### Splash Size, Continued...

Since I'm desperately running out of time writing up a more in-depth article that I wish I had time for, I'm going to do a quick summary of my thoughts on my earlier post on splash size.

For the M's to pull me out of my fiscal protest (speaking only for me, and not for Munchausen), aside from the sole signing of Carlos Beltran, the M's would have to score at least a 5 on the splash size scale. A sample of how this can happen:

Player (Splash Size Point Ranking)

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

Beltre (2), Delgado (2), Clement/Pavano (2)

or

Glaus (2), Delgado (2), Radke/Lowe (1)

or

Glaus (2) as DH/1b, Beltre (2) at 3B, and Nomar (1) as SS

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

Beltre, in my book, would qualify as a 2.5, but since I'm being brutal and only using whole numbers, and cannot justify giving him a 3, he's a 2, according to my "splash size" scale.

Conversely, this is what I predict the M's will do, and what I certainly hope does NOT happen:

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

Sexson (-1), Koskie (-1), Lowe (1)

or (even more optimistic)

Sexson (-1), Glaus (2), Clement (2).

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

Of course, there are some other things that would affect a particular player's splash size ranking in my mind. For instance -- Beltre for any longer than 7 years would definitely be a 1 instead of a 2. Beltre for any more than 12 million/per, would also drop him down a point. Following this logic, then, Beltre for a 10 year 150 million deal would be a (-1) in my book. 10 years for 100 million maybe a (1), though (or a 1.5 considering my 2.5 ranking on Beltre). Along the same lines, Delgado for more than 8.5 million would drop him down a point, and longer than 3 years (an option for 4th year would be acceptible) would as well. So, 4 years 40 million would make Delgado a (-1), where as 3 years 30 million would be a (1) and 4 years, 32 million would also be a (1).

Confused yet? I really hope to devote the time to completing my thoughts and opinions on this. I apologize if I've confused you any further.

## 2 Comments:

My goodness, Paul - are we back in HS Algebra?

Here's my method - the "OPTIMAL method".

Beltre, Delgado & pitcher = OPTIMAL

Beltran, Delgado & pitcher = OPTIMAL

Anyone else = NOT OPTIMAL

So for the mathematically-challenged, shall I edit the post to include the point totals? ;-)

Using your scale, then, intertwined with some German, I'd say that:

1) Beltre, Delgado & pitcher = Optimal

2) Beltran, Delgado & pitcher = Überoptimal

I'd add another Optimal:

Beltre, Glaus (DH/1B), & upper-tier pitcher.

Post a Comment

<< Home