Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Unfortunately, Elcano, like Keller will see like 1/3 of the IP he would have on a properly run team.

yet I was in game 7 of the series.... where were you?

Posted by AlCheez on 7/22/2010 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 7/22/2010 3:31:00 PM (view original):
I am glad I sat this one out.

There were all kinds of front-end talents that signed early and at very nice prices - there was just this last handful of guys that were actually battled over that got insane.

my reasoning for going after the guys i did in free agency to not sign the guys who did sign early is i was shooting for good players under 30. i lost out on both elcano and guerrero, but no biggie. i can't tell you if that's what moy and patrickm were thinking as well.
now of course i have to sign several older players to short term contracts for way less $, so my franchise is still not screwed at least.

Posted by tisi29 on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Idiot or not, it makes more sense to spend 2x value on a great player than 3x value on a mid-level player.

Well...  not exactly.

For example, I would rather spend, for example 10 mil on 220 innings at a 4 ERA than 10 million at 60 innings at a 3.5 ERA.

I am not saying that is the exact math here, but both contracts are horrible and in this case you are probably spending 75% of the money for 25% of the innings at probably 150% of the effectiveness.

Posted by moy23 on 7/22/2010 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Unfortunately, Elcano, like Keller will see like 1/3 of the IP he would have on a properly run team.

yet I was in game 7 of the series.... where were you?

I think I have been in like 4 WS over the last 7 or 8 seasons of $ and without even looking probably have 4-5 times as many WS appearances and championships as you in less seasons.

Not sure you want to rely on your "resume" in this discussion.

Posted by moy23 on 7/22/2010 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Unfortunately, Elcano, like Keller will see like 1/3 of the IP he would have on a properly run team.

yet I was in game 7 of the series.... where were you?

hiring tanya harding's crew to take out Hootie.  Well done, busk, well done.

Posted by tisi29 on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Idiot or not, it makes more sense to spend 2x value on a great player than 3x value on a mid-level player.

Thanks tisi.


I have 1 ML contract coming up next season in Arby which I can arbitrate or go w/ a LTC.... I can definitely afford having Elcano's $21 mil this season and $16 mil next. After that he drops to a much more respectable $14/$14/$13 the next 3 years. I'll be okay with his salary - obviously I would have wanted him for less but it is what it is. I wish he signed my first contract of $10 mil bonus + $8.9mil x5 yrs. He sat on that for 2 days with me in 1st place before serge showed up.

i was on both of those fools from day 1. i was just not the leading bidder for most of the time.

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tisi29 on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Idiot or not, it makes more sense to spend 2x value on a great player than 3x value on a mid-level player.

Well...  not exactly.

For example, I would rather spend, for example 10 mil on 220 innings at a 4 ERA than 10 million at 60 innings at a 3.5 ERA.

I am not saying that is the exact math here, but both contracts are horrible and in this case you are probably spending 75% of the money for 25% of the innings at probably 150% of the effectiveness.

All my key players (probably 15 of them) are locked up past season 18 with good contracts. If I have the extra dough how can you say its a bad contract. Its not like Elcano will be ****** in 5 seasons. He's 29, a pitcher with 6 ML yrs under him, and he's still improving ratings-wise.

Next season I have $25 million bonus money freeing up I can put $14 of that back into the prospect budget.

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tisi29 on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Idiot or not, it makes more sense to spend 2x value on a great player than 3x value on a mid-level player.

Well...  not exactly.

For example, I would rather spend, for example 10 mil on 220 innings at a 4 ERA than 10 million at 60 innings at a 3.5 ERA.

I am not saying that is the exact math here, but both contracts are horrible and in this case you are probably spending 75% of the money for 25% of the innings at probably 150% of the effectiveness.

I'm saying I'd rather spend $12M for a player that will be worth 3 wins a year over 75 innings (even though he is really only worth $6M), than $18M for a player that will be worth 3 wins a year over 225 innings (which I'd say makes him worth about $6M).

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 7/22/2010 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Unfortunately, Elcano, like Keller will see like 1/3 of the IP he would have on a properly run team.

yet I was in game 7 of the series.... where were you?

I think I have been in like 4 WS over the last 7 or 8 seasons of $ and without even looking probably have 4-5 times as many WS appearances and championships as you in less seasons.

Not sure you want to rely on your "resume" in this discussion.

yeah and 2 years ago I was 15 lbs lighter, had more hair, and wasn't married - but that doesn't help me get laid NOW.

Posted by moy23 on 7/22/2010 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tisi29 on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Idiot or not, it makes more sense to spend 2x value on a great player than 3x value on a mid-level player.

Thanks tisi.


I have 1 ML contract coming up next season in Arby which I can arbitrate or go w/ a LTC.... I can definitely afford having Elcano's $21 mil this season and $16 mil next. After that he drops to a much more respectable $14/$14/$13 the next 3 years. I'll be okay with his salary - obviously I would have wanted him for less but it is what it is. I wish he signed my first contract of $10 mil bonus + $8.9mil x5 yrs. He sat on that for 2 days with me in 1st place before serge showed up.

At your budget level, the deal is certainly less ridiculous.  It is still overpaying a great player, but it makes more sense for you than it would for me.

Posted by moy23 on 7/22/2010 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tisi29 on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Idiot or not, it makes more sense to spend 2x value on a great player than 3x value on a mid-level player.

Well...  not exactly.

For example, I would rather spend, for example 10 mil on 220 innings at a 4 ERA than 10 million at 60 innings at a 3.5 ERA.

I am not saying that is the exact math here, but both contracts are horrible and in this case you are probably spending 75% of the money for 25% of the innings at probably 150% of the effectiveness.

All my key players (probably 15 of them) are locked up past season 18 with good contracts. If I have the extra dough how can you say its a bad contract. Its not like Elcano will be ****** in 5 seasons. He's 29, a pitcher with 6 ML yrs under him, and he's still improving ratings-wise.

Next season I have $25 million bonus money freeing up I can put $14 of that back into the prospect budget.

It doesn't matter how long they are locked up...  it is that if you have to shift money over to cover down on an out of control player salary, at what cost does that come?  You cut out scouting and training etc and it is a less effective use of your dollar.  This is why you never win.

At least when dubbs rocks the giant payroll he makes sure his players don't turn to ****.

Posted by moy23 on 7/22/2010 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 7/22/2010 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Unfortunately, Elcano, like Keller will see like 1/3 of the IP he would have on a properly run team.

yet I was in game 7 of the series.... where were you?

I think I have been in like 4 WS over the last 7 or 8 seasons of $ and without even looking probably have 4-5 times as many WS appearances and championships as you in less seasons.

Not sure you want to rely on your "resume" in this discussion.

yeah and 2 years ago I was 15 lbs lighter, had more hair, and wasn't married - but that doesn't help me get laid NOW.

being married doesn't help you get laid?  strange marriage you've got there, moylan.

Posted by moy23 on 7/22/2010 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tisi29 on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Idiot or not, it makes more sense to spend 2x value on a great player than 3x value on a mid-level player.

Well...  not exactly.

For example, I would rather spend, for example 10 mil on 220 innings at a 4 ERA than 10 million at 60 innings at a 3.5 ERA.

I am not saying that is the exact math here, but both contracts are horrible and in this case you are probably spending 75% of the money for 25% of the innings at probably 150% of the effectiveness.

All my key players (probably 15 of them) are locked up past season 18 with good contracts. If I have the extra dough how can you say its a bad contract. Its not like Elcano will be ****** in 5 seasons. He's 29, a pitcher with 6 ML yrs under him, and he's still improving ratings-wise.

Next season I have $25 million bonus money freeing up I can put $14 of that back into the prospect budget.

You've got 90 million committed to 14 players for next year, that doesn't include guys that are going to be in arb years - your payroll isn't going to really dip that much next year unless you move some of it.

Posted by tisi29 on 7/22/2010 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/22/2010 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tisi29 on 7/22/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Idiot or not, it makes more sense to spend 2x value on a great player than 3x value on a mid-level player.

Well...  not exactly.

For example, I would rather spend, for example 10 mil on 220 innings at a 4 ERA than 10 million at 60 innings at a 3.5 ERA.

I am not saying that is the exact math here, but both contracts are horrible and in this case you are probably spending 75% of the money for 25% of the innings at probably 150% of the effectiveness.

I'm saying I'd rather spend $12M for a player that will be worth 3 wins a year over 75 innings (even though he is really only worth $6M), than $18M for a player that will be worth 3 wins a year over 225 innings (which I'd say makes him worth about $6M).

At those numbers sure...

I wouldn't claim to know any more than you about HBD...  probably the opposite in fact.

I would just question whether those win totals would be right for the two players in question.