example1

FWIW, this thread is now the longest in Talksox history (most replies). That might be the most interesting thing about the thread.

Do you know what the Cubs payroll was last year? They don't have a small budget. They have a big budget with s*** results. The Marlins payroll was something like 57m last year. The Cubs were 134m in 2011 and 144 in 2010. Historically you expressed great concern when Theo chose not to spend money that you felt they should spend. I'm not shocked that you are consistent when he goes to Chicago. I still think it's a bad approach. They should get out from the really bad contracts and then increase spending with the right players.

Yes, they are a terrible, terrible team. Nobody is arguing against that. If they are going to be terrible it doesn't make much difference whether they win 72 or 77 or 80 games. Every dollar spent trying to improve from 72 to 77 games is a dollar wasted.

The Marlins are the manifestation of a rebuilding approach that has been going on for a few years now. They have the young core the Cubs hope to build over the next few years. They also don't have a loyal fanbase or any hope for good income without making significant changes. The Cubs and Marlins are at different places.

I keep waiting for the "just kidding" for this post. I mean, I'm sure you can find some legitimate experts who believe the Rays are better than the Sox, but Bleacher Report is just bloggers... it's people like you and I. If we count as "experts" then there's no point in citing someone else, just spout your own opinion. If we don't count as experts then neither does Matthew Dicker, the guy who wrote this one. Sporting News (Red Sox 7th, ahead of Rays): http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-01-05/mlb-power-rankings-angels-rise-to-the-top Buster Olney (espn: Red Sox 6th, behind Rays (1st) and Yankees) http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/olney_buster/id/7410087/behind-great-defense-dominant-pitching-rays-best-team-baseball-mlb Fangraphs (end of season power rankings) (Boston 3rd) http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/fangraphs-power-rankings-10311/ Fangraphs (2) (based on Las Vegas Odds for 2012) (Boston 3rd) http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/odds-for-2012-world-series-converted-to-projections/ Another Las Vegas bookie (Red Sox 3rd) http://www.therx.com/phillies-41-to-win-2012-world-series Do I put a lot of weight in these odds? nope. But you wanted experts, so I found you experts who think the Sox were a very good team at the end of the 2011 season and will be very good in 2012. Clearly it's not just a cadre of stupid posters on this site who disagree with you and the Bleacher Report guy.

I'm not going to respond to all the other s*** that has been thrown on this board for the past few hours, but I will continue with my discussion with iortiz. I suspect Theo's goal is not to build a team with highly paid stars who might have a year or two of success. I suspect his goal is to get young players in their prime who can win year after year, thus giving the Cubs multiple chances at a World Series. Currently, they have no "ace" caliber starters, they have no second tier starters. They have a closer who is very erratic, their best player is one of the youngest players in the league and they have virtually nothing to build around him with. The Marlins, on the other hand, (relevant to a700s posts) have a good core of young players who have multiple really positive aspects to their game. The Cubs don't. Josh Johnson, Hanley Ramirez, Mike Stanton, Logan Morrison, Anibel Sanchez, Ricky Nolasco, etc., are all more promising than what the Cubs have. It makes a lot of sense why the Marlins (who also haven't spent s*** over the past 5 years) would invest in their team, particularly with a new stadium. Not the same situation, despite similar results in 2011.

If I asked someone to take the time to explain a complicated concept to me--say, the theory of gravity--and I struggled to comprehend what they said, I would take it upon myself to read from the source material and gather from it what I could, rather than highlighting inconsistencies in those who did their best to explain the theory. I certainly wouldn't question whether the person who I initally asked to explain it knew the concepts he or she was talking about by saying "some claim to know this gravity concept...". Go read the book if you are having trouble understanding it. It is nowhere near as complicated as the theory of gravity. Having read the book multiple times, and having read about the influence of it and used it to increase my understanding of the game, I--like others here--contend that you misued the term, and applied it when it wasn't relevant to the discussion. Rebuilding and moneyball are different. A true rebuild takes years, and in the time that takes players still need to take the field. That doesn't mean those players are the manifestation of the broader approach. It's not an all or nothing thing.

Yesterday you were arguing that the use of "moneyball" was irrelevant to his post. Now it was right on the money. My brain hurts.

As ORS noted, I took your mentioning skepticism about the moneyball approach and the signing of cheap players as evidence that you saw the moneyball approach primarily as going for cheap acquisitions, particularly because there was no mention of a rebuilding process or the obvious likelihood that there will eventually be big signings. Yes, there is sabermetric analysis inherent in every move that Theo makes. And yes, the Cubs will undoubtedly be doing an undervalued assets analysis throughout. Trying to clear the field of their s***** players and contracts, or moving their better (not great) players for good prospects is just part of clearing the decks for a future run. I appreciate you explaining this ORS. Post more.

I think the Cubs are in rebuild mode. They will get rid of all their bad players and bad contracts and eventually make a huge splash or two to add the players who can put them over the top. A central tennant to any moneyball (or even intelligent) approach to building a team is to have a productive farm system. Draft picks were, for many years, an undervalued asset. The fact that the Sox could let a FA go, sign a comparable FA, and get a supplemental 1st round draft pick was something the Sox exploited over and over.

I'm not arguing that it is promising. I'm arguing that by just about any definition what the cubs or red sox did was moneyball only insofar as they were in the business of trying to identify and then capitalize on undervalued assets. That combined with deep pockets is what they do in Boston and will undoubtedly do in Chicago. There is no reason the cubs shouldn't be a yearly contender when it all gets straightened out and the awful contracts for s***** players are gone.

What does "moneyball" even mean in this context? The Cubs were a marginal team at best by any measure. Trading their best pieces for more than their value in young talent (who also happen to cost less) is a complete no-brainer. It doesn't involve OBP or really even undervalued assets. Is moneyball the new term for rebuilding with young talent suddenly? If so I'm afraid people have missed the point of the book and the many manifestations of that philosophy since.

Just to be clear, the new signings have been to minor league deals. Bowden doesn't have options. That means if they want to put him in the minors he has to be DFA'd, so someone else could pick him up for their MLB club. If he is as worthless as most think then nobody will pick him up and he can be placed at AAA. More likely another team will put him in their pen and give him a shot. None of this needs to happen before spring training so it's really a nonissue. He's on the 40 man roster... Big deal.

In terms of competition in the playoffs, probably. But in terms of competition to get into the playoffs, I don't think so. It would be fine with me if the Tigers just ran away with the AL Central every year and teams like Minn and CWS went into rebuilding mode. CWS has already said they are there.

A700 why does it hurt you to have Bowden pitching sub 3.00 era ball for the Pawsox? Why are you so against that?

Based on his 60 innings of mop-up duty, perhaps. Again, though, 24 is still quite young for a MLB reliever. As for the mechanics, they haven't forced him to change it, but as he said himself, they have tinkered with him on a yearly basis.

Mechanics are mechanics. You can tweak things, but if it is comfortable for a guy to throw 93 with a certain motion, he's probably going to be hard pressed to switch it up. Expecting him to come out looking like a textbook pitcher would be unrealistic.

Stop with this Gammons s***. It is both irrelevant and comes from a source who doesn't know what he's talking about in that regard. Bowden was drafted with Buchholz, who was clearly better. Nonetheless, Bowden was highly thought of when he was drafted. He was probably the best HS pitcher in Illinois, which isn't a small state or a small market. He had good stuff when he was drafted. He has the potential to be an MLB reliever and have a long, nice career. That's not a total bust and it isn't as bad as you are making it seem.

That's a great point SBF. Yet again, you are right and the guys paid hundres of thousands or millions to maxamize the performance of these superior athletes are wrong. Well done sir... Seriously, though, here's an invterview with Bowden from some obscure Red Sox Prospects site (http://news.soxprospects.com/2011/07/q-with-michael-bowden.html) where they discuss the multiple years of tweaking with his delivery and mechanics. Perhaps you should write to them and let them know that what they did didn't actually happen...

Bowden doesn't have any known arm issues. [table] MINOR LEAGUE | IP | ERA | WHIP | H/9 | HR/9 | K/9| BOWDEN | 690.1 | 3.19 | 1.155 | 7.7 | 0.8 | 8.0 | FOULKE | 531.0 | 3.58 | 1.153 | 8.6 | 0.9 | 7.6| [/table] [table] AAA | IP | ERA | WHIP | H/9 | HR/9 | K/9| BOWDEN | 324.2 | 3.27 | 1.170 | 7.6 | 0.9 | 7.1 | FOULKE | 92.0 | 4.99 | 1.326 | 10.1 | 1.5 | 6.8 | [/table] [table] AA | IP | ERA | WHIP | H/9 | HR/9 | K/9| BOWDEN | 201 | 3.27 | 1.164 | 7.9 | 0.6 | 8.2 | FOULKE | 182.2 | 2.76| 1.007 | 7.3 | 0.8 | 6.4 | [/table] I can't separate out the after-injury rehab innings for Foulke, or I would. It is very possible that Bowden is one of those rare guys who can have genuine success at AAA and be simply incapable of getting MLB hitters out, but at age 24 I see no reason to assume that's the case. He switched to RP full-time last season with good results: [table] IP | ERA | WHIP | H/9 | HR/9 | K/9 | 52.2 | 2.73 | 1.158 | 7.3 | 0.9 | 10.4 | [/table] And in his brief MLB stint last year he had 17 K in 20 IP. I understand people are writing him off, but the talent is there and he deserves more than 56 IP between the ages of 21-24 to succeed in MLB. It's just my opinion, but too many people are saying his career is a failure without looking at his track record. Hell, people are clamoring for the Sox to drop 10m on Ryan Madson who had a 4.37 ERA and 1.415 WHIP through his first 300 IP in the majors. Heath Bell: first 71.0 IP, 4.82 ERA, 1.366 WHIP Keith Foulke: first 138.2 IP, 5.32 ERA, 1.313 WHIP I'm just sayin', 24 is still young enough to become a decent bullpen option.

I have no idea. Pitch F/X data doesn't exist for most of Foulke's career. Throwing hard wasn't what Foulke did. Bowden throws in the low-90s currently, certainly as hard if not harder than Foulke did when he was Mr. Rolaids Relief.

Foulke broke into the majors at 24 and got knocked around. He showed up in Boston at 31. Bowden is currently 24. Over his past three seasons Bowden has put up about a 3.00 era at AAA. He's not a total waste yet. Particularly since he has looked much better after converting to RP. I wouldn't be shocked if he turns into a Dan Wheeler-esque long-time MLB reliever. A deceptive delivery sucks for a SP but for an RP it isn't so bad. And SBF I don't know what Gammons was thinking. That is crazy and if it became the basis for your evaluation of the kid you were led-on with unfair expectations.