Dye

[Rappster]

<!--quoteo(post=76890:date=Jan 21 2010, 07:20 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2010, 07:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76889:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:15 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ Jan 21 2010, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76883:date=Jan 21 2010, 06:23 PM:name=MW4)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MW4 @ Jan 21 2010, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's actually pronounced "Yonni", you know like the great musician.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Just haul your fat fucking ass back to Folsom, and shut your knuckle-dragging mind.



Fat fuck.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're doing it again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I was born to do this...

It's part of my charm.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=76891:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:23 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->He's been sucky for most of his career though, and still can't get on base (aside from 2005), not that it's everything, but it matters since he would most likely get a ton of ABs given the need to rest Alf and sit Fuk against lefties. All I'm saying is that there are better options out there, and for not very much more in terms of dollars.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Two great years, two average years, and one bad year. I just don't see how that adds up to sucky. If you don't like his OBP or his Ks, or his terrible defense, that's cool, I can get that. But to say that he's been sucky for most of his career is simply not correct.

[Rappster]

<!--quoteo(post=76894:date=Jan 21 2010, 07:29 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2010, 07:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76891:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:23 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->He's been sucky for most of his career though, and still can't get on base (aside from 2005), not that it's everything, but it matters since he would most likely get a ton of ABs given the need to rest Alf and sit Fuk against lefties. All I'm saying is that there are better options out there, and for not very much more in terms of dollars.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Two great years, two average years, and one bad year. I just don't see how that adds up to sucky. If you don't like his OBP or his Ks, or his terrible defense, that's cool, I can get that. But to say that he's been sucky for most of his career is simply not correct.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Five years in the league, and non-tendered by Cincinnati. What don't they like?

I'd be interested in monthly breakdowns. Is he the type that piles on a big July, and trashes everything else?

Does it feel as though his track record is a tad light?

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=76897:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:34 PM:name=Rappster)-->QUOTE (Rappster @ Jan 21 2010, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76894:date=Jan 21 2010, 07:29 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2010, 07:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76891:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:23 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->He's been sucky for most of his career though, and still can't get on base (aside from 2005), not that it's everything, but it matters since he would most likely get a ton of ABs given the need to rest Alf and sit Fuk against lefties. All I'm saying is that there are better options out there, and for not very much more in terms of dollars.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Two great years, two average years, and one bad year. I just don't see how that adds up to sucky. If you don't like his OBP or his Ks, or his terrible defense, that's cool, I can get that. But to say that he's been sucky for most of his career is simply not correct.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Five years in the league, and non-tendered by Cincinnati. What don't they like?

I'd be interested in monthly breakdowns. Is he the type that piles on a big July, and trashes everything else?

Does it feel as though his track record is a tad light?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I assume they didn't like that he was going to get $3 million in arbitration, and they view him as a part-time player. Fortunately for the Cubs, they might not have to pay that much.

[rok]

I don't know about 2 "great" years.

2005 very good
2006 sucky
2007 sucky
2008 sucky
2009 good

I just don't like the idea of paying this guy several million after a decent year, when he was going nowhere fast for 3 years in a row, when there are clearly better options out there.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=76900:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't know about 2 "great" years.

2005 very good year
2006 sucky
2007 sucky
2008 sucky
2009 good

I just don't like the idea of paying this guy several million after a decent year, when he was going nowhere fast for 3 years in a row, when there are clearly better options out there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Dude, his OPS+ in 2006 and 2007 were 95 and 105. Those are almost mathematically, perfectly, average.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=76902:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:04 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2010, 08:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76900:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't know about 2 "great" years.

2005 very good year
2006 sucky
2007 sucky
2008 sucky
2009 good

I just don't like the idea of paying this guy several million after a decent year, when he was going nowhere fast for 3 years in a row, when there are clearly better options out there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Dude, his OPS+ in 2006 and 2007 were 95 and 105. Those are almost mathematically, perfectly, average.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2006: .216/.325/.431
2007: .244/.322/.460

I think in a case like this, you can toss OPS+ out and just go ahead and assume we'd be extremely pissed with a 4th OF who produces numbers like those.

[Rappster]

<!--quoteo(post=76903:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:08 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76902:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:04 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2010, 08:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76900:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't know about 2 "great" years.

2005 very good year
2006 sucky
2007 sucky
2008 sucky
2009 good

I just don't like the idea of paying this guy several million after a decent year, when he was going nowhere fast for 3 years in a row, when there are clearly better options out there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Dude, his OPS+ in 2006 and 2007 were 95 and 105. Those are almost mathematically, perfectly, average.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2006: .216/.325/.431
2007: .244/.322/.460

I think in a case like this, you can toss OPS+ out and just go ahead and assume we'd be extremely pissed with a 4th OF who produces numbers like those.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Exactly...our 4th OF needs to have pretty good starter credentials, and a measurable track record.

Give me Baldelli first.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=76903:date=Jan 21 2010, 09:08 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76902:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:04 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2010, 08:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76900:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't know about 2 "great" years.

2005 very good year
2006 sucky
2007 sucky
2008 sucky
2009 good

I just don't like the idea of paying this guy several million after a decent year, when he was going nowhere fast for 3 years in a row, when there are clearly better options out there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Dude, his OPS+ in 2006 and 2007 were 95 and 105. Those are almost mathematically, perfectly, average.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2006: .216/.325/.431
2007: .244/.322/.460

I think in a case like this, you can toss OPS+ out and just go ahead and assume we'd be extremely pissed with a 4th OF who produces numbers like those.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

All OPS+ does is reconstitute those numbers when accounting for park factors. You can't toss it out on the one hand, and then point to its components as superior evidence.

[Ace]

And for the record, I'm not saying Gomes is my top choice - I just think rok has gone too far. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=76907:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:14 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2010, 08:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76903:date=Jan 21 2010, 09:08 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76902:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:04 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2010, 08:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76900:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't know about 2 "great" years.

2005 very good year
2006 sucky
2007 sucky
2008 sucky
2009 good

I just don't like the idea of paying this guy several million after a decent year, when he was going nowhere fast for 3 years in a row, when there are clearly better options out there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Dude, his OPS+ in 2006 and 2007 were 95 and 105. Those are almost mathematically, perfectly, average.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2006: .216/.325/.431
2007: .244/.322/.460

I think in a case like this, you can toss OPS+ out and just go ahead and assume we'd be extremely pissed with a 4th OF who produces numbers like those.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

All OPS+ does is reconstitute those numbers when accounting for park factors. You can't toss it out on the one hand, and then point to its components as superior evidence.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand the theory behind it, but are you telling me that you or anyone on this site would be satisfied with production like that? I'm just not buying it. We had a handful of bench players who put up similar stats as those last season, and we are ready to run them out of town. Gomes would be no different IMO.

[ruby23]

Here's Ruby's take on the possible options:

Nady > Dye > Gomes > Johnson > Baldelli

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=76912:date=Jan 21 2010, 09:18 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jan 21 2010, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Here's Ruby's take on the possible options:

Nady > Dye > Gomes > Johnson > Baldelli<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If Nady is healthy, I see it the same way. But Dye and Gomes are very close, and could flip flop if Dye costs a ton more.

[rok]

When healthy (big IFs) IMO:

Nady>Dye>Baldelli>=Gomes>Johnson

[Rappster]

Here's Ruby's take on anything:

CockPenis CockPenis CockPenis CockPenis CockPenis > Chocolate Milk