Konerko Inked - Page 6

TonyJ · 12-01-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sublimity

OK, so he should have said, "I'll defer to Aristotle, who approves of the signing thanks to the philosophical principle of loyalty."

I like the tact you took, but if you pointed out all of the rhetorical flaws used in these message boards, you'd be busy. And wiki's ad hominem section would probably be burnt out.

Got a point. That line of argument just particularly bugs me. "You are just some yahoos posting on a message board so your opinion means jack ****!" I need to get "attack the argument not the person" on macro, I think.

TonyJ · 12-01-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sublimity

Rereading my post, it came out wrong. The first sentence was supposed to be a joke. The second one was just saying, "I like it, but I think it's futile."

I think he is giving you the business

Sublimity · 12-01-2005, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshv02

ur rly rly dum

.

Sublimity · 12-01-2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyJ

I think he is giving you the business

And I forgot I put in anything about an ad hominem attack. It's the end of the day. And apparently, im rly rly dum, as he said.

Joshv02 · 12-01-2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sublimity

.

Quote:

His response was

Quote:

"Below"

That's not a number.

How much did you risk?

Quote:

"me Trebek!"

"Below me Trebek, Below me Trebek". I don't get it.

.

TonyJ · 12-01-2005, 05:03 PM

If sixto were here you would get a red card for that one josh. You already used that joke today!

Joshv02 · 12-01-2005, 05:04 PM

Bah! It wasn't appropriate at all over there! It was too random.

Here, it fits like a dead rat in a glove!!

Sublimity · 12-01-2005, 05:04 PM

My favorite:

"The category is continents, now here is the clue for this audio daily double. Name this continent:

Quote:

ASIA

What continent is that? Nothing? No idea at all?"

Joshv02 · 12-01-2005, 05:04 PM

^^^ true classic

not so Dola,

:hangsheadinshame:

Urth · 12-01-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

People seem to be under the impression that Konerko is a really fine player. Umm, no. It is highly unlikely he will perform as well as he did last year, when he wasn't remotely an MVP candidate. It is much more likely that he will be the .280 EQA, solid D guy who was good for 4-5 wins a year for his team the previous four out of five seasons. Oh, yeah, he sucked ass one of those seasons. That level of performance is pathetically easy to replace. You don't even need to need to dip into the overpriced FA flesh market to do that. Nor should a club. Teams make these stupid deals when they rationalize that they have no choice. There are fookloads of options for replacing players of Konerko's ability and position.

Hmm, I'm not so sure. More likely, there are fookloads of prospects that may or may nor turn out to be as productive or as consistent as Konerko, assuming 2005 is an anomoly. If 2005 is the year that Konerko made progress as a hitter, despite having significantly less support in the lineup, then is it such a bad deal? We're not exactly talking Beltran contract, here, after all.

Would I be making a huge leap by suggesting that Kotchman isn't exactly proven at the major league level? Or by suggesting that Konerko did, indeed, turn the corner by being a bit more selective at the plate?

TonyJ · 12-01-2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sublimity

My favorite:

"The category is continents, now here is the clue for this audio daily double. Name this continent:

What continent is that? Nothing? No idea at all?"

My fave was when final jeopardy was something you like. Connery answered "Trebek" which caused Alex to get all soft and happy and whatnot. Connery told him that he was hard on him, but that he really did like him. When the wager was revealed it was "sucks"

TonyJ · 12-01-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urth

Hmm, I'm not so sure. More likely, there are fookloads of prospects that may or may nor turn out to be as productive or as consistent as Konerko, assuming 2005 is an anomoly. If 2005 is the year that Konerko made progress as a hitter, despite having significantly less support in the lineup, then is it such a bad deal? We're not exactly talking Beltran contract, here, after all.

Would I be making a huge leap by suggesting that Kotchman isn't exactly proven at the major league level? Or by suggesting that Konerko did, indeed, turn the corner by being a bit more selective at the plate?

Very rarely do 30-year-olds permanently increase their skills. It's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. Kotchman is not "proven" in that he hasn't had enough major league at bats yet, but he has hit at every single level thus far, including the majors.

darkhorse · 12-01-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urth

Would I be making a huge leap by suggesting that Kotchman isn't exactly proven at the major league level? Or by suggesting that Konerko did, indeed, turn the corner by being a bit more selective at the plate?

Seeing the respective track records of the two players, whopping age difference, and expected remuneration, Kotchman is a vastly superior investment.

TonyJ · 12-01-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Seeing the respective track records of the two players, whopping age difference, and expected remuneration, Kotchman is a vastly superior investment.

Especially considering the dollars salary differences. Kotchman could be even better than Konerko this season and certainly will be better of the life of Konerko's contract.

Joshv02 · 12-01-2005, 05:16 PM

2005 is Konerko's career year at a time when career years are made. 2005 Konerko is not much better than Kevin Millar in 2003.

I can see spending the $$ for those years based on some idea that he has value and/or there are few other options for that number of wins. Or, just, that it is worth something to keep popular players from a popular/winning team. That is a business decision.

It is simply an incorrect argument to in anyway argue that Konerko is in somewhat significantly better than, say, Kevin Millar, Kotchman, etc. Konerko is a .290 EqA hitter -- exactly the same thing Kevin Millar is through last year. (Millar is older, too.) The average 1B is usually a ~.280. So, Konerko is slightly above average offensively, a terrible base runner, and, before this year, by all reports a horrible defensive player. What is a slightly better than average offensive player who can't play defense well and can't run worth vs. someone like Roberto Petagine (who could likely hit 280/370/460 in a neutral park)?

Now, that said, the Sox won't do anything this year with any saved money. The White Sox aren't goint to displace their LF, RF, SS, 2B, DH (now that Thome is there), and C. They already have plans at CF. I suppose they may try to sign Mueller at 3B, but signing Konerko likely doesn't affect that plan. They also won't likely sign a new starting pitcher and don't really need much bullpen help (Hermanson isn't a lock to repeat, but a full season of Jenks [assuming he doesn't lose his elbow again] and Cotts should be nice). There really isn't another place for them to spend that $$ this year.

I don't know -- don't really have an opinion one way or the other in the end.

darkhorse · 12-01-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Konerko is a .290 EqA hitter

For his career, Konerko sits at .276. 60 million for a first baseman with that history.

Rolling on floor laughing.

Skipaway · 12-01-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

For his career, Konerko sits at .276. 60 million for a first baseman with that history.

Rolling on floor laughing.

That's like the only thing you can say throughout all these. Simply that the marginal dollar per marginal win is way too high.

You never cared about what others said about other factors, and you never cared about if the price of a marginal win might be changing.

TonyJ · 12-01-2005, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

That's like the only thing you can say throughout all these. Simply that the marginal dollar per marginal win is way too high.

You never cared about what others said about other factors, and you never cared about if the price of a marginal win might be changing.

It's a pretty compelling argument, however.

darkhorse · 12-01-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

That's like the only thing you can say throughout all these. Simply that the marginal dollar per marginal win is way too high.

You never cared about what others said about other factors, and you never cared about if the price of a marginal win might be changing.

I saw your thread with the formula for recalculating a marginal win. One thing you might want to jigger the formula with is that percentage of revenue devoted to payroll has dropped from 67% to 53% since 2001.

Skipaway · 12-01-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyJ

It's a pretty compelling argument, however.

No it's definitely not.

If you use the same strategy to invest, you'll always be behind the market. Analysis of the past is to help you understand the future, but not the future.

12-01-2005, 05:03 PM	#106
TonyJ Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Gassin' Kurds Posts: 2,019	If sixto were here you would get a red card for that one josh. You already used that joke today! __________________ My Podcasts: Talk Democratic Dysfunction Name Two Bands with Andy and Andy

12-01-2005, 05:04 PM	#107
Joshv02 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: , " Posts: 3,082	Bah! It wasn't appropriate at all over there! It was too random. Here, it fits like a dead rat in a glove!! __________________ Brookline Maccabees. RIP

12-01-2005, 05:04 PM	#109
Joshv02 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: , " Posts: 3,082	^^^ true classic not so Dola, :hangsheadinshame: __________________ Brookline Maccabees. RIP

12-01-2005, 05:16 PM	#115
Joshv02 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: , " Posts: 3,082	2005 is Konerko's career year at a time when career years are made. 2005 Konerko is not much better than Kevin Millar in 2003. I can see spending the $$ for those years based on some idea that he has value and/or there are few other options for that number of wins. Or, just, that it is worth something to keep popular players from a popular/winning team. That is a business decision. It is simply an incorrect argument to in anyway argue that Konerko is in somewhat significantly better than, say, Kevin Millar, Kotchman, etc. Konerko is a .290 EqA hitter -- exactly the same thing Kevin Millar is through last year. (Millar is older, too.) The average 1B is usually a ~.280. So, Konerko is slightly above average offensively, a terrible base runner, and, before this year, by all reports a horrible defensive player. What is a slightly better than average offensive player who can't play defense well and can't run worth vs. someone like Roberto Petagine (who could likely hit 280/370/460 in a neutral park)? Now, that said, the Sox won't do anything this year with any saved money. The White Sox aren't goint to displace their LF, RF, SS, 2B, DH (now that Thome is there), and C. They already have plans at CF. I suppose they may try to sign Mueller at 3B, but signing Konerko likely doesn't affect that plan. They also won't likely sign a new starting pitcher and don't really need much bullpen help (Hermanson isn't a lock to repeat, but a full season of Jenks [assuming he doesn't lose his elbow again] and Cotts should be nice). There really isn't another place for them to spend that $$ this year. I don't know -- don't really have an opinion one way or the other in the end. __________________ Brookline Maccabees. RIP