... and Smoltz is Not Far Behind

[BSN07]

•John Smoltz told Dan Patrick that the Yankees and Dodgers also courted him.

[diony]

I think the price was too high for them.

[BSN07]

I think the price was too high for them.

 

 

 

 

Hands down, funniest thing you have ever said.

[riverside sluggers]

There's your sign

[Dipre]

I think the price was too high for them.

 

Now that's what i call a punchline.

[TheKilo]

Take the $5.5 million for Smoltz and $ 5 million for Penny and compare it to $13 million for Derek Lowe who will take the ball 35 times.

 

Or - take one year deals from Penny and Smoltz and offer yourself the flexibility of going after a guy like Josh Beckett, Brandon Webb, Erik Bedard, Rich Harden, Tim Hudson, John Lackey, or Cliff Lee for 2010 - and if the market goes the way it is then their deals could be at a lower than expected value.

[TheKilo]

Am I supposed to get excited when the Sox have signed three players -- two pitchers who combined to make 22 starts in 2008 (and one is 41 yrs old) and the OFer played in 28 games in 2008 and 35 in 2007 and has a mystery disease? Is there really reason to be optimistic about these guys?

 

Yes because the deals are peanuts to the Red Sox and all have potentially high rewards....think of them as lottery tickets. If one gets paid off it makes the investment in all three (four if you count Saito).

[a700hitter]

Yes because the deals are peanuts to the Red Sox and all have potentially high rewards....think of them as lottery tickets. If one gets paid off it makes the investment in all three (four if you count Saito).

I don't get excited when I buy a lottery ticket, no matter how large the jackpot, and I certainly don't get more excited if I buy 4 tickets. IMO the lottery is a suckers game.

[TheKilo]

I don't get excited when I buy a lottery ticket' date=' no matter how large the jackpot, and I certainly don't get more excited if I buy 4 tickets. IMO the lottery is a suckers game.[/quote']

 

Lottery tickets were used as an example, these obviously have a much higher chance of working out for the Sox.

 

And you also didn't respond to my other post.

[italstallianion]

For the record, Baldelli was originally diagnosed with a mitochondrial disorder, one that is more severe (often fatal) and harder to treat. Now, he was diagnosed with a different disease, one that is much less severe and one that is much more treatable. I'm not saying that because of this diagnosis, that Baldelli will spend more time on the field, but the odds are much more likely in his and the Red Sox's favor.

 

Besides, with all of those players, it makes the impact of losing them less severe. I'd rather have Penny/Smoltz/Baldelli/Saito go down than Burnett/Chamberlain.

 

It's similar to the principle of diversifying a stock portfolio. Even though the individual pieces may be risky, the combined probability of all pieces going down is so diminished that it's almost not even considered. I'd bet on Burnett going down before multiple of the Sox arms. Heck, that's the reason for the depth in the first place.

 

Although I don't consider myself a gambling man, I very much like theKilo's example.

[a700hitter]

Lottery tickets were used as an example, these obviously have a much higher chance of working out for the Sox.

 

And you also didn't respond to my other post.

If the three pitchers total less than 10 wins, these acquisitions will be a resounding failure, If they win more than 10 but less than 15 games, they'll have gotten equal value in return for the cheap signing price. These are the most like scenarios, so I am not excited.

[a700hitter]

Or - take one year deals from Penny and Smoltz and offer yourself the flexibility of going after a guy like Josh Beckett' date=' Brandon Webb, Erik Bedard, Rich Harden, Tim Hudson, John Lackey, or Cliff Lee for 2010 - and if the market goes the way it is then their deals could be at a lower than expected value.[/quote']It is the job of the FO to look ahead, but I have no idea about their FA plans. They can't say anything at this time, because that would be tampering. We'll only know for sure if this was their plan from this juncture if and when they sign one or more of these guys. Right now, we don't know their plans. It's pointless to speculate about their future plans to make ourselves feel better about signing these broken down war horses.

[italstallianion]

If the three pitchers total less than 10 wins' date=' these acquisitions will be a resounding failure, If they win more than 10 but less than 15 games, they'll have gotten equal value in return for the cheap signing price. These are the most like scenarios, so I am not excited.[/quote']

 

 

That's not particularly fair because Saito isn't (most likely) going to be a starter. So I'd adjust those numbers a bit. I'd also focus more on innings pitched, ERA, and games played rather than wins, as wins are one of the most dodgy and misleading stats of them all. The opponent played, venue, and bullpen all play a huge factor in the win statistic so it really is quite misleading.

 

Anyway, I see Smoltz/Penny spending some time in relief, but Saito is mainly a reliever, so it's not fair to count him in your win tally.

[Dipre]

That's not particularly fair because Saito isn't (most likely) going to be a starter. So I'd adjust those numbers a bit. I'd also focus more on innings pitched' date=' ERA, and games played rather than wins, as [b']wins are one of the most dodgy and misleading stats of them all. [/b]The opponent played, venue, and bullpen all play a huge factor in the win statistic so it really is quite misleading.

 

Anyway, I see Smoltz/Penny spending some time in relief, but Saito is mainly a reliever, so it's not fair to count him in your win tally.

 

I'm sure a700 knows this, so i fail to see the logic of using wins instead of a more reliable statistic.

[a700hitter]

That's not particularly fair because Saito isn't (most likely) going to be a starter. So I'd adjust those numbers a bit. I'd also focus more on innings pitched, ERA, and games played rather than wins, as wins are one of the most dodgy and misleading stats of them all. The opponent played, venue, and bullpen all play a huge factor in the win statistic so it really is quite misleading.

 

Anyway, I see Smoltz/Penny spending some time in relief, but Saito is mainly a reliever, so it's not fair to count him in your win tally.

I realize that Saito will not be expected to get wins. Penny and Smoltz are paid to put up W's. I stand by my prior statement. Any wins Saito gets will be a bonus.

[example1]

If the three pitchers total less than 10 wins' date=' these acquisitions will be a resounding failure, If they win more than 10 but less than 15 games, they'll have gotten equal value in return for the cheap signing price. These are the most like scenarios, so I am not excited.[/quote']

 

Why 10 wins? Why not 9 or 12, or 13? How come your numbers are so round and 5-ish?

 

Did you just pull them out of the air?

 

Your use of the word 'failure' without taking into account the cost of the wins compared to wins purchased throughout the rest of baseball, or the impact of those wins seems on the team, or the impact of players like Smoltz on younger players (for better or worse) seems a bit strange. If Penny and Smoltz only get 9 wins between them, but 4 of them are in the playoffs and the Sox win the WS would it still be a 'resounding failure'? I don't think so.

[Dipre]

I realize that Saito will not be expected to get wins. Penny and Smoltz are paid to put up W's. I stand by my prior statement. Any wins Saito gets will be a bonus.

 

So if Penny and Smoltz combine to give the team 22 quality starts, but only win 9 games, the signings will still be a failure in your book?

[a700hitter]

Why 10 wins? Why not 9 or 12, or 13? How come your numbers are so round and 5-ish?

 

Did you just pull them out of the air?

 

Your use of the word 'failure' without taking into account the cost of the wins compared to wins purchased throughout the rest of baseball, or the impact of those wins seems on the team, or the impact of players like Smoltz on younger players (for better or worse) seems a bit strange. If Penny and Smoltz only get 9 wins between them, but 4 of them are in the playoffs and the Sox win the WS would it still be a 'resounding failure'? I don't think so.

No, I didn't just pull the numbers out of the air. I should have taken the time to explain. It seems to me after this off season's FA pitching signings of CC, Burnett and DL that the cost of a good pitchers is about $1 million for each win. The Red Sox will be paying Smoltz and Penny a combined $10.5 million. If they don't combine for 10-11 wins, the Red Sox overpaid. If they get 11-15 wins, the Sox will have gotten what they paid for. If they do better than that, incentive clauses will kick in ratcheting up the cost. I don't see much possibility for the Sox to get good value from these signings.

 

BTW: If Penny and Smoltz were to combine for 5 wins by the end of the regular season, I doubt they would be getting post season starts.

[a700hitter]

So if Penny and Smoltz combine to give the team 22 quality starts' date=' but only win 9 games, the signings will still be a failure in your book?[/quote']With the Red Sox offense and defense, if they can't win a combined total of 10 games, they are a bust. We throw out a flutter ball pitcher that gets 10 wins a year.

[Dipre]

With the Red Sox offense and defense' date=' if they can't win a combined total of 10 games, they are a bust. We throw out a flutter ball pitcher that gets 10 wins a year.[/quote']

 

You undervalue the randomness of baseball, my friend.

 

They could arguably give you 25 quality starts and through cheer bad luck or BP implosions win just under 10 games, while the team won 15 or 16 of those starts, which is the real important stat, TEAM WINS, PITCHER WINS are useless, which is the point I'm trying to get at.

[a700hitter]

You undervalue the randomness of baseball, my friend.

 

They could arguably give you 25 quality starts and through cheer bad luck or BP implosions win just under 10 games, while the team won 15 or 16 of those starts, which is the real important stat, TEAM WINS, PITCHER WINS are useless, which is the point I'm trying to get at.

okay, I'll go with team wins. If the team wins less than 10 combined games in which Penny and Smoltz have a QS, the signings will be a poor value.

[Dipre]

okay' date=' I'll go with team wins. If the team wins less than 10 combined games in which Penny and Smoltz have a QS, the signings will be a poor value.[/quote']

 

Now we agree.

[italstallianion]

Likewise.

[diony]

25 quality starts? They'll be lucky if both combine to make 25 starts.

[Dipre]

25 quality starts? They'll be lucky if both combine to make 25 starts.

 

You need to read,sir.

 

I was using the number as the baseline to an example, so plz, read before you post.

[ORS]

How dare you question the relevancy of that post. He's a Yankee fan, so his baseball analysis acumen is absolute, just ask him. You see, we Sox fans are limited in our understanding of the game because we haven't won 26 world championships, or have you not already been told that by some other douche bag? Just accept his pearl of wisdom, bow, and slowly back away.

[diony]

How dare you question the relevancy of that post. He's a Yankee fan' date=' so his baseball analysis acumen is absolute, just ask him. You see, we Sox fans are limited in our understanding of the game because we haven't won 26 world championships, or have you not already been told that by some other douche bag? J[b']ust accept his pearl of wisdom, bow, and slowly back away[/b].

 

Exactly, back away you too dipshit.

[ORS]

Nah, I'll stay. I find the prospect matcing wits with you about as intimidating as the threat of a girl losing her virginity on a date with Soxfan#1.

[Cocos Disciples]

:lol:

[Dipre]

Nah' date=' I'll stay. I find the prospect matcing wits with you about as intimidating as the threat of a girl losing her virginity on a date with Soxfan#1.[/quote']

 

Lol