Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Yet another RA Dickey thread...

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,450 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:24 PM

As tempting as getting Dickey would be, the Twins are a year or two away from trading away any top prospect for major league talent in their 30s.

The thing is: Dickey is your typical pitcher in his 30's, he is just finding his grove now. Normally I would agree with you, but Dickey is truly his own special case. The upside is there, and he could help a ton in 2013/2014/2015. It's not like this is a one year thing we are talking about!

Also: Dickey ERA last three years 2.95
Dempster: 4.04

How could we turn down a guy who has the potential to post a sub or low 3.00 ERA without having to commit 100+ million to him!

If it just takes one of our "elite 8" and a couple other pieces, why not pull the trigger? Having nice prospects is....well...nice and all, but I think you have to try to get the one CY Young pitcher you can realistically get.

#22 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,450 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:23 PM

Also it should be noted that xFIP, and FIP data really is a poor way to judge Dickey, since a good number of "batted" balls against his wicked knuckleball are "easy outs"/poorly hit balls. If you watch a game or two when he was pitching it jumps out right away. I'm not a SABR expert by any means, but this is what jumps out to me, can anyone else confirm? It's not like he had the greatest defense in the world behind him last year as well....

Again at the end of the day his ERA is over 1 run lower then Dempster's, you can throw out all the other stats you want, but give me the guy who has given you significantly better results over the last 3 years then the guy who hasn't.

#23 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 12:50 AM

Also it should be noted that xFIP, and FIP data really is a poor way to judge Dickey, since a good number of "batted" balls against his wicked knuckleball are "easy outs"/poorly hit balls. If you watch a game or two when he was pitching it jumps out right away. I'm not a SABR expert by any means, but this is what jumps out to me, can anyone else confirm? It's not like he had the greatest defense in the world behind him last year as well....

Again at the end of the day his ERA is over 1 run lower then Dempster's, you can throw out all the other stats you want, but give me the guy who has given you significantly better results over the last 3 years then the guy who hasn't.


I look at Dickey and see a guy who's ERA is out of whack with his peripherals. His 9 k/9 in 2012 was the only time in the last 10 years he has been over 6 k/9 and I think that is a fluke. I see a guy who is going to be 38 and I think he is likely to succumb to age just like everyone else (including many other knuckleballers). I also see other pitchers out there who are very good pitchers and would be HUGE upgrades to the Twins rotation that would cost about the same money without giving away any prospects.

So to sum it up:
Huge Risk
Costs Prospects
Other options

Certainly you are more the welcome to your own opinion.

#24 Otwins

Otwins

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 259 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:01 AM

I would bet you could offer lower ranked prospects if you also took Santana back. Mets would probably love to include his $20+ million salary. They just extended Wright and owner has money trouble. We need 2 more pitchers and have the $25 million to spend.

#25 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,800 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:14 AM

Dickey is not coming back to the Twins. I guarantee you that.

#26 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,450 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:17 AM

Also it should be noted that xFIP, and FIP data really is a poor way to judge Dickey, since a good number of "batted" balls against his wicked knuckleball are "easy outs"/poorly hit balls. If you watch a game or two when he was pitching it jumps out right away. I'm not a SABR expert by any means, but this is what jumps out to me, can anyone else confirm? It's not like he had the greatest defense in the world behind him last year as well....

Again at the end of the day his ERA is over 1 run lower then Dempster's, you can throw out all the other stats you want, but give me the guy who has given you significantly better results over the last 3 years then the guy who hasn't.


I look at Dickey and see a guy who's ERA is out of whack with his peripherals. His 9 k/9 in 2012 was the only time in the last 10 years he has been over 6 k/9 and I think that is a fluke. I see a guy who is going to be 38 and I think he is likely to succumb to age just like everyone else (including many other knuckleballers). I also see other pitchers out there who are very good pitchers and would be HUGE upgrades to the Twins rotation that would cost about the same money without giving away any prospects.

So to sum it up:
Huge Risk
Costs Prospects
Other options

Certainly you are more the welcome to your own opinion.


Dude, he is a knuckleball Pitcher.XFIP/FIP and several others don't apply to him as much as the other 99.5% of pitchers who aren't knuckleballers. Most of the time when hitter did put bat on ball it was with very weak contact. Hell even with that said his xFIP and FIP were 3.27 last year, add in his 2.73 ERA and k/bb rate and that is top of the rotation stuff all the way. Granted his strand rate was 5% higher then normal, but at the same time his HR% was high as well, what does this say about 2012? It wasn't a fluke for Dickey. Also his two years prior were pretty damn good as well!

As far as knuckleballers not aging well, I'm not sure what you mean. Wakefield pitched effectively into his 41 year season, and wasn't even that god awful in his 42 age year. Phil Niekro had a 3.09 ERA when he was 45! His brother Joe had a sub 4.00 ERA his 40th year and pitched to 43.

Also as I mentioned in the other thread:

Lannan has a better Career ERA then Dempster, and a better past 3 full seasons ERA then Dempster. This isn't to say Dempster has no value or Lannan is better, it just illustrates that Dempster at 3 years and no prospects is not better then Dickey at 3 years and some prospects.

Give me Dickey any day of the week over Dempster, especially if it only costs 26 mil over 2 years and only 1 of our top 8 prospects (+ some other pieces)

#27 RodneyKline

RodneyKline

    Member

  • Members
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:01 AM

Why is everyone throwing around these big numbers for pitchers that will not make the team viable this decade. We need to spend a little more per year: $20 million or so or 7 years, 140 million for the 29 year old Grienke. He would be the Ace this team desperately needs not a 39 year old circus performer knuckleballer at his peak (that we also had the year prior to his three year excellent run). I say that the extra $20 million per year changes us from a below .500 team for the rest of the decade to an annual contender.

I know payroll needs to go up but if it were my money, I would rather bet on a $110-$120 million payroll with Grienke than a $100 million payroll or more for RA Dickey or Dempster. The Twins have spent this much in MLB payroll the last three years and it is clear that this team without a #1 or #2 starter will not compete. With Grienke, Terry Ryan would also not have to keep begging average at best pitchers to take his money. No FA pitcher of any value wants to go to a team not serious about contending now (no matter what TR says, we are not a contender without a #1 or #2 starter). No team is!

Attendance and overall revenue will keep declining unless the Twins field a competitor and prove to the fans that buying them a new stadium was going to make us competitive. It is a huge lie so far but I am not giving up on Jim Pohlad. TR is a cheapskate but JP is not cheap like his Father. He just needs someone to convince him that spending the money will be a good investment. I feel strongly that adding Grienke for a $120m total payroll is a much smarter investment than $100 million on a team without a #1 or a #2 pitcher. We are competitive in our division with an ace that matches up with Verlander or any other ace and not competitive without an ace.

Edited by RodneyKline, 08 December 2012 - 02:25 AM.


#28 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,450 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:42 AM

Why is everyone throwing around these big numbers for pitchers that will not make the team viable this decade. We need to spend a little more per year: $20 million or so or 7 years, 140 million for the 29 year old Grienke. He would be the Ace this team desperately needs not a 39 year old circus performer knuckleballer at his peak (that we also had the year prior to his three year excellent run). I say that the extra $20 million per year changes us from a below .500 team for the rest of the decade to an annual contender.

I know payroll needs to go up but if it were my money, I would rather bet on a $110-$120 million payroll with Grienke than a $100 million payroll or more for RA Dickey or Dempster. The Twins have spent this much in MLB payroll the last three years and it is clear that this team without a #1 or #2 starter will not compete. With Grienke, Terry Ryan would also not have to keep begging average at best pitchers to take his money. No FA pitcher of any value wants to go to a team not serious about contending now (no matter what TR says, we are not a contender without a #1 or #2 starter). No team is!

Attendance and overall revenue will keep declining unless the Twins field a competitor and prove to the fans that buying them a new stadium was going to make us competitive. It is a huge lie so far but I am not giving up on Jim Pohlad. TR is a cheapskate but JP is not cheap like his Father. He just needs someone to convince him that spending the money will be a good investment. I feel strongly that adding Grienke for a $120m total payroll is a much smarter investment than $100 million on a team without a #1 or a #2 pitcher. We are competitive in our division with an ace that matches up with Verlander or any other ace and not competitive without an ace.


2010: Greinke: 4.17 ERA
2011: Greinke: 3.83 ERA
2012: Greinke: 3.48 ERA

2010: Dickey: 2.84 ERA
2011: Dickey: 3.28 ERA
2102: Dickey: 2.73 ERA

Can we please stop with the "Derp, Dickey is Old and he will suck moving forward" when there is zero evidence supporting that case?

You want to tie up 7 years and $140 million in ****ing Zach Grienke? A guy who is about as mentally stable as a 15 year old fat girl? $140 million to a guy with a career 3.77 ERA and 3.62 xFIP? Greinke is solid no doubt, and a better option then Dickey moving forward. But $115 million extra over 4 years better? looooool no.

#29 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 04:09 AM

[quote name='SpiritofVodkaDave'][quote name='Oxtung'][quote name='SpiritofVodkaDave']Also it should be noted that xFIP, and FIP data really is a poor way to judge Dickey, since a good number of "batted" balls against his wicked knuckleball are "easy outs"/poorly hit balls. If you watch a game or two when he was pitching it jumps out right away. I'm not a SABR expert by any means, but this is what jumps out to me, can anyone else confirm? It's not like he had the greatest defense in the world behind him last year as well....

Again at the end of the day his ERA is over 1 run lower then Dempster's, you can throw out all the other stats you want, but give me the guy who has given you significantly better results over the last 3 years then the guy who hasn't.[/QUOTE]

I look at Dickey and see a guy who's ERA is out of whack with his peripherals. His 9 k/9 in 2012 was the only time in the last 10 years he has been over 6 k/9 and I think that is a fluke. I see a guy who is going to be 38 and I think he is likely to succumb to age just like everyone else (including many other knuckleballers). I also see other pitchers out there who are very good pitchers and would be HUGE upgrades to the Twins rotation that would cost about the same money without giving away any prospects.

So to sum it up:
Huge Risk
Costs Prospects
Other options

Certainly you are more the welcome to your own opinion.[/QUOTE]

Dude, he is a knuckleball Pitcher.XFIP/FIP and several others don't apply to him as much as the other 99.5% of pitchers who aren't knuckleballers. Most of the time when hitter did put bat on ball it was with very weak contact. Hell even with that said his xFIP and FIP were 3.27 last year, add in his 2.73 ERA and k/bb rate and that is top of the rotation stuff all the way. Granted his strand rate was 5% higher then normal, but at the same time his HR% was high as well, what does this say about 2012? It wasn't a fluke for Dickey. Also his two years prior were pretty damn good as well!

As far as knuckleballers not aging well, I'm not sure what you mean. Wakefield pitched effectively into his 41 year season, and wasn't even that god awful in his 42 age year. Phil Niekro had a 3.09 ERA when he was 45! His brother Joe had a sub 4.00 ERA his 40th year and pitched to 43.

Also as I mentioned in the other thread:

Lannan has a better Career ERA then Dempster, and a better past 3 full seasons ERA then Dempster. This isn't to say Dempster has no value or Lannan is better, it just illustrates that Dempster at 3 years and no prospects is not better then Dickey at 3 years and some prospects.

Give me Dickey any day of the week over Dempster, especially if it only costs 26 mil over 2 years and only 1 of our top 8 prospects (+ some other pieces)[/QUOTE]


Knuckleballers vs. FIP

FIP = ((13*HR)+(3*(BB+HBP))-(2*K))/IP + constant
Why exactly do these not apply to him? Does his knuckleball change how many HR's, BB's or k's he has? If it was true that knuckleballers were exempt from this stat it would show up in other knuckleballers stats. Here are career ERA and FIP numbers of a few knuckleballers as well as Dickey's 3 year average:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 250"]

Player
ERA
FIP


P.Niekro
3.35
3.62


Wakefield
4.41
4.72


J.Niekro
3.59
3.79


Dickey
2.94
3.68

[/TABLE]
From these numbers I think it's safe to say FIP works for knuckleballers. If FIP works then so does WAR since WAR is based on FIP.

Fluke
Any time a pitcher's K/9 rate increases from 6 to 9 for one season that is the definition of flukey (which was what I said...not that his season as a whole was flukey).

Aging
Wakefield and the Niekro brothers aged well, good for them. Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens aged well too. These anectdotes mean little with regards to how other pitchers will perform as they age.

Lannan vs. Dempster vs. Dickey

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 300"]

Player
ERA
FIP
WAR



Lannan
3.90
4.48
3.9



Dempster
4.04
4.00
9.6



Dickey
2.95
3.70
9.9


[/TABLE]

Looks like Dempster and Dickey are pretty comparable with Lannan a distant 3rd in everything except ERA. These numbers include Lannan's pretty decent 2009 but excludes Dempsters good and Dickey's terrible 2009. If you include Dempster and Dickey's 2009 the numbers start to skew Dempsters direction.

Dempster vs. Dickey


As I said before, you are certainly capable of having your own opinion. However, nothing you have presented has changed anything in my mind. Advanced metrics show Dickey and Dempster are similar quality pitchers over the last few years. Seemingly the only major difference is in their ERA's which is not a good predictor of future success. They are asking for similar length contracts with similar dollar amounts but Dickey would require some good prospects as well. The Twins are in semi-rebuild mode, at a minimum, so trading prospects doesn't make much sense to me.

#30 raindog

raindog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 327 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 04:10 AM

Bringing up Dickey's stats from the past 10 years is a joke if you know anything about his back story. How can you not know anything about his back story?

He's a great pitcher who could definitely pitch well into his 40s. Still, he's not a good fit for the Twins. We're not an ace away from competing. We need to develop aces.

#31 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,450 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:23 AM


Knuckleballers vs. FIP

FIP = ((13*HR)+(3*(BB+HBP))-(2*K))/IP + constant
Why exactly do these not apply to him? Does his knuckleball change how many HR's, BB's or k's he has? If it was true that knuckleballers were exempt from this stat it would show up in other knuckleballers stats. Here are career ERA and FIP numbers of a few knuckleballers as well as Dickey's 3 year average:

No, FIP is a terrible way to judge him because it makes the case that his low BABIP is "luck" rather then "Skill". The majority of balls put in play against Dickey are "bad batted balls" as in the hitter is not making even close to good contact.

Again you can point out FIP all you want, the fact is Dickey's ERA is over a full run lower then Dempster over the last 3 years, and it's not due to luck. You pointing out there WAR shows how WAR is a flawed stat.

2009 has no bearing on this discussion in regards to Dickey and it shouldn't even be brought up, he was clearly a totally different pitcher as he wasn't even starting back then. (other then a single game)

Edited by SpiritofVodkaDave, 08 December 2012 - 10:33 AM.


#32 Reginald Maudling's Shin

Reginald Maudling's Shin

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 182 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 12:20 PM

No, FIP is a terrible way to judge him because it makes the case that his low BABIP is "luck" rather then "Skill". The majority of balls put in play against Dickey are "bad batted balls" as in the hitter is not making even close to good contact.


FIP is an empirical equation, i.e. "let's put some numbers together until they make sense". I don't like using empirical equations in every circumstance. I have other engineers who give me designs to review based on empirical equations all the time that don't make sense.

I wonder how to quantify and prove the idea that sustained low BABIP from non-strikeout pitchers equates to a skill. Here are the pitchers last year with an FIP-ERA>0.5:































































































































































































































Name

Team

W

L

GS

IP

K/9

BB/9

HR/9

BABIP

ERA

FIP

xFIP

WAR

FIP-ERA

Jeremy Hellickson

Rays

10

11

31

177

6.31

3.00

1.27

0.261

3.10

4.60

4.44

1.0

1.5

Jered Weaver

Angels

20

5

30

188.2

6.77

2.15

0.95

0.241

2.81

3.75

4.18

3.0

0.94

Jason Vargas

Mariners

14

11

33

217.1

5.84

2.28

1.45

0.254

3.85

4.69

4.45

0.8

0.84

Matt Harrison

Rangers

18

11

32

213.1

5.61

2.49

0.93

0.284

3.29

4.03

4.13

3.8

0.74

Kyle Lohse

Cardinals

16

3

33

211

6.1

1.62

0.81

0.262

2.86

3.51

3.96

3.6

0.65

Ross Detwiler

Nationals

10

8

27

164.1

5.75

2.85

0.82

0.263

3.40

4.04

4.34

1.8

0.64

Clayton Richard

Padres

14

14

33

218.2

4.4

1.73

1.28

0.272

3.99

4.62

4.16

0.2

0.63

Matt Cain

Giants

16

5

32

219.1

7.92

2.09

0.86

0.259

2.79

3.40

3.82

3.8

0.61

Jordan Zimmermann

Nationals

12

8

32

195.2

7.04

1.98

0.83

0.288

2.94

3.51

3.78

3.5

0.57

Hiroki Kuroda

Yankees

16

11

33

219.2

6.84

2.09

1.02

0.281

3.32

3.86

3.67

3.9

0.54

R.A. Dickey

Mets

20

6

33

233.2

8.86

2.08

0.92

0.275

2.73

3.27

3.27

4.6

0.54

Aaron Harang

Dodgers

10

10

31

179.2

6.56

4.26

0.7

0.277

3.61

4.14

4.95

1.5

0.53



Most of these pitchers are low strikeout guys, which makes sense since FIP is strongly related to K's. But can we say pitchers like Jered Weaver and Dickey (who excepting for this year has had low K-rates) have the skills to cause poorly hit balls?

#33 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 15,414 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

Testing post.

#34 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,800 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

Rather low to talk about Greinke's mental health history (by the way, if you AREN'T anxious and depressed given the world we live in, something is wrong with YOU!) and "fat 15-year-old girls."

All for R.A. Dickey

#35 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 12:42 PM

I would bet you could offer lower ranked prospects if you also took Santana back. Mets would probably love to include his $20+ million salary. They just extended Wright and owner has money trouble. We need 2 more pitchers and have the $25 million to spend.


santana is owed 25.5 million and another 5 million for buying out his option year

#36 Fire Dan Gladden

Fire Dan Gladden

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 382 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:59 PM

[)[/QUOTE]


Aging
Wakefield and the Niekro brothers aged well, good for them. Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens aged well too. These anectdotes mean little with regards to how other pitchers will perform as they age.
.[/QUOTE]

I believe if you took knuckleball pitchers as a group, and non-knuckleball pitchers as a group, you would find that knuckleballers in general pitch more effectively after the age of 40 than non-knuckleballers. If you asked 30 GMs who they think would be pitching effectively at age 41, how many would say Dempster would and Dickey wouldn't? Zero. How many would say Dickey would still be effective at 41? Probably all. This is not anecdotes, this is just the way it is. This portion of your argument has no legs whatsoever.

#37 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,450 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:30 PM

Rather low to talk about Greinke's mental health history (by the way, if you AREN'T anxious and depressed given the world we live in, something is wrong with YOU!) and "fat 15-year-old girls."

All for R.A. Dickey


It was obviously in jest (maybe in poor taste, but this is the internet after all!) Sorry if I offended you with my hyperbole?

Greinke's mental healthy history should be taken into factor though (and it is), just like any players injury history or substance abuse history (Josh Hamilton). Greinke is fine and dandy, but giving him 140 million is HUUUUUGGGGGGEEEE RISK

#38 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,450 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:36 PM

Most of these pitchers are low strikeout guys, which makes sense since FIP is strongly related to K's. But can we say pitchers like Jered Weaver and Dickey (who excepting for this year has had low K-rates) have the skills to cause poorly hit balls?


With Dickey, it basically is the "eye ball test" I watched him pitch about 7 or 8 times this year, and hitters were completely baffled by him, the majority of the contact they made was "poor" in can of corn pop ups/flight outs/jam shots etc.

Weaver is an interesting case, his GB% is...well... poor, yet he has way outperformed his FIP/xFIP in each of the last 2 years.

I get that one year might be a fluke/statistical anomaly , but when you do it three years in a row like Dickey or two in a row Weaver it starts to become more of a trend.

IMO WAR for pitchers is basically worthless. I think it is much more useful for position players because it ties in the whole defense and base-running parts of their job as well.

Pitchers, pitch. That is pretty much 95% of their success rate (the other 5% is fielding/coverinr and pick off moves)

#39 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:38 PM


Aging
Wakefield and the Niekro brothers aged well, good for them. Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens aged well too. These anectdotes mean little with regards to how other pitchers will perform as they age.
.


I believe if you took knuckleball pitchers as a group, and non-knuckleball pitchers as a group, you would find that knuckleballers in general pitch more effectively after the age of 40 than non-knuckleballers. If you asked 30 GMs who they think would be pitching effectively at age 41, how many would say Dempster would and Dickey wouldn't? Zero. How many would say Dickey would still be effective at 41? Probably all. This is not anecdotes, this is just the way it is. This portion of your argument has no legs whatsoever.


2 things:

First, you start your paragraph off with the words "I think". That is an opinion and no matter how widely believed it is just that, an opinion. Until there is some kind of statistical evidence backing up your assertion my opinion is just as valid.

Second, my position on age has always been that Dempster is already 2 years younger than Dickey. So even if we assume your aging assertion is true, which until I see some empirical evidence I don't, they aren't starting from the same place.

Edited by Oxtung, 08 December 2012 - 02:48 PM.
fixed formatting


#40 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:43 PM




Knuckleballers vs. FIP

FIP = ((13*HR)+(3*(BB+HBP))-(2*K))/IP + constant
Why exactly do these not apply to him? Does his knuckleball change how many HR's, BB's or k's he has? If it was true that knuckleballers were exempt from this stat it would show up in other knuckleballers stats. Here are career ERA and FIP numbers of a few knuckleballers as well as Dickey's 3 year average:

No, FIP is a terrible way to judge him because it makes the case that his low BABIP is "luck" rather then "Skill". The majority of balls put in play against Dickey are "bad batted balls" as in the hitter is not making even close to good contact.

Again you can point out FIP all you want, the fact is Dickey's ERA is over a full run lower then Dempster over the last 3 years, and it's not due to luck. You pointing out there WAR shows how WAR is a flawed stat.

2009 has no bearing on this discussion in regards to Dickey and it shouldn't even be brought up, he was clearly a totally different pitcher as he wasn't even starting back then. (other then a single game)


Look you're basically making the arguement that you believe your eyes over statistics. That is just fine. As I've now said several times I'm ok with you having that opinion. I will lean towards the more empirical analysis for myself. I think we've taken this discussion about as far as we can and so probably won't be responding further. Hope you're having a great Saturday!