Single Greatest Thread Ever

[Saul Goodman]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm (one year with an option for second year)
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart (acquired via trade) — but re-signed, I suppose
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

They got a good year out of Dioner, so that signing was a success. They just didn't trade him. Schierholtz was better last year so hopefully they can still move him for something useful next month.

[R-V]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

Dioner in the bad category? You go straight to hell. Dioner was awesome. I don't think 1-year deals should be judged solely on whether they got something in return. They paid the guy less than $2 M and got almost $9 M of value out of him.

[ChuckD]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

Why is Dioner Navarro in the "Bad" column?

E:F;B

[PenFoe]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm (one year with an option for second year)
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart (acquired via trade)
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

They got a good year out of Dioner, so that signing was a success. They just didn't trade him. Schierholtz was better last year so hopefully they can still move him for something useful next month.

Way to move the conversation forward. Keep up the good work.

[PenFoe]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

Dioner in the bad category? You go straight to hell. Dioner was awesome. I don't think 1-year deals should be judged solely on whether they got something in return. They paid the guy less than $2 M and got almost $9 M of value out of him.

Isn't that the point of this whole thing?

Either they get something in return or deem the guy worth keeping?

[ChuckD]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

Dioner in the bad category? You go straight to hell. Dioner was awesome. I don't think 1-year deals should be judged solely on whether they got something in return. They paid the guy less than $2 M and got almost $9 M of value out of him.

Isn't that the point of this whole thing?

Either they get something in return or deem the guy worth keeping?

So why are Bonifacio, Hammel, and Schierholtz on your "Good" list?

[Saul Goodman]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

Dioner in the bad category? You go straight to hell. Dioner was awesome. I don't think 1-year deals should be judged solely on whether they got something in return. They paid the guy less than $2 M and got almost $9 M of value out of him.

Isn't that the point of this whole thing?

Either they get something in return or deem the guy worth keeping?

So why are Bonifacio, Hammel, and Schierholtz on your "Good" list?

Keep the conversation moving, man. Pick it up.

[PenFoe]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

Dioner in the bad category? You go straight to hell. Dioner was awesome. I don't think 1-year deals should be judged solely on whether they got something in return. They paid the guy less than $2 M and got almost $9 M of value out of him.

Isn't that the point of this whole thing?

Either they get something in return or deem the guy worth keeping?

So why are Bonifacio, Hammel, and Schierholtz on your "Good" list?

Shierholtz - re-signed.
Hammel - poised for good return
Bonifacio - poised for something

[Saul Goodman]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

Dioner in the bad category? You go straight to hell. Dioner was awesome. I don't think 1-year deals should be judged solely on whether they got something in return. They paid the guy less than $2 M and got almost $9 M of value out of him.

Isn't that the point of this whole thing?

Either they get something in return or deem the guy worth keeping?

So stopgap production for one season doesn't qualify as getting something in return? Or do you think they should have deemed Dioner "worth keeping" to the tune of two years, $8MM? Have I moved your stupid conversation far enough yet, assface?

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

Dioner in the bad category? You go straight to hell. Dioner was awesome. I don't think 1-year deals should be judged solely on whether they got something in return. They paid the guy less than $2 M and got almost $9 M of value out of him.

Isn't that the point of this whole thing?

Either they get something in return or deem the guy worth keeping?

So stopgap production for one season doesn't qualify as getting something in return? Or do you think they should have deemed Dioner "worth keeping" to the tune of two years, $8MM? Have I moved your stupid conversation far enough yet, assface?

Pen's been PWNED, Chucky-On-Yeti Style.

[ChuckD]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

Dioner in the bad category? You go straight to hell. Dioner was awesome. I don't think 1-year deals should be judged solely on whether they got something in return. They paid the guy less than $2 M and got almost $9 M of value out of him.

Isn't that the point of this whole thing?

Either they get something in return or deem the guy worth keeping?

So why are Bonifacio, Hammel, and Schierholtz on your "Good" list?

Shierholtz - re-signed. (to another 1-year deal)
Hammel - poised for good return
Bonifacio - poised for something

I'm with Sterling here. And if you're going off of theoretical returns, then it's a bit premature to close the books on Coghlan.

[InternetApex]

Jose Veras

What's the track record on 1-year signings so far?

Not including any trades or larger deals. Just the quick gambles that seem to be generally to turn into prospects (or guys they can keep.)

Good:
Paul Maholm
Jason Hammel
Scott Feldman
Emilio Bonifacio
Nate Schierholtz (if there was a "meh" category, he's there, but he's more good than bad.)

Bad:
Jose Veras
Scott Baker
James McDonald
Ian Stewart
Kyuji Fujikawa
Chris Coghlan
Dioner Navarro (played decent, nothing in return)
John Baker
George Kotteras
Joe Mather
Ryan Sweeney
Brent Lillibridge

I'm sure I'm missing about 20 guys, but that's quick check.
Considering the low-risk nature of all of these, that feels like decent return to me (having done no comparison analysis of other teams.)

Dioner in the bad category? You go straight to hell. Dioner was awesome. I don't think 1-year deals should be judged solely on whether they got something in return. They paid the guy less than $2 M and got almost $9 M of value out of him.

Isn't that the point of this whole thing?

Either they get something in return or deem the guy worth keeping?

I think we need a "meh" category. That's my only suggestion.

[SKO]

Look I'd like to agree with Pen that this regime has generally been good about taking low-risk fliers on potentially flippable assets and then being able to flip those assets.

But I also would like to endorse this strategy of picking everything else Pen has said apart and calling him an assface.

[ChuckD]

Look I'd like to agree with Pen that this regime has generally been good about taking low-risk fliers on potentially flippable assets and then being able to flip those assets.

But I also would like to endorse this strategy of picking everything else Pen has said apart and calling him an assface.

I agree. Is this the point where we mention that Sweeney and Fujikawa are on two year deals? And Wesley Wright wants to know who he's gotta bang to get rated.

[SKO]

Look I'd like to agree with Pen that this regime has generally been good about taking low-risk fliers on potentially flippable assets and then being able to flip those assets.

But I also would like to endorse this strategy of picking everything else Pen has said apart and calling him an assface.

I agree. Is this the point where we mention that Sweeney and Fujikawa are on two year deals? And Wesley Wright wants to know who he's gotta bang to get rated.

Did we not also have to deal with the Ian Stewart Experience for more than one year as well? I feel like Pen (or Ol' Assface as we like to call him) spent very little time properly researching this list. Perhaps he used Chuck's datase.