More Fun To Watch And Maybe Even Better?

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    The Dodgers already have Crawford,  Kemp and Ethier under contract

    And they haven't traded Ethier and spent 3 years and nearly 40 million on Shane. Thank you for making my point.

     




    They also extended Ethier long before trading for Victorino.  You have no point, unless of course we ponder why they felt the need to acquire Victorino in the first place...

     



    No point is his specialty.

     

    So much for his pledge to stay only on his own lame thread.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share