The Official Offseason Insanity Thread - Page 11

hiaspire · December 30th, 2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

Jason Schmidt. Hell, for the money they gave Zito, they could have signed Schmidt and Maddux - both of whom are better pitchers than Zito - and had $40 million left over. They'd be serious contenders. And the Dodgers and Padres would each be a man down in the rotation.

Neither of them have brighter futures or made the splash they accomplished promotionally with bringing Zito across the bay. I already said I would have signed Schmidt myself, but that completely misses the requirements laid out for new directions beyond Bonds as it would have been just the same team essentially again. I also mentioned them knowing Schmidt's health issues better than any of us. They seem to have come to their own conclusions on that independent matter previously.

Roxpert · December 30th, 2006, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiaspire

Neither of them have brighter futures or made the splash they accomplished promotionally with bringing Zito across the bay. I already said I would have signed Schmidt myself, but that completely misses the requirements laid out for new directions beyond Bonds as it would have been just the same team essentially again. I also mentioned them knowing Schmidt's health issues better than any of us. They seem to have come to their own conclusions on that independent matter previously.

So commiting $126 million is justifiable based on a promotional campaign? I don't know how well you know the Giants, but keeping Schmidt alone (ignoring Maddux) would have been a PR coup, given Schmidt's status in Giants history as one of the three best starters they've ever had (after Marichal and Perry).

You think the Dodgers are more ignorant about Schmidt's physical condition than the Giants? That they are unknowingly signing "damaged goods"? Umm, I don't think so. Schmidt, past health issues and all, is still a better pitcher today than Zito.

Do you even doubt that Zito's contract will become an albatross for the Giants after 2009? Maybe sooner?? And who will score the runs for him, especially after the old offense is junked?

Maybe you'd benefit by reading something like this....

BBTF's Transaction Oracle Discussion :: Giants - Reportedly have Signed Zito

hiaspire · December 30th, 2006, 12:51 PM

And maybe you'd benefit from remembering past off-season discussions.

Roxpert · December 30th, 2006, 01:50 PM

Why, because you "won" them? In your mind, perhaps.

hiaspire · December 30th, 2006, 02:29 PM

Because the conclusions drawn on paper with numbers alone in most of these highly debated issues over time usually miss the mark entirely because key factors that may be less quantifiable are not considered as strongly as they should have been.

Quote:

You think the Dodgers are more ignorant about Schmidt's physical condition than the Giants? That they are unknowingly signing "damaged goods"? Umm, I don't think so.

That would be so unlike the Dodgers, said Brad Penny on his trade from the Marlins before landing on the DL.

Roxpert · December 30th, 2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiaspire

That would be so unlike the Dodgers, said Brad Penny on his trade from the Marlins before landing on the DL.

And that would be so unlike the Giants, said Armando Benitez on his arrival in San Francisco before landing on the DL.

HiAspire, you are a "cherry-picker". You bring up those few cases where you believe your thought process prevailed over Heltonfan's or someone else's, ignoring the vast preponderence of evidence that people such as us or at Baseball Prospectus could use to counter you.

You have never learned to appreciate what Heltonfan, I, others on this board or other places I may point you toward (such as baseballthinkfactory.org) have written due to your stubborn adherence to a "traditionalist" point of view. What's worse, you even disrespect the analytical fans by saying crap such as we ONLY consider the numbers when evaluating players and signings, or that we only think of the dollars when we watch a homerun sail over the wall.

As long as you 1) admit what you write is not analysis but rather explanations for why transactions happen in the real world, and 2) stop disrespecting us while insulting the intelligence of the greater analytical community of baseball fans, then I have no problem with you. The problem is that you'll always place some "false equivalence" on your thought process vis-a-vis the thought process and analysis of those whom you disrespect. I find that, to use a word I wrote earlier in this thread, ASTONISHING.

hiaspire · December 30th, 2006, 10:37 PM

It isn't your job to point me to sites I've visited before myself, and stuff like that should stay out of the baseball issues anyway. Your Giants example is just another case supportive of my point about existing teams often knowing more about a pitcher's health who they no longer want to keep than an unsuspecting new one.

What "evidence" is there that all those collective highly debated issues over the years (and I'm not cherry-picking in hindsight, as I'll discuss any of those from A to Z - or Agbayani to Zito - and any more to come this off-season) should not be looked at from a different perspective to shed light on a potentially wayward calculation otherwise?

If you only want one perspective only, then have the FanHome people just name their site SABR-Home or something. I like the diversity of perspectives and conclusions.

Most of those cases involved miscalculations I'd argue (like Jim Thome especially discussed all last off-season) and sometimes arrive at the worst of all possible expected outcomes for that specific example because universal rules are applied to most no matter their unique context that can make a huge difference.

I'll add the context for those examples I think are way off base from what I see on the field, and with that comes better results I believe. And then we get to see what happens on the field.

As I've said, it is not that I think such ways of thinking are bad... just that some of the expressed conclusions seem vastly different from my own opinions at times. On the whole when you consider everyone, most calculations may be somewhat close to "right" on average because they involve thousands of ordinary examples without the added complications that arrise in some of the other higher profile discussions with additional issues raised beyond just the numbers that influence the outcome. But I think some of the "advances" have been great for the game and honestly believe that the best approach is a BALANCE between both instead of a one-way street where only one is acceptable.

Heltonfan · December 31st, 2006, 12:11 AM

Schmidt isn't the only person to jump from SF to LA this winter. Stan Conte (the long-time Giants trainer) did as well, and he did so before Schmidt signed. I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to what that means for the Dodgers' knowledge of Schmidt's health.

hiaspire · December 31st, 2006, 12:28 AM

Just as we all will draw our own conclusions and see how the chips fall, like every off-season.

That is a fair point on the trainer, but it wasn't like Conte was the one driving it. In fact, it is the exact opposite where the PLAYER wanted to go to a place where he had a familiar trainer he had worked with before. To me, that doesn't sound like a player who doesn't have some of his own questions about his future health. Does it? Most pitchers not as concerned about their health don't make the trainer a high priority in their decisions as he did. That might raise more flags and questions than provide assuring health answers.

I'm not going to argue much over Schmidt, though, when I said I would have signed him MYSELF before. I'll repeat that again for those who don't believe or think I'm arguing against the guy when I'm not really. There isn't a ton of disagreement over him personally. I just mentioned that the Giants had already crossed that bridge previously and made their own independent decisions about that player prior to their later choices. They made that decision for a REASON and it wasn't just money related.

Roxpert · December 31st, 2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiaspire

Your Giants example is just another case supportive of my point about existing teams often knowing more about a pitcher's health who they no longer want to keep than an unsuspecting new one.

How do you know that the Giants know more about Schmidt's health than the "unsuspecting" Dodgers, who put their money on the line for him? How do you know that they are "unsuspecting"? Are you somehow "plugged in" and know exactly what due-diligence they did before signing Schmidt?

Quote:

What "evidence" is there that all those collective highly debated issues over the years (and I'm not cherry-picking in hindsight, as I'll discuss any of those from A to Z - or Agbayani to Zito - and any more to come this off-season) should not be looked at from a different perspective to shed light on a potentially wayward calculation otherwise?

I'll add the context for those examples I think are way off base from what I see on the field, and with that comes better results I believe. And then we get to see what happens on the field.

As I've said, it is not that I think such ways of thinking are bad... just that some of the expressed conclusions seem vastly different from my own opinions at times.

Sounds like you believe your way of thinking is quite superior to the quantitative analytical way of thinking. Every sentence in the above quote indicates an attitude of superiority in your methods in terms of predicting better results, and you display the very condescension of our "error-prone" analyses that you YOURSELF have whined to us for years to cut out of our posts.

This is why I write that you are disrespectful and, shall I say it, hypocritical as well. I can't change your way of thinking. Only you can.

BTW, I highly doubt that Schmidt signed with the Dodgers due to his own health concerns and wanting to stick to his long-time trainer. That's seems like a load of spin and a pretty absurd conclusion to draw, but again you may be "plugged in" and have some special knowledge of everyone's thought process that went into that signing. Unless you are, I'll use a David Letterman line used on guest Bill O'Reilly......"With all due resepct, somehow I get the feeling that about 60% of what you say is a load of crap".

indianadrew · December 31st, 2006, 10:23 AM

OMG i am glad i had just not taken a sip of my tea. it would have been all over my monitor. it would have been your fault again ROXPERT! are you guys handling the snow ok?

BigRapidsJackass · December 31st, 2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

It never ceases to amaze me how Brian Sabean manages to find the least creative possible solution to every problem. As we've discussed already (Durham, Roberts, Molina), that isn't always a bad thing... but the combination of that philosophy with a non-Yankee-level payroll pretty much guarantees mediocrity.It never ceases to amaze me how Brian Sabean manages to find the least creative possible solution to every problem. As we've discussed already (Durham, Roberts, Molina), that isn't always a bad thing... but the combination of that philosophy with a non-Yankee-level payroll pretty much guarantees mediocrity.

No, it isn't always a bad thing.

Old example: 1996. Sabean was a fairly recent arrival as GM. I lived in SF. He traded Matt Williams. Outrage filled the Bay Area papers and talk radio stations! He traded a guy who might have slipped a little bit due to injuries, but this was Matt Williams! He would've hit 60 just a couple years earlier if it hadn't been for that strike. And he was still young enough to rebound. I guess Sabean was throwing in the towel for the next half decade.

He got Jeff Kent and Julian Tavares, Barry got Balco, and the next decade brought Giants fans a pretty damn good run.

Counterexample: who held onto Larry Walker until he was worth Chris Narveson and a bag of cash? Who's held onto Todd Helton until he isn't worth Howie Kendrick + Willy Aybar even though a bag of cash would be going with him to Anaheim?

Recent example: the Rockies passed over Tim Lincecum in last year's draft in favor of Greg Reynolds. From what I saw/read, I thought Lincecum was clearly the better pitcher. Sabean may sometimes "underthink" the situation, but O'Dowd is guilty of the opposite: sure, Lincecum has better stuff and performed better in college (particularly his last year) and showed tremendous durability, even coming out of the pen on 2 days rest after a start. The obvious conclusions would be: he's a better pitcher, more likely to succeed in the big leagues, and sooner to wit.

The "see zebras where others see horses" guys like O'Dowd say: where you see durability, I see overuse. Where you see better stuff and better results, I see a short guy lacking in "projectability." "I'm going with the guy who's really tall and may learn to become a ground ball pitcher."

I expect to see Lincecum starting for the Giants by the All Star Break. Reynolds? Expect a September call-up when the Rockies are mathematically eliminated.

Zito
Cain
Morris
Lincecum
Lowry

That's looking pretty decent to me ...

... in fact, I'll go out on a limb and say the Giants will be the surprise team of '07. No, that doesn't mean I think they'll win anything. But we're starting with a team that most project to win in the low-70s, and I think they'll manage to stick right around .500 ... and if Barry can play 120 games, the playoffs are certainly not that long a shot.

The point: I'm not a big Sabean fan. Some of his moves are inexplicable and awful. (Steve Finley, some of the trades of young talent for washed-up vets, etc.) But the Giants have consistently contended since he's been there, and they've done it with MLB-average level payrolls.

Dan O'Dowd has never competed, not with a higher than MLB average payroll (2001-2) and not with a bottom quintile payroll (ever since).

Feel free to trash Sabean ... I just demand equal trashing time for O'Dowd.

Heltonfan · December 31st, 2006, 01:26 PM

Lincecum's control still isn't good enough for him to be much of an asset at the big league level. He could probably post a 4.50 ERC or so in the big leagues right now, but he'd be averaging around 5 innings a start; not particularly useful. I'm very high on him as a prospect, but he's not ready yet, and he won't be ready by the All-Star break.

But I do have the Giants projected at an even 81-81, so I think your overall assessment is right on the money.

Roxpert · December 31st, 2006, 01:41 PM

Even if the Giants finish 81-81, that's far from a justification of the Zito contract, wouldn't you think, RotoRox?

Yes, Sabean has gotten results whereas O'Dowd hasn't. However, many Giant observers think he's losing it, quite literally, and probably won't be GM after 2007. O'Dowd won't be Rockies GM, IMO, after 2007 either (only a significantly better record may save his job).

BTW, I would have taken Longoria over either Lincecum or Reynolds. Our first two picks in the 2006 draft were awful, compared to what was out there.

BigRapidsJackass · December 31st, 2006, 02:06 PM

Roxpert, you have to look at a GM's overall performance.

There's a tendency to focus on the big mistakes. Maybe Zito will be one of them, maybe not.

Sabean drafted well for many years. That's how the Giants wound up with the young talent to trade for the ancient fill-ins Sabean so admires.

Even this year most of his moves have been good by almost anyone's measure (that's how they've moved up to a .500 projection in HF's analysis, after starting the offseason looking like a 90 loss club).

-- Dave Roberts: 3 years, $6 million average
-- Bengie Molina (addressed earlier on this board)
-- Steve Kline: about $1.75 million a year over 2, while the Orioles were spending double that for a LOOGY

And don't forget last year:

-- Matt Morris, decried as a bad signing by most last year. He proves my point about "laddering" contracts in an inflationary player salary environment. 3 years, average $7 million per. Essentially the same pitcher, Jeff Suppan, just got $10.5 million per year over the next 4 seasons. Morris is now magically transformed into a bargain.

-- Omar Vizquel, signed to a seemingly-ridiculous 3 year contract at an average of $4 million per year at the age of 39. Yes, he's lost a step defensively, but he's still better than average. And he's an absolute bargain at that price for '07.

Yeah, some are headscratchers like Pedro Feliz. And I have no problem with Zito's contract other than it's length -- I don't think the $18 million per year in this environment is at all outrageous given the fact that he's never missed a start and the going rate for Gil Meche (who's missed many, and who is also no stud) is $11 million plus. Sabean may leave next year, and unless he makes some boneheaded moves this year he'll leave the Giants in perfectly fine condition for the future. Bonds will be gone, and his $16 million will be available for other uses. The farm system still has some decent talent despite the focus on oldtimers. I think Giants fans have already seen the club's low point in '05 and '06.

And remember, that '05 and '06 low came after a long stretch of winners including a World Series appearance (and near championship). From 1997 on, the Giants won this many games each year: 90, 89, 86, 97, 90, 95, 100, 91, 75, 76. The Rockies? 83, 77, 72, 82, 73, 73, 74, 68, 67, 76.

The Giants' low point since O'Dowd's arrival as GM is roughly equivalent to the Rockies' high point in the last five years.

Again, I ask you: who is the poorer GM?

December 30th, 2006, 10:37 PM	#157 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 481	It isn't your job to point me to sites I've visited before myself, and stuff like that should stay out of the baseball issues anyway. Your Giants example is just another case supportive of my point about existing teams often knowing more about a pitcher's health who they no longer want to keep than an unsuspecting new one. What "evidence" is there that all those collective highly debated issues over the years (and I'm not cherry-picking in hindsight, as I'll discuss any of those from A to Z - or Agbayani to Zito - and any more to come this off-season) should not be looked at from a different perspective to shed light on a potentially wayward calculation otherwise? If you only want one perspective only, then have the FanHome people just name their site SABR-Home or something. I like the diversity of perspectives and conclusions. Most of those cases involved miscalculations I'd argue (like Jim Thome especially discussed all last off-season) and sometimes arrive at the worst of all possible expected outcomes for that specific example because universal rules are applied to most no matter their unique context that can make a huge difference. I'll add the context for those examples I think are way off base from what I see on the field, and with that comes better results I believe. And then we get to see what happens on the field. As I've said, it is not that I think such ways of thinking are bad... just that some of the expressed conclusions seem vastly different from my own opinions at times. On the whole when you consider everyone, most calculations may be somewhat close to "right" on average because they involve thousands of ordinary examples without the added complications that arrise in some of the other higher profile discussions with additional issues raised beyond just the numbers that influence the outcome. But I think some of the "advances" have been great for the game and honestly believe that the best approach is a BALANCE between both instead of a one-way street where only one is acceptable. Last edited by hiaspire; December 30th, 2006 at 11:34 PM.

December 31st, 2006, 12:28 AM	#159 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 481	Just as we all will draw our own conclusions and see how the chips fall, like every off-season. That is a fair point on the trainer, but it wasn't like Conte was the one driving it. In fact, it is the exact opposite where the PLAYER wanted to go to a place where he had a familiar trainer he had worked with before. To me, that doesn't sound like a player who doesn't have some of his own questions about his future health. Does it? Most pitchers not as concerned about their health don't make the trainer a high priority in their decisions as he did. That might raise more flags and questions than provide assuring health answers. I'm not going to argue much over Schmidt, though, when I said I would have signed him MYSELF before. I'll repeat that again for those who don't believe or think I'm arguing against the guy when I'm not really. There isn't a ton of disagreement over him personally. I just mentioned that the Giants had already crossed that bridge previously and made their own independent decisions about that player prior to their later choices. They made that decision for a REASON and it wasn't just money related. Last edited by hiaspire; December 31st, 2006 at 12:33 AM.

December 31st, 2006, 01:41 PM	#164 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	Even if the Giants finish 81-81, that's far from a justification of the Zito contract, wouldn't you think, RotoRox? Yes, Sabean has gotten results whereas O'Dowd hasn't. However, many Giant observers think he's losing it, quite literally, and probably won't be GM after 2007. O'Dowd won't be Rockies GM, IMO, after 2007 either (only a significantly better record may save his job). BTW, I would have taken Longoria over either Lincecum or Reynolds. Our first two picks in the 2006 draft were awful, compared to what was out there. Last edited by Roxpert; December 31st, 2006 at 01:47 PM.

December 30th, 2006, 12:51 PM	#153 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 481	And maybe you'd benefit from remembering past off-season discussions.

December 30th, 2006, 01:50 PM	#154 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	Why, because you "won" them? In your mind, perhaps.

December 31st, 2006, 12:11 AM	#158 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	Schmidt isn't the only person to jump from SF to LA this winter. Stan Conte (the long-time Giants trainer) did as well, and he did so before Schmidt signed. I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to what that means for the Dodgers' knowledge of Schmidt's health.

December 31st, 2006, 10:23 AM	#161 (permalink)
indianadrew Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: indianapolis Posts: 698	OMG i am glad i had just not taken a sip of my tea. it would have been all over my monitor. it would have been your fault again ROXPERT! are you guys handling the snow ok?

December 31st, 2006, 01:26 PM	#163 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	Lincecum's control still isn't good enough for him to be much of an asset at the big league level. He could probably post a 4.50 ERC or so in the big leagues right now, but he'd be averaging around 5 innings a start; not particularly useful. I'm very high on him as a prospect, but he's not ready yet, and he won't be ready by the All-Star break. But I do have the Giants projected at an even 81-81, so I think your overall assessment is right on the money.

December 31st, 2006, 02:06 PM	#165 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,175	Roxpert, you have to look at a GM's overall performance. There's a tendency to focus on the big mistakes. Maybe Zito will be one of them, maybe not. Sabean drafted well for many years. That's how the Giants wound up with the young talent to trade for the ancient fill-ins Sabean so admires. Even this year most of his moves have been good by almost anyone's measure (that's how they've moved up to a .500 projection in HF's analysis, after starting the offseason looking like a 90 loss club). -- Dave Roberts: 3 years, $6 million average -- Bengie Molina (addressed earlier on this board) -- Steve Kline: about $1.75 million a year over 2, while the Orioles were spending double that for a LOOGY And don't forget last year: -- Matt Morris, decried as a bad signing by most last year. He proves my point about "laddering" contracts in an inflationary player salary environment. 3 years, average $7 million per. Essentially the same pitcher, Jeff Suppan, just got $10.5 million per year over the next 4 seasons. Morris is now magically transformed into a bargain. -- Omar Vizquel, signed to a seemingly-ridiculous 3 year contract at an average of $4 million per year at the age of 39. Yes, he's lost a step defensively, but he's still better than average. And he's an absolute bargain at that price for '07. Yeah, some are headscratchers like Pedro Feliz. And I have no problem with Zito's contract other than it's length -- I don't think the $18 million per year in this environment is at all outrageous given the fact that he's never missed a start and the going rate for Gil Meche (who's missed many, and who is also no stud) is $11 million plus. Sabean may leave next year, and unless he makes some boneheaded moves this year he'll leave the Giants in perfectly fine condition for the future. Bonds will be gone, and his $16 million will be available for other uses. The farm system still has some decent talent despite the focus on oldtimers. I think Giants fans have already seen the club's low point in '05 and '06. And remember, that '05 and '06 low came after a long stretch of winners including a World Series appearance (and near championship). From 1997 on, the Giants won this many games each year: 90, 89, 86, 97, 90, 95, 100, 91, 75, 76. The Rockies? 83, 77, 72, 82, 73, 73, 74, 68, 67, 76. The Giants' low point since O'Dowd's arrival as GM is roughly equivalent to the Rockies' high point in the last five years. Again, I ask you: who is the poorer GM?