Snyder looks to be our LT 1B solution

[Mackus]

Saying that we need pitching in our system is looking at a very short term view.

Bwahahahahahaha

[JTrea81]

1. Really? You've reinvented baseball economics, apparently.

2. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Conclusion: Irony, thy name is JTrea.

Burnett cost $80 million, Sabathia cost $161 million. Teixeira cost $180 million. Who is re-inventing economics?

If Smoak and Matusz reach their potential, Smoak will be the more valuable player and most expensive to sign as a FA.

[Mackus]

It's much tougher and more expensive to sign or trade for a stud 1st baseman.

You know that this isn't an opinion, right.

This is an incorrect statement. You are saying something that is provably false. It is well known that its much easier to pay for hitting than for pitching. I can't believe you'd even try to say that.

What you just said, is provably untrue. It is not true. Say that back to me. It is not true that hitting is more expensive and a riskier return than pitching.

Me saying Nick Markakis hit .475 with 92 HRs last year is as accurate as you saying "1B are more expensive to sign than pitching".

[Crazysilver03]

The Orioles needed a stud 1B man in their system more than they needed another pitcher with the first round pick. They had pitching, and can sign pitching or could have drafted pitching in the 2nd round instead of selecting Avery for example. It's much tougher and more expensive to sign or trade for a stud 1st baseman.

Saying that we need pitching in our system is looking at a very short term view. The Orioles need their pitching to grow up and quite frankly some of it is already there and they just need to give them a chance.

We can't assume all our studs will make it. This is what has burned us in the past. We'll be lucky if one of the Big Three pans out to be a quality ML starter.

This second quote is from the "All of the sudden..." thread. So how was drafting pitching a short term view, when you yourself say that we can't assume all of our studs will make it. Doesn't that mean we should take more "stud" pitchers? So then isn't pitching always a long term view?

Both hitting and pitching are short and long term views, no matter how good a team is. In this case, pitching is the more important short and long term view because short team we don't really have pitching and long term, we won't contend unless we have pitching anyway.

[SilentJames]

The Orioles needed a stud 1B man in their system more than they needed another pitcher. They had pitching, and can sign pitching. It's much tougher and more expensive to sign or trade for a stud 1st baseman.

Saying that we need pitching is looking at a very short term view...

No that is bunk. We don't NEED a stud firstbasman. The Rays got where they are on pitching. The Yankees are FULL of studs but have no pitching in their system and had to spend the GNP of most third world countries to buy their pitching.

PITCHING is a rare commodity. As it has been outlined, there are only 14 players that have combined over the last 5 years that have been the "stud" you are looking for.

Looking at that list again, I see a lot of teams that went nowhere with their "stud".

Getting Matusz by trade would COST you Smoak and a lot of other prospects on the trade market.

[Lucky Jim]

Burnett cost $80 million, Teixeira cost $180 million. Who is re-inventing economics?

That's your answer? You really don't know anything about baseball economics, do you?

Second: even on your own terms, how much did they pay Sabbathia?

[Mackus]

Burnett cost $80 million, Sabathia cost $161 million. Teixeira cost $180 million. Who is re-inventing economics?

You are clueless.

Hitting is cheaper than pitching. Picking two guys who signed specific deals doesn't prove anything.

Hitting is cheaper because it is more reliable. When you sign a hitter to a $80M deal you are very likely to get close to $80M of production out of him. When you sign a pitcher to a $80M deal, you are almost guaranteed to get no where near that much production out of him.

You're getting close to being put on ignore. Because you obviously don't want to have serious conversations if you are coming up with such ridiculous BS as "hitting costs more than pitching". Either amend that statement, or don't post anymore. Because its simply not true. Its a fact that pitching is more expensive. A fact that cannot be argued with.

[JTrea81]

You know that this isn't an opinion, right.

This is an incorrect statement. You are saying something that is provably false. It is well known that its much easier to pay for hitting than for pitching. I can't believe you'd even try to say that.

What you just said, is provably untrue. It is not true. Say that back to me. It is not true that hitting is more expensive and a riskier return than pitching.

Me saying Nick Markakis hit .475 with 92 HRs last year is as accurate as you saying "1B are more expensive to sign than pitching".

Stud 1B men are more expensive, and I just proved it. Teixeira cost more to sign than the best FA pitcher on the market.

[Crazysilver03]

Burnett cost $80 million, Sabathia cost $161 million. Teixeira cost $180 million. Who is re-inventing economics?

If Smoak and Matusz reach their potential, Smoak will be the more valuable player and most expensive to sign as a FA.

Wow, you take the three aberations, whom are on the Yankees, for your argument? Now you are really really stretching things.

Those are total deals. Burnett is getting $17.5M a year, Sabathia $23M a year, and Teixeiria $22.5M a year.

So who is skewing statistics in their favor? The number one pitcher cost more than the number one hitter. Also more than the #2 hitter.

[Mackus]

Stud 1B men are more expensive, and I just proved it. Teixeira cost more to sign than the best FA pitcher on the market.

Words that I don't think you understand the meaning of:

Prove

I'll try to add to this and keep a running list as I find more.

[Lucky Jim]

Stud 1B men are more expensive, and I just proved it. Teixeira cost more to sign than the best FA pitcher on the market.

Are you kidding? You are kidding now, right?

A 5 year contract, a 7 year contract, and an 8 year contract?

By your logic, a 100 year contract for $80 million would be "more expensive" than a 3 year contract for $75 million. Brilliant, brilliant.

[Crazysilver03]

Wow, you take the three aberations, whom are on the Yankees, for your argument? Now you are really really stretching things.

Those are total deals. Burnett is getting $17.5M a year, Sabathia $23M a year, and Teixeiria $22.5M a year.

So who is skewing statistics in their favor? The number one pitcher cost more than the number one hitter. Also more than the #2 hitter.

Stud 1B men are more expensive, and I just proved it. Teixeira cost more to sign than the best FA pitcher on the market.

You cited one example of a stud 1B, that is not proving any point. You have evidence to support your claim, even though the evidence is ill. Offense players are always going to get more years (and thus more money) than pitchers because they are more reliable. Pitching isn't reliable, so you shouldn't really buy it, you should develop it.

As I pointed out, per year, Sabathia is getting more.

[JTrea81]

Wow, you take the three aberations, whom are on the Yankees, for your argument? Now you are really really stretching things.

Those are total deals. Burnett is getting $17.5M a year, Sabathia $23M a year, and Teixeiria $22.5M a year.

So who is skewing statistics in their favor? The number one pitcher cost more than the number one hitter. Also more than the #2 hitter.

I'm talking total dollars committed, not just per year. And I am right when I say Teixeira was the most valuable player in that regard.

[Aglets]

How much did Roger Clemens make in 2007 when he came back to pitch for like 4 months?

I think that should settle this.....

[PaulBako]

Pitching>hitting in games and the free agent market. Pitchers are worth more.