It's Official: Sportswriters Like to Smoke Crack
by Jesse on Dec 6, 2006 1:55 AM EST
in News
Email
PrintAnd make stuff up. In that order.
I lived there, and I read their crap on a daily basis. On some level I'd like to think that only miniscule amounts of the routine rubbish permiated my classical mid-western logic-dominated brain, but whether it did or it didn't I still knew it was all garbage.
But this takes the cake.
That's right, ladies and gentlemen, Dan Rosenheck of the New York Times believes the Twins are the best fit for Barry Bonds. No, seriously, stop laughing, I mean it. Rosenheck makes quite the attempt in making the Twins appear to be the best suitor.
Forget the fact that the Twins have two truly glaring holes, needing a hitter (of the designated variety or a heavier-hitting third baseman) and one proven starting pitcher. Forget the fact that the Twins are a team strapped financially. Just sit down and put on a blindfold, so that you have an excuse when someone asks you why you didn't realize this was a massive mistake miles away.
Barry Bonds is still a commodity. Even at 42, if he were brought to the American League to DH 130 games, he would probably put up some gaudy numbers. Hell, starting in the outfield for San Francisco in 2006 at the age of 41, he hit .270/.454/.545. Out of his 99 hits, 49 were of the extra-base variety. He was walked 115 times "unintentionally" and only struck out 51 times. Steroids or not, the man can hit the snot out of the ball at an age where most ballplayers have been out of the league nearly 8 years.
What is astounding about Rosenheck making a case for Bonds being a signature pickup isn't that he's calling Bonds a "bargain", or that he's talking about Bonds at all, it's that he's talking about Bonds signing with THE TWINS.
Yeah friggin' right.
I have a lot of faith in the intelligencia of this site, but I can't help myself. For my own damn sanity, I need to break down the pure idiocy of this article.
1. Rosenheck begins his argument stating that the Twins left field offensive production was the worst in baseball. This is no big surprise, and this is the only statement that I have no real problem with. Unfortunately, the Twins biggest problem isn't left field. That's closer to number 4 on the Offseason Issues depth chart.
In 2006, Shannon Stewart, Lew Ford, Jason Tyner, Rondell White, Jason Kubel and Josh Rabe played significant time in left (Cuddyer's two innings don't count). Glancing through this list, it's not really a surprise we didn't produce. Stewart, White and Kubel had health issues of varying degrees. Ford is a defensive replacement with little offensive value. Rabe is a rookie. Tyner, as much as I love what he did and how well he played during a career year, still doesn't tear the cover off the ball.
Left field shouldn't be as large of a focus as a designated hitter, third baseman or a starting pitcher, however, because of the talent that should be available to fill the gap in 2007. Terry Ryan still believes Jason Kubel will be ready to compete at a higher level than last season, and the word on the street is that the Twins are also looking into resigning Rondell White. Certainly, neither of these options are ideal and fool-proof, but on a financially strapped team with limited free agency options, there's less urgency to focus on the lesser evil.
2. His second sentence (that's right he doesn't even choose to elaborate on his actually decent first point) implies that signing Bonds would help hold back the flood-gates of a highly contested division. Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland all have potential to unseat the Twins in 2007 as the AL Central champs, and dammit, BARRY BONDS IS THE BEST WAY TO STEM THE TIDE.
Which, y'know, works well, because as I've mentioned, the Twins only have one offseason issue.
3. Minnesota averages 24,000 empty seats in August and September. He doesn't really say how signing Barry Bonds guarantees or even gives the hope of filling these seats, but we can draw the conclusion for him. He believes Bonds, not team success, puts people in the seats.
To some extent, he's actually right. There's no denying that Bonds would bring in some fans and tourists. Unfortunately, if the team isn't winning, Bonds' draw would be heavier in the beginning of the season. If the team IS winning, having Bonds on the roster is no guarantee that more people will actually show up. They SHOULD (says the baseball freak), but it's not a given. Hell, remember how hot the Twins were coming down the stretch last summer, how tight of a race it was with Detroit and Chicago? Yeah, it was absolutely mental, and we STILL had all those empty seats. The solution to this is a long-term answer, not Barry Bonds.
In addition, the Twins drew 2,285,018 fans in 2006--the 4th highest total since moving into the Metrodome in 1982. That's without Barry.
4. Take another look at the block quote I used above. The one that makes me twitch. How many things do I need to point out that are wrong with those two sentences before I can stop that unceasing feeling in my mind of nails dragging across a chalkboard?
One, the Twins payroll is already increasing. If you're a Twins fan, you should know, we're thankful for that. Asking for another 6 mil is like asking Scrooge to put another log on the fire (pre-Ghost of Christmas Future).
Two, even if we were to get an extra 6 mil (WHICH WE WON'T), we wouldn't be using $17,000,000 to throw away on one season of Bonds. That money would be used for a starting pitcher (via trade), a third baseman (via trade), a designated hitter (probably via trade), and most intelligently, hopefully would be used to sign Joe Mauer through his arbitration years. Honestly, $17 MM wouldn't even get all of that done.
Three, how would we make a profit off of Bonds on a 1-year, $17,000,000 deal? I could make something up, which is exactly what Rosenheck did, but if someone could do some real math on this for me that would be awesome.
Four, LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA.
Five, look at the last sentence of Rosenheck's article. Newsflash: It's still out of the Twins' financial league. Stop making stuff up, there's an 8-year old out there somewhere whose hopes have gotten up about the Twins finally bringing in a big-name hitter in the offseason.
Way to ruin Christmas, Rosenheck.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It
Most of the writers can't even be bothered to get up out of their office, pull up their pants, and research anything west of pensilvania.
I don't really give a shit what they think. Newspapers are a dying form in this country, and idiots putting out crap like this is why.
Thanks for killing newspapers buddy. I hate them anyway.
This is almost as insulting...
So the Twins won...
Nate Silver has done a lot of research on how much additional revenue is created for a team per win. It turns out that, in his words:
There is a very substantial, and very non-linear, increase in local revenues that a team can expect as a result of making the playoffs. More specifically, this increase is felt over the longer term. A single playoff appearance can result in a meaningful increase in both attendance revenues and local broadcasting revenues for as many as 10 years.
Further:
I don't think this finding should be all that surprising. Most baseball clubs either implicitly or explicitly make reaching the playoffs their goal, preferably in the near term, or if that isn't possible, at least in the medium term. Most fans want to see a competitive baseball club, and there's no better evidence that a team is competitive than that it's able to compete for its fair share of pennants.
He goes into a lot more detail than this in Baseball Between the Numbers, including a graph that shows dollars per win vs. total wins. From about 86- to 94-wins is where the relationship deviates significantly from around $750K/win.
Now turn to the Twins' DH spot last year. The Twins were 13th in the AL at DH, with a .680 OPS. The Mariners were the only team worse than the Twins, at .667. Park adjust those numbers, and the Twins got the worst production out of DH in all of baseball. Replacement level at DH is somewhere around a .726 OPS. VORPr (runs/game over replacement level) at DH, for a .261/.316/.360 hitter (like the Twins had at DH last year), is about -0.1. So over the course of the season, the Twins were about 16 runs below replacement level at DH. Negative 16 runs.
Now look at what Bonds did last year. Replacement level for DH is about the same as LF, since both positions stock many of the biggest, baddest hitters in the game. Last year, Bonds had a VORP of 46.6. (Note that this jives with the four-and-a-half wins figure that the author quotes Nate Silver as projecting for Bonds at next year.)
Putting Barry's production at DH instead of what we got last year gains us about 60 runs--or six wins.
Now go back to Nate Silver's research. How much is the difference in revenue between an 89-win team and a 95-win team? About 16 million dollars.
So where is that extra money coming from? It's coming from the extra revenue the Twins get for going from being an also-ran to a team poised to make noise in the playoffs.
Now, you and I understand that given all of the Twins' love for a feel-good vibe in the clubhouse, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the Twins will sign Barry Bonds. However, the author is not arguing that the Twins will sign Bonds, but rather, that they are in a position where it makes sense to sign him. And Mr. Rosenheck isn't just making this argument because he's bored--he's making this argument because it's based on this research, with which he is most certainly aware, as he mentions conversations with Mr. Silver himself.
And guess what? Despite the fact that he writes for the biggest rag in the Big Apple, he's exactly right. There are a lot of reasons that it would make more sense for the Twins to make this move than it would for any other team.
Also, consider this: Bonds is a one-year commitment. There are zero players of his caliber for a one-year commitment without giving up a huge amount of talent in a trade (which is a much more valuable resource than money.) If it doesn't work out this year, then you rolled the dice, made a calculated gamble, but you most certainly didn't mortage the future to take that chance. That's a smart gamble in my book. (And signing Bonds doesn't preclude the team from trading from their relief corps to shore up their rotation, which seems to be rather likely at this juncture in time.)
The author isn't saying that we should call a town meeting to ask Pohlad for extra money. He's saying that Carl Money Grubbing Pohlad, the businessman that he is, should look at the situation and see a financial gain to be had if he invests properly.
I'm with you
On top of all that, what do you suppose are the odds that Bonds really gets $17 million this year? Great as he is, with his health issues the past couple of years, combined with his PR problems, I'd guess something like $10-12 million is more likely.
And yes, I agree that it's unlikely the Twins will get him due to TR's focus on team chemistry, but I don't think we should dismiss the idea so quickly.
In Theory
In regards to the 4.5-6 wins that Bonds could provide next year: the Twins DO need to be aware of how much a win is worth, financially. Rather than putting all eggs in one massive cranium-expanding basket, all the money that could be thrown at Bonds could be thrown elsewhere. Between the two or three players the Twins could add...a starting pitcher, a heavier-hitting third baseman, a less expensive DH...we'd still be getting those wins cumulatively.
Forever the optimist, I also believe that pitchers like Garza and Bonser will pick up some of those missing wins from Radke and Liriano as well.
As much as I love baseball prospectus and the statistical probability that Bonds will still be an offensive force, if you want to discuss Bonds coming to the Twins seriously, there's just a bigger picture at hand. Yes, the home run chase would draw fans, but there's more to it than that. There's a line between what could theoretically help the Twins win and draw fans, and what the best chances are for the Twins to succeed.
Re:
As far as the Red Sox and Yankees are concerned, they already sell every game out, have their own TV networks, have overseas exposure etc. Bonds would yield little upside to compensate for the downside he'd bring the team.
by TheMattWilke on Dec 6, 2006 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
Nah...
- The Yankees have so many OF/DH players that they already dealt away Gary Sheffield.
- The Red Sox just signed J.D. Drew, and are asking the world for Manny. Right now, they have at least Drew, Wily Mo Pena, Coco Crisp, and Manny Ramirez on their roster. They aren't going to offer Bonds a bunch of money to be their fifth outfielder.
Rather than putting all eggs in one massive cranium-expanding basket, all the money that could be thrown at Bonds could be thrown elsewhere. Between the two or three players the Twins could add...a starting pitcher, a heavier-hitting third baseman, a less expensive DH...we'd still be getting those wins cumulatively.
That's just the thing. Look at who is available, how much they are commanding, and how much they would improve the team. Even a starting pitcher like Miguel Batista is going to command a deal in the neighborhood of Adam Eaton--3 years, $20M. And look at what you get for that investment: a guy who struck out 4.7 K/G last year and walked 3.6 BB/G. Now he starts facing DH's instead of pitchers, and you're looking at a guy who is walking more batters than he's striking out. I don't care how many groundballs you get, you're not going to be anything above replacement level with that kind of performance. And it's not just Batista! The rates for starting pitchers are ridiculous. You're going to be paying at least $5-6M per win above replacement level on the free agent market--and committing to multiple years in the future to do so.
And the free agent third base options out there? Crap. No combination of a free agent third baseman and Punto or Castillo offers us more value than just sticking with Punto at 3B and Castillo at 2B.
Then at DH, say you go with Rondell White. As much as I think he's a reasonable option for the Twins, we can't really count on him for more than 400 PA next year. Between White and Kubel, you're maybe getting 800 PA next year, and you need around 1200 PA between DH and LF. And that's not even mentioning the gap in talent ratewise between White and Bonds. The Twins need corner OF/DH hitting badly. They have zero depth at those positions in the minor leagues.
Okay, so we can't spend that money on the free agent market to get some combo of a SP, 3B, and DH that offer the same value. What about trades? Well, when you trade away a player, you not only trade away his value to the team in future years, but it effectively costs you payroll in the future, because the cheapest performance on the dollar players out there are pre-arbitration players. Extreme case, but an example of the point nonetheless, who did the Giants pay more for in 2004--Barry Bonds ($13M) or A.J. Pierzynski ($3.5M plus Joe Nathan plus Boof Bonser plus Francisco Liriano)? Obviously not all trades are as lopsided as that, but in the grand scheme of things, $17M is a small cost compared to the cost of trading away a very talented young player for one year of a starting pitcher (Jason Jennings, for instance.)
I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, or that it's without drawbacks. I'm just saying that the author's point--that the Twins are in a position that Bonds is more valuable to them than he is to other teams--is a valid point. Personally, I think I'd rather just not deal with the headache that it would cause on the blogosphere. As it is, the mere mention of Bonds in a New York Times article draws a ridiculous response. Actually putting him on the team would make every game a referendum about whether or not it was a good idea for the Twins to acquire Bonds. I'd still follow the Twins a lot, because I think they'd be winning a lot of games, but I'd be doing it a lot more by myself where I wouldn't have to watch steroid flamewars once every nine Twins plate appearances.
But that's going to be the case wherever Barry goes if he goes somewhere outside of San Francisco. It's not something that makes him less well suited to the Twins than to other teams.
Disappointing response
First, to clarify, I agree that a snowball has a better chance in hell than TR/Pohlad getting Bonds (unless of course he goes unsigned and gets a bit more reasonable)
Let me add to Ubelmann's criticisms:
Homerun chase... That WILL fill seats. And given he's one healthy season away from it, you'd probably see sellout crowds during the entire chase, and ever game at the end of the year so some lucky fan can say they have the 760 ball. How much is that revenue worth?
The point the times made is that this would be a wise business decision for the Twins more than anyone else, as the Twins have a huge hole that Bonds can fill and have empty seats that would be filled b/c of it. Bonds also wants a ring, and getting him and a decent pitcher in the offseason would probably guarantee us a playoff spot, and a very very reasonable chance of advancing to the series.
Guaranteed?
Both outcomes of this situation are hard to stomach, not having a threat like Bonds at DH, or getting Bonds and f-ing the entire team.
Risk V Reward
It's not really an "and" kind of a deal. If, like Rosenheck suggests, we somehow manage to throw $17,000,000 at Bonds for one season, that's the end of it. There is no money left for another pitcher. With players like Mauer, Cuddyer and Morneau starting artibration in the face as well, it's not a sure-shot that this is a good financial decision. Bonds is a huge financial and health risk.
Conversation
TR: Uncle Carl, if you give me $17 million out of your pocket to sign Bonds, it'll turn it into $40-50 million on the low-end.
Pohlad: I love money!
Done deal
Hell TR could go to Pawlenty and argue why the state should finance Bonds' salary as a way to generate an increase in tourism into the Twin Cities area, helping hotels and the Mall of America.
Unrealistic, absolutely. But Barry chasing Aaron is a gold mine from a financial perspective. And Barry filling the DH hole for the Twins and making them a World Series contender as well is also nice.
by TheMattWilke on Dec 6, 2006 11:18 AM EST reply actions
Yep...
by djskilbr on Dec 6, 2006 3:02 PM EST reply actions
Or...
Allocating that much to one player, let alone one who is, OLD, for a year is abso-fraginlutely re-cock-you-luss. I can think of a few places for those funds...
- starting pitcher...
- some hack named mauer's contract
- some canadian guy named J.mo
- starting pitcher...
- third baseman...
- starting pitcher
I think the original post was, poking fun at a stupid ass article written by someone, who none of us know, nor care to know in the first place. Lets throw out a little bit of good old fashioned truth...there will be no Barry Bonds signing in Minnesota. Ahhh...I said it...I'm proud of myself.
But for shizz and grins, here are a few things. I must disagree that there would be a huge push for tickets for catching that homerun ball...not many people are poking balls into upper-deck left, or upper center, nor are many fans catching many balls in lower center or right. So, you would fill the bottom porch, and the upper right, but many of the fans who are "regulars" will just be moving from upper 1st baseline, to lower left. I don't think your revenue would be that high...and I hate to say it, but filling the cheapies, at a 7 bucks/tick rate, isnt going to boost team revenue to compensate for the signing of a love/hate record/asterisk chaser.
Then there is this...you sign Barry, and he...gasp...doesn't play well! Ack, the horror! Or, maybe he gets hurt. One pitch, hits his trailing arm, his elbow is destroyed and...he still gets all that coin! Then wouldn't we all be talking about the how great it was signing this future 'roid-of-famer? I didn't think so.
Sure it is fun to speculate on things, but after '07, then what? Do we say, wow, at least we got to watch a washed up version of that Bonds fellow! Frankly...i'll take the beanut butter.
Not entirely crazy...
Allocating that much to one player, let alone one who is, OLD, for a year is abso-fraginlutely re-cock-you-luss. I can think of a few places for those funds...1. starting pitcher...
2. some hack named mauer's contract
3. some canadian guy named J.mo
4. starting pitcher...
5. third baseman...
6. starting pitcher
2 and 3 are not necessary this year - the Twins are under budget this year even anticipating arbitration raises for Mauer and Morneau. It's a hit, sure, but a small one for another year or two.
Third base is not nearly as large a concern if the Twins have a high-end DH - you could run slap-hitter extraordinaire Nick Punto out there without as much concern, since you're not always playing Jason Tyner at the same time. Even if the Twins do go after a 3B, most of the proposals put forth here for a third baseman have focused on acquiring a young player via trade - the players discussed (except Miguel Cabrera, which no one thinks is realistic) are all still cheap, salary-wise, and most of the proposals include getting rid of Castillo or some other player that would more than offset the salary difference.
Pitching would remain a concern, but the free agent pitching market is crazy this year, and again, most proposals here are in favor of getting pitchers by trade, which would offset salary concerns somewhat.
I must disagree that there would be a huge push for tickets for catching that homerun ball...not many people are poking balls into upper-deck left, or upper center, nor are many fans catching many balls in lower center or right. So, you would fill the bottom porch, and the upper right, but many of the fans who are "regulars" will just be moving from upper 1st baseline, to lower left. I don't think your revenue would be that high...and I hate to say it, but filling the cheapies, at a 7 bucks/tick rate, isnt going to boost team revenue to compensate for the signing of a love/hate record/asterisk chaser.
The attendance push isn't to catch the ball, which I agree wouldn't be a big increase - the attendance increase is just people who want to be there to see history being made. Were I still in the Twin Cities, it's something I would want to take the opportunity to see, and I doubt I'm the only one.
Then there is this...you sign Barry, and he...gasp...doesn't play well! Ack, the horror! Or, maybe he gets hurt. One pitch, hits his trailing arm, his elbow is destroyed and...he still gets all that coin! Then wouldn't we all be talking about the how great it was signing this future 'roid-of-famer? I didn't think so.
I do believe everyone said pretty much the same thing about Frank Thomas last year, too. Of course it's not a guarantee - nothing is - and the financial risk is much higher (discounting the possibility that insurance would pay for his contract if he were injured, since they still wouldn't get any return out of that payroll). But it's definitely a high-reward scenario - a healthy Bonds could reasonably be expected to put up a .280/.450/.650 line with 30+ homers.
Sure it is fun to speculate on things, but after '07, then what? Do we say, wow, at least we got to watch a washed up version of that Bonds fellow!
This is a signing of an unrestricted free agent (the Giants didn't offer him arbitration), so there's no draft pick compensation and no prospects to give up - making this move is for '07 only, and it would have no direct impact on the '08 team. On top of that, what if it works, and the Twins win the World Series (which is, really, the ultimate goal here)? Do people still complain that the Twins only had Jack Morris for one year?
I think the original post was, poking fun at a stupid ass article written by someone, who none of us know, nor care to know in the first place. Lets throw out a little bit of good old fashioned truth...there will be no Barry Bonds signing in Minnesota. Ahhh...I said it...I'm proud of myself.
I get it... you don't like Barry Bonds, and you don't care for the East Coast media. But I've read the article, and he actually did some research on this, and he makes some good points. He's not just making stuff up, like he's been accused of in other posts on the Bonds threads here. I agree with you that the signing is unlikely, and I don't know for sure that it's the right thing for the Twins to do. All I'm saying is that the anger directed at this article seems quite a bit out of place, especially in light of the fact that, all things considered, it really isn't that bad an idea.
No Anger...
Come on...
And most people here still haven't argued that the Twins should sign Bonds next year. It's just that Bonds makes more sense for the Twins than he does for basically all the other teams. That's the only point I can see being made here, both by the NYT writer, and those coming to his "defense."
As
Totally different. the Thomas contract was only smart because it was so low risk. It worked out, but it could just as easily have not, and if one again it could just as easily not.
GET BACK TO POSTING
POST!
That's a little hostile...
Things?
Really?
The fac that I got so excited about Jeff Cirillo kind of indicates how active they are...
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
