PDA

View Full Version : Royals interested in Pods?


DumpJerry
12-04-2009, 05:46 PM
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/12/reports-scott-podsednik-kansas-city-explore-interest.html

If Kenny cannot match his price, how can the Royals?

munchman33
12-04-2009, 05:49 PM
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/12/reports-scott-podsednik-kansas-city-explore-interest.html

If Kenny cannot match his price, how can the Royals?

Being able to pay someone exactly what they want to be paid isn't the issue. It's whether or not he's worth it comparatively.

voodoochile
12-04-2009, 06:02 PM
Being able to pay someone exactly what they want to be paid isn't the issue. It's whether or not he's worth it comparatively.

There is value in that concept only if you can replace the value the player brings to the team with someone else. Otherwise you are simply getting deep into VORP and personally I think VORP is a horrible stat.

Sometimes marginal upgrades cost more than "they should". But a guy who is 10% better offensively than the other option may cost a lot more than 10% more and if you can afford it, the guy who produces 10% better numbers is always worth it.

Now if you can upgrade 2 positions for the price that it might cost for one 10% better player than you certainly have to consider it, but 1-to-1 comparisons you always want the better player regardless of cost.

chunk
12-04-2009, 07:00 PM
There is value in that concept only if you can replace the value the player brings to the team with someone else. Otherwise you are simply getting deep into VORP and personally I think VORP is a horrible stat.

Sometimes marginal upgrades cost more than "they should". But a guy who is 10% better offensively than the other option may cost a lot more than 10% more and if you can afford it, the guy who produces 10% better numbers is always worth it.

Now if you can upgrade 2 positions for the price that it might cost for one 10% better player than you certainly have to consider it, but 1-to-1 comparisons you always want the better player regardless of cost.

It's paying that "whole lot more for 10%" that gets teams saddled with terrible contracts. Paying a guy more than he's worth is bad business and sets the team up with a troublesome future. Look at how many terrible contracts the Cubs have because of that. 90% of mlb teams have to worry about the bottom line and would go for the slightly cheaper guy. If you're going to trade the player, no one is going to take the contract because it's overpaying. It's the high price of mediocrity.

Besides, what two positions does Pods upgrade? He's only a so-so leadoff man at getting on-base, but he's quite terrible on them. And he's a below average LF on both sides of the game.

Zisk77
12-04-2009, 07:43 PM
It's paying that "whole lot more for 10%" that gets teams saddled with terrible contracts. Paying a guy more than he's worth is bad business and sets the team up with a troublesome future. Look at how many terrible contracts the Cubs have because of that. 90% of mlb teams have to worry about the bottom line and would go for the slightly cheaper guy. If you're going to trade the player, no one is going to take the contract because it's overpaying. It's the high price of mediocrity.

Besides, what two positions does Pods upgrade? He's only a so-so leadoff man at getting on-base, but he's quite terrible on them. And he's a below average LF on both sides of the game.


I don't think voodoo is saying Pods upgrades 2 positions. He is saying you want to take the best player UNLESS taking the lesser player allows you the $ to then upgrade 2 positions that you have holes in.

chunk
12-04-2009, 08:01 PM
I don't think voodoo is saying Pods upgrades 2 positions. He is saying you want to take the best player UNLESS taking the lesser player allows you the $ to then upgrade 2 positions that you have holes in.

Ah, that makes more sense.

russ99
12-04-2009, 08:21 PM
Besides, what two positions does Pods upgrade? He's only a so-so leadoff man at getting on-base, but he's quite terrible on them. And he's a below average LF on both sides of the game.

Did you watch the White Sox last year? Cause I saw a completely different player.

Again, a few ugly pickoffs and misplays at the wall are clouding some people's judgment of a guy who hit .304 had a .353 OBP and stole 30 bases and was adequate (not solid or stellar, adequate) in the field.

Pods stayed healthy and had a heck of a season, and if he and his agent didn't have unreasonable demands, he'd have re-signed with the Sox by now.

I guess the player you know is always deemed worse than the player that you think you'll get to replace him...

It would be ironic if the Royals get Pods and the Sox get Crisp. And I'm willing to bet that Pods has better numbers across the board, especially in the most important stat, games played.

chunk
12-04-2009, 08:43 PM
I would call 13 caught stealings (only had a 70% sb rate), 11 pickoffs and 5 OOB pretty bad on the bases.

He doesn't have much range, makes bad jumps, and doesn't have much of an arm. He has a below average (for LF) OPS. That's what I'd call a below average LF.

DirtySox
12-04-2009, 08:48 PM
I saw an aging Pods have a decent year with the bat while showing bad base running instincts and suspect defense. People sure seem eager to commit a significant chunk of money and a multi-year deal to a player who is very unlikely to reproduce his 2009 numbers.

I'll take a 1 year deal with incentives for Coco Crisp any day of the week over Pods.

Madscout
12-06-2009, 02:42 PM
I saw an aging Pods have a decent year with the bat while showing bad base running instincts and suspect defense. People sure seem eager to commit a significant chunk of money and a multi-year deal to a player who is very unlikely to reproduce his 2009 numbers.

I'll take a 1 year deal with incentives for Coco Crisp any day of the week over Pods.
Word. Coco wants a starting job back, and he'll fight for it.