Abreu/Carlos Gomez or McCutchen/Pujols?

Values are always park-dependent. Stanton is great in Rogers...in AT&T I think 10.5 is better spent elsewhere for a guy with about .250/.380/.540 slash against RHP on his card (before factoring in ballpark adjustments so in AT&T his numbers would be similar). He'll probably hit close to .200 against RHP in AT&T...no thanks.

Also he has almost no doubles--those are park independent. Kirk Nieuwenheis has like 20 doubles on his card and about 2 hrs against RHP.Stanton has 8.5 hrs and .5 doubles. So Nieuwenheis has a 22/108 chance of a power hit whereas Stanton has a 9/108 chance. Stanton's power hits will total 36 total bases per 108 trips and Nieuwenheus will total 48. I would rather see more consistent power in a pitcher's park than someone who will every 25 abs hit a hr. One of out of 5-6 games he'll hit an HR--the rest if the time it's singles or outs or walks of course. In any case, a player like Niewenhuis, even if he is still not as valuable as Stanton in pitcher's park, has his value substantially increase relative to Stanton's.

Firstly, you can't really compare sub-5-mil players to 10+ mil players, although if you'd really rather have Nieuwenheis than Stanton, you need to re-examine their cards; it ain't all about doubles. Secondly, in your previous post, you correctly stated values are always park-dependent...but you proceed to judge Stanton based on his value in pitcher's parks, where most managers wouldn't play him. So, you're contradicting yourself and making an insufficient judgment.

Stanton is picked first for a reason: he's one of the best deals--even at over 10m--and one of the most explosive cards in the set in neutral or hitters' parks. I was fortunate to be able to pick him 3rd in a live draft, and he was a beast:

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1397202

I simply said Stanton was not worth the money in a pitcher's park and that for certain Nieuwenheis provides better value than Stanton in a pitcher's park. You 're making an assumption that managers will not try Stanton in a pitcher's park. Maybe that's true. All I did is discuss why an owner shouldn't do so.

You were substantially basing your estimation of his general value on how he would do in that pitcher's park. And you were also basing your comparison of Nieuwenheis to Stanton on doubles, period, not just in a pitcher's park:

Also he has almost no doubles--those are park independent. Kirk Nieuwenheis has like 20 doubles on his card and about 2 hrs against RHP.Stanton has 8.5 hrs and .5 doubles.

And yes I made an assumption; I certainly didn't or wouldn't poll every manager in SOM. However, it is a well-informed (through experience) and logical assumption that smart managers--and most of our regular managers are smart in SOM--would not play Stanton in a pitcher's park. So, if you just meant to advocate against his use there, we are in agreement.

Not true. I did not look at his general value. I only looked at his value in a pitcher's park. I said he was great for Rogers.

Not true. I did not look at his general value. I only looked at his value in a pitcher's park. I said he was great for Rogers.

This comment applies to every park:

Also he has almost no doubles--those are park independent.

So, you weren't just commenting on his value in a pitcher's park.

What exactly do you think park- independent means? It means that his doubles will not be affected in a pitcher's park. anyway, I'm done--keep arguing against a straw man if you want.

I clearly know what it means. The one who is confused, and the only one arguing against a straw man, is you. When you say something is park-independent, you are saying it will apply to all parks. So, when you said Stanton's poor doubles park production was park-independent, you were making criticisms of him applicable to all parks, not just pitcher's parks.

I'm happily done as well.

Values are always park-dependent. Stanton is great in Rogers...in AT&T I think 10.5 is better spent elsewhere for a guy with about .250/.380/.540 slash against RHP on his card (before factoring in ballpark adjustments so in AT&T his numbers would be similar). He'll probably hit close to .200 against RHP in AT&T...no thanks.

Of course, values are always park-dependent, but I don't think I would scratch Stanton off automatically.

First, even though home team is AT&T, to take your example, there's still 81 games to be played on the road. When I do my ratings, I always consider that half the games will be played in neutral parks (BP=9/9 for both homeruns and singles), and half in a specific stadium (At&T for example). Also, I change a bit the pricing structure so that I have as many bargains and busts as in other contexts. The net effect is that very good offensive players in stadiums like AT&T tend to have a little boost in pricing--- expressed in other words, it's so difficult to have offense in stadiums AT&T that I'm willing to pay for players like Stanton who, despite losing 8BP, is still capable of generating 8.5 chances of direct homeruns (as opposed to, say, Ozuna, who loses his 6BP and is left with only 3.3 direct homeruns).

The net effect is that Stanton is still positive in the context I set up (home=AT&T, away=neutral).
Stanton is worth 10.57$ is this context---not a bargain, but not a bust either.

Abreu for the record goes down to 6.99M---more than 2M under his pricetag.

Kiermaier is a more difficult card to judge, since his performance is so abyssal vs lhp. If you create a combo with R.Davis, I have their combined performance at 7.24$ (a slightly better bargain since the cost is 7.02$).

So yes, Kiermaier/R Davis seems like a better purchase than Stanton, but not by much. And my ratings assume a 70/30 lefty/righty ratio---Stanton becomes the better choice at an increased level of lefty pitching.

And you still need to decide the exceeding 3M you are left with Kiermaier/Davis----if you're left to get a third reliever you don't know really need, than Stanton is the obvious choice.