Firm no on Dee Gordon

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Haha.  

I’m a total jerk on here, however I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but your posting style leads to a lot of discussions with you ending like this.  

And I dont recall anytime in any thread I said words that direct and hostile.

You will find passion and frustration and firm opinion and being argumentative but I think your characterization that I "end like this" Is not correct.

I will never pass on standing up to one of the worst cancers in our society, this calling everyone a racist for everything and nothing.  It is evil and is hurting everyone.  We all need to stand up to it.

[Blarg]

Refresh the page go back, read the post again then read the link. It was a joke.

[Stradling]

Just now, Dtwncbad said:

And I dont recall anytime in any thread I said words that direct and hostile.

You will find passion and frustration and firm opinion and being argumentative but I think your characterization that I "end like this" Is not correct.

I will never pass on standing up to one of the worst cancers in our society, this calling everyone a racist for everything and nothing.  It is evil and is hurting everyone.  We all need to stand up to it.

Ok.  But why would he single you out?  Could it be your posting style?  You’re a pretty abrasive dude.  

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I’d take Bourjos as our fourth outfielder.  He can’t steal bases but he’s the best base runner I’ve ever seen.  He’s also a plus defender. 

By the way "4th Outfielder" is the exact label I put on Bourjos from day one saying trading him would not be a mistake of someone else viewed him as a regular.

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok.  But why would he single you out?  Could it be your posting style?  You’re a pretty abrasive dude.  

So then say I am abrasive and I will gladly be self reflective and see if I should make an adjustment.  But go racist card?  Just not OK.

I also think there are many times I back up a few stepsdie to feedback including apologies where appropriate.

[Stradling]

Just now, Dtwncbad said:

By the way "4th Outfielder" is the exact label I put on Bourjos from day one saying trading him would not be a mistake of someone else viewed him as a regular.

Well he played pretty well as a starter for us the year before Trout got here.  He was a 5 WAR player. 

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, Stradling said:

Well he played pretty well as a starter for us the year before Trout got here.  He was a 5 WAR player. 

Then suddenly became basically not startable with no normal decline?

Interesting.

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Refresh the page go back, read the post again then read the link. It was a joke.

If it was really a joke I can also unwind.

But you shouldn't do that.  Our society in my opinion is hurting because of some real racism, but arguably even more so from many people crying wolf (either for political power or just from being conditioned that everything is race).

I care about this a lot.

I want things to be better.  And I will fight it straight on to try to help knock it down.

If it was a joke, so be it.  Unwind and start over and no hard feelings but I can't go back on saying at a minimum that even as a joke this is really a mistake to do.  There is damage.

[Dick B Back]

Boy did this thread end up in the shitter or what?

[Blarg]

Unwind but seriously, don't play Dominos with James.

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Unwind but seriously, don't play Dominos with James.

I dont understand

[Blarg]

Read the link!

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Read the link!

Blarg honest observation.  If someone has to click a link and read something to reveal it's a joke rather than thonking someone is recklessly playing the race card, don't you see that lots of people are not going to go down that path and the result is fuel for an ongoing social problem?  Thats an honest question hoping for an honest answer.

[Inside Pitch]

30 minutes ago, Dick B Back said:

Boy did this thread end up in the shitter or what?

Regression to the mean?   

I kid, I kid.

[Blarg]

57 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Blarg honest observation.  If someone has to click a link and read something to reveal it's a joke rather than thonking someone is recklessly playing the race card, don't you see that lots of people are not going to go down that path and the result is fuel for an ongoing social problem?  Thats an honest question hoping for an honest answer.

That joke made it's rounds a few years back. Maybe you hadn't migrated here yet. 

[Lou]

6 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

There is nothing to argue.  I am expressing my fear of him being a bad risk.

i fear that every player we acquire being a bad risk

6 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

my emotional fear is he suddenly AT ANY TIME suddenly is not very good.

I fear that with every player not named Trout. Every other player carries that risk. 

 

[Dtwncbad]

9 minutes ago, Lou said:

i fear that every player we acquire being a bad risk

I fear that with every player not named Trout. Every other player carries that risk. 

 

Some more than others or no?

[Jeff Fletcher]

16 hours ago, ettin said:

This is a subject of which I have never found a firm answer on.

My thought process on this is that AAV is calculated based on the salary of each guaranteed year of the contract.

Example: Player A signs a 5-year, $50M contract with salary spread as follows: $6M in Year 1, $8M in Year 2, $10M in Year 3, $12M in Year 4, and $14M in Year 5. AAV is $10M per season.

It is my thinking that if a team trades that player, say in the off-season prior to that player's last season, and they send $7M in cash to the acquiring team (where each team pays half of his final year which is $14M/2 = $7M) the team trading him would still be responsible for and carry that $7M slice. From my point-of-view it is a calculated value and if you keep some or all of it you own that slice/part.

So in this case the trading team is taking on half the player's Year 5 salary but they actually still own $43M ($6M+$8M+$10M+$12M+$7M=$43M) of that players salary and a corresponding $43M/5 Years = $8.6M in AAV they would still carry in Year 5, because they paid the bulk of the money owed. The acquiring team would pay $7M/5 Years = $1.4M in Year 5.

This interpretation could absolutely be WRONG. But I believe it represents the proportional shares based on how much of the salary each team carried over the life of the contract and since AAV is based on contract length and total salary this is how I interpret it.

So in Stanton's case if we ask them to pick up $10M in 2019, we should, based on my interpretation, $10M/6 Years = $1.67M that would apply to the Marlins for 2019 whereas the Angels would carry $97M/6 = $16.167M in 2019. $16.167M + $1.67M = $17.833M which is the AAV of Stanton's first 6 years of his contract leading up the opt-out.

What this particular example means is that although the Marlins are paying $10M of Stanton's $26M 2019 salary they will only be impacted from a Luxury Tax point-of-view with a $1.67M addition to payroll (which for them as a small market team means nothing essentially). Of course for the Angels it would be helpful because actual team payroll would lower by $10M in 2019 which they will need in order to keep team payroll in check.

Sorry for the long example but this is a weird subject to me. I always wonder if I am interpreting it wrong.

I believe the AAV resets when a player is traded, and cash in the trade reduces it. 

A player makes 6, 10, 14 and 18 over 4 years (4/48, AAV is 12). He's traded after year 2. The new team now has an AAV of 16 (2/32). If the former team pays $6 million, then the new teams AAV is 13 (2/26) and former team still has 3 on its payroll.

[Mark68]

Dee Gordon--for what he is now and what he should be for the next three years--would be a great fit here. He won't be bad enough over the course of the next three years to make his contract look horrible. 

The fact that some people on here believe that he will all of a sudden be a bad investment because of example A, B, or C, or because they have a "feeling" is not a good enough reason to not find out what it would take to get him here.

If GMs did their jobs based on "feelings"...there would not be a need for them. Teams would just poll their fan base and make their decisions based on the results of that poll. That would be just as scientific as having a GM make his decision based on "feelings" or certain cherry-picked examples.

[ukyah]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

What the fuck does that mean?

Seriously go fuck yourself you race baiting, piece of shit cancer to society.

 

he's making a joke. it wasn't even a racist joke. it went so far over your head that you should have said, "hey boss, le plane. le plane!"

you were saying that something in your gut told you that you didn't like gordon.

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Some more than others or no?

Nope. Other than Trout, I can look at any player on our roster and can visualize them having a big drop in production from one year to the next. 

[Lou]

28 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

Dee Gordon--for what he is now and what he should be for the next three years--would be a great fit here. He won't be bad enough over the course of the next three years to make his contract look horrible. 

The fact that some people on here believe that he will all of a sudden be a bad investment because of example A, B, or C, or because they have a "feeling" is not a good enough reason to not find out what it would take to get him here.

If GMs did their jobs based on "feelings"...there would not be a need for them. Teams would just poll their fan base and make their decisions based on the results of that poll. That would be just as scientific as having a GM make his decision based on "feelings" or certain cherry-picked examples.

People read somewhere that speed players Lise it at the age of 30 and now use it as an absolute truth. 

[ettin]

4 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I believe the AAV resets when a player is traded, and cash in the trade reduces it. 

A player makes 6, 10, 14 and 18 over 4 years (4/48, AAV is 12). He's traded after year 2. The new team now has an AAV of 16 (2/32). If the former team pays $6 million, then the new teams AAV is 13 (2/26) and former team still has 3 on its payroll.

That sounds more reasonable and looks more eloquent than what I had devised!

Moving forward I'll use that as it is a simpler solution, thanks Jeff.

[tdawg87]

3 hours ago, Lou said:

speed players

Racist 

[Inside Pitch]

13 hours ago, ettin said:

That sounds more reasonable and looks more eloquent than what I had devised!

Below is a copy of Robert's rough draft for the primers...

The man puts in work..    Thanks again, Robert.