SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Recent Posts
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 11, 2016 14:12:36 GMT -5
Yeah, the opt-out is near the end of Spring Training (I posted that back in mid-December when I don't think the opt-out had been reported yet). Whether the opt out could be extended, it's hard to say. Sometimes the player and team aren't on the same page on how much more time a player needs. Often there is also a second opt-out date in the contract as well - that was the case with Andrew Miller a few years back. Boston should have at least one more 40-man spot open in Spring Training with Workman going back on the 60-day DL, so it could potentially add Varvaro and then send him on a rehab stint for 30 days. Or he could make the team outright (depending on his own health), particularly if there is an injury. I believe the report was that there were two opt-outs. I don't think the presence of an opt-out means anything. It probably just means he negotiated for opt-outs in exchange for a lesser deal. For non full term FAs, often opt outs are provided that mimic what a full-term FA would get if they sign a minor league deal.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 31, 2015 13:40:03 GMT -5
Sorry. That was an awful blog post bland. Uninformative. Had lots of conclusions without analysis. C- and only that high because the formatting made it easy to read That's not someone who posts here, is it? Sorry if so.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 30, 2015 19:18:02 GMT -5
Should they be nominated for worst team of all time if neither of those things are true?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 30, 2015 17:08:15 GMT -5
That is a bizarre contradiction in the rules. Leaves me thinking that there could be a player's association lawsuit filed on Chapman's behalf if there really is that much ambiguity. Weird. The pa agreed to the domestic violence policy.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 30, 2015 13:48:48 GMT -5
DAYS
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 30, 2015 13:30:13 GMT -5
So, I am probably wrong: they don't accrue service time it appears by the terms of the agreement. I was corrected on SOSH and re-read the policy: pbs.twimg.com/media/CM9aheDUkAAi8wh.jpg:largeFourth paragraph under C: "All disciplinary suspensions under the policy that are upheld are without pay and suspended players will not accrue Major League service."
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 30, 2015 12:10:43 GMT -5
Free Agency (and all other service time issues) qualification is related to days on an active roster, not games played (or available for).
I don't see why a player suspended by MLB will not accrue service time.
Here is the definition from the CBA:
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 29, 2015 10:34:54 GMT -5
I don't know what "right" means there. Are you arguing against the mythical person who thinks the trade should be disallowed by some higher power?
This is an issue of taste not rights.
You have a "right" to be a gigantic prick. I chose not to like that behavior. I also choose to not want to root for Chapman.
I also have no obligation to be consistent - I can root for the 04 Sox and forget who their shortstop was while also hoping that this player is not on my favorite team. I can like chocolate ice cream on Tuesday but prefer vanilla tomorrow. There is no requirement of consistency in taste.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 23, 2015 16:22:41 GMT -5
Thanks Chris. I guess he is a keeper! I did not have the HBP, and I have no idea what the constant is. I gather that changes year to year. The constant was 3.2 when created. Should change with the run environment. Edit: scale should match to your understanding of era. That was the point if it.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 22, 2015 8:45:05 GMT -5
Great podcast, gentlemen. Alex is always very interesting and thorough.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 10, 2015 11:27:37 GMT -5
You must laugh at pretty much every contract every pitcher has signed lately. I'm not a mod, but please learn how to let things go. This is not a good thread for discussing that contract. Just like Nomar's post and move on rather than failing to let the subject die. Sorry, this happens all the time and I've had it built up for too long. There are lots of posts I disagree with - I don't have to make each point if that point has been discussed 100 times earlier. That's the beauty of the written word!
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 10, 2015 11:24:00 GMT -5
First shots fired in the next CBA negotiations. As stated above, the MLBPA will lose, but that's not the point here. It's to take this issue and gain traction on it before the negotiations so that they don't need to give up as much to get that changed. Frankly though, I'm not quite sure how you fix this without completely changing the structure of baseball contracts. Do you get rid of Super 2s? Do you split the season up into thirds or something and base a player's arb eligibility on that or something? I'm not sure. Well, instead of trying to find a different defined line (rule) that can be gamed, you could set up a standards base system that mimicked what we have now but then just said that teams must make service time decisions "for on field baseball reasons" (or whatever). Then you can introduce stiff penalties for failing to make service time decisions based on baseball (non contract) considerations. Both systems introduce gamesmanship, but the line drawing (the rule based system) just tells management how to game the system without reprocusions, while a standard based system with strong penalties disincents teams from operating in a gray area on their own, thereby incenting rule following behavior if the cost for standard breaking is not worth operating in the gray area. Its a classic rule/standard issue - which do you think would create a better system. Here, lack of knowledge re outcomes for failure could properly incent (with the appropriate frame work and a strong union) teams to police themselves. But, most people (esp lawyers) dislike standards and favor rules b/c we like to know ahead of time when we can get away with cheating each other =)
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 3, 2015 9:35:56 GMT -5
There are 2 criteria required in which adding a player option is ALWAYS bad for the team: 1. All players/participants are rational 2. All players/participants have perfect information I'm not sure if I'd phrase it exactly that way, but in thinking about this more, there are a number of complications that come into play. From an econ 101 standpoint, the player option is obviously an assumed negative value (to the team) at the time of the grant. There really is no debate about that. However, there are a number of inefficiencies that are in play in every market, and may be more in play in an MLB market -- and even more so for a big star. 1. The Lemon problem. A trade market for a 34 year-old Price is greatly effected by the asymmetry of information - the Red Sox will be assumed to know if Price is a lemon or not; merely putting him on the market likely decreases his assumed value to other teams. We see this in all markets (though it is most clear in private used car markets, and the basis for "certified" used cars), and this is especially true in a market for contracts for professional athletes. 2. The flip side of this is an anchoring problem - Price (an assumed rational actor) has now declared himself a free agent who is worth at least 4/127 - that anchor shapes people's bidding. We see this in housing markets all the time - its virtually the reason why you pay for a selling agent (though there are debates on the value of that, too). 3. Revealed Preferences - Preferences for a player are only revealed when a market is displayed for a player. It may be true that every single team would not want older-Price at 4/127, but when a bidding takes place, revealed preferences change. Auctions - and player markets in the MLB, especially for stars are auctions -- are events when costs spiral outside of pre-bid valuations. (Crowd sourcing already prices in this bias.) My understanding of the literature is that open auctions typically produced higher bids than sealed bid auctions as people base their bid in part on what others bid (anchoring to a degree). 4. Optimism or overconfidence - This is especially true for star athletes, who need overconfidence in order to break into being a star (the urge to be overconfident has biological imperative roots - we want to be able to survive lion attacks). Price is more likely to view his market as greater than 4/127 than the Red Sox, all things being equal. There are obviously other biases too, and I know this topic has run its course, but I thought it would be worthwhile to ground what I think are people's common sense arguments (by which I mean, not rooted in a theoretical framework) for the Red Sox value in a player option with what I think of as structural issues that may give rise to that in real life. That all said, this does not mean that at the time it is given, a player option is not a benefit for the player - of course it is. The only question I'm trying to frame is under what circumstances (and I think there are some) the exercise of a player option is a net benefit for a team.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 1, 2015 22:38:51 GMT -5
For all of those who are falling over themselves - please someone make a case for this signing *in the case where Price does not opt out* and make a *baseball* argument, not a Dombrowski is a great and good man argument. Anyone? I don't understand. If he does not opt out, its just a 7 year contract. Today, you either sign a 7 year deal or not. Whether he opts out is immaterial to if a 7 year deal is good today. Or am I not getting it?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 1, 2015 19:57:19 GMT -5
That Logic makes zero sense!!! Most people believe that Price will be elite/very very good for the next 3 years, its the last 4 years that scare people. Just because he's elite for the next 3 years, doesn't mean he'll be elite for the next 7 years dude! You keep posting this crab and it defies logic. History tells us that his age 34, 35 and 36 seasons will look nothing like his age 30, 31 and 32 seasons. Sure he could become Johnson, Schilling, Clemens or Mussina and pitch very well in his mid to late thirties, but the odds are stacked against that happening.
Opt out gives this benefit to the team; After 3 very good years he leaves and signs with another team, we get a pick and that other team pays for his decline years at more then we paid for his prime years.
Except Price only opts out if his market value is greater than what is left on the contract. And if his market value is greater than his contract than the team could trade him and get something in return. This gets into complicated questions regarding what level of rationality weexpect people to display, a bet on the rate of increase re contracts, etc. However, what is true is not weather he will act in a way that maximizes his earnings, or that teams will value him the same; what is true is that the right to reexamine the market rests solely in his camp.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 30, 2015 21:29:32 GMT -5
For people who have kept up the last several years, since MGL wrote his famous series a few years ago (about Eric Karros, iirc), is there any better reason to believe in the myth of the lefty masher?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 18, 2015 10:56:22 GMT -5
3. I think Margot and Guerra are the two players I think have the least likelihood of being as good as their rankings suggest. I have major doubts that Guerra sees the majors ever. Margot could be a 750+ OPS CFer with plus defense, or a solid defensive player/pitch runner who can't hit at the corners - there is a lot of variance in his potential career outcomes (while true of all prospects, the variance is higher than many with who will likely be around his consensus top 100 ranking). I don't think Asuje gets more than 100 PAs in the majors, and I doubt Allen logs 30 IP. So, of all the players with good rankings/trade value to trade, this is the group that I think stings the least.
Kimbrel is very good and its good to get very good players.
That said, I recognize that there is a very real opportunity cost and for what I expect was the precieved value, I'd have hopped for more in return that 65 wonderful (high leverage) innings -- again, assuming that I'm not wrong on what the industry view is regarding their value of Margot/Guerra.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 18, 2015 9:16:22 GMT -5
Imagine that - the 32d page of a thread about a single trade and there isn't new ground to cover? Who'd have thunk it?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Oct 31, 2015 14:26:45 GMT -5
Omg. Kris Johnson is 31??
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 24, 2015 6:39:27 GMT -5
I hope people get, the debate is how good Xander will be . Not if he'll be good. Yeah, I don't want to make it seem like I'm disparaging the guy. I think he's overwhelmingly likely to be an above-average regular and probably a multi-year All-Star. But I tend to think the most likely scenario is something more like Jhonny Peralta or Carlos Guillen than Troy Tulowitzki or Alex Rodriguez. Yes, I think it more likely that he is merely very good rather than a consistent mvp candidate. That was true, and will be true, until he is an mvp candidate, of course.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 22, 2015 11:36:39 GMT -5
1 Yoan Moncada 2 Andrew Benintendi 3 Manuel Margot 4 Rafael Devers 5 Anderson Espinoza 6 Sam Travis 7 Brian Johnson 8 Javier Guerra 9 Michael Kopech 10 Luis Alexander Basabe 11 Nick Longhi 12 Michael Chavis 13 Trey Ball 14 Deven Marrero 15 Logan Allen 16 Wendell Rijo 17 Yoan Aybar 18 Mauricio Dubon 19 Ty Buttrey 20 Marc Brakeman 21 Roniel Raudes 22 Christopher Acosta 23 Pat Light 24 Williams Jerez 25 Jake Cosart 26 Kevin Steen 27 Carlos Asuaje 28 Josh Ockimey 29 Austin Rei 30 Sean Coyle 31 Travis Lakins 32 Teddy Stankiewicz 33 Henry Ramos 34 Jonathan Aro 35 Garin Cecchini 36 Kevin McAvoy 37 Marco Hernandez 38 Ben Taylor 39 Jalen Beeks 40 Ben Moore 41 Josh Pennington 42 Karsten Whitson 43 Eddy Reynoso 44 Luis Ysla
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 11, 2015 11:47:09 GMT -5
So is Baldwin back to being a catcher? (I know he caught a few games last year.) And Spoon was not re-converted back to OF, I take it?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 11, 2015 10:51:37 GMT -5
Based on what I know so far, I probably lean towards calling it a poorly-timed accident, but you have to see why most folks are skeptical of that explanation, right? Aren't we discussing reporters (or at least, entertainment writers) passing off reporting? Not, you know, Joe Schmoe fan.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 11, 2015 1:50:45 GMT -5
Four te sets and twice scoring out if the same te grouping with motion by 6'7 giants (and different routes run). Just beautiful.
Jmei: "At Gillette Stadium, the scrambling and jamming of the opponents' coach-to-quarterback radio line -- "small s---" that many teams do, according to a former Pats assistant coach -- occurred so often that one team asked a league official to sit in the coaches' box during the game and wait for it to happen. Sure enough, on a key third down, the headset went out."
I may have missed it. Where in this in depth reporting does it point out that communications systems are controlled by the nfl? Do you think the patriots somehow struck again last night tweet the nfl is covering for them? If you are convinced by such drivel, you are right- one of us won't be convinced by rationality.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 10, 2015 10:10:35 GMT -5
There were new details about Spygate (e.g., Adams' role in the operation, the nuts and bolts of how the information gained was used on gameday, etc.) that, to the best of my knowledge, had not been previously published. The confirmation by multiple former Patriots employees of the other "small s---" is significant-- do you really think Van Natta and Wickersham invented their sources or that multiple sources independently made up the same stories about the Patriots' shady activity? I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and I won't argue too much more on the subject. But I'm honestly astounded at the lengths to which you and many other smart, reasonable people Patriots fans have gone to try and hand wave away this story. I mean, no offense, but this is bull****. “I’m not going to argue with you, but I’ll just point out that when I’m confronted I’ll revert to calling you unreasonable rather than pointing out anything new.” No. The reason why Patriots fans get upset at this is that Patriots fans have invested the time and energy to point out how false these reports generally are. It isn’t that hard to do, but people who are not fans don’t spend the energy b/c they don’t care. As seems to be the case with you. With that out of the way, I suppose you’ll require me to go through your post and point out (a) what we are arguing about, and (b) how you are wrong. Let’s look at the two sets of issues separately: Spygate brought back up 8 years later, and the myriad of “small s***” that you consider significant. Interspersed, we’ll talk about how whether we should look askew at Van Natta and Wickersham’s sources considering that we have no idea who they are. There is virtually nothing new in this article about Spygate. Adams as the center of the “gate” has been covered repeatedly: it is even mentioned by Senator Spector in his floor statement (http://old.post-gazette.com/downloads/20080608letter_specter.pdf ). The nuts and bolts of the operation (including Adams as the alleged center) are all old news - its just repeating what Walsh previously said. Matching the tapes to plays – allegedly on game days after the 2006 memo, but there is no evidence of that – is also old news. And, of course, the farce of taping of practices is so old news that I need not mention the fact that ESPN itself two-weeks ago issued an apology for stating that repeatedly on air (an apology that it appears to have forgotten, as it repeated the discredited allegation in this article, too). That these are new to you is more than you haven’t been paying attention to it – which is fine, of course. But that’s the point – Patriots fans have been. So the hand-waving (which I take to mean “not investing real energy/time in something”) is actually on the non-fan side. To be more clear: you (and other fans, for whom this was written) are being lazy. But let’s not mince words: this is a bull**** controversy. The Patriots could have hired 4 people to: (1) stand on the Patriots sideline with binoculars and write down the signals they saw the opposition use; (2) write down the down-distance simultaneously; (3) write down the play-call; and (4) write down the personnel. They then could have relayed that information to Adams in-between quarters, and Adams could speak directly to the sideline on his headphones. All that would have been perfectly legal. Yet taping the same information was not. That’s the entire controversy. It is a very technical violation. It is not “cheating” to look at what “80,000” people can look at. It does not mean that the Patriots weren’t wrong to have done so, and the team’s response was kind of lame, but it’s a BS controversy that should have been treated that way – fine them $250,000 for violating the clear dictates of the memo, and tell them never to do it again or the penalty will be worse. The penalty is for failing to listen even if the rule itself is stupid - but, really, there is no need to relive Spygate – the point is really just that there is nothing new. Ok the issue of the “small s---“, the issues are all nonsense. But, let’s go through them one-by-one if you must: 1. “during pregame warm-ups, a low-level Patriots employee would sneak into the visiting locker room and steal the play sheet” – Seriously? You think that (a) locker rooms aren’t secured, and (b) people leave play sheets laying around? As Mike Reiss wrote on his ESPN blog (in a piece that ESPN edited to remove this obviously, after it already went up – see Bruce Allen’s blog: www.bostonsportsmedia.com ) security is tight in football stadiums. There is no way that is true. Now, I’m sure that the Patriots have rummaged through trash before – which, of course, is not cheating. Everyone does that – and everyone would love to find a play sheet. ESPN has zoomed in on playsheets before (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/chip-kelly-play-sheet-espn ; they did it to Sean Payten too). Again, the entirety of the proof is unnamed “[several] former New England coaches and employees.” No, I don’t believe that if the authors listed these people we’d believe them. I don’t have any good reason to think that they made up the sources – I just don’t believe their sources. (That said, they clearly failed to point out that nearly all the Walsh allegations were debunked and that ESPN and the Boston Herald have already issued apologies for reporting it. In fact, they originally did not put the Patriots statement in the article – they then put an edited version of that statement, excluding the fact that ESPN apologies for the false reports, then finally put the full statement in. Seriously, how do you know that and not think this is an intentional hatchet job?) 2. “(The practice became so notorious that some coaches put out fake play sheets for the Patriots to swipe.)” Yet, none of these coaches could put a hidden camera up (or a person!) to catch this obviously breach of ethics? Seriously? 3. “Numerous former employees say the Patriots would have someone rummage through the visiting team hotel for playbooks or scouting reports.” I’m not sure what this means, because it is not clear at all. I am sure the Patriots did look in trash – good for them. Who hasn’t? I’m also sure that they did NOT wiretap rooms, break into secured areas, etc. 4. “At Gillette Stadium, the scrambling and jamming of the opponents' coach-to-quarterback radio line -- "small s---" that many teams do, according to a former Pats assistant coach -- occurred so often that one team asked a league official to sit in the coaches' box during the game and wait for it to happen. Sure enough, on a key third down, the headset went out.” Come on. Seriously? A league official sat there and witnessed tampering but nothing happened to the Patriots??? That’s the allegation – that the NFL witness the malfeasance. Yet, have you heard of the Pats being sanctioned? I mean, I guess its possible that it took place – it certainly isn’t new. The communications system issue (#4) was alleged in 2008 by the Cardinals. It was investigated by the NFL and nothing came of up. Anyway, as I pointed out above – none of these are new allegations. All of these were listed by SI earlier this year. Plus more. So, this article did not do anything to advance a story. It was 100% a hatchet job. Yet, in response to pointing out an article with the same exact allegations, you respond with “I’m not going to change your mind.” What? Why would you change my mind? I asked what is new – you responded. I pointed out that the same allegations were made nearly verbatim a few months ago (though, they’ve been made repeatedly in the prior years, too) and you say “well, I won’t change your mind.” I was not then arguing that the allegations were accurate – just that they were clearly not “new.” Yet, they are pretty weak – and they should be recognized as such. But, for my point, I’m really just pointing out that this is a clear hatchet job by the NFL through ESPN. If you didn’t think so before, then the handling of the Patriots statement in response and Reiss’s blog posts should make that clear.
|
|
|