Forbes: Cubs Least Efficient Team in MLB in 2010

[Outshined_One]

Link

 

Pretty much confirms what everyone here knows: the Cubs did a better job than any team in MLB when it came to wasting money.

[bukie]

Link

 

Pretty much confirms what everyone here knows: the Cubs did a better job than any team in MLB when it came to wasting money.

Actually, the Yankees did. They just don't count because they made the playoffs.

[otis89]

Link

 

Pretty much confirms what everyone here knows: the Cubs did a better job than any team in MLB when it came to wasting money.

Actually, the Yankees did. They just don't count because they made the playoffs.

 

Then the Yankees didn't WASTE their money, now did they?

[SouthSideRyan]

Link

 

Pretty much confirms what everyone here knows: the Cubs did a better job than any team in MLB when it came to wasting money.

Actually, the Yankees did. They just don't count because they made the playoffs.

 

Then the Yankees didn't WASTE their money, now did they?

 

If they could've made the playoffs without spending as much, then yes they did.

[dew1679666265]

If they could've made the playoffs without spending as much, then yes they did.

 

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money.

[jersey cubs fan]

If they could've made the playoffs without spending as much, then yes they did.

 

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money.

 

It's a waste regardless. They did get some benefit, but you can still waste on your way to acquiring a benefit.

[SouthSideRyan]

If they could've made the playoffs without spending as much, then yes they did.

 

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money.

 

I'm sure the Cubs spending the money they did raised their chances from 2% to 5%, does that mean it wasn't a "waste?" as defined previously?

[dew1679666265]

If they could've made the playoffs without spending as much, then yes they did.

 

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money.

 

It's a waste regardless. They did get some benefit, but you can still waste on your way to acquiring a benefit.

 

waste = to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.

 

It's kinda nitpicking, but it depends on what you feel "adequate return" is. My thinking is, if you made the playoffs you didn't waste the money. If you didn't make the playoffs, you wasted the money.

[Guest]

Dumb analogy time:

 

The Yankees go through a Drive-Thru and order a $1 hamburger and pay $5 for it. They got the benefit, but they didn't need to spend so much to get it.

 

The Cubs go through a Drive -Thru and order a $1 hamburger, pay $2 for it, then drive away without picking up the burger. They spent more than they needed to and didn't even get the benefit.

[dew1679666265]

If they could've made the playoffs without spending as much, then yes they did.

 

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money.

 

I'm sure the Cubs spending the money they did raised their chances from 2% to 5%, does that mean it wasn't a "waste?" as defined previously?

 

How was it defined previously? I'd say the Cubs didn't make the playoffs, the added payroll didn't get them there, so yes they wasted the money.

[dew1679666265]

Dumb analogy time:

 

The Yankees go through a Drive-Thru and order a $1 hamburger and pay $5 for it. They got the benefit, but they didn't need to spend so much to get it.

 

The Cubs go through a Drive -Thru and order a $1 hamburger, pay $2 for it, then drive away without picking up the burger. They spent more than they needed to and didn't even get the benefit.

 

A silent auction for the burger would probably be a little more accurate. The Yankees may only have needed to bid $1 for the hamburger, but they made it more likely to get the burger by bidding $5.

 

Conversely, the Cubs may have needed to bid $1 for a hamburger, bid $3 for it but then didn't pick up their winnings.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm having a tough time reconciling your posts, dew. You said the Yankees didn't waste money if the extra money raised their chances from 75% to 90%. Then you said that if the chances were already 100%, an extra $100 million would be wasted. Then you said that if you make the playoffs, you didn't waste money; if you didn't make the playoffs, you did waste money (even if the extra money raised your chances of making the playoffs).

 

Seems there has to be something else going on. If it's not a waste to raise your chances from 75% to 90%, what's the cut off? Is it a waste to raise your chances from 10% to 50%? What if you raise your chances to 50% but ultimately miss the playoffs?

[jersey cubs fan]

Dumb analogy time:

 

The Yankees go through a Drive-Thru and order a $1 hamburger and pay $5 for it. They got the benefit, but they didn't need to spend so much to get it.

 

The Cubs go through a Drive -Thru and order a $1 hamburger, pay $2 for it, then drive away without picking up the burger. They spent more than they needed to and didn't even get the benefit.

 

A silent auction for the burger would probably be a little more accurate. The Yankees may only have needed to bid $1 for the hamburger, but they made it more likely to get the burger by bidding $5.

 

Conversely, the Cubs may have needed to bid $1 for a hamburger, bid $3 for it but then didn't pick up their winnings.

 

But it's a silent auction for multiple burgers where you can still get one without spending more than everybody else and they have one every year. The Cubs wasted without any benefit, the Yankees wasted but at least got some benefit.

[SouthSideRyan]

Dumb analogy time:

 

The Yankees go through a Drive-Thru and order a $1 hamburger and pay $5 for it. They got the benefit, but they didn't need to spend so much to get it.

 

The Cubs go through a Drive -Thru and order a $1 hamburger, pay $2 for it, then drive away without picking up the burger. They spent more than they needed to and didn't even get the benefit.

 

Then the Yankees wasted $4 and the Cubs wasted $2.

[SouthSideRyan]

If they could've made the playoffs without spending as much, then yes they did.

 

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money.

 

I'm sure the Cubs spending the money they did raised their chances from 2% to 5%, does that mean it wasn't a "waste?" as defined previously?

 

How was it defined previously?

 

$/win

[dew1679666265]

I'm having a tough time reconciling your posts, dew. You said the Yankees didn't waste money if the extra money raised their chances from 75% to 90%. Then you said that if the chances were already 100%, an extra $100 million would be wasted. Then you said that if you make the playoffs, you didn't waste money; if you didn't make the playoffs, you did waste money (even if the extra money raised your chances of making the playoffs).

 

Seems there has to be something else going on. If it's not a waste to raise your chances from 75% to 90%, what's the cut off? Is it a waste to raise your chances from 10% to 50%? What if you raise your chances to 50% but ultimately miss the playoffs?

 

It's tough to reconcile the posts because I think I was wrong. I feel more comfortable with the first post than the second as I think it's difficult to call it a waste of money to gain a benefit. It it's worth it to the person, then it's not a waste. Inefficient, yes. But not a waste.

[dew1679666265]

If they could've made the playoffs without spending as much, then yes they did.

 

It's not a waste if it brought them some form of benefit, however. If spending the extra money raised their chances from 75% making it to 90% making it (just making up numbers), then it was worth it for them to spend the money. If their likelihood of making the playoffs would be 100% at $150 mil and 100% at $250 mil, however, then it was a waste of money.

 

I'm sure the Cubs spending the money they did raised their chances from 2% to 5%, does that mean it wasn't a "waste?" as defined previously?

 

How was it defined previously?

 

$/win

 

Did every team other than the Padres waste money then?

[SouthSideRyan]

Then would you argue that the Padres wasted their money this year?

[dew1679666265]

Then would you argue that the Padres wasted their money this year?

 

How so?

 

EDIT: I'm an idiot and forgot the Padres didn't make the playoffs. Different teams enter the season with different goals. I have trouble believing the Padres felt they had a great chance to win the World Series with their roster as constructed. It depends on what their goal was this season as to whether it was a waste.

Edited October 7, 2010 by dew

[tfarks]

Dumb analogy time:

 

The Yankees go through a Drive-Thru and order a $1 hamburger and pay $5 for it. They got the benefit, but they didn't need to spend so much to get it.

 

The Cubs go through a Drive -Thru and order a $1 hamburger, pay $2 for it, then drive away without picking up the burger. They spent more than they needed to and didn't even get the benefit.

 

Then the Yankees wasted $4 and the Cubs wasted $2.

 

Now the yankees have people paying them lots of money to watch them eat the burger. I just look at it as the overspending on the burger reducing the risk of not getting it, which I wouldn't categorize as wasting. Somone who doesn't break that tipping point (playoffs) loses out both ways, and is truly the wasteful one.

[SouthSideRyan]

Then would you argue that the Padres wasted their money this year?

 

How so?

 

Because they didn't gain the benefit of the playoffs for their money spent.

[jersey cubs fan]

Dumb analogy time:

 

The Yankees go through a Drive-Thru and order a $1 hamburger and pay $5 for it. They got the benefit, but they didn't need to spend so much to get it.

 

The Cubs go through a Drive -Thru and order a $1 hamburger, pay $2 for it, then drive away without picking up the burger. They spent more than they needed to and didn't even get the benefit.

 

Then the Yankees wasted $4 and the Cubs wasted $2.

 

Now the yankees have people paying them lots of money to watch them eat the burger. I just look at it as the overspending on the burger reducing the risk of not getting it, which I wouldn't categorize as wasting. Somone who doesn't break that tipping point (playoffs) loses out both ways, and is truly the wasteful one.

 

I believe the Cubs wasted more because they got no payoff, but the Yankees clearly wasted on their way to "ensuring" the playoffs. Just because you ended up with what you wanted doesn't mean it is not wasteful to spend whatever it takes to get there.

[bukie]

I was just pointing out that in fact the Yankees were in fact the least efficient team in MLB in terms of Forbes arbitrary analysis of wins/$. They just determined that the Yankees and Red Sox don't count because they won more games than they lost.

[tfarks]

Dumb analogy time:

 

The Yankees go through a Drive-Thru and order a $1 hamburger and pay $5 for it. They got the benefit, but they didn't need to spend so much to get it.

 

The Cubs go through a Drive -Thru and order a $1 hamburger, pay $2 for it, then drive away without picking up the burger. They spent more than they needed to and didn't even get the benefit.

 

Then the Yankees wasted $4 and the Cubs wasted $2.

 

Now the yankees have people paying them lots of money to watch them eat the burger. I just look at it as the overspending on the burger reducing the risk of not getting it, which I wouldn't categorize as wasting. Somone who doesn't break that tipping point (playoffs) loses out both ways, and is truly the wasteful one.

 

I believe the Cubs wasted more because they got no payoff, but the Yankees clearly wasted on their way to "ensuring" the playoffs. Just because you ended up with what you wanted doesn't mean it is not wasteful to spend whatever it takes to get there.

 

But doesn't a lot of what you wasted get returned to you? Added revenue and championships?

[dew1679666265]

Then would you argue that the Padres wasted their money this year?

 

How so?

 

Because they didn't gain the benefit of the playoffs for their money spent.

 

I fixed that post.