ROCKET LANDS IN THE BRONX

[jacksonianmarch]

you honestly think Mo is finished?

[TheKilo]

And that is filthy. As for the bullpen, we dont NEED a closer. I know you guys are getting a lot of laughs out of Mo having a rough start, but it he is following the mold of 2005 almost to a T. Except that season, Mo started out rough right out of the gate, whereas Mo waited until the 3rd week of the season to have his little meltdown. As far as his stuff, Beltre hit a 96mph cutter that was up in the zone and had lots of movement. That was a tough pitch, tip the cap. Prior to last nights game, Mo had 3 scoreless appearances prior to it, and last night's appearance was a one hit knockout. Dont go thanking God for Mo's decline. He'll be just fine. If you want to predict his demise, wait until you see the cutter slipping into the high 80s. That is when he will be done.

 

No, I'm laughing at you saying the Yankees don't need a closer.

 

BTW, it was a nice flat fastball he threw to Beltre.

[jacksonianmarch]

do you think Mo is finished Kilo. Stop dancing and answer the question. See fights and crap for the thread I put there.

[ORS]

Is Roger going to be teleconferencing his developmental lessons to the youngsters? Last I heard, he got the same sweet perks of showing up on his pitch days that he got in Houston. Jus' sayin'.

 

As for Rivera, the meme of "he'll be OK" is an annual prediction from Yankee fans. It's held up thus far, but with advancing age the year it doesn't happen is approaching. If it's this year, and no one knows if this is the year or not, you guys are done.

[jacksonianmarch]

If he becomes an ordinary closer, and slips into the ordinary ranks, then we are fine. If he implodes like most older closers do, then we are done.

 

As for his teleconferencing thing, he said that he will be using the clause very infrequently and that he will be with the team for almost all road trips. He only wanted that clause in there "to protect his ability to be with his family". He also said in his interview with Sterling that he wanted to work with the kids and looks forward to helping their development. Now, I am not sure if Roger will keep his word, but we'll see.

[TheKilo]

If he becomes an ordinary closer, and slips into the ordinary ranks, then we are fine. If he implodes like most older closers do, then we are done.

 

As for his teleconferencing thing, he said that he will be using the clause very infrequently and that he will be with the team for almost all road trips. He only wanted that clause in there "to protect his ability to be with his family". He also said in his interview with Sterling that he wanted to work with the kids and looks forward to helping their development. Now, I am not sure if Roger will keep his word, but we'll see.

 

lol @ you taking Roger Clemens' word.

[jacksonianmarch]

lol @ you taking Roger Clemens' word.

 

I am taking it with a grain of salt.

[TheKilo]

I am taking it with a grain of salt.

 

So then you can't really claim he'll be a great influence to the younger pitchers, can you?

[jacksonianmarch]

So then you can't really claim he'll be a great influence to the younger pitchers' date=' can you?[/quote']

 

you can say that based on track record, he will.

[TheKilo]

you can say that based on track record' date=' he will.[/quote']

 

Like he was for the Houston pitchers when he left every day he didn't pitch?

 

(This is fun, by the way)

[jacksonianmarch]

Like he was for the Houston pitchers when he left every day he didn't pitch?

 

(This is fun, by the way)

 

Roy Oswalt has been quoted as saying Roger helped him immensely in his development, as has Halladay and Schilling. Oswalt was in Houston.

[ORS]

Roy Oswalt has been quoted as saying Roger helped him immensely in his development' date=' as has Halladay and Schilling. Oswalt was in Houston.[/quote']

Hahah. What help did Oswalt need? Oswalt finished 4th in the CY in 2002 before Roger joined the team in 2004, and Clemens was a full-time member of the team that year (2005 too). And let's not forget, Houston is right by home, so when they were home, he was home in 2006.

 

Man, the comedy just keeps on rollin'.

[adam123]

YANKEES STILL DONT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS . OLD PITCHING GETS YOU NOWHERE

[TheKilo]

Hahah. What help did Oswalt need? Oswalt finished 4th in the CY in 2002 before Roger joined the team in 2004' date=' [b']and[/b] Clemens was a full-time member of the team that year (2005 too). And let's not forget, Houston is right by home, so when they were home, he was home in 2006.

 

Man, the comedy just keeps on rollin'.

 

ORS has Bingo.

[Optimist]

YANKEES STILL DONT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS . OLD PITCHING GETS YOU NOWHERE

 

How many pitchers over 40 do you guys have? Typing in all caps won't change that fact.

[riverside sluggers]

3 pitchers over 40. Wakefield with his knuickler, who knows how much longer he could go

[riverside sluggers]

WTF, um Jacko you dont need a closer? Great way of trying to rid yourself of the bad memories this bullpen has given you. Yep that offense will be scoring 10 runs a game, starting pitchers will be hurling 7+ innings each, relievers will pick up scrap duty. October all the way, no closer is NEEDED there too

[jacksonianmarch]

what I am saying is that we have a closer. Mariano is our closer. And to think that he is going to suck this bad all yr is a bad assumption

[riverside sluggers]

I dont think he will be as bad as he has been to start the season, but the days of vintage Mo are in the past.

[Cocos Disciples]

what I am saying is that we have a closer. Mariano is our closer. And to think that he is going to suck this bad all yr is a bad assumption

 

You're right, it would be a bad assumption to make. However, what if its reality? What if for the rest of the year he posts a 3.50-4 ERA? In all seriousness, what happens then?

[jacksonianmarch]

You're right' date=' it would be a bad assumption to make. However, what if its reality? What if for the rest of the year he posts a 3.50-4 ERA? In all seriousness, what happens then?[/quote']

 

if he is mediocre, he is still better than half the league. The only way we are sunk is if Mo implodes (stays above a 5ERA).

[Gom]

[table=Mussina '95 vs. Dice '07]Name| H9 | HR9 | BB9 | K9

Moose|7.59|0.97|2.03|6.42

Dice|8.28|0.47|3.55|9.24[/table]

 

The big negative for Dice is the BB/9. But, like I said, the thing holding him back is the Mr Hyde inning which is characterized by an inordinate amount of walks. He doesn't struggle with command unless he gets upset by the ump, a lot like Moose himself only worse. Again, I've said it is the one thing holding him back. Of his 15 BB this year, 9 have come in 3 innings. That is the corner he must turn. If he can, there's no doubt he can put a seasonal line better than Moose did in '95. Moose pitched to a 3.87 FIP in '95 with those rates. Dice's is 3.26 right now. No doubt in my mind he can do it at all. It will take some maturation and a little luck, like Moose was that year, but dismissing it as not possible shows your complete lack of statistical analysis skills. Objective enough for you?

 

And this doesn't address the change in scope of the discussion. You started this out saying he doesn't have the talent. That's wrong, the talent is there, but it won't be seen in the results until he gets beyond the one flaw he's shown. Of course, you can't see the difference in talent and performance. They are related, but there isn't a perfect correlation between the two. Look at Felix Hernandez last year. Immense talent, but not very good performance. For the other side of it consider Aaron Small from '05. Not much talent, but insane performance for you guys.

 

 

No matter how sweetly you ask, I'm not touching your jock. Seek gratification elsewhere, you butt monkey.

 

 

Check my posts re: Matsuzaka. I never bought into the hype and was skeptical of how he'd perform until I saw him. I like what I see minus the headcase issue, but I'm pretty confident he can overcome that.

 

 

I think this is commonly found among mental patients. The rest of the world just doesn't get their brilliance. Might want to think about admitting yourself so you can find an audience that actually thinks you have a clue.

 

So basically what you are saying is that at his best, he might be as good as Mussina was in his fourth best season. I'll buy that. In other words, like I said. A poor man's Mussina. Reading is fundamental.

 

Next.

[Gom]

On a more intellectual note, someone please explain to me this. Seriously.

 

Why does anyone care whatsoever what a team pays a player? The only reason I can see anyone caring is that the funds could be allocated better if the money is better managed.

 

Do you really care what your team payroll is? No matter what team you root for, the Yankees or the Red Sox?

 

These are the two richest teams in baseball. I don't care what my team spends. I care what they do on the field. I don't sit there and analyze what Arod makes per at bat, or what Mussina makes per pitch, or whether a player is "worth" the money.

 

I mean, who really gives a s*** that the Sox are 18 cents over the luxury tax, or the Yankees signed Pavano to a 19 year extension?

 

This is part of what I mean by 99% of you buying into the media hype. I am disappointed in you guys because have any of you really stopped and asked yourself this question: "Does it really matter to me what my team spends?"

 

Like I said, with a finite amount of money, the better the funds are allocated, the better your team will perform. Fine. However, realize that this number is set by management, and we don't know what that limit is.

 

I mean really, did any of you think you would spend over $200 million on Lugo, Matsuzaka, and Drew in ONE OFFSEASON? Do you really care? What difference does it make to you?

 

Who cares if Lester is a better value than Clemens, or that Matsuzaka is overpaid, or if Papelbon is a bargain?

 

The only increase any of you may see is in your ticket prices. However, that percentage increase is so minimal to nearly everyone who goes to a game as compared to the funds we each allocate to our entertainment, does it matter?

 

If you go back and read this thread, or nearly any thread when it comes to money, in retrospect, it's idiotic. It's not OUR MONEY. The team, whether it is the Yankees or the Red Sox, or any other team, spends the money they can based on their revenues. We don't actually know what that revenue is, because none of us are privy to our respective teams finances.

 

The media has harped on the big bad Yankees for spending this and that. So what? They make the money. They spend it. The Red Sox [please educate me on this point, since I don't live up there] either have their own network, or are planning to. They added numerous seats over the Green Monster to increase revenue. You claim that part of the money spent on Matsuzaka is to open up revenue streams in the Far East. Fine.

 

So go ahead and spend that money. After all, it's not our money. It belongs to Henry or Steinbrenner.

 

This whole money thing is ridiculous. Please, just stop and ask yourselves....outside of the better allocation of funds, in other words, as long as the money being spent is strongly correlating to my respective teams performance, do I really care what they spend? In fact, would any of you care how much your team spends, as long as it spends it on good players who perform well?

 

I'd love to hear intelligent discussion about this point.

[ORS]

So basically what you are saying is that at his best, he might be as good as Mussina was in his fourth best season. I'll buy that. In other words, like I said. A poor man's Mussina. Reading is fundamental.

No, that's not what I said. I said if he turns the corner he'll be better. Even with his warts his FIP is better than Mussina's 4th best year. And the whole 4th year crap is disingenuous. His "4th best" season is almost indistinguishable from what could be considered his 2nd through 6th best. So, in essence, it isn't a poor man's Mussina, but a typical peak Mussina.

 

Reading is fundamental? Funny, this quote doesn't lead one to believe you'd think he could match typical peak. So, in light of the numbers not agreeing with your premise, you've backtracked. Don't worry, I never expected you to admit it.

 

Matsuzaka reminds me of a poor man's Mike Mussina, obviously in his younger days. A lot of pitches, not tremendously overpowering, a thinking man's pitcher. He doesn't have the talent Mussina had, not even close [i'm not talking about his Yankee years, I'm talking about his dominance when with the O's].

[ORS]

Re: the money issue. Personally, the only reason I care what they spend is for the same reason you do Gom. Finding value in one place enables them to spend to upgrade in others.

 

Now as to the justice of the system, I think it sucks. I hate the argument, "It's their money so they can spend it if they want to". In regular commerce, I'm in complete agreement with that philosophy. But baseball isn't regular commerce. Sure, it's a business and the owners want to make money, but the playing field is not level in that regard. Certain markets are greater sources of income, and the way the licensing and broadcast rights are set up it creates regional monopolies. Minnesota can't tap the NY or NE market. In normal business, this does not exist. So, due to these monopolies, certain teams will always have more money than the competition, and failure to provide restraint means the powerhouses will stay powerhouses through the might of their money. Not very sporting if you ask me, and when the business is sport, that is a huge inconsistency with the very fundamentals of what is being sold. Sports are about a level playing field for competition. The current system does not provide that.

[ryanromine]

Re: the money issue. Personally, the only reason I care what they spend is for the same reason you do Gom. Finding value in one place enables them to spend to upgrade in others.

 

Now as to the justice of the system, I think it sucks. I hate the argument, "It's their money so they can spend it if they want to". In regular commerce, I'm in complete agreement with that philosophy. But baseball isn't regular commerce. Sure, it's a business and the owners want to make money, but the playing field is not level in that regard. Certain markets are greater sources of income, and the way the licensing and broadcast rights are set up it creates regional monopolies. Minnesota can't tap the NY or NE market. In normal business, this does not exist. So, due to these monopolies, certain teams will always have more money than the competition, and failure to provide restraint means the powerhouses will stay powerhouses through the might of their money. Not very sporting if you ask me, and when the business is sport, that is a huge inconsistency with the very fundamentals of what is being sold. Sports are about a level playing field for competition. The current system does not provide that.

 

That is a very valid point. These owners and teams get more money also from all the companies that tattoo the stadiums with their logos and also naming them after them! That maybe off the subject, but if you look at any sport and compare it to an economy of a nation it makes sense with what you say. I would have to say that the NY and NE markets are monopolies. I feel like I made no sense with this post

[ryanromine]

http://www.talksox.com/forum/photoplog/images/2913/medium/1_yhst-63078155599514_1949_28602851.gif

[rician blast]

Very well said ORS.

[Gom]

Re: the money issue. Personally, the only reason I care what they spend is for the same reason you do Gom. Finding value in one place enables them to spend to upgrade in others.

 

Now as to the justice of the system, I think it sucks. I hate the argument, "It's their money so they can spend it if they want to". In regular commerce, I'm in complete agreement with that philosophy. But baseball isn't regular commerce. Sure, it's a business and the owners want to make money, but the playing field is not level in that regard. Certain markets are greater sources of income, and the way the licensing and broadcast rights are set up it creates regional monopolies. Minnesota can't tap the NY or NE market. In normal business, this does not exist. So, due to these monopolies, certain teams will always have more money than the competition, and failure to provide restraint means the powerhouses will stay powerhouses through the might of their money. Not very sporting if you ask me, and when the business is sport, that is a huge inconsistency with the very fundamentals of what is being sold. Sports are about a level playing field for competition. The current system does not provide that.

 

Valid points. For once. (Couldn't resist the dig)

 

However, do you really want a level playing field? Realize, with your money advantage, you only have to outsmart one team, albeit that team has an advantage. Would you rather compete with 29 other teams on an even keel, or have an advantage over 28 and a disadvantage with one?

 

No one is debating the fairness issue.

[ORS]

Valid points. For once. (Couldn't resist the dig)

 

However, do you really want a level playing field? Realize, with your money advantage, you only have to outsmart one team, albeit that team has an advantage. Would you rather compete with 29 other teams on an even keel, or have an advantage over 28 and a disadvantage with one?

 

No one is debating the fairness issue.

Are you a fan of baseball, or are you a fan of the Yankees? For me it's baseball first, Sox are who a root for.