Page 6 of 6

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:31 pm
by Phatferd
Madison wrote:
Phatferd wrote:
Madison wrote:
Phatferd wrote:Teams do give up great pitching to rent a player for a playoff drive all the time.

Ponson to SF a couple years back?

Schmidt to SF?
Kazmir for VZAM?

Teams every single year that are in contention overspend to add a bat to their lineup. Every single year, more often than not they will take guys with half a year left, knowing they won't resign him. They do it to help their team that year, they don't look ahead.

Look at Nomar, the Cubs took him for half a year an then resigned him the next year to a 1 year deal. They took him on for 1/2 a year.

How ironic. Ponson goes from garbage to a "great pitcher" in 3 pages. :-b :-b :-b

Anyway, why can't you wrap your brain around this situation and understand it?

A. The Rangers need starting pitching to compete THIS YEAR.

B. No one would trade reasonable pitching for Soriano.

C. Waiting until the trade deadline to move Soriano for "prospects" ;-7 would remove any chance the Rangers have this year.

D. So the Rangers trade Soriano for the pieces needed to land reasonable starting pitching for THIS YEAR, and also open up payroll to sign free agent pitching if they so choose (Save $10 million by trading Soriano).

E. The Rangers trade the excess OF's for starting pitching and/or sign some reasonable starting pitching.

This whole thing is really, really simple. ;-)

Whoever said Ponson was good? He's god awful.

Umm.....You said he was great. I bolded it for you in your quote above.

Maybe I worded that wrong, but what I meant to say was teams give up great pitching to rent a player short term. Ponson was the player they rented for short term. They gave up their top pitching prospect at the time along with a guy who projected as a number 4.

Maybe they didn't turn out like they wanted, but they were able to trade a horrible pitcher to get a teams top pitching prospect. SF took his contract knowing they wouldn't re-sign him in 3 months.

Also, what's everyones lovefest with Wilkerson? All the guy does is hits doubles. He can't even hit .260. Soriano has had a better batting average, HR, RBI, SB almost every single year.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:32 pm
by Phatferd
Mookie4ever wrote:GTWMA,

If you are going to enter into a discussion about the Texas A-Rod fall out to argue that signing bad pitchers was the first domino to drop in an inevitable series of bad moves.....then say so. Just posting a bunch of salaries and then calling another poster dense for not following your unwritten chain of logic is not kosher. Then following it up by saying that we don't understand your post b/c we don't "understand even a teeny-tiny bit about how to measure player performance and the economics of baseball" :-° not cool.

btw - I'm not pugnacious. I'm cantankerous and truculent but never pugnacious.

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:I agree that they may have to overpay if you are going to do that, you'd better overpay good pitchers. I really can't remember TX chasing good pitchers!

I guess in retrospect you can say this but at the time CHP was an all-star pitcher with an 85-54 record and coming off 2 consecutive sub 3.50 ERA 200+SO seasons.

Rogers was a good signing and Codero was a good trade.

I followed GTWMA logic the entire time, does that make you dense?

The entire time all he was doing was explaining how the AROD deal hurt this team. It fit into the discussion. His signing wasn't the mistake it was his contract and how they used it to ruin the franchise for a few years.

Also, even if it didn't tie into the discussion, he has every write to post it. The title of this thread isn't "How did the AROD signing hurt the Rangers?" It's "Are the Ranger's stupid?" He wrote a post that explained why the Ranger's are stupid. It fit quite well actually.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:51 pm
by Mookie4ever
It isn't his contribution to which I object it is the manner of communicating it. Calling another poster dense for failing to get his point or alleging that they do not "understand even a teeny-tiny bit about how to measure player performance and the economics of baseball" is both arrogant and qualifies as instigating.

This is what I explained in my post - it was not his argument, it was his method of epressing his displeasure that was inappropriate. You have failed to get my point Phatferd....but I will not call you dense, I will just lock this thread before it erupts into a full blown flame fest and you get yourself banned.