Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[Keeper]

You can't get plate discipline from using steroids.

 

Yes, you can. When your reflexes improve and you start to tear the cover off the ball, pitchers will take a different approach with you. And then you have to be more selective at the plate.

 

Barry Bonds was great at getting on base before he used. But look at what happened to his OBP from 2001-2004.

 

.515 OBP

.582 OBP

.529 OBP

.609 OBP

 

How did that happen?

 

Sammy Sosa is an even better example. Before 1998, .340 was his best OBP. Then, all of a sudden it was .377, .367, .406, .436, .399.

 

How did that happen?

[a700hitter]

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.

It's not circular logic. Any book about investments will describe the relationship of between risk and return. Low risk/high return assets really don't exist in a free market. The reason being that if there were available low risk/high return assets the demand for them would grow and the price would go up. If you want to point to an Ortiz, that is probably the best case you can make. Like I said, he was a good consistent paltoon player before coming to the Sox. There was little risk that his value would go down. The number of guys that turn out to be like Ortiz are very very rare. You don't normally see a decent young player who is healthy get released. It was a freak circumstance. Almost all of the other so-called low risk/high reward players are not that at all. Our FO throughout the years has called guys like Jason (the ultimate loser) Johnson, Brad Penny, John Smoltz, and countless others low risk/high reward when in reality they were just long shots.

[Dipre]

Yes, you can. When your reflexes improve and you start to tear the cover off the ball, pitchers will take a different approach with you. And then you have to be more selective at the plate.

 

Barry Bonds was great at getting on base before he used. But look at what happened to his OBP from 2001-2004.

 

.515 OBP

.582 OBP

.529 OBP

.609 OBP

 

Can you prove that different approach was taken on David Ortiz?

 

Besides that, if i'm going to guess he started using during his injury-plagued 2001.

 

2000 numbers: 10 HR's, 36 2B, 1 3B in 415 AB's, 47 XBH.

 

2001 numbers: 18 HR, 17 2B, 1 3B in 303 AB's 36 XBH.

 

Power spike much? Nearly doubled his HR output in 100 less AB's with just 11 XBH less.

[Dipre]

It's not circular logic. Any book about investments will describe the relationship of between risk and return. Low risk/high return assets really don't exist in a free market. The reason being that if there were available low risk/high return assets the demand for them would grow and the price would go up. If you want to point to an Ortiz' date=' that is probably the best case you can make. Like I said, he was a good consistent paltoon player before coming to the Sox. There was little risk that his value would go down. The number of guys that turn out to be like Ortiz are very very rare. You don't normally see a decent young player who is healthy get released. It was a freak circumstance. Almost all of the other so-called low risk/high reward players are not that at all. Our FO throughout the years has called guys like Jason (the ultimate loser) Johnson, Brad Penny, John Smoltz, and countless others low risk/high reward when in reality they were just long shots.[/quote']

 

Low financial/ High potential reward.

 

The premise isn't No financial risk/High reward.

[a700hitter]

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.

In analyzing risk, the monetary commitment needs to be appropriate in light of the risk factors. The more speculative the investment (i.e. the risk) the less the business will invest. The fact that a company limits its exposure to speculative investments does not decrease the risk of the investment. The risk or speculative nature of the investment is still high. A good business limits its exposure to such risks by investing most of its assets in safe-low risk investments. Investing $5 million in John Smoltz is good risk management, because they have not devoted too much of the payroll to a risky investment. The asset, i.e., Smoltz, is still a high risk asset because he had a small probability of succeeding.

[a700hitter]

Low financial/ High potential reward.

 

The premise isn't No financial risk/High reward.

Thank goodness you are a Lawyer and not an investment guy.

[Dipre]

Thank goodness you are a Lawyer and not an investment guy.

 

 

I'd be a fantastic investment guy.

[Keeper]

Can you prove that different approach was taken on David Ortiz

 

Since my conclusion is based on the premise that Ortiz started using in 2003 or 2004, and since you reject that premise, I cannot objectively prove it to you.

[Dipre]

Since my conclusion is based on the premise that Ortiz started using in 2003 or 2004' date=' and since you reject that premise, I cannot objectively prove it to you.[/quote']

 

No.

 

That's not the point.

 

There has to be some sort of evidence regarding your premise, like a power spike, which actually occurred in 2001 instead of 2003 as the stats show.

[Keeper]

It is entirely the point.

 

I would not necessarily say that 2001 showed a definitive power spike. He hit 18 HRs as opposed to the 10 from the previous year, yes. But he also hit 17 doubles as opposed to the 36 the year before.

 

There is a power spike in 2003. There is a dramatic power spike in 2004. Again, how did that happen? You have your theory. I have mine. Let's leave it at that.

[Dipre]

It is entirely the point.

 

I would not necessarily say that 2001 showed a definitive power spike. He hit 18 HRs as opposed to the 10 from the previous year, yes. But he also hit 17 doubles as opposed to the 36 the year before.

 

There is a power spike in 2003. There is a dramatic power spike in 2004. Again, how did that happen? You have your theory. I have mine. Let's leave it at that.

 

He had 100 less AB's in 2001 than 2000. Yet he nearly doubled his homerun output and had only 11 less XBH. If you don't consider that a power spike i don't know what to tell you.

[ORS]

In analyzing risk' date=' the monetary commitment needs to be appropriate in light of the risk factors. The more speculative the investment (i.e. the risk) the less the business will invest. The fact that a company limits its exposure to speculative investments does not decrease the risk of the investment. The risk or speculative nature of the investment is still high. A good business limits its exposure to such risks by investing most of its assets in safe-low risk investments. Investing $5 million in John Smoltz is good risk management, because they have not devoted too much of the payroll to a risky investment. The asset, i.e., Smoltz, is still a high risk asset because he had a small probability of succeeding.[/quote']

This is correct when viewing players in financial terms. However, they aren't financial investments, but contracted labor that is part of operating cost. Business risk is the risk that a company (Boston Red Sox) will not have enough cash flow to cover operating costs (player salaries). High commitments to player salaries represent increased operating costs and higher risk.

 

EDIT: This is all really semantics, though. You correctly described the reality of low risk / high reward not existing before the completion of the contract. Whether you call it high risk (of failure) / high reward (when failure is avoided), or low risk (commitment) / low reward (probabilty of value addition) is immaterial. Anytime a player outperforms the expectations of their contract, the expectations will be modified going into the next contract and be more reflective of their "risk" (whether you view it as high or low).

[example1]

This is correct when viewing players in financial terms. However' date=' they aren't financial investments, but contracted labor that is part of operating cost. [b']Business risk is the risk that a company (Boston Red Sox) will not have enough cash flow to cover operating costs (player salaries). High commitments to player salaries represent increased operating costs and higher risk.[/b]

 

The way baseball-economics generally work--as I'm sure you know--is that teams get maximum revenue by

1. Owning a television network

2. Being competitive every year late into the season

3. Making the playoffs regularly

 

These moves have been made from the perspective of a team that believe they have the pieces to win 95 games every year. Penny was useful to give them a slightly-above average SP when Dice-K sucked and Wakefield was down, but he didn't approach his best seasons. Same with Smoltz. They still won enough to make the playoffs.

 

I see these moves as low risk because they do not really jeopardize the present or future state of the franchise. Last year was basically worst-case scenario with regard to the low-risk/high-reward players and the team made the playoffs. If those guys had produced as they did in the past then the reward truly would be high.

 

Low Risk/potential high reward, that's how I would categorize it.

[26 to 6]

 

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

I think both would be good moves, although I'm unsure what Mets fans should expect of them playing in that ballpark. Defensively neither are anything to write home about either, but I think both are good, solid players.

 

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.

That doesn't mean anything. Barry Bonds said "test me everyday." Palmeiro insisted to congress that he never used. A-Rod assured Katie Couric that he never used. Why is Papi's word more credible and trustworthy than any of theirs?

 

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.

Half of players who failed drug tests since testing was implemented in 2004 insisted that it was over the counter supplements that triggered their positive. Should we just take their word too?

 

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

Because of the marketability of his golden boy image.

 

I'll say this...at least, in my opinion, Manny was good before PEDs.

Agreed. He was probably a HOFer without PED's, as was Bonds and Clemens, etc. It doesn't make it any better though. These f***ing guys were All-time greats and they had to go and tarnish it.

 

Yes, you can. When your reflexes improve and you start to tear the cover off the ball, pitchers will take a different approach with you. And then you have to be more selective at the plate.

 

Barry Bonds was great at getting on base before he used. But look at what happened to his OBP from 2001-2004.

 

.515 OBP

.582 OBP

.529 OBP

.609 OBP

 

How did that happen?

 

Sammy Sosa is an even better example. Before 1998, .340 was his best OBP. Then, all of a sudden it was .377, .367, .406, .436, .399.

 

How did that happen?

Got 'em there. While I have to agree with their point that steroids don't improve your selectivity and pitch selection, it does alter the approach pitchers take when pitching to you. All very good examples supported with stats. Good post.

[Dipre]

Wait are we talking about 700 here? No wonder he argues ******** so well

 

That was said by ORS, not me.

 

Got 'em there. While I have to agree with their point that steroids don't improve your selectivity and pitch selection, it does alter the approach pitchers take when pitching to you. All very good examples supported with stats. Good post.

 

 

Can you prove that different approach was taken on David Ortiz?

 

Besides that, if i'm going to guess he started using during his injury-plagued 2001.

 

2000 numbers: 10 HR's, 36 2B, 1 3B in 415 AB's, 47 XBH.

 

2001 numbers: 18 HR, 17 2B, 1 3B in 303 AB's 36 XBH.

 

Power spike much? Nearly doubled his HR output in 100 less AB's with just 11 XBH less.

 

*sigh*

 

Give me hard evidence of the "Different approach" taken on David Ortiz. Or is this an underhanded attempt at bashing him?

[Gom]

No.

 

That's not the point.

 

There has to be some sort of evidence regarding your premise, like a power spike, which actually occurred in 2001 instead of 2003 as the stats show.

 

How about a positive test.

 

Kudos to Keeper. Seriously. Acknowledging a player used PEDs when he tested positive.

 

How does it feel to be king of the mental midgets?

 

As a Yankee fan who acknowledges that players on his team cheated, it's nice to see a fan of my rivals believe the same.

 

Keeper...stop trying. If one of their beloved players was caught with a needle in his ass that was labeled STEROIDS, they wouldn't believe it. Take that same player and put him on another team, and he's a cheater for even THINKING of it. The old double standard. These guys can't and don't want to believe that their two championships was anything but ordained by the Almighty himself.

 

You have a better chance of convincing Jacko to trade every first round pick for the next century.

 

Irrespective...kudos to you.

[a700hitter]

The way baseball-economics generally work--as I'm sure you know--is that teams get maximum revenue by

1. Owning a television network

2. Being competitive every year late into the season

3. Making the playoffs regularly

 

These moves have been made from the perspective of a team that believe they have the pieces to win 95 games every year. Penny was useful to give them a slightly-above average SP when Dice-K sucked and Wakefield was down, but he didn't approach his best seasons. Same with Smoltz. They still won enough to make the playoffs.

 

I see these moves as low risk because they do not really jeopardize the present or future state of the franchise. Last year was basically worst-case scenario with regard to the low-risk/high-reward players and the team made the playoffs. If those guys had produced as they did in the past then the reward truly would be high.

 

Low Risk/potential high reward, that's how I would categorize it.

It is limited investment in a high risk asset. I agree with ORS that we are discussing semantics, but baseball FO's have it completely wrong. These moves can be accurately described as high risk/high reward or low cost/low probability of success moves, but they are not low risk/high reward moves under any sound financial analysis. The limited investment in these substandard/speculative assets is part of sound risk management by the team, i.e. if the moves don't pan out the team's operations will not be affected. That doesn't make the particular move a low risk move.

[Dipre]

How about a positive test.

 

Kudos to Keeper. Seriously. Acknowledging a player used PEDs when he tested positive.

 

How does it feel to be king of the mental midgets?

 

As a Yankee fan who acknowledges that players on his team cheated, it's nice to see a fan of my rivals believe the same.

 

Keeper...stop trying. If one of their beloved players was caught with a needle in his ass that was labeled STEROIDS, they wouldn't believe it. Take that same player and put him on another team, and he's a cheater for even THINKING of it. The old double standard. These guys can't and don't want to believe that their two championships was anything but ordained by the Almighty himself.

 

You have a better chance of convincing Jacko to trade every first round pick for the next century.

 

Irrespective...kudos to you.

 

Gom's idiocy, as usual, is easily shown throughout his post.

 

The point is, he probably did not start using steroids in 2003.

 

You don't have any way to prove he did, so as usual, you're talking out of your ass.

 

Kudos to logic. Certainly has been able to avoid you for quite some time.

[BruinsRob1987]

Well I am guilty of not paying attention much to the offseason.

 

However, I get the feeling we will be getting reamed by our owners again. How does a team in this market not make a splash since 2007?

 

Everyone is still warm and fuzzy from the recent championships and thats all well and good. But if the front office keeps this up we will be just chillin' in third place for the next few years.

[Dipre]

Well I am guilty of not paying attention much to the offseason.

 

However, I get the feeling we will be getting reamed by our owners again. How does a team in this market not make a splash since 2007?

 

Everyone is still warm and fuzzy from the recent championships and thats all well and good. But if the front office keeps this up we will be just chillin' in third place for the next few years.

 

Jason Bay.

 

Victor Martinez.

[BoSox21]

Jason Bay.

 

Victor Martinez.

 

I could've sworn those two were acquired via trade and not free agency, like the gentleman is alluding to.

[BruinsRob1987]

Jason Bay.

 

Victor Martinez.

 

Fair point. But I was thinking more of free agentcy.

[Dipre]

I could've sworn those two were acquired via trade and not free agency' date=' like the gentleman is alluding to.[/quote']

 

I could have sworn the gentleman was alluding to splashes in general.

[BruinsRob1987]

I could have sworn the gentleman was alluding to splashes in general.

 

My wording may have been misleading. The last 2 free agentcys have been very unrpoductive to say the least.

[Gom]

Gom's idiocy, as usual, is easily shown throughout his post.

 

The point is, he probably did not start using steroids in 2003.

 

You don't have any way to prove he did, so as usual, you're talking out of your ass.

 

Kudos to logic. Certainly has been able to avoid you for quite some time.

 

Ok, genius, when did he start?

 

I can't prove he did steroids at a certain time. No one can. No one can prove when Arod starting taking roids. Or Giambi. Or Shef. Or Barry.

 

Stop acting like you know everything, you don't know s***. My satisfaction is that your two best players from your championship teams were cheats. Without them, you don't win s***. Hell, you probably don't make the playoffs.

 

You know who hasn't failed a test? Jeter, Mo, Posada, Rivera, and Bernie. You know who has? Arod, Giambi, Clemens, Sheff, Manny, and Papi.

 

Last I checked...we won a few without our cheaters. Have you? Can YOU prove that he DIDN'T? No more than I can prove that he did. All we know is he cheated. I can't say I'm sorry that your "greatest comeback of all-time" was tainted. This isn't Dave Roberts taking PEDs. This is your big gun, who's nothing but a f***ing fraud.

 

Deal with it.

[Dipre]

Ok, genius, when did he start?

 

I can't prove he did steroids at a certain time. No one can. No one can prove when Arod starting taking roids. Or Giambi. Or Shef. Or Barry.

 

Stop acting like you know everything, you don't know s***. My satisfaction is that your two best players from your championship teams were cheats. Without them, you don't win s***. Hell, you probably don't make the playoffs.

 

You know who hasn't failed a test? Jeter, Mo, Posada, Rivera, and Bernie. You know who has? Arod, Giambi, Clemens, Sheff, Manny, and Papi.

 

Last I checked...we won a few without our cheaters. Have you? Can YOU prove that he DIDN'T? No more than I can prove that he did. All we know is he cheated. I can't say I'm sorry that your "greatest comeback of all-time" was tainted. This isn't Dave Roberts taking PEDs. This is your big gun, who's nothing but a f***ing fraud.

 

Deal with it.

 

*Sigh*

 

If you can't prove he started when he came to the Sox or before, then you can't attack the low risk/high reward theory which is what was actually being discussed.

 

You got so tangled up in your own stupidity you forgot what the actual point was.

 

It's ok Gom, it's what we've come to expect from you.

[ORS]

PEDitte? You have a smelly taint too.

[Dipre]

PEDitte? You have a smelly taint too.

 

It's hilarious how the point just flew over his head.

[BruinsRob1987]

They all are cheats. The 86 mets were coke addicts. The 86 Sox were drunks. Who really cares who's doing what anymore?

 

At the end of the day we all still watch and go to games so the real bafoons are us fans.

[ORS]

It's hilarious how the point just flew over his head.

But totally unsurprising. Anyway, PEDitte was there for all of it, and he can't get away from that.