a700hitter

I am glad that we finally have something to discuss. He should be a solid bullpen arm. I'm not sure if he is closer material. So far our pen is shaping up as: Malancon Jenks Albers Morales

I though Weiland and Lowrie were chips that could be used in a bigger deal to net a better return. Melancon has a good record against the phillies-- the NL Gold standard, so maybe he is emerging.

I feel exactly the same way about this.

This is an under the radar move. I am not even sure that Melancon has more upside as a reliever than Weiland who was a closer in college, plus we just lost some bench depth in the IF.

Would you like to also Google whether I am a self-proclaimed know-it-all or whether someone else proclaimed it first. Maybe Gammons was the first to call me a know-it-all.

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:

Did you Google what year Berle died?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I've watched more than a few games exactly like that.

There's a place for you in my kingdom.

It's my term, I get to define it with regard to baseball acquisitions. My recollection with Beltre was that he wasn't coming off a debilitating injury that would affect his performance. I think he got hit in the balls without wearing a cup. It might be acutely painful, but it doesn't affect baseball skill long term.

Shoppach hit Sabbathia like he owns him in my recollection.

I guess this would fall under the category-- "under the radar." So much for Lavarnway getting playing time.

The difference between Buehrle and Lackey is that Buerhle is much more durable and consistent. Prior to coming to the Sox, Lackey had arm trouble for 2 years and did not get to 30 starts in either year.

I think the Giants have either extended Cain or are in the process of extending him, so I don't think he will be available next year.

Papelbon was the best closer in Red Sox history who had done the job since 2006. There's nothing wrong with getting Madson, but for a few million more and a year longer, a lot of us would have preferred to keep Papelbon. No one is saying anytjhing of the sort. From observing the few moves that have been made on his watch, I.e. The loss of Papelbon, the inexplicable arbitration offer to Ortiz and the managerial hiring process, many fans are not feeling very confident. Couple that with hias inaction at the Winter meetings and his barely coherent statements to the press during those meetings and people are getting concerned. No one wants him to publisht the team's strategy, but we'd like to see some positive signs. Are you seeing anything positive so far? IMO, we need a right handed bat in the OF. Four lefties in the OF on a team where 2 of the 3 sluggeres are also left handed is not a very balanced team. I'm not sure what you are talking about with this "ammunition" reference. I don't think the FO is not making FA moves to avoid criticism on TalkSox, and I am equally sure that all of the fans on TalkSox, except the Yankee fans, would want the FO moves to work out.