Post by Rog on Oct 16, 2015 16:36:09 GMT -5
I actually preferred James to Peavy and Peavy's DL time proved me right.
Rog -- I've got to ask you how Jake's DL time proved you right. Did that make it so that we would rather have had James this past season? Even though Shields had a mediocre season, we agree on that one (which as seldom as we agree probably makes us right this time).
But a trade is the sum of its parts, and now the Giants owe Jake $15 million for one season, while the Padres owe James $65 for three years. The Padres were trying to trade James at the deadline, while as far as we know, the Giants were still wanting to hang onto Jake. My guess is that the Padres would trade James straight up for Jake right now. They appear to feel that James' contract is an albatross.
I realize you say that the Giants would have made the playoffs with James instead of Jake, but WAR says that is highly unlikely. HIGHLY unlikely.
You can disparage WAR, but when it shows that the Giants would have been likely to win the same number of games with James as they won with Jake, it is highly unlikely they would have been able to win 8 more. They might well have not been able to win 8 more if they had two Madison Bumgarners, and I think we can agree that Madison is worth a lot more than Shields, who pitched this past season more like a #3 than a #1.
So, no, you weren't proven right.
Here is something I find interesting. If you notice, I usually say that the substantiation I offer points toward or makes it likely (sometimes extremely likely) but don't say it proves something, as you did here. You certainly didn't prove anything, and you likely weren't even right.
More facts and logic with less bluster would be appreciated. Thanks.
By the way, at the time I would have preferred to have James instead of Jake and Romo, but I was likely wrong too.
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3075/grant-brisbee#ixzz3olcPN8nb
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3075/grant-brisbee#ixzz3olcPN8nb
Rog -- I've got to ask you how Jake's DL time proved you right. Did that make it so that we would rather have had James this past season? Even though Shields had a mediocre season, we agree on that one (which as seldom as we agree probably makes us right this time).
But a trade is the sum of its parts, and now the Giants owe Jake $15 million for one season, while the Padres owe James $65 for three years. The Padres were trying to trade James at the deadline, while as far as we know, the Giants were still wanting to hang onto Jake. My guess is that the Padres would trade James straight up for Jake right now. They appear to feel that James' contract is an albatross.
I realize you say that the Giants would have made the playoffs with James instead of Jake, but WAR says that is highly unlikely. HIGHLY unlikely.
You can disparage WAR, but when it shows that the Giants would have been likely to win the same number of games with James as they won with Jake, it is highly unlikely they would have been able to win 8 more. They might well have not been able to win 8 more if they had two Madison Bumgarners, and I think we can agree that Madison is worth a lot more than Shields, who pitched this past season more like a #3 than a #1.
So, no, you weren't proven right.
Here is something I find interesting. If you notice, I usually say that the substantiation I offer points toward or makes it likely (sometimes extremely likely) but don't say it proves something, as you did here. You certainly didn't prove anything, and you likely weren't even right.
More facts and logic with less bluster would be appreciated. Thanks.
By the way, at the time I would have preferred to have James instead of Jake and Romo, but I was likely wrong too.
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3075/grant-brisbee#ixzz3olcPN8nb
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3075/grant-brisbee#ixzz3olcPN8nb