User Name

Hanley will be fine, but he will struggle while it's cold.

Castro was a good get for the Yanks. If they can keep him focused, he's an AS level 2B.

I'll take honesty over douchiness 10/10 times.

.....which is hilarious coming from the man who gave rise to The Chart. Throwing stones, glass houses and all that.

TW101 ranting......nooooo! I can't believe it!

Law & Order doesn't care for brown people, but thanks, I guess.

I think Rusney's the actual abuse victim here.

True, and because of his mental blunders (Farrell implies that it's because he's pressing) his baserunning stats play down instead of up. They still need to see what they have in him though.

Do you actually watch baseball? Because baserunning is not just about stealing bases.

Absolutely correct, but the Sox need to find out what they have in him. Considering that (boneheaded plays aside) he's a good fielder and plus baserunner, he's a better bet to contribute value than Panda.

I disagree. He needs MLB reps.

*Armando. Andres was the 1st basseman with 400+ homers.

^This is what probably happens.

The pitcher.

Andres Galarraga. And it was the last out of a perfect game.

You posted this in the wrong thread, but quick couple of points: There is a measure of variability inherent to the WAR calculation, but that variability is minor and doesn't limit its value in direct player-to-player comparison, especially speaking in broader terms. And the real problem here is that you were quoting WAR values without even using FG WAR before, or an assesment that connects to the actual value WAR assigns to players, now you're using FG WAR as the benchmark when another formula was being used in direct criticism of Porcello. I noticed both these issues (Lack of understanding of the inherent difference between formulas, and how WAR is actually calculated, because the offensive, defensive and pitching measurements don't fluctuate as much as you think they do). If you use FG WAR as a benchmark (and it's just a benchmark), a win is worth just North of seven million dollars (win value calculations have a bit of year-to-year variability, but this is expected given the nature of baseball economics). The point Kimmi keeps trying to make (and real life reflects this) is that pitchers with Porcello's profile (Shark, Leake) are making similar money for more years than what Porcello is making. Is he overpaid? Hell yeah, they overpaid in money to slash a couple years off the contract. Does this mean he can't provide enough value to justify the contract? Nope. He hasn't thrown a single pitch with the actual extension money attached to him, and given market dynamics and past history, you can safely assume he'll be at least relatively valuable, if not as effective as his contract says he should be now, but with the current salary escalation, he might be as soon as next year, even if he reverts to just career averages. In general, this is a circular discussion anyways. You don't like Porcello, and you have made that abundantly clear. The problem is that you not liking him and him not living up to his contract are entirely different things. The former is a certainty, the latter we will have to wait and see so we can come to an actual answer.

You don't really understand how WAR works, do you? I'm not asking this question to start an argument, but I really don't think you understand how WAR is measured. And also, for your information, WAR is one of the tools some of the more stat-inclined teams (like Houston) admittedly use when determining player salaries. Also, you can make your point without coming off like a douche. The whole "drink Ben's cool aid" stuff is unnecesary and detracts from an otherwise centered argument.

There is an actual name for that logical fallacy: It's called "loaded question". In law vernacular, when you use a question like that during a trial, you'll be immediately objected because you're making a question that guides the witness/defendant to a specific answer.

Yeah. Because, by WAR standards, Castillo was slightly above replacement last year, while Sandoval was the worst regular in baseball. Even if his offense bounces back to his career averages, the summation of being one of the worst defenders and one of the worst baserunners in baseball would drag his value to below replacement anyways. The numbers don't back you up here. At all. In the least.

Pablo cannot field his position. Unless you're trying to tell me that offense is so far in the importance scale over defense that whatever positive value in offensive production Pablo *may* bring outweighs his complete inability to play a competent third base, then I don't buy it.

That is literally indefensible. Castillo can at least play his position.

Calm down there buddy. Your missus probably has a headache anyways, so stop rubbing your nipples, it's creeping me outl.

That's in the eye of the beholder, and he still has to pitch during the actual contract for us to know whether they overpaid or not. In the end, they saved on years either way. Even with a crappy platform season it's unlikely he wouldn't have gotten five years from someone (if at a lower AAV) just like Shark did. It's market dynamics.

I am defending both deals. I liked the Porcello deal then, and have defended it consistently, my post clearly states that I think Porcello can still earn his money, just like Lackey (and Drew, who I always defended too). I am being nothing if not consistent.

But it could have been a good value. Guys with his skillset are going for more years at similar money. It's the extra years they were trying to avoid.