Rob

Paaaaaaaasssssssssss

This. Depending on where you are on the win spectrum, it's actually beneficial to have the less consistent team. There is more potential upside variance. A team projected to win 92 games wants less variance, but a team projected to win 85 loves the variance. It's not as simple as "consistent = better" because that's just not true. It's not a bad idea to build your team to have a mix of each type of player. People. Pay attention to this post. Masterfully said.

Would that go good on popcorn?

No to both of these things. Scouting reports say that, not the stats. I tend to pay attention to that at the minor league level. My scouting report says that his swing makes babies and menstruating women burst into convulsing, sobbing tears. Happy tears or sad ones?

What if the opposing team scored six runs every game and the rest of your team didn't do anything to help? Maybe he won you one game when your team otherwise would have lost all four.

No to both of these things. Scouting reports say that, not the stats. I tend to pay attention to that at the minor league level.

I'm almost certain that I've seen that study. If memory serves, the results were exactly what you'd expect. On the whole, the consistent team had the same average win rate as the inconsistent-but-equally-talented team. The inconsistent team had a far wider variety of outcomes (both good and bad) to get there though.

Something tells me the Cubs FO is probably much higher on Szczur than we are. Good hit tool, showing a nice approach, plus defense and base running, maybe a touch of power hiding in there somewhere, and plus-plus makeup. Yeah, he's old. But as long as he keeps progressing he seems to fit the mold of "The Cubs Way" perfectly.

Hence the whole "that's purely theoretical" disclaimer.

With a skilled bench and a good manager, I'd rather have inconsistent players. The good manager should be able to recognize when to play guys on hot streaks and bench those who are cooling off. Maybe that gives an opportunity to squeeze out a bit more. That's purely theoretical, of course.

Are you really taking the stance that there are no bad contracts? No, but a bad contract does not make a good player bad. There are no championships for the most wins/dollar. I haven't seen a ton of people around here suggesting the Cubs should cut payroll. The suggestion is merely that they should be attempting to get the most bang for their buck. Given the number of holes on the roster, it's not crazy to suggest the Cubs might be better with Edwin Jackson / Shaun Marcum and a decent reliever than spend it all on Anibal Sanchez. I want them to spend money as much as anybody. I just want it spent well. Otherwise, we could have kept Hendry around.

Are you really taking the stance that there are no bad contracts?

Yeah, I don't see much unethical about it. Outright lies are unethical, sure. But everybody knows how these negotiations work. As to the jokes, they were chuckle worthy at first. But now they just work up Mojo and goony.

You know, it's frustrating to feel like a spastic goof every time I get pisisy and you write a perfectly level headed response to my aggravation :) I need to hire you to be my life coach, TT I feel the same way as TT, I just can't post as eloquently, nor do I have the e-patience he has. Same. I wouldn't mind seeing a few people take a break from the transactions board. It's not like they post anything thoughtful or interesting.

hahaha you fell for it to? I'm starting to think this is performance art.

That's like being kicked in the beanbag, but only getting nailed in one ball.

Seriously. Baker and Feldman have a decent chance to crack that top 10.

Jesus that's depressing.

Yeah, but that's a not always a good thing; this is a pretty middling FA class. Next year looks to be even worse. You gotta pick your punches based on what's actually available. Which is why they need to get one of Sanchez/Jackson or extend Garza. Or trade for somebody about to get expensive. If they don't do something, I'll be out front with you waving my pitchfork. But let's wait to see how it plays out before getting all worked up, okay?

That's because I don't act like a petulant child every single time the Cubs are outbid. The Adam Dunn thread was a classic example. No, it's because I don't care. Your ideas of what is a good deal or not means absolutely nothing. 1.) It's not a near miss. Not yet anyways. 2.) If you camped outside the front office and whined like you do around here, the Cubs would be floating a $300 mil payroll just to shut you up. That would be terrible, wouldn't it? Because big spending is bad for some reason. I don't want the Cubs to spend just to spend and get themselves into a hole; I want them to spend because they CAN spend because they SHOULD be able to spend. How is this possibly something you don't want as well? Like I said, if the Cubs are choosing not to spend significantly more but can, that's unfortunate. If they can't spend significantly more, that's even worse. Neither is something that anyone would want. First off, sorry about my previous post. I got frustrated and was a bit rude. By the time I thought to edit it, people had responded. I want the Cubs to spend. I've never implied anything other than that. But we don't have a new TV deal. We don't have a giant advertising board. The simple fact is that we can't spend like the Dodgers. Not yet anyways. Given our current team and the market, there are players that make sense. But we aren't talking about the playoffs without some very good luck. I've been pretty vocal supporting some big contracts. Darvish and some slight support for Pujols last offseason. Upton, Bourn, Sanchez this year. But the simple fact remains that the window is more 2014 and on. There will be opportunities to overpay every year. To justify getting guys now, the deals need to be reasonable — both in contract terms and risk.

Edit

Given the structure of his contract, it seems almost impossible for Soler's contract to be a bargain. I mean, he's still plenty worth having if he turns out to be a great hitter, but he won't be much of a bargain. If he uses that opt out, I'd say we already had a bargain. I'd rather have Jackson at that price than Sanchez at 5/75. But really, I just want to make sure that the end answer isn't "nothing." Agreed on that point. I want to see the resources used somewhere. But I want to get as much out of them as possible.

What a ridiculous post. Has there EVER been a contract for a player you like that you thought was too high? I've never seen you express that sentiment. Great call; I want the Cubs to be willing to go six years or add a few million on to the rumored contract offer to Anibal Sanchez and that suddenly means I'm cool beans with with any size contract possible. I've never seen anything from you to suggest otherwise. The Cubs can't come over the top on EVERYBODY. Even a well-run farm system will have its dry spells. Having some flexibility is important. We can now be pretty sure the dual fronts thing isn't a myth. If the Cubs don't get Sanchez, they'll probably get Jackson at a relative bargain. Or maybe Marcum or somebody similar. I just can't bring myself to get bent out of shape at losing Sanchez when the terms leave my comfort level.

Until it's a prospect. We can lap the market on Concepcion or Soler, and that's just pure coolness. It's still pretty easy to see a path towars Soler's contract being a bargain. (Though admittedly, Concepcion looks like a huge mistake). Do you see Anibal Sanchez at 6/$90m as better than say, Edwin Jackson at 4/$48m? At a certain point there's a better use of the resources.

What a ridiculous post. Has there EVER been a contract for a player you like that you thought was too high? I've never seen you express that sentiment.