crowd sourcing for some words. need one descriptice word for each of these players. the player will read them on camera and it might be used in a spot.

revere
galvis
young

young
young
poo

[quote="CalvinBall"]crowd sourcing for some words. need one descriptice word for each of these players. the player will read them on camera and it might be used in a spot. [/]quote]

revere -- Fast

Galvis -- Flashy

young -- Comebackplayeroftheyear.

power
drugs
jews

revere - WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
galvis - Offense
young - Defense

most of you are blowing this chance.

So if I win and they ax you who submitted the word do you tell them Smitty from the Internet?

FFS.

CalvinBall wrote:crowd sourcing for some words. need one descriptice word for each of these players. the player will read them on camera and it might be used in a spot.

revere
galvis
young

Won't Be
Never Was
Has Been

CalvinBall wrote:most of you are blowing this chance.

If we win do we get our own infomercial, strategically placed within 60 seconds of the end of a presser?

Shore wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:most of you are blowing this chance.

If we win do we get our own infomercial, strategically placed within 60 seconds of the end of a presser?

No one bumps Dr Ho off TV

ReadingPhilly wrote:

smitty wrote:WTF Jonah Keri? Papelbon's contract is bad because Manuel uses him wrong and Crash proved it? I think every team uses their closer the same way pretty much. Keri writes Papelbon would be more valuable on another team because he would be used better? Like who. (Whom?).

FFS.

sabr people aren't good at valuing relievers or understanding how they are used.

I think the point is that if you're just gonna use a guy in the 9th inning of a game you're probably gonna win anyway you shouldn't pay him $13 million. Papelbon is one of the best in the game at doing that job but he's not so much better than everyone else that you should jump at the chance to pay him a ton of money to do it. "closer" is just not as important a job as it's made out to be. Valverde had a "perfect season" last year and he sucks.

as for Craig Kimbrel, he made 590k last year so the Braves can use him however they damn well please. Papelbon was used like a typical closer. to be worth 13 million he needs to do more than that and Charlie's never going to make him

but an equally valid point can be made that finding cheap, elite relievers who can close are really really hard to find. guys have a very high flameout rate as closer.

If you're working back from the belief that closers are over-valued, significantly moreso than other positions, then fine, the reliever with the largest contract has the worst contract. I don't agree with that, but at least it's consistent.

But I've read Kheri's article twice now and still don't understand his criteria. To me let's keep it simple: Which players would other teams have the least interest in if they were available on their current deals?

Given that the market prices good closers at around $14M and a lot of good and/or deep-pocketed teams wants one, I don't think Papelbon sniffs that list

Barry Jive wrote:

ReadingPhilly wrote:

smitty wrote:WTF Jonah Keri? Papelbon's contract is bad because Manuel uses him wrong and Crash proved it? I think every team uses their closer the same way pretty much. Keri writes Papelbon would be more valuable on another team because he would be used better? Like who. (Whom?).

FFS.

sabr people aren't good at valuing relievers or understanding how they are used.

I think the point is that if you're just gonna use a guy in the 9th inning of a game you're probably gonna win anyway you shouldn't pay him $13 million. Papelbon is one of the best in the game at doing that job but he's not so much better than everyone else that you should jump at the chance to pay him a ton of money to do it. "closer" is just not as important a job as it's made out to be. Valverde had a "perfect season" last year and he sucks.

as for Craig Kimbrel, he made 590k last year so the Braves can use him however they damn well please. Papelbon was used like a typical closer. to be worth 13 million he needs to do more than that and Charlie's never going to make him

These are good points.

Paying $13m for Papelbon is stupid and it has nothing to do with Papelbon, who is really good.

If we were going to bust through the luxury tax and spend devil-may-care, then no big deal. But we're not.

td11 wrote:but an equally valid point can be made that finding cheap, elite relievers who can close are really really hard to find. guys have a very high flameout rate as closer.

But do you really need "elite"?

Jim Johnson, Fernando Rodney, Tom Wilsenheim, Santiago Casillia, JJ Putz, Grant Balfour, Casey Janssen. These guys aren't elite. But they were fine. There are scores of other relievers out there that can close if you put them in the 9th inning.

Papelbon is certainly better, but you're paying exponentially more for marginally more value.

CalvinBall wrote:crowd sourcing for some words. need one descriptice word for each of these players. the player will read them on camera and it might be used in a spot.

revere
galvis
young

HEART
GRIT
ASS

wait, which young we talkin

Trent Steele wrote:

td11 wrote:but an equally valid point can be made that finding cheap, elite relievers who can close are really really hard to find. guys have a very high flameout rate as closer.

But do you really need "elite"?

Jim Johnson, Fernando Rodney, Tom Wilsenheim, Santiago Casillia, JJ Putz, Grant Balfour, Casey Janssen. These guys aren't elite. But they were fine. There are scores of other relievers out there that can close if you put them in the 9th inning.

Does that apply to all high-payroll, championship-aspiring teams, or just the Phillies (for whom that was the case going into last year)? That's the part I'm not getting here.

And the realistic alternative was Madson for $10-11M. They weren't turning it over to Bastardo et al, nor should they have.

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:crowd sourcing for some words. need one descriptice word for each of these players. the player will read them on camera and it might be used in a spot.

revere
galvis
young

HEART
GRIT
ASS

wait, which young we talkin

michael

CalvinBall wrote:crowd sourcing for some words. need one descriptice word for each of these players. the player will read them on camera and it might be used in a spot.

revere
galvis
young

You need words? I got words.

Energy.
Wizardry.
Muggle.

Trent Steele wrote:

td11 wrote:but an equally valid point can be made that finding cheap, elite relievers who can close are really really hard to find. guys have a very high flameout rate as closer.

But do you really need "elite"?

Jim Johnson, Fernando Rodney, Tom Wilsenheim, Santiago Casillia, JJ Putz, Grant Balfour, Casey Janssen. These guys aren't elite. But they were fine. There are scores of other relievers out there that can close if you put them in the 9th inning.

Papelbon is certainly better, but you're paying exponentially more for marginally more value.

Fair enough but I don't think you can say the phils didn't try to use cheaper options before pap... Contreras, chan ho, madson, etc. It's because of those guys' inconsistency that amaro went after pap. I mean, pap's #s were right behind mo's when he signed so were Yankees paying exponentially more for marginally more value too? when they had both soriano and Robertson on the roster? And Robertson sucked as closer when mo got hurt, too

Idk for every cheap closer success story there are 5 failed attempts.