Dan,
   You do seem to be in a similar position with your team. I used to protect
a closer but I've started to back off that strategy. I would keep de la Rosa.
 
Below are my thoughts after all the feedback so far:
Wolf, move him because I have an offer.
Iannentta, as a keeper. I already have Montero ..so 2 catchers?
Willingham, no verdict really, I'm leaning against unless I have a spot.
Hudson, Keep if he signs in the NL as the 2b pool is shallow.
Blanks, wait and see on...want more info
Sheets, a little love and no interest in my league, wait for more developments
de la Rosa and Sanchez, pretty good support, I'll keep
 
Thanks again guys.
 
 
 
 
For whatever it's worth, I have a similar situation with may of these guys
in NL Sandy K (Tm 3).  My core is strong:  Hanley, Fielder, Kemp, Sandoval,
Mauer (AL x-over pick); Wainwright, Gallardo, Wandy.

I traded for a 14th keeper slot, and I have Heyward waiting in the wings as
a rookie keeper.

In addition to the above eight, I'll be keeping 6 more out of this group:
OF - Blanks, Diaz, Dukes, Venable, C. Young
2B - Barmes, Baker
SP - De la Rosa, Correia, Sheets
RP - Hoffman, Marmol

I think Blanks breaks out in a big way; Diaz holds down the fort (with a 380
OBP) long enough in ATL, at least until Heyward Pipp's him; and Hoffman is
still going strong.  (I know, I know, the "is Diaz a keeper?" conversation
has been had already.)

After that, I think de la Rosa has way too much upside not to keep.  Correia
was great this year in SD but there are rumors that he's being moved
elsewhere, though for the time being, I'm planning to keep him too.  And
then I think it has to be Sheets over the two 2Bs, any of the remaining OFs,
or Marmol.

I think some of these points are debatable -- anyway, that's how I'll be
handling a somewhat similar situation.

Dan






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Its Nov 12th, so far one free agent has signed, i'd say thats not indicative of
sheets unsignability.
 
Now is he, I have no clue, but I tell you at there best of him, delaarosa, wolf
or cueto i'd take sheets in a heartbeat, so i'd be willing to wait aand hear
more difinitive news before being so sure to drop him.
 
And sure if delarosa gets his walks in like he could be better, but so couldn't
wolf or a number of others, he is 28 as already i noted, how much string you
want to give him? I just don't see him as a surefire lock keeper.
 
As for willingham, i'd say borderline myself, he never seems to be in plans for
a surefire job, wonder why that is?
 
R

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, e_hunke <E_Hunke2@...> wrote:


From: e_hunke <E_Hunke2@...>
Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 10:18 AM


 



Willingham has averaged about 500 plate appearances a year for 4 years and has a
career ops of near 850. If he's not playing for the Nats, they will deal him.
There's no point in any team sticking him on the bench.

I don't see the fascination with Wolf. Sure he had a low ERA last year, but
that's not very likely to happen in 2010. His next lowest ERA since 2004 was
4.28. Odds are it's going to be in that range next year (or higher) since he
likely won't be pitching in LA.

No team seems to be rushing out to sign Sheets, which is an indication of his
actual health.

De la Rosa is a gamble but he's got lots of upside. If he can cut his walk rate,
even slightly, he could be very good.

--- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Richard Landry <rlandry010@ ...>
wrote:
>
> Why the love for Delarosa or Willingham but not wolf or sheets? Yes Delarosa
had K's, but had a recent career low WHIP of 1.48. Wolfs performance was overly
low last year, but has been consistently in the mid 1.4 whip. Seems to me pretty
much the same pitcher. And delarosa is 28, not exactly growing age time. Sheets
when healthy, and yes thats a huge if or when, is a good candidate for low 3,
1.15 Whip guy, the kind that win titles. I can redraft a 4.50 1.45 WHIP pitcher,
not likely a low 3 guy.
>  
> I'm not saying sheets is an automatic pick, I'm surely going to wait a few
months and read what may occur, but by far if healthy hes the best arm your
considering discussing..
>  
> And why Willingham, he will be lucky given the Nats way of doing things to
have a job, he has high risk low reward written all over him. I see the decent
numbers, but playing time makes him a maybe to me, at least today.
>  
> But if you so desire i do agree, i'd take a 19 for wolf and run, reasonable
area for him.
>  
> R
>
> --- On Thu, 11/12/09, e_hunke <E_Hunke2@.. .> wrote:
>
>
> From: e_hunke <E_Hunke2@.. .>
> Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> To: scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 12:36 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I'd trade Wolf for a Rd 19. His ERA last year was pretty shiny but for the
last half dozen years he probably wasn't a decent keeper.
>
> But I think you need to keep Sanchez and de la Rosa. Lefthanders who average >
k per inning need to be kept.
>
> Trade Wolf, dump Sheets, keep Iannetta and Willingham. There is no way I would
keep Milledge. But Blanks should be tradeable as should Hudson and Ross.
>
> --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > thanks guys for the help.
> >  
> > I just think the second half numbers put up by J Sanchez and de la Rosa mean
something no?
> > I have thought about moving Wolf and had an offer of a 19 (way too low)
offered. I do think Ianetta is someone to protect but I also have Montero. I
like Milledge as well, you guys I think are all right...
> >  
> > What do you guys think of moving wolf, saving Hudson and Iannetta as well as
the value of Sheets and Blanks?
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Ari <evergreen_1979@ ...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Ari <evergreen_1979@ ...>
> > Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> > To: scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 7:51 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Under no circumstances should you keep: Sanchez, Sheets
> > I would also drop: de la Rosa
> >
> > Under no circumstances should you cut: Iannetta
> > I would also keep: Hudson, one of {Blanks, Ross, Hoffman}
> >
> > --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what
> > > I'm thinking so far: Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto,
> > > J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds,
> > > Votto and Montero.
> > >  
> > > I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold
> > > off possibly. Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson
> > > being names maybe I should keep? K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham,
> > > Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and Hoffman. Thanks.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail. yahoo.com
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For whatever it's worth, I have a similar situation with may of these guys
in NL Sandy K (Tm 3).  My core is strong:  Hanley, Fielder, Kemp, Sandoval,
Mauer (AL x-over pick); Wainwright, Gallardo, Wandy.

I traded for a 14th keeper slot, and I have Heyward waiting in the wings as
a rookie keeper.

In addition to the above eight, I'll be keeping 6 more out of this group:
OF - Blanks, Diaz, Dukes, Venable, C. Young
2B - Barmes, Baker
SP - De la Rosa, Correia, Sheets
RP - Hoffman, Marmol

I think Blanks breaks out in a big way; Diaz holds down the fort (with a 380
OBP) long enough in ATL, at least until Heyward Pipp's him; and Hoffman is
still going strong.  (I know, I know, the "is Diaz a keeper?" conversation
has been had already.)

After that, I think de la Rosa has way too much upside not to keep.  Correia
was great this year in SD but there are rumors that he's being moved
elsewhere, though for the time being, I'm planning to keep him too.  And
then I think it has to be Sheets over the two 2Bs, any of the remaining OFs,
or Marmol.

I think some of these points are debatable -- anyway, that's how I'll be
handling a somewhat similar situation.

Dan

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:18 AM, e_hunke <E_Hunke2@...> wrote:

>
>
> Willingham has averaged about 500 plate appearances a year for 4 years and
> has a career ops of near 850. If he's not playing for the Nats, they will
> deal him. There's no point in any team sticking him on the bench.
>
> I don't see the fascination with Wolf. Sure he had a low ERA last year, but
> that's not very likely to happen in 2010. His next lowest ERA since 2004 was
> 4.28. Odds are it's going to be in that range next year (or higher) since he
> likely won't be pitching in LA.
>
> No team seems to be rushing out to sign Sheets, which is an indication of
> his actual health.
>
> De la Rosa is a gamble but he's got lots of upside. If he can cut his walk
> rate, even slightly, he could be very good.
>
> --- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com <scoresheet-talk%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Richard Landry <rlandry010@...> wrote:
> >
> > Why the love for Delarosa or Willingham but not wolf or sheets? Yes
> Delarosa had K's, but had a recent career low WHIP of 1.48. Wolfs
> performance was overly low last year, but has been consistently in the mid
> 1.4 whip. Seems to me pretty much the same pitcher. And delarosa is 28, not
> exactly growing age time. Sheets when healthy, and yes thats a huge if or
> when, is a good candidate for low 3, 1.15 Whip guy, the kind that win
> titles. I can redraft a 4.50 1.45 WHIP pitcher, not likely a low 3 guy.
> > Â
>
> > I'm not saying sheets is an automatic pick, I'm surely going to wait a
> few months and read what may occur, but by far if healthy hes the best arm
> your considering discussing..
> > Â
>
> > And why Willingham, he will be lucky given the Nats way of doing things
> to have a job, he has high risk low reward written all over him. I see the
> decent numbers, but playing time makes him a maybe to me, at least today.
> > Â
>
> > But if you so desire i do agree, i'd take a 19 for wolf and run,
> reasonable area for him.
> > Â
> > R
> >
> > --- On Thu, 11/12/09, e_hunke <E_Hunke2@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: e_hunke <E_Hunke2@...>
>
> > Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> > To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com <scoresheet-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 12:36 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd trade Wolf for a Rd 19. His ERA last year was pretty shiny but for
> the last half dozen years he probably wasn't a decent keeper.
> >
> > But I think you need to keep Sanchez and de la Rosa. Lefthanders who
> average > k per inning need to be kept.
> >
> > Trade Wolf, dump Sheets, keep Iannetta and Willingham. There is no way I
> would keep Milledge. But Blanks should be tradeable as should Hudson and
> Ross.
> >
> > --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@ ..>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > thanks guys for the help.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > I just think the second half numbers put up by J Sanchez and de la Rosa
> mean something no?
> > > I have thought about moving Wolf and had an offer of a 19 (way too low)
> offered. I do think Ianetta is someone to protect but I also have Montero. I
> like Milledge as well, you guys I think are all right...
> > > ÂÂ
>
> > > What do you guys think of moving wolf, saving Hudson and Iannetta as
> well as the value of Sheets and Blanks?
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Ari <evergreen_1979@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Ari <evergreen_1979@ ...>
> > > Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> > > To: scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com
> > > Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 7:51 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Under no circumstances should you keep: Sanchez, Sheets
> > > I would also drop: de la Rosa
> > >
> > > Under no circumstances should you cut: Iannetta
> > > I would also keep: Hudson, one of {Blanks, Ross, Hoffman}
> > >
> > > --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@ ..>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what
> > > > I'm thinking so far: Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto,
> > > > J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds,
> > > > Votto and Montero.
> > > > ÂÂ
>
> > > > I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold
> > > > off possibly. Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson
> > > > being names maybe I should keep? K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham,
> > > > Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and Hoffman. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > http://mail. yahoo.com
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Willingham has averaged about 500 plate appearances a year for 4 years and has a
career ops of near 850.  If he's not playing for the Nats, they will deal him. 
There's no point in any team sticking him on the bench.

I don't see the fascination with Wolf.  Sure he had a low ERA last year, but
that's not very likely to happen in 2010.  His next lowest ERA since 2004 was
4.28.  Odds are it's going to be in that range next year (or higher) since he
likely won't be pitching in LA.

No team seems to be rushing out to sign Sheets, which is an indication of his
actual health.

De la Rosa is a gamble but he's got lots of upside.  If he can cut his walk
rate, even slightly, he could be very good.

--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, Richard Landry <rlandry010@...> wrote:
>
> Why the love for Delarosa or Willingham but not wolf or sheets? Yes Delarosa
had K's, but had a recent career low WHIP of 1.48. Wolfs performance was overly
low last year, but has been consistently in the mid 1.4 whip. Seems to me pretty
much the same pitcher. And delarosa is 28, not exactly growing age time. Sheets
when healthy, and yes thats a huge if or when, is a good candidate for low 3,
1.15 Whip guy, the kind that win titles. I can redraft a 4.50 1.45 WHIP pitcher,
not likely a low 3 guy.
>  
> I'm not saying sheets is an automatic pick, I'm surely going to wait a few
months and read what may occur, but by far if healthy hes the best arm your
considering discussing..
>  
> And why Willingham, he will be lucky given the Nats way of doing things to
have a job, he has high risk low reward written all over him. I see the decent
numbers, but playing time makes him a maybe to me, at least today.
>  
> But if you so desire i do agree, i'd take a 19 for wolf and run, reasonable
area for him.
>  
> R
>
> --- On Thu, 11/12/09, e_hunke <E_Hunke2@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: e_hunke <E_Hunke2@...>
> Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 12:36 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I'd trade Wolf for a Rd 19. His ERA last year was pretty shiny but for the
last half dozen years he probably wasn't a decent keeper.
>
> But I think you need to keep Sanchez and de la Rosa. Lefthanders who average >
k per inning need to be kept.
>
> Trade Wolf, dump Sheets, keep Iannetta and Willingham. There is no way I would
keep Milledge. But Blanks should be tradeable as should Hudson and Ross.
>
> --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > thanks guys for the help.
> >  
> > I just think the second half numbers put up by J Sanchez and de la Rosa mean
something no?
> > I have thought about moving Wolf and had an offer of a 19 (way too low)
offered. I do think Ianetta is someone to protect but I also have Montero. I
like Milledge as well, you guys I think are all right...
> >  
> > What do you guys think of moving wolf, saving Hudson and Iannetta as well as
the value of Sheets and Blanks?
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Ari <evergreen_1979@ ...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Ari <evergreen_1979@ ...>
> > Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> > To: scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 7:51 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Under no circumstances should you keep: Sanchez, Sheets
> > I would also drop: de la Rosa
> >
> > Under no circumstances should you cut: Iannetta
> > I would also keep: Hudson, one of {Blanks, Ross, Hoffman}
> >
> > --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what
> > > I'm thinking so far: Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto,
> > > J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds,
> > > Votto and Montero.
> > >  
> > > I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold
> > > off possibly. Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson
> > > being names maybe I should keep? K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham,
> > > Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and Hoffman. Thanks.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail. yahoo.com
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

No disrespect intended, dude.  I'm not trying to disparage your reputation or go
global or anything.  I just disagree with your post, and view TBS & Rotoworld as
non-analytical information spewers, which is *not* how I view you, so it seemed
like you were stooping in order to make a point.  I read every post on Roto, but
all for news and not analysis.  They have a roto-focus, obviously, and are
rudimentary otherwise.  I don't want to overstate your reliance on TBS, which
was certainly minimal, but given that TBS is in the FOX realm of engagement with
the game, why should we listen to them?  There have been mutiple complaints
about these two sources (analysis-wise) on this board.

As you were couching your original post in rumors & reports, what could be wrong
with Carroll's far more direct and  reliable "speculative opinion"?  He is as
close to an expert as most of us have access to, no?  (And part of my point in
including that quote was to show the direct contradiction between the Roto post
and Kaz's actual salary, thus further lessening Roto's point.)

Not sure exactly what is "way out of line" about my post.  No one else has
mentioned it (and it's been a few days) and it certainly wasn't intended as
personal, but I am sorry if you (or anyone) took offense.

Kazmir may stink.  He may never be an ace.  But he could also have just had a
lost season in the middle of an amazing career.  Most likely he needs to regroup
mechanics-wise, and be in the hands of a good pitching coach & catcher, which he
should be in LA.



--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, "slicksilksox" <jcpublic@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> smallflowerspress:  Odd that you neglect to include the final sentence
> to Will Carroll's BP injury write-up of Kaz that you quoted: "At 25 and
> signed to a reasonable contract, Kazmir might be ill-suited for an
> ace-level role or a big market, but he's an ideal second starter for a
> team with a strong identity and pitching coach."
>
> Carter: I excluded that part, because it is just speculative opinion on
> Carroll's part. I quoted the part that mattered.
>
> smallflowerspress: Also, leaning on TBS & Rotoworld is not going to help
> anyone's cause on this board
>
> Carter: You are way out of line to speak to me like this. I couched my
> original assessment as based on "reports & rumours", then when asked I
> gave all the specific sources that I could recall. If you dismiss those
> sources, that's your perogative, but I don't think you have the right to
> speak for everyone else here to globally dismiss this and possibly
> everything else I have to say as this statement implies. I have a huge
> amount of experience playing Scoresheet and a huge amount of success at
> it - and I have given hours and hours of honest assesments on this forum
> - generally backed by research at legitmate sources with a profound
> understanding of their worthiness - plus all the work on Scoresheetwiz -
> all for free.
>
> Your dismissal of  TBS and Rotoworld is probably even more out of place.
> Of course, I'm not suggesting everything they say is right, but you
> might be surprised where some worthwhile information might come from.

Why the love for Delarosa or Willingham but not wolf or sheets? Yes Delarosa had
K's, but had a recent career low WHIP of 1.48. Wolfs performance was overly low
last year, but has been consistently in the mid 1.4 whip. Seems to me pretty
much the same pitcher. And delarosa is 28, not exactly growing age time. Sheets
when healthy, and yes thats a huge if or when, is a good candidate for low 3,
1.15 Whip guy, the kind that win titles. I can redraft a 4.50 1.45 WHIP pitcher,
not likely a low 3 guy.
 
I'm not saying sheets is an automatic pick, I'm surely going to wait a few
months and read what may occur, but by far if healthy hes the best arm your
considering discussing..
 
And why Willingham, he will be lucky given the Nats way of doing things to have
a job, he has high risk low reward written all over him. I see the decent
numbers, but playing time makes him a maybe to me, at least today.
 
But if you so desire i do agree, i'd take a 19 for wolf and run, reasonable area
for him.
 
R

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, e_hunke <E_Hunke2@...> wrote:


From: e_hunke <E_Hunke2@...>
Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 12:36 AM


 



I'd trade Wolf for a Rd 19. His ERA last year was pretty shiny but for the last
half dozen years he probably wasn't a decent keeper.

But I think you need to keep Sanchez and de la Rosa. Lefthanders who average > k
per inning need to be kept.

Trade Wolf, dump Sheets, keep Iannetta and Willingham. There is no way I would
keep Milledge. But Blanks should be tradeable as should Hudson and Ross.

--- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@. ..> wrote:
>
> thanks guys for the help.
>  
> I just think the second half numbers put up by J Sanchez and de la Rosa mean
something no?
> I have thought about moving Wolf and had an offer of a 19 (way too low)
offered. I do think Ianetta is someone to protect but I also have Montero. I
like Milledge as well, you guys I think are all right...
>  
> What do you guys think of moving wolf, saving Hudson and Iannetta as well as
the value of Sheets and Blanks?
>
> --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Ari <evergreen_1979@ ...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Ari <evergreen_1979@ ...>
> Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> To: scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 7:51 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Under no circumstances should you keep: Sanchez, Sheets
> I would also drop: de la Rosa
>
> Under no circumstances should you cut: Iannetta
> I would also keep: Hudson, one of {Blanks, Ross, Hoffman}
>
> --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what
> > I'm thinking so far: Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto,
> > J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds,
> > Votto and Montero.
> >  
> > I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold
> > off possibly. Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson
> > being names maybe I should keep? K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham,
> > Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and Hoffman. Thanks.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail. yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM, e_hunke <E_Hunke2@...> wrote:

> I'd trade Wolf for a Rd 19.  His ERA last year was pretty shiny but for the
> last half dozen years he probably wasn't a decent keeper.
>

Me too.


>
> But I think you need to keep Sanchez and de la Rosa.  Lefthanders who
> average > k per inning need to be kept.
>

Not if they can't throw strikes and certainly not if they pitch in Coors...


>
> Trade Wolf, dump Sheets,


There was a note in the press today that Sheets hasn't been heard from in
weeks and may be retiring. On top of everything else, I don't think he's
even keepable at this point.


> keep Iannetta and Willingham.   There is no way I would keep Milledge.  But
> Blanks should be tradeable as should Hudson and Ross.
>
> --- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@...> wrote:
> >
> > thanks guys for the help.
> > Â
> > I just think the second half numbers put up by J Sanchez and de la Rosa
> mean something no?
> > I have thought about moving Wolf and had an offer of a 19 (way too low)
> offered. I do think Ianetta is someone to protect but I also have Montero. I
> like Milledge as well, you guys I think are all right...
> > Â
> > What do you guys think of moving wolf, saving Hudson and Iannetta as well
> as the value of Sheets and Blanks?
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Ari <evergreen_1979@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Ari <evergreen_1979@...>
> > Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> > To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 7:51 PM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Under no circumstances should you keep: Sanchez, Sheets
> > I would also drop: de la Rosa
> >
> > Under no circumstances should you cut: Iannetta
> > I would also keep: Hudson, one of {Blanks, Ross, Hoffman}
> >
> > --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@ ..>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what
> > > I'm thinking so far: Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto,
> > > J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds,
> > > Votto and Montero.
> > > Â
> > > I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold
> > > off possibly. Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson
> > > being names maybe I should keep? K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham,
> > > Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and Hoffman. Thanks.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> List owners:  brian@..., grum@...,
> phfinkelstein@...
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
"From the founding of the Republic to 1929, spending by governments at all
levels, federal, state, and local, never exceeded 12 percent of the national
income except in time of major war, and two-thirds of that was state and
local spending.  Federal spending typically amounted to 3 percent or less of
the national income.  Since 1933 government spending has never been less
than 20 percent of national income and is now over 40 percent, and
two-thirds of that is spending by the federal government." From "Free to
Choose", Milton Friedman


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'd trade Wolf for a Rd 19.  His ERA last year was pretty shiny but for the last
half dozen years he probably wasn't a decent keeper.

But I think you need to keep Sanchez and de la Rosa.  Lefthanders who average >
k per inning need to be kept.

Trade Wolf, dump Sheets, keep Iannetta and Willingham.   There is no way I would
keep Milledge.  But Blanks should be tradeable as should Hudson and Ross.

--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@...> wrote:
>
> thanks guys for the help.
>  
> I just think the second half numbers put up by J Sanchez and de la Rosa mean
something no?
> I have thought about moving Wolf and had an offer of a 19 (way too low)
offered. I do think Ianetta is someone to protect but I also have Montero. I
like Milledge as well, you guys I think are all right...
>  
> What do you guys think of moving wolf, saving Hudson and Iannetta as well as
the value of Sheets and Blanks?
>
> --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Ari <evergreen_1979@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Ari <evergreen_1979@...>
> Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 7:51 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Under no circumstances should you keep: Sanchez, Sheets
> I would also drop: de la Rosa
>
> Under no circumstances should you cut: Iannetta
> I would also keep: Hudson, one of {Blanks, Ross, Hoffman}
>
> --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what
> > I'm thinking so far: Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto,
> > J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds,
> > Votto and Montero.
> >  
> > I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold
> > off possibly. Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson
> > being names maybe I should keep? K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham,
> > Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and Hoffman. Thanks.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

It looks as if you have no trouble finding pitchers,
but missed the playoffs because the team was next to
last in scoring. So I wouldn't cut useful hitters to
keep eight pitchers.

There's plenty of time before lists are due. Offer
some of those pitchers around and make the best trade
you can. Throw Cueto or Sheets overboard. If that
opens up two protection slots, keep Iannetta and
Hudson. I wouldn't cut Sanchez, in any case.

-Lew


--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@...> wrote:
>
> thanks guys for the help.
>  
> I just think the second half numbers put up by J Sanchez and de la Rosa mean
something no?
> I have thought about moving Wolf and had an offer of a 19 (way too low)
offered. I do think Ianetta is someone to protect but I also have Montero. I
like Milledge as well, you guys I think are all right...
>  
> What do you guys think of moving wolf, saving Hudson and Iannetta as well as
the value of Sheets and Blanks?
>
> --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Ari <evergreen_1979@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Ari <evergreen_1979@...>
> Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 7:51 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Under no circumstances should you keep: Sanchez, Sheets
> I would also drop: de la Rosa
>
> Under no circumstances should you cut: Iannetta
> I would also keep: Hudson, one of {Blanks, Ross, Hoffman}
>
> --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what
> > I'm thinking so far: Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto,
> > J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds,
> > Votto and Montero.
> >  
> > I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold
> > off possibly. Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson
> > being names maybe I should keep? K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham,
> > Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and Hoffman. Thanks.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

smallflowerspress:  Odd that you neglect to include the final sentence
to Will Carroll's BP injury write-up of Kaz that you quoted: "At 25 and
signed to a reasonable contract, Kazmir might be ill-suited for an
ace-level role or a big market, but he's an ideal second starter for a
team with a strong identity and pitching coach."

Carter: I excluded that part, because it is just speculative opinion on
Carroll's part. I quoted the part that mattered.

smallflowerspress: Also, leaning on TBS & Rotoworld is not going to help
anyone's cause on this board

Carter: You are way out of line to speak to me like this. I couched my
original assessment as based on "reports & rumours", then when asked I
gave all the specific sources that I could recall. If you dismiss those
sources, that's your perogative, but I don't think you have the right to
speak for everyone else here to globally dismiss this and possibly
everything else I have to say as this statement implies. I have a huge
amount of experience playing Scoresheet and a huge amount of success at
it - and I have given hours and hours of honest assesments on this forum
- generally backed by research at legitmate sources with a profound
understanding of their worthiness - plus all the work on Scoresheetwiz -
all for free.

Your dismissal of  TBS and Rotoworld is probably even more out of place.
Of course, I'm not suggesting everything they say is right, but you
might be surprised where some worthwhile information might come from.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

thanks guys for the help.
 
I just think the second half numbers put up by J Sanchez and de la Rosa mean
something no?
I have thought about moving Wolf and had an offer of a 19 (way too low) offered.
I do think Ianetta is someone to protect but I also have Montero. I like
Milledge as well, you guys I think are all right...
 
What do you guys think of moving wolf, saving Hudson and Iannetta as well as the
value of Sheets and Blanks?

--- On Wed, 11/11/09, Ari <evergreen_1979@...> wrote:


From: Ari <evergreen_1979@...>
Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 7:51 PM


 



Under no circumstances should you keep: Sanchez, Sheets
I would also drop: de la Rosa

Under no circumstances should you cut: Iannetta
I would also keep: Hudson, one of {Blanks, Ross, Hoffman}

--- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@. ..> wrote:
>
> Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what
> I'm thinking so far: Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto,
> J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds,
> Votto and Montero.
>  
> I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold
> off possibly. Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson
> being names maybe I should keep? K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham,
> Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and Hoffman. Thanks.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>








__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

FWIW, BP's John Perrotto wrote today: "Despite trading for Hardy, the Twins
would also reportedly like to re-sign shortstop Orlando Cabrera and move him to
second base while shifting second baseman Nick Punto to third base."

> btw, the 3B idea was conjecture at ESPN.  It's hard to look at the Twins and
see a gaping hole at 3B.  If they don't make another move, their best lineup
would probably be with Punto at SS, Casilla at 2B, and Hardy at 3B.  (Though I
suppose they could consider moving Cuddyer back to the IF, and that would most
likely be at 3B.)  I do understand that most people expect Hardy to be the SS,
but until the Twins make another move the position adds one more doubt-point to
an already marginal protect.

Carl Everett?

:)

-Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ari
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 17:08
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: ## Matt Kemp wins a Gold Glove

I think Kemp's done reasonably well with the glove by most advanced metrics,
and has acquired a good rep.

With there being a shortage of National League CF who played there the whole
season and hit well or stole a bunch of bases, Kemp shouldn't be surprising
at all.

The only real travesty is Adam Jones over Gutierrez in the AL.  Jones didn't
have either PT or performance this year, and Gutierrez probably had the best
non-Everett defensive season of the 21st century.

--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Barton <jeff@...> wrote:
>
> I thought Jeter winning yet another gold glove was fairly
> ridiculous.  But Kemp winning one almost makes the Jeter award
> seem reasonable in  comparison.
>
> Garth Hewitt wrote:
>
> > Anyone else surprised by that?



------------------------------------

List owners:  brian@..., grum@...,
phfinkelstein@...
Yahoo! Groups Links

NL Bartman is a league with 15 regular keepers and 15 rookie keepers.  The
spring draft consists of rounds 16-35. This is a very deep league and a
very
active league. The original draft started with allowing one AL player in
the
draft. Team 4, Team 9, and Team 11 are the three teams available and we
will do
a dispersal draft once we get both owners. All three teams have some  good
players, but are in a rebuilding stage. If you have any questions or  want a
copy of the constitution email me at _whtsox81@..._
(http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/scoresheetleagueopenings
/post?postID=7e-3KBjeNItLpwhSzeI8S2UK6Rz-xuyFGRT3UpQFrxzsJM-QL7i15YlzzZ9mz-xDdNd\
IINQeInIIjbk)   and I will
send you the
constitution or answer any questions you might  have.

www.scoresheet.com/FOR_WWW/NL_Bartman.htm


Thanks,
Eric



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree that Gutierrez should have won a GG...just not at the expense of Adam
Jones.  Torii Hunter is the guy that shouldn't have won.  How come no one
questions him?  He's clearly lost a step and has taken to misplaying balls.

If all these guys were healthy, to me the three best are Franky Guts, Sizemore,
and Jones, in that order.  Ichiro is understandable as a default guy.

And I guess, who, Barlett or Aybar at SS?

I think Kemp's done reasonably well with the glove by most advanced metrics, and
has acquired a good rep.

With there being a shortage of National League CF who played there the whole
season and hit well or stole a bunch of bases, Kemp shouldn't be surprising at
all.

The only real travesty is Adam Jones over Gutierrez in the AL.  Jones didn't
have either PT or performance this year, and Gutierrez probably had the best
non-Everett defensive season of the 21st century.

--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Barton <jeff@...> wrote:
>
> I thought Jeter winning yet another gold glove was fairly
> ridiculous.  But Kemp winning one almost makes the Jeter award
> seem reasonable in  comparison.
>
> Garth Hewitt wrote:
>
> > Anyone else surprised by that?

Bite your tongue about The Captain!

I suppose the Gold Gloves provide partial payback for the MVP award
Jeter never got but clearly deserved.

-----Original Message-----
From: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Barton
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:48 PM
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: ## Matt Kemp wins a Gold Glove

I thought Jeter winning yet another gold glove was fairly ridiculous.
But Kemp winning one almost makes the Jeter award seem reasonable in
comparison.


Garth Hewitt wrote:
>
>
> Anyone else surprised by that?
>
> _

Scoresheet Sports - Offering the Best in Fantasy Games
PO Box 1097, Grass Valley, CA 95945
530-470-1880 phone   530-470-1885 fax
staff@...   www.scoresheet.com



------------------------------------

List owners:  brian@..., grum@...,
phfinkelstein@...
Yahoo! Groups Links



**********************************************************************
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice: Any tax advice contained in this
communication
(including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may be
imposed under the Internal Revenue
Code or by any other applicable tax authority; or (b) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. We
provide this
disclosure on all outbound e-mails to assure compliance with new standards of
professional practice, pursuant to which certain tax advice must satisfy
requirements as to
form and substance.
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged
information. If
you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by
reply
transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
************************************************************************

I thought Jeter winning yet another gold glove was fairly ridiculous.
But Kemp winning one almost makes the Jeter award seem reasonable in
comparison.


Garth Hewitt wrote:
>
>
> Anyone else surprised by that?
>
> _

Scoresheet Sports - Offering the Best in Fantasy Games
PO Box 1097, Grass Valley, CA 95945
530-470-1880 phone   530-470-1885 fax
staff@...   www.scoresheet.com

Anyone else surprised by that?

I don't mean at all for this to sound simple.  The thread started with Hardy as
an automatic protect, and I mean to say it's not that simple.  I started on
Hardy because at the time he looked like a reserve (and some owners did not
realize he'd lost his job); now he's a crossover.  Crossovers have a high
threshhold unless your league allows three or four.  I think Hardy is a tough
call and I'm still looking for one of his propenents to help with what they
think will rebound.  Do you think he will suddenly start striking-out less
often, given that most often contact rates decline after age 24?  Or do you
think he will suddenly start hitting more line drives?  To what do you attribute
his loss of power?  As much as Hardy is in this thread, the real value here is
discussing how to evaluate a guy who fell-off as he did.

I love getting power from my shortstop as much as the next guy.  But I also do
not draft or keep guys at any position that I expect to have .300 OBP.  I just
can't find a reason to expect Hardy to be better than that.  If I've got Brad
Hawpe or Matt Cain and they get traded to the AL, I'm sure not gonna keep Hardy
instead after the dreadful season he just had.  If I thought a recoverable
injury were the cause I would think differently (eg Grady Sizemore).

btw, the 3B idea was conjecture at ESPN.  It's hard to look at the Twins and see
a gaping hole at 3B.  If they don't make another move, their best lineup would
probably be with Punto at SS, Casilla at 2B, and Hardy at 3B.  (Though I suppose
they could consider moving Cuddyer back to the IF, and that would most likely be
at 3B.)  I do understand that most people expect Hardy to be the SS, but until
the Twins make another move the position adds one more doubt-point to an already
marginal protect.




--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, Richard Landry <rlandry010@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with the below except i seriously doubt you will be able to draft from
the below list these guys,Hanley, Tut, Tejada, Escobar, Rollins, Furcal, Drew,
Reyes and A Escobar.
>  
> Leaves 4 guys on your list, of which in my opinion Hardy far exceeds anything
these guys would do, so dropping Hardy and keeping X player  or keeping hardy
and dropping x player is what we are looking at, which is the better option. 
You want to make it seem so simple when its not.
>  
> R
>  
> When choosing protects the question is not who is "lights-out" better, but
what happens if we don't protect a guy. If we don't protect Pujols or Hanley we
get a worse lineup. If we don't protect Hardy we have to draft from among
(sorted on 2009 VORP):
>
> Hanley
> Tulo
> Tejeda
> Escobar
> Rollins
> Furcal
> Drew
> Brendan Ryan
> Theriot
> E Cabrera
> Reyes
> Guzman
> Alcides Escobar
>

I agree with the below except i seriously doubt you will be able to draft from
the below list these guys,Hanley, Tut, Tejada, Escobar, Rollins, Furcal, Drew,
Reyes and A Escobar.
 
Leaves 4 guys on your list, of which in my opinion Hardy far exceeds anything
these guys would do, so dropping Hardy and keeping X player  or keeping hardy
and dropping x player is what we are looking at, which is the better option. 
You want to make it seem so simple when its not.
 
R
 
When choosing protects the question is not who is "lights-out" better, but what
happens if we don't protect a guy. If we don't protect Pujols or Hanley we get a
worse lineup. If we don't protect Hardy we have to draft from among (sorted on
2009 VORP):

Hanley
Tulo
Tejeda
Escobar
Rollins
Furcal
Drew
Brendan Ryan
Theriot
E Cabrera
Reyes
Guzman
Alcides Escobar


--- On Wed, 11/11/09, Garth Hewitt <garthhewitt@...> wrote:


From: Garth Hewitt <garthhewitt@...>
Subject: ## Re: Hardy (Chose One)
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 1:17 PM


 



"stetchy" <> "burying".
Right now, without the benefit of seeing what scoresheet does to fielding or who
has a job, I would rather have Juan Uribe than Hardy. But I wouldn't trade
anything to get Uribe either.

In any league that allows it, I would consider trading the crossover privelege
before using it on Hardy.

In any league in which I protect Hardy, I'm watching his situation constantly.
If he moves to 3B and does not get 20 games at SS, I gotta know early and start
scheming on a long-term shortstop. Even if I keep him, I need to draft another
shortstop.

I would not trade for Hardy nor trade for a protect slot to keep him.

What happens if you don't protect him? For me, I can protect Everth Cabrera or
go blank at SS knowing guys like Renteria and Uribe will likely be available. If
11 owners are protecting SSs, I can pick elsewhere for awhile.

Hardy's career has been remarkably similar to Juan Uribe's. Their PA's look
different, you would never question which was the Dominican, but their results
are very similar. If Hardy moves to 3B his long-term value is no better than
Uribe and Uribe is not protectable even without being a crossover. So protecting
a better player and drafting Uribe is a better plan than is keeping Hardy. (Says
me at least.)

When choosing protects the question is not who is "lights-out" better, but what
happens if we don't protect a guy. If we don't protect Pujols or Hanley we get a
worse lineup. If we don't protect Hardy we have to draft from among (sorted on
2009 VORP):

Hanley
Tulo
Tejeda
Escobar
Rollins
Furcal
Drew
Brendan Ryan
Theriot
E Cabrera
Reyes
Guzman
Alcides Escobar

--- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, Richard Landry <rlandry010@ ...>
wrote:
>
> As i asked before, what 12 SS crossover or not are lights or better options in
the NL? I don;t recall a decent crossover NL to AL SS in years, Tejada long ago
has been owned and I don't think hes better anyways. So the field pretty much is
what is already on NL teams.
>  
> What will Hardy improve? Lets ask that about 700 MLB players. Yesh, your
burying the guy, he has no chance to improve or repeat numbers? Thats just nuts.
Are you dropping David Wright as well, his numbers certainly declined as well.
No player ever gets tutoring to improve his game? Given the dearth of halfway
decent SS in all of baseball i'd say hes well worth considering.
>  
> And as your question, i currently have Bay, Hardy, Miquel Cabrera and Sheets,
all who have good and bad sides, Miggy not to much on the bad side other than he
plays 1B.
>  
> On the surface it would seem Bay and Miggy are the certain keepers, but I'm
not sold thats correct. But I do have 3 months to figure it out, or so i hope,
it could get worse.
>  
> R
>
> --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Garth Hewitt <garthhewitt@ ...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Garth Hewitt <garthhewitt@ ...>
> Subject: ## Re: Hardy (Chose One)
> To: scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 2:11 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> ryan7nono made the comment that Hardy could return to the "good stat years
during the prime of his career". My point, which was perhaps badly stated, is
that we don't usually think of a guy at age 26 to be past his prime.
>
> I did confuse years in that I was remembering the great first-half and
fall-off in 2007. The 2008 fall-off was only September but it still stings. One
month is not projectable, but still Hardy has yet to be a playoffs asset.
>
> Unless there was an undisclosed injury, last year is concerning. Hardy's
K-rate has been consistently rising, which is normal with age. But his
line-drive rate has consistenly declined. His BABIP in 2008 does not look
sustainable in retrospect given the line-drive rate, and his 2009 BABIP was in
line with both the LD rate and his own history. His power droped, measured
either as HR/FB or ISO. His slump was not luck-driven, he just did not hit the
ball well all year long. He has to make some significant adjustment; otherwise I
don't seen any reason to expect improvement over his .302 OBP.
>
> I'd love to hear what in Hardy's PA's people expect to improve. His LD rate?
K-rate? BABIP dispite LD rate? BB rate? HR/FB?
>
> I don't mean to be totally diss'n the guy, and I never said he was not
protectable. I won't make my own decision on him until Spring, but that's in a
BL. I did say he was stretchy as a crossover. In an NL, a team that does not
have better crossovers does not have strong crossovers. ESPN conjectures that
Hardy might replace Crede at 3B. So, then longer-term you've got a .750 OPS RH
3B as a crossover. Blah.
>
> --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, "kwarrenca" <kenwarren77@ ...>
wrote:
> >
> > Hey Garth, your post is the most confusing of all.
> >
> > Hardy was 26 in 2009, when he had a terrible season, so how could you
describe that "one great half year -- when he was 26".
> >
> > Anyways at age 24 he posted a .786 OPS over a full season, and at age 25 he
posted an .821 OPS over a full season. He hit 50 HR, along with 61 doubles and
325 hits in his age 24 and 25 seasons.
> >
> > Not too bad at all for a young shortstop. There are a lot of highly hyped
young outfielders who wish that they could be doing that.
> >
> > Not sure where you're getting this "half year" thing from, or the "age 26"
thing - but I don't quite see what you're seeing. Maybe we're not even talking
about the same player.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, "Garth Hewitt" <garthhewitt@ >
wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, this post confuses me too. (Perhaps I'm just too easily confused.)
When exactly were Hardy's good years? When was his prime?
> > >
> > > I think what you mean is that he had one, singular, good year -- which was
actually one great half year -- when he was 26. He's in his prime right now and
is a bit stretchy as a protect in a BL. I can't see burning a xover slot on him.
Perhaps there are some Brewers fans who've watched him enough, but my take on a
career like his is a guy with talent who has holes. NL pitchers figured him out,
and AL pitchers will buy the book. To protect him, you have to believe he will
adjust in some way that he has not yet.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'd cut Sanchez and Sheets
I'd keep Ianetta and Blanks

--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@...> wrote:
>
> Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what I'm thinking
so far:
> Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto, J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets
> Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds, Votto and Montero.
>  
> I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold off possibly.
> Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson being names maybe I should
keep?
> K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham, Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and
Hoffman.
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Garth Hewitt" <garthhewitt@...> wrote:
>
> "stetchy" <> "burying".
> Right now, without the benefit of seeing what scoresheet does to >fielding or
who has a job, I would rather have Juan Uribe than >Hardy.
>
>If we don't protect Pujols or Hanley we get a worse lineup.  If we >don't
protect Hardy we have to draft from among (sorted on 2009 >VORP):
>
> Hanley
> Tulo
> Tejeda
> Escobar
> Rollins
> Furcal
> Drew
> Brendan Ryan
> Theriot
> E Cabrera
> Reyes
> Guzman
> Alcides Escobar

Wow, this is harsh.

1) Uribe has had several years of sub-.700 OPS, and several years of OBP not
just under .300, but pushing closer to .250.  Hardy had one bad year, or a bad
part of a year which he never got to finish (he might have redeemed himself- who
knows) since he lost his job to a rising prospect.
2) Hardy is 3 1/2 years younger, and maybe more than that- Uribe is Dominican,
after all.
3) I don't know where you get the idea that Hardy will move to third- Orlando
Cabrera was not offered a contract.  He sure looks like the Twins' shortstop. 
No idea where Uribe will end up, if it's even in the NL.
4) Hardy is a very good defensive shortstop, though you say you'll draw your
conclusions without even seeing their defensive rankings.  Uribe


And what makes you think you'll be able to draft from among 'Hanley, Tulo,
Rollins, Reyes, Escobar, Drew,' etc., if you don't protect Hardy?  In what
shallow league are those guys going to be available in the 'draft'?  They'll be
in the 'league', but not in the draft, and so they won't be considerations at
all for anyone trying to decide whether to keep Hardy.

If everyone thinks this way, I'll be happy to draft J.J. Hardy as a backup
shortstop in R22 or so of an AL draft this year, watch him prove everyone wrong,
and then sell high.

--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Garth Hewitt" <garthhewitt@...> wrote:
>
> "stetchy" <> "burying".
> Right now, without the benefit of seeing what scoresheet does to >fielding or
who has a job, I would rather have Juan Uribe than >Hardy.
>
>If we don't protect Pujols or Hanley we get a worse lineup.  If we >don't
protect Hardy we have to draft from among (sorted on 2009 >VORP):
>
> Hanley
> Tulo
> Tejeda
> Escobar
> Rollins
> Furcal
> Drew
> Brendan Ryan
> Theriot
> E Cabrera
> Reyes
> Guzman
> Alcides Escobar

Wow, this is harsh.

1) Uribe has had several years of sub-.700 OPS, and several years of OBP not
just under .300, but pushing closer to .250.  Hardy had one bad year, or a bad
part of a year which he never got to finish (he might have redeemed himself- who
knows) since he lost his job to a rising prospect.
2) Hardy is 3 1/2 years younger, and maybe more than that- Uribe is Dominican,
after all.
3) I don't know where you get the idea that Hardy will move to third- Orlando
Cabrera was not offered a contract.  He sure looks like the Twins' shortstop. 
No idea where Uribe will end up, if it's even in the NL.
4) Hardy is a very good defensive shortstop, though you say you'll draw your
conclusions without even seeing their defensive rankings.  Uribe


And what makes you think you'll be able to draft from among 'Hanley, Tulo,
Rollins, Reyes, Escobar, Drew,' etc., if you don't protect Hardy?  In what
shallow league are those guys going to be available in the 'draft'?  They'll be
in the 'league', but not in the draft, and so they won't be considerations at
all for anyone trying to decide whether to keep Hardy.

If everyone thinks this way, I'll be happy to draft J.J. Hardy as a backup
shortstop in R22 or so of an AL draft this year, watch him prove everyone wrong,
and then sell high.

Many people will be upset that they cut Millege after he delivers in 2010.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Andrew J Cleary <andy.cleary@...>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:57:02
To: <scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: ## NL Protected Spot Help

How do you not keep Ianetta? I'd also keep Hudson and Willingham and drop a
bunch of the SPs... De La Rosa has to go (a middling SP in Coors??),
Sanchez, and either Wolf or Sheets.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Ray Parizo <accudart1@...> wrote:

> Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what I'm
> thinking so far:
> Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto, J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets
> Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds, Votto and Montero.
>
> I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold off
> possibly.
> Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson being names maybe I
> should keep?
> K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham, Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street
> and Hoffman.
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> List owners:  brian@..., grum@...,
> phfinkelstein@...
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
"From the founding of the Republic to 1929, spending by governments at all
levels, federal, state, and local, never exceeded 12 percent of the national
income except in time of major war, and two-thirds of that was state and
local spending.  Federal spending typically amounted to 3 percent or less of
the national income.  Since 1933 government spending has never been less
than 20 percent of national income and is now over 40 percent, and
two-thirds of that is spending by the federal government." From "Free to
Choose", Milton Friedman


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

List owners:  brian@..., grum@..., phfinkelstein@...
Yahoo! Groups Links

How do you not keep Ianetta? I'd also keep Hudson and Willingham and drop a
bunch of the SPs... De La Rosa has to go (a middling SP in Coors??),
Sanchez, and either Wolf or Sheets.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Ray Parizo <accudart1@...> wrote:

> Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what I'm
> thinking so far:
> Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto, J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets
> Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds, Votto and Montero.
>
> I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold off
> possibly.
> Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson being names maybe I
> should keep?
> K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham, Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street
> and Hoffman.
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> List owners:  brian@..., grum@...,
> phfinkelstein@...
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
"From the founding of the Republic to 1929, spending by governments at all
levels, federal, state, and local, never exceeded 12 percent of the national
income except in time of major war, and two-thirds of that was state and
local spending.  Federal spending typically amounted to 3 percent or less of
the national income.  Since 1933 government spending has never been less
than 20 percent of national income and is now over 40 percent, and
two-thirds of that is spending by the federal government." From "Free to
Choose", Milton Friedman


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Under no circumstances should you keep: Sanchez, Sheets
I would also drop: de la Rosa

Under no circumstances should you cut: Iannetta
I would also keep: Hudson, one of {Blanks, Ross, Hoffman}


--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, Ray Parizo <accudart1@...> wrote:
>
> Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what
> I'm thinking so far: Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto,
> J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds,
> Votto and Montero.
>  
> I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold
> off possibly. Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson
> being names maybe I should keep? K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham,
> Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and Hoffman. Thanks.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Standard 10 team league. I have 14 protected spots and this what I'm thinking so
far:
Beckett, Jimenez, Wandy, de la Rosa, Cueto, J. Sanchez, Wolf and Sheets
Kemp, Beltran, Hamilton, Reynolds, Votto and Montero.
 
I'm guessing keeping Sheets won't be liked. Should Wolf be sold off possibly.
Below are players I also have...Blanks and Hudson being names maybe I should
keep?
K. Blanks, O. Hudson, Willingham, Ross, Dukes, Milledge, Iannetta, Street and
Hoffman.
Thanks.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"stetchy" <> "burying".
Right now, without the benefit of seeing what scoresheet does to fielding or who
has a job, I would rather have Juan Uribe than Hardy.  But I wouldn't trade
anything to get Uribe either.

In any league that allows it, I would consider trading the crossover privelege
before using it on Hardy.

In any league in which I protect Hardy, I'm watching his situation constantly. 
If he moves to 3B and does not get 20 games at SS, I gotta know early and start
scheming on a long-term shortstop.  Even if I keep him, I need to draft another
shortstop.

I would not trade for Hardy nor trade for a protect slot to keep him.

What happens if you don't protect him?  For me, I can protect Everth Cabrera or
go blank at SS knowing guys like Renteria and Uribe will likely be available. 
If 11 owners are protecting SSs, I can pick elsewhere for awhile.

Hardy's career has been remarkably similar to Juan Uribe's.  Their PA's look
different, you would never question which was the Dominican, but their results
are very similar.  If Hardy moves to 3B his long-term value is no better than
Uribe and Uribe is not protectable even without being a crossover.  So
protecting a better player and drafting Uribe is a better plan than is keeping
Hardy.  (Says me at least.)

When choosing protects the question is not who is "lights-out" better, but what
happens if we don't protect a guy.  If we don't protect Pujols or Hanley we get
a worse lineup.  If we don't protect Hardy we have to draft from among (sorted
on 2009 VORP):

Hanley
Tulo
Tejeda
Escobar
Rollins
Furcal
Drew
Brendan Ryan
Theriot
E Cabrera
Reyes
Guzman
Alcides Escobar





--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, Richard Landry <rlandry010@...> wrote:
>
> As i asked before, what 12 SS crossover or not are lights or better options in
the NL? I don;t recall a decent crossover NL to AL SS in years, Tejada long ago
has been owned and I don't think hes better anyways. So the field pretty much is
what is already on NL teams.
>  
> What will Hardy improve? Lets ask that about 700 MLB players. Yesh, your
burying the guy, he has no chance to improve or repeat numbers? Thats just nuts.
Are you dropping David Wright as well, his numbers certainly declined as well.
No player ever gets tutoring to improve his game? Given the dearth of halfway
decent SS in all of baseball i'd say hes well worth considering.
>  
> And as your question, i currently have Bay, Hardy, Miquel Cabrera and Sheets,
all who have good and bad sides, Miggy not to much on the bad side other than he
plays 1B.
>  
> On the surface it would seem Bay and Miggy are the certain keepers, but I'm
not sold thats correct. But I do have 3 months to figure it out, or so i hope,
it could get worse.
>  
> R
>
> --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Garth Hewitt <garthhewitt@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Garth Hewitt <garthhewitt@...>
> Subject: ## Re: Hardy (Chose One)
> To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 2:11 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> ryan7nono made the comment that Hardy could return to the "good stat years
during the prime of his career". My point, which was perhaps badly stated, is
that we don't usually think of a guy at age 26 to be past his prime.
>
> I did confuse years in that I was remembering the great first-half and
fall-off in 2007. The 2008 fall-off was only September but it still stings. One
month is not projectable, but still Hardy has yet to be a playoffs asset.
>
> Unless there was an undisclosed injury, last year is concerning. Hardy's
K-rate has been consistently rising, which is normal with age. But his
line-drive rate has consistenly declined. His BABIP in 2008 does not look
sustainable in retrospect given the line-drive rate, and his 2009 BABIP was in
line with both the LD rate and his own history. His power droped, measured
either as HR/FB or ISO. His slump was not luck-driven, he just did not hit the
ball well all year long. He has to make some significant adjustment; otherwise I
don't seen any reason to expect improvement over his .302 OBP.
>
> I'd love to hear what in Hardy's PA's people expect to improve. His LD rate?
K-rate? BABIP dispite LD rate? BB rate? HR/FB?
>
> I don't mean to be totally diss'n the guy, and I never said he was not
protectable. I won't make my own decision on him until Spring, but that's in a
BL. I did say he was stretchy as a crossover. In an NL, a team that does not
have better crossovers does not have strong crossovers. ESPN conjectures that
Hardy might replace Crede at 3B. So, then longer-term you've got a .750 OPS RH
3B as a crossover. Blah.
>
> --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, "kwarrenca" <kenwarren77@ ...>
wrote:
> >
> > Hey Garth, your post is the most confusing of all.
> >
> > Hardy was 26 in 2009, when he had a terrible season, so how could you
describe that "one great half year -- when he was 26".
> >
> > Anyways at age 24 he posted a .786 OPS over a full season, and at age 25 he
posted an .821 OPS over a full season. He hit 50 HR, along with 61 doubles and
325 hits in his age 24 and 25 seasons.
> >
> > Not too bad at all for a young shortstop. There are a lot of highly hyped
young outfielders who wish that they could be doing that.
> >
> > Not sure where you're getting this "half year" thing from, or the "age 26"
thing - but I don't quite see what you're seeing. Maybe we're not even talking
about the same player.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com, "Garth Hewitt" <garthhewitt@ >
wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, this post confuses me too. (Perhaps I'm just too easily confused.)
When exactly were Hardy's good years? When was his prime?
> > >
> > > I think what you mean is that he had one, singular, good year -- which was
actually one great half year -- when he was 26. He's in his prime right now and
is a bit stretchy as a protect in a BL. I can't see burning a xover slot on him.
Perhaps there are some Brewers fans who've watched him enough, but my take on a
career like his is a guy with talent who has holes. NL pitchers figured him out,
and AL pitchers will buy the book. To protect him, you have to believe he will
adjust in some way that he has not yet.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com, "smallflowerspress"
<smallflowerspress@...> wrote:
> . . . Also, leaning on TBS & Rotoworld is not going to help anyone's
cause on this board

What sources do you lean on?