15 pitchers and 15 hitters, 16 pitchers and 14 hitters or something else? 
What's the norm and are there any specific reasons why one or the other is
better?

Anybody have a list of the Crossovers for 2010 yet?

I'm not set on any rule myself, one year I kept 3 releivers, then again that
worked out poorly, never tried that again.
 
I was just asking to see what others would write, beleive me i have my own ideas
and year to year they vary depending on what I have, as you may tell from my
recent posts/questions.
 
But I enjoyed reading the answers.
 
Thanks all
 
R

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Joe Domenchini <joe.domenchini@...> wrote:


From: Joe Domenchini <joe.domenchini@...>
Subject: RE: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 6:56 PM


 



I think it is too easy to let yourself get pigeonholed into a hard and fast rule
as far as protectees by position. I've been all over the place with my protect
list over the years (mind you, we keep 15 in my league, not 13, so the impact of
keeping that 5th starter is very different). I always go with the best 15
players, and if needed, I can draft or trade to fill the holes that may be left
from doing that. I also consider the league as a whole, who my rookies are (if I
have one who will pitch in MLB in the upcoming year) and who I think will be
available in the draft. I've actually protected 6 starters a couple of times,
and was able to draft position players for the first few rounds of the draft.
I've also kept 4, and gone with the "fill the 5th slot with a RP" strategy.

I know this is trite, but the protection list should adapt to your team, not the
other way around.

I'll keep 5 starters this year, I think. 4 for sure, the 5th most likely.

-Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups.
com] On Behalf Of Richard Landry
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 16:22
To: scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help

"
5th starters are the most overrated commodity in scoresheet. They are
fungible, easily improved by using a SER and a couple of extra bullpen arms,
and play no role in the playoffs. I wouldn't keep a 5th starter unless I
thought he was good enough to maybe be a 1 or 2 starter. But of course,
that's my own strategy; if you want to keep these types of guys, that might
work out for you. I'm just saying *I* wouldn't and I don't advise it; this
thread started from someone asking advice, right?"

This makes me wonder, and don't take it wrong, but if you don;t like to keep a
5th starter (and i do understand if hes a 4.5 era kind of guy I would not
either) but how would you keep your 13 keepers? Ya got to keep someone. How do
you divvy it up? Just curious, looking for ideas.

R











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

I think it is too easy to let yourself get pigeonholed into a hard and fast rule
as far as protectees by position.  I've been all over the place with my protect
list over the years (mind you, we keep 15 in my league, not 13, so the impact of
keeping that 5th starter is very different).  I always go with the best 15
players, and if needed, I can draft or trade to fill the holes that may be left
from doing that.  I also consider the league as a whole, who my rookies are (if
I have one who will pitch in MLB in the upcoming year) and who I think will be
available in the draft.  I've actually protected 6 starters a couple of times,
and was able to draft position players for the first few rounds of the draft. 
I've also kept 4, and gone with the "fill the 5th slot with a RP" strategy.

I know this is trite, but the protection list should adapt to your team, not the
other way around.

I'll keep 5 starters this year, I think.  4 for sure, the 5th most likely.

-Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Richard Landry
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 16:22
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help

"
5th starters are the most overrated commodity in scoresheet. They are
fungible, easily improved by using a SER and a couple of extra bullpen arms,
and play no role in the playoffs. I wouldn't keep a 5th starter unless I
thought he was good enough to maybe be a 1 or 2 starter. But of course,
that's my own strategy; if you want to keep these types of guys, that might
work out for you. I'm just saying *I* wouldn't and I don't advise it; this
thread started from someone asking advice, right?"

This makes me wonder, and don't take it wrong, but if you don;t like to keep a
5th starter (and i do understand if hes a 4.5 era kind of guy I would not
either) but how would you keep your 13 keepers? Ya got to keep someone. How do
you divvy it up? Just curious, looking for ideas.

R

Hello -

I wonder if any of you have scouting reports on Randy Wells - what's
his upside? is he a 2? a 3? a back-end starter? Does he have the
makeup to continue to pitch over his head?

Thank you -

I am starting a new league in Southern California.  The rules will be formed
once we get enough owners to decide upon them.  We will have an in-person draft
in Feb/Mar somewhere in SoCal (Location to be determined).  We have a few
interested parties but need more so we can get this league off the ground. 
Cntact me if you are interested.

Thanks

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Ray Parizo <accudart1@...> wrote:

> I personally don't "try" to protect 4th or 5th starters for my team. The
> trap I fall into is maybe spending to much on SP with break-out potential.
> Guys I'm still holding at the moment are Cueto, J. Sanchez and de la Rosa. I
> think there are a lot of ways for teams to build a protect list depending on
> your taste and team make up.
>   I did end up getting a mid round 17 for Wolf.


Steal for you imho.


> This means I have Sheets, Hudson, Innentta, Blanks fighting for two spots.


You can wait until the deadline to decide of course, but Sheets' questions
render him unkeepable right now to me. I'm already on record with preferring
Hudson and Ianetta.


> I've already moved Scherzer (I received a protected spot, 15 and 30) for
> him. I'm guessing it comes down to who if anyone else I can sell to free up
> spots.
>

That's a very good attitude, methinks.


> --- On Thu, 11/12/09, Richard Landry <rlandry010@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Richard Landry <rlandry010@...>
> Subject: Re: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 9:21 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "
> 5th starters are the most overrated commodity in scoresheet. They are
> fungible, easily improved by using a SER and a couple of extra bullpen
> arms,
> and play no role in the playoffs. I wouldn't keep a 5th starter unless I
> thought he was good enough to maybe be a 1 or 2 starter. But of course,
> that's my own strategy; if you want to keep these types of guys, that might
> work out for you. I'm just saying *I* wouldn't and I don't advise it; this
> thread started from someone asking advice, right?"
>
> This makes me wonder, and don't take it wrong, but if you don;t like to
> keep a 5th starter (and i do understand if hes a 4.5 era kind of guy I would
> not either) but how would you keep your 13 keepers? Ya got to keep someone.
> How do you divvy it up? Just curious, looking for ideas.
>
> R
>
> --- On Thu, 11/12/09, Dr Andrew J Cleary <andy.cleary@ gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Dr Andrew J Cleary <andy.cleary@ gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
> To: scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 1:52 PM
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Dan Wachtell <dwachtell@gmail. com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Dr Andrew J Cleary
> > <andy.cleary@ gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > I still don't get keeping DeLaRosa. [. . .] Is there really much chance
> > > this guy can bust a 4 era in Coors?
> > >
> >
> > Maybe not, but then you're probably putting too much emphasis on ERA.
>
> This is still scoresheet, right? Scoresheet's sim is based mostly on ERA.
> We'd have another debate entirely if it was based on park-adjusted ERA, for
> example, but it's not.
>
> I realize ERA isn't particularly *predictive* , but I'm measuring results
> here. He's never had a season of results that would be of value to a
> contending scoresheet team, and there's little to indicate that taht's
> going
> to change, not while pitching in Coors.
>
> > From
> > 2006-2009, De La Rosa has improved his K/9, K/BB, WHIP, and GB% (and
> GB/FB)
> > significantly, year-over-year. He has an excellent defense behind him,
> > too. He's obviously getting better (even compare his 1st 1/2 of 09 to his
> > 2nd 1/2), so why wouldn't you think he'll continue too.
> >
>
> Because he's already 28?
>
> >
> > And, if you want to focus on ERA, his has decreased from 6.49 to 5.82 to
> > 4.92 to 4.38 over the past four years. Bill James projects him back to
> > 4.73
> > but I don't think it's unreasonable for him to continue to improve. And
> > even if he doesn't, we're talking about him as a 4th/5th starter.
>
> 5th starters are the most overrated commodity in scoresheet. They are
> fungible, easily improved by using a SER and a couple of extra bullpen
> arms,
> and play no role in the playoffs. I wouldn't keep a 5th starter unless I
> thought he was good enough to maybe be a 1 or 2 starter. But of course,
> that's my own strategy; if you want to keep these types of guys, that might
> work out for you. I'm just saying *I* wouldn't and I don't advise it; this
> thread started from someone asking advice, right?
>
> > I don't
> > know who you expect to find available in the draft in a reasonably
> capable
> > league that's guaranteed to do what he is, discounting even for his
> > potential to continue improving.
> >
>
> Well, for one, no one is guaranteed to do anything, but more
> constructively,
> I'd rather draft a SER and two other relievers in the supps or with
> tail-end
> picks and get the equivalent of a 3.5-4 ERA starter rather than burn a
> protect slot on a guy who is unlikely to beat 4.5. Again, that's just the
> way I do it and I'm just offering advice, not trying to say that I'm sure
> that my way is the only way.
>
> Andy
>
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ray Parizo <accudart1@yahoo. com
> > <accudart1%40yahoo. com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> > >
> > > >
> > > > List owners: brian@dewberryjones .com <brian%40dewberryjo nes.com>,
> > > grum@rogers. com <grum%40rogers. com>,
> > > > phfinkelstein@ gmail.com <phfinkelstein% 40gmail.com>
> > > > 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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >
> > List owners: brian@dewberryjones .com, grum@rogers. com,
> > phfinkelstein@ gmail.com
> > 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]
>
> [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]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Richard Landry <rlandry010@...>wrote:

> "
>
>
> This makes me wonder, and don't take it wrong, but if you don;t like to
> keep a 5th starter (and i do understand if hes a 4.5 era kind of guy I would
> not either) but how would you keep your 13 keepers? Ya got to keep someone.
> How do you divvy it up? Just curious, looking for ideas.
>
> R
>
> -
>

For a 13-team keeper, I'd probably generally aim at 4 starting pitchers, 8
position players, and then a closer, a DH (in an AL), an extra "rare"
position player (catcher, shortstop, CF, or a 5th SP if I have one whose
upside is #1/2), or a player I predict will be valuable in the future but
not necessarily this year (basically an investment).

But really, I lean towards "best available", and prefer to construct my
team's balance much later, typically during the season... I think
overplanning particular positions or team alignments too early typically
ends up pointless because injuries and other unexpected occurrences usually
ruin that planning anyway.


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

I personally don't "try" to protect 4th or 5th starters for my team. The trap I
fall into is maybe spending to much on SP with break-out potential. Guys I'm
still holding at the moment are Cueto, J. Sanchez and de la Rosa. I think there
are a lot of ways for teams to build a protect list depending on your taste and
team make up. 
  I did end up getting a mid round 17 for Wolf. This means I have Sheets,
Hudson, Innentta, Blanks fighting for two spots. I've already moved Scherzer (I
received a protected spot, 15 and 30) for him. I'm guessing it comes down to who
if anyone else I can sell to free up spots.
--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Richard Landry <rlandry010@...> wrote:


From: Richard Landry <rlandry010@...>
Subject: Re: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 9:21 PM


 



"
5th starters are the most overrated commodity in scoresheet. They are
fungible, easily improved by using a SER and a couple of extra bullpen arms,
and play no role in the playoffs. I wouldn't keep a 5th starter unless I
thought he was good enough to maybe be a 1 or 2 starter. But of course,
that's my own strategy; if you want to keep these types of guys, that might
work out for you. I'm just saying *I* wouldn't and I don't advise it; this
thread started from someone asking advice, right?"
 
This makes me wonder, and don't take it wrong, but if you don;t like to keep a
5th starter (and i do understand if hes a 4.5 era kind of guy I would not
either) but how would you keep your 13 keepers? Ya got to keep someone. How do
you divvy it up? Just curious, looking for ideas.
 
R

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Dr Andrew J Cleary <andy.cleary@ gmail.com> wrote:

From: Dr Andrew J Cleary <andy.cleary@ gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
To: scoresheet-talk@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 1:52 PM

 

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Dan Wachtell <dwachtell@gmail. com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Dr Andrew J Cleary
> <andy.cleary@ gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I still don't get keeping DeLaRosa. [. . .] Is there really much chance
> > this guy can bust a 4 era in Coors?
> >
>
> Maybe not, but then you're probably putting too much emphasis on ERA.

This is still scoresheet, right? Scoresheet's sim is based mostly on ERA.
We'd have another debate entirely if it was based on park-adjusted ERA, for
example, but it's not.

I realize ERA isn't particularly *predictive* , but I'm measuring results
here. He's never had a season of results that would be of value to a
contending scoresheet team, and there's little to indicate that taht's going
to change, not while pitching in Coors.

> From
> 2006-2009, De La Rosa has improved his K/9, K/BB, WHIP, and GB% (and GB/FB)
> significantly, year-over-year. He has an excellent defense behind him,
> too. He's obviously getting better (even compare his 1st 1/2 of 09 to his
> 2nd 1/2), so why wouldn't you think he'll continue too.
>

Because he's already 28?

>
> And, if you want to focus on ERA, his has decreased from 6.49 to 5.82 to
> 4.92 to 4.38 over the past four years. Bill James projects him back to
> 4.73
> but I don't think it's unreasonable for him to continue to improve. And
> even if he doesn't, we're talking about him as a 4th/5th starter.

5th starters are the most overrated commodity in scoresheet. They are
fungible, easily improved by using a SER and a couple of extra bullpen arms,
and play no role in the playoffs. I wouldn't keep a 5th starter unless I
thought he was good enough to maybe be a 1 or 2 starter. But of course,
that's my own strategy; if you want to keep these types of guys, that might
work out for you. I'm just saying *I* wouldn't and I don't advise it; this
thread started from someone asking advice, right?

> I don't
> know who you expect to find available in the draft in a reasonably capable
> league that's guaranteed to do what he is, discounting even for his
> potential to continue improving.
>

Well, for one, no one is guaranteed to do anything, but more constructively,
I'd rather draft a SER and two other relievers in the supps or with tail-end
picks and get the equivalent of a 3.5-4 ERA starter rather than burn a
protect slot on a guy who is unlikely to beat 4.5. Again, that's just the
way I do it and I'm just offering advice, not trying to say that I'm sure
that my way is the only way.

Andy

>
> Dan
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ray Parizo <accudart1@yahoo. com
> <accudart1%40yahoo. com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >
> > >
> > > List owners: brian@dewberryjones .com <brian%40dewberryjo nes.com>,
> > grum@rogers. com <grum%40rogers. com>,
> > > phfinkelstein@ gmail.com <phfinkelstein% 40gmail.com>
> > > 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]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> List owners: brian@dewberryjones .com, grum@rogers. com,
> phfinkelstein@ gmail.com
> 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]

[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]

Not to speak for Andy, with whom I generally agree on this point, but my
standard keeper list usually consists of 9 bats, 3 starters, and a
reliever.  I have certainly kept more starters when the circumstances called
for it, or passed on keeping a reliever, but I have also kept more than 9
bats.  I have kept multiple relievers in some years and I have even kept a
particularly strong RH platoon bat I expected to find 400 or so ABs for.
Who, exactly, I keep will depend largely on what sort of draft picks I have
accrued or lost, how many keeper slots I have, the absolute quality or value
of the players on my roster, my perception of the relative availability at
various positions in the upcoming draft, the existing market for my current
roster and what I anticipate to be the market in the following season, and
on and on...  I don't think it is particularly helpful in building a
championship contender to have a fixed conception on who you have to keep.
If a second first baseman is more valuable than my 4th starter when
considering all of the above, then I should keep that second first baseman
or trade for some other asset more valuable than my 4th starter, or,
perhaps, trade the slot.

Paul F. (Hater of Pitchers)

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Richard Landry <rlandry010@...>wrote:

>
> This makes me wonder, and don't take it wrong, but if you don;t like to
> keep a 5th starter (and i do understand if hes a 4.5 era kind of guy I would
> not either) but how would you keep your 13 keepers? Ya got to keep someone.
> How do you divvy it up? Just curious, looking for ideas.
>
> R
>


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

"
5th starters are the most overrated commodity in scoresheet. They are
fungible, easily improved by using a SER and a couple of extra bullpen arms,
and play no role in the playoffs. I wouldn't keep a 5th starter unless I
thought he was good enough to maybe be a 1 or 2 starter. But of course,
that's my own strategy; if you want to keep these types of guys, that might
work out for you. I'm just saying *I* wouldn't and I don't advise it; this
thread started from someone asking advice, right?"
 
This makes me wonder, and don't take it wrong, but if you don;t like to keep a
5th starter (and i do understand if hes a 4.5 era kind of guy I would not
either) but how would you keep your 13 keepers? Ya got to keep someone. How do
you divvy it up? Just curious, looking for ideas.
 
R

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Dr Andrew J Cleary <andy.cleary@...> wrote:


From: Dr Andrew J Cleary <andy.cleary@...>
Subject: Re: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 1:52 PM


 



On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Dan Wachtell <dwachtell@gmail. com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Dr Andrew J Cleary
> <andy.cleary@ gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I still don't get keeping DeLaRosa. [. . .] Is there really much chance
> > this guy can bust a 4 era in Coors?
> >
>
> Maybe not, but then you're probably putting too much emphasis on ERA.

This is still scoresheet, right? Scoresheet's sim is based mostly on ERA.
We'd have another debate entirely if it was based on park-adjusted ERA, for
example, but it's not.

I realize ERA isn't particularly *predictive* , but I'm measuring results
here. He's never had a season of results that would be of value to a
contending scoresheet team, and there's little to indicate that taht's going
to change, not while pitching in Coors.

> From
> 2006-2009, De La Rosa has improved his K/9, K/BB, WHIP, and GB% (and GB/FB)
> significantly, year-over-year. He has an excellent defense behind him,
> too. He's obviously getting better (even compare his 1st 1/2 of 09 to his
> 2nd 1/2), so why wouldn't you think he'll continue too.
>

Because he's already 28?

>
> And, if you want to focus on ERA, his has decreased from 6.49 to 5.82 to
> 4.92 to 4.38 over the past four years. Bill James projects him back to
> 4.73
> but I don't think it's unreasonable for him to continue to improve. And
> even if he doesn't, we're talking about him as a 4th/5th starter.

5th starters are the most overrated commodity in scoresheet. They are
fungible, easily improved by using a SER and a couple of extra bullpen arms,
and play no role in the playoffs. I wouldn't keep a 5th starter unless I
thought he was good enough to maybe be a 1 or 2 starter. But of course,
that's my own strategy; if you want to keep these types of guys, that might
work out for you. I'm just saying *I* wouldn't and I don't advise it; this
thread started from someone asking advice, right?

> I don't
> know who you expect to find available in the draft in a reasonably capable
> league that's guaranteed to do what he is, discounting even for his
> potential to continue improving.
>

Well, for one, no one is guaranteed to do anything, but more constructively,
I'd rather draft a SER and two other relievers in the supps or with tail-end
picks and get the equivalent of a 3.5-4 ERA starter rather than burn a
protect slot on a guy who is unlikely to beat 4.5. Again, that's just the
way I do it and I'm just offering advice, not trying to say that I'm sure
that my way is the only way.

Andy

>
> Dan
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ray Parizo <accudart1@yahoo. com
> <accudart1%40yahoo. com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >
> > >
> > > List owners: brian@dewberryjones .com <brian%40dewberryjo nes.com>,
> > grum@rogers. com <grum%40rogers. com>,
> > > phfinkelstein@ gmail.com <phfinkelstein% 40gmail.com>
> > > 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]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> List owners: brian@dewberryjones .com, grum@rogers. com,
> phfinkelstein@ gmail.com
> 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]











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

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Dan Wachtell <dwachtell@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Dr Andrew J Cleary
> <andy.cleary@...>wrote:
>
> >  I still don't get keeping DeLaRosa. [. . .] Is there really much chance
> > this guy can bust a 4 era in Coors?
> >
>
> Maybe not, but then you're probably putting too much emphasis on ERA.


This is still scoresheet, right? Scoresheet's sim is based mostly on ERA.
We'd have another debate entirely if it was based on park-adjusted ERA, for
example, but it's not.

I realize ERA isn't particularly *predictive*, but I'm measuring results
here. He's never had a season of results that would be of value to a
contending scoresheet team, and there's little to indicate that taht's going
to change, not while pitching in Coors.


> From
> 2006-2009, De La Rosa has improved his K/9, K/BB, WHIP, and GB% (and GB/FB)
> significantly, year-over-year.  He has an excellent defense behind him,
> too.  He's obviously getting better (even compare his 1st 1/2 of 09 to his
> 2nd 1/2), so why wouldn't you think he'll continue too.
>

Because he's already 28?


>
> And, if you want to focus on ERA, his has decreased from 6.49 to 5.82 to
> 4.92 to 4.38 over the past four years.  Bill James projects him back to
> 4.73
> but I don't think it's unreasonable for him to continue to improve.  And
> even if he doesn't, we're talking about him as a 4th/5th starter.


5th starters are the most overrated commodity in scoresheet. They are
fungible, easily improved by using a SER and a couple of extra bullpen arms,
and play no role in the playoffs. I wouldn't keep a 5th starter unless I
thought he was good enough to maybe be a 1 or 2 starter. But of course,
that's my own strategy; if you want to keep these types of guys, that might
work out for you. I'm just saying *I* wouldn't and I don't advise it; this
thread started from someone asking advice, right?


>  I don't
> know who you expect to find available in the draft in a reasonably capable
> league that's guaranteed to do what he is, discounting even for his
> potential to continue improving.
>

Well, for one, no one is guaranteed to do anything, but more constructively,
I'd rather draft a SER and two other relievers in the supps or with tail-end
picks and get the equivalent of a 3.5-4 ERA starter rather than burn a
protect slot on a guy who is unlikely to beat 4.5. Again, that's just the
way I do it and I'm just offering advice, not trying to say that I'm sure
that my way is the only way.

Andy


>
> Dan
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ray Parizo <accudart1@...
> <accudart1%40yahoo.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> >
> > >
> > > List owners: brian@... <brian%40dewberryjones.com>,
> > grum@... <grum%40rogers.com>,
> > > phfinkelstein@... <phfinkelstein%40gmail.com>
> > > 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]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [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]

It's easy to flippantly dismiss guys like de la Rosa, Sanchez,
Blanton, Zito as "non-keepers", but in SS, innings-eaters like those
who keep you in ball-games against other teams' mid- and back-end
starters have good value. You sure can't find them in the draft very
easily, and even if you do, they're taking in R14-15-16...


On Nov 12, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Dan Wachtell wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Dr Andrew J Cleary
> <andy.cleary@...>wrote:
>
>> I still don't get keeping DeLaRosa. [. . .] Is there really much
>> chance
>> this guy can bust a 4 era in Coors?
>>
>
> Maybe not, but then you're probably putting too much emphasis on
> ERA. From
> 2006-2009, De La Rosa has improved his K/9, K/BB, WHIP, and GB% (and
> GB/FB)
> significantly, year-over-year.  He has an excellent defense behind
> him,
> too.  He's obviously getting better (even compare his 1st 1/2 of 09
> to his
> 2nd 1/2), so why wouldn't you think he'll continue too.
>
> And, if you want to focus on ERA, his has decreased from 6.49 to
> 5.82 to
> 4.92 to 4.38 over the past four years.  Bill James projects him back
> to 4.73
> but I don't think it's unreasonable for him to continue to improve.
> And
> even if he doesn't, we're talking about him as a 4th/5th starter.  I
> don't
> know who you expect to find available in the draft in a reasonably
> capable
> league that's guaranteed to do what he is, discounting even for his
> potential to continue improving.
>
> Dan
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ray Parizo
>> <accudart1@...<accudart1%40yahoo.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>>
>>> List owners: brian@... <brian%40dewberryjones.com>,
>> grum@... <grum%40rogers.com>,
>>> phfinkelstein@... <phfinkelstein%40gmail.com>
>>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> List owners:  brian@..., grum@...,
phfinkelstein@...
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Dr Andrew J Cleary
<andy.cleary@...>wrote:

>  I still don't get keeping DeLaRosa. [. . .] Is there really much chance
> this guy can bust a 4 era in Coors?
>

Maybe not, but then you're probably putting too much emphasis on ERA. From
2006-2009, De La Rosa has improved his K/9, K/BB, WHIP, and GB% (and GB/FB)
significantly, year-over-year.  He has an excellent defense behind him,
too.  He's obviously getting better (even compare his 1st 1/2 of 09 to his
2nd 1/2), so why wouldn't you think he'll continue too.

And, if you want to focus on ERA, his has decreased from 6.49 to 5.82 to
4.92 to 4.38 over the past four years.  Bill James projects him back to 4.73
but I don't think it's unreasonable for him to continue to improve.  And
even if he doesn't, we're talking about him as a 4th/5th starter.  I don't
know who you expect to find available in the draft in a reasonably capable
league that's guaranteed to do what he is, discounting even for his
potential to continue improving.

Dan

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ray Parizo
<accudart1@...<accudart1%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
>
> >
> > List owners: brian@... <brian%40dewberryjones.com>,
> grum@... <grum%40rogers.com>,
> > phfinkelstein@... <phfinkelstein%40gmail.com>
> > 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]
>
>
>


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

I still don't get keeping DeLaRosa. In the last 10 years (and quite possibly
the entire history of the Rockie's franchise), there have been what, maybe
*one* useful season by a Colorado pitcher (Jimenez, this past season; Aaron
Cook might have had one along the way, I'm too lazy to look it up)? The odds
of a Coors pitcher breaking a 4 ERA over a season are just extremely low,
and I wouldn't bet on it unless the pitcher was outstanding... and DeLaRosa
isn't and never has been, even when he wasn't in Coors. He strikes guys out;
great, it's a start... but guys rarely hit their year 29 season and all the
sudden learn better command (though it's not impossible). And he doesn't
throw GBs either. Is there really much chance this guy can bust a 4 era in
Coors?

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ray Parizo <accudart1@...> wrote:

>
> 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]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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 think your right Lew, my hitting is at issue. I have done well finding
pitchers with at least upside. Of course pitchers let you down much more than
hitters. Besides the pitchers I listed I also own Volquez, Zimmerman and A..
Sanchez who I'll have to let go as well. Time for me to try and focus on scoring
some runs.

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


From: lewstansby@... <lewstansby@...>
Subject: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 5:29 AM


 




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]
>











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

I think Richard hit it on the problem, you can argue most of these guys not
surefire keepers.

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Richard Landry <rlandry010@...> wrote:


From: Richard Landry <rlandry010@...>
Subject: Re: ## Re: NL Protected Spot Help
To: scoresheet-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 5:16 PM


 



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@hotmail. com> wrote:

From: e_hunke <E_Hunke2@hotmail. com>
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]








__________________________________________________
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]

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