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.

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.

In response to softlaw2's comment:

conjecture...

And in the same 2012, J Upton hit 252/326/344 in 78 road games with 20 RBI.  A 344 slugging pct. for a slugger away from the cozy confines of his home park is very embarrassing.  Probably why the D'Backs kicked him out the door.

Apples and underwear, " in x road games". I'm putting you down as a cheerleader for 39 million on Shane v. acquiring J. Upton via trade market. One is an old man, while the other is just reaching the age when most players begin their major league careers.

J. Upton was traded for prospects, not "kicked out the door". Shane has been in two dumpsters, and he'll end up in the Red Sox dumpster before they finish paying him the 39 million.

AGon's 2012 .807 OPS at age 30 is not on the level of Shane .704 OPS at age 32. But I've noted that you would rather have Shane for about 40 million over the next 3 yeras, than AGon for about 85 million over the next 4 years. Noted. 

And to the poster who said "Upton must be dead", I've noted that you advocated 39 million on Shane over acquiring J. Upton via trade market. Let's see how they do over the next three years.

In response to softlaw2's comment:

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...

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...

 

This post has been removed.

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

In response to moonslav59's comment:

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.

In response to southpaw777's comment:

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.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

agreed

In response to moonslav59's comment:

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.

In response to softlaw2's comment:

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...

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.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

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.

In response to Joebreidey's comment:

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.

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.)

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)

In response to notin's comment:

No point is his specialty.

 

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

Cleveland wanted him at 4/44...

False.

You have no point, unless of course we ponder why they felt the need to acquire Victorino in the first place...

Again, thank you for making my point. 

For the idiots saying "he doesn't get that the highest offer gets Shane". And you don't get the point that making anything but a one year low ball offer for old Shane was as incompetent as your blather.

I never made a promise to stay off other threads. I said that I will do most of my posting on own thread. The difference is that I'm not bumping it up like the stupid irrelevant thread you keep bumping up.