Nearly everyone is more wrong when they use subjective logic than objective logic. That's kind of my point. I agree that there are many, many trades upon which people can agree to disagree.
The recent LaLoosh deal, for example, is a PERFECT case study. Phoenix shed a ton of salary, picked up a solid rotation arm at half the cost, dealt two top prospects away and kept some of LaLoosh's salary. You could absolutely, positively come down on either side of this trade and be absolutely right. There's tons of room for subjectivity and objectivity in that one.
Not every trade has that sort of wiggle room. Some are blatantly good for both sides, even if they don't work out that way. Some are blatantly not.
California 2038.11 - An arrogant Jerk's Guide to Sustained Winning, Part 4
Moderator: shoeless.db
- aaronweiner
- BBA GM
- Posts: 12055
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 776 times
- RonCo
- GB: JL Frontier Division Director
- Posts: 19984
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
- Has thanked: 2013 times
- Been thanked: 2984 times
Re: California 2038.11 - An arrogant Jerk's Guide to Sustained Winning, Part 4
Maybe we're splitting hairs here. I rarely attempt to ask if one guy or the other "wins" a trade (which, right or wrong, is how I interpret "come down on either side above"). The only question that really interests me (and, in my seemingly often unshared oprinion, should interest anyone) is whether a trade helped a GM get to the goals those GMs have.
In order for me to be able to say that either way, I need to understand their goals.
I think that's a fairly generic statement, but we can apply it to the Phoenix/New Orleans deal as an example and as far as I can tell from my guesses at their team goals call it a great trade, though clearly we have no idea how it will wind up right now.
In order for me to be able to say that either way, I need to understand their goals.
I think that's a fairly generic statement, but we can apply it to the Phoenix/New Orleans deal as an example and as far as I can tell from my guesses at their team goals call it a great trade, though clearly we have no idea how it will wind up right now.
- RonCo
- GB: JL Frontier Division Director
- Posts: 19984
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
- Has thanked: 2013 times
- Been thanked: 2984 times
Re: California 2038.11 - An arrogant Jerk's Guide to Sustained Winning, Part 4
One can then discuss if the GM has a wise goal or not, but that's a different question.
And this is Ted's guide, which is focused on discussing tactics focused on achieving a strategic goal of winning 88-92 games all the time. This segment was specifically about how the value of a player (or other resource) is in the eye of the beholder, and the eye of the beholder is dependent upon their strategy.
And this is Ted's guide, which is focused on discussing tactics focused on achieving a strategic goal of winning 88-92 games all the time. This segment was specifically about how the value of a player (or other resource) is in the eye of the beholder, and the eye of the beholder is dependent upon their strategy.
Ted wrote: If that sounds opaque, we can go back to the question from part one of "Should I sign this expensive FA that would upgrade my biggest weakness from last season?" If you remember, I answered, "I don't know." Because I don't know your strategy. Not only do I not know it, I don't know if it's any good. Some strategies are better than others. That's what this series is about. It's about the strategy behind building a perpetually winning 88-92 win team. Its about how to make the playoffs 80 percent of the time, and never rebuild.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests