[slateman]

Lmao ... the Phils gave up two top 50 prospects to get Pence. They got Nate Schierholtz and two fringe prospects from the Giants. Wow. Their GM sucks.

[DMC_OWNER]

Oh my god I can't ****ing stand Boston accents. I'm watching the Sox/Tigers game on a Boston stream and I'm about this close to ripping my ears off my head.

[BodyCount81]

Bahhhstun.

Yeah, I don't like it either. But I don't plan on living up there or watching a Red Sox stream so I'm good.

[Drex17]

Yanks score 5 on the O's in the first.

O's spend the next 8 punishing them for it.

today was a good day.

[Status Quo (Banned)]

Originally Posted by slateman

I don't think you understand what average means.

It cost 112 million and he's signed for five Years. Wilson signed for less.

Average paid over each of the next 5/6 years. Will they be giving Yu Darvish 1/5 or 1/6 of that 50 million they paid to negotiate with him over each of the next 5/6 years? If not, then Madgoat is wrong.

I'm amazed you guys don't understand a sunk cost. AMR already explained this months ago.

[Status Quo (Banned)]

Originally Posted by slateman

Lmao ... the Phils gave up two top 50 prospects to get Pence. They got Nate Schierholtz and two fringe prospects from the Giants. Wow. Their GM sucks.

Tommy Joseph isn't fringe, but Rosin blows. 23 year old in high A struggling.

[BodyCount81]

Pedroia posted the picture of Tebow shirtless in his locker with his face on it.

[Status Quo (Banned)]

Damn Boston, so silly.

**** yeah Lincecum.

[img]imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/nate3.gif/[/img]

I wish Nate luck. He might be able to OPS over .800 in phily's small park and with his defense he'll be quite valuable. He never had a chance to succeed in SF and I pray that Bochy won't turn Belt into another Schierholtz (below avg hitter with + defense).

2-5 should be damn dangerous for the Giants if Pablo can return and stay healthy.

1: Blanco/Pagan, 2: Melky, 3: Pablo, 4: Buster, 5: Pence, 6: Belt, 7: Pagan/Blanco, 8: Theriot. We finally have an avg offense!

Also, I feel fairly confident claiming the NL West is the hardest division to win this year in the NL. **** off, NL East .

[toolbandfan]

Diamondbacks have the best run differential by far in the West, so hopefully that means something.

Plus they're getting near ace pitching out of Wade Miley of all people, so that is unexpected. Plus Kennedy coming back to form. Should be a tight race for the rest of the year imo.

[Status Quo (Banned)]

Originally Posted by toolbandfan

Diamondbacks have the best run differential by far in the West, so hopefully that means something.

Plus they're getting near ace pitching out of Wade Miley of all people, so that is unexpected. Plus Kennedy coming back to form. Should be a tight race for the rest of the year imo.

Normally I'd say it means we should expect other teams to start getting less lucky and that holds true for the Dodgers but I feel like it means less for the Giants.

I feel like SF will win the division and the Dbacks and Braves (or hell maybe the dodgers too) will get the wild card spots. IIRC the Giants schedule is by far the easiest out of SF/Ari/LA so that leads me to believe they'll start to pull away towards the last month of the regular season, with the Dodgers having the hardest remaining schedule. This is all assuming Lincecum has returned to form and that Kennedy can at least pitch like an above average starter from here on out.\. I'm surprised the Giants are still in first this late into the season knowing what happened to them, and slightly less surprised (still unexpected) that the D'backs are still right in the race after their start.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by Status Quo

Average paid over each of the next 5/6 years. Will they be giving Yu Darvish 1/5 or 1/6 of that 50 million they paid to negotiate with him over each of the next 5/6 years? If not, then Madgoat is wrong.

I'm amazed you guys don't understand a sunk cost. AMR already explained this months ago.

. "sunk costs"are still costs. And are generally the cause of opportunity cost.

Ilk get more in depth when I get off work and have access to a computer

[daily_horrors]

Originally Posted by Status Quo

But that doesn't factor into what they pay Darvish...or what Darvish will cost each subsequent year.

Pot meet kettle.

Exactly, thank you.

[daily_horrors]

Originally Posted by madgoat

if the rangers weren't concerned about money hamilton woulda been signed by now, lee woulda been signed two years ago and cj woulda been signed last year. They are a team that is concerned with their payroll.

Money isn't the main concern with Hamilton, it's the length of contract and his ability to stay healthy?

You really seem to lack common sense...

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by daily_horrors

Exactly, thank you.

Originally Posted by madgoat

. "sunk costs"are still costs. And are generally the cause of opportunity cost.

Ilk get more in depth when I get off work and have access to a computer

Okay, so the ONLY way the viewpoint that the 52 million is irrelevant makes any sense is if you assume that that money would NEVER have been spent on ANYONE but darvish. Simple fact is, the OC of that money dictates that they have 52 less million dollars to spend on other players/stadium upgrades/scouting, etc...It absolutely does matter, and to claim otherwise is pure ignorance.

If "sunk costs" didn't matter, all teams with money would sign players to massively frontloaded deals/include huge signing bonuses.

I will say that the rangers shouldn't let the 52 million influence future decisions for darvish, but to claim that it shouldn't be included when evaluating his cost is just wrong.

Originally Posted by daily_horrors

Money isn't the main concern with Hamilton, it's the length of contract and his ability to stay healthy?

You really seem to lack common sense...

Length of contract is only ever an issue because of money. Do you think they would be willing to sign him for 10 years 90 million? Yes, of course they would. Thing is, he wouldn't take it. Would they sign him for 10 years 200 mil? Sure doesn't sound like it. Whats the difference there? The money. But, its not necessarily the money per year that matters to them, its the TOTAL money. It sounds like they'd be willing to sign him for like 5 years 90 mil, but less willing to for 10 and 180. And I'm not sure I would want the Sox to sign him long term FOR A LOT OF MONEY, in large part because his age and health, but that doesn't change the fact other teams that don't care as much about money are going to offer him a long term deal worth a good amount of money.

The issue is money, don't kid yourself.

[automagsrule]

goat, stop trolling, i've explained this to you a thousand times.

the budget for posting international players is seperate from the budget for payroll. The only factor the posting fee has with Darvish is if another high profile NPB guy comes up in the next year or two, Rangers will probably be out of that race because of Darvish.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by automagsrule

goat, stop trolling, i've explained this to you a thousand times.

the budget for posting international players is seperate from the budget for payroll. The only factor the posting fee has with Darvish is if another high profile NPB guy comes up in the next year or two, Rangers will probably be out of that race because of Darvish.

You actually expect rational people to believe that the rangers were sitting on 50+million and had darvish not come along, they couldn't have spent it to sign a guy like wilson or another good starter?

[automagsrule]

Youre right, they could use their international posting budget on payroll. They could also DFA their entire starting lineup.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by automagsrule

Youre right, they could use their international posting budget on payroll. They could also DFA their entire starting lineup.

A better question is, why would a team designate 52+million as "international posting budget" when the only player to ever post near that was Daisuke? I've spent some time researching and can't find anything to back up your claim either. The posting fee is not included in payroll, that's for certain, but beyond that to claim that the rangers wouldn't/couldn't have spent that money on other player(s) is just false.

And the two statements you made aren't even close to the same thing. The first statement is either perfectly reasonable or teams don't have a set budget for postings. And the second statement is just an absurdity.

[BodyCount81]

I kind of want the Rangers to sign Hamilton but I kind of don't at the same time because I feel like it will take more than he's worth. He's a great player but he's not 24 and is clearly a health risk.

Who else is a free agent at the end of the season? I think we'll definitely need to sign someone or package a few players together to get another big bat in the lineup. Preferably either in the form of a first baseman or left fielder.

[Status Quo (Banned)]

Originally Posted by madgoat

Okay, so the ONLY way the viewpoint that the 52 million is irrelevant makes any sense is if you assume that that money would NEVER have been spent on ANYONE but darvish. Simple fact is, the OC of that money dictates that they have 52 less million dollars to spend on other players/stadium upgrades/scouting, etc...It absolutely does matter, and to claim otherwise is pure ignorance.

I never said the 52 million is inherently irrelevant, I said it's a sunk cost that does not factor into what they pay Darvish over each of the years on the contract.

Quit refusing to be wrong on something easy to understand.

[Status Quo (Banned)]

Originally Posted by automagsrule

goat, stop trolling, i've explained this to you a thousand times.

the budget for posting international players is seperate from the budget for payroll. The only factor the posting fee has with Darvish is if another high profile NPB guy comes up in the next year or two, Rangers will probably be out of that race because of Darvish.

.

Thanks for showing up with common sense. Hell, this is below common sense.