Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
OT: Mariners
Comments
-
DNC,
I hate the whole "cost control" terminology that gets thrown out there ... you ever hear the Yankees talk about "cost control?" The Red Sox? Dodgers? Any team serious about winning?
All "cost control" means to me is that a team is too cheap to put together a winning team unless they are able to put together a team full of guys that are getting underpaid. Fuck that. -
Oakland would like a word with you. TequilaFSTequilla said:DNC,
I hate the whole "cost control" terminology that gets thrown out there ... you ever hear the Yankees talk about "cost control?" The Red Sox? Dodgers? Any team serious about winning?
All "cost control" means to me is that a team is too cheap to put together a winning team unless they are able to put together a team full of guys that are getting underpaid. Fuck that. -
If you can't see there is inherent value in players being cost controlled then I can't help you. You may not care how much a given ownership spends, but 80-90% of franchises have payroll budgets. This makes the trade value of cost controlled players considerably higher than the trade value of most players who are being paid what they're worth. Jones was more valuable than Bedard precisely because he had six years of cost control remaining.Tequilla said:DNC,
I hate the whole "cost control" terminology that gets thrown out there ... you ever hear the Yankees talk about "cost control?" The Red Sox? Dodgers? Any team serious about winning?
All "cost control" means to me is that a team is too cheap to put together a winning team unless they are able to put together a team full of guys that are getting underpaid. Fuck that.
This is why a stud like David Price can be traded for an average pitcher like Smyly and a decent but not great prospect like Franklin. Price has nearly finished his surplus value.
You can hate the terminology but to ignore the economics of player acquisition is FS. -
Best 1-2-3 Pitching punch in all of baseball.
-
Yep. Best 1 in baseball. Best 1-2 in baseball. Best 1-2-3 in baseball. Best healthy 1-2-3-4 in baseball. Best healthy 1-2-3-4-5 in baseball. And best bullpen on top of that.CuntWaffle said:Best 1-2-3 Pitching punch in all of baseball.
And the offense has gone from terrible to sort of kind of decent, which should be all it takes to get this team into the playoffs with that elite run prevention. Anything can happen, but they're clearly the best team of those in contention for the second wild card.
-
In all honesty the fact that they pitch at Safeco can't be disregarded... I am not sure how the stats look regarding out 1-5 but I would think the A's have a slight edge over us at the moment there. Detroit I think is better with a healthy Verlander as well.dnc said:
Yep. Best 1 in baseball. Best 1-2 in baseball. Best 1-2-3 in baseball. Best healthy 1-2-3-4 in baseball. Best healthy 1-2-3-4-5 in baseball. And best bullpen on top of that.CuntWaffle said:Best 1-2-3 Pitching punch in all of baseball.
And the offense has gone from terrible to sort of kind of decent, which should be all it takes to get this team into the playoffs with that elite run prevention. Anything can happen, but they're clearly the best team of those in contention for the second wild card.
Still from top to bottom this team does have the best pitching staff in the MLB... which is odd considering the bullpen which seemed to be terrible last year is all but the same except for Rodney. -
Pretty sure you missed my point about "cost control" ...dnc said:
If you can't see there is inherent value in players being cost controlled then I can't help you. You may not care how much a given ownership spends, but 80-90% of franchises have payroll budgets. This makes the trade value of cost controlled players considerably higher than the trade value of most players who are being paid what they're worth. Jones was more valuable than Bedard precisely because he had six years of cost control remaining.Tequilla said:DNC,
I hate the whole "cost control" terminology that gets thrown out there ... you ever hear the Yankees talk about "cost control?" The Red Sox? Dodgers? Any team serious about winning?
All "cost control" means to me is that a team is too cheap to put together a winning team unless they are able to put together a team full of guys that are getting underpaid. Fuck that.
This is why a stud like David Price can be traded for an average pitcher like Smyly and a decent but not great prospect like Franklin. Price has nearly finished his surplus value.
You can hate the terminology but to ignore the economics of player acquisition is FS.
If anybody thinks that I don't understand the fucking economics of being "cost control," they probably don't belong around here.
I get that teams have budgets.
However, at the same time, you can't sit there and tell me that the Mariners having a payroll of $100M is maximizing their ability to win given their revenue sources.
There are teams like Oakland and Tampa that clearly lack some revenue streams and have to go about things a little differently. They not only are smarter about how they spend their money, but are more willing to trust their success to younger players that are in the "prove it" stages of their careers. I have no problem using the terms "cost control" in those situations ... although I think that there are
Where I have a problem with "cost control" is in bigger markets where the revenue sources do not require "frugal" spending ... when I hear those teams talk about players being under "cost control," I interpret that as meaning "paying below market wages" and not being committed to winning.
-
I'm not arguing that that happens. My point is simply that you can't ignore the value of cost controlled players, and the Mariners dealing Jones for Bedard was incredibly dumb given their relative values.Tequilla said:
Pretty sure you missed my point about "cost control" ...dnc said:
If you can't see there is inherent value in players being cost controlled then I can't help you. You may not care how much a given ownership spends, but 80-90% of franchises have payroll budgets. This makes the trade value of cost controlled players considerably higher than the trade value of most players who are being paid what they're worth. Jones was more valuable than Bedard precisely because he had six years of cost control remaining.Tequilla said:DNC,
I hate the whole "cost control" terminology that gets thrown out there ... you ever hear the Yankees talk about "cost control?" The Red Sox? Dodgers? Any team serious about winning?
All "cost control" means to me is that a team is too cheap to put together a winning team unless they are able to put together a team full of guys that are getting underpaid. Fuck that.
This is why a stud like David Price can be traded for an average pitcher like Smyly and a decent but not great prospect like Franklin. Price has nearly finished his surplus value.
You can hate the terminology but to ignore the economics of player acquisition is FS.
If anybody thinks that I don't understand the fucking economics of being "cost control," they probably don't belong around here.
I get that teams have budgets.
However, at the same time, you can't sit there and tell me that the Mariners having a payroll of $100M is maximizing their ability to win given their revenue sources.
There are teams like Oakland and Tampa that clearly lack some revenue streams and have to go about things a little differently. They not only are smarter about how they spend their money, but are more willing to trust their success to younger players that are in the "prove it" stages of their careers. I have no problem using the terms "cost control" in those situations ... although I think that there are
Where I have a problem with "cost control" is in bigger markets where the revenue sources do not require "frugal" spending ... when I hear those teams talk about players being under "cost control," I interpret that as meaning "paying below market wages" and not being committed to winning.
-
You're probably right about Oakland being better 1-5. The M's rotation has probably been better through the year, but with the Lester upgrade Oakland probably has the edge now.CuntWaffle said:
In all honesty the fact that they pitch at Safeco can't be disregarded... I am not sure how the stats look regarding out 1-5 but I would think the A's have a slight edge over us at the moment there. Detroit I think is better with a healthy Verlander as well.dnc said:
Yep. Best 1 in baseball. Best 1-2 in baseball. Best 1-2-3 in baseball. Best healthy 1-2-3-4 in baseball. Best healthy 1-2-3-4-5 in baseball. And best bullpen on top of that.CuntWaffle said:Best 1-2-3 Pitching punch in all of baseball.
And the offense has gone from terrible to sort of kind of decent, which should be all it takes to get this team into the playoffs with that elite run prevention. Anything can happen, but they're clearly the best team of those in contention for the second wild card.
Still from top to bottom this team does have the best pitching staff in the MLB... which is odd considering the bullpen which seemed to be terrible last year is all but the same except for Rodney.
Obviously I agree Safeco is an advantage, but they're killing it on the road as well, and others including Oakland have pitchers park as well. To do what the M's pitching is doing in the American League is pretty ridiculous, even considering the Safe.
-
Oakland has had three great starters before. They still need to win a playoff series and then pop off. They have been to as many World Series as the M's with their vaunted money ball cost control. Once upon a time Oakland went to and won the Series. More than once
