RobZombie

Certainly the future of any human being four years down the road is uncertain. Yet there is a difference between uncertainty and randomness. Just because not all high school players make it doesn't mean that there is no way to separate their talent. Some high school players are more talented than others, and those players are much more likely to be stars in the future. Callis recently did a study on bonuses, basically as it ends up you get what you pay for. If you pay up for players in the draft, there is a huge huge return for doing so.

Its true that I am combative especially when confronted with ignorance. In answer to your question, I am male. There aren't that many girls who are into Rob Zombie. Yet the final part of your post explains a lot about you. You obviously don't have any women in your life. You clearly have no respect for them whatsoever. That maybe why you feel such hostility towards them because you can't get close to one. I'd get that fixed if I were you. Being alone with your right hand doesn't sound like much fun :-)

Lopez has a history as a successful LOOGY and managers love LOOGYs. It will likely be Aardsma that goes. He's certainly promising, probably more promising than Lopez. But if you keep him, he's basically the sixth short reliever. It will be difficult for him to build momentum in that roll. The best thing for him would be to go to Pawtucket, and build momentum for a possible call-up later this year, yet another team will likely want Aardsma.

No I just call a baloney sandwich a baloney sandwich. My guess is that I'm older than you too. Defintely smarter :-).

Relievers are very difficult to predict. Most of the older relievers with good AAA stats end up like Blaine Neal, or Mike Burns. But once in a while you come up with a guy who can help you (Bryan Corey may end up being one of those guys). This is the second toolsy international player that they traded for a promising older reliever. Since relievers are so unpredictable, it makes sense to just get a stack of them.

Your argument doesn't stem from reality at all. Your argument is that basically because Craig Hansen was a top prospect and hasn't yet made it, all prospects are equally unpredicatable. This argument is laughable and not based upon reality. #1 Hansen is a relief pitcher who are inherently less predictable than hitters. #2 Top amateur players are more likely to become stars than those that aren't highly rated, so if one doesn't make it its irrelevant. Intelligent baseball fans, which you are not, DO care about the farm system and a guy who will now be a top ten pick in the draft. I feel sorry for you. You throw all your insults around yet have a brain the size of a walnut. Then you have the gall to whine and complain. That's your brain on the floor saying hi.

Though I don't know the exact numbers, someone who is picked in the top seven is very likely to be a star, especially if they are a college hitter. There are differences of course because some top picks are just "signability" picks, and some lower picks are higher ranked prospects. In general the draft has been studied at length by Philly Sox fan, and Jim Callis. Callis found basically that in the draft you get what you pay for.

First off there are people who care about Pedro Alvarez which is why people responded. It was only unitelligent people like yourself who decided that there was no difference between Vaughn Eshelman and a top college hitter! You have proved that you are smart enough to look up a word on the web. Good for you. But the unsolicted homophobic comments just proved what a tool you really are.

To be fair. You are yet again wrong. The only way that a statisician could even come close to dissproving that game calling doesn't matter is to have the same set of pitchers pitch to different catchers for an entire season at the same time. This is of course impossible. There are several things in the game like this. Clutch hitting/choking. The real effect of speed on the game. The effect of playing at Fenway and dozens of other things. For these things which cannot be measured you have faith. Either you believe it or you don't, there is no provable answer. Statistics by and large are used to prove something, NOT to dissprove something.

Sweet Chin Music makes his usual logistical jump and just points out his lack of intelligence. His point is that because some prospects did not perform well, that ALL prospects are unpredictable. In doing so he inadvertandly blows up his own point. Will Cordero, was an established major leaguer by the time he was traded to Boston, and HE became a bust. Obviously major leaguers aren't 100% predictable either. Most of the guys that this idiot points out weren't top prospects but guys who happened to have one good season in AAA. Not one of them was a top college hitter, like Pedro Alvarez. Really people like this don't deserve to be Red Sox fans.

Your argument is dumb because you ignore the cost involved. Yes major leaguers are more predictable, but there is a huge huge cost to that predictability. A top major league star in his 30s will cost you more than $20M a year for several years. If he declines faster than you expect or gets injured, it will set back most teams for several years. Plus, since the player is in his 30s, you probably won't even get the player's best years. Additionally, as it turns out, the difference in predictability is not nearly as large as you think it is. For that same price you can likely sign at least 10 future amateur stars maybe more. If you sign one amateur star or top prospect, they may not turn out. But sign ten? I guarantee you, you will end up with better return than signing one established major league star. I'm sorry that you feel don't feel remorsefull. But that is because you don't know anything about baseball and think that all prospects are nothing more than crapshoots because Craig Hansen hasn't yet performed up to expectations. Your argument is worthless. The point is that Pedro Alvarez's services could have been bought for $1M. His services are currently worth a lot more than that, and won't even be available to the Red Sox. Just because the Sox can make mistakes without killing their chances, doesn't mean that those that they make don't hurt them, or that they shouldn't be pointed out. That's the most worthless part of your argument.

Just because they won two World Series doesn't mean the team is beyond reproach and can't be criticisized. And if you continue to make the Craig Hansen arguement, I'll continue to show you why its worthless. Yes prospects are unpredictable. But major league talent is unpredictable as well! Matt Clement says hi. Oh yes, and as for "what more do I want". I want the team to throw even more money at amateur talent because the risk reward tradeoff is huge. To use an example. In 2006 the Sox drafted Dustin Richardson above slot in a year where the Sox spent $10M on the draft. If Dustin Richardson alone becomes a decent major league pticher he will pay for the entire draft.

I wanted to comment on the last two paragraphs. It is true that MLB does pressure teams NOT to give bonuses far above slot. To that I say screw them. For $2M or the same as the Sox are paying Alex Cora, you can sign two potential stars. The risk reward trade off isn't even close. Why should MLB force teams to make an exception? Sure there has to be a balance between signing acquiring free agent talent and signing amateur talent (lets not forget about scouting and development too by the way). But that balance really needs to be tilted towards signing and developing amateur talent as a dollar spent there goes a lot further than talent spent elsewhere. Of the players you cited, only one I think was signed above slot and that was Lester. Buchholz fell because of a perceived behavior problem, Ellsbury went right where you'd expect in the draft, and Pedroia just turned out to be a little better than many scouts expected. They got very lucky with Papelbon. He never threw 95 at Mississippi State, but started throwing that hard in the Florida State League after he was Red Sox property. Had he thrown as hard as he does now in college, he would have been a much higher pick. In general the Sox HAVE been aggressive in signing talent above slot the past couple of years by signing Anderson, Middlebrooks, and Almanzar (international). Perhaps they should be even more aggressive. Last thing, if Havens is there at 30, I think the Sox take him.

Jackson- Lets be clear. Alvarez was NOT a typical 14th rounder. In fact, if not for his commitment to Vanderbilt which was thought to make him a tough sign, he would have been a late first round or sandwich round pick. Also its probably impossible to spend $20M in the draft. There just aren't going to be 15-20 kids who are great prospects and tough signs. They could probably spend $10-$15M every year on the draft, and international signings which is less than Manny Ramirez costs but could provide a lot more value. Its not really a competition. Potential young stars under your controll are so valuable that money spent on them has a much greater return, than spending money on major league ready players.

If Colon makes it to the majors, it will be as a starter and thus have no effect on any of the three guys listed. Either Buchholtz or Lester will be optioned, assuming no injuries.

I think you missunderstand the difference between a reliever and a hitter for one. Highly rated college hitters are almost always good players at least and often stars. College relievers are a lot more risky. There are tons of David Aardsma's, and Matt Anderson's out there. I think its very likely that Pedro Alvarez will be a star given how he has performed at Vanderbilt. I'm also of the opinion that going to college for three years doesn't improve your game versus going to the pros. It seems very clear now that Alvarez is a much better player than the Sox or anyone else thought at the time. Given his performance at Vanderbilt it seems very likely that Alvarez would have been a top prospect in the Sox system today had he not gone to college. Though Alvarez did turn down the Sox for Vanderbilt, every potential college player has his price. Alvarez indicated that his price was roughly $1M. Though you are right that there is no guarantee on any investment, a $1M cost for a potential $45-$50M in savings represents a pretty significant foregone return. Look I think Theo and his team have done an excellent job putting togeather 2 World Series winners. But that doesn't mean that they are beyond reproach and criticism, and that their mistakes can't be recognized. Not signing Alvarez, seems to be in retrospect a huge mistake, one that could have cost them $45-$50M. Finally, it needs to point out that even the large amateur signings like Hansen are excellent risk reward plays. Hansen got $4M, or roughly 1/7 of what Matt Clement got for one mediocre season of pitching. In the end, you need to go out and spend money on the top-amateur players.

During the 2005 draft the Sox drafted a high-schooler out of the Bronx named Pedro Alvarez. Alvarez went on to become one of the top college players in the country and is a likely top 5 pick this spring. The Sox didn't sign him because he wanted $1M. The Sox thought this to be too much money and off Alvarez went to Vanderbilt. What did this cost the Red Sox? Well its possible that Alvarez might be ready to contribute at 3B this season or at worst next season. Its possible he'll be a better major league player over the next three years than Mike Lowell will. I believe, its likely that had the Sox signed Alvarez, that Lowell wouldn't have been resigned. The Sox also might have been more willing to do a Crisp for Kouzmanoff deal. Lets assume that the Sox have to eat $3M of Coco's remaining contract. Leaving SD on the hook for $8M, or what they are currently paying Jim Edmonds. Kouzmanoff of course is a risky but interesting player. If you have Alvarez in the minors, you'd be more willing to take that risk. So basically the Sox stuborn refusal to give Pedro Alvarez $1M might have cost them nearly $50M.

I'd bet you that no one wants Snyder and they could get him through waivers. Like you said, he was terrible in the 2nd half, and had poor peripherals. Plus he's owed 825K no matter what, even that sum may cause some teams to balk.

The Red Sox were one of the biggest improvers in 07 I think that only the Guardians were better. Logic tells us that therefor they are likely to fall off a little this year. Two years ago everything went wrong and they won 86. Last year nearly everything went right and they won 96. Lets split the difference and say they win 93 this year which would likely give them the wild-card. I say Cleveland is odd team out.

They maybe able to put this off a bit by sending out either Lester or Buchholtz assuming they don't need a fifth starter for a spell. Plus stuff happens, injuries etc. and the choice usually becomes obvious. I think that they maybe able to get all three guys through waivers if they so chose.

I think I read in a Gammons column last year that Alicea worked with Lugo last year at SS and he went from mediocre to fantastic defensively. There's no way to verify this with statistics as stats like UZR, and ZR are only available in one season increments.

The issue with any contract isn't mostly the amount of money they have to give up, its the years the Sox would have to commit. If the Sox wanted to sign Dunn, or Crawford we are talking about the Sox having to commit to the player for multiple years, maybe even 7 or 8. Plus they'd have to give up a pick. If they pick up Manny's option, they only have to commit to him for one year and don't have to give up a pick. The only way you go and get someone else, is if they are going to be a significant upgrade over Ramirez.

Jayhawk- I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. What I have a problem with is people like you who get their jollies from playing word games and starting arguments about stuff they don't even believe in just to boost their own sad egos. #1 There is no evidence that there is any such thing as a "survivor effect". You made it up just to argue. If one were to study such a thing, one couldn't just dismiss the data points that go against the theory. In this thread you have already dismissed major injuries to Roger Clemens, David Wells, and Curt Schilling for various reasons. Anyone who has any background in statistics knows this. #2 If Mike Timlin made it through the season unscathed, it would not in and of itself be evidence that a "survivor effect" existed. Its just one data point. #3 First you equate my prediction that Mike Timlin will be on the disabled list with a prediction that Mike Timlin will suffer a major injury. Then you say that a major injury is a matter of "semantics". Mike Timlin himself has spent time on the disabled list the past two years for a non-illness related issue. So either you've already proved your own idea of a "survivor effect" wrong, or you admit that you put words in my mouth. I've encountered jokers like you before. You get your jollies by starting arguments over nothing and misstating the views of others. Like its some sort of game. Its always the same modus operandi. Call them on it, they act innocent and say state that the real problem is not their game playing, but that others don't want them to disagree. Baloney, you know darn well that there is no such thing as a survivor effect, and only started the entire argument to play some sort of game. If you are going to do that, the I agree you should stop responding to my posts.