moonslav59

Enrique plays a decnt CF, too, so he makes the most sense, not just financially speaking. I agree: we will trade for a CF'er or look for a 1 year "bridge" to Duran, assuming Bloom has more faith in him than I do.

Agreed. My point was that trading Beni without getting an OF'er in return means we have to make another trade or spend on FA or two.

On of our biggest "what ifs" of the last few years: what if we had signed Abreu not Castillo. Another was Scherzer not HRam & Pablo. Yes, all were not the same year, but wow, 2 big what ifs...

True, unless they trade Beni & Duran for a CF'er. The reason I mentioned a CF'er is that by trading beni, we'll have an OF of JD Martinez in LF, Verdugo in CF and Renfroe in RF. (Unless we sign JBJ or another CF/RF type, but even then, we'll need a 4th OF'er addition, too.)

Great take.

Interesting ranking. I might put Rosario and Potts up higher and Duran lower, but maybe the most interesting thing to me, beside Bazardo, is that Bello is placed above Ward & Groome.

I have no evidence to back this up, but I feel like most teams trying to win it all, make 2 or 3 for 1 deals, while teams trying to rebuild make 1 for 1 or 3 deals. Trading Beni & let's say Pivetta for a better SP'er or a good CF'er might not be the right strategy, right now.

His value does not increase in a package. He could still go on to have a great career- for someone else. His addition to a package may still never outweigh the return. Plus, we lose someone else by trying to improve the return by adding a "low stock" Beni. That being said, I have always felt that many GMs do not judge (place value on) players over their last season or even 2 seasons' numbers. Some GM may value him highly and will be willing to give up something very nice in return. If that is the case, I'm listening. I am not for handing Beni away. His contract is pretty low, and he's still young enough to bust out in his prime.

Maybe. Maybe they have Kiermaier or Incarte in mind or someone else. I'd hold onto Beni and try to get someone like Kiermaier. I think Beni's upside outweighs what we'll get for him, and if he ends up sucking, it's not like we'll have missed out on anything great we might have gotten in return.

Three friends and I used to bet on NFL every Sunday. We studied, discussed and bet, usually between $25-100 per bet, up to 25 or 30 bets every week. We usually came out about even, which means we won slightly more than we lost, but the vig evened us out. One Sunday, the 4 of us combined lost something like 27 out of 28 bets! 3 of us quit, that Sunday. One of us (not me) was down about $300 and bet it all on Steve Carlton and the Phillies to win. They were big favorites, that night, and they lost.This kid ended up having to work off the debt at our bookie's restaurant. I have not bet since then, except in brackets and pools. Lesson learned.

Beni still has a chance to put up some great offensive numbers. I've never been a big Beni fan, but selling low seems a bit rash.

The question is how much more likely? The second question is what is considered "random" or a "crap shoot?" I'm thinking anything above 55-45 should not be called a crap shoot/random, but if someone says 56-44, I might not argue. Sure, if two near-equally strong teams, one 100-62 and the other 98-64, play each other, I'd say the odds are probably pretty close to even, assuming no major injuries. If a 100-62 team is playing an 86-76 team, and neither showed a significant stronger end to the season, I'd put the odds on the better team at more than 56-44. (In other words-not a crap shoot.)

If you combine this methodology with adjustments for who was hot to end the season, I think the numbers will show the better teams wins by more then .550. The Nats and the Rockies of 2007 won a lot of playoff games.

Rusney Castillo signs to play in Japan. I had hoped he'd play in MLB, this season, so we could see what we had.

I don't agree with this. A .600 team will beat a .550 team more like .575 not .550.

I have a lot of faith in Bloom, but Beni's stock is as low as ever. Who knows, maybe some GM still values him highly enough.

Maybe not. I'd add more, if needed, like maybe Groome, Chavis or Chatham.

Would you do... Vaz to PHI, Ward, Wong & Abel (from PHI) to PIT and Taillon & Stalling to BOS?

I can't imagine us getting much for Beni, but Rosario seems better.

I keep trying to, but it doesn't work.

Maybe my theory on waiting for bargains may never be possible.

I think going back beyond the wild care era shouldn't be counted, so I'm glad you provided this info. If the odds were totally random, you'd expect the best record team to win 12.5% of the time or about 3 times in 26 seasons. They won 7 (27%). You'd expect the top teams from both leagues to win 25% of the time- not 46% (12 out of 26 years). This isn't even close. It's not random. If some math whiz wants to figure out the odds of a 67% winning team winning it all vs a 56% team winning it all, my guess is these last 26 seasons will show that winning teams out perform even that statistical numbers projected.

Vegas does offer odds on winning a series or even winning the WS at the start of the playoffs. We are not talking about any given game, where yes, the SP'er is a major influence on the odds given. I'm not sure what the odds are usually like, since I stopped betting long ago, and never bet on baseball, but my point is this: if it was a total crap shoot (all 8 teams have a 12.5% chance of winning), you could not place a $100 bet on all of the bottom 4 of the final 8 teams and expect to win due to the vig. However, if the payout for taking the 4 underdogs exceeds the vig, you could expect to win over the long run. I just can't see that as being even remotely possible, and if it was, people would be taking Vegas to the cleaners over the long run. Now, we all know Vegas odds are not just based on who they think will win, they are based on who Vegas thinks people will bet on or against, so it's not just about actual chances of winning based on team strength data, but you can see where I'm coming from, right?

I guess it depends on what people think a "crap shoot" means. Would you call a 45% chance at winning any given series a "crap shoot?" (I might.) How about 40%? (I would not.) 33%? (No way.) 25%? If 10 teams make the playoffs, of course the play-in teams have a less chance than the others, because one is knocked out right away, so let's just count the remaining 8 teams. In theory, a totally random chance application (a true crap shoot), would mean every team has a 12.5% chance at winning. Does anyone really believe all 8 remaining teams hover around the 12.5% mark? Does anyone think all teams fall withing a range of 10-15%, which one could argue is close enough to a true crap shoot to call it one? What if the range was 8-20%? Still a crap shoot? Let's look at only the final 8 teams of 2018, and let's assume these were the proven chances (for argument's sake) of each team's chances at winning the World Series. Would you call this a crap shoot? 20% BOS 18% LAD 14% HOU 13% NYY & MIL 10% ATL 6% CLE & COL I'd say clearly, "no," but maybe you disagree with the chances I assigned. That's fine. Would this be a crap shoot? 16% BOS 15% LAD 14% HOU 13% NYY & MIL 11% ATL 9% CLE & COL I'd argue that even if this is more realsitic than my first example,it's still not a crap shoot, when one team has nearly twice the chance of winning it all than 2 other teams (Sox 16% and CLE & CIN 9%). Would anybody really have thought it would be a good bet to take CLE & CIN's combined chances as being equal to Boston's chances? I guess if you really believe in crapshoots, you'd think that bet was a great one. Do you think the chances were really more like this? 14% BOS 13% LAD, HOU, MIL &NYY 12% ATL 11% CLE & CIN I can't see this as being even close. I'm no math expert, and I know that just because the Sox won 67% of all their games in 2018, it does not mean they will or can be expected to win 67% of their games in the playoffs, especially since their are no bad or really bad opponents in the playoffs, but to me, they have a clear advantage over teams like CLE, COL & ATL (56% in 2018). Yes, it looks like 67% vs 56% is slight, but when you multiply that times 5 or 7 games, the odds become much more than a 50-50 chance, and IMO more than a 55-45 chance. I'd still like to see the studies that show it's a crap shoot. I'm willing to change my mind if the evidence shows I am wrong.

People would be making a killing in Vegas, by betting the underdog every series and collecting the huge payouts due to the lines. Even if the results were 60-40 against the weaker teams, and IMO I wouldn't call that a crap shoot, but for argument's sake let's say it is, the odds often pay out way better than 6:4, if you take the underdog.