bmags

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 07:32 PM) The premise of the article is predicting things that haven't happened yet, so its validity is highly questionable. I'm not even going to read beyond this ridiculous sentence.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 07:20 PM) For fun stuff, there's not one central place you have to drive to. For example, in Chicago, generally it's downtown and some spots on the north side. No. But nonetheless, the difference is you have to drive to all those places in LA. And I can't tell you how much I hate that. Being in a city with good public transport means more than just "it has good public transport", it reflects the way the city is built.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 07:59 PM) You really seem to like the "this guy is overpaid so Gasol should be even more overpaid" argument, and for some reason you seem to like bringing up good perimeter players that can score a lot more in comparisons too. $11 million is a far cry from the $16 million+ average that you're giving Gasol. Tyson is also a much better rebounder and defender than Gasol as he proved this year. That $11 million is probably what Gasol is "worth". Paying a guy like him more than that is why we just had a lockout (not that it seems to have mattered). There are at least a dozen big men that can give you as much or more than Gasol does, probably more. Giving non-elite players a max contract is how you hurt your team. Also, 69 games is still a pretty damn big sample size, and he still played about 32 MPG (roughly normal for big men). PER is also a rate stat, which wouldn't be affected. I'm following the non-fantasy land argument. The market sets the rate, and the market is going to go after these players. And the premise of the article was that there is a center bubble, that centers are getting more money than they already have. If there is a bidding war for centers, what do you think will happen in the NBA, with some owners that want to win now? Do you really think an owner that wants to win now won't pay big money to get the best center available, can you ever think of examples of owners paying more than players are worth? Gasol is by far the best option. No s*** that Tyson Chandler is a great defensive player, but he's also an injury prone defensive-only player. He can get alley-oops. He can get a put back. He cannot do anything else offensively. And he's getting paid a lot of money for one side of the court. Now you have a center with a legitimate all-around offensive game and good D that's 7'1", young and has stayed remarkably healthy for a center. And he's a free agent. And he's a center (x3). If all centers are getting a higher rate because of the rarity of their skills, then the best center in a market run by billionaire fans is going to get paid, and paid well.

In a smaller sample size with less minutes. You are just ignoring the point that we have a league where tyson chandler was given 6 for 64 when he was injury prone and has no real offensive game. Centers get paid a lot of money. Add to that teams looking to add size, an increased salary floor, and one of the few centers with an offensive game and knees and a back that haven't broken every season, and you will see a team pay him a lot. Remember ... rudy gay is making the maximum.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 06:12 PM) I think you're overrating Gasol a fair amount. He averaged 12 points and 7 rebounds last year with solid but not spectacular defense. Since when is 12-7 worth a max contract? There aren't THAT few quality big men out there that his contributions are more rare than a player that can shoot, score 20 points a game, and distribute the ball with reasonable efficiency. He's also a very good passer, is only 26, with a good injury history and has gotten better every year.

Watched last night. Our passing was an absolute thing of beauty. And mizzou was offensive rebounding like crazy. Everytime I think the lack of size will come into effect, they just fight harder and overcome it. And... Ricardo ratliff has made something like 30 of his last 32 shots.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 06:13 PM) Meh, Joe Johnson is probably a #2 on a contender, though he's coming off a pretty bad year. The bigger problem with him is it was his second contract, so his "max" is more like $20 million a year than $15 million. I disagree. There are so many more players that can get you Joe Johnson production than can get you Gasol production.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 04:43 PM) There have never been enough centers to go around to make everyone in the league happy. That doesn't mean throwing a truckload of money at a guy that isn't better than a #3 on a contender (Strangely enough, Simmons says that in the same article while concluding that he's worth a max deal. huh?) is the right answer. It's never been the right answer, but it goes to show the league isn't far from the one that just paid joe johnson a max. I'd put gasol at more worthy of a max than JJ.

I think you guys are underestimating how much Marc Gasol will make. There just are not very many centers worth a s*** right now.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 03:57 PM) LA gets ragged on because of the pollution and the traffic. But there's a reason for all the traffic and the pollution - because so many people want to live there! The weather, the entertainment, the beaches, the food, the people...there are tons of reasons to live in LA. Not saying I would want to do it without lots of money, but let's not act like it's not a world-class city, folks. No, the reason for all the traffic is they built a city so sprawled that it's public transit sucks and you are forced to drive everywhere. Sprawl + 2nd largest city + no public transit = Awful traffic.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 04:24 PM) seriously? there's no such THING as proven among closers and relievers in general. If you play fantasy baseball you know that - every year the list of "top closers" is dramatically different. Why? Because they have no lasting power. They'll be good for a couple years then fall off the map. Who's to say Santos isn't exactly the same as the majority of closers out there? That's all fine and well, but that's what made Santos so attractive. If he sucked, it didn't set your team back salary-wise. Which makes him very valuable. His contract was affordable for a 7th inning reliever, let alone closer.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 12:00 AM) Beckham is a weird one. I understand why you would want to be rid of him, but you probably won't get much after his last two seasons. Sarcasm or not? I'm serious. I knew when we started off slow that we would have a may-june run that would have people saying "Oooh well maybe if we have a good second half" and then the second half is just going to be a brutal trudge to third place.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 12:16 AM) This seems like the same thing we hear each year. The Sox might have just enough talent to win this division, as long as other teams don't play to their abilities. Amen. That's why I knew the ending to last year in April.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 03:39 PM) I wish that xmas were less about gifts and tradition and more about having a great time with family. I've tried three straight years to get everyone to ditch presents (save for the young ones, of course) and use that money on a sweet ass vacation to start making some real memories. I would love that, but it's really hard to leave work for me over the holidays. My friends are all planning on doing a whiskey distillery tour in May, however.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:16 PM) Maybe Adam will run a few more laps since he heard it though. In the offseason? Not likely.

Damn it, i'm not sure i'll get home in time for the mizzou game. Totally missed that the tip off was so early.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 09:08 PM) He wasn't generally unknown to those who make it their business to know these things. I would love to know how many AA pitching prospects you or BMags could name off the top of your heads at 11 am this morning. Look at what people were saying they'd like to have for Santos a few days ago, and look at how happy they now are. They don't match up. I'm not a Molina expert, but it does worry me a whole hell of a lot that people aren't just split on whether he'll be a top of the line starter, but whether he'll even be a major league starter at all.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 09:52 PM) Here's a fact for you guys... Nobody here has ever sat through am MLB trade negotiation. Nobody here knows what we could have gotten or should have gotten. Nobody here really knows the market for a closer 3 years removed from being a SS bust. Nobody knows what it really takes to land a top 50 type prospect. It seems the Sox have an organizational philosophy for pitching. You have to throw strikes to pitch here. This kid throws strikes. But we do have a centuries worth of case studies of trades happening in this league. Some trade negotiators make great trades and some make really bad ones. They are not all equal.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 07:48 PM) He's a cheap closer. He's 29. He's good, not great. You have a ML ready replacement waiting in the wings. I'll give KW credit for at least recognizing the value of a 60 inning reliever. Did he, though? Did he?

That said, if this kid doesn't end up as a starter...I just give up.

That "wasn't really the best team" that year has never bothered me. Even having a run in those types of scenarios is plenty to hang your hat on.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 12:02 AM) For the record, OSU did not play a CCG like Alabama. OSU also did not have to win their division (like Alabama), because the Big 12 did not have divisions. Most people are going to agree that losing a game to LSU in OT is better than losing a game to ISU in OT. The best argument for OSU, is that OSU didnt play LSU and therefore its a new and more interesting match up. Well i'll take OSUs total schedule vs. alabama's.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 11:47 PM) And they were dropped behind OSU in the polls after losing. So OSU should not be penalized for losing 2 weeks later to Iowa State? For years people would say, "its not who you lose to but when you lose." Are people really expecting the voters not to drop OSU any spots when losing the second to the last game of the season to a 6-6 team when there are other 1 loss teams out there? And it's also "when you win", and when you win a game against a top ten opponent while the other contender sits at home because they couldn't win their division to get into the conference championship that used to matter. But now we know. Win a conference championship = meaningless. Lose a conference championship = f***s you out of any BCS bowl. Sit on the sidelines = Key to having a bowl bid. Suck just enough not to have to play for the title, while not so much that you are a bad team. How many s***ty losses did USC have that last decade and writers still put them near the top every year? It doesn't matter if you are a classic team, I guess. All of your former football players are all over TV, and the writers have followed you their whole lives.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 11:38 PM) Or if OSU wouldve dropped Iowa State when they were 28 point favorites then they'd undoubtedly be in right now. OSU controlled their own destiny and they failed. They had their shot at playing LSU but they lost to a 6-6 team. The same f***ing thing could be said for alabama. I don't understand how you have a point. They had their shot and failed.

Nonsense. Griffey made an INCREDIBLE THROWWWWWWWWWWWW