Offseason Rumors & Transactions Thread

[jersey cubs fan]

I hate the term "utility guy" so much. It covers too wide a range.

 

Alcantara is one of our best starting 8, just like Valbuena was. Being versatile enough to play multiple positions within that framework doesn't devalue him.

 

I hate "super utility" even more, since it's a variation of the already silly utility guy.

[Guest]

I hate the term "utility guy" so much. It covers too wide a range.

 

Alcantara is one of our best starting 8, just like Valbuena was. Being versatile enough to play multiple positions within that framework doesn't devalue him.

 

If he's getting "Zobrist'd", and being a "super-util" starter/a guy getting regular time, basically a guy who is going to get a dabble at 2nd, a touch in CF, maybe LF, heck 3rd (still find that odd), and shortstop, then okay, moving him wouldn't make a ton of sense (although I still have my doubts about his bat ... and I've liked how he has produced since his breakout A+ campaign in Daytona). If that's the case, okay. If he's a more a traditional util guy, a spot starter that gives you flexibility during games, then I wouldn't love it as much.

I entirely expect Alcantara to have at least 110 starts and ~500 PA's this year between 3B/SS/2B/OF/Pinch Hitting

 

Alcantara needs a pretty permanent home to get 110 starts and 500+ PA. If he hits well he'll likely have one in the OF(or mayyyybe 2B), but I think it's an important distinction. Alcantara can play a lot and in a lot of positions, especially as a switch hitter he'll always be an option regardless of the day's SP, but he won't qualify for the batting title subbing in for guys alone.

[Guest]

I hate the term "utility guy" so much. It covers too wide a range.

 

Alcantara is one of our best starting 8, just like Valbuena was. Being versatile enough to play multiple positions within that framework doesn't devalue him.

 

If he's getting "Zobrist'd", and being a "super-util" starter/a guy getting regular time, basically a guy who is going to get a dabble at 2nd, a touch in CF, maybe LF, heck 3rd (still find that odd), and shortstop, then okay, moving him wouldn't make a ton of sense (although I still have my doubts about his bat ... and I've liked how he has produced since his breakout A+ campaign in Daytona). If that's the case, okay. If he's a more a traditional util guy, a spot starter that gives you flexibility during games, then I wouldn't love it as much.

I entirely expect Alcantara to have at least 110 starts and ~500 PA's this year between 3B/SS/2B/OF/Pinch Hitting

 

Alcantara needs a pretty permanent home to get 110 starts and 500+ PA. If he hits well he'll likely have one in the OF(or mayyyybe 2B), but I think it's an important distinction. Alcantara can play a lot and in a lot of positions, especially as a switch hitter he'll always be an option regardless of the day's SP, but he won't qualify for the batting title subbing in for guys alone.

 

Why can't he average 4-5 starts a week subbing in for guys when he can play almost any position (especially when you factor in injuries or what have you)?

[Guest]

I hate the term "utility guy" so much. It covers too wide a range.

 

Alcantara is one of our best starting 8, just like Valbuena was. Being versatile enough to play multiple positions within that framework doesn't devalue him.

 

If he's getting "Zobrist'd", and being a "super-util" starter/a guy getting regular time, basically a guy who is going to get a dabble at 2nd, a touch in CF, maybe LF, heck 3rd (still find that odd), and shortstop, then okay, moving him wouldn't make a ton of sense (although I still have my doubts about his bat ... and I've liked how he has produced since his breakout A+ campaign in Daytona). If that's the case, okay. If he's a more a traditional util guy, a spot starter that gives you flexibility during games, then I wouldn't love it as much.

I entirely expect Alcantara to have at least 110 starts and ~500 PA's this year between 3B/SS/2B/OF/Pinch Hitting

 

Alcantara needs a pretty permanent home to get 110 starts and 500+ PA. If he hits well he'll likely have one in the OF(or mayyyybe 2B), but I think it's an important distinction. Alcantara can play a lot and in a lot of positions, especially as a switch hitter he'll always be an option regardless of the day's SP, but he won't qualify for the batting title subbing in for guys alone.

 

Why can't he average 4-5 starts a week subbing in for guys when he can play almost any position (especially when you factor in injuries or what have you)?

 

There's only so many days off, and sometimes those days overlap. Bryant probably isn't going to sit more than 20 games once he comes up. Baez probably won't either if he hits, and La Stella will need at bats too. Fowler only plays ~120ish games so there's some more opportunity there, but he's gonna need to play a bunch of games in the OF alongside Fowler to reach that 110G/500PA threshold. Even Zobrist has had a semi-permanent home in Tampa at either 2B or at an OF spot, depending on the year and the composition of the roster.

[sneakypower]

he'll get at least 80 starts at 2B, is my expectation

[ctcf]

Part of me wants the Cubs to sign Phil Coke to something for the PhilCokesBrain twitter account alone.

[Post Count Padder]

Looking like Vogelsong to the Astros.

[Post Count Padder]

Now reports that Rasmus is in Houston for a physical. I'd rather have Fowler. Thanks, Astros.

[jersey cubs fan]

Now reports that Rasmus is in Houston for a physical. I'd rather have Fowler. Thanks, Astros.

 

It's not like they just handed him to the Cubs.

[ctcf]

Rasmus to the Astros is a done deal.

[gscool89]

lol Colby Rasmus got 8 million? Holy crap that's bad.

[Clem Fandango]

I would've given him that, but I like Fowler more. If Rasmus puts up production that falls somewhere between his 2013 and 2014 he's well worth that contract. If he's 2013 level he's a steal.

[sneakypower]

that's basically veteran minimum if you've ever had an above-average season before and aren't 36

[Derwood]

Like that is literally the definition of meatball logic.

 

Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay

 

You think it's worse to pay a guy 210M over 14 years than it is to pay him 210M over 7 years. Yes, that is dumb and meatball.

 

Well I'm convinced

 

How many times has this been discussed? You can't possibly have missed it every time. Getting $10 today is better than getting $10 in a year. Do you understand that? You can invest that $10 if you get it today and in a year, maybe you have $10.30. Now instead of $10 making you 20-30 cents in a year, think of $10m today making you $300,000 in a year.

 

That's the most basic way to look at this. A 1%er like ssr can explain the details of how much more money $210m is if you get it over the next 7 years compared to how much it is if it's spread over the next 14. But it's a lot. If the dollars are the same, it's always better for the team to pay more later (ignore luxury tax issues, which are't a consideration for the nats).

 

You seem to be arguing the exact opposite thing SSR is arguing

[Tryptamine]

Like that is literally the definition of meatball logic.

 

Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay

 

You think it's worse to pay a guy 210M over 14 years than it is to pay him 210M over 7 years. Yes, that is dumb and meatball.

 

Well I'm convinced

 

How many times has this been discussed? You can't possibly have missed it every time. Getting $10 today is better than getting $10 in a year. Do you understand that? You can invest that $10 if you get it today and in a year, maybe you have $10.30. Now instead of $10 making you 20-30 cents in a year, think of $10m today making you $300,000 in a year.

 

That's the most basic way to look at this. A 1%er like ssr can explain the details of how much more money $210m is if you get it over the next 7 years compared to how much it is if it's spread over the next 14. But it's a lot. If the dollars are the same, it's always better for the team to pay more later (ignore luxury tax issues, which are't a consideration for the nats).

 

I'll use 7% because that's kind of the standard for making investment hypotheticals

 

30M Annually over 7 years @ 7% =$213,710,938.32 @ 7 years

Total continues to compound for 7 more years=$222,591,675.99 @ 14 years

 

15M annually over 14 years @ 7=$218,151,307.15 @ 14 years

 

A $4,440,146.82 difference

[Geech]

You seem to be arguing the exact opposite thing SSR is arguing

 

He's not. The point that both of them are circling around is that it's better to have money now than the same amount of money in the future. If you pay a player x over 14 years instead of x over 7 years, you're paying the same amount of money in both cases, but you have the advantage of using it longer in the 14 year situation.

 

Is that clear enough?

 

If not, then I'll gladly pay you $1001 dollar in 10 years for $1000 today. That's a whole dollar of pure profit, so you should jump all over it.

[Guest]

You seem to be arguing the exact opposite thing SSR is arguing

 

How in the world is he doing that?

[Derwood]

You seem to be arguing the exact opposite thing SSR is arguing

 

He's not. The point that both of them are circling around is that it's better to have money now than the same amount of money in the future. If you pay a player x over 14 years instead of x over 7 years, you're paying the same amount of money in both cases, but you have the advantage of using it longer in the 14 year situation.

 

Is that clear enough?

 

If not, then I'll gladly pay you $1001 dollar in 10 years for $1000 today. That's a whole dollar of pure profit, so you should jump all over it.

 

So it's an argument of inflation devaluing the dollar? Fair enough

[Geech]

So it's an argument of inflation devaluing the dollar? Fair enough

 

No, not primarily. Having money now is simply more valuable than having the same amount of money in the future, even absent any inflation. If you have the money now, that means you have the ability to use it now. Being able to use money is better than being unable to use money. Hence, even without inflation, people would have to pay interest on borrowed money.

[Derwood]

So it's an argument of inflation devaluing the dollar? Fair enough

 

No, not primarily. Having money now is simply more valuable than having the same amount of money in the future, even absent any inflation. If you have the money now, that means you have the ability to use it now. Being able to use money is better than being unable to use money. Hence, even without inflation, people would have to pay interest on borrowed money.

 

But what about the $15m/year you can't use for the 7 years following the end of the contract? What's the negative impact of that?

[Geech]

So it's an argument of inflation devaluing the dollar? Fair enough

 

No, not primarily. Having money now is simply more valuable than having the same amount of money in the future, even absent any inflation. If you have the money now, that means you have the ability to use it now. Being able to use money is better than being unable to use money. Hence, even without inflation, people would have to pay interest on borrowed money.

 

But what about the $15m/year you can't use for the 7 years following the end of the contract? What's the negative impact of that?

 

It's the same amount of money either way. The only difference is that you get to use some of the money for a longer period of time.

[Guest]

Derwood went to Northwestern...

[SABR Gamer]

Derwood went to Northwestern...

 

That's hard to believe.

[shnsajax]

Derwood went to Northwestern...

 

Northwestern State?

[Cubswin11]

So it's an argument of inflation devaluing the dollar? Fair enough

 

No, not primarily. Having money now is simply more valuable than having the same amount of money in the future, even absent any inflation. If you have the money now, that means you have the ability to use it now. Being able to use money is better than being unable to use money. Hence, even without inflation, people would have to pay interest on borrowed money.

 

But what about the $15m/year you can't use for the 7 years following the end of the contract? What's the negative impact of that?

Jesus Christ, http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp