User Name

Apples to Oranges comparison. What exactly does this even mean? They could've found a suitable alternative for less money without the use of prospects. Your "preference" doesn't take away from the main point of contention: Papelbon's contract is a massive overpayment. Also, Reddick sucks, and keeping Papelbon would've meant Ortiz is gone, so you would have created another hole (albeit probably an easier-to-fill one, i will concede). I have not said in any place that i would have preferred for Papelbon not to come back, but rather not at that length and that price. What is it with you not being able to understand what others clearly state?

That's absolute nonsense. There is a market value even for "elite" talent. Overpaying is overpaying.

ERA + is league-average ERA adjusted for stadium factors. It does not factor any other aspect of pitching. If you don't know how a stat is used, don't use it. The point was that 2009 was not an elite performance, neither by his or league standards. Who said ERA is meaningless? What i said (and correctly so) is that it is merely an aspect of pitching efficiency, and not necessarily the most important one, as you state. Stick to debating what i actually say. Also, it's a two-year sample of below-average performance. And your point regarding 2009 was dead wrong, don't backpedal. The context is quite clear: You don't pay big money for relief pitching. Papelbon is an elite closer, but he's still not worth that type of money, nor is any reliever, as evidenced by statistical analysis and empirical knowledge of relief pitcher volatility. Wrong about what? Reliever volatility? Knowledge of what ERA+ actually entails? The data that suggests the massive overpayment to Papelbon? An actually consistent thought process? Nice attempt to pat yourself in the back, but your line of thinking has more holes than a spaghetti strainer.

Mariano is an exception. One example to several others that prove otherwise. Like yours, that is my opinion.

That's inconsequential to the amount of money they're paying him though.

Not a good predictor of future performance, but i can see where you're coming from. However, what he's done in the past is in the past.

It's not the money. In fact, i think the AAV is a bit low considering what he made in 2011. It's the length of the contract. Also, as another point, i don't think there are a lot of players who "deserve" the money they're making as a general rule of thumb.

Absolutely asinine. Statistically, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011 were his best seasons, and could all be considered "elite" seasons. All he had in 2009 was a better ERA and ERA+, which is not indicative of overall performance, and even less with relievers and their samples. What the hell does this even mean? I've maintained my initial posture all along: Closers are replaceable, and i've shown no indication of panic over Bailey's injury. They will find a suitable option, because it's just a relief role, and an overrated one at that. Also, don't take things out of context: My initial referral to Papelbon being "just a reliever" refers to the amount of money and years tied up to him by the Phillies. You don't pay that much for relief pitching. If you think he'd be worth the money he's making for seasons similar for 2010, you're an idiot. No offense meant.

The problem isn't the annual rate, but rather the length of the contract. As you said yourself, he should see some non-injury related decline during the contract span, and there's always the possibility for injury for pitchers in general, but even more for relievers. Most sports analysts view the Papelbon contract as a stupid one, and be honest: If the Sox had given him all that money you'd have had a field day criticizing the move.

I don't understand the gushing over Papelbon leaving. He never even gave the Red Sox a chance to counter-offer. It was common knowledge he wanted to set the bar for closers in terms of money, and he wasn't going to do that in Boston. It's funny that those same people who look at the "experts'" opinions for everything, don't look at all the expert opinions saying Papelbon's contract may have been the stupidest of the offseason, given the volatile nature of relief pitchers. Foot, meet mouth. You just don't commit that many resources to a relief pitcher, and i bet that if the Sox had given a similar amount of money to Papelbon than what Philly gave him, those who say "money doesn't matter to me" would be bitching about the amount of resources tied up to Papelbon if it prohibited other moves. To those who say: "Money doesn't matter" as a general statement, be realistic. The Red Sox have their limits, and you wouldn't say that if it was your money.

I agree in principle that closers are overrated, but i take issue with the bolded part. Two words: Craig Hansen. Excellent stuff, didn't have the makeup. Countless other examples of guys with explosive stuff who just couldn't close, like Joel Zumaya.

He's already succeeded in the bullpen. But his Spring training showing is not enough to pass judgement as to what he can become in the rotation. They think he has the upside to become a top-flight starter, and even as an above-average one he has more value than in the BP.

This is a very inconsistent thought process. To follow through with your scenario, he shouldn't be moved to the BP at all, because he's been stretched out and prepared as a starter. Keep him in the rotation and find another option.

Don't you know Beckett is making up the injury? Also, don't you know this confirms the theory that all of us agreed on regarding the Red Sox being better off getting a couple more viable pitchers? Different people expressed it in different ways, but it's apparently a viable back-patting vehicle.

Jesus Christ dude, calm the f*** down.