Risk

TheIncredibleRox · May 5th, 2007, 05:33 PM

Interesting article at The Hardball Times:

The New Inefficiency -- The Hardball Times

It's an interesting and quite likely correct theory.

The reason I post it here is because it articulates the frustration I've expressed here once or twice regarding our last offseason. Except we fit into the paradigm in perhaps the least desirable place of all-- the low-risk, low-value talent (Fogg and Lopez are the prime examples). So basically, we're paying a premium for the absence of risk, for guys for whom the worst manifestation of that risk wouldn't be all that bad-- for example, if Josh Fogg completely imploded, he's already close enough to replacement level that it would barely matter; we could recoup 90%-95% of what we thought he would provide via somebody freely (and inexpensively) available. Yet, we paid a huge premium for the fact that the guy seems very unlikely to implode. Joy.

BigRapidsJackass · May 5th, 2007, 10:26 PM

IR, thanks for the link.

I like your characterization of O'Dowd's pattern as "low risk, low value." Not only Fogg, but also Ray King, Jose Mesa, LaTroy Hawkins, etc, etc.

Another economic phenomenon the article misses is just as important here: you will pay a premium for a one-year contract. O'Dowd has not recovered from the Neagle-Hampton fiasco and he is simply unable to sign a multi-year deal with any free agent, and is probably horrified by the prospect of a multi-year contract for a pitcher.

O'Dowd's refusal to sign multi-year deals has resulted in the club entering the free agent market every year, paying a one-year premium -- I would guess it's on the order of 30-40% -- for the LaTroy Hawkinses of the baseball world. I've used the example before, but I'm right so I'll do it again: Bobby Howry got a 3-year deal worth $4 million a year before the '06 season. This was disparaged by many (including our own Tracy Ringolsby) as the latest example of salary insanity -- $12 million bucks to a middle reliever! Meanwhile, the fiscally prudent Dan O'Dowd found "bargains" in Jose Mesa and LaTroy Hawkins over the last 2 years. And Hawkins costs essentially the same as Howry this year.

In an inflationary market, the guy who doesn't lock up his contracts for necessities over the long term is a guy who is in big trouble -- it's the major U.S. airlines finding themselves driven into bankruptcy by rising fuel costs while Southwest (which hedged with fuel futures contracts) turns profits.

John Cocktoston · May 6th, 2007, 10:32 AM

I see your point, but the free agent market isn't speculative and doesn't lend itself well to generalities. Thus, let's get specific.

Looking at the actual market this winter, and the actual dollars that pitchers received, which contracts would you have liked to see the Rockies sign?

Here are the relievers:

ESPN.com - MLB - Free Agent Tracker

Here are the starters:

ESPN.com - MLB - Free Agent Tracker

Who, specifically, would you have liked the Rockies to bring in?

Jason Marquis for 3/$21 looks like a pretty good signing because he's pitching well early, but he's 27-30 with an ERA of about 5.00 over the last two years in St. Louis. And would he have come to Colorado for the same years/dollars he took to go to Chicago? What if it took 4/$32 to get him here, is that still a good signing? I don't know.

TheIncredibleRox · May 6th, 2007, 11:11 PM

There's not law that we had to sign a reliever and a starter, but anyway...

Rather than go through the list of a dozen or more guys on that list who would have been better signings than Hawkins (within the theme of the article), I'll just give you an example; Rudy Seanez on a Minor League deal. Rudy Seanez is a damn good reliever, but he's extremely fragile. Can you pencil him in for 75 innings as you set your roster? Absolutely not, hence the discount. But the discount is [i]huge[i], so huge in fact that you're probably getting your money's worth if he pitches only 20 innings. Which, of course, is a possibility with him. But it the possibility is much greater that you will get 40-60 innings than <20. And yes, you could possibly get 80.

So A) he's so cheap that a negative outcome won't be at all devastating to your bottom line, B) there is a strong chance that you will receive more value than you paid for (ranging between slightly more and much more), and C) there exists a possibility that you're return on investment will be huge.

Rudy Seanez, in fact, could be the posterboy for this theory.

Starters.... Mark Redman, Jon Thomson, Jerome Williams, Tomo Ohka, Jason Johnson. Or how bout this; we could have signed all five of those guys for a million dollars less than we're paying Rodrigo Lopez, plus we'd have two live arms back in our system. How $%#in indefensible is that?

Heltonfan · May 6th, 2007, 11:17 PM

Good list, TIR. I'd add Doug Brocail; he's quietly been one of the better relievers in the game over the past three years, and signed for a mere $500K.

I also suspect that we're going to regret not making a harder push for Marcus Giles. Brocail, Giles... there's a theme there. Kevin Towers is awesome.

And of course, in addition to Seanez, the Dodgers have another of these cheap upside gambles in their bullpen: Chin-Hui Tsao. That one really stings.

BigRapidsJackass · May 6th, 2007, 11:33 PM

Y'know, that Tsao thing is really starting to bother me. As you said, he had an option left. So the worst case scenario with him was: he starts in AAA, gets called up (instead of the likes of Speier and Keppel), blows out his arm again, gets released. And Darren Clarke or Alvin Colina isn't protected on the 40 man. Oh, by the way Darren Clarke has thrown 1 inning so far this year.

John Cocktoston · May 7th, 2007, 11:34 AM

Wait a second, the premise of what you were originally saying was that these "low-risk, low reward" signings were a bad idea. Well what is Rudy Seanez, if not the definition of a "low-risk, low reward" siging? He's not going to morph into Trevor Hoffman at age 38 and, as you said, he's likely to get hurt at some point in the season. I think you're overstating his upside a little. He's just not the same guy he was in 2004-05.

I think the upside in Rodrigo Lopez at $4.3 million was a better bet than the upside on Rudy Seanez was at $700k, which is what he's making this year. Lopez was brought in to eat somewhere around 200 innings at league average (or slightly above) and with the understanding that he could be a good deal better than that with a return to form and a change of leagues. That's more valuable than 50 innings of Rudy Seanez, isn't it?

Redman, Thompson, Williams, Ohka...they're all Josh Fogg at best and Brian Lawrence at worst. I think you can make an argument that DOD and Co. picked the wrong "low-risk" guys, but that's always going to be the case after the fact because the truth is most of those signings will wash out.

They're not hot commodities for a reason, whether it's injury related or performance related, so sometimes you catch lightning in a bottle (Todd Jones in Detroit) and most of the time you get what you paid for (Brian Lawrence).

TheIncredibleRox · May 7th, 2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

I think the upside in Rodrigo Lopez at $4.3 million was a better bet than the upside on Rudy Seanez was at $700k

You're wrong. Relative to $ per production (runs or wins), it ain't close. Besides, thought we were comparing to comparable signings... Seanez's comp would be Hawkins, no?

Quote:

hey're not hot commodities for a reason

Did you read the article? If so, re-read it. You clearly missed the point.

Quote:

He's not going to morph into Trevor Hoffman at age 38

Who's asking him to? He's been a damn good reliever when healthy.

hiaspire · May 7th, 2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

I think the upside in Rodrigo Lopez at $4.3 million was a better bet than the upside on Rudy Seanez was at $700k

You're wrong. Relative to $ per production (runs or wins), it ain't close.

WRONG? That's just what he thinks and I agree with him on those two players and their futures. Upside is more about talent and potential for future performance than it is runs per dollar amount from the past, no?

In reading the article I didn't see quite the same connection to the Rockies decisions as the examples discussed related to clubhouse trouble-makers and other risks. The Rox have made some low-risk moves in the past and possibly paid a little more for stopgaps who would be less likely to completely fail miserably (since the team had little else and was more reliant upon those guys to fill holes somewhat adequately for a full season). I don't think that is the case this year, though.

DOD often has talked about the fact that you usually can't afford to acquire good pitching when it is going well and the value is sky high on the market; you sometimes need to get it at a discount when struggling and believe that the upside potential once demonstrated previously can return under the right conditions. They think they were buying low on R.Lopez for a guy with more upside ability than the results showed last year. We'll see if they were right about that or not in time. I don't believe they view it as low risk and low reward, getting a guy who went from opening day starter to being kicked to the curb in record time.

I'll absolutely agree with other points, though, related to the Rox could have done a better job at spending what resources they have had at times. I just would classify some of them differently in terms of risk and upside.

John Cocktoston · May 7th, 2007, 01:08 PM

1) So you're favorably comparing Seanez to Lopez from a value standpoint in the same breath that you tell me that it's not apples to apples and they aren't comparable? Which is it?

2) Don't confuse my clearly not agreeing with you with clearly not understanding what you're saying. They're clearly different things.

It usually pays to check for your wallet and pay extra attention to the underlying arguments whenever people start prefacing their statements with words like "clearly" and "obviously"...

3) I think you have a point in that the long man out of your bullpen doesn't need to be making $3.5 million when you could just as easily bring in a guy like Seanez on a minor league deal. I just think that it's a little unfair to go back after the fact and say that's what the Rockies had in mind- it wasn't.

Hawkins was brought in to pitch the 8th and be a bridge to Fuentes. That hasn't worked out (and you can take them to task on that) but to say that the plan was to bring him in for mop-up duty and long relief for a few million bucks a year isn't an honest argument.

Besides, don't the Rockies already have several of these guys in Veres, DeJean and (formerly) Lawrence? It's not like they didn't roll the dice on a few arms...

John Cocktoston · May 7th, 2007, 01:20 PM

The other factor to consider is opportunity cost. Does it makes sense to take fliers on those kinds of guys in the free agent market when the alternative is to promote cheaper and higher ceiling guys like Alberto Arias, Zach McClellan and Denny Bautista? Probably not.

My point is just that it isn't as though the Rockies aren't taking some low-risk, high-reward fliers, it's just that they are doing it with guys in the system. That being the case, maybe it makes a little more sense to go for a LaTroy Hawkins (best case can give you 60+ high-leverage innings)over a Rudy Seanez, who has no shot whatsoever at giving you that.

TheIncredibleRox · May 7th, 2007, 01:20 PM

I hear ya, Hi. But here are the main differences;

--Lopez was never as good as his W-L record (or hell, his ERA) has looked at times in the past... nor as bad as the W-L made him look in '06. Basically, he's well established as a back-of-the-rotation guy.
--Given that, $4.3 mil and two live arms was a helluva price to pay. Look at the Brian Lawrence deal... I'm willing to give D'OD credit there, thats exactly the type of move we want to repeat. Very similar upside to Rodrigo, at a very low price. There's nothing wrong with Rodrigo... it's his price tag.

Quote:

The Rox have made some low-risk moves in the past and possibly paid a little more for stopgaps who would be less likely to completely fail miserably (since the team had little else and was more reliant upon those guys to fill holes somewhat adequately for a full season). I don't think that is the case this year, though.

To bring up an old standard from the '06 FA class, Dave Roberts... historically, quite a fragile guy, so he was brought in at a wonderful discount (especially relative to this market).

So, just to reiterate from the article, a good strategy for lower-budget clubs is to A) invest in higher-upside free agents when they are available at a discount due to perceived risk, and B) have contingencies that could mitigate that risk as much as possible if it comes to fruition.

So, what you are left with, is paying a small (in a relative sense) price for a chance at very large potential upside. You are paying less because risk exists. But, to the extent you are able to mitigate manifestations of that risk, you compund the value of the discount (the discount was there for potential negative outcome, but a negative outcome won't be very painful because you have viable contingencies).

Roberts was a perfect example for us; if he manages to stay healthy most of time time, he'd be a great asset and we'd get a wonderful return on our price. But if and when he went down, we wouldn't be left with complete zeros-- Spillborghs and Sullivan combining to start 40 or 60 or 80 games (whatever the manifestation of that 'risk' could end up being) certainly wouldn't be the end of the world at all.

TheIncredibleRox · May 7th, 2007, 01:23 PM

John, you're way off track here. Seriously, re-read the article... you're completely missing it.

hiaspire · May 7th, 2007, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

I hear ya, Hi. But here are the main differences;

--Lopez was never as good as his W-L record (or hell, his ERA) has looked at times in the past... nor as bad as the W-L made him look in '06. Basically, he's well established as a back-of-the-rotation guy.

I don't necessarily disagree entirely, but it really then is just a difference in methods for evaluating talent and a difference of opinion on the player. The Rockies made this move, not us personally. They told us themselves what they think of the guy, and the organization didn't view him as a back of the rotation talent. I was talking about it from the Rockies perspective in making the move, as they clearly believe he has upside for something much better.

On paper statistically there isn't as much value given to front-of-the-rotation workhorse guys that an organization can depend upon. Pitching is a risky proposition, as players fall by the wayside frequently and sometimes without warning because pitchers get hurt. Organizations in real life spending real dollars (and not just evaluating on paper from their sofa) might very understandably place more value upon guys who may be less spectacular statistically but more dependible in terms of giving them around 180-200 consistent innings.

They moved Jennings (who hasn't always had great statistical numbers himself but was a workhorse for them) and I think they probably saw some of that from Baltimore's former front-of-the-rotation guy who at least doesn't walk many guys while giving you decent innings and has at least some chance to recapture what he did in '02 and '04.

I think it was a fairly risky move on the Rox part due to their salary constraints where other teams with bigger budgets didn't take the chance on a guy who'd fallen from grace. They believe in his abilities, though. I have some mixed feelings there, but I don't mind the gamble on their part here and also agree with them that it is worth more than a minor league free agent in a similar situation of needing to prove themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if he's the #2 starter on next year's rotation.

Roxpert · May 7th, 2007, 02:55 PM

TIR, I just read the article, and can appreciate the analogy to portfolio theory. Being that running portfolios is my living, I thoroughly understand the difference between "systematic" and "non-systematic" risk.

The Rockies, almost by definition (due to cautious payroll budgeting), are risk-averse. I think this is by design, however, due to the fact that this franchise is quite profitable without a comptetitive payroll. The Monforts and their business partners are smarter than they appear.

The GM, however, is not displaying any sort of "imagination", or to put it another way, risk-tolerance when signing the players he can afford. He seems to make moves that he thinks he won't be criticized for by signing "proven veterans" on the downside of their careers, hoping for a one-year resurgance in their production. Hawkins fits the bill perfectly.

In my view, the franchise remains institutionally "allergic" to risk-taking, an outgrowth of their Kile/Hampton/Neagle legacy. The funny thing, though, is that such a cautious approach is also being applied to the "table scraps" available after all the "prime cuts of meat" have been taken off the table by more risk-tolerant owners/GMs. (Sorry, using meat analogies just seems so PERFECT for this franchise, lol.).

Thus, the Rockies rarely catch "lightning in a bottle" with established players. With guys like Ramon Ramirez, or maybe Arias, that's another story entirely.

May 5th, 2007, 05:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
TheIncredibleRox Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 322	Risk Interesting article at The Hardball Times: The New Inefficiency -- The Hardball Times It's an interesting and quite likely correct theory. The reason I post it here is because it articulates the frustration I've expressed here once or twice regarding our last offseason. Except we fit into the paradigm in perhaps the least desirable place of all-- the low-risk, low-value talent (Fogg and Lopez are the prime examples). So basically, we're paying a premium for the absence of risk, for guys for whom the worst manifestation of that risk wouldn't be all that bad-- for example, if Josh Fogg completely imploded, he's already close enough to replacement level that it would barely matter; we could recoup 90%-95% of what we thought he would provide via somebody freely (and inexpensively) available. Yet, we paid a huge premium for the fact that the guy seems very unlikely to implode. Joy.

May 6th, 2007, 11:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	Good list, TIR. I'd add Doug Brocail; he's quietly been one of the better relievers in the game over the past three years, and signed for a mere $500K. I also suspect that we're going to regret not making a harder push for Marcus Giles. Brocail, Giles... there's a theme there. Kevin Towers is awesome. And of course, in addition to Seanez, the Dodgers have another of these cheap upside gambles in their bullpen: Chin-Hui Tsao. That one really stings. Last edited by Heltonfan; May 6th, 2007 at 11:19 PM.

May 7th, 2007, 11:34 AM	#7 (permalink)
John Cocktoston Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 375	Wait a second, the premise of what you were originally saying was that these "low-risk, low reward" signings were a bad idea. Well what is Rudy Seanez, if not the definition of a "low-risk, low reward" siging? He's not going to morph into Trevor Hoffman at age 38 and, as you said, he's likely to get hurt at some point in the season. I think you're overstating his upside a little. He's just not the same guy he was in 2004-05. I think the upside in Rodrigo Lopez at $4.3 million was a better bet than the upside on Rudy Seanez was at $700k, which is what he's making this year. Lopez was brought in to eat somewhere around 200 innings at league average (or slightly above) and with the understanding that he could be a good deal better than that with a return to form and a change of leagues. That's more valuable than 50 innings of Rudy Seanez, isn't it? Redman, Thompson, Williams, Ohka...they're all Josh Fogg at best and Brian Lawrence at worst. I think you can make an argument that DOD and Co. picked the wrong "low-risk" guys, but that's always going to be the case after the fact because the truth is most of those signings will wash out. They're not hot commodities for a reason, whether it's injury related or performance related, so sometimes you catch lightning in a bottle (Todd Jones in Detroit) and most of the time you get what you paid for (Brian Lawrence). Last edited by John Cocktoston; May 7th, 2007 at 11:40 AM.

May 5th, 2007, 10:26 PM	#2 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,175	IR, thanks for the link. I like your characterization of O'Dowd's pattern as "low risk, low value." Not only Fogg, but also Ray King, Jose Mesa, LaTroy Hawkins, etc, etc. Another economic phenomenon the article misses is just as important here: you will pay a premium for a one-year contract. O'Dowd has not recovered from the Neagle-Hampton fiasco and he is simply unable to sign a multi-year deal with any free agent, and is probably horrified by the prospect of a multi-year contract for a pitcher. O'Dowd's refusal to sign multi-year deals has resulted in the club entering the free agent market every year, paying a one-year premium -- I would guess it's on the order of 30-40% -- for the LaTroy Hawkinses of the baseball world. I've used the example before, but I'm right so I'll do it again: Bobby Howry got a 3-year deal worth $4 million a year before the '06 season. This was disparaged by many (including our own Tracy Ringolsby) as the latest example of salary insanity -- $12 million bucks to a middle reliever! Meanwhile, the fiscally prudent Dan O'Dowd found "bargains" in Jose Mesa and LaTroy Hawkins over the last 2 years. And Hawkins costs essentially the same as Howry this year. In an inflationary market, the guy who doesn't lock up his contracts for necessities over the long term is a guy who is in big trouble -- it's the major U.S. airlines finding themselves driven into bankruptcy by rising fuel costs while Southwest (which hedged with fuel futures contracts) turns profits.

May 6th, 2007, 10:32 AM	#3 (permalink)
John Cocktoston Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 375	I see your point, but the free agent market isn't speculative and doesn't lend itself well to generalities. Thus, let's get specific. Looking at the actual market this winter, and the actual dollars that pitchers received, which contracts would you have liked to see the Rockies sign? Here are the relievers: ESPN.com - MLB - Free Agent Tracker Here are the starters: ESPN.com - MLB - Free Agent Tracker Who, specifically, would you have liked the Rockies to bring in? Jason Marquis for 3/$21 looks like a pretty good signing because he's pitching well early, but he's 27-30 with an ERA of about 5.00 over the last two years in St. Louis. And would he have come to Colorado for the same years/dollars he took to go to Chicago? What if it took 4/$32 to get him here, is that still a good signing? I don't know.

May 6th, 2007, 11:11 PM	#4 (permalink)
TheIncredibleRox Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 322	There's not law that we had to sign a reliever and a starter, but anyway... Rather than go through the list of a dozen or more guys on that list who would have been better signings than Hawkins (within the theme of the article), I'll just give you an example; Rudy Seanez on a Minor League deal. Rudy Seanez is a damn good reliever, but he's extremely fragile. Can you pencil him in for 75 innings as you set your roster? Absolutely not, hence the discount. But the discount is [i]huge[i], so huge in fact that you're probably getting your money's worth if he pitches only 20 innings. Which, of course, is a possibility with him. But it the possibility is much greater that you will get 40-60 innings than <20. And yes, you could possibly get 80. So A) he's so cheap that a negative outcome won't be at all devastating to your bottom line, B) there is a strong chance that you will receive more value than you paid for (ranging between slightly more and much more), and C) there exists a possibility that you're return on investment will be huge. Rudy Seanez, in fact, could be the posterboy for this theory. Starters.... Mark Redman, Jon Thomson, Jerome Williams, Tomo Ohka, Jason Johnson. Or how bout this; we could have signed all five of those guys for a million dollars less than we're paying Rodrigo Lopez, plus we'd have two live arms back in our system. How $%#in indefensible is that?

May 6th, 2007, 11:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,175	Y'know, that Tsao thing is really starting to bother me. As you said, he had an option left. So the worst case scenario with him was: he starts in AAA, gets called up (instead of the likes of Speier and Keppel), blows out his arm again, gets released. And Darren Clarke or Alvin Colina isn't protected on the 40 man. Oh, by the way Darren Clarke has thrown 1 inning so far this year.

May 7th, 2007, 01:08 PM	#10 (permalink)
John Cocktoston Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 375	1) So you're favorably comparing Seanez to Lopez from a value standpoint in the same breath that you tell me that it's not apples to apples and they aren't comparable? Which is it? 2) Don't confuse my clearly not agreeing with you with clearly not understanding what you're saying. They're clearly different things. It usually pays to check for your wallet and pay extra attention to the underlying arguments whenever people start prefacing their statements with words like "clearly" and "obviously"... 3) I think you have a point in that the long man out of your bullpen doesn't need to be making $3.5 million when you could just as easily bring in a guy like Seanez on a minor league deal. I just think that it's a little unfair to go back after the fact and say that's what the Rockies had in mind- it wasn't. Hawkins was brought in to pitch the 8th and be a bridge to Fuentes. That hasn't worked out (and you can take them to task on that) but to say that the plan was to bring him in for mop-up duty and long relief for a few million bucks a year isn't an honest argument. Besides, don't the Rockies already have several of these guys in Veres, DeJean and (formerly) Lawrence? It's not like they didn't roll the dice on a few arms...

May 7th, 2007, 01:20 PM	#11 (permalink)
John Cocktoston Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 375	The other factor to consider is opportunity cost. Does it makes sense to take fliers on those kinds of guys in the free agent market when the alternative is to promote cheaper and higher ceiling guys like Alberto Arias, Zach McClellan and Denny Bautista? Probably not. My point is just that it isn't as though the Rockies aren't taking some low-risk, high-reward fliers, it's just that they are doing it with guys in the system. That being the case, maybe it makes a little more sense to go for a LaTroy Hawkins (best case can give you 60+ high-leverage innings)over a Rudy Seanez, who has no shot whatsoever at giving you that.

May 7th, 2007, 01:23 PM	#13 (permalink)
TheIncredibleRox Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 322	John, you're way off track here. Seriously, re-read the article... you're completely missing it.

May 7th, 2007, 02:55 PM	#15 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	TIR, I just read the article, and can appreciate the analogy to portfolio theory. Being that running portfolios is my living, I thoroughly understand the difference between "systematic" and "non-systematic" risk. The Rockies, almost by definition (due to cautious payroll budgeting), are risk-averse. I think this is by design, however, due to the fact that this franchise is quite profitable without a comptetitive payroll. The Monforts and their business partners are smarter than they appear. The GM, however, is not displaying any sort of "imagination", or to put it another way, risk-tolerance when signing the players he can afford. He seems to make moves that he thinks he won't be criticized for by signing "proven veterans" on the downside of their careers, hoping for a one-year resurgance in their production. Hawkins fits the bill perfectly. In my view, the franchise remains institutionally "allergic" to risk-taking, an outgrowth of their Kile/Hampton/Neagle legacy. The funny thing, though, is that such a cautious approach is also being applied to the "table scraps" available after all the "prime cuts of meat" have been taken off the table by more risk-tolerant owners/GMs. (Sorry, using meat analogies just seems so PERFECT for this franchise, lol.). Thus, the Rockies rarely catch "lightning in a bottle" with established players. With guys like Ramon Ramirez, or maybe Arias, that's another story entirely.