The Official Offseason Insanity Thread - Page 3

BigRapidsJackass · November 27th, 2006, 09:29 PM

Mr. Jackass, I'm going to guess that you are RotoRox. Did I win?

You got it, Roxpert. Guess I couldn't disguise my writing style ...

As for what it all means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Hurdle

I almost went with "Dorklesby" instead.

Aspire, I agree with you on Gary Mathews Jr. He's a career .755 OPS guy. Maybe he had a big breakout at 32 years old. Probably not.

But remember, Carlos Lee's contract = Gary Mathews PLUS Dave Roberts. Carlos Lee is making incredible money, and he's certainly not an incredible player.

Dave Roberts is supposed to be getting about $5-6 million a year from the Giants (not official yet) on a 3 year deal. It's a lot, lot of money for a guy who's barely been a regular for 2 years, but it looks pretty reasonable to me in this market. I still think we should've grabbed him. I'll remind everyone that $5+ million = 1 Jose + 1 Ray for 1 Year.

I guess I'm looking forward to the big Brady Clark signing. I can't see why we'd want him -- in what way is he better than Ryan Spilborghs? But signing him would mean one very important thing: No Darin Erstad.

wolf213 · November 27th, 2006, 10:39 PM

I think the owners have often been called cheap by members of this board including me, and when it comes time I, like everyone else want them to pay up. I want them to sign Atkins and Holliday and Cook, but I think they are looking very very smart by not offering a penny to one free agent this year.

When pitchers like Wolf are going for 8 million a year, this just isn't the year to be a big spender, and I am glad they are showing constraint. I say let Sullivan, Salazar, Spillbourghs and Freeman battle it out in spring, they might not perform as well as a Mathews, Pierre or Roberts, but they won't be overpaid either.

hiaspire · November 28th, 2006, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Aspire, I agree with you on Gary Mathews Jr. He's a career .755 OPS guy. Maybe he had a big breakout at 32 years old. Probably not.

But remember, Carlos Lee's contract = Gary Mathews PLUS Dave Roberts. Carlos Lee is making incredible money, and he's certainly not an incredible player.

If your team desperately wants to add as many table-setting or #7 type role players as possible, those might be your guys to add in quantity. In terms of quality, they are also guys who have been part-time players for much of their careers and are arguably best as role acquisitions IMO (unless you want to give them 5 years contracts or something instead). Piling up a lot of decent gettable/replaceable guys (like the Rox have had sometimes in last place) isn't always as impactful as adding a new centerpiece for your offensive attack. Call them crazy, but some teams with playoff intentions actually want some big power bats in the middle of their lineup instead of getting as many #2/#7 type hitters as they can find for the money instead just because they can get more of those.

Batting .300 with 37 HRs probably sucks in some formulas, but real baseball teams set the demand for available power hitters and had high interest in his services. What is more nonsense to me is to increase the criticism of a player primarily because the demand is so high. Identical person hitting, but somehow greatly devalued on paper because so many people thought so highly of him for investment. 19 out of 21 successfully stolen bases (better % than Dave Roberts) for a 30+ HR cleanup hitter is also probably unimpressive. Having the second lowest strikeout percentage (just a tiny bit above the great Albert Pujols) for 35+ HRs in all of baseball might also be meaningless to his mockers looking elsewhere in the numbers, but not so much to coaches looking for big bats that aren't going to come up completely empty half the time whiffing at air over and over. Houston is somewhat like Coors Field in that you usually want to put the ball into play in that hitter's park.

He doesn't have to be Albert Pujols or Barry Bonds in his prime to have high demand as a top power hitter on the market. I'm probably unlike many fans in that I don't devalue guys just because of their contract. I guess it is looking more on the field than the dang financial section, and believing that the market factors (supply and demand variations for particular off-seasons) make such comparisons not so meaningful. I don't view a player as very good one day and then a guy to rip the next just because someone wants to give them more cash because of their high performance level. I don't think he's worse now just because teams are more willing to spend big this off-season versus if he'd have been a free agent last year. To me, that's nonsense that has nothing to do with the player on the field and highly circumstantial.

But I understand some fans focusing so much on the money and numbers aspects, even if I disagree with the perspective or judgements. People can laugh at Houston all they want for such idiocy, but like a lot of "non-thinking" teams that have been laughed at before from one perspective, I think they'll be laughing all the way to a much improved team and Lee to high MVP consideration with them getting exactly what they wanted for money they were more than willing to spend. And I don't think signing two Gary Matthews types would have nearly had the same impact, no matter what their defensive stats say that won't help their non-existent offense much.

But it's another one of those cases where words aren't going to determine anything in the off-season. We'll just have to watch it happen, or not.

Heltonfan · November 28th, 2006, 06:29 AM

It's not an issue of defensive stats. It's an issue of Matthews being able to play a solid CF, and Lee not. As such, you have to evaluate Matthews' offensive production relative to other CFs, and Lee's relative to other LFs. That makes quite a dent in the gap between their raw numbers.

I've been no more critical of Carlos Lee this winter than at any other point in his career. He's a fine player, an above-average regular. He's Pat Burrell or Raul Ibanez. Would I take a player like that on my team? Absolutely. But I sure as hell wouldn't pay $100 million for him.

hiaspire · November 28th, 2006, 09:17 AM

That makes quite a dent in the gap between their raw numbers.

On paper perhaps in some ways, but on the field the one rated lower is a heck of a lot better player than the other which makes that an odd way to rate players IMO. Only here on paper would someone pick/rate Matthews over Lee. It also ignores the realities that drive decisions for these specific teams.

But I sure as hell wouldn't pay $100 million for him.

And 99% of the people wouldn't pay A-Rod a quarter billion dollars either, but that doesn't mean he's suddenly much worse the next day after signing a deal just because someone wants to pay him.

Lee is the same hitter today in a market that had sky-high demand during a period of competitive spending as he was last year if someone signed him more affordably if he was on the market then. Same guy on the field, just different market factors.

A team like Houston without punch in their lineup doesn't need a couple new #2 hitters with good defense and OBP, even if those would be better values and more applauded statistically from one perspective only. They don't need 2 more affordable value starting pitchers with higher RAR ratings on paper so they can keep losing low scoring games on the field. They have a dire need for more power in the weak lineup and they assign more value to how that will impact their team than your theoretical assumptions in general on paper.

How a lesser hitting CF ranks amongst other CFers isn't a primary concern of theirs. They aren't under a hard salary cap. They are willing to spend what it takes to get one of the best bats on the market that they desperately need, as well as try to convince their veteran arms to not retire to make another playoff run with an improved offense this time. Adding a big all-star bat certainly helps in their persuasion, which also shouldn't be ignored. They aren't a team that hopes to be good in a couple of years so they can wait the market out for better deals in another year down the road, as they are built to win now with some veterans nearing the end. They also believe Lee signed long-term can bridge the gap for the next wave of talent coming up. Unlike the Rockies for much of their recent existence, that is a team on a mission to do what it takes to fill holes and get the job done to reach their high goals.

It certainly is a gamble any time you make a large investment. I happen to think much more highly of Carlos Lee than elevated role players with higher RAR just because of the position they play and some limited offensive success. I'll take the Lee gamble any day over the Matthews risk. It is a great fit for both in Houston, and while people are free to mock it, I believe it will turn out much better than most anticipate because most of the factors considered in that have nothing to do with the actual situation in reality IMO.

GoldGlove · November 28th, 2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiaspire

And 99% of the people wouldn't pay A-Rod a quarter billion dollars either, but that doesn't mean he's suddenly much worse the next day after signing a deal just because someone wants to pay him.

Lee is the same hitter today in a market that had sky-high demand during a period of competitive spending as he was last year if someone signed him more affordably if he was on the market then. Same guy on the field, just different market factors.

I don't understand your point here. Nobody is saying that Carlos Lee is a worse hitter now than he was before he signed the contract. As Heltonfan said, he is an above average regular and we'd all love to see him on the Rockies. But no one wants him at the price of $100 million. He's a good left fielder, but he ain't a 6 year, $100 million contract above average.

hiaspire · November 28th, 2006, 10:58 AM

Nobody is saying that Carlos Lee is a worse hitter now than he was before he signed the contract.

Certainly the criticism towards the player has increased both here and elsewhere related to the contract. Mostly positive before, and quite negative afterwards. To me, that isn't especially fair towards the player when it is entirely a market situation and the player remains the same. I'll be on the other side defending him and his team trying to win instead of contributing towards the negativity in his direction. Also on the side arguing he is much more proven and valuable than he's been given credit for while ranked below previous journeymen. Obviously there were many teams that felt he was worth near that much which lead to the market conditions and ultimate deal negotiated.

Certainly he doesn't fit into all budgets, but for the teams that can afford him we'll see if they chose wisely in the end. If his acquisition sparks the often lifeless offense and convinces guys like Clemens to return for one more run at the title (without getting shutout every time he's on the mound again), I don't think they will be complaining nearly as much as the people here.

GoldGlove · November 28th, 2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiaspire

Certainly the criticism towards the player has increased both here and elsewhere related to the contract. Mostly positive before, and quite negative afterwards. To me, that isn't especially fair towards the player when it is entirely a market situation and the player remains the same.

You're confusing criticism towards the team for giving a player too large of a contract with criticism towards the player himself. No one here is criticizing Carlos Lee. Most believe that he is a pretty good left fielder, just not worth nearly $17 million per year for the next six years. Once again, my opinion of Lee has not changed. I still believe he's a very nice bat to have in the middle of a lineup. As you mentioned, he has the power that is desired by every team as well as a very low strikeout rate. However, I would not want my team paying him $17 million per year until he's 37 years old.

hiaspire · November 28th, 2006, 12:05 PM

Ranking him below very unproven or lesser talents is a criticism, or at least something I feel is unjustified as I view it. Just a difference of opinion there from different perspectives on his value where some assign it much lower than others.

You and I don't have much to argue about, though, as you seem very complimentary of what he brings to the middle of a team's lineup. On that we can certainly agree. The only question is over money that you highlight, and my point there is that issue is over-emphasized as people discuss him and his value for a team (which is how this thread was organized with all the associated awful commentary and numeric rating systems). A big contract in Denver or KC isn't the same as a big contract in Boston or NY, or somewhat now for the Astros this season as they look to open their pocketbooks to make another run with more firepower. A large deal this off-season can't necessarily be fairly compared to contracts in other off-seasons under different market conditions. It is entirely relative to the specific situation IMO, just as stock prices might fluctuate for various economic reasons from time to time involving the exact same consistent companies. If you want to buy today, you have to pay today's prices, or just not participate in the market at the current time. Makes a lot of sense for the Rockies not to, but not so much for a team in Houston's position IMO.

Guys get downgraded and criticized all the time for their contracts -- as some extremely popular players turn into an awful albatross that fans constantly gripe about. The money gets mixed up with the player in terms of fan opinions expressed all the time in sports.

I find it entirely reasonable that people would complain about the money being spent this off-season and even that the harshest criticism might be focused specifically on this situation, but there is another side to that overwhelming negativity and I only see a lot of POSITIVES in terms of that arrangement for both the team and for the player involved, so I'll contribute my more positive view there to contrast the utterly awful views on it otherwise. In a marketplace with limited resources, you have to pay the going rate for a commodity in demand or else do without. Some would argue the Astros in their position should have done without or signed a couple Matthews types instead, but I don't think that would have nearly the kind of impact I am expecting otherwise. It was a strong move for them IMO, in contrast to the extremely harsh criticism they are taking otherwise. We can only now just wait and see how it turns out over time.

CSM · November 28th, 2006, 12:31 PM

$25 million for the right to negotiate with Kei Igawa?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...bid/index.html

Roxpert · November 28th, 2006, 01:57 PM

I don't think it's fair to attack Heltonfan for his ranking system. If I'm not mistaken, he is not disparaging or "mocking" the players themselves, but rather taking a look at which teams are getting relative bargains and which are overspending, based on the current prevailing market.

Be careful in over-reaching what Heltonfan is saying here. He is not being "negative" toward Carlos Lee, per-se. He is simply showing that one team (the Angels) spent less per incremental win for one outfielder (Matthews) than another team did for another outfielder (Lee), among other things. That's not a slap at Lee; it's an analytical viewpoint of value for money spent. I, for one, appreciate Heltonfan enlightening us on this. Too bad not everyone shares this level of appreciation, and would rather just argue.

Heltonfan · November 28th, 2006, 01:58 PM

I have Igawa projected at a 3.80 ERC in Japan. If we assume that the quality of the Japanese league is halfway between that of AAA and MLB, he'd project at 4.47 in the majors. And I think that's probably giving the Japanese league too much credit (let's not forget that guys like Nate Minchey have turned into borderline stars over there).

So the optimistic outlook on Igawa is that he's just a notch below the Suppan/Ohka/Redman class of free agent starters; in other words, a $25 million contract, over three years, would be reasonable in this market. A $25 million posting fee, in addition to his salary (probably at least $7 million a year)? That's ugly. Of course, I find it hard to believe that anyone other than the Yankees or Mets would bid that high (no one is going to bid more for Igawa than they did for Matsuzaka), and both of those teams can probably afford it. So I wouldn't necessarily call it a mistake, but it's awfully tough to see it as a good move.

wolf213 · November 28th, 2006, 02:01 PM

Just for curiosity, how does Matsuzaka project?

Heltonfan · November 28th, 2006, 02:16 PM

Matsuzaka projects at 2.60 in Japan, so depending on the quality of that league, he'd be somewhere in the 3.30-3.50 range in the majors. One of the top 15-20 starters in the game.

hiaspire · November 28th, 2006, 03:07 PM

Roxpert, certainly there has been more negative focus on Lee - and even before his signing with expressed anticipation of the harshest criticism reserved for whatever team was going to make an awful decision on an average player with nowhere to go but down. That isn't a positive expression in my book. I just don't view him (or the signing for a team that needs him, can afford him, and needed to make an impact move in this market instead of waiting for next year and possibly better market prices but missed opportunities) that way. Comment after comment related to that situation has been overly negative IMO and I just want to express an opposing viewpoint that is much more positive about that signing because I don't view it quite so dreadfully.

I am very thankful that someone expresses the other viewpoint (and quite intelligently I'll certainly agree) as well. I couldn't stand a site where everyone is in constant agreement and patting each other on the back all the time for their shared views -- although we get some of that here. That isn't much fun to talk about IMO, but everyone's a little different. Probably me the most.

I wish more people from the other side of the fence talked more about their own player valuations. HF does all the time, and most people go along with his expertise (understandably so I suppose), so unfortunately that usually becomes the primary source of my strong disagreements in off-seasons when people talk about acquisitions and projecting expected results. He's certainly not a bad guy that I need to disagree with, but he often posts things which are in strong contrast to the way their talent is demonstrated on the field IMO.

I certainly see things unfold ahead from a very different perspective that considers things I believe ignored in calculation. Two players may look identical on paper by numbers alone, but put them on the open market for intelligent baseball observers and they might really look completely different in terms of demand for the specific talent/potential and faith in those abilities for the investment required. Neither side will always be right, but both sides of baseball's opposing philosophical vantage points have interesting reasoning to their different conclusions.

Maybe the traditional views on this player's talent is wrong and he really is headed downhill for an awful wasteful ending as computed. Maybe he is exactly what is new team needed at exactly the right time to accomplish everything they've always wanted to. That is the fun in sport (and sporting disagreements) as we watch how things unfold.

November 28th, 2006, 06:29 AM	#34 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	It's not an issue of defensive stats. It's an issue of Matthews being able to play a solid CF, and Lee not. As such, you have to evaluate Matthews' offensive production relative to other CFs, and Lee's relative to other LFs. That makes quite a dent in the gap between their raw numbers. I've been no more critical of Carlos Lee this winter than at any other point in his career. He's a fine player, an above-average regular. He's Pat Burrell or Raul Ibanez. Would I take a player like that on my team? Absolutely. But I sure as hell wouldn't pay $100 million for him. Last edited by Heltonfan; November 28th, 2006 at 06:41 AM.

November 28th, 2006, 09:17 AM	#35 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 481	That makes quite a dent in the gap between their raw numbers. On paper perhaps in some ways, but on the field the one rated lower is a heck of a lot better player than the other which makes that an odd way to rate players IMO. Only here on paper would someone pick/rate Matthews over Lee. It also ignores the realities that drive decisions for these specific teams. But I sure as hell wouldn't pay $100 million for him. And 99% of the people wouldn't pay A-Rod a quarter billion dollars either, but that doesn't mean he's suddenly much worse the next day after signing a deal just because someone wants to pay him. Lee is the same hitter today in a market that had sky-high demand during a period of competitive spending as he was last year if someone signed him more affordably if he was on the market then. Same guy on the field, just different market factors. A team like Houston without punch in their lineup doesn't need a couple new #2 hitters with good defense and OBP, even if those would be better values and more applauded statistically from one perspective only. They don't need 2 more affordable value starting pitchers with higher RAR ratings on paper so they can keep losing low scoring games on the field. They have a dire need for more power in the weak lineup and they assign more value to how that will impact their team than your theoretical assumptions in general on paper. How a lesser hitting CF ranks amongst other CFers isn't a primary concern of theirs. They aren't under a hard salary cap. They are willing to spend what it takes to get one of the best bats on the market that they desperately need, as well as try to convince their veteran arms to not retire to make another playoff run with an improved offense this time. Adding a big all-star bat certainly helps in their persuasion, which also shouldn't be ignored. They aren't a team that hopes to be good in a couple of years so they can wait the market out for better deals in another year down the road, as they are built to win now with some veterans nearing the end. They also believe Lee signed long-term can bridge the gap for the next wave of talent coming up. Unlike the Rockies for much of their recent existence, that is a team on a mission to do what it takes to fill holes and get the job done to reach their high goals. It certainly is a gamble any time you make a large investment. I happen to think much more highly of Carlos Lee than elevated role players with higher RAR just because of the position they play and some limited offensive success. I'll take the Lee gamble any day over the Matthews risk. It is a great fit for both in Houston, and while people are free to mock it, I believe it will turn out much better than most anticipate because most of the factors considered in that have nothing to do with the actual situation in reality IMO. Last edited by hiaspire; November 28th, 2006 at 09:24 AM.

November 28th, 2006, 12:05 PM	#39 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 481	Ranking him below very unproven or lesser talents is a criticism, or at least something I feel is unjustified as I view it. Just a difference of opinion there from different perspectives on his value where some assign it much lower than others. You and I don't have much to argue about, though, as you seem very complimentary of what he brings to the middle of a team's lineup. On that we can certainly agree. The only question is over money that you highlight, and my point there is that issue is over-emphasized as people discuss him and his value for a team (which is how this thread was organized with all the associated awful commentary and numeric rating systems). A big contract in Denver or KC isn't the same as a big contract in Boston or NY, or somewhat now for the Astros this season as they look to open their pocketbooks to make another run with more firepower. A large deal this off-season can't necessarily be fairly compared to contracts in other off-seasons under different market conditions. It is entirely relative to the specific situation IMO, just as stock prices might fluctuate for various economic reasons from time to time involving the exact same consistent companies. If you want to buy today, you have to pay today's prices, or just not participate in the market at the current time. Makes a lot of sense for the Rockies not to, but not so much for a team in Houston's position IMO. Guys get downgraded and criticized all the time for their contracts -- as some extremely popular players turn into an awful albatross that fans constantly gripe about. The money gets mixed up with the player in terms of fan opinions expressed all the time in sports. I find it entirely reasonable that people would complain about the money being spent this off-season and even that the harshest criticism might be focused specifically on this situation, but there is another side to that overwhelming negativity and I only see a lot of POSITIVES in terms of that arrangement for both the team and for the player involved, so I'll contribute my more positive view there to contrast the utterly awful views on it otherwise. In a marketplace with limited resources, you have to pay the going rate for a commodity in demand or else do without. Some would argue the Astros in their position should have done without or signed a couple Matthews types instead, but I don't think that would have nearly the kind of impact I am expecting otherwise. It was a strong move for them IMO, in contrast to the extremely harsh criticism they are taking otherwise. We can only now just wait and see how it turns out over time. Last edited by hiaspire; November 28th, 2006 at 12:17 PM.

November 28th, 2006, 12:31 PM	#40 (permalink)
CSM Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 33	Igawa $25 million for the right to negotiate with Kei Igawa? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...bid/index.html

November 28th, 2006, 03:07 PM	#45 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 481	Roxpert, certainly there has been more negative focus on Lee - and even before his signing with expressed anticipation of the harshest criticism reserved for whatever team was going to make an awful decision on an average player with nowhere to go but down. That isn't a positive expression in my book. I just don't view him (or the signing for a team that needs him, can afford him, and needed to make an impact move in this market instead of waiting for next year and possibly better market prices but missed opportunities) that way. Comment after comment related to that situation has been overly negative IMO and I just want to express an opposing viewpoint that is much more positive about that signing because I don't view it quite so dreadfully. I am very thankful that someone expresses the other viewpoint (and quite intelligently I'll certainly agree) as well. I couldn't stand a site where everyone is in constant agreement and patting each other on the back all the time for their shared views -- although we get some of that here. That isn't much fun to talk about IMO, but everyone's a little different. Probably me the most. I wish more people from the other side of the fence talked more about their own player valuations. HF does all the time, and most people go along with his expertise (understandably so I suppose), so unfortunately that usually becomes the primary source of my strong disagreements in off-seasons when people talk about acquisitions and projecting expected results. He's certainly not a bad guy that I need to disagree with, but he often posts things which are in strong contrast to the way their talent is demonstrated on the field IMO. I certainly see things unfold ahead from a very different perspective that considers things I believe ignored in calculation. Two players may look identical on paper by numbers alone, but put them on the open market for intelligent baseball observers and they might really look completely different in terms of demand for the specific talent/potential and faith in those abilities for the investment required. Neither side will always be right, but both sides of baseball's opposing philosophical vantage points have interesting reasoning to their different conclusions. Maybe the traditional views on this player's talent is wrong and he really is headed downhill for an awful wasteful ending as computed. Maybe he is exactly what is new team needed at exactly the right time to accomplish everything they've always wanted to. That is the fun in sport (and sporting disagreements) as we watch how things unfold. Last edited by hiaspire; November 28th, 2006 at 03:15 PM.

November 27th, 2006, 09:29 PM	#31 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,175	Mr. Jackass, I'm going to guess that you are RotoRox. Did I win? You got it, Roxpert. Guess I couldn't disguise my writing style ... As for what it all means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Hurdle I almost went with "Dorklesby" instead. Aspire, I agree with you on Gary Mathews Jr. He's a career .755 OPS guy. Maybe he had a big breakout at 32 years old. Probably not. But remember, Carlos Lee's contract = Gary Mathews PLUS Dave Roberts. Carlos Lee is making incredible money, and he's certainly not an incredible player. Dave Roberts is supposed to be getting about $5-6 million a year from the Giants (not official yet) on a 3 year deal. It's a lot, lot of money for a guy who's barely been a regular for 2 years, but it looks pretty reasonable to me in this market. I still think we should've grabbed him. I'll remind everyone that $5+ million = 1 Jose + 1 Ray for 1 Year. I guess I'm looking forward to the big Brady Clark signing. I can't see why we'd want him -- in what way is he better than Ryan Spilborghs? But signing him would mean one very important thing: No Darin Erstad.

November 27th, 2006, 10:39 PM	#32 (permalink)
wolf213 Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Thornton Co Posts: 197	I think the owners have often been called cheap by members of this board including me, and when it comes time I, like everyone else want them to pay up. I want them to sign Atkins and Holliday and Cook, but I think they are looking very very smart by not offering a penny to one free agent this year. When pitchers like Wolf are going for 8 million a year, this just isn't the year to be a big spender, and I am glad they are showing constraint. I say let Sullivan, Salazar, Spillbourghs and Freeman battle it out in spring, they might not perform as well as a Mathews, Pierre or Roberts, but they won't be overpaid either.

November 28th, 2006, 10:58 AM	#37 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 481	Nobody is saying that Carlos Lee is a worse hitter now than he was before he signed the contract. Certainly the criticism towards the player has increased both here and elsewhere related to the contract. Mostly positive before, and quite negative afterwards. To me, that isn't especially fair towards the player when it is entirely a market situation and the player remains the same. I'll be on the other side defending him and his team trying to win instead of contributing towards the negativity in his direction. Also on the side arguing he is much more proven and valuable than he's been given credit for while ranked below previous journeymen. Obviously there were many teams that felt he was worth near that much which lead to the market conditions and ultimate deal negotiated. Certainly he doesn't fit into all budgets, but for the teams that can afford him we'll see if they chose wisely in the end. If his acquisition sparks the often lifeless offense and convinces guys like Clemens to return for one more run at the title (without getting shutout every time he's on the mound again), I don't think they will be complaining nearly as much as the people here.

November 28th, 2006, 01:57 PM	#41 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	I don't think it's fair to attack Heltonfan for his ranking system. If I'm not mistaken, he is not disparaging or "mocking" the players themselves, but rather taking a look at which teams are getting relative bargains and which are overspending, based on the current prevailing market. Be careful in over-reaching what Heltonfan is saying here. He is not being "negative" toward Carlos Lee, per-se. He is simply showing that one team (the Angels) spent less per incremental win for one outfielder (Matthews) than another team did for another outfielder (Lee), among other things. That's not a slap at Lee; it's an analytical viewpoint of value for money spent. I, for one, appreciate Heltonfan enlightening us on this. Too bad not everyone shares this level of appreciation, and would rather just argue.

November 28th, 2006, 01:58 PM	#42 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	I have Igawa projected at a 3.80 ERC in Japan. If we assume that the quality of the Japanese league is halfway between that of AAA and MLB, he'd project at 4.47 in the majors. And I think that's probably giving the Japanese league too much credit (let's not forget that guys like Nate Minchey have turned into borderline stars over there). So the optimistic outlook on Igawa is that he's just a notch below the Suppan/Ohka/Redman class of free agent starters; in other words, a $25 million contract, over three years, would be reasonable in this market. A $25 million posting fee, in addition to his salary (probably at least $7 million a year)? That's ugly. Of course, I find it hard to believe that anyone other than the Yankees or Mets would bid that high (no one is going to bid more for Igawa than they did for Matsuzaka), and both of those teams can probably afford it. So I wouldn't necessarily call it a mistake, but it's awfully tough to see it as a good move.

November 28th, 2006, 02:01 PM	#43 (permalink)
wolf213 Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Thornton Co Posts: 197	Just for curiosity, how does Matsuzaka project?

November 28th, 2006, 02:16 PM	#44 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	Matsuzaka projects at 2.60 in Japan, so depending on the quality of that league, he'd be somewhere in the 3.30-3.50 range in the majors. One of the top 15-20 starters in the game.