almagest

Good advice here. I'm also in the market for a place -- I work downtown, so I'd like something in the city, or a nearby suburb, so I can utilize public transportation. You might want to check out Craigslist, as you can sometimes find nice by-owner deals on there.

QUOTE(bigruss22 @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 07:59 PM) Wow that worked, thanks almagest! One question about it though, do I just save it as I normally would onto my USB drive under an Excel format or what? My teacher will need to be able to open the document If you opened it in Open Office, just be sure to save it as an Excel file. It may complain at you, but it'll still work. Then if you have time, test it at school. If you were able to open it in Excel XP, just save it as an Excel XP file. Your teacher will be able to open it, as the MS Office suites have good backwards compatibility.

I really hope this is official. If Dotel can put up an ERA of around 4, with a K/9 of 9+ -- which his career seems to indicate he will, though his GB/FB ratio is worrisome -- he'll really help shore up our bullpen.

QUOTE(Nunnigan @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) First let me start off and say I'm not much of a tech buff, so bear with me. I got a PS3 earlier this month along with CoD4. After beating the game, I've been itching to play it online. The problem is I dont have an internet connection in my room. The only room in the house that has internet connection is the one right below my room. Now with the questions, can a wireless router reach my PS3 from the room below? Also how much would a wireless router cost? Thanks for any help Depends on if your PS3 has built in wireless support or not. This link provides instructions on how to set it up. As for the router... Newegg is probably the best place to pick up computer hardware online. If you're only going to be using the wireless for gaming on your PS3, go with a wireless g router that has some sort of range boost, and prioritizes gaming traffic. Also ensure that your router supports WPA/WPA2 encryption, and be sure to enable it. It's extremely dangerous to run an unencrypted wireless network. If you're going to use wireless on all your PCs, plan on doing lots of internal file transfers/streaming (streaming music or movies, or running any kind of media PC) if your walls/floors are super thick or you live in an older building with lots of iron, consider a wireless N router for the increased range and transfer speeds. You probably won't even approach 54 mbps while gaming, but your local network could make use of the increased bandwidth.

Office XP is Office 2002, and Office for Mac's two most recent versions are 2008 and 2004. Either of those may have a problem opening your spreadsheet. You might also want to try opening your spreadsheet in Open Office (http://www.openoffice.org/), as I've had luck opening files Excel and Word don't like with it. The only time it won't work is if you have lots of macros, or odd formatting elements.

What version of Excel are you using at home, and what version are you using at school? Older versions sometimes have problems opening newer files. You might have to go back to school, load the spreadsheet, and check the "Save As" menu for the version of Excel that matches your home version.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) Because of the notion that he could be had for a 1 year deal. No one has ever stated wanting him for 2 years. When has Colon or his agent said he was only seeking a 1 year deal?

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:06 PM) It wasn't the length of the contracts or the guaranteed money that made the O's signings bad, it was because they didn't have much of an offense? So, had the Indians been the ones handing Baez, Bradford, and Walker near $40 million guaranteed, it would have been a smart thing? You can't build a team, or even a bullpen, through free agency. It's too expensive, and you can't rely on the market to provide what you need every year. The Orioles didn't realize that, apparently. You can add a piece here and there through free agency, however, which is what the Indians would be doing. So, yes. If the Indians signed one or all of those guys to shore up their bullpen (which has been weak in the past few years), it would be trying to make a solid team great. That would be a good move.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 02:10 PM) Thats why I was wondering why the Sox didn't take a flyer on him. Only one year, for $4 Million. That is pretty low risk. Maybe he wanted to pitch in his home state. Also, Jennings is a lefty, right? We already have Buehrle and probably Danks. Any more lefties in the rotation and we'd become the 2004 Kansas City Royals.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 12:42 PM) I just rediscovered the Hey Hey My My Yo Yo album by Junior Senior. It was recorded in 2005 and wasn't released in the US til last fall. But the re-release came with a new 8 song EP. It's a bit of a disappointment. It's like they were hanging out in the studio with Depeche Mode. And that makes me sad. I'm a much bigger fan of "D-D-Don't Don't Stop the Beat".

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 09:07 AM) Because he won a bogus Cy Young a couple years ago? We're almost certainly not getting that pitcher though. We'd probably get something in between his 2005 and 2007, if he stays healthy.

Teams know we have two MLB-ready third basemen, so they're not going to give us much. Maybe one B prospect is about the best we could do, since they know if Crede has a decent year and walks, the draft pick they would get would make up for the prospect they traded. I think the smartest thing to do would be to trade Crede near the end of spring training, if he's healthy and is playing reasonably well. By that time, some third basemen will be hurt, or some team will realize the guy they thought could fill the position can't, and Crede will be more valuable since he'd likely be the only decent 3B available at that point. Ideally, if he's playing well, you wait until the trade deadline to move him, since even a half-year of Crede would be worth more at that point to a contender. Unfortunately, we can't do this since we'd be wasting Fields on the bench or in AAA. Of course, if he's hurt or produces like he did from '03-'05, we'll get absolutely nothing for him.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 06:50 AM) Safe to say you're serious about your video games??? Damn straight. Worked at a video game store for two years. Been playing since I was three. QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 09:38 AM) I can't believe you don't own a PS3 and a Wii. Oh, yeah? I'll show you, random anonymous internet guy! /buys PS3; tries to buy Wii but can't find one, settles for two Gamecubes duct-taped together

I have little to no faith in our bullpen at this point, and I think signing Dotel would be a good move. Though his time was limited last year, he was effective when he was pitching, and he looks to be a good bet to be healthy this year. We need all the help we can get. Also, why is salary such a concern in cases like this? I don't get it. Sure, the Sox might be overpaying at 5.5/year, but so what? It's not like that contract is going to cripple them financially, and with the going rate of starting pitching being so high, you know reliever contracts are going to scale up as well. I just can't understand the mentality of "well, he may have helped us, and put up an ERA of 4 instead of 6 or 7 like our bullpen last year, but at least we didn't overpay!"

QUOTE(chisox2334 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:20 PM) from cowley As for the other rumor surrounding the Sox the last few days, concerning the potential signing of often-injured pitcher Bartolo Colon, the Sox did take a look at him recently, but sources indicated that Colon wanted more than a one-year deal. The Royals now appear to be the front-runner to land the 2005 Cy Young Award winner. So the Mets took a pass on him due to health reasons (the METS of all teams), he likely won't be ready until a month or two into the season (or more), he's not a lock to be successful by any means, and he wants more than a one year deal? Why do people want him again?

I was pretty pleased to hear Rogue Wave in that new Zune commercial. He deserves some exposure. What I've been listening to: Statehood (ex Dismemberment Plan members) - Lies and Rhetoric Radiohead - In Rainbows Thom Yorke - Eraser Cold War Kids - Robbers & Cowards Bound Stems - Appreciation Night (I can't recommend this band enough, especially for fans of Modest Mouse, and anyone interested in good local music)

What I've been playing lately: DS: Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings PSP: Nothing as usual 360: Eternal Sonata PC: Neverwinter Nights 2 + Mask of Betrayer

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 01:46 PM) What does this mean? How do you get a private server? And how do you play for free? I haven't played WoW in a good 3-4 months but might jump back in. Well, it means that it's illegal. Essentially, someone wrote software that emulates the functionality of a WoW server. You can connect to it and play, but without paying Blizzard. That being said, I find private servers for MMORPGs to be more fun. Especially since it's usually much less of a grind. But from what I understand, Blizzard is pretty vicious in taking down these servers, so you have to be careful.

QUOTE(Adam G @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 11:44 PM) How are Bartolo Colon's stats in 2000 and 2001 going to have any bearing on what he's going to get on the free agent market today? They're both coming off two injury riddled seasons, so any point you have about Colon being durable is moot. In fact, you can look at that from the other viewpoint and say that he's got too many miles on him and he broke down. Prior on the other hand still is young and theoretically on the upslope of his career. Colon is clearly on the way down. Because Colon has a longer history of success without injury. Prior has been almost constantly injured throughout his career. Though I don't think either is a good bet, I think Prior has even less of a chance than Colon to rebound.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 10:23 PM) I truly believe Prior could have gotten more, but chose to go somewhere he'd feel comfortable, and could rebuild his numbers for a much bigger payday in the future... Very possible. I don't think he would've gotten that much more though... maybe another million a year?

QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) If the Sox are in serious contention without Colon then you probably wouldn't want to make significant changes as you say. If the back end of our rotation sucks, then we suck and we're going nowhere in the division. If that is the case, it is much better to go with one of Broadway/Egbert, or even Nick Masset. If we're going to suck, we should at least suck with young players who have some kind of chance to learn at the MLB level and help us in the future. Colon makes absolutely no sense for this team unless we acquire another better, more reliable SP. If we had a reliable #3 starter, like say Jon Garland for instance, we would have a solid group 1-3 with two more veterans penciled in at the bottom and our young pitchers representing depth. It's still Riske to have to rely on two of Colon/Contreras/Danks/Floyd/Egbert/Broadway turning out as solid #4 and #5 starters, especially in our division where there is minimal if any room for error, but it's a lot better than relying on three of those guys doing the job. Agreed. Colon is just as much of a risk as any of our young pitchers (perhaps more so, given his health issues), but doesn't have the future upside that they do. And for those trumpeting our "ability" to find "diamonds in the rough" -- how many of said diamonds had a serious injury to recover from? QUOTE(Adam G @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 04:54 PM) How much did Mark Prior get? Colon's been in the league for longer. Prior had 2 good years, and 2 good half-years, throwing over 200 innings once. Colon has had 7 good years, throwing over 200 innings 7 times. Colon's going to get more.

QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -if KW could dump Uribe for nothing he would. Uribe is here because KW couldn't get a SS quick enough so he re-signed Juan. He's HERE BECAUSE WE CAN"T MOVE HIM. Why would Kenny just up and give Uribe away for nothing, if he just resigned him? That doesn't make any sense, and he'd look pretty stupid. Maybe you can find an example of a team almost immediately trading a starter they just resigned, because I sure can't, and you seem to think it's a fairly common thing. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -If you don't have strong SP you do not win in the American League. As far as making reference to 2005, El Duque and McCarthy gave us a pretty strong 5th starter tandem, quite possibly if not probably better than what we'll get this year from any spots in our rotation 3-5. Your comment about 4 man rotations shows how little you know. This is a different era of baseball. Then why do teams often skip the fifth starter spot, if it's so important? And why do they skip it in the postseason? You might want to read Baseball Between the Numbers (specifically, chapter 2-3), or ask Google why a 4-man rotation could be better than 5. I'll give you a hint -- given proper pitch count monitoring and current sports medicine, spreading the 5th starter's starts between the 4 pitchers in front of him has a very good chance of resulting in better starting pitching overall. Orlando Hernandez was a poor 5th starter for us in 2005. Brandon McCarthy was good, but saw limited action. The stats don't lie. How exactly are you determining that they were good? QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -It sounds like you think that the Sox want something of value for Contreras. You think the salary is less of a factor in his being untradable than his age and declining skills. You are again trying to split apart one idea and make it into two seperate things. Let's pretend Jose was a FA after last year. Someone would pick him and start him. David Wells has been around how long now? Someone would take him, declining skills, poor 2007 season, age and all. But no one takes him for $20 million over the next two years. What does that tell you? If some team is going to give Kyle Lohse a contract over $7 mil/year, you bet someone would take a chance on Contreras. But the terms of the trade would be in the other team's favor by far, and that's not good business. If Contreras falters this year again, then we can still probably trade him for nothing (likely having to eat some of his salary) But if he turns in a decent or good year, then he has value again. I'm a firm believer in not selling low on starting pitching if at all possible. If you don't agree with this, that's fine. Difference of opinion. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Kyle Lohse hasn't signed because his agent has been pushing for him to get paid like he's a consistent, workhorse #3 starter. He's not. He's a five on a decent team and a 4 on a mediocre to bad team. He'll get paid, and he'll get paid tons of money. Just watch. Had his demands been more reasonable, say 3 years/$21 million, he would have signed long ago, and that is still waaaay too much for Lohse. Unfortunately, the current market for contracts for starting pitchers disagrees with you. Lohse (and pitchers like him) will likely get 6 or 7 mil a year for 3 years, because that's what teams who need a league-average 5th starter are going to have to pay in the free agent market. You do not determine how much Kyle Lohse, or any free agent, is worth. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Yes the Yankees and Red Sox think about the consequences but in AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MANNER, i.e. the $55 million Boston spent to TALK to Matsuzaka, all the money the Yanks have pissed away on Wright, Pavano, Igawa, Giambi, etc., the BlowSox RETARDED Julio Lugo signing, and the list goes on and on. Sorry, but that is reckless spending. If you don't think so you're on crack. BTW, check out their ticket prices, parking prices, etc. There comes a point where reckless spending HURTS THE FANS. The Red Sox won the World Series this year (Lugo, Matsuzaka, and all), and were one of the best overall baseball teams I've seen in a long time. Most Boston fans don't care how much tickets are -- they've been sold out for 388 consecutive regular-season games. They may complain about the prices, but they still go to see a competitive team play in a historic stadium. Plus, it's still cheaper to see a Red Sox game than it is to see a Patriots, Celtics, or Bruins game. How is this a bad value for the fans? Also, the Red Sox average cost for two fans to see a game exceeds that of the Yankees by almost 90 dollars ($313.83 to $222.53). And the Yankees have been in the playoffs almost every year since 1996, and have a couple World Series trophies as well. They're also loaded with star players. How is this a bad value for Yankees fans? QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Maybe ARod has a better OPS+. Wow, so what? I'll take Josh Fields at the minimum, Konerko at what $12mil, Dye at $11mil, and Linebrink at $4mil over ARod's salary and a bunch of worthless garbage around him. And a mentioned the added revenue a player like ARod would provide in certain areas... If ARod takes up 1/4 of the payroll alone then the team around him will very likely suck, and if that is the case, whatever amount the Sox would gain in say merchandise sales would surely be offset by losses in gate and concession. Sox fans care more about winning than names. KW/JR etc. get a lot of criticism from Sox fans, and I'm one of them, but I think these guys know a lot more about building a team than you think. They could have made a serious play at ARod and may have even possibly gotten him without giving up any talent OR a first round draft pick. Yet, like at least 27 other teams, they took a pass on the best player in baseball. Hmmm, I wonder why? It means hes worth 26 million dollars more a year than Josh Fields, apparently. And there's no maybe about it. A-Rod was so much better than Fields this year it's almost not worth comparing. And I like Josh Fields a lot. And if we're picking players, I'll take Fields, A-Rod, Swisher, and Garland, lose Linebrink and Uribe, and pay more at the Cell to see what would undoubtedly be a better team than what we have now. What evidence points to a team automatically sucking if a hall-of-fame caliber player like A-Rod takes up 20-25% of the payroll? And what evidence points to said team having no talent to surround said player? Also, the Sox were one of the teams involved in the bidding war that drove Rodriguez's price up so high in the first place. Apparently, we were ready to commit 20 million per year to him then. And you don't know what other teams would've gone after A-Rod if he'd entered the free agent market properly, and not danced around with the Yankees. If Sox fans care so much about winning, then I'd imagine that player salaries would be largely immaterial if said players brought them a championship. Just like the fans of almost any team. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Yes, you are right about one thing: the Tigers did give up a ton of talent for Cabrera, BUT on the flip side of it, they have been a POS team for many, many years and now that their fans have been excited for a couple years they feel the need to go all out, and they have the owner's support. This move will likely hurt them considerably if Cabrera does not extend his contract at a reasonable rate. Besides, the Tigers will have a payroll in the $130 million range. That's a lot more than we have, and also, Miguel is arb eligible. He's not getting paid like Miguel. The Tigers could have had a shot at ARod too for free, but again, they passed. Hmm.... I've seen projections for the Tigers payroll next year to be anywhere between 110 million and 128 million. They play in a smaller market than we do. How come we can't spend the extra 30 million, if they're going to? We don't have a farm system. We need to win now. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Yes the Rangers were bad because poor allocation of funds, i.e. spending huge on a few players and having nothing left for the rest of the team. I'm not going to debate this with you. You are wrong. Players on the 2002 Texas Rangers Joaquin Benoit Francisco Cordero Doug Davis Dennys Reyes Dan Kolb Kenny Rogers Chan Ho Park Ivan Rodriguez Rafael Palmeiro Hank Blalock Travis Hafner Mike Lamb Alex Rodriguez Michael Young Frank Catalanotto Carl Everett Juan Gonzalez Todd Hollandsworth Gabe Kapler Kevin Mench (Mark Teixiera hit the majors in 2003) Yeah, man. Wow. They had no players. No talent at all besides A-Rod and wasted money on Chan Ho Park. None of those young players could have turned out to be any good if they hung on to them, either. Who's wrong? QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Your last point about Jordan is utter nonsense. Funny, because you admit to it (how basketball with 5 starters on the floor and a couple key bench players is a stupid comparison to baseball with 5 SP, 8 positions in the AL with a DH, a bullpen, and THEN a bench) but then you say it's valid. What? Michael Jordan's salary in the 97/98 Bulls season - $30.14 million The salaries of the rest of the team combined - $33.3675 million Jordan accounted for close to 50% of that team's payroll. No team in baseball has a player making even remotely close to 50% of the team payroll. The differences between the sports are partially, if not wholly, offset by this huge difference in percentages. This makes it a valid comparison. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -About Santana, it again depends on payroll. Why is that so hard to understand? I'm not making this up as I go, you know. How come the only suitors for Johan are two New York teams, the Red Sox, and MAYBE the LA Dodgers? Hmmm..... methinks if other teams thought they could afford to toss something like 7 years/$140 million his way they would have no trouble surrendering a few 'spects to make a deal for the best pitcher in baseball. And yes, that would be a mistake. If we had a serious contender and we could get him for say 4 years/$80 million with a PROMISE to hike the payroll accordingly it would be a good move, but that isn't going to happen. Signing Santana to our current team makes us a serious contender. We'd have the best 1-3 combo of starters in baseball. Santana would make most any team in the NL a division contender. Unfortunately, we do not have (and never had) the king's ransom in prospects the Twins want, and they likely won't trade him in the division anyway. In fact, they're reported to want to trade him to the NL. So that limits the teams that could land him. Of those teams, how many have the prospects to land him? And of those teams, how many want to give up said king's ransom in prospects for a guy they may not be able to resign? As long as he stays healthy, Santana is going to have the majority of the MLB scrambling to sign him. Don't believe me? Watch when he hits free agency. Also -- if you can't remain civil in our discussion, please don't respond to me. Personal attacks do nothing to further your points, and neither do blanket statements such as "you're wrong" without proof to back them up.

QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) Uribe is still on the team because KW didn't pull off the Garland-for-Cabrera swap before the arbitration deadline. That's the only reason. Okay, so it wasn't salary related. As I said. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) Contreras is still with the team for the same reason that he went unclaimed when put on waivers last summer. Your comment about not having a chance to compete without a semi-reliable fifth starter makes me wonder if you started watching the Sox in 2005. If you don't have a semi-reliable FIFTH starter you don't have a chance to compete (unless you play in the NL Central). Our 3-5 is not reliable at all. Plenty of teams have reached the postseason and been successful there without a 5th starter. You do realize that baseball has been successfully played in the past with 4 man rotations, correct? And that plenty of teams switch to a 4 or even 3 man rotation in the playoffs? Or that the Sox got rather mediocre performance out of the 5th starter slot for a large portion of 2005? An OPS+ of 77 from our 5th starter wasn't why we won 99 games. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) Don't you think KW would rather give Egbert or Broadway a shot in the rotation over Contreras to see what they have? You're not buying his lines to the media are you? Sure Kenny would. But he can't, because Contreras' value is rock bottom, and trading him now makes less sense than keeping him and hoping he has at least one more decent season left. What I was trying to say here, is that while salary may indeed be a factor of why he's unmovable, his performance on the field, as well as his age, are far, far greater factors. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) ^I can't believe you said this in a thread about Kyle Lohse. Uhh, in case you haven't noticed, teams aren't exactly beating down the door for Kyle. He's been forced to lower his demands already, and we're still not hearing of much interest from any teams. Unless you have some information about interested teams that I haven't seen. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) Unless you are a Yankees or BlowSox fan, you have always seen flexibility affect the product. It's the reason we never spend an assload of money on free agents. It's the reason our team doesn't look like the two other teams mentioned. It is impossible to run a successful franchise without it unless you have bottomless pockets. Any fan smart enough to recognize the trend a player is on and the trend he is projected to take will most likely take the salary of said player into appropriate consideration. It's one thing (value = performance in relation to salary) and when you try to break it up into two seperate things (performance independant of salary) you completely miss the point of value. Outside of payroll monsters like the Yanks and BlowSox, you cannot construct a successful franchise without paying attention to the value of each player. Players with good value can help a team in several ways, be it through performance on the field or through trades that strengthen other areas within an organization, whereas poorly valued or overvalued players will hurt a team in at least in one area. The Red Sox and Yankees do not spend money without thinking about the consequences, nor do they have bottomless pockets. I don't know why people seem to think this. They're businesses -- they can't afford to run at a loss year in and year out. They're subject to the same rules as every other team in baseball -- in fact they're probably screwed over more than any other teams, due to the revenue sharing cap. They just happen to exist in good markets, and find ways to remain competitive every year. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) It's like this: you talk about only concerning yourself with performance on the field. ARod is one of the best players in baseball history, and he's much better than Josh Fields in every aspect of the game. However, Josh Fields makes league minimum while ARod makes $30 million per year or so. You can factor in the possibility of ARod leading to higher attendance, an increase in merchandise sales and other stuff like more lucrative television and radio contracts, but the fact is, given our payroll, ARod would only hamstring our club. We couldn't afford to pay that much to one player without raising the payroll to account for it, and unless the payroll was raised, we would have to take money out of other areas to make up a team. ARod is a legend, but it is very hard for teams with around a $100 million payroll or less to to devote that much money to one player and still run out another 24 players. That's why there were only about three out of thirty teams, and maybe just one really, trying to get him this offseason. In video game land or in the minds of an average fan, ARod would be more valuable to the Sox than Fields, but in reality, Fields is the more valuable player to us. For proof of this, look no further than Texas. How long did the contracts to ARod and Chan Ho Park among others set that organization back? It's exactly this mentality that I find ridiculous. Alex Rodriguez is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Josh Fields has a ceiling of very good, perhaps All-Star level, year in and out. But he'll never be as good as A-Rod. But it's okay that we didn't sign A-Rod (who made $22 mil last year and will make $27 mil this year, btw. Not quite 30.), because Josh Fields makes $400k and is a better bargain and doesn't hamstring us financially. Never mind that adding A-Rod last year (for example) would've raised the production level at third base by a phenomenal amount -- he had an OPS+ 76 points higher than Fields (101 to 177). And I'm not sure about the numbers, but I'd bet that adding a player like A-Rod adds a rather significant amount of revenue to a team... enough to make that salary hurt quite a bit less, I'd imagine. Plus, we would have a fair amount of flexibility with our current roster + prospects (like including Fields in a trade), to assist in obtaining a pitcher or two to help this team even more. Actually, I would argue that the Tigers made a worse move by trading for Miguel Cabrera, than any team that signed A-Rod. They traded away a considerable amount of young talent, and greatly devalued their minor league system, for 2 years of a player they might not even be able to resign. Doesn't this move also reduce flexibility for the Tigers? And it essentially involves no money. Also, the Rangers weren't/aren't bad because of A-Rod. They're bad because they don't have any pitching, and apparently have no idea how to draft or sign good pitchers. Look at it this way -- the Bulls paid Jordan over 30 mil a year for the last two years he was here 10 years ago, in a sport with a salary cap. Would it have been better to maintain "flexibility" instead? Sure, a single player's impact is greater in basketball than in baseball, but it's still a similar enough situation to warrant mention. Or, what about Johan Santana? If he were a free agent, would targeting him and his 20+ million dollar salary be a mistake?

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 12:57 AM) Danks only had 70 innings pitched in AAA. He really wasn't supposed to make the big league club last year. Floyd lost the job and Danks pitched well in spring training. Danks has been promoted quickly and each time he is promoted, he gets rocked. Then he makes adjustments and makes big improvements. Danks Minor League Numbers We have not seen the best from Danks. Still, competition is good and Colon would be a nice pickup if he comes cheaply. A confidence building season in AAA for Danks might not be such a bad deal. Hopefully Floyd steps up. If he doesn't, then he's on mop up duty. By this logic, Danks would be in line for an impressive (or at least improved) second season in MLB, and thus it would be a mistake to send him down.

QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 06:42 PM) This doesn't make sense. You're basically saying that a player's performance in relation to his salary, or his total value, is not very significant, or at least it shouldn't matter much to the fans. You justify this by saying that a bad contract can be absorbed by adding to the payroll or dumping other unnecessary contracts, but that makes no sense either. There are 25 guys on a roster. We'll have somewhere around a $100 million payroll in an age where below-average players get paid like stars and average players get paid like superstars. Value is as important now as it has ever been, if not even more so than in recent years because we're getting back to those scary 2000 type contacts that ruined so many teams. Also, if we could dump Uribe off for nothing, he'd already be gone. There's a reason no one claimed Jose Contreras off waivers last summer. It's not that KW is holding out for a good prospect; it's that no one is going to want to take on a bad contract without us paying part of it or assuming another bad contract in return. You say that as long as the players don't suck on the field, you don't care what they are paid. But I assume you also expect to have a competitive team on the field, and a large part of staying competitive is flexibility. You can't maintain flexibility when you are locked into longterm contracts with s***ty players making a lot of money. Juan Uribe is still on this team because he's been absolutely awful offensively for a few years now, not because he makes 4.5 million dollars a year. The shortstop position has become much more valuable as an offensive position in baseball in the past decade or so. Also, Jose Contreras is still here because we have no chance to compete without a semi-reliable 3rd starter. Contreras will give you innings, whether he's bad or mediocre or good. Also, we really don't have anyone even close to reliable who can take over for him at this point, and Kenny knows you can't try to pass a team off as competitive in a division like ours with three rookie starters (I'm including Danks here, for sake of argument). We're quite honestly better off seeing if he can turn it around even a little, rather than selling him off for nothing. Plus, Contreras HAS been bad. You think other teams haven't noticed this? They're not going to offer us anything anywhere NEAR valuable for him. Likewise, if Contreras was pitching well, you don't think we wouldn't be able to get a nice package for him from some team? How exactly does salary make a big difference here? Whether Contreras was making league minimum or his current salary, no one would want him unless he was good. And sure, staying competitive year in and year out is partially due to flexibility, unless you have a bottomless payroll. I recognize that. How does flexibility affect the product we see on the field, though? It's not hitting home runs or striking people out -- it's strictly a measure of what the Sox can do NEXT year, or perhaps at the trade deadline. I'm far more concerned with the team's current performance, and I'd expect that's how most other fans feel as well. Also, doesn't flexibility also apply to non-monetary values, such as player age, the possibility that said player will get better / stay the same, and the number of years we control said player? I think that in the view of the fans, these variables are far more important than how much a player makes. In the long run, I guess what I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be looking at not signing Torii Hunter (for example) as a good move because the Sox saved $18 million a year. We should look at it as a good move because we don't have to watch a career .793 OPS player regress to that level, then decline further both offensively and defensively for the next 5 years. Likewise, we shouldn't look at obtaining Swisher as a good move because he's much cheaper. We should look at it as a good move because we obtained a player who's entering the prime of his career, is under our control for 4 years, and projects to easily put up an OPS over .850 during this time. Make sense?