<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Market Rates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/</link>
	<description>Seattle Mariners blog and general baseball discussion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:59:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oil Can Boyd</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/comment-page-4/#comment-243651</link>
		<dc:creator>Oil Can Boyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/#comment-243651</guid>
		<description>This is an excellent post -- and I agree with the conclusion that free agency is a fools market. I would add that the cost to the club is underestimated because it costs the team to manage the farm system.  A free agent is cheap and a short term commitment.  But the young players need to be invested in and the products of the farm system should consider all the costs of the farm system not just the one player&#039;s salary</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an excellent post &#8212; and I agree with the conclusion that free agency is a fools market. I would add that the cost to the club is underestimated because it costs the team to manage the farm system.  A free agent is cheap and a short term commitment.  But the young players need to be invested in and the products of the farm system should consider all the costs of the farm system not just the one player&#8217;s salary</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oil Can Boyd</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/comment-page-4/#comment-243650</link>
		<dc:creator>Oil Can Boyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:29:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/#comment-243650</guid>
		<description>I found it interesting that Lowell signed for 3 years/$37.5M and everybody thinks he gave the Red Sox a hometown discount â€“ spurning the Phillies and the extra year.  Does everybody forget that his prior deal at 
# 4 years/$32M (2004-07) was an albatross that the Marlins couldnâ€™t get rid of without packaging with Beckett?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found it interesting that Lowell signed for 3 years/$37.5M and everybody thinks he gave the Red Sox a hometown discount â€“ spurning the Phillies and the extra year.  Does everybody forget that his prior deal at<br />
# 4 years/$32M (2004-07) was an albatross that the Marlins couldnâ€™t get rid of without packaging with Beckett?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wishhiker</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/comment-page-4/#comment-243313</link>
		<dc:creator>Wishhiker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:43:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/#comment-243313</guid>
		<description>Any of you might have noticed that the reason I was talking about range is because I was tols the M&#039;s were the 3rd worst at geting to balls in play/turning balls in play into outs.  With that true and the fact that the balls they do get to they make outs well on the problem is obviously range.  I said earlier I&#039;d use UZR but it&#039;s not out yet for 07&#039;.  Read all of the posts before responding to one sentence that was 5 days ago please.  I&#039;ve moved on from overall defensive % by at least 5 comments and you&#039;re going to go back there???  I was talking about range because they were the 3rd best at F% and 3rd worst at BABIP.  Obviously range is the problem.  As I was told earlier.  COME ON!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any of you might have noticed that the reason I was talking about range is because I was tols the M&#8217;s were the 3rd worst at geting to balls in play/turning balls in play into outs.  With that true and the fact that the balls they do get to they make outs well on the problem is obviously range.  I said earlier I&#8217;d use UZR but it&#8217;s not out yet for 07&#8242;.  Read all of the posts before responding to one sentence that was 5 days ago please.  I&#8217;ve moved on from overall defensive % by at least 5 comments and you&#8217;re going to go back there???  I was talking about range because they were the 3rd best at F% and 3rd worst at BABIP.  Obviously range is the problem.  As I was told earlier.  COME ON!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joser</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/comment-page-4/#comment-243266</link>
		<dc:creator>joser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:57:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/#comment-243266</guid>
		<description>As for the Frick (&lt;a href=&quot;http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/awards/frick_2007/vote.jsp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;vote!&lt;/a&gt;), I have to agree with &lt;a href=&quot;http://awfulannouncing.blogspot.com/2007/11/vote-for-joe-buck-go-ahead-i-dare-you.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this guy&lt;/a&gt; -- the idea of Ray Fosse getting into the Hall when Pete Rose isn&#039;t seems to hover somewhere between poetic and hilarious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As for the Frick (<a href="http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/awards/frick_2007/vote.jsp" rel="nofollow">vote!</a>), I have to agree with <a href="http://awfulannouncing.blogspot.com/2007/11/vote-for-joe-buck-go-ahead-i-dare-you.html" rel="nofollow">this guy</a> &#8212; the idea of Ray Fosse getting into the Hall when Pete Rose isn&#8217;t seems to hover somewhere between poetic and hilarious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alaskan</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/comment-page-4/#comment-243258</link>
		<dc:creator>Alaskan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/#comment-243258</guid>
		<description>183, I&#039;m drawing Dave and/ or Derek&#039;s ire, here, so I&#039;ll be brief.  I apologized for the woman comment, and I meant it.  It was out of line.

I agree that today, Lincecum is better.  If I had a game tomorrow, I would absolutely choose him.

There&#039;s clearly a serious discrepancy between choosing the &quot;project,&quot; and then sending him up to the majors as if he&#039;s ready.  If they thought they were drafting a project, they needed to treat him as such, and not try to use him as a bullpen stop-gap.  It doesn&#039;t help him, and in the long term, it doesn&#039;t help the team.  For some reason (perhaps the job insecurity Hargrove and Bavasi were facing), they decided that winning today was more important than building to the future.  Their decisions didn&#039;t put the future in danger, but it did delay it.  

I guess to an extent we agree - the Mariners took a certain amount of risk with Morrow, and the real debate is whether that risk was worth it.  I think if Morrow turns out better, regardless of whether it takes a year or two, then they made the right decision.  But I understand why you could disagree.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>183, I&#8217;m drawing Dave and/ or Derek&#8217;s ire, here, so I&#8217;ll be brief.  I apologized for the woman comment, and I meant it.  It was out of line.</p>
<p>I agree that today, Lincecum is better.  If I had a game tomorrow, I would absolutely choose him.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s clearly a serious discrepancy between choosing the &#8220;project,&#8221; and then sending him up to the majors as if he&#8217;s ready.  If they thought they were drafting a project, they needed to treat him as such, and not try to use him as a bullpen stop-gap.  It doesn&#8217;t help him, and in the long term, it doesn&#8217;t help the team.  For some reason (perhaps the job insecurity Hargrove and Bavasi were facing), they decided that winning today was more important than building to the future.  Their decisions didn&#8217;t put the future in danger, but it did delay it.  </p>
<p>I guess to an extent we agree &#8211; the Mariners took a certain amount of risk with Morrow, and the real debate is whether that risk was worth it.  I think if Morrow turns out better, regardless of whether it takes a year or two, then they made the right decision.  But I understand why you could disagree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joser</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/comment-page-4/#comment-243244</link>
		<dc:creator>joser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/#comment-243244</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://ussmariner.com/2006/06/02/amateur-draft/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;At the time&lt;/a&gt;, Dave wrote
&lt;blockquote&gt;
The Mâ€™s are going to draft a college arm, thereâ€™s no doubt about that. The only question is which one. With Miller and Lincoln unlikely to slide to #5, the Mâ€™s will probably be picking from the Lincecum/Hochevar/Scherzer/Morrow group. Theyâ€™ve been tied to Hochevar quite a bit, but no one knows how much of that is real or just a smokescreen. 

While Bavasi has a history of preferring high-reward players, Bob Fontaine is running the draft, and heâ€™s a bit more conservative by nature. Fontaineâ€™s also a big proponant of pitcherâ€™s body types, and Lincecum doesnâ€™t fit the mold of what he generally prefers. I donâ€™t see the Mâ€™s going for the UW star, but instead picking between Scherzer or Hochevar, unless Morrow falls. 
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Nobody expected Miller to be available, and in a sense &lt;a href=&quot;http://ussmariner.com/2006/06/07/why-not-miller/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;he wasn&#039;t&lt;/a&gt; to any team willing to abide by the Commish&#039;s signing guidelines. Had somebody grabbed Morrow before the M&#039;s pick, they &lt;i&gt;still&lt;/i&gt; might not have picked Lincecum.  Even a year after the draft the &lt;a href=&quot;http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/Morisato/2007/03/29/Prospect_Versus_Brandon_Morrow_Vs_Tim_Lincecum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Morrow vs Lincecum&lt;/a&gt; argument wasn&#039;t as clear-cut as some like to think; it was even muddier on draft day.  Although I wasn&#039;t among them, a lot of people were worried about Lincecum&#039;s durability (and many still are).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://ussmariner.com/2006/06/02/amateur-draft/" rel="nofollow">At the time</a>, Dave wrote</p>
<blockquote><p>
The Mâ€™s are going to draft a college arm, thereâ€™s no doubt about that. The only question is which one. With Miller and Lincoln unlikely to slide to #5, the Mâ€™s will probably be picking from the Lincecum/Hochevar/Scherzer/Morrow group. Theyâ€™ve been tied to Hochevar quite a bit, but no one knows how much of that is real or just a smokescreen. </p>
<p>While Bavasi has a history of preferring high-reward players, Bob Fontaine is running the draft, and heâ€™s a bit more conservative by nature. Fontaineâ€™s also a big proponant of pitcherâ€™s body types, and Lincecum doesnâ€™t fit the mold of what he generally prefers. I donâ€™t see the Mâ€™s going for the UW star, but instead picking between Scherzer or Hochevar, unless Morrow falls.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Nobody expected Miller to be available, and in a sense <a href="http://ussmariner.com/2006/06/07/why-not-miller/" rel="nofollow">he wasn&#8217;t</a> to any team willing to abide by the Commish&#8217;s signing guidelines. Had somebody grabbed Morrow before the M&#8217;s pick, they <i>still</i> might not have picked Lincecum.  Even a year after the draft the <a href="http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/Morisato/2007/03/29/Prospect_Versus_Brandon_Morrow_Vs_Tim_Lincecum" rel="nofollow">Morrow vs Lincecum</a> argument wasn&#8217;t as clear-cut as some like to think; it was even muddier on draft day.  Although I wasn&#8217;t among them, a lot of people were worried about Lincecum&#8217;s durability (and many still are).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: msb</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/comment-page-4/#comment-243243</link>
		<dc:creator>msb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/#comment-243243</guid>
		<description>hmm. catcher market rates?

Yankees:
Jose Posada, 4/$52.4 
Jose Molina 2/$4 million.

Mets:
Yorvit Torrealba 3/$14.4 million.

oh, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071116/SPT04/311160011/1071/SPT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joe Nuxhall&lt;/a&gt; has died, and not to sound flip, but I am guessing that means that Neihaus is not winning the Ford Frick award for yet another year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hmm. catcher market rates?</p>
<p>Yankees:<br />
Jose Posada, 4/$52.4<br />
Jose Molina 2/$4 million.</p>
<p>Mets:<br />
Yorvit Torrealba 3/$14.4 million.</p>
<p>oh, and <a href="http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071116/SPT04/311160011/1071/SPT" rel="nofollow">Joe Nuxhall</a> has died, and not to sound flip, but I am guessing that means that Neihaus is not winning the Ford Frick award for yet another year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: terry</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/comment-page-4/#comment-243242</link>
		<dc:creator>terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:06:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/#comment-243242</guid>
		<description>Alaskan, what you&#039;ve done is invent strawmen while coming at the issue from a position of assumed superiority.

Once again here&#039;s the argument:

Given the Ms felt that they needed their draft pick to turn around so quickly as evidenced by how they have handled Morrow&#039;s development, the Ms took the third best option available to them on that draft day (why that argument has been turned into the notion that I&#039;m suggesting Morrow is a bust or that he was a terrible pick, I don&#039;t know). Here&#039;s why I argue that:

1. Lincecum has better stuff and better command.

2. Lincecum is doing now what we hope Morrow will be capable of doing preferably sooner than later. Even in the AL, Lincecum would&#039;ve been an above average starter if you adjust his FIP for league. No where have I indicated Morrow&#039;s future is a certainty. In fact, i&#039;ve argued that Morrow&#039;s uncertain future tilts the scales toward Lincecum. Given how volatile pitching prospects are in general, that&#039;s a huge advantage in Lincecum&#039;s favor. 

3. Even on draft day, Lincecum was considered to have a short track to the majors while Morrow was thought to need considerably more time to develop.

4. Lets not forget that Lincecum is a local boy. The Ms missed their opportunity to dump WFB (that&#039;s almost like getting a free supplemental draft pick).

So the Ms took the guy most thought would have the slowest trip to the majors and jammed him onto their 25 man roster after a sip of tea in low ball because he&#039;s got a power arm. By choosing him, they saved money in their draft budget but had to give up another legitimate major league power arm in Soriano (I guess that&#039;s the price of being frugal and conservative regarding frame/mechanics though Jeff S&#039;s evaluation of the Soriano trade suggests the Ms really don&#039;t have a lot of credibility when evaluating potential health issues with pitchers). In any event, I&#039;m not really seeing a coherent relationship between player development and their vision at the major league level. 

Clearly Morrow&#039;s mechanics and frame make him projectable but if the goal is infusing your rotation ASAP, frame issues aren&#039;t the only consideration. Concerning the notion that Morrow lost out on a month that would&#039;ve turned him into an above average starter, well, lets just say we can agree to disagree on that.

Dave might think I&#039;m full of crap and ultimately agree with the point you&#039;re attempting to make but at least his snark would be righteously aimed at my argument (and not my marital relations-BTW, my wife is pregnant with our 4th child so a case could be made for me spending less time with a woman).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alaskan, what you&#8217;ve done is invent strawmen while coming at the issue from a position of assumed superiority.</p>
<p>Once again here&#8217;s the argument:</p>
<p>Given the Ms felt that they needed their draft pick to turn around so quickly as evidenced by how they have handled Morrow&#8217;s development, the Ms took the third best option available to them on that draft day (why that argument has been turned into the notion that I&#8217;m suggesting Morrow is a bust or that he was a terrible pick, I don&#8217;t know). Here&#8217;s why I argue that:</p>
<p>1. Lincecum has better stuff and better command.</p>
<p>2. Lincecum is doing now what we hope Morrow will be capable of doing preferably sooner than later. Even in the AL, Lincecum would&#8217;ve been an above average starter if you adjust his FIP for league. No where have I indicated Morrow&#8217;s future is a certainty. In fact, i&#8217;ve argued that Morrow&#8217;s uncertain future tilts the scales toward Lincecum. Given how volatile pitching prospects are in general, that&#8217;s a huge advantage in Lincecum&#8217;s favor. </p>
<p>3. Even on draft day, Lincecum was considered to have a short track to the majors while Morrow was thought to need considerably more time to develop.</p>
<p>4. Lets not forget that Lincecum is a local boy. The Ms missed their opportunity to dump WFB (that&#8217;s almost like getting a free supplemental draft pick).</p>
<p>So the Ms took the guy most thought would have the slowest trip to the majors and jammed him onto their 25 man roster after a sip of tea in low ball because he&#8217;s got a power arm. By choosing him, they saved money in their draft budget but had to give up another legitimate major league power arm in Soriano (I guess that&#8217;s the price of being frugal and conservative regarding frame/mechanics though Jeff S&#8217;s evaluation of the Soriano trade suggests the Ms really don&#8217;t have a lot of credibility when evaluating potential health issues with pitchers). In any event, I&#8217;m not really seeing a coherent relationship between player development and their vision at the major league level. </p>
<p>Clearly Morrow&#8217;s mechanics and frame make him projectable but if the goal is infusing your rotation ASAP, frame issues aren&#8217;t the only consideration. Concerning the notion that Morrow lost out on a month that would&#8217;ve turned him into an above average starter, well, lets just say we can agree to disagree on that.</p>
<p>Dave might think I&#8217;m full of crap and ultimately agree with the point you&#8217;re attempting to make but at least his snark would be righteously aimed at my argument (and not my marital relations-BTW, my wife is pregnant with our 4th child so a case could be made for me spending less time with a woman).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCL</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/comment-page-4/#comment-243241</link>
		<dc:creator>SCL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/#comment-243241</guid>
		<description>Looks like I&#039;m from the future too.  This must be a mountain time time-stamp.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like I&#8217;m from the future too.  This must be a mountain time time-stamp.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCL</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/comment-page-4/#comment-243240</link>
		<dc:creator>SCL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2007/11/13/market-rates/#comment-243240</guid>
		<description>Well obviously Alaskan is a genius.  He&#039;s from the future!  Look at his time stamp!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well obviously Alaskan is a genius.  He&#8217;s from the future!  Look at his time stamp!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

