ORS

I thought my comment was pretty clear. I acknowledge Beckett's roller coaster performance, and use it to prove my point. If nobody can be very sure about what Beckett will do this year, and Beckett isn't even in the conversation when it comes to breaking down 2011 vs expectations for 2012, then how can anyone be very sure of what the entire staff will do in 2012? I did not mean to suggest that a good season from Beckett was etched in stone. As to the disturbing "pattern", why is it only wishful thinking to suggest the pattern gets broken? In essence, that question ultimately begs another, what do you think the source of that pattern is? The most plausible one I can come up with is what Palodios posted. Alternating between motivated, to prove himself after a bad year, and complacent, after a good year. I don't think it's wishful thinking to suggest he's motivated after getting shamed at the end of last season. Unless, do you think the source is something mystical, and they need the services of a shaman?

I'm not a fortune teller. It's hard enough getting a confidence level about what Beckett will do in any given year, and he's one of the non-question marks. Forget about reading the tea leaves for twelve different pitchers. Pitcher performance is one of the most variable things in sports. There are legitimate concerns for why they might be worse. There are also compelling arguments for why they might be better. There are some who think that they will be worse (or at least unchanged) and it's not a matter for debate. I disagree. When it comes to what will happen in any given year, baseball has taught me to expect nothing and just enjoy the ride. All that said, gun to my head, I think the answer lies somewhere in between markedly better and about the same.

Because they don't trade them away for players like Victor Martinez and Adrian Gonzalez. They keep them because they have to, they can't afford premiere talent. Why does everyone forget this when they start comparing MiLB systems?

No, check the history, you called it fact. You posted the link. redsoxrules said the opinion of "experts" was useless (I agree - lest we would still be celebrating a Red Sox 2011 WS title) You said it was hard to debate someone who ignored facts. That's the summary. You called the bleacherreport "fact". How are they doing the same thing? You just said there was a bunch of personnel turnover. Furthermore, the person responsible for creating the roster has changed. How is that status quo? EDIT: Also, in 2009, 2010, and 2011 you had a pretty consistent rotation (Lester, Beckett, Wakefield, with Matsuzaka/Lackey contributing similarly - both in inning amount and general suckery) and bullpen. 2012 looks like it will have significant turnover.

It's even harder when someone confuses "fact" with "opinion". Your supporting evidence is pretty much all opinion. Bleacherreport - opinion. State of the Bullpen (given all the changes in personnel) - opinion. State of the Pitching Staff (again, given all the changes in personnel) - opinion.

I don't know, you tell me. Just 5 minutes ago you told me you were laughing at me. Again with the double standard. When will we see the triple you referred to yesterday?

The subject of a joke very rarely finds the humor.

This is BS. I answered every question he directed to me, and none were contradictory.

I got that you were primarily criticizing Epstein's moves for Chicago this offseason. Your motiviations are pretty transparent. You've ranted all offseason about how horrible a GM Epstein was in Boston. You are compiling what you believe to be confirming evidence of your rants. Here's the thing, though. This criticism is, for the most part, irrelevant and meaningless if you really mean what you said in your previous post. As you stated in your previous post, none of us know what Chicago's goals are for the 2012 season. However, the writing on the wall, in other words, what they have been doing, suggests that fielding a competitive team is not on the 2012 agenda. Which is fine.....as long as it is part of their long-term goals. Critiquing their offseason moves against an irrelevant standard of your choosing, that they should be competitive, is pointless. And, just so I am clear, this post applies to a700 as well, since you and he echo each other so often. I will not engage in the implied-meaning followed by plausible deniability subterfuge he employs. I will say what I mean. You two are so engaged in congratulatory back-patting that you are virtually indecipherable at this point.

In all reality, this is a non-response, since you didn't address the correction I made. However, do you really not see the implied meaning here? Why don't you come out and tell us what you meant? All signs point to a defense of what Iortiz said orginally, that moneyball is srewing the Cubs up farther. If that wasn't what you meant, you sure have a funny way of stating whatever it was you did mean.

I think every GM is a "moneyball" GM, when you use the term properly. Remember, the point of the book was about finding undervalued sources of production. Every GM is interested in this. Some use different methods, but I'm confident all do it to some degree. I don't think you can pigeonhole "moneyball" into a niche philosophy. So, yes, he is, and, yes, I think it can be used to rebuild a team. I don't think he will change his philosophy from the success he had in Boston. I think they will focus on player development/drafting, rebuilding the minor league system, finding value on the FA market, and making targeted big contract acquisitions. I don't think those targeted acquisitions are likely in this first year of the process. Right now, the moves they are making look like short-term stop-gaps.

Not, really, not when you say things like.... So and So believes in this So and So is doing this with his roster ______________ (fill in the blank) While it's not explicitly stated, filling in the blank with a continuation of the logic points to an indictment of either the philosophy or the So and So. That generates discussion, particularly when the philosophy is used in the incorrect context, and/or there are other motivations (like a complete rebuild) to account for the roster moves.

I don't recall anyone stating that "moneyball" was going to be ignored, only that the OP that brought it into the discussion did not use it in the correct context.

Careful reading shows that you expanded upon that point into the realm of rebuilding strategy. This is a side point that you initiated and others responded to. Your use of the term "moneyball" is relevant in this discussion....that you initiated. In simplest terms, the message of the book Moneyball was about finding undervalued sources of production in baseball. During the era of time that the book covered, the modern statistical movement for baseball (sabermetrics) was not as pervaisive throughout the game as it is now. Using a saber approach to player evaluations, Beane was able to identify players with skillsets that were undervalued and was able to make the Athletics competitive despite having a smaller budget than most teams. The concept is still alive, as it should be, because every team, regardless of their budgets, should look for ways to identify undervalued production (or even potential). However, the benefit is harder to find as more teams now see the value of modernized statistical measures.

No, not offensive to me at all. I just find the double standard you so regularly apply here to be funny. See, I too can have a laugh here, only it's mostly at you and not with you.

Really? 50 something going on 12. Or, are age jokes only okay when you are calling the female members menopausal?

How is the use of the term "moneyball" not relevant when it was central to the point he made in his original post? Yes, he has subsequently modified his position to make the term "moneyball" irrelevant. He had to, his original point fell flat on its face through misuse of the term. Here's the quote... He was adding on to a700's point that the Cubs will be a weaker team next year by further stating that he forecasts this weakness into subsequent years because of "moneyball". His misuse of the term is very relevant to the discussion he initiated (how the Cubs rebuilding process will go). As far as how good (well actually, how bad) the Cubs will be next year, what's so interesting about that? They are clearly just now starting a rebuilding process. They should be bad. It's like discussing the finer points of how wet water is.