Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

a700hitter

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    70,398

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospect Rankings

Boston Red Sox Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Boston Red Sox Fan Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Boston Red Sox News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by a700hitter

  1. a700hitter
  2. a700hitter
    Correction, practically everyone was guilty, not just the ones who have been exposed. 39 year old closers who never have arm problems and consistently perform at the highest level of excellence are probably enjoying the benefits of more than a healthy diet.
  3. a700hitter
  4. a700hitter
    Why would anyone protect this guy? he threw his wife under the steroid bus, and his best friend and best friend's wife sold him down the river. In a court of law, Clemens would be more likely to get convicted than would Big Papi, because the government can't even tell us the substance for which Papi tested positive.
  5. a700hitter
    He's a bridge to nowhere. He's a 32 yr old journeyman that had to journey to Japan for employment.
  6. a700hitter
    Nothing informative or interesting has come from him. He's a zero. He needs to go.
  7. a700hitter
    Why is this guy still here. He contributes nothing. In every single one of his posts, he is either trolling, attacking a member or both. Mods, enough is enough with this jerk.
  8. a700hitter
    It is limited investment in a high risk asset. I agree with ORS that we are discussing semantics, but baseball FO's have it completely wrong. These moves can be accurately described as high risk/high reward or low cost/low probability of success moves, but they are not low risk/high reward moves under any sound financial analysis. The limited investment in these substandard/speculative assets is part of sound risk management by the team, i.e. if the moves don't pan out the team's operations will not be affected. That doesn't make the particular move a low risk move.
  9. a700hitter
    Thank goodness you are a Lawyer and not an investment guy.
  10. a700hitter
    In analyzing risk, the monetary commitment needs to be appropriate in light of the risk factors. The more speculative the investment (i.e. the risk) the less the business will invest. The fact that a company limits its exposure to speculative investments does not decrease the risk of the investment. The risk or speculative nature of the investment is still high. A good business limits its exposure to such risks by investing most of its assets in safe-low risk investments. Investing $5 million in John Smoltz is good risk management, because they have not devoted too much of the payroll to a risky investment. The asset, i.e., Smoltz, is still a high risk asset because he had a small probability of succeeding.
  11. a700hitter
    It's not circular logic. Any book about investments will describe the relationship of between risk and return. Low risk/high return assets really don't exist in a free market. The reason being that if there were available low risk/high return assets the demand for them would grow and the price would go up. If you want to point to an Ortiz, that is probably the best case you can make. Like I said, he was a good consistent paltoon player before coming to the Sox. There was little risk that his value would go down. The number of guys that turn out to be like Ortiz are very very rare. You don't normally see a decent young player who is healthy get released. It was a freak circumstance. Almost all of the other so-called low risk/high reward players are not that at all. Our FO throughout the years has called guys like Jason (the ultimate loser) Johnson, Brad Penny, John Smoltz, and countless others low risk/high reward when in reality they were just long shots.
  12. a700hitter
    He'd never been given a consistent opportunity, because he never proved he could hit lefties or the inside pitch. He was a part time platoon type guy that wasn't a good 1B and could only play DH. His value was not high, and while talented, the flaws in his game did not indicate future super stardom. He was an appropriate risk for the Sox to take, but he was not the low risk/low reward asset that he eventually became. On the risk spectrum, he was not completely high risk either. After thinking about it more, he was not really high risk. He was a moderate risk asset because he had a fairly consistent track record, so the Sox had no reason to be concerned that he would be a total flop.
  13. a700hitter
    Believe it or not, when he was released by the Twins, his past performance gave no indication that he would become the player that he is. The risk that he would be an offensive force at that time was very high. Don't confuse the dollars invested with the risk. Ortiz was High Risk/High Yield. He was one of those rare long shots that came though as a hit. It's like a lottery ticket. Most people would view the $1 lottery ticket as a low risk/high reward investment, because it only costs a dollar. And if you hit the lottery, it reinforces that misconception. A lottery ticket is a very high risk/ high reward asset. To prove the point that the risk is extremely high, most people invest only a minuscule portion of their assets in lottery tickets. Only an idiot heading for bankruptcy would invest most of his assets in lottery tickets. You can't mistake the low dollar amount invested for the risk. The risk is huge which is precisely why the amount invested is small. Ortiz was high risk/high reward. He paid off. Then he became a low risk/low yield asset and the FO accordingly invested a lot of money in a long term contract to keep him.
  14. a700hitter
  15. a700hitter
    There is no such thing. These should be more accurately be called long shots.
  16. a700hitter
    When I have sat in the bleachers at Fenway or any other ballpark, I realized that you get a whole new appreciation for the OF'ers play, because you are seeing the pitch and the ball come off the bat like they do, and you can see the incredible jumps they get on balls and the routes they take on balls. You are looking right at their backs the entire time. The fielders are in your field of vision the entire time, unlike people sitting along the baselines who are focused on the batter and most of the fielders are not in their field of vision while looking at the batter. By the time you look up to see what the fielder is doing, the bleacher fan is already seeing it.
  17. a700hitter
    Example, it was an "example" of things you pick up at games. I didn't say that would impact his value. It might impact the managers decision regarding the starting CF in a particular game. It might impact his value for the Cubs if they play more day games than most teams. Certainly, it would have affected his value for the Cubs before Wrigley installed lights. Again, it was an example. Let's not make it into the focal part of the argument.
  18. a700hitter
    Great post. Of course Example would conclude that "you don't pay much attention to stats", because you reject them in certain instances. He makes the same generalization about me. He also likes to generalize that I know nothing about prospects or don't care about them, when I express an opinion favoring an experienced established player. I am often the target of "watch the gamezz" idiot comments from posters. It's funny how two idiots like us who know nothing about stats, sabremetrics, etc usually do pretty well in stat based fantasy leagues, but they will ridicule us for mentioning that too. I get where you are coming from. As you know, I go to lots of gamezz. I just purchased my Spring Training tickets today. From watching those gamezz, I have picked up things that no readily available stats would reveal-- things like Coco Crisp getting very poor jumps on balls in day games vs. night games and generally having more trouble tracking balls in day games vs. night games. There's no replacement for watching the game, and that's why the best teams have the best scouts.
  19. a700hitter
    ^ He's in a better position than other GM's to make Theo pay more than he would like. Hoyer taking the SD GM spot is not a good development for the Sox in their efforts to get Gonzalez.
  20. a700hitter
    He's also 5 years younger than Damon.
  21. a700hitter
  22. a700hitter
    As much as I don't like this deal, I guess he is a step up from AGon, and the price is not that high.
  23. a700hitter
  24. a700hitter
    The article makes sense, but just don't see the Yanks having any urgency to add a big chunk back to the payroll.
  25. a700hitter
    I think that the Yankees will rest on the laurels a bit this off season. They will sell over $4 million tickets this year, and they'll have the banner hanging from the flag-pole, so why spend another boat-load of money.
×
×
  • Create New...