southsider2k5

For the period that just began yesterday. The previous one is dead, ended, and untouchable.

Dude, we ask this like a million times, but can you only post previews of articles? Not full articles, plus pictures, ads and hot links? If you can't, just post the link and summarize the story yourself.

I would have easily given up an extra 2 million in signings at the bottom of this class to get a total of $3 million freed up to get DePaula. Without a second thought. Sure someone could come back to bite us, but I am betting on DePaula vs the field.

FIFY

They don't have that much space, but I wish.

Ain't nothing like a Caulfield post cuz a Caulfield post don't stop.... even when it should.

Which team would that be? The Sox? KC? Oh, right, now San Diego.

Still waiting for any historical evidence.

Where is the franchise selling for a 25% discount just like you said earlier? I gave examples, you did not, and then ignored it repeatedly.

By my eye, that seems like the biggest amount from the DR I can remember. I could be totally wrong.

Another great template out there is Anaheim's team. It is the OBVIOUS 2nd team in a market much closer to Chicago in size, and with the work that their ownership team did to get that franchise on track, it is listed at $2.7 billion. This franchise as is now, has a ton of sleeping value. They have no debt. They have no payroll. If you can figure out how to get a stadium built on a lower cost side, and keep the debt low, this is a sleeping giant. A 25% haircut on this team is an absolute absurdity.

Giving two examples is "wrong" what is totally avoiding the question?

The Mets deal originally was for $2.6 billion, but was nixed when the Wilpon group tried to pull a last minute powerplay to keep the team control for a period of years. Then after waiting them out post Madoff and desperate for cash, they settled for $200 million less to get their finances cleaned up. The Dodgers, of course, were the most famous of all of them. Are you going to show me a team that sold for 25% less than their value? No cool. Again, I should just save us both the time here for you to now change the topic to something else again.

Pretty Sure Patino is the only defection to us so far.

Colson had a pretty bad and injury filled year, and his numbers suffered because of it. We will find out this year if those numbers are for real or not. Really we need to find out if the health can hold up, and if he can really hit a fastball or if something else was slowing him down from doing so last year.

Yolmer Sanchez didn't get cut as a 2.0 WAR player. He got cut when he was replacement level player after both his offense and defense fell off, probably mainly due to health.

hahaha, ok man. I guess you really need this. Here you go. I think you are WAY over simplifying this. A 1B's bat isn't "undervalued". It is placed in an appropriate context of a group of players from the same position. Then adjustment is made recognizing that both offensive and defensive skills occur at different average amounts in different positions. By this same argument a 1B's glove would also be "overvalued" because it is much easier to stand out defensively in a position that doesn't provide much defensive value. The comparison to other positions isn't equal either, because if you took a SS and started playing them at 1B, then they would also see the same positional adjustments and their WAR would adjust accordingly. You can't just take any minor leaguer and replace them. That's not what this does. It's a "replacement" player, not any player out on the street, and that replacement player has it's own definition.

It is by far to the best attempt out there to give quality measurements to all aspects of a baseball game, and not just the historic counting statistics. We have so much more data to look at in 2025, why choose to understand less? I guess if you want to live the simple life.

Well that clears that up. Thanks.

Actually what you did was just make a great argument for player position adjustments, without even knowing it. I was wondering if you did it on purpose, but apparently not.

Any stat that depends on something else is by definition "subjective". So when WAR is dimissed, but RBI are held up a statistical foundations, the argument holds no water.

This assumes all players are way more interchangeable than they actually are in the description of "best". Yankees best player is probably either Cole or Judge. You could never play them at SS, otherwise you would destroy your defense, and probably even your offense in the name of Cole. By playing them in SP and RF, respectively, you maximize their skillset to what a position asks of them best.

Unless they are all working together to not be competitive, that isn't collusion, that is coincidence.

If the argument is arbitrary, this gets a whole lot easier, as even RBI are arbitrary and flawed, which is a commonly held view, which is what led to more comprehensive analysis to get to things like WAR and RC+. Not wanting to understanding advanced stats also seems to be a pretty widely held view.

OK buddy. Instead of you wasting a bunch more of my time again, if they sell for $1.5 billion in the future, you come back and keep that anger strong. Bookmark this post and keep dwelling on it.