Cubs have Cameron on their radar..

[Guancous]

Cameron>Burrell

Cameron>Rowand

 

My only concern is that Cameron is extremely streaky and can disappear for weeks at a time. His defense helps mitigate that though.

[davell]

Cameron>Burrell

Cameron>Rowand

 

My only concern is that Cameron is extremely streaky and can disappear for weeks at a time. His defense helps mitigate that though.

 

While those statements are true if everything is equal, it's not that simple in this case: It's really this here as to what you're comparing for us.

 

Is Cameron at 7-10 mill on a one or two year deal AND eating all or most of Milton's contract better than Rowand at 3-36 and trading Milton without eating any money?

 

 

Personally, I hate to say it, but I'd take Rowand. He may be better once he gets out of San Fran anyway, but it'd give us the Cameron money to either re-sign Harden or some other starting pitcher. Or fill some other need possibly.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Is Cameron at 7-10 mill on a one or two year deal AND eating all or most of Milton's contract better than Rowand at 3-36 and trading Milton without eating any money?

 

Without question. Cameron is worlds better than Rowand, the overall financial expenditure would be about the same, and we only would have an obligation for 2 years.

[Rob]

Cameron>Burrell

Cameron>Rowand

 

My only concern is that Cameron is extremely streaky and can disappear for weeks at a time. His defense helps mitigate that though.

 

I'm at my parent's house at the moment and don't have access to the vast majority of my books, but I seem to recall a study that implied consistency was actually a bad thing... that being "streaky" would result in more runs than a team that scored a preset number of runs per game. I want to say it was in "The Book" by Tom Tango, but I could be way off base.

[Backtobanks]

Is Cameron at 7-10 mill on a one or two year deal AND eating all or most of Milton's contract better than Rowand at 3-36 and trading Milton without eating any money?

 

Without question. Cameron is worlds better than Rowand, the overall financial expenditure would be about the same, and we only would have an obligation for 2 years.

 

I'm glad you're not handling the finances for the Cubs. Let me get this straight, you're saying that for 2010-2011, you would rather spend approximately $18 million per year for Cameron to play CF than Rowand. Cameron is better, but not that much. I'll take Rowand with the Giants sending us money and/or a prospect.

[inari]

Is Cameron at 7-10 mill on a one or two year deal AND eating all or most of Milton's contract better than Rowand at 3-36 and trading Milton without eating any money?

 

Without question. Cameron is worlds better than Rowand, the overall financial expenditure would be about the same, and we only would have an obligation for 2 years.

 

I'm glad you're not handling the finances for the Cubs. Let me get this straight, you're saying that for 2010-2011, you would rather spend approximately $18 million per year for Cameron to play CF than Rowand. Cameron is better, but not that much. I'll take Rowand with the Giants sending us money and/or a prospect.

 

Cameron is leaps and bounds better than Rowand.

[Backtobanks]

Is Cameron at 7-10 mill on a one or two year deal AND eating all or most of Milton's contract better than Rowand at 3-36 and trading Milton without eating any money?

 

Without question. Cameron is worlds better than Rowand, the overall financial expenditure would be about the same, and we only would have an obligation for 2 years.

 

I'm glad you're not handling the finances for the Cubs. Let me get this straight, you're saying that for 2010-2011, you would rather spend approximately $18 million per year for Cameron to play CF than Rowand. Cameron is better, but not that much. I'll take Rowand with the Giants sending us money and/or a prospect.

 

Cameron is leaps and bounds better than Rowand.

 

Not $6 million per year better.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Is Cameron at 7-10 mill on a one or two year deal AND eating all or most of Milton's contract better than Rowand at 3-36 and trading Milton without eating any money?

 

Without question. Cameron is worlds better than Rowand, the overall financial expenditure would be about the same, and we only would have an obligation for 2 years.

 

I'm glad you're not handling the finances for the Cubs. Let me get this straight, you're saying that for 2010-2011, you would rather spend approximately $18 million per year for Cameron to play CF than Rowand. Cameron is better, but not that much. I'll take Rowand with the Giants sending us money and/or a prospect.

 

And then you're paying Rowand 12 million dollars in 2012.

 

With Cameron at 2/20 you pay 19 million in 2010 and 22 million in 2011. You have Cameron(who has averaged 13 million dollars of value the last 8 years, 18 million the last 2 years) and the return from Bradley, whatever that is. You weight Cameron's performance and you're likely to get about 30 million of value + the value from the return for Bradley, in exchange for 41 million. The obligation is only for 2 years.

 

With Rowand you pay 12 million in 2010, 12 million in 2011, and 12 million in 2012. You have Rowand, who has averaged about 10 million dollars of value the last 8 years, and only 7 million the last 2 years. You weight Rowand's performance and you're likely to get about 25 million of value in exchange for 36 million. The obligation is for 3 years.

 

You're going to be overpaying by about 10 million no matter what, I'd much rather have the far superior player and the shorter time commitment.

[Guest]

I don't think we're going to have to pay nearly all of bradley's salary to dump him.

[inari]

Is Cameron at 7-10 mill on a one or two year deal AND eating all or most of Milton's contract better than Rowand at 3-36 and trading Milton without eating any money?

 

Without question. Cameron is worlds better than Rowand, the overall financial expenditure would be about the same, and we only would have an obligation for 2 years.

 

I'm glad you're not handling the finances for the Cubs. Let me get this straight, you're saying that for 2010-2011, you would rather spend approximately $18 million per year for Cameron to play CF than Rowand. Cameron is better, but not that much. I'll take Rowand with the Giants sending us money and/or a prospect.

 

Cameron is leaps and bounds better than Rowand.

 

Not $6 million per year better.

 

Definitely $6 million per year better.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I wanted Cameron like 5 years ago.

 

This [expletive] team...

[Exile on Waveland]

Cameron>Burrell

Cameron>Rowand

 

My only concern is that Cameron is extremely streaky and can disappear for weeks at a time. His defense helps mitigate that though.

 

I'm at my parent's house at the moment and don't have access to the vast majority of my books, but I seem to recall a study that implied consistency was actually a bad thing... that being "streaky" would result in more runs than a team that scored a preset number of runs per game. I want to say it was in "The Book" by Tom Tango, but I could be way off base.

 

Really? That's very interesting. It's contrary to preconceived notions -- mine, and I would guess most.

[Guest]

Cameron>Burrell

Cameron>Rowand

 

My only concern is that Cameron is extremely streaky and can disappear for weeks at a time. His defense helps mitigate that though.

 

I'm at my parent's house at the moment and don't have access to the vast majority of my books, but I seem to recall a study that implied consistency was actually a bad thing... that being "streaky" would result in more runs than a team that scored a preset number of runs per game. I want to say it was in "The Book" by Tom Tango, but I could be way off base.

 

Really? That's very interesting. It's contrary to preconceived notions -- mine, and I would guess most.

It's not necessarily true. It depends on the frequencies of highs and lows and the spread of runs scored (standard deviation). It probably also depends on pitching some too.