Should Pie start next year?

[Mephistopheles]

is there a cf in the FA market that will be worth half of what they get paid?

 

How many FAs at any position are worth half of what they end up getting?

 

 

FA is a bad investment. Thats why it is pivotal to develop players within your system. The last step of development is the majors. Players need to play to get better in the majors. This is why Pie should be playing.

 

 

 

this is completely untrue.

 

 

In most cases Free Agents are signed at the end or past prime. They will in most cases get paid more than they were getting paid for declining production. Young players coming up get paid less while there production is improving. I know there is individual cases where players are still improving after free agency, but there are cases where it was better to not where a seat belt in a car accident. I would contend that the percentages tend to show free agency as a bad tool to build a winning ballclub(unless you are willing to spend like the Yankees).

 

As for the part of young players need time to develop in the Majors, I dont know what to tell you. For every Pujols and Braun there are 20 DLees and ARams. Most players dont have ROY numbers right off the bat. They need to play to get better.

 

once again, this isn't true

 

No, it's true. The thing that isn't true however is the insinuation that you shouldn't sign any free agent. You have to, there's really no way around it. You have to overpay for some of your production, because it's simply impossible to get it all, and get enough, strictly from the cheap youth. There's no room for error doing it that way.

 

 

no it isnt true.

[Guest]

Waiting for backup on the claim...

 

Personally, my gut feel is that it's true in some cases, but not others. How's that for wishy-washy?

[UK1679666180]

Play him or trade him, his value will get even lower thru another half season on the bench or at Iowa.

 

As far as right now, Jones seems to be getting hotter as of late, like most avg. hitters, he's going to be streaky.

[Mizzou]

is there a cf in the FA market that will be worth half of what they get paid?

 

How many FAs at any position are worth half of what they end up getting?

 

 

FA is a bad investment. Thats why it is pivotal to develop players within your system. The last step of development is the majors. Players need to play to get better in the majors. This is why Pie should be playing.

 

 

 

this is completely untrue.

 

 

In most cases Free Agents are signed at the end or past prime. They will in most cases get paid more than they were getting paid for declining production. Young players coming up get paid less while there production is improving. I know there is individual cases where players are still improving after free agency, but there are cases where it was better to not where a seat belt in a car accident. I would contend that the percentages tend to show free agency as a bad tool to build a winning ballclub(unless you are willing to spend like the Yankees).

 

As for the part of young players need time to develop in the Majors, I dont know what to tell you. For every Pujols and Braun there are 20 DLees and ARams. Most players dont have ROY numbers right off the bat. They need to play to get better.

 

once again, this isn't true

 

No, it's true. The thing that isn't true however is the insinuation that you shouldn't sign any free agent. You have to, there's really no way around it. You have to overpay for some of your production, because it's simply impossible to get it all, and get enough, strictly from the cheap youth. There's no room for error doing it that way.

 

 

no it isnt true.

Great arguments.

[Mephistopheles]

is there a cf in the FA market that will be worth half of what they get paid?

 

How many FAs at any position are worth half of what they end up getting?

 

 

FA is a bad investment. Thats why it is pivotal to develop players within your system. The last step of development is the majors. Players need to play to get better in the majors. This is why Pie should be playing.

 

 

 

this is completely untrue.

 

 

In most cases Free Agents are signed at the end or past prime. They will in most cases get paid more than they were getting paid for declining production. Young players coming up get paid less while there production is improving. I know there is individual cases where players are still improving after free agency, but there are cases where it was better to not where a seat belt in a car accident. I would contend that the percentages tend to show free agency as a bad tool to build a winning ballclub(unless you are willing to spend like the Yankees).

 

As for the part of young players need time to develop in the Majors, I dont know what to tell you. For every Pujols and Braun there are 20 DLees and ARams. Most players dont have ROY numbers right off the bat. They need to play to get better.

 

once again, this isn't true

 

No, it's true. The thing that isn't true however is the insinuation that you shouldn't sign any free agent. You have to, there's really no way around it. You have to overpay for some of your production, because it's simply impossible to get it all, and get enough, strictly from the cheap youth. There's no room for error doing it that way.

 

 

no it isnt true.

Great arguments.

 

they really are. its not an argument. it's a point.

[MikeyLikesCubbies]

is there a cf in the FA market that will be worth half of what they get paid?

 

How many FAs at any position are worth half of what they end up getting?

 

 

FA is a bad investment. Thats why it is pivotal to develop players within your system. The last step of development is the majors. Players need to play to get better in the majors. This is why Pie should be playing.

 

 

 

this is completely untrue.

 

 

In most cases Free Agents are signed at the end or past prime. They will in most cases get paid more than they were getting paid for declining production. Young players coming up get paid less while there production is improving. I know there is individual cases where players are still improving after free agency, but there are cases where it was better to not where a seat belt in a car accident. I would contend that the percentages tend to show free agency as a bad tool to build a winning ballclub(unless you are willing to spend like the Yankees).

 

As for the part of young players need time to develop in the Majors, I dont know what to tell you. For every Pujols and Braun there are 20 DLees and ARams. Most players dont have ROY numbers right off the bat. They need to play to get better.

 

once again, this isn't true

 

No, it's true. The thing that isn't true however is the insinuation that you shouldn't sign any free agent. You have to, there's really no way around it. You have to overpay for some of your production, because it's simply impossible to get it all, and get enough, strictly from the cheap youth. There's no room for error doing it that way.

 

 

no it isnt true.

Great arguments.

 

they really are. its not an argument. it's a point.

 

That's completely untrue.

[Mephistopheles]

actually it's true. im saying its wrong. thats a point. Im not taking a stance, that would be an argument.

[CUBZ99]

actually it's true. im saying its wrong. thats a point. Im not taking a stance, that would be an argument.

 

Not true.

[MikeyLikesCubbies]

actually it's true. im saying its wrong. thats a point. Im not taking a stance, that would be an argument.

 

Not true.

 

http://slam.canoe.ca/WrestlingImagesReviews/angle_itstrue.jpg

[Mephistopheles]

Ooh I see the Anti-Mepharmy is out in full force today. It's tragic that they're all wrong. Okay not tragic. The nun stated that: "FA is a bad investment." If the nun was correct she made the analogous assumption that all humans are white. Some FAs are bad investments. Not all FAs are bad investments. It's trivial to assume that Randy Johnson signing a 58 million dollar deal for four years with the Diamondbacks in 1998 was a bad investment. He won a Cy Young Award each year of the contract and provided dollar value significantly over 58 million to the Diamondbacks.

 

Even if you think that it was luck and an outlier. Fine. Consider the case where you have a 88 win team in a division that has a team who looks to win around 90 games. The potential revenue of a player adding you 4 wins is likely going to exceed the market price for the player. Otherwise the market for that player wouldn't exist and he'd never sign. Fortunately, the market for baseball players is relatively efficient. Only the fool looks in and says oh but Wang made 400k. You can't compare them. The FA market is certainly a good investment to put you over the top, which is the exact position the Cubs will be in next off season. They'll be sitting as a 85 win or so team who wants a splash to hit 90 wins. At that price pretty much EVERY win added will add more value to the Cubs than the market price for that player. So, yes, the FA market is a good investment for a team in the Cubs' situation. And my comment was undeniably correct. To say otherwise is to be wrong. If you can live with being wrong when the right answer slaps you in the face, then fine.

 

It's quite funny that the nun brings up that there are 20 Arams and Lees for every Pujols and Braun. If that assumption holds true, then there are approximately 20 Ruben Mateos for every Aram or Lee. So he's wrong that way too.

 

Boom. I won.

[NewUserName]

Ooh I see the Anti-Mepharmy is out in full force today. It's tragic that they're all wrong. Okay not tragic. The nun stated that: "FA is a bad investment." If the nun was correct she made the analogous assumption that all humans are white. Some FAs are bad investments. Not all FAs are bad investments. It's trivial to assume that Randy Johnson signing a 58 million dollar deal for four years with the Diamondbacks in 1998 was a bad investment. He won a Cy Young Award each year of the contract and provided dollar value significantly over 58 million to the Diamondbacks.

 

Even if you think that it was luck and an outlier. Fine. Consider the case where you have a 88 win team in a division that has a team who looks to win around 90 games. The potential revenue of a player adding you 4 wins is likely going to exceed the market price for the player. Otherwise the market for that player wouldn't exist and he'd never sign. Fortunately, the market for baseball players is relatively efficient. Only the fool looks in and says oh but Wang made 400k. You can't compare them. The FA market is certainly a good investment to put you over the top, which is the exact position the Cubs will be in next off season. They'll be sitting as a 85 win or so team who wants a splash to hit 90 wins. At that price pretty much EVERY win added will add more value to the Cubs than the market price for that player. So, yes, the FA market is a good investment for a team in the Cubs' situation. And my comment was undeniably correct. To say otherwise is to be wrong. If you can live with being wrong when the right answer slaps you in the face, then fine.

 

It's quite funny that the nun brings up that there are 20 Arams and Lees for every Pujols and Braun. If that assumption holds true, then there are approximately 20 Ruben Mateos for every Aram or Lee. So he's wrong that way too.

 

Boom. I won.

 

 

 

You hit winners betting on Horses sometimes also. I would say overall its a bad investment.

 

The main point of your arguement would have to be supported by the fact that the Cubs or any other team has no payroll ceiling. As more free agents are signed revenues would increase to support them. At some point than more facilities would have to be made to increase revenues.

 

But just to not let this turn into a silly arguement, I will say that FA is a bad way to build a winning team as opposed to a bad investment. Yes it is necassary to get some. If you dont have a good player development system though, your team will be behind the 8 ball.

 

Personally I think if there is a future HoFer out there in their 20s, go get him. It probably is worth it. The problem is though you need to be smart picking those guys. What happens a lot is a team will pay a good player(Soriano) the same as a future HoFer(Vlad)

[Mephistopheles]

The main point of your arguement would have to be supported by the fact that the Cubs or any other team has no payroll ceiling.

 

 

no.

[NewUserName]

The main point of your arguement would have to be supported by the fact that the Cubs or any other team has no payroll ceiling.

 

 

no.

 

What if Milwaukee wins 95 next season? Then thats another free agent next off-season, while the existing ones are losing value. I agree that a good free agent signing is a way to get you over the top. If however you have gotten where you are at (mediocre) and are maxed out payroll wise already, then what do you do? You have to increase your payroll or decrease payroll while improving production(trades). I really dont know who is available this off-season off the top of my head.

 

Just to make my point though Milwaukee and the Cubs are pretty equal this year. I dont know each teams payroll and am not going to look it up, but I think its safe to assume that the Cubs are quite a bit higher. Milwaukee has core players that it is safe to assume will be as good if not better next season. They are in great postition to make an over the top free agent acquistion as you say. Because they have built a solid young team that is giving inexpensive production. I dont think it is safe to assume that the Cubs core players will be as good or better next season and the Cubs are not in great position to add another top tier free agent. Its not like Wrigley isnt sold out most of the season already. So most expected revenue gain would have to come from extended post season play.

 

So again I agree not all free agents are bad investments. I guess in my original post I should have clarified that it is a bad way to build a successful team.

 

Also this isnt personal. If I write in a way that you take personal, I am sorry.

[Bull]

have you ever ceded a single point in your life?

 

 

no.

[nilodnayr]

have you ever ceded a single point in your life?

 

 

no.

 

Why should he cede a point if he thinks hes right?

 

Unfortunately, he doesn't care about if anyone agrees with his points and then cries Meph-hating when people make the reasonable request for him to explain his position. People would like him a lot more if he added "because of YXZ" to his posts. Or at least I would.

[Guest]

Exactly, nilo.

[Abe Frohman]

I don't know why people think the 8th spot in the order is a "low pressure" spot. It's not like the pitchers can't afford to pitch around the plate to the guy hitting in front of the pitcher.

 

I like Pie in CF, hitting in front of someone who the pitchers aren't too excited to throw to. The Cubs MUST improve their OF. I know Jones is a contractual Cub next year, but there needs to be more power on this team, and Pie may or may not fit in to the picture.

 

He was given a couple of chances this season, and couldn't hit consistantly. I'm not opposed to him starting in AAA, only because of his age.