View Single Post
04-03-2012, 12:30 PM
A DJ saved my life
enrothorne's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Downtown Buffalo
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,632
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to enrothorne
Originally Posted by thefifagod View Post
Actually, yes you do. The lower the ERA and WHIP, the better chance you have of winning the game. If a pitcher threw a shutout every game but their offense never scored, he wouldn't be the best in the league because he never won a game? Or your team is just making errors behind you? Extreme examples but it makes the point. If Felix played on the Yanks in 2010, he could have won 25 games. Instead he won 13. Basing a guy's ability on if his offense gives him a chance to win is terrible. Why should a guy who plays for the Yanks or Red Sox be given an unfair advantage in a comparison between a pitcher on say, Seattle or San Francisco?

Regardless, I agree that it's a pretty bad contract. If a team has a strong prospect pool, then having piles of stars is absolutely the best move as you'll have good talent coming up making pennies while under club control for 7 years and can afford to pay your stars. If your pool is weak, then you need a balance of players. As I said before, the Giants have a weakened prospect pool now so it makes less sense.

Hold on here. You're totally confusing what point I'm trying to make. I'm talking about running a team by giving money to the right players. Do I think he's a good player? Yes. But he's not worth that much. I'd rather pay a guy who goes 18-8 $22m per year, yes. That helps me get to the playoffs more than a guy who goes 13-11.

This isn't about Cain being a good player. It's about allocating the resources you have. Same reason I think Miller is overpaid at $6.3m per season.

The Giants aren't the Sox or Yankees. They can't afford this guy down the line when they have a terrible offense.

You'd prefer a guy with stats other than wins. I'd prefer wins. That's all we're disagreeing on.

enrothorne is offline   Reply With Quote