Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[a700hitter]

David Ortiz.

Believe it or not, when he was released by the Twins, his past performance gave no indication that he would become the player that he is. The risk that he would be an offensive force at that time was very high. Don't confuse the dollars invested with the risk. Ortiz was High Risk/High Yield. He was one of those rare long shots that came though as a hit. It's like a lottery ticket. Most people would view the $1 lottery ticket as a low risk/high reward investment, because it only costs a dollar. And if you hit the lottery, it reinforces that misconception. A lottery ticket is a very high risk/ high reward asset. To prove the point that the risk is extremely high, most people invest only a minuscule portion of their assets in lottery tickets. Only an idiot heading for bankruptcy would invest most of his assets in lottery tickets. You can't mistake the low dollar amount invested for the risk. The risk is huge which is precisely why the amount invested is small. Ortiz was high risk/high reward. He paid off. Then he became a low risk/low yield asset and the FO accordingly invested a lot of money in a long term contract to keep him.

[riverside sluggers]

 

The Mets have interest in trading for Josh Willingham. They could certainly upgrade their offense without having to spend much, putting Willingham in left and signing Branyan to man 1st base

[Dipre]

Believe it or not' date=' when he was released by the Twins, his past performance gave no indication that he would become the player that he is. The risk that he would be an offensive force at that time was very high. Don't confuse the dollars invested with the risk. Ortiz was High Risk/High Yield. He was one of those rare long shots that came though as a hit. It's like a lottery ticket. Most people would view the $1 lottery ticket as a low risk/high reward investment, because it only costs a dollar. And if you hit the lottery, it reinforces that misconception. A lottery ticket is a very high risk/ high reward asset. To prove the point that the risk is extremely high, most people invest only a minuscule portion of their assets in lottery tickets. Only an idiot heading for bankruptcy would invest most of his assets in lottery tickets. You can't mistake the low dollar amount invested for the risk. The risk is huge which is precisely why the amount invested is small. Ortiz was high risk/high reward. He paid off. Then he became a low risk/low yield asset and the FO accordingly invested a lot of money in a long term contract to keep him.[/quote']

 

?

 

He had just come off a 20 HR/32 2B/.839 OPS season with the Twins. The Sox had no DH and decided to take a flier on a guy who had shown flashes of brilliance but had never been given a consistent opportunity. He had shown consistent high XBH/AB ratios in the past. The only ones who couldn't see the guy could hit were the Twins. That is, without a shadow of a doubt, a low risk/high reward proposition.

 

Same with the Mariners and Russ Branyan last year. That became a 32-HR performance.

[a700hitter]

?

 

He had just come off a 20 HR/32 2B/.839 OPS season with the Twins. The Sox had no DH and decided to take a flier on a guy who had shown flashes of brilliance but had never been given a consistent opportunity.

 

Same with the Mariners and Russ Branyan last year. That became a 32-HR performance.

He'd never been given a consistent opportunity, because he never proved he could hit lefties or the inside pitch. He was a part time platoon type guy that wasn't a good 1B and could only play DH. His value was not high, and while talented, the flaws in his game did not indicate future super stardom. He was an appropriate risk for the Sox to take, but he was not the low risk/low reward asset that he eventually became. On the risk spectrum, he was not completely high risk either. After thinking about it more, he was not really high risk. He was a moderate risk asset because he had a fairly consistent track record, so the Sox had no reason to be concerned that he would be a total flop.

[Gom]

No there isn't such a thing. It's a name that FO's have been putting on "longshot" deals to make them more palatable to their owners/management and to their fans. When making an investment as the risk goes up the possible reward goes up. As the risk goes down' date=' so does the reward. Our past low risk/high reward types like Smoltz and Penny were really high risk/high reward. You invest less in those assets because their returns are very speculative. The lower investment doesn't change the risk. They are at a high risk of failing. A low risk investment like a Treasury Bill will have a smaller yield for your money, but there is little risk (at least before Obama) that the government would not payoff on its debt. That is a low risk/low return investment. Most prudent portfolios have more assets invested in low risk investments rather than high risk investments. Mark Texeira is a T-Bill. His return is big but not relative to the huge investment. His return for investment is relatively low. He's low risk low return asset. For every win he gives you, it costs you a lot, but he is fairly certain to produce a lot of wins (i.e. he is low risk). Injured bargain basement guys like Smoltz, etc are high risk because they are likely to produce few if any wins, but if they do produce wins, the yield will be high because little was invested in them. There is no such thing as a low risk/high yield investments. Those are frauds as is this vernacular that Front Offices have adopted to describe low cost- long shot players.[/quote']

Why bother, dude? This is beyond most people's comprehension.

David Ortiz.

You mean Big Pa-PED?

 

He got good because like the Yankees clubhouse, it was a walking pharmacy.

[bsox0407]

You mean Big Pa-PED?

 

He got good because like the Yankees clubhouse, it was a walking pharmacy.

 

Except David Ortiz is the only player that MLB said that the test could be wrong.

[Rdsxmbnt]

You mean Big Pa-PED?

 

 

Gom, you are so money and you don't even know it

[Gom]

Except David Ortiz is the only player that MLB said that the test could be wrong.

 

Ha ha ha ha LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL!!!!!!!!

[bsox0407]

Ha ha ha ha LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL!!!!!!!!

 

i guess you missed that story.

[jacksonianmarch]

you really are willing to give Papi a pass here? Wow. Gullible

[bsox0407]

you really are willing to give Papi a pass here? Wow. Gullible

 

Why would a player say he would want a One year ban for steroids, be dumb enough to do it?

 

That is why I trust him.

[jacksonianmarch]

And that is why you are gullible

[bsox0407]

And that is why you are gullible

 

If it was Jeter who said when he got caught and backed by MLB and other coaches also believed him wouldn't you believe him.

[jacksonianmarch]

No. I wouldn't

[bsox0407]

No. I wouldn't

 

You are paranoid.

[jacksonianmarch]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "paranoid." Listen, these guys took roids and got caught. ARod, Giambi, Manny, Papi, Pettitte, Sheffield, whatever. Saying that the test was wrong instead of just accepting it is immature and naive. When you get older you might understand.

[bsox0407]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "paranoid." Listen' date=' these guys took roids and got caught. ARod, Giambi, Manny, Papi, Pettitte, Sheffield, whatever. Saying that the test was wrong instead of just accepting it is immature and naive. When you get older you might understand.[/quote']

 

When the MLB says it might be wrong and other legal drugs might have triggered a positive test. By the way i believe that you being Paranoid is the right way because it seems you can't trust anyone.

[Gom]

Why would a player say he would want a One year ban for steroids, be dumb enough to do it?

 

That is why I trust him.

 

Let's see...Palmeiro LIED before Congress.

 

Let's see...he comes to Boston, almost gets released, then has a miraculous turnaround...then finally he goes clean this year and sucks ass.

 

Nah...I believe him. Of course. Sure....I'll say this...at least, in my opinion, Manny was good before PEDs.

[bsox0407]

Let's see...Palmeiro LIED before Congress.

 

You cannot compare Palmeiro to Papi because Palmeiro has a totally different personality.

 

Let's see...he comes to Boston, almost gets released, then has a miraculous turnaround...then finally he goes clean this year and sucks ass.

 

Say he does use steroids, why would MLB have backed only him and no other player?

[Keeper]

Jacko and Gom are right. Ortiz took steroids. To believe otherwise is naive.

[Dipre]

He'd never been given a consistent opportunity' date=' because he never proved he could hit lefties or the inside pitch. He was a part time platoon type guy that wasn't a good 1B and could only play DH. His value was not high, and while talented, the flaws in his game did not indicate future super stardom. He was an appropriate risk for the Sox to take, but he was not the low risk/low reward asset that he eventually became. On the risk spectrum, he was not completely high risk either. After thinking about it more, he was not really high risk. He was a moderate risk asset because he had a fairly consistent track record, so the Sox had no reason to be concerned that he would be a total flop.[/quote']

 

If they had no reason to believe they were going to believe he was going to be a flop, where's the high-risk factor for a guy making nearly league-minimum?

 

Nearly no risk for him not to produce, nearly no financial commitment/High potential for him to outproduce expectations.

 

Low risk/High reward.

 

You can engage in circular logic all you want, bottom line is both he and Russ Branyan are examples of low-risk/high-reward acquisitions, both guys who, for one reason or another hadn't been given a consistent shot, but had an enormous amount of potential for putting up monster numbers, their potentials required minimum investments, and they both paid off (as i'm sure the respective FO's expected) big time.

 

By the way, i don't care whether Papi used steroids, it has no bearing on the argument, it's just another s***-flinging attempt at bringing down the course of the discussion.

 

It's honestly juvenile and annoying. Stop it.

[Keeper]

I think it does have bearing on the discussion. How did Ortiz become a low risk/high reward player? By cheating.

[bsox0407]

Jacko and Gom are right. Ortiz took steroids. To believe otherwise is naive.

 

Why did MLB defend him then? that is my only question.

[Dipre]

I think it does have bearing on the discussion. How did Ortiz become a low risk/high reward player? By cheating.

 

You think he started cheating before 2003?

 

He already had the power numbers. What he didn't have was the plate discipline or ability to hit inside fastballs, this has been acknowledged by a700 himself. It has no bearing in the discussion.

[ORS]

No there isn't such a thing. It's a name that FO's have been putting on "longshot" deals to make them more palatable to their owners/management and to their fans. When making an investment as the risk goes up the possible reward goes up. As the risk goes down' date=' so does the reward. Our past low risk/high reward types like Smoltz and Penny were really high risk/high reward. You invest less in those assets because their returns are very speculative. The lower investment doesn't change the risk. They are at a high risk of failing. A low risk investment like a Treasury Bill will have a smaller yield for your money, but there is little risk (at least before Obama) that the government would not payoff on its debt. That is a low risk/low return investment. Most prudent portfolios have more assets invested in low risk investments rather than high risk investments. Mark Texeira is a T-Bill. His return is big but not relative to the huge investment. His return for investment is relatively low. He's low risk low return asset. For every win he gives you, it costs you a lot, but he is fairly certain to produce a lot of wins (i.e. he is low risk). Injured bargain basement guys like Smoltz, etc are high risk because they are likely to produce few if any wins, but if they do produce wins, the yield will be high because little was invested in them. There is no such thing as a low risk/high yield investments. Those are frauds as is this vernacular that Front Offices have adopted to describe low cost- long shot players.[/quote']

What I can't figure out is why a lawyer who works for a large US corporation keeps getting this terminology all wrong. Blather on about classifying it the way you want as much as you like, but in contemporary US industry, the term risk applies to the monetary commitment. High risk means a large monetary commitment, low risk the opposite. You are confusing risk with probability of reward. These moves were all low risk (small commitment) / high reward (big payoff if they hit max performance potential) with a low probability of payoff, which is really low risk / low reward.

 

EDIT: However, you can't have a low risk / high reward payoff without low risk contracts. If you go with high risk contracts, you are more likely to get high reward. That said, when a high risk contract doesn't pay off, you end up upside down with a high risk / low reward contract (Carl Pavano), which can hamstring many teams.

[Keeper]

You think he started cheating before 2003?

 

He already had the power numbers. What he didn't have was the plate discipline or ability to hit inside fastballs, this has been acknowledged by a700 himself. It has no bearing in the discussion.

 

I think he started cheating when he came to Boston and met Manny. How does it not have bearing on the discussion? Ortiz didn't become a great player until he started using.

[Dipre]

I think he started cheating when he came to Boston and met Manny. How does it not have bearing on the discussion? Ortiz didn't become a great player until he started using.

 

Check the stats.

 

The power numbers were there. The plate discipline and lineup protection weren't.

 

Put two and two together and.......

[Keeper]

I already did put two and two together. He used and became a great hitter.

[bsox0407]

I already did put two and two together. He used and became a great hitter.

 

You can't get plate discipline from using steroids.

[Dipre]

I already did put two and two together. He used and became a great hitter.

 

Do you have any evidence he started using after 2003? No.

 

Do i have any evidence his plate discipline improved greatly when reaching Boston? Yes, in stats.

 

PED's don't give you the ability to improve your strike-zone judgement and plate discipline.

 

2002: .339 OBP, .49 BB/K

 

2003: .369 OBP, .69 BB/K

 

Which of those improvements came from PED's?