Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[BSN07]

I am disappointed that you have resulted to this. I don't root for teams because of their FO. Do you? I have attended more Red Sox games at Fenway' date=' Ft. Myers, Philadelphia, NY, and Miami than most Sox fans could ever dream about. I went to Cooperstown to see Yaz and Rice get inducted. Are you seriously questioning my fandom? Ridiculous. Perhaps you haven't noticed how I don't cut an inch of slack to the Yankees or their fans. So, let me get this straight. Because I want my team to win and beat the Yankees, that means that I should root for the Yankees? Really? You have just discredited yourself.[/quote']

 

No no no, I was not questioning your fandom. I would never do that. I realize you have a passion for your team. And I respect it.

 

It was more of a question to try an understand you. You know get some perspective on you, and maybe it will help me to better understand your views. Because it seems to me you cheer for the Sox, but you would rather they acted like the Yankees.

 

I'm also intrigued by your initial reaction. Very defensive, over the top, and "table banging" so to speak. When a simple " I'm not a closet Yankee fan" with a smilie would have been sufficient for the conversation we were having.

[BoSox21]

Easy. It was mediocre. A quality start means a 4.50 ERA at worst. Technically speaking, any pitcher with an ERA under 4.50 can pitch a quality start 100% of the time. In my opinion, a real quality start is 2 runs in seven innings, not three in six. Of course, this is my opinion.

 

Still, no one has convinced me that Buchholz is a star in the making. The only things that I've learned is that his career track is similar so far to Schilling [although they are completely different pitchers] and that he has a better fastball than I originally thought.

 

See, this goes back to the debate I've had here with others for years. I am more about the veteran players. Hughes, Joba, and Buchholz had more value two years ago. Why? They were PERCEIVED to be better than they have been. I'll take production over projection any day of the week. That's why I'm not that high on Clay.

 

Observe how you didn't back up your "injury plagued two years" comment

[Dipre]

Observe how you didn't back up your "injury plagued two years" comment

 

He also says this is going to be Bucholz's 3rd year in the Majors, when he didn't even lose rookie status in 2008. Hilarious.

[a700hitter]

No no no, I was not questioning your fandom. I would never do that. I realize you have a passion for your team. And I respect it.

 

It was more of a question to try an understand you. You know get some perspective on you, and maybe it will help me to better understand your views. Because it seems to me you cheer for the Sox, but you would rather they acted like the Yankees.

 

I'm also intrigued by your initial reaction. Very defensive, over the top, and "table banging" so to speak. When a simple " I'm not a closet Yankee fan" with a smilie would have been sufficient for the conversation we were having.

I tire of the question, which people raise because I disagree with people about player moves and philosophy. I thought that crap (you should be a Yankee fan stuff) stopped in 2007 when we spent over $200 milion on 3 players, won a World Championship and we were all happy. No one felt like Yankees. We still hated them.. right? It felt great to beat them... right? My response was detailed and passionate, because you said that you were serious when you asked the question. You said that you wanted to understand me. Would a simple " I'm not a closet Yankee fan" with a smiley have added to your understanding. I thought if you knew that I follow the team up and down the coast and that I attend events like HOF inductions that you would get a better understanding. I guess you didn't want to learn more about me, but you just wanted to tweak me. In that case, now that I understand wher you are coming from: I'm not a closet Yankee fan:D

[BSN07]

I can't speak for a700' date=' but I can speak as someone in the same age group. I've followed the Sox since the early 60's. This doesn't make me an expert, but it does allow me to make a somewhat qualified judgement with regards to trends. In general, most "can't miss", "blue chip" prospects don't live up to expectations. Yet with experienced players there is a track record. Is the majority of cases a proven track record is more reliable than projections.[/quote']

 

That's fine and I'm willing to acknowledge that part of the argument. Not just sweep it under the rug or flat out discredit it just because I wasn't there to experience it for myself, or don't understand it.

 

And if you want to use past track records as a measuring stick, judging how wrong typically a700 is when it comes to prospects(since I've been here, and I do enjoy his ST updates), but Buchholz should be a Cy Young contender with in the next couple years

[a700hitter]

judging how wrong typically a700 is when it comes to prospects(since I've been here' date=' and I do enjoy his ST updates), but Buchholz should be a Cy Young contender with in the next couple years [/quote']Tell me who I have been wrong about other than Pedroia. I challenge anyone as a liar if they expected a ROY and MVP in two years.

[BSN07]

Tell me who I have been wrong about other than Pedroia. I challenge anyone as a liar if they expected a ROY and MVP in two years.

 

Lester(Santana), Youkillis(Helton), I'm sure I'm missing some others.

 

But I would imagine I won't be the only one to reply to this request

 

We didn't expect ROY or MVP. We expected solid player who would contribute to a winning ball club. You on the other hand advocated more playing time for Alex Cora...Or whoever was the veteran IF on the bench.

[a700hitter]

Lester(Santana), Youkillis(Helton), I'm sure I'm missing some others.

 

But I would imagine I won't be the only one to reply to this request

My expectations that Lester was a couple of years away was right on target in spring training 2006, as he turned the corner in May 2008. When did I opine on Youkilis when he was a prospect?

[Sox Fan on Cape]

That's fine and I'm willing to acknowledge that part of the argument. Not just sweep it under the rug or flat out discredit it just because I wasn't there to experience it for myself, or don't understand it.

 

And if you want to use past track records as a measuring stick, judging how wrong typically a700 is when it comes to prospects(since I've been here, and I do enjoy his ST updates), but Buchholz should be a Cy Young contender with in the next couple years

 

I didn't say it was fool proof. But its part of experience. When stats were first being developed they were not anywhere as accurate as they are now, or will be in the future. I'll give you an example, in my younger years, I owned, raced and gambled on greyhounds.

I was pretty good at it. What I found was that to be somewhat successful you needed an edge. Meaning the more quality information I could obtain the better I was. Most people would buy the racing program and attempt to "handicap" from there. What I found was that the comments in the program were not always accurate, also that the track conditions, health of the kennel, post position, my experience, grade of the dog, and odds would all have an effect on the outcome. I did much better than the average bettor. The same is somwhat true withregards to prospects vs vetererns. I've just seen way to many projected studs not make it. On the other hand, maybe I just want to go with more or a sure thing because I don't have a lot of years left to waste.

[BSN07]

My expectations that Lester was a couple of years away was right on target in spring training 2006' date=' as he turned the corner in May 2008. When did I opine on Youkilis when he was a prospect?[/quote']

 

 

If I said prospects, it was an error on my part. I didn't mean to distinguish them like that.

 

I meant, it's the young more unproven guy vs the veteran guy.

[BSN07]

I didn't say it was fool proof. But its part of experience. When stats were first being developed they were not anywhere as accurate as they are now, or will be in the future. I'll give you an example, in my younger years, I owned, raced and gambled on greyhounds.

I was pretty good at it. What I found was that to be somewhat successful you needed an edge. Meaning the more quality information I could obtain the better I was. Most people would buy the racing program and attempt to "handicap" from there. What I found was that the comments in the program were not always accurate, also that the track conditions, health of the kennel, post position, my experience, grade of the dog, and odds would all have an effect on the outcome. I did much better than the average bettor. The same is somwhat true withregards to prospects vs vetererns. I've just seen way to many projected studs not make it. On the other hand, maybe I just want to go with more or a sure thing because I don't have a lot of years left to waste.

 

Fair enough. That is a reasonable argument. But it's not what a700 is doing. He uses all that knowledge(seeing prospects turn into bust's), experience, all those trends he witnessed that have now formed his personal views for his argument. Then when someone else shows him stats, past trends, he chooses to ignore them because they don't fit his argument anymore.

[a700hitter]

Fair enough. That is a reasonable argument. But it's not what a700 is doing. He uses all that knowledge(seeing prospects turn into bust's)' date=' experience, all those trends he witnessed that have now formed his personal views for his argument. Then when someone else shows him stats, past trends, he chooses to ignore them because they don't fit his argument anymore.[/quote']That's not what I am doing. I don't know if Buchholz is going to be a star, average or a bust. He has the talent to be a star, but I just don't know. I am using my knowledge and experience to counter the opinion of some who are annointing him to be a star.

 

As for young players, I have sung the praises of Papelbon, Ellsbury, Lowrie (before the injuries), and Bard from the first time I saw any of them. I'd like to see Wakefield (44 years old) gone for some time now. How does that fit with your theory of my reverse ageism?

[BSN07]

All in all, like I said this isn't an attack on you a700. ORS, Kilo, Dipre, exp1 and many others usually call me out when I get a little out there. Which is fine, I certainly can get carried away. There very good at pointing out views I may not have previously considered, or even thought valid. But when I am presented with something that I can not argue except just out of my own personal opinion/view, I tend to normally at some point acknowledge that fact, and move on and learn from my previous mistakes. In no way am I saying I'm perfect by any means. But I believe by accepting and considering others thought out reasoning's, I have become more knowledgeable of today's game, thus hopefully making myself better poster to the forum. When I first got here I knew nothing about advanced stats, VORP Win share % or whatever. That type of thing wasn't taught or around when I grew up with the game. So I too didn't find them very interesting/important. But eventually I learned these are things to certainly be taken into account when forming opinions on baseball related matters. Really I'm just hoping instead of casting things you may not understand, or don't find important right now under the rug you could at the very least acknowledge that in today's game that these things may be important :dunno:

 

And if in the end you chose to still devalue someone's argument because of what you have witnessed, experienced. Please try not to belittle someone's time and effort by giving them the equivelant of Gom's "Because I watch the games" argument.

 

Again always nice bantering with you a700, eat some turkey for me

[example1]

Yes' date=' so let's use stats from pitchers in the 1960's to the 1990's to prove a point that Buchholz has a bright future. It's beyond inane. [/quote']

 

What part of this do you not get? Did I use those numbers to prove that Buchholz has a bright future? No. That wasn't the point.

 

I used them to prove that he isn't precluded from having a bring future merely because of his age.

 

Should I put this argument into some sort of logical notation or something so you can understand it on some simple, conceptual level? It seems so apparent to me, so blindingly obvious, that I struggle conceptually to step back far enough away to show you what I'm talking about.

 

Gom said people are drastically overvaluing Buchholz. He based this on the claim that no pitchers his age have started poorly and then gone on to do great things. He didn't say "no pitchers of the 2000s" or "no pitchers of the last two decades", he said no pitchers. Then he challenged someone to find someone who did.

 

This was not an attempt to prove that Buchholz would be like Halladay. In Gom's world, pitchers like Halladay or Carpenter, Gibson, Koufax or any of the other DOZENS of pitchers like that don't exist. I showed that they do.

 

To me, and many others apparently, this shows that it is not beyond the realm of possibility--as Gom attempted to argue--that Buchholz could still, even with his mediocre start, go on to be a star.

 

It does not answer (nor even attempt to answer) whether or not Buchholz is a star in waiting. It merely says that he hasn't been eliminated by historical precedent, as Gom claimed he had.

 

It really isn't that complicated.

 

I would challenge you to do some research on your own, but you have shown through years and years of posting that you would rather pontificate about your fantasy baseball prowess and years of watching the game than "waste" your time actually looking up numbers to support your claims.

 

You insult people who actually make this board a more interesting place, while adding virtually nothing to the discussion other than the Vaudvillian alter-ego, the yin-to everyone's yang, and it doesn't make this place better.

[THE ARS]

Jed Lowrie is going to start the season at AAA. This came right out of the mouth of Theo Epstein, you know, the Sox' Gm, that means they're signing someone to play SS, therefore, your assumption that Lowrie might start the season as the team's SS is a fabrication, AKA, made up stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

Where are the baseball examples?

 

Basketball and baseball are nowhere near the same.

 

Again, players need a developmental period, the fact that "you don't think" he needs a full year of minor league action means absolutely nothing because you don't know anything about player development, and even if you did, you've barely seen the kid play to come up with such "accurate" assessments of what should be his ETA.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/i/incavpe01.shtml

[Dipre]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/i/incavpe01.shtml

 

One out of the tens of thousands of MLB players, and not only that, from the mid-80's.

 

Where's the relevance in your example?

[THE ARS]

How is it relevant?

 

He hit 30 home runs as a rookie without spending a single day in the minor leagues.

 

That is the relevance. Certainly not the only guy to do it either, just the first that came to mind.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ottme01.shtml

 

 

Tom

 

EDIT: here's a few more for you.

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats9.shtml

[Dipre]

How is it relevant?

 

He hit 30 home runs as a rookie without spending a single day in the minor leagues.

 

That is the relevance. Certainly not the only guy to do it either, just the first that came to mind.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ottme01.shtml

 

 

Tom

 

Relevant to the current Minor League system.

 

Find me one born after 1960.

[Dipre]

How about you throw Teddy Ballgame, Pedro Guerrero and Lou Brock in there just for shits and giggles?

[THE ARS]

How about you throw Teddy Ballgame' date=' Pedro Guerrero and Lou Brock in there just for shits and giggles?[/quote']

 

They all played in the minor leagues, that is why I didn't throw them in there.

 

Again, here is a list of players that went straight to the majors since the draft was instituted.

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats9.shtml

 

Tom

 

EDIT: Cy Young played minor league ball as well, to whoever mentioned him.

[Dipre]

They all played in the minor leagues, that is why I didn't throw them in there.

 

Again, here is a list of players that went straight to the majors since the draft was instituted.

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats9.shtml

 

Tom

 

None of them after 2000, and none of them has started his life or his career in Cuba.

 

You catching my drift?

 

You really think Iglesias could make both the cultural and playing level jump to play in the Majors in 2010?

 

That is laughable.

 

Oh, and Prieto was an absolute, total bust.

[Gom]

I can't speak for a700' date=' but I can speak as someone in the same age group. I've followed the Sox since the early 60's. This doesn't make me an expert, but it does allow me to make a somewhat qualified judgement with regards to trends. In general, most "can't miss", "blue chip" prospects don't live up to expectations. Yet with experienced players there is a track record. Is the majority of cases a proven track record is more reliable than projections.[/quote']

Bingo. Thank you.

 

Look example1, I'm not saying that Buchholz is a huge pile of suck. I asked this board to come up with one pitcher who had a similar track record, and you found one in Schilling. Good job.

 

However, like I said, and SFOC concurs, that most "can't miss" or "blue chip" prospects do not live up to expectations. Also, like he stated, with with experienced players, there is a track record, and that in the majority of cases, a proven track record is more reliable than projections.

 

Those are SFOC's words....and what I've been saying all along. As you guys get older, and more experienced, you'll see what we've seen. A win today is better than two possible wins tomorrow.

 

Also, for the one who questioned a700's fandom....you're an ass. You're not even worth me scrolling back to find out who you are. First of all, everyone is entitled to root for his team as he sees fit.

 

Secondly, you moron, whether you like it or not, the Red Sox ARE a big market team. In fact, the second biggest. If you are so interested in projections and player analysis and scouting and development, why aren't you a Twins fan? Why root for the Red Sox?

 

The only reason I can see is that you're too retarded to realize that your front office has manipulated your thinking to believe that the only way you can compete is to trade/draft/scout...that you can't compete with the big, bad Yankees...so why don't you go to Fenway, spend your hard earned money on watching the Red Sox while they develop their players [i.e., pocket YOUR money], since they've already convinced you they are a half step from declaring bankruptcy.

 

All I know, is that so far, I've heard for 4 years how Buchholz is the real deal, just wait and see. Still waiting...

[Dipre]

Gom, there is merit to your argument, no one is denying that.

 

However, how you can't see the value of player development is beyond me.

 

The core of this team has come up from the farm system.

 

Prospects are not only ways for FO's to save money, but they're also important assets who help strengthen teams via trade for established talent, but when that established talent is about to leave its prime, overpaying for it is never a good idea. You, as a Yankee fan, should know this.

[THE ARS]

None of them after 2000, and none of them has started his life or his career in Cuba.

 

You catching my drift?

 

You really think Iglesias could make both the cultural and playing level jump to play in the Majors in 2010?

 

That is laughable.

 

Oh, and Prieto was an absolute, total bust.

 

How could I possibly catch your drift when your argument changes with each and every post?

 

You started out saying that every single player needs a full year in the minors.

 

You were wrong.

 

You said none of them were born after 1960, conveniently overlooking the fact that my first example was born in 1964.

 

Wrong again.

 

You said no players have done it since 2000 as if the game has changed drastically since then.

 

Come April you will have been wrong yet again. I'm sensing a trend here.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Stephen_Strasburg

 

 

Tom

[Dipre]

How could I possibly catch your drift when your argument changes with each and every post?

 

You started out saying that every single player needs a full year in the minors.

 

You were wrong.

 

You said none of them were born after 1960, conveniently overlooking the fact that my first example was born in 1964.

 

Wrong again.

 

You said no players have done it since 2000 as if the game has changed drastically since then.

 

Come April you will have been wrong yet again. I'm sensing a trend here.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Stephen_Strasburg

 

 

Tom

 

I just lost like 700 brain cells reading your post.

 

Every rule has its exception.

 

That little list you compiled IS the exception, and most of those players didn't go on to have the career that was expected of them, SPECIALLY PRIETO.

 

The examples the person i was talking about used was elite talent that has "HOF" material written all over them, i asked for that in baseball since the draft began, and you have not provided me with it.

 

You've provided me with a list of people who had "First-ballot HOF" tags on them and didn't live up to the hype, PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY WERE RUSHED TO THE MAJORS, that is why TEAMS DON'T DO IT ANYMORE.

 

The only thing i'm doing wrong is arguing with you.

 

You and bsox are the only people delusional enough to think Jose Iglesias is going to be the Sox starting SS in 2010.

 

My argument hasn't changed.

 

Here are the facts:

 

Major League players who have made the jump directly to The Show: Less than 1%.

 

Of those players, did many of them fulfill their potential: No.

 

Was being rushed to the Majors the reason they were busts: Most likely, yes.

 

Did they have the "Can't miss tag?": Yes.

 

Does Iglesias have it: No. He is an unknown quantity offensively.

 

Everything else is fabrication and useless argumentation.

 

Dipre.

[THE ARS]

I just lost like 700 brain cells reading your post.

 

Every rule has its exception.

 

That little list you compiled IS the exception, and most of those players didn't go on to have the career that was expected of them, SPECIALLY PRIETO.

 

The examples the person i was talking about used was elite talent that has "HOF" material written all over them, i asked for that in baseball since the draft began, and you have not provided me with it.

 

You've provided me with a list of people who had "First-ballot HOF" tags on them and didn't live up to the hype, PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY WERE RUSHED TO THE MAJORS, that is why TEAMS DON'T DO IT ANYMORE.

 

The only thing i'm doing wrong is arguing with you.

 

You and bsox are the only people delusional enough to think Jose Iglesias is going to be the Sox starting SS in 2010.

 

My argument hasn't changed.

 

Here are the facts:

 

Major League players who have made the jump directly to The Show: Less than 1%.

 

Of those players, did many of them fulfill their potential: No.

 

Was being rushed to the Majors the reason they were busts: Most likely, yes.

 

Did they have the "Can't miss tag?": Yes.

 

Does Iglesias have it: No. He is an unknown quantity offensively.

 

Everything else is fabrication and useless argumentation.

 

Dipre.

 

Again' date=' [b']players need a developmental period[/b], the fact that "you don't think" he needs a full year of minor league action means absolutely nothing because you don't know anything about player development, and even if you did, you've barely seen the kid play to come up with such "accurate" assessments of what should be his ETA.

 

Changed your tune, huh?

 

As for your "can't miss, first ballot HOF" nonsense, well I think you are wrong again.

 

Xavier Nady, 49th pick in the draft.

 

John Olerud, 79th.

 

Is that where can't miss first ballot Hall of Famers go in the draft?

 

"...because you don't know anything about player development..."

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

I'll let you get back to your nonsensical ramblings now.

 

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

 

Tom

 

EDIT: - Sorry one more thing.

 

"..that is why TEAMS DON'T DO IT ANYMORE..."

 

I'll bet you a six pack Strasburg is on the opening day roster for the Nats. Then you will be wrong again.

[Dipre]

Changed your tune, huh?

 

As for your "can't miss, first ballot HOF" nonsense, well I think you are wrong again.

 

Xavier Nady, 49th pick in the draft.

 

John Olerud, 79th.

 

Is that where can't miss first ballot Hall of Famers go in the draft?

 

"...because you don't know anything about player development..."

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

I'll let you get back to your nonsensical ramblings now.

 

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

 

Tom

 

Oh, so Dave Winfield, Prieto, Roberts , Clyde and Hooton don't get a mention?

 

Oh, but they don't suit your argument, pity.

 

You, my good sir, know nothing about player development.

 

The simple fact that you think that a player whose coming from Cuba, has to make a cultural adjustment, and whose bat is an unknown quantity can make a big league club without a game of minor league experience shows this thoroughly.

 

I think the pot meet kettle line would be better used for you and bsox.

 

Facts:

 

A) You have failed to establish a precedent for this happening because there is none.

 

B ) Your basing your arguments on a lot of over-hyped players and and a completely different system.

 

C) The fact that you're using a list of less than 30 players since the 60's when hundreds have reached the bigs since 2001 tells you about the powerful sample size you could conjure to back up your argument. Nice going, master of the sample size.

 

D) If players don't "Need a developmental period", then how come no one has reached the Majors straight away since 2000? Why did players like Joe Mauer go through the system? If they had to, why wouldn't Iglesias, who's bat is a question mark, not have to go through it?

 

Nonsensical ramblings is what i would say to the amount of stupidity you have shared with us through your last couple of posts.

[Dipre]

EDIT: - Sorry one more thing.

 

"..that is why TEAMS DON'T DO IT ANYMORE..."

 

I'll bet you a six pack Strasburg is on the opening day roster for the Nats. Then you will be wrong again.

 

I'll take you on.

 

Strasburg is going to have knee surgery, and isn't going to be ready come opening day.

 

Now that is what i call nonsensical rambling.

[Dipre]

Just for hilarity's sake, i'll mention that Nady played one game in the majors on his debut year.

[Gom]

Gom, there is merit to your argument, no one is denying that.

 

However, how you can't see the value of player development is beyond me.

 

The core of this team has come up from the farm system.

 

Prospects are not only ways for FO's to save money, but they're also important assets who help strengthen teams via trade for established talent, but when that established talent is about to leave its prime, overpaying for it is never a good idea. You, as a Yankee fan, should know this.

 

Finally...a decent post from you.

 

I do see the value of player development. However, I put less emphasis on it since I am a Yankee fan, and we can buy what we need better than any other team. To me, a farm system should be used to "feed" the major league club. Whether it is by bringing the players up, like Jeter, Mariano, Posada, Bernie, or Andy....that's fine. Whether using those players to get a Justice, a Swisher, a Chacon, etc., that's also fine.

 

However, and we can agree to disagree here, I, like SFOC, put more value in veterans with a track record than prospects who project.

 

If you get a chance to get one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball, and one that has dominated both the Yankees and Red Sox in his career, as well as drastically shifting the balance of power in your favor, for a couple of high-end prospects, I don't hesitate. It was the very drafting and scouting and development that allowed you to make the deal in the first place. Buchholz will never be a Halladay...ditto Hughes, and Joba.

 

It's no different than stocks, or any other speculative deal. Sell high, buy low. Every once in a while, you'll get burned...but baseball history shows that acquiring veterans for prospects is more likely to result in a win for the team getting the veterans.