jackie hayes

That's a good argument. I've been leaning towards Perez (who gets a good gb/fb ratio too, just not ridiculous good like Lowe), and I still am, but I wouldn't put money on him having the better year. I don't think Radke will get $9 mil, whatever HE starts at.

I don't want to harp on this, but I am really curious. Can someone confirm that Berkman will be a fa? It sounds like he will be, but he's not on any of the (partially speculative) fa lists that I can find.

Do you mean he's the best starter available, or will probably be the best value? I'm just wondering if there's anyone you'd take over him (let's exclude Pedro) if the prices were close.

No kidding. If you thought this was long, just wait for the article on pitching!

I think 3 runs or less is right, but for a different reason, b/c it's "usually lose" -- 4 or 5 you're in "ehhh...." territory since the Sox team ERA was about 5. And I don't think it's fair to count on the same numbers from Vizquel next year, but I'm of a dying breed.

I think the second paragraph is too harsh. Butter seems to be trying to make the site better, proposing the awards and whatnot. I don't think it's fair to ask him to leave, or say he's trying to ruin the site. Now, I disagree with BP almost completely on the specifics. (By the way, the Olerud thread completely does not belong here -- Butter, you said that PK was 'all but traded' and some people questioned that. No problems there. But I'm sure that if you had just replied w/ "Okay, but trading Paul wasn't really what I'm interested in. If he were traded, what do you think of Olerud?", then everyone would have dropped the PK subject. But you answered them about PK. Posters here usually have some (some!) deference if it's your thread, and I'm pretty sure everyone would have respected the direction. I disagree w/ you on the Frank/PK thread, but at least I can see where you're coming from.) I'm not saying that anything should change, but asking someone to leave b/c they want something changed is IMO the wrong reaction. Most posters disagreed w/ him, let's leave it at that. Take this for what it is, one (relative) newbie sticking up for another who he totally disagrees w/... That even me a little.

The deficit doesn't really get paid off, the debt does. (The deficit is just a flow, how much spent in one year less revenue.) And the debt was never paid off, although we started paying it down a bit. I agree that debt isn't unusual (the U.S. will likely always be in debt, which is okay), but the size of it is getting unmanageable. The debt is approaching the size of GDP, meaning that the U.S. government owes the value of nearly everything that everyone in the U.S. produces in one year. On top of that, the deficits have become so big, so quick, and the government has promised so much future spending, that it looks like a big problem.

I still don't like the idea of getting Vizquel. Why would we be better off w/ Omar than with Polanco (and Uribe at ss)?

Not saying I know that much about him, but Rogowski put up great numbers this year, drawing a ton of walks. But that's just A ball, he's not going to be up next year.

No on Perry, he's barely played the last couple of years, and hasn't played well when he's had the chance. Ventura's played mostly 1b, and we already have a logjam there. I suppose if he's inexpensive, I'd trust the Sox if they thought he could contribute. But I don't want him back as a goodwill gesture.

Crede had a "pretty good year"??? Whatever you think of his potential, that was a BAD year. I hope Fields isn't rushed up. I'm not sure what is meant by "keeping faith in...Harris" -- IMO the Sox showed very little faith in Harris. They refused to bat him against lhp -- only 18% of his abs came against lefties. (In contrast, 30% of Valentin's abs came against lefties! And we all know what Valentin brings against lhp.) In the second half of the season, he hit okay against lefties, but we still don't really know what he can do. He only had 35 abs against lhp after the all-star break. Have the Sox already signed Davis? He's been so disappointing for so long, I have much more confidence in Burke. People have been saying for 4 or 5 years that his bat will "come around". I hope the writer's wrong in saying that he'll be our #1 catcher.

I hate the emphasis on "500 home runs". Aren't we all too smart to think that it's only special if it's divisible by 100? Frank will get in, his DHing and tail-off in these last few years (really not that big a slide) will be outweighed by the time when he was perhaps the best position player in the game. Being that dominant gets you in. (On the other hand, ask Bert Blylevyn if consistency makes you a HOFer.)

Obviously that's a joke, why shouldn't we laugh at it? Santo was an excellent player, and obviously a dedicated fan. I have to respect the hardcore Cubs fans -- like an essentially good character w/ one tragic flaw. (C'mon, don't we all have respect for Royko?) But it's funnny! We're laughing w/ him.

As much as I agree that a good bullpen is a necessity, I still think 3E8 has a point in that the Sox should target a starter first. We just need a lot more "good innings", whether in the rotation or the bullpen. But I'd bet that we had a lot more bad innings from our fifth starters than from our bullpen. The other problem is that I don't see too many good relievers coming up as fas. Except Williamson, and that depends on his health. Plus, it will be very expensive to trade for a good arm, since a lot of teams (including the Cubs) will be looking. That said, I'll be disappointed if at the end of the offseason we haven't improved both areas.

Oh, oh, I know! Juan Cruz!

It seems as though the Moneyball gms have put a bit more stock in having a good bullpen, maybe b/c of the fiasco in Boston last year. Oakland took Huston Street in the comp round of the draft this year (? -- I think, but maybe it was the second round). Which seems strange after the reaction to the Sox taking Ring in the first round.

Easter? No way -- I hate pastels. It really hits you when they announce in the usual, announcerly way, "Our next broadcast will be March etc", that it's going to be a long time.

I tend to agree that sp is more important in the playoffs, when you can use guys (not named Pedro) on short rest, and use other starters in the pen. But the bullpen is very important in the regular season, when you can't use your starters as heavily. And Looper, Urbina, Fox were all very good in the regular season. Not that a good starter isn't more important than a good reliever. But two good relievers may be as important as a good starter. (As long as you don't have an abyss at the 5th starter spot...)

Not to mention, Beltre had two very good years before his 3 Crede-esque years. At least they knew he could do that over a full season (well, noone knew he could do THIS exactly!). I enjoy watching Crede in the field, but I'd still listen to any offers. After his late-season push, his overall numbers are still awful (eg, Btw, does anyone know what the Red Sox plan on doing w/ their infield next year? They have both Mueller and Youkilis at 3b, and I can't imagine they'd give either one up, given the price. But how will they use them to give each one playing time?

Clemens has the flu, Backe is filling in.

I'll almost always take a starter before a reliever. But our pitching has been so bad this year, we really need help on both counts. The Red Sox bullpen will provide a bunch of fas -- including Williamson, although noone knows how much he'll pitch next year, if at all.

The only thing that would have made this better is....if Alou was out looking.

What a stupid argument. You never show that my reasoning is wrong, you just say, look, noone's agreed with you, you must be an idiot. I think most people don't know much about formal stats, so they don't want to get involved in the debate. Unlike yourself, someone who knows less than nothing but still feels qualified to throw around "sample size" as if he was making some conclusive argument. My responses to your simple points: 1. I agree. 2. No prediction will ever be dead-on (that seems to be what you mean by "accurately"), but there is some information in past minor-league stats just as there is some information in past major-league stats that can make predictions more accurate (better, not perfect). Predictions of this sort don't imply that a player will be promoted, they just take a stab at how well he'd do IF he were promoted. 3. Depends how much talent, and how much potential. "Talent" doesn't guarantee future "talent", just like "potential" doesn't guarantee future "talent". Anyway, that's not the issue. In a different thread I argued -- not that we shouldn't get Garcia -- but that we should have traded Crede instead of Reed. But he's probably "guaranteed" to break out next year. 4. Depends on the respective qualities. Also questionable on the face, b/c pitchers bear a greater risk (oh, sorry, stat term there...) of injury. 5. Your whole argument is that we know absolutely nothing about what Jeremy Reed will become as player, now you go and say that you do know something about the player he'll become. What kind of argument is that?

ws61382, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. You use terms like "likely", but then say probability and statistics don't apply. That's just nonsense. As for the articles, maybe you should read them "a little more closely". Actually it was the first article you were quoting, and it followed "the goal being to show", with the conclusion, "This is still true". Probably you couldn't understand the rest of the article, where he actually develops an argument, but I thought at least you'd get through this part (especially since that's the part I quoted). You don't understand what you're talking about. You say everything's too variable for probability, then you claim there are "guarantees". You think that a prediction can be accurate only if it's exactly right. I can't believe how ignorant, how bizarre these ideas are. I have been consistent, you have been clueless. As for the last part, f*** off. ('Oh no, not a personal attack...' ) What I got fed up with is the fact that I had to keep repeating myself (that I wasn't basing anything off 47 abs) b/c you can't work your mind around a very simple argument.

I don't consider 47 abs "an accurate number to make a judgement on"! What the f***?! I said And I said And I said Make an accurate statement when you refer to what I wrote. But wait, there's more... As for hitting .400, I said So next time, point out to me exactly what f***ing statement of mine you're referring to, and don't just assume you know what I'm talking about. The relevant statistical question (I was referring to a statistical point, would you like me to quote that too?) is the following -- if Reed is actually a very good player, is it extremely unlikely that over a mere 47 abs he could have a stretch like he has? Looking at the regular variation of a player over a season, the answer is no, it's not that unlikely. That's how statistics is done. (One way or another -- I'm not going to go into Bayesian v Classical statistics until this basic distinction is understood.) Statistically, your statement that "a career .330 hitter in the minors will be more likely to suceed in the majors than a career .230 hitter in the minors(and in most cases you will be right)" is inconsistent with your statement that minor league stats are "almost complete worthless". Look up Bayes law (or Bayes theorem). This is just basic statistics, just math. But you don't use statistics as an argument, you talk about "guaranteed success". What is with this "guaranteed success" stuff? Can you "guarantee" that Freddy Garcia will be a particular type of pitcher? No player, minor or major leagues, guarantees anything. Or do you disagree? So, if you're rejecting statistics, then I can't understand what language you're speaking. But you also say you're interested in "sabermetric stuff", which is all statistics, so I just don't understand if you accept statistics or not. As for the cites, sure, here you go. Clay Davenport on his own translations. David Grabiner's bit on James' work. From Davenport's article, It's important to remember in this that major league stats are quite variable too. Last, but not least, I've never downplayed Garcia's talent -- in fact, all I can recall saying is that he's a good enough strikeout pitcher that I'm not too concerned that he throws so many fly balls -- all I've said in regards to the trade is that (1) Reed appears to be a very good player, not an 'average' (just another) minor leaguer at all, and (2) we didn't need to give him up to get Garcia. In fact, almost every single critic of the trade that I've seen has said the same thing. Why bother, every time I make a clear point, it seems to be filtered out. The very next post is going to be, "You're an idiot. Garcia doesn't suck!"