a700hitter

How is my theory based on a hypothetical? I have said it is a good baseball move without condition. I have been asking you and a few of the other meatheads' date=' who are experts in baseball finances, whether he would be worth it if he helped his team to the playoffs. I have no reservations about this move whether his team makes or does not make the playoffs. That's my position. I'll state it again later after you get lost in your own ideas about my theories. My postion has been consistent. Getting Clemens is a good move by the Yankees, and it would have been a good move by the Red Sox if they had signed him. I have posed my hypotheticals to you to better understand how your financial analysis would be applied to certain circumstances. It is easier to understand a theory when it can be illustrated in the context of a number of different factual scenarios. Instead of demonstrating this infallible analytical method using these hypotheticals, you and others have erroneously concluded that I am drawing parallels or posing hypothetical theories. I am not, and you guys can not seem to explain how this so called financial cost analysis is affected by factors other than basic statistics. Your theory is clear to me for what it is. I hope Clemens sucks, but I would rather face Tavarez or Lester in a big game than Clemens, and they are paying him for the big games.

Wow, your posts are down to gibberish. I have had fun pummeling you. Thanks. It has been very cathartic.

I didn't think you were serious about Lester going undefeated. Are you serious? Do you seriously think that is as realistic as Clemens outperforming Tavarez and Lester? Do you really think that the Boston Red Sox management is squirreling away the money they saved on Clemens this year to put towards signing anyone next year? Is it in a piggy bank? I'll address this post, if you tell me that you sincerely think you have seriously addressed an issue.

Copy and paste them into a PM, and I'll get to them as my time allows.

Yes, clearly you are under my skin. You must be very tired. You had better get some sleep. After all, doing nothing requires a good night's rest.

In 69-70 West led the league in scoring with a 31 point average. He was in his prime. Baylor was in his last year' date=' but he still averaged 24 points. The following year they added Gail Goodrich who played another 10 years, so he was in his prime with Chamberlain. But he didn't play those 7 minutes or game 7 and he was thought to be a quitter by his team as well as the opposition.

Although you are too much of moron to answer the question directly, it seems fairly clear that you think that Clemens is worth it if he outperforms our # 5 starter and the difference knocks us out the playoffs. This is good progress. You make $8/hour, you jerk. You probably can't be trusted with bills larger than a $20 bill, but you are going to make conclusions about the financial soundness of business decisions by businesses worth billions of dollars. What an arrogant little twit. I am not even going so far as to opining about the soundness of the financial decision. As I have said much earlier, none of us on these boards know enough about the finances of the Red Sox or any baseball team to judge the financial soundness of their deals. Major league baseball doesn't open its books for anyone. The Union has been trying to get a look at their books for years, but somehow you know what the union doesn't. Neither of us are in a position to judge the financial soundness of this deal. I have said from the beginning that it is a good baseball decision by the Yankees, and you and your GEn Xers have given absolutely no verifiable evidence to the contrary. In case you haven't realized it, you should be reminded that the Yankees are a business, and their owners like to make money. I am sure they are pretty fair judges of financial soundness.

It's a projection. BTW: Some years two wins means the difference between the playoffs and the couch.

It is conjecture, but it is not baseless conjecture, because Clemens is a proven winner and Tavarez is s*** and Lester is an unknown. It is completely reasonable to think Clemens is more likely to bring a team a Championship than Tavarez or Lester in 2007. Do you disagree with that or do you get some sort of cheap kick out of making lame attempts to use my words against me? If Clemens ends up being the difference between the post-season and the couch, would he be worth the investment? Is this such a tough question that no one can answer it? Maybe I'll get back one of those large font math problems that can't be proved or verified. BTW: I am having a great time.:thumbsup:

Would he be the only one? Chamberlain's Lakers had as much if not more talent than Celtics and Knicks teams that beat his teams. Hell, the Knicks beat them without a center in game 7.

Thuuuuh Yankees Looose!!! Thuuuuh Yankees Loooose!!! But DiSalvo won the Player of the Game Award.

You started the name-calling, and you clearly ran out of ideas first. Don't blame me because I am just better with insults than you. Wow, you really don't get it. Lester doesn't make $7 million per year. He makes the minimum, like you. He's not even a budget item. We don't have to let him go to get Clemens. The upgrade would be for one year, and we get to keep the cheap prospect. We have no idea what Lester would do in a penant race in 2007. Hell, we don't know if he is ready to hold down a spot in the rotation. Clemens has a pretty looong track record. If Clemens is the difference between the playoffs and another championship, yes he would be worth the cost, and we'd have the cheap hot prospect stronger and more ready to hold a spot next season. That's my math, but yours must be right and mine wrong, because yours is in huge font.

What were Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Hal Greer, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, and Gail Goodrich For the second time, I wasn't draawing a parallel. I was wondering how his cost/benefit analysis works in other situations. Is it purely stat based? I think it is a legitimate question. Very relevant comment to this discussion. Thanks for your input.

He is a very poor fielding OF.

I am not surprised that you didn't get the question, nor am In surprised that you could not articulate an answer explaining why it is different. I am not surprised at all.

Apparently not. I would have thought that if Clemens wins 5 more games for the Yankees than Lester and Tavarez win for us and they beat us by 5 or less games to make the playoffs that it would be a wothwhile acquisition. Silly me. Thanks for the thorough explanation...not. I am lost as to what point you are making here, but you certainly did not come close to answering my question.:dunno:

Try this one on for size. If the 20 run difference results in 5 or 6 more wins for the Yankees, that could very well be the difference between the playoffs and the couch. How's that Cost/Benefit analysis doing. Clemens is still not worth it for 2007?

He will not be an All Star, so don't go wagering anything on it.

Yeah, that's happening. Schilling has a good shot though.

Yes, he is, and thank goodness Torre is not the manager.

How does that analysis change if one of the runs that Clemens saves is in game 7 of the ALCS and Lester gives up one more run than Clemens in that game? Does the analysis still hold true? Is it a completely static analysis based entirely on the individual statistics? Based on that type of analysis, Wilt Chamberlain was much more valuable than Bill Russell.