2007 Baseball Season is about to start--talk about anything you want

[pilferk]

there's 3 teams looking for CF in the NL East alone.

don't you think the yanks want someone to play 3rd?

Like I said, there might be more....just only 3 I can think of.

Yeah, I'm not sure what they're going to do about 3rd.  They have Betemit, who's not the greatest choice, but is functional (and 3rd is his native position).  Lowell is a long shot possibility, so they wouldn't need to trade for him. I suppose Arod is still a remote possibility, but I think, personally, that bridge has been burned.  Others disagree.

 I just think, given Damon's value, that they'll try to address pitching using him as trade bait.  I'm just not sure they'll try to grab a position player with him.  Given how relatively weak the free agent market is this year....maybe they WILL use him that way.  We'll see.

FYI, I think we've covered the damon debate now, to death.  Everyone agree?  I'm ready to move on...

[pilferk]

hey, if you want to add to the red sox "underdog" theories, feel free.

futures don't tell you much. i place very little stock in them as they are essentially hypothetical. head to head is how you determine favorites/underdogs. and the red sox were favored in all 3 of their playoff series.

My point is, and was, in all this that the '04 Sox and the '07 Sox were not too different, as far as being "underdogs" is concerned.  The perception is quite different than the reality on this one.  Both were teams built very similarly, and both teams were considered, by those not "fans", to be contenders.  I don't think we need to overstate, or understate, either teams abilites or "potential" in revisiting their accomplishments.  The '04 story makes good copy, and is a dramatic "story", but that's about it.

You said "underdogs in terms of Vegas Odds".  Those were the Vegas Odds....which are usually futures.  Head to head, they were favored game by game this year because they had the home field advantage (particularly important against the Angels who simply SUCK at Fenway).  If that's your VERY narrow definition of underdog, that's fine.  But, really, it's irrelevant to the original point you made way back when....because you're simply arguing what everyone already knows:  In '04 the Sox didn't have home field, and in '07 they did.  I wouldn't say that one thing has much bearing on classifying the teams potential to win a WS.

[pilferk]

Allow me to bring you back to what you first said:

"in 2004, the red sox were the underdogs. they made the wildcard, pulled an upset in the first round. then needed the yankees to have the biggest collapse in the history of all sports to get to the WS.

in 2007, the red sox were the best team in baseball. period. so there's no point in even arguing anything about this season. and although JD Drew was a disappointment, he came through when it mattered most."

What that says to me is: They overcame huge adversity, nobody thought they could, should, or would win.  Etc. Etc. in 2004

In 2007, everyone expected them to win, they were far and away the best team, winning was basically a foregone conclusion, etc, etc.

If what you're really saying is "In 2004, they were 2nd best team in baseball, were legit contenders on everyone's radar, and overcame not having home field advantage to win"  then the discussion is over.  I agree.

So explain how it fits into what you're saying now? Cause I'm confused.

FYI, the first round wasn't an upset in '04, either.  They were favored to win it, had a better record than the team they were playing (the Angels), in fact.  They were favored head to head in both games 1 and 2 (with Shill and Pedro pitching),l AWAY.  Game 3 was a pickem, from everything I can find.

I think we've covered this one to death too...  Have your say and lets move on, OK?

[pilferk]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3096834

That's gonna hurt.....

[sandman]

Allow me to bring you back to what you first said:

"in 2004, the red sox were the underdogs. they made the wildcard, pulled an upset in the first round. then needed the yankees to have the biggest collapse in the history of all sports to get to the WS.

in 2007, the red sox were the best team in baseball. period. so there's no point in even arguing anything about this season. and although JD Drew was a disappointment, he came through when it mattered most."

What that says to me is: They overcame huge adversity, nobody thought they could, should, or would win.? Etc. Etc. in 2004

In 2007, everyone expected them to win, they were far and away the best team, winning was basically a foregone conclusion, etc, etc.

If what you're really saying is "In 2004, they were 2nd best team in baseball, were legit contenders on everyone's radar, and overcame not having home field advantage to win"? then the discussion is over.? I agree.

So explain how it fits into what you're saying now? Cause I'm confused.

FYI, the first round wasn't an upset in '04, either.? They were favored to win it, had a better record than the team they were playing (the Angels), in fact.? They were favored head to head in both games 1 and 2 (with Shill and Pedro pitching),l AWAY.? Game 3 was a pickem, from everything I can find.

I think we've covered this one to death too...? Have your say and lets move on, OK?

you're clearly putting words into my mouth. i did not say or imply that anyone overcame "huge adversity." the fact is, there's a favorite and an underdog in every series.

i'll make this clear....BEFORE A SERIES BEGINS, you can bet on who will win the SERIES. it is in the form of a money line. one team is the favorite and one team is the underdog. in 2004, the yankees were favored to defeat the red sox. it was an upset. in 2007, the red sox were favored to defeat the angels, indians, and rockies.

nothing is a "foregone conclusion" in sports, or there would be no vegas.

[pilferk]

you're clearly putting words into my mouth. i did not say or imply that anyone overcame "huge adversity." the fact is, there's a favorite and an underdog in every series.

i'll make this clear....BEFORE A SERIES BEGINS, you can bet on who will win the SERIES. it is in the form of a money line. one team is the favorite and one team is the underdog. in 2004, the yankees were favored to defeat the red sox. it was an upset. in 2007, the red sox were favored to defeat the angels, indians, and rockies.

nothing is a "foregone conclusion" in sports, or there would be no vegas.

No, I'm explaining what your words conveyed to me.  You're clarifying (and correcting...that bit about the angels may be why the words weren't clear), which helps, but I still fail to see the point within the context you were using it.  If, indeed, that's what you originally meant, it seems irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

They were SLIGHT underdogs against the Yanks (and only the Yanks) in '04.  They were favored vs the Angels and St. Louis (despite St. Louis having 104 wins).  In 2007, they were favorites over the Angels and Rockies, and SLIGHT favorites over Cleveland (who had the exact same record).  The difference in the ALCS (the only place there was one) looked to be explainable by home field advantage.  I fail to see how that means the two teams didn't perform, or aren't statistically, comparable.  Which was my point, early on.  They won in 2004.  They won in 2007.  Paths were even pretty similar through the playoffs...they weren't down 3-0 in the ALCS this year, only 3-1, but close.

Essentially, if being a favorite or underdog is meaningless except in terms of betting (which we're not doing, here), and you're not using it to characterize the team and their efforts (which is the only context that seems to make sense in the original discussion/point)....what was your point?  I'm still missing it.

Edit: Honestly, I'm really trying to understand, here.

[sandman]

you take issue and disagree with every little statement, so feel free to go back and determine the original context.

i believe my point was simply that the red sox were not the team most people expected to win it all in 2004. they were the underdogs vs. the yankees. (and much luck was involved in their comeback vs. the yanks.)

this year (without Damon), they built the best team in baseball. best regular season team, and best playoff team.

[pilferk]

you take issue and disagree with every little statement, so feel free to go back and determine the original context.

I disagree because you either aren't making sense or are saying things that are proven to be untrue.  When you're not making sense, I simply ask for clarification.

And every time you clarify, you seem to change direction.  You can re-read the post stream to see how one could get confused, because it seems like you change what you mean in each progressing post.  When we finally distilled it down, what you say you meant, originally, seems to make no sense in the context of our discussion.

And now....you offer the following as explanation.

i believe my point was simply that the red sox were not the team most people expected to win it all in 2004. they were the underdogs vs. the yankees. (and much luck was involved in their comeback vs. the yanks.)

this year (without Damon), they built the best team in baseball. best regular season team, and best playoff team.

Right.  And my point is that "Vegas Odds underdog" has little to do with the above perception. And the above perception has little to do with reality. Maybe "most people" perceived it, but looking at the hard numbers, and knowing the game, you'd be hard pressed to see the perception reflected in reality.   You clarify (and re-enforce that point) above.  You mean what I thought you meant...you just said so, above.

Let me try to simplify:

In 2004, with Damon, they were underdogs (you think).

In 2007, without him, they were overwhelmingly the best team (you think).

Therefore, the implication must be that they're better without Damon, right?  That's your point.... 

So back to my original point, which is the same as when we started the discussion:

The Sox were considered to have their best team in a LONG time in '04.  While the powerhouse Yanks appeared to be the favorites in Vegas (and not overwhelmingly, no matter if you look at futures, head to head, or series odds...whichever you choose at this point), the Sox were considered strong contenders with a legit shot, at both beating the Yanks and getting to, and winning, the WS.  They did all 3.  Not many people were very surprised (other than red sox fans) at the final outcome.  The dramatic way they BEAT the Yanks was impressive.  The rest was media storyline that lots of people bought into.

Without Damon, in 2007, they had the best record in the league (but the Yanks killed them from June - September), true.  And won 2 less games than they did in '04.  They took pretty close to the exact same path, game wise, through the playoffs that they did in '04.  They beat LA in 3 (again).  They beat Cleveland in 7 (only down 3-1, not 3-0), and they beat Colorado in 4 vs St Louis in 4.  Their post season record was EXACTLY the same in '07 as it was in '04.

I wouldn't characterize the Sox as being VASTLY better without Damon as they were with him.  I'd say they were roughly equal...though not because of their CF.  I'd say Damon's departure had minimal impact, which is what you'd hope for (and what I've said all along), as a Sox fan. It didnt' gut the franchise.  But it's impossible to say, or even slyly and indirectly imply, they're "better" without him.  Statistically speaking, he's better than what the Sox fans HAD/HAVE at CF.  Was he "enough" better to make "enough" of a difference in games won this season, or in the playoffs, to be worth 13 million?  Maybe not....not to the Sox THIS YEAR (last year's debateable).  Again, we're back to value on a team by team basis.  But are those stats good enough to justify paying him 13 million on a team that DOES need those stats to make a difference? Yup.  The Yanks being one of them.

[sandman]

i'm not a fan of either team, so minor details don't bother me. it's obvious that all of your arguments are based on the fact that you worship the yankees.

your simplification isn't exactly correct:

1) in 2004, the red sox WERE underdogs vs. the yankees (that is a FACT, not something i think).

2) yes, i think the red sox were the best team (again, you tried to put words into my mouth...i did not say "overwhelmingly"). how can anyone make an argument that there was a better team than the red sox this year???

also, i did not say simply removing damon made the red sox better. i said they put a better team together without him (and his $13M). 

just accept it, the yankees signed the wrong guy. they should have signed beltran a couple years ago. 

[novemberparadise23]

As a yankee fan i would love to see management take a serious look at putting a deal together for miguel caberrea from the marlins. Girardi managed him in florida and he is a beast of a hitter and a strong right handed bat that we lost with arod

[pilferk]

i'm not a fan of either team, so minor details don't bother me. it's obvious that all of your arguments are based on the fact that you worship the yankees.

Nope, just a hardcore baseball fan.  "Minor" details like stats, wins/losses, etc make a BIG difference when discussing reality vs perception.  If you look....I use stats, not fandom driven emotion, when talking about this stuff.  I do that for a reason......

your simplification isn't exactly correct:

1) in 2004, the red sox WERE underdogs vs. the yankees (that is a FACT, not something i think).

Vs the Yanks, and only slightly, and no one else.  I believe we covered that.  It has no bearing on the discussion, though, and is a change from your initial post (way back when) which started all this, to some extent.

2) yes, i think the red sox were the best team (again, you tried to put words into my mouth...i did not say "overwhelmingly"). how can anyone make an argument that there was a better team than the red sox this year???

You're right, you didn't say it.  It seemed implied.  So, to be clear, you're saying they were marginally the better team in baseball in '07....and close to the rest of the league?  But if that's the case, then why did you originally say there was no room for discussion about this year?

 I guess we do agree.  But that certainly paints a different picture when comparing them with Damon vs without Damon.

How can you argue there was a better team in baseball THIS year?  Ultimately, you probably can't....but, again, it's not like they assembled a 120 win juggernaut who plowed through the league.  And Cleveland's record was the same, and they played the Sox pretty well.  And the Yanks record from late June onward CRUSHED the Sox.  Ultimately, and I said this earlier, they were the best team cause they won the WS.  But the IMPLICATION here is that they were better than they were in 2004....which is a vastly different argument than "were they the best team this year".

also, i did not say simply removing damon made the red sox better. i said they put a better team together without him (and his $13M). 

Again, define "better". In 2007 they had 2 less wins, the exact same post season record, and another WS championship.  Doesn't sound much better to me.  That's the point, eh? 

You seem to be defining "better" entirely by whether they were slight underdogs in 1 series in '04 vs slight favorites in the same series in '07....both of which they WON.  Again, I think that's a narrow benchmark, overall.

just accept it, the yankees signed the wrong guy. they should have signed beltran a couple years ago. 

I've yet to see substantial proof of THAT...that they signed the wrong guy. I can entertain arguments he's overcompensated....they don't ring true, but I can at least understand the point.  But "not the right guy"?  Nah...not so much.  So far, everything we've looked at, here, in this thread, would indicate otherwise.  PERCEPTION notwithstanding, the stats are pretty clear.

On Beltran, no thanks.  The mets can keep him. 

I think, actually, the Yanks signed exactly the right guy, paid roughly what he was worth, and can still get some value from him, either in the field or in trade...not because I worship the Yanks, but because it's worked out well for them so far. For ONCE, I think the Yanks didn't overpay...like they have in the past for people like Mussina, Giambi, Brown, Pavano, and the list goes on.....and gave him fair market value and terms.   I think the argument that Damon is "overpaid" rings as hollow as those screaming that the Yanks should trade A-Rod last year...but that's just me.  People seem to dislike the yanks and like to bash them at every opportunity....or try to find holes in their front office and play armchair GM....without looking at the entire picture.  The more pieces of the puzzle we bring to light here, the more convinced I am they made the right move.

Edit: Trust me, I have no problems pointing out when I think the Yanks screw up.  They do it plenty often.  Joe Torre, for example.  Giambi and Mussina.  I could go on all day.  But Damon doesn't appear to be one of those screw ups.  Not yet, anyway.  Get back to me next season (or after they trade him in the off season).  I may change my tune.

[pilferk]

As a yankee fan i would love to see management take a serious look at putting a deal together for miguel caberrea from the marlins. Girardi managed him in florida and he is a beast of a hitter and a strong right handed bat that we lost with arod

I've heard 2 possible trades mentioned on that front, just today:

Melky and Phil Hughes (we'd have to be nuts!)

OR

Damon and Steve White (more acceptable).

I've also heard there are rumblings about Johan Santanna currently.  I can't IMAGINE that would actually happen.

[sandman]

again, putting words in my mouth. i never said "marginally better." they had the best record in baseball.

you say you "probably can't" argue there was a better team this year. i cannot see how a "hardcore" baseball fan would be open to the idea that there was a better team in baseball this year.

the one STAT you feel ok looking past is world series championships. the red sox won after they let Damon walk away. that's the goal, to win championships. i stand by my original point that the red sox made the correct decision not to pay Damon that money.

he was getting older, more of an injury risk, and his numbers had peaked in 2004 and 2005. and two years later it appears his stats for those two years were his peak, since they have dropped noticeably is the last two years.   

[Malcolm]

Schilling inks one-year deal with Sox

ORLANDO, Fla. - Curt Schilling and the Boston Red Sox finalized an US$8-million, one-year contract Tuesday that keeps the star right-hander with the World Series champions.

The deal provides for him to make an additional $5 million in bonuses and match his 2007 salary. It contains $3 million in performance bonuses based on innings pitched and $2 million based on weight clauses, a person familiar with the negotiations said.

Schilling had filed for free agency. In a posting on his website early Tuesday, before the deal was completed, he said he felt "comfortable" that he would finish his career in Boston with a one-year contract.

Schilling, who turns 41 on Nov. 14, also posted the letter that team president Larry Lucchino and general manager Theo Epstein sent him before opening negotiations with him in November 2003.

[tim_m]

GMs vote 25-5 to use replay to aid home run decisions
ESPN.com news services

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Baseball could have a new position next year: replay judge.

General managers recommended for the first time Tuesday that instant replay be used to help umpires make difficult decisions.

The proposal, approved by a 25-5 vote, was limited to boundary calls -- whether potential home runs are fair or foul, whether balls go over fences or hit the tops and bounce back, and whether fans interfere with possible homers.

"We've taken the first step. The question will be now, what do we do?" said Jimmie Lee Solomon, executive vice president for baseball operations in the commissioner's office. "We have glacier-like movement in baseball, so I'm hopeful that we can at least start meaningful discussions about it. I think that this will be something we'll have to go very deliberately on."

Five general managers -- Dan O'Dowd of the Rockies, Josh Byrnes of the Diamondbacks, Jim Bowden of the Nationals, John Mozeliak of the Cardinals and Billy Beane of the A's were in charge of the recommendation.

Solomon said the next step will be to speak with commissioner Bud Selig, who opposes the use of replays but said last month he was willing to let GMs examine the issue. If Selig gives the go-ahead, Solomon and staff in the commissioner's office would draft a detailed replay proposal that GMs could vote on when they gather next month at the winter meetings in Nashville, Tenn.

"All anybody is interested in is getting it right," White Sox GM Ken Williams said. "It will be a lot easier and less time to get that right than some of these arguments that ensue when a call is disputed."

Replay eventually would have to be approved by the unions for players and umpires, and possibly in a vote by owners.

Solomon said if replay couldn't be put in place for the start of next season, it was possible it could make its debut in the postseason. A baseball executive told ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney that replay is not likely to be implemented in 2008.

"It's very important that we do get Bud's agreement on this," Solomon said. "He seemed to be softer, at least, on the consideration of the subject lately. I would not consider him an advocate of instant replay. He will have to be convinced."

Selig earlier this year said he did not favor replay "because I don't like all the delays. I think it sometimes creates as many problems or more than it solves."

Television replays can be used for many calls in the NFL. In the NBA, they are often used to determine whether players get shots off before time expires. In the NHL, replays are applied to check whether pucks cross goal lines. In grand slam tennis, replays can be used to ascertain whether balls are in or out.

Solomon likened this to the NHL model. He said the GMs' technology committee felt that the best method would be to have all video fed to a central location to be judged.

"A phone call would go to that person, and that person would have all the available angles that the network feed provided, and then make that call," he said. "We would have limits on it and there would be some type of penalties if a person tried to, if a team tried to go beyond those limits."

Solomon also said that to speed up games, baseball was considering limiting when a hitter could step out of the batter's box between pitches, restricting the number of times a player could visit the mound, and limiting the number of players allowed to visit the mound.

Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3096923

[pilferk]

again, putting words in my mouth. i never said "marginally better." they had the best record in baseball.

That's my point.  Thanks for making it.  You object to either implication....were they overwhelmingly better or marginally better.

You can't argue one, and the other detracts from your point.

Just saying they were "Better", considering they won a WS BOTH times, doesn't really differentiate them from the '04 team at all (who also won a WS...and 2 more games during the season).  So not offering up any kind of qualfication of "better" makes the statement, in terms of the discussion, irrelevant.  You MUST have meant something when you originally pointed it out....right after pointing out the '04 team were "underdogs".

you say you "probably can't" argue there was a better team this year. i cannot see how a "hardcore" baseball fan would be open to the idea that there was a better team in baseball this year.

By the end of the WS? You're right.  I said that. Ultimately, you can't argue they were the best team this year.  But there ARE viewpoints that "minimize" that "best team" opinion.  But the '04 team was the best team in baseball at the end of the WS, too.

During the season?  Lots of arguments to be made. And lots of things to look at that make the '04 team and the '07 team (which, ultimately) comparisons look more and more equivalent.

At the END of the regular season, they were ONE of the best teams in baseball.  So were the Indians.  At the end of the '04 season, they were ONE of the best teams in baseball.  So were the Yankees.

the one STAT you feel ok looking past is world series championships. the red sox won after they let Damon walk away. that's the goal, to win championships. i stand by my original point that the red sox made the correct decision not to pay Damon that money.

On the contrary, I've mentioned it repeatedly.  They won in '04 with him, won in '07 without him.  Pretty much the same results, right? Same general path to get there.  So what makes the '07 win mean that the Sox are a "better" team without Johnny...when the results were basically the same?

"Correct" in the sense they didn't gut the franchise, yes....THIS year. I've said that.  What about last year?

 "Correct" in that they're a better team without him? Not so clear....or rather, it is clear.  They're clearly NOT better without him. They're just not significantly worse, this year.

he was getting older, more of an injury risk, and his numbers had peaked in 2004 and 2005. and two years later it appears his stats for those two years were his peak, since they have dropped noticeably is the last two years.   

Not the whole picture, as we've already discussed.  Since you're admittedly not a "stats guy", maybe that's the issue.  He's well within his career numbers...except for the 1/2 season he was injured. Insinuating his age has made him "prone" to injury, based on ONE season is a leap not many will be willing to take with you.   And his stats haven't "dropped noticeably" from his CAREER levels....only the inflated  years. .290-ish, over the healthy season and a half, combined with his defensive stats, is well worth the $$ we're talking about from an every day player. 

Edit: Just a heads up....I'm not ignoring you if you respond and don't hear back from me.  I'll be away until, at the earliest, Monday and likely until the FOLLOWING Monday.  So don't be too disappointed that I'm not keeping up my 1/2 of the conversation.    

[sandman]

damn! my work days are gonna seem alot longer without arguing and looking up baseball info.   

one last thing, and if anyone else has any thoughts on this, please reply....

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION:
If Damon was a free agent right now, how much would he get on the open market?
(and let's assume he's only looking for a 2-year deal).

[cotis]

damn! my work days are gonna seem alot longer without arguing and looking up baseball info.   

one last thing, and if anyone else has any thoughts on this, please reply....

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION:
If Damon was a free agent right now, how much would he get on the open market?
(and let's assume he's only looking for a 2-year deal).

2 Years/$25-30 Million

---

ARod Staying as a Yankee?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/11/08/2007-11-08_brian_cashman_yankees_will_offer_arbitra-2.html

HIGHLY unlikely but it's a possibility. Plus the Yanks will get atleast two draft picks from him.

Thanks Alex! 

[Sober_times]

I have not been on in awhile and have a couple of things I need to say.

THE RED SOX RULE!!!!!!!!!! WORLD SERIES CHAMPS!!!!!!!!!! NO ONE CAN COMPETE WITH THE BEST!!!!

THE YAWKEES SUCK!!!!! SUCK!!!!! SUCK!!!!!

Thats pretty much it.

Well, SOX RULE!!!!!!

[freedom78]

Did I just see that the Phils got Brad Lidge?  It ran across the bottom of ESPN, but I didn't see all the details.  But he'll certainly improve their pitching.