2008-2009 Hot Stove Thread

[Chalupa]

Phillies sign Cole Hames to three year deal.

But unlike the Red Sox deals with their young stars, and the deals most small market teams try to make, they didn't buy out any of his free agent years, this only covers his arbitration-eligible years. So they have cost certainty - if he pitches great he can't get huge raises in arbitration. But I'm not sure what's really gained without keeping him off the market beyond his anticipated free agency season.

Is he a Spawn of Satan client who would never give up free agency? Or did the Phils just want the cost certainty?

Cost certainty. Phillies entered this off season w/ 8 arbitration-eligible players - tops in the majors. There's a good chance Hamels would have commanded more in arbitration. Phillies also have an unofficial policy of not signing pitchers beyond a 3 year contract. Excellent deal for both sides.

Edited January 18, 2009 by J.H. Deeley

[Tim McG]

Phillies also have an unofficial policy of not signing pitchers beyond a 3 year contract. Excellent deal for both sides.

I wish my Giants had that policy.

We're stuck with Barry Zito for at least another 4 years.

Scott Boras needs to die a slow and painful death. The bastard.

[Dan Gould]

Yeah, I saw after I posted how many arb-eligible players they have, but wouldn't you prefer that they ignore that three year rule, which you say is unofficial, to lock him up and postpone free agency? Better to do that then risk that in three years he's the best lefty in either league and will cost an arm and a leg.

So I guess it can be called an excellent deal, its not as great a move as it could have been.

Of course that is my 2 cents and YMMV.

[Chalupa]

Yeah, I saw after I posted how many arb-eligible players they have, but wouldn't you prefer that they ignore that three year rule, which you say is unofficial, to lock him up and postpone free agency? Better to do that then risk that in three years he's the best lefty in either league and will cost an arm and a leg.

So I guess it can be called an excellent deal, its not as great a move as it could have been.

Of course that is my 2 cents and YMMV.

I see your point and personally I would have liked another year or two. However, I think they wanted a 3 year deal because they have some (legitimate)concerns about his about durability. He has a history of back trouble dating back to the minor leagues. This past season was the first of his career that he didn't hit the DL. So they probably saved $5-6 million buying out 3 of his arbitration years. He becomes a FA after 2012 season. It's a really good deal when you consider that they gave Adam Eaton a $24 Million, 3 year deal not that long ago.

[Dan Gould]

Did not know about the injury history, J.H.

All things considered, I'd say its a good deal then. It'll be interesting to see if they get a good deal with someone like Victorino that locks up some free agency years. They need to pick and choose and who they want to keep (and reward) and who they're willing to go to the mat with in arbitration.

And of course there's that big fella at first base.

[Dan Gould]

We ended in the NL with the year 1986, yes?

You're astonishing inability to read is staggering. Please consult post number 300:

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...st&p=877412

Here ya go:

YEAR- HRs

1987- 1843 [the spike year]

1988- 1279

1989- 1365

1990- 1521

1991- 1430

1992- 1262

1993- 1956 [Whoa! Another spike? Lookout Dan...here it comes!]

Ryan Retires

1994- 1532

1995- 1917

1996- 2220

1997- 2172

1998- 2585

1999- 2909

2000- 2997

2001- 2975

2002- 2602

2003- 2707

2004- 2860

2005- 2616

2006- 2868

2007- 2701

2008- 2632

I dunno, Dan...either those "spikes" have become the norm or that baseball grew wings.

That ball is friggin' juiced, Dan. No mistake.

Look again you contemptible moronic fool.

You said the "juiced" ball came into being in the "mid-80s".

The sustained peaks in home run hitting started in 1993, which everybody except you understands is, at the very minimum, better explained by expansion, diluted pitching, and smaller parks.

You are aware the DH is in the AL, right? More parity in hitting between teams, more opportunities to hit HRs. The NL has, in effect, only 8 guys who can hit. The pitchers account for very little of the run production in the NL. Nonetheless...

OK, I'll play along:

1994- 1774

1995- 2164

1996- 2742

1997- 2477 [interleague Play is introduced. Whoa...just look at those "spikes"**, will ya?]

1998- 2499

1999- 2635**

2000- 2688**

2001- 2506

2003- 2499

2004- 2605**

2005- 2437

2006- 2546**

2007- 2252

2008- 2270

From 1994 to 2008 we saw an increase of 496 HRs. Hm.

Are you really so stupid as to posit inter-league play as an explanation for "spikes"?

And what ever happened to your claim of the ball being juiced in the "mid-80s"? 1994 is the mid-80s? 1999? 2004 and 2006?

I don't care how you slice it, Dan...there is a consitant and quantifiable increase of HRs year after year in the AL, too.

Ball is juiced, Dan. No mistake.

The baseball is juiced, I proved it and now you're mad. Wow.

Try again, you sad pathetic troll. Its time to go to school, "teacher" (and it is unbelievably sad that you are an employed, indeed a tenured "teacher").

National League home runs, 1982 to 1992:

1299

1398

1278

1424

1523

1824

1279

1365

1521

1430

1262

These are the numbers you interpreted as signifying some sort of "juiced" ball, pointing particularly at 1987. I asked if you had a fucking clue what "standard deviation" means. Of course you do not.

The Mean number of home runs hit per season:

1418.45

The Standard Deviation:

163.48539

This means that one standard deviation around the mean is 1254 home runs to 1630.

Only a single season, 1987, shows a variation above the mean of more than one standard deviation. This is a spike, an outlier, a meaningless single event.

Let's look at the AL, shall we? We did it before, let's see what Means and Standard Deviations show us, "teacher".

82 - 1992:

2080

1903

1980

2178

2290

2634

1901

1718

1796

1953

1776

Mean: 2019

Standard Deviation: 267.07752

One Standard Deviation Around the Mean: 1752 - 2286

What's this? One season just a hair's breadth more than a standard deviation above the mean, and one season, '87, that is a spike, an outlier, an isolated event.

Bottom line:

You said that the ball was juiced starting in the "mid-80s".

I have proven, beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt, that there is no evidence whatsoever for this claim outside of a single season which constitutes a clearly isolated event, an outlier, an insignificant spike in the data with no long-term impact.

Now, shall we move on to the 1993-2008 data? Do we really have to? You've posted the numbers, so let's examine them with a little bit of intelligence, shall we, "teach"? Here are the AL numbers:

1994- 1774

1995- 2164

1996- 2742

1997- 2477 [interleague Play is introduced. Whoa...just look at those "spikes"**, will ya?]

1998- 2499

1999- 2635**

2000- 2688**

2001- 2506

2003- 2499

2004- 2605**

2005- 2437

2006- 2546**

2007- 2252

2008- 2270

From 1994 to 2008 we saw an increase of 496 HRs

Number one, you contemptible moron, 1994 was a season that ended in August due to a player's strike. You cannot compare 1994 to 2008 or any other season. So let's be intelligent (c'mon Tim, try it, you might learn something) and drop 1994 from the data. We are left with:

Mean: 2486.15385

Standard Deviation: 171.90542

Once again, every single season's Home Run totals are within one Standard Deviation from the Mean for the period under study except for one, and that season's numbers exceeded a Standard Deviation by a scant 30!

Let's look at the NL, shall we?

1917

2220

2163

2565

2893

3005

2952

2595

2708

2846

2580

2840

2705

2608

Mean: 2614.07143

Standard Deviation: 318.09323

So, there is a bit more variation around the Mean for the NL. But before we get into this, I do need to point out one thing: The Mean is 2614 for the NATIONAL LEAGUE. In the same period, the Mean for the AMERICAN LEAGUE was only 2486. But Timmy, didn't you tell us that its the American League where more home runs are hit? Might be time for remedial arithmetic, "Teach".

Ah, but back to our results. There are three seasons that are more than one standard deviation different from the Mean. One just barely makes it, the next season of 3005 is clearly a spike in the data. But what about 1995? If the ball was juiced, how could the home runs total only 1917, a total that is more than TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS FROM THE MEAN???

Timmy, please explain how a juiced ball could stop going so far, so suddenly?????

If 3005 home runs has any statistical significance, than 1917 has even more significance.

So let's summarize.

Average NL Home Runs 1982 - 1992:

1418.45

Standard Deviation: 163.48539

Average NL Home Runs 1995 - 2008

Mean: 2614.07143

Standard Deviation: 318.09323

Average AL Home Runs 1982 - 1992:

Mean: 2019

Standard Deviation: 267.07752

Average AL Home Runs 1995 - 2008:

Mean: 2486.15385

Standard Deviation: 171.90542

Sure looks like something happened between these two eras, doesn't it? But before we go further, let's remember: THIS ISN'T A CHANGE THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE "MID-80S".

So what happened in 1993?

The National League expanded, adding one park in Colorado that played like Ebbett's Field. That alone, beyond any shadow of a doubt, accounts for a significant portion of the increase in home runs in the National League.

Expansion also diluted the pitching talent in the league, as more jobs were created and filled by pitchers who would otherwise not qualify for a major league job.

Many new parks were opened in this era as well, parks with decidedly smaller dimensions than the ones they replaced.

And last but not least, there were of course, the effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs. Disagree all you want, Timmy, but no one else in the world, perhaps in the Universe, disputes that the jump in home runs came with the bulking up, and in many instances, steroidization of major league baseball.

No "juiced" ball, and by God, whatever happened in 1993, it didn't happen in the "mid-80s".

Do you understand, "Teach"? I guarantee that everyone else on this board who cares about the question understands. Somehow I know that you don't.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. But its even worse when that mind is in charge of the intellectual development of children.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Dan Gould

[BERIGAN]

Well the question, Conrad, is what you now think of the Braves' offseason. Three pitchers added, Smoltz lost. Is it a little less depressing than it was?

Ha! I couldn't think who the 3rd pitcher was, and had to look him up! I remembered Javier Vasquez, and Lowe, forgot all about Kenshin Kawakami! A little less depressing for sure.

It just has been such a rough year(as I mentioned before, we have lost the 2 main guys who were the radio and TV face of the franchise for 30 years, in the space of about 4 months) Then, after losing out on Peavy(Still think his elbow will blow out this year) and AJ Burnett, and to only get Vasquez(and gave up way too much,Tyler Flowers will be a star in the majors, mark my word!) well, it was like thinking you are going to date both Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel, only to end up with Kathy Griffin!

To think you had 40+ mil to spend, and no one wanted to come to Atlanta, it hurt. To see the guy who has given so much to the francise in Smoltz, be almost forced to leave for a few milllion, sucked , big time. I have never seen so many depressed braves fans. One guy on a blog a frequent said his wife was done with thet team. He lives in Richmond, and had followed the Richmond Braves all his life, now with no minor league brave team in his town, no Braves on TBS, why bother with the team??? He's likely to follow the Nats more than the Braves. And that is just one story. even the signing of Kawakami, then Lowe, it didn't do much to excite the fan base.

But, for Lowe to come to Atlanta, and to WANT to be the man everyone counts on, it helps a lot, and people will come around.

Our biggest problem last year was starters that couldn't go even 6 innings,which exposed the Bullpen, and Bobby Cox's lack of in game skills....Who could have predicted Smoltz, Glavine, Chuck James, Mike Hampton(ok, someone could predict he was going to miss time) and Tim Hudson all missing large chunks of the season????

Goodspeak, Lowe will help because we didn't have one pitcher pitch more than 188 innings and he was a 22 year old!(Jair Jurrjens) With Lowe, Kawakami, Vasquez, all pitching 200 + innings in 2007 or 2008, it will be a huge break for our bullpen, which will probably be our strongest point next year. Lowe, Jurrjens, Kawakami, Vasquez and either Glavine or rookie Tommy Hanson being the 5th man, at least we can compete. Not saying beat the Phils or Mutts, but at least compete....and that's all you can ask for as a fan.

[Tim McG]

Look, Dan...I'm through with this topic.

I made my point, you don't agree, BFD.

I'm moving on, you?

[tkeith]

Did ya guys know the braves signed Derek Lowe??? Used to be a Red Sox player, so that point makes it news, right???

My bad -- we'll make sure to talk about second division teams, too, from now on.

[Tim McG]

Any bets on who ends up with Man-Ram next year?

[Dan Gould]

I like the fact that the Sox had to designate a couple of pitchers for assignment to make room on the roster for Kotsay (David Aardsma) and Smoltz (David Pauley) but didn't just lose them; they made trades with the Orioles (probably just middle relief waiver wire fodder for Pauley) and the Mariners (a very interesting sounding single-A prospect named Fabian Williamson).

Williamson pitched in the Pacific Coast League, which I believe has a bunch of hitter's parks. But what's impressive is 144 Ks in 124.3 innings over 1 1/2 seasons in A-Ball. And his control isn't bad, with a strikeout to walk ratio over two to one. And did I mention he's a lefty? Haven't found anything about his stuff but I'll take a lefty with big strikeout numbers any day, especially for someone who doesn't fit on the roster anymore. Heck, this guy sounds like a younger, lefty version of Aardsma, without the wildness.

[Chalupa]

Howard tells the Phils' to back up the money truck....

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3847195

[Tim McG]

Howard tells the Phils' to back up the money truck....

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3847195

In this economy?

Good luck with that.

[BERIGAN]

If you wonder how much your team is lying about their money situation, wonder no more! Down near the bottom of the page....

http://www.forbes.com/business/sportsmoney/

[zen archer]

I thought John Henry bought the Sox for 700 million ?......they are listing it at 380 million ?

[tkeith]

I thought John Henry bought the Sox for 700 million ?......they are listing it at 380 million ?

It's possible that Henry's share was $380-million, but 700 is always the number I've heard.

[Dan Gould]

Looks like a real stare-down between Varitek/Boras and Theo. Multiple reports out there indicating that Varitek might sit out a year rather than accept the offer. Astounding if Boras thinks he can get more than 5 million with a 3 million player option for 2010 and has told Tek that he will. Or would Varitek sit and wait until June, when he could sign elsewhere and there would be no loss of a draft pick? His anemic bat won't look any better after months on the shelf, not at his age.

If Varitek refuses the offer, so be it. He walked away from an offer that could easily have been much less. He walked out the door, not the Sox. F him if he does.

[Tim McG]

On that basis, ManRam may have to sit out a year, too.

I'm thinking the Scott Broas MLB stranglehold is about to come to a screeching halt.

There must be a very warm place in hell for a sleeze ball like him. The bastard.

We can only hope.

[Matthew]

Veritek resigns with Red Sox with a one year contract. Where else could he have gone? Another steller job by Boras, you'd think after the ARod fiasco players would figure out this guys doesn't walk on water. Boras is doing great with ManRam also I can't wait for spring training to start, I might even watch some of the WBC, and that's really a sign of desperation...

Edited January 31, 2009 by Matthew

[Dan Gould]

Well, Tek or Boras did well in one regard - the original offer was 5 million for 2009, with a five million dollar team option for 2010, 3 million dollar player option. Theo relented and agreed to incentives in the event that Tek uses the player option, if he starts more than 80 games, he starts to earn incentives that could get his contract up to 5 million.

But I have a feeling that if they cut ties after 2009, Tek won't take the player option, he'll go somewhere else. It would certainly suck if he took the player option, stunk worse, and had to be released. No team wants to do that with their captain, which is why he got this offer in the first place. They really did what they could to keep him, once they knew that Boras would never get a 4/50 million dollar deal like Posada.

Anyway - the important thing is that we aren't entrusting what could be an extraordinary pitching staff (if everything goes right including the guys coming off injuries) to a young catcher who needs a lot of on-the-job training. And we didn't give in to the outrageous demands of Texas or (to a lesser extent), the D-Backs. So we keep all of the youngsters, and we'll start the season with Tek's gritty intangibles and his tremendous ability to put down a "1" almost every time.

[Chalupa]

9 days until Pitchers and Catchers report!

[Dan Gould]

9 days until Pitchers and Catchers report!

Phillies must be behind the times then. Today is truck day in Boston, and the Globe countdown clock says 5 days 20 hours and 14 minutes.

[Chalupa]

Or maybe Theo thinks that the Sox will need a head start if they are going to best the Yanks and the Rays this year?

[Dan Gould]

Or maybe Theo thinks that the Sox will need a head start if they are going to best the Yanks and the Rays this year?

Or maybe Gillick's successor figured the roster needs a couple more days to get over the partying and the hang-over before they go to work on defending their title?

[Chalupa]

Or maybe Theo thinks that the Sox will need a head start if they are going to best the Yanks and the Rays this year?

Or maybe Gillick's successor figured the roster needs a couple more days to get over the partying and the hang-over before they go to work on defending their title?

Well hey they are the "World Fuckin' Champions" so I guess they do deserve a little rest.

Do you get to catch any Spring training action where you are?