Albert Pujols tops list of MLB's biggest albatrosses

[mr.hockey4242]

Are you fucking kidding me? I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

PUJOLS or NOLASCO. Which one is worse?

GO.

You just called discussions about "bad contracts" in a "albatross contracts" thread..."side bullshit". And I'm the wall?

Now if I went to the AL Central Smack Talk thread and talked Mets shitting on the Nats. That would be "side bullshit".

Yes or no.

 

[Villain]

You just called discussions about "bad contracts" in a "albatross contracts" thread..."side bullshit". And I'm the wall?

Now if I went to the AL Central Smack Talk thread and talked Mets shitting on the Nats. That would be "side bullshit".

Yes or no.

Really? You still can't answer the question?

 

[mr.hockey4242]

Really? You still can't answer the question?

You still can't say yes or no?

 

[Villain]

1:

@mr.hockey4242 Just FYI you're way wrong on this one. It's a no brainer on Pujols' deal being worse. Not even close.

2:

I literally don't care about any of those extraneous things that you just spewed out.

I'll keep it simple. Pujols' deal with the Angels is worse than Nolasco's deal with the Twins. That's it.

3:

I don't care. The debate was between Pujols and Nolasco. Pujols is worst. If you want to tell me I'm wrong about that, give it a shot.

4:

So, tell me why you think Nolasco's deal is worse than Pujols' deal.

5:

You guys had some nonsense side bullshit that I don't want to waste my time reading. This all started Pujols/Nolasco so I'm bringing it back to the start and throwing your side journeys out the window (I don't care about them, remember?).

If you want to just give up now and admit that you were wrong and now you agree that Pujols' deal is worse than Nolasco's deal, then that's fine, too. Then we can be done here.

6:

Are you fucking kidding me? I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

PUJOLS or NOLASCO. Which one is worse?

GO.

That's 6 attempts to get you to tell me your straight-up opinion on Pujols or Nolasco.

Here's number 7:

If you're a GM, which contract would you rather have on the books? The one signed by Albert Pujols or the one signed by Ricky Nolasco?

No where in that question are guys named Robinson Cano or Zack Greinke. So please, give me an answer there, on my really simple question, and maybe I'll try to weigh in on whatever it is you two are bickering on about.

If you can't do that then why the hell would I waste my time, spinning in circles, trying to debate you about anything else?

 

[Villain]

I love this trend.

Original comment:

Id take 12 of Pujols contract

Over Ricky Nolascos...

Joke? If it is a joke, it's a lame one. If it's serious (adjusted for hyperbole), then it's a joke in an of itself.

No I'm being dead serious when I say Nolasco sucks fucking ass

Okay. So then it was meant more the serious way. So Nolasco's deal is worse.

Actually in his case all hatred aside it probably is.

At least with Pujols you are getting competent baseball that can help you win with other guys doing their job.

Nolasco is a guy who were basically paying not to play he's so bad. Which is ironic because he's now being given another chance at a rotation spot.

At least Pujols for all his overpay has some baseball talent. Nolasco is awful. It can't be spun any other way.

Now the hole is dug. There are some points in the post that claim that Pujols has value while Nolasco has none whatsoever. So we're continuing with the theme of Pujols deal is not as bad as Nolasco's deal.

Joking and hyperbole are out. This is a man who is taking time out of his life to say that Pujols has a better contract than Nolasco.

It really can't though. Read what I fucking said. Nolasco is someone who can't even be thrown out there to play. He's getting 48 million to sit his ass in hot tub.

I originally sent this as a joke anyways just to show how bad Nolasco is. Thought no real argument would come of it. But you've got some weird vendetta going righ now you latched on and tried to defend one of the worst pitchers in baseball.

It's mildly disturbing.

And there it is. "I was just joking but kinda serious and now I'm stuck in a place where I'm wrong!"

First off it's a 4/49 mil contract we gave Nolasco and he has two years left.

And it doesn't matter if a contract is manageable if your still on the hook for 4 years of god awful baseball.

How don't you see the difference between paying Nolasco for s 5.5 era and Pujols for 40 homers and how many RBI?

Both contracts hurt your team. Only one guys production hurts your team. It's really fucking simple dude

5 quotes in a row. You actually think (or thought) that Nolasco has a worse contract that Albert Pujols.

Unbelievable.

And you want to tell me this is about Zack Greinke and Robinson Cano? That's smokescreen. You were rapid-fire replying me earlier and now you're gone all of a sudden...? Wait, this forum tracks your activity and I can see that you're still online, posting here.

I picture you like this:

Spoiler

And the rest of us will happily sit here like this:

Spoiler

It's all good, though. We've all be wrong before. At least you wisely took Omar's advice and went back to discussing hockey instead of baseball.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

I love this trend.

Original comment:


Joke? If it is a joke, it's a lame one. If it's serious (adjusted for hyperbole), then it's a joke in an of itself.



Okay. So then it was meant more the serious way. So Nolasco's deal is worse.




Now the hole is dug. There are some points in the post that claim that Pujols has value while Nolasco has none whatsoever. So we're continuing with the theme of Pujols deal is not as bad as Nolasco's deal.

Joking and hyperbole are out. This is a man who is taking time out of his life to say that Pujols has a better contract than Nolasco.




And there it is. "I was just joking but kinda serious and now I'm stuck in a place where I'm wrong!"




5 quotes in a row. You actually think (or thought) that Nolasco has a worse contract that Albert Pujols.

Unbelievable.

And you want to tell me this is about Zack Greinke and Robinson Cano? That's smokescreen. You were rapid-fire replying me earlier and now you're gone all of a sudden...? Wait, this forum tracks your activity and I can see that you're still online, posting here.

I picture you like this:

Spoiler

View attachment 92913

And the rest of us will happily sit here like this:

Spoiler

View attachment 92914

It's all good, though. We've all be wrong before. At least you took wisely Omar's advice and went back to discussing hockey instead of baseball.

Where have I went to discuss hockey? Lol. If you call big10 college basketball discussing hockey...then yeah, I guess it's another dumb comment. I'd suggest you learn how to properly stalk someone.

Who the fuck is Felicia?

Still waiting on a yes or no???

You know since nothing was side bullshit and they all pertained to the thread.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

And I rapid fire replied when I got a notification you dumbas.

F you just sit and talk to yourself I'm probably not gonna see it.

But keep checking in on me weirdo.

 

[Villain]

Where have I went to discuss hockey? Lol. If you call big10 college basketball discussing hockey...then yeah, I guess it's another dumb comment. I'd suggest you learn how to properly stalk someone.

Who the fuck is Felicia?

Still waiting on a yes or no???

You know since nothing was side bullshit and they all pertained to the thread.

You're right. That is basketball and not hockey. See, I was wrong, just like you. Instead of you, I admit it.

Remind me what the yes or no question is for? And also, who did worse: The Angels when they signed Pujols or the Twins when they signed Ricky Nolasco?

 

[mr.hockey4242]

And the final irony is Omar whole basis was "putting words in mouth" ands that's all you had lol.

Assumptions.

I said Nolasco "sucks fucking ass" that's LITERALLY(hope you appreciate it) what I said.

 

[Villain]

And the final irony is Omar whole basis was "putting words in mouth" ands that's all you had lol.

Assumptions.

I said Nolasco "sucks fucking ass" that's LITERALLY(hope you appreciate it) what I said.

Which contract is worse? The one the Angels gave to Albert Pujols or the one that the Twins gave to Ricky Nolasco?

 

[mr.hockey4242]

You're right. That is basketball and not hockey. See, I was wrong, just like you. Instead of you, I admit it.

Remind me what the yes or no question is for? And also, who did worse: The Angels when they signed Pujols or the Twins when they signed Ricky Nolasco?

3 part question.

Is using Zack Grienke as an example for leveling out his FIP vs ERA a good example for Ricky Nolasco? Aka a Cy young vs a 5th starter(assuming he's in the roation). Yes or no.

Is it better to use projected stats over actual stats? Yes or no.

Am I wrong in saying that if Pujols contract is bad, canos(who he defended) is also bad because of other market value 2B. Yes or no.

I'd hate to go back to the "9 year old" remarks. But I did ask you first.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

O and I'd say the Twins did worse. Our first year of Nolasco we got last place lol. Angels at least made playoffs.

Last year we thank god only had the guy pitch awful for 37 innings. Magically we climb right up those standings. Why? Because we found value in guys like Duffey and May when they were in the rotation. Milone and Santana being improvement on Nolasco(again who wouldn't be) helped as well.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Thing is with the Twins is Nolasco will be gone, free of his suckiness. The Angels could very possibly have a sub 2 WAR player for 20M+ AAV for the remainder of his contract. Add Hamilton in there, and the lost opportunity cost for the Angels is absolutely incredible... all of it for an ALDS they got swept in.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

Thing is with the Twins is Nolasco will be gone, free of his suckiness. The Angels could very possibly have a sub 2 WAR player for 20M+ AAV for the remainder of his contract. Add Hamilton in there, and the lost opportunity cost for the Angels is absolutely incredible... all of it for an ALDS they got swept in.

Absolutely. And while that's another projection/assumption it's basically a gurantee.

I joined this thread seeing Omar sadistically piling on SJ(whom I'm supposedly a joint account with since I disagreed with the homophobe) about a JA Happ example(very poor example), while defending Cano for some reason. I just pointed out that a guy making right in that 12 mil a range truly does suck and contributes nothing. With his vendetta vs Pujols Omar was sucked in.

He then used a lot of awful comparisons to prove his point. Still won't acknowledge that I could have Dozier for far cheaper than Cano.

And all I kept pointing out was in the case of Pujols you at least have numbers a lineup would like to have and ones that who cost money to replace(assuming you don't have a ringer in the minors). For Nolasco all you need is to draw a name(of a guy who pitches) out of a hat and you can replace his "production". Like I said probably free of charge.

i mean saying shit like Grienke did it, Cano doesn't have a bad contract, Calhoun can replace Pujols is basically like me saying the Warriors are better than the Timberwolves because Ezeli is better than Towns.

My point appears to be correct. My logic is fucking moronic.

 

[Villain]

Is using Zack Grienke as an example for leveling out his FIP vs ERA a good example for Ricky Nolasco? Aka a Cy young vs a 5th starter(assuming he's in the roation). Yes or no.

Ricky Nolasco and Zack Greinke have both historically been players whose peripheral stats (FIP, K%, WAR, etc) have outperformed their traditional stats (Ws, ERA, etc). That's nothing new, so in that respect, yes, it's fair to bring up Zack Greinke when evaluating Ricky Nolasco. Obviously it's not apples to apples, and I don't think anyone would mean it that way (except you, as you seem to be trying to do).

Is it better to use projected stats over actual stats? Yes or no.

Of course not, but we don't live in the past. If you're talking about a long-term deal (10 years!) then you need to take into account what that deal will look like in 10 years.

Am I wrong in saying that if Pujols contract is bad, canos(who he defended) is also bad because of other market value 2B. Yes or no.

Yes you're wrong. They're not the same. Cano has been much better in his deal than Pujols has been in his.

I will say that they're both bad deals and I disagree with Omar on his original Cano point because I think Cano's contract is and will be an albatross for the Mariners.

What's hilarious about comparing Cano and Pujols, as you are, is that you're being a huge hypocrite in the stances you've taken. Cano's deal is fine if you don't look at the future of it. It's only in the projected regression due to his age where Cano's deal becomes an albatross. So you say "don't look at projections" and then you say that "Cano has a bad deal, too."

Can't have it both ways, buddy.

O and I'd say the Twins did worse. Our first year of Nolasco we got last place lol. Angels at least made playoffs.

So is that a yes? The Nolasco contract is worse than the Pujols contract?

 

[mr.hockey4242]

Ricky Nolasco and Zack Greinke have both historically been players whose peripheral stats (FIP, K%, WAR, etc) have outperformed their traditional stats (Ws, ERA, etc). That's nothing new, so in that respect, yes, it's fair to bring up Zack Greinke when evaluating Ricky Nolasco. Obviously it's not apples to apples, and I don't think anyone would mean it that way (except you, as you seem to be trying to do).



Of course not, but we don't live in the past. If you're talking about a long-term deal (10 years!) then you need to take into account what that deal will look like in 10 years.



Yes you're wrong. They're not the same. Cano has been much better in his deal than Pujols has been in his.

I will say that they're both bad deals and I disagree with Omar on his original Cano point because I think Cano's contract is and will be an albatross for the Mariners.

What's hilarious about comparing Cano and Pujols, as you are, is that you're being a huge hypocrite in the stances you've taken. Cano's deal is fine if you don't look at the future of it. It's only in the projected regression due to his age where Cano's deal becomes an albatross. So you say "don't look at projections" and then you say that "Cano has a bad deal, too."

Can't have it both ways, buddy.


So is that a yes? The Nolasco contract is worse than the Pujols contract?

Umm how can I be wrong about Pujols and Cano. I said that Canos is also bad. Not that his is worse than Pujols. You just agreed with me on that lmao. And it's already bad because he can be replaced right now for cheaper and similar production. So I'm not being s hypocrite I think as much as I love Cano his deal is just like Alberts. Still contributing now but you could find better for far less. At 32 his numbers are not what Alberts were. And 2 years into his deal he's hasn't done what Albert did. Albert did need 3 years to make playoffs though so Cano gets a pass on that.

And regarding the whole Greinke thing. It's like Moose pointed out. Nolascos has shown to be the norm. And at some point it's just reality. Greinke has top end ability. Also his point of reference was 2008 for Nolasco. The guy has had 1 decent Nl year since then. So again it's a comparison that doesn't hold much water.

All I said was Nolasco "fucking sucks". And that to me I'd rather right now have a guy who can actually help my baseball team. Down the line is Pujols contract going hurt while Nolasco is banished from baseball? Yes.

 

[Villain]

Umm how can I be wrong about Pujols and Cano. I said that Canos is also bad. Not that his is worse than Pujols. You just agreed with me on that lmao. And it's already bad because he can be replaced right now for cheaper and similar production. So I'm not being s hypocrite I think as much as I love Cano his deal is just like Alberts. Still contributing now but you could find better for far less. At 32 his numbers are not what Alberts were. And 2 years into his deal he's hasn't done what Albert did.

You're wrong. Cano is 7th in WAR among 2B since he signed with the Mariners and that's not in bad company. He's got 7.2 WAR for those two seasons.

Pujols since he signed with the Angels is 12th in WAR among all 1B in that time frame, but that's made worse since he's only accumulated 9 WAR in double the time frame.

Cano's is bad, that's not the point. The point is that Cano has been pretty good in early returns.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Does anyone want Omar Infante? Pretty please?

 

[mr.hockey4242]

You're wrong. Cano is 7th in WAR among 2B since he signed with the Mariners and that's not in bad company. He's got 7.2 WAR for those two seasons.

Pujols since he signed with the Angels is 12th in WAR among all 1B in that time frame, but that's made worse since he's only accumulated 9 WAR in double the time frame.

Cano's is bad, that's not the point. The point is that Cano has been pretty good in early returns.

Wrong about what? Lol. Once again I said Pujols would still be worse but Canos is bad so defending it while trashing Pujols is idiotic.

A 7 WAR among 2B and a 12 among 1B is there a huge difference? 1B is a deeper position. I just know I wouldn't want that much tied up at second base when that many guys are ahead of me and same goes for 1B.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

Does anyone want Omar Infante? Pretty please?

We already kept our infield to send Sano to the OF