2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[Emmz]

I know! Billy Beane's teams were more dominant but for a shorter period of time. I think he's a good GM, but Ryan was incredible, and very smart. Smith was just a fool, Ryan never made trades, and Smith demonstrated why. I think Ryan is temporarily stepping in, I wish he would make a full comeback just to fix what his guy destroyed.

[example1]

If the Red Sox are dumb enough to trade Lavarnsway they sure as hell better get a real No. 1 or 2 pitcher that can pitch in Boston and in the AL East or it will go down as another disaster by our less than competent front office. Ryan is a budding star. The guy has a cannon for an arm' date=' can throw runners out, something Varitek couldn't do anymore and better at it than Satalmacchia. He also has all the ability to become a solid right handed power hitter for us for a long time. It is just s***** that we are going to waste his development time by giving him the seasoning he doesn't need. This is the prime reason I thought that s igning Ortiz again was absolutely stupid.[/quote']

 

Lavarnway's arm isn't great and he's not good defensively. He's got a plus bat. Why do you think you know the players better than the front office? Why aren't they given the benefit of the doubt with their ability to evaluate talent?

 

Hell, your arch-nemisis Theo actually had the audacity to draft Lavarnway (the "budding star") but he gets no credit in your book, right? He's stupid and incapable of evaluating talent. Stupid 6th round pick.

[example1]

Re: dumpster diving:

 

Frankly, I would much rather a team be good at drafting or trading or developing its drafted players or choosing which FA to let go than at dumpster diving.

 

Ripping on them because they can't pull diamonds out of piles of horseshit with regularity seems a bit silly.

 

Why dive into a dumpster for a 35 year old d-bag when you can give a shot to a home-grown player who you hope will become part of the rotation/lineup for a longer period. That's kind of been their philosophy. Yes, they tried with guys like Wade Miller, John Smoltz, Bartolo Colon (who many cite as an example of success with the Yankees, right?), Jeremy Hermeda, yada yada

 

These 11 players cost less than the average "dumpster dives" when they first started contributing to the team and some of them have reached superstar status:

 

Papelbon

Lester

Pedroia

Ellsbury

Lowrie

Delcarman

Buchholz

Bard

Reddick

Lavarnway

Doubront

[Spitball]

Re: dumpster diving:

 

Frankly, I would much rather a team be good at drafting or trading or developing its drafted players or choosing which FA to let go than at dumpster diving.

 

Ripping on them because they can't pull diamonds out of piles of horseshit with regularity seems a bit silly.

 

Why dive into a dumpster for a 35 year old d-bag when you can give a shot to a home-grown player who you hope will become part of the rotation/lineup for a longer period. That's kind of been their philosophy. Yes, they tried with guys like Wade Miller, John Smoltz, Bartolo Colon (who many cite as an example of success with the Yankees, right?), Jeremy Hermeda, yada yada

 

These 11 players cost less than the average "dumpster dives" when they first started contributing to the team and some of them have reached superstar status:

 

Papelbon

Lester

Pedroia

Ellsbury

Lowrie

Delcarman

Buchholz

Bard

Reddick

Lavarnway

Doubront

 

Yes, dumpster diving is not a good practice if it is the only strategy for building a team. The World Champion Cardinals did a good job "diving" for Lance Berkman, and they should not be criticized for their dive. Any strategy can fail, but "diving" can be beneficial when money is tight.

[Emmz]

Well the Twins don't dumpster dive for everything, they built an incredible bullpen and good contact hitters and won with small ball. They built a good team, and while I don't think that dumpster diving is the greatest practice, it shouldn't be knocked. Especially when said team also built a good part of their team from the minors as well.

[Muggah]

Muggah' date=' a lot of us discussed Varitek on the other board for the past few years and we all agreed that if the Red Sox had not signed him after his pathetic 2008 season and again early last year that he would have been out of baseball. He can't hit after June, he can't throw at any time of the year, and for a supposed leader, was AWOL last September when some badly needed leadership was needed. I second it....GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!! And let's see if some other team signs him this time.[/quote']

 

The simple truth about the guy is that the only reason they put the C on his jersey in the first place was because they grossly overpaid for him back in 04 when they signed him to that ridiculous $40M deal. They knew they'd overpaid, just as they knew there wasn't the widespread demand for his services Boras claimed there was--so they put the C on his shirt and---courtesy of their PR dept.---launched this moronic, mythical garbage about him having these 'intangibles' through their army of media lackies. It was nothing but damage control over having overpaid for his services.

 

At the end of 08 Boras and Varitek rejected the Sox offer of salary arbitration, which would have guaranteed him somewhere in the vicinity of $10M, opting for FA instead using Posada's recent four year $52M deal with the Yankees as a benchmark. Not only did Varitek and Boras not find the similar deal they were looking for, but he and Boras found 'zero' interest in his services---I repeat, 'zero' interest. At which point he and Boras came limping back to the Sox only to find Theo steadfast in refusing to offer him anything more than fair market value. This resulted in a one year $5M deal with a club option for a second. The deal, btw, that Varitek called 'disrespectful' in the press.

 

Thus began this ridiculous series of sympathy contracts that have kept him here through last year, partially driven by 'comfort zone' endorsements from SPs like Schilling and Beckett, but predominantly based on continued reference to this fabricated ******** about 'intangibles' aimed at diverting attention away from the fact that his skills have eroded to the point of rendering him a liability on the field.

 

To be fair, Fred, Varitek had great years and deserves credit for the role he played in both WCSs. But his effectiveness as a major leaguer ceased to exist in 08. Add to that the fact that his entire 'Captainship' (I use the term lightly) was fraudulent in its conception, and you have a guy who one would think should be eternally grateful. But no, not this assclown. Instead this jackoff goes live on WAAF and arrogantly throws his former, and recently fired, manager under the bus publicly. If that isn't misplaced entitlement I don't know what is.

 

The simple truth is, Fred, that the guy, like his 'intangibles,' has been nothing short of fraudulent. Yet we continue to hear his praises sung by the hardcore ass-smoochers, pollyannas and tub thumpers. This is sad, but hardly surprising. And it makes me, at the very least, question their tacit understanding of the game they claim to love. That said, let's at least give credit to Larry and Ben for sticking to their word that they'd jettison if possible the major cancers infecting the clubhouse. Well done, guys. But don't stop here, Wakefield needs to go too---no more sacred cows!!!

[a700hitter]

Bellhorn, a Boston native, had a a good year in 2002 with the Cubs and one in Boston in 2004, but his career was marked by strikeouts and low averages.

 

 

 

Along with other similar phrases, the term has been around in baseball since at least the mid 1990s. Here is one from 2007 referring to Pat Gillick for whom the term was possibly first referred to by Peter Gammons.

 

http://crashburnalley.com/2007/12/13/dumpster-diving/

Wow! You actually took the time to Google "Dumpster Diving".

[a700hitter]

No such thing as low risk high reward or high risk low reward with an investment. The risk and the amount invested have an almost inverse relationship. That would be true of any investment. You invest a lot in Albert Pujols because he is a low risk. He should put up great numbers. He is a low risk low reward player, because reward or return is always measured in relation to your investment. His WAR points will cost you more than just about any other player, I.e. The return on your money is low. Fans tend to parrot propaganda from baseball FO's that is meant to get popular support for their moves, hence the use inaccurate terms In a misleading way.

[SoxFanForsyth]

No such thing as low risk high reward or high risk high reward with an investment. The risk and the amount invested have an almost inverse relationship. That would be true of any investment. You invest a lot in Albert Pujols because he is a low risk. He should put up great numbers. He is a low risk low reward player' date=' because reward or return is always measured in relation to your investment. His WAR points will cost you more than just about any other player, I.e. The return on your money is low. Fans tend to parrot propaganda from baseball FO's that is meant to get popular support for their moves, hence the use inaccurate terms In a misleading way.[/quote']

 

You mean "low risk, low reward or high risk, high reward", right?

 

There's definitely low-risk, high reward. See: Bartolo Colon.

[Emmz]

I disagree, if said player has a high ceiling and the amount you sign them for is low, that's low risk high reward. Garcia and Colon were, as much as I hate to say it, two guys who had past success, high ceiling, and didn't ask for very much money because of that.

 

Same with Beltre when they got him, that was actually just a steal of a deal, because for some reason everyone forgot he was playing in Seattle and still put up pretty good power numbers, plus his naturally excellent fielding skills, that was a low risk, very obviously barred injury was going to produce on the high reward too.

 

Same goes for Abreu when they got him on the cheap. I think any contract that's 10 years or over 20M per year is a high risk regardless of who it is, or how good they are.

[example1]

I think a low risk high reward move would be something like signing, say, Brandon Webb as the staffs 7th pitcher to a minor league deal. The high reward comes if he returns to his former self and either takes over a rotation spot or fills in with ace caliber stuff when plan A gets injured. That's just an example out of my ass, but it seems to fit my idea of the term.

 

It seems that hoping the low risk player can fill an actual necessary roster spot is, by definition, not low risk. That's why even guys like Beltre may not fit the mold in mind. They needed him to produce, which means there was at least some risk involved.

[VA Sox Fan]

;]"Dumpster Diving" a phrase coined by me in the offseason after 2008 [/b]to describe situations where the team takes a flier on a players that is damaged goods. In that offseason' date=' the Sox went into the Dumpster and came out with Smoltz (post-op shoulder), Penny (bad shoulder) and Baldelli (debilitating mystery disease). Dumpster diving usually refers to pitchers, because position players can more easily overcome injuries and return to their previous form. Damaged pitchers, especially old damaged pitchers are usually done. Beltre and Bellhorn were not damaged goods and don't fall into the category of "Dumpster Diving."[/quote']

 

 

Not according to wikipedia:

 

In popular culture

 

-In 2001, dumpster diving was popularized in the book Evasion, published by CrimethInc.

-In the television show The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack the main characters regularly dumpster dive in search of candy.

 

-Author John Hoffman wrote two books based on his own dumpster diving exploits; The Art and Science of Dumpster Diving and Dumpster Diving: The Advanced Course: How to Turn Other People's Trash into Money, Publicity, and Power, and was featured in the documentary DVD The Ultimate Dive.

 

-British television shows have even featured home renovations and decoration using salvaged materials. Changing Rooms is one such show, broadcast on BBC One. Recovery of still-useful items from discards is well known in other cultures as well; James Fallows noted it in his book written about his time living in Japan. However, much of the richness attributed to dumpster diving in Japan ended with the collapse of the nation's economic bubble in 1990.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I think a low risk high reward move would be something like signing, say, Brandon Webb as the staffs 7th pitcher to a minor league deal. The high reward comes if he returns to his former self and either takes over a rotation spot or fills in with ace caliber stuff when plan A gets injured. That's just an example out of my ass, but it seems to fit my idea of the term.

 

It seems that hoping the low risk player can fill an actual necessary roster spot is, by definition, not low risk. That's why even guys like Beltre may not fit the mold in mind. They needed him to produce, which means there was at least some risk involved.

 

Agree. A low-risk player is someone that you are not depending on at all, but has a high ceiling and if he approaches that ceiling, can offer very high rewards. If not, it doesn't matter because you weren't depending on him anyway.

 

Colon, last year for the Yankees, started out as a long relief pitcher. They weren't looking at him as a SP except for maybe their #6 or #7. Then, when Hughes went down, Colon stepped in and threw really well, thanks in large part to all of the steroids in his elbow.

[a700hitter]

You mean "low risk, low reward or high risk, high reward", right?

 

There's definitely low-risk, high reward. See: Bartolo Colon.

I did make a mistake and corrected my post. There is no low risk high reward nor high risk low reward in investments. Bartolo Colon was actually a high risk high reward asset. It was a real long shot that he would have a season like he did last year to say the least. His performance was a huge risk. The risk relates to how the asset will perform, not how much you pay for it. You pay less for a high risk asset, because there is a high probabillty of the asset not performing well. If the asset does well, the return in retion to your investment will be high, because you invested a small amount in the high risk asswt. Your amount iinvested has an inverse relationship to the risk of the asset. The riskir the asset, the smaller the investment. The less risky the asset the more people will invest in ti. The fact that an investor will invest a small amount in a risky asset doesn't convert the asset into a low risk asset.

[Emmz]

I think a low risk high reward move would be something like signing, say, Brandon Webb as the staffs 7th pitcher to a minor league deal. The high reward comes if he returns to his former self and either takes over a rotation spot or fills in with ace caliber stuff when plan A gets injured. That's just an example out of my ass, but it seems to fit my idea of the term.

 

It seems that hoping the low risk player can fill an actual necessary roster spot is, by definition, not low risk. That's why even guys like Beltre may not fit the mold in mind. They needed him to produce, which means there was at least some risk involved.

 

I think the low risk is the financial risk when you're talking about these types of deals though.

 

There's a risk not to produce for every player, even someone as proven as Pujols could get hurt or something and fail to produce.

[Emmz]

I did make a mistake and corrected my post. There is no low risk high reward nor high risk low reward in investments. Bartolo Colon was actually a high risk high reward asset. It was a real long shot that he would have a season like he did last year to say the least. His performance was a huge risk. The risk relates to how the asset will perform' date=' not how much you pay for it. You pay less for a high risk asset, because there is a high probabillty of the asset not performing well. If the asset does well, the return in retion to your investment will be high, because you invested a small amount in the high risk asswt. Your amount iinvested has an inverse relationship to the risk of the asset. The riskir the asset, the smaller the investment. The less risky the asset the more people will invest in ti. The fact that an investor will invest a small amount in a risky asset doesn't convert the asset into a low risk asset.[/quote']

 

That's only from the performance POV. There is no risk in that though, if they fail you get rid of them because he costed less than the stuff the Steinbrenners wipe their asses with.

 

I don't see how it's a risk that they don't produce, that's the reward, not the risk.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I did make a mistake and corrected my post. There is no low risk high reward nor high risk low reward in investments. Bartolo Colon was actually a high risk high reward asset. It was a real long shot that he would have a season like he did last year to say the least. His performance was a huge risk. The risk relates to how the asset will perform' date=' not how much you pay for it. You pay less for a high risk asset, because there is a high probabillty of the asset not performing well. If the asset does well, the return in retion to your investment will be high, because you invested a small amount in the high risk asswt. Your amount iinvested has an inverse relationship to the risk of the asset. The riskir the asset, the smaller the investment. The less risky the asset the more people will invest in ti. The fact that an investor will invest a small amount in a risky asset doesn't convert the asset into a low risk asset.[/quote']

 

I disagree. The Yankees were not at all dependent (going into the season) on Colon. Sure, it turned out that they needed him, but preseason last year, he was with the likes of Mark Prior. They paid him next to nothing, expected nothing, and hoped for a rebound. Extremely low risk because they were risking nothing. Extremely high reward because if he bounced back to his old self, he would post a 3.5 ERA in the East (which he did for the majority of the season).

[a700hitter]

 

Not according to wikipedia:

 

In popular culture

 

-In 2001, dumpster diving was popularized in the book Evasion, published by CrimethInc.

-In the television show The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack the main characters regularly dumpster dive in search of candy.

 

-Author John Hoffman wrote two books based on his own dumpster diving exploits; The Art and Science of Dumpster Diving and Dumpster Diving: The Advanced Course: How to Turn Other People's Trash into Money, Publicity, and Power, and was featured in the documentary DVD The Ultimate Dive.

 

-British television shows have even featured home renovations and decoration using salvaged materials. Changing Rooms is one such show, broadcast on BBC One. Recovery of still-useful items from discards is well known in other cultures as well; James Fallows noted it in his book written about his time living in Japan. However, much of the richness attributed to dumpster diving in Japan ended with the collapse of the nation's economic bubble in 1990.

Wow! You googled it too lol: Milton Berle could never make it today, because he stole all of his material. He would be quickly outed by the internet police. As with Berle, my remarks are mostly tongue in cheek jokes, but by all means use your time to verify them. Maybe you should research my royal lineage as well.

[Emmz]

Wow! You googled it too lol: Milton Berle could never make it today' date=' because he stole all of his material. He would be quickly outed by the internet police. As with Berle, my remarks are mostly tongue in cheek jokes, but by all means use your time to verify them. Maybe you should research my royal lineage as well. [/quote']

 

I'm going to get a timeline of the usage of this phrase.

 

As for the royal lineage, I believe it started with that batting crown you won, back when you were a 700 hitter.

[Spitball]

Wow! You actually took the time to Google "Dumpster Diving".

 

I love Google and I'm a fast googler!

[a700hitter]

I disagree. The Yankees were not at all dependent (going into the season) on Colon. Sure' date=' it turned out that they needed him, but preseason last year, he was with the likes of Mark Prior. They paid him next to nothing, expected nothing, and hoped for a rebound. Extremely low risk because they were risking nothing. Extremely high reward because if he bounced back to his old self, he would post a 3.5 ERA in the East (which he did for the majority of the season).[/quote']I am not saying that your take is not logical. The amount invested ; I.e. Put at risk was small. That is where you are getting the low risk language, but the amount you does not define the risk profile of the asset. The risk relates to the performance of the asset, not the cost. If an investment house or other financial institution marketed investments as low risk high reward the SEC would revoke their licenses.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I am not saying that your take is not logical. The amount invested ; I.e. Put at risk was small. That is where you are getting the low risk language' date=' but the amount you does not define the risk profile of the asset. The risk relates to the performance of the asset, not the cost. If an investment house or other financial institution marketed investments as low risk high reward the SEC would revoke their licenses.[/quote']

 

We're basically arguing two different things. I'm arguing personal risk, i.e. against personal property. You're arguing asset risk.

 

I can see it from both views, and neither is wrong.

[VA Sox Fan]

Wow! You googled it too lol: Milton Berle could never make it today' date=' because he stole all of his material. He would be quickly outed by the internet police. As with Berle, my remarks are mostly tongue in cheek jokes, but by all means use your time to verify them. Maybe you should research my royal lineage as well. [/quote']

 

I meant to google it the first fews times that you mentioned that you "coined the phrase" dumpster diving. I never got the impression you were joking about it so had to give you s***. And Milton Berle couldn't make it today b/c he's deceased;)

[Emmz]

Who the f*** is Milton Berle, you old farts.

[a700hitter]

We're basically arguing two different things. I'm arguing personal risk, i.e. against personal property. You're arguing asset risk.

 

I can see it from both views, and neither is wrong.

It's still not correct from a personal risk profile standpoint, because on any risk assessment, if the person is a low risk person the recommended portfolio allocation would include more low risk investments like fixed income instruments as opposed to stocks. Within the stock investment allocation similarly a greater portion of the investment would be in low risk stocks and a small amount in cheap high risk stocks. The high risk stock is still a high risk despite the fact that you have invested a very small portion of your portfolio in the high risk investment.

 

As I said, the use of the term is not illogical, but using it in a business context with regard to the acquisition of an asset (regardless of the type of asset) is at best an unknowing misuse of the term.

[a700hitter]

I meant to google it the first fews times that you mentioned that you "coined the phrase" dumpster diving. I never got the impression you were joking about it so had to give you s***. And Milton Berle couldn't make it today b/c he's deceased;)

Did you Google what year Berle died?

[a700hitter]

I meant to google it the first fews times that you mentioned that you "coined the phrase" dumpster diving. I never got the impression you were joking about it so had to give you s***. And Milton Berle couldn't make it today b/c he's deceased;)

You take everything I post way too seriously. Did you think I was really going to pay Emmz for her services with land instead of memorabilia?:dunno:

[jacksonianmarch]

I disagree. The Yankees were not at all dependent (going into the season) on Colon. Sure' date=' it turned out that they needed him, but preseason last year, he was with the likes of Mark Prior. They paid him next to nothing, expected nothing, and hoped for a rebound. Extremely low risk because they were risking nothing. Extremely high reward because if he bounced back to his old self, he would post a 3.5 ERA in the East (which he did for the majority of the season).[/quote']

 

He's relating this to economics, and he's right. A low-risk asset is one that is expected to perform and will perform up to your expectations. A high risk asset is one that has the potential to wildly surprise or disappoint you with the likelihood being in the disappoint arena. High risk assets are typically cheaper. Low risk assets are more expensive.

[VA Sox Fan]

Did you Google what year Berle died?

 

Nope, but I will and let you know

[VA Sox Fan]

You take everything I post way too seriously. Did you think I was really going to pay Emmz for her services with land instead of memorabilia?:dunno:

 

You are the self-proclaimed "know it all" I honestly thought you thought you coined "dumpster diving" sorry.