KingCubsFan

No, they should not. Efficient as possible will leave you at .500 every year with the occasional outperformance year. You should try to be as good as you can, with efficiency being on the mind at all times, but clearly in second place. I'm not sure why you equate efficiency with mediocrity. Efficiency and sustained success go hand-in-hand in my opinion. You can't be giving fan favorites huge contracts all the time and expect to be good in the long-run. Your (assumingly) favorite team is a pretty good example of that. The front office needs to do what's best for the long-term success of the team, period. Not only is that a good baseball decision, it's also a good business decision. Giving out inflated free agent contracts rarely does that, which is why good teams are smart about it. You have to pick your spots when you're going to overpay. I'm not saying the Felix Hernandez contract was necessarily one of those, but you have to assume there's a pretty good chance that contract is crippling by the 5th, 6th and/or 7th year. His velocity is already declining pretty steadily.

A team should absolutely strive to be as efficient as possible, as it makes it more likely they'll be a winning team. Signing a player for "the fans" is so dumb. Fans only come out to see one thing: a winning team.

Getting rid of Boozer won't help. We will have over $50 million committed for 2014.

The idea isn't looking at one year's worth of WAR. The idea is that those were the top 25 pitchers from seven years ago. How many had seven years of production you'd be happy paying 7/$175 for since that time? Pick any year as your starting point and count seven years forward from that one. You'll find damn few pitchers (who are eligible/nearly eligible to sign a FA contract) that will be worth 7/$175. And there's basically no way to pick out the ones who are in advance. In order to be worth considering for that kind of contract, a pitcher probably has to have at least three seasons (preferably more) of elite production already. Then you're projecting seven more years of elite production on top of that. Just how many pitchers over the past 20-30 years can you think of with a ten+ year stretch of dominance? I'll start you off: Clemens, Maddux, Unit. Theo faced this decision when he was with Boston and he made the right call. He could have given Pedro the contract he got from the Mets, but he held off and the Mets got stuck paying for nothing after the first couple years. Then the Mets got burned again with Johan. Let's not be the Mets. Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with you about paying pitchers. But I don't think Felix is getting this deal based on one good year. More like the last 4-5 years. The data is probably harder to come across, but I wonder if the list of the top WAR pitchers from 2004-2006 under say, age 28, would look very different than your list. The list still isn't very promising. Santana, Oswalt, Sheets, Lackey, Webb, Zambrano, Buehrle, Peavy, Sabathia, etc. Out of those guys, Buehrle, Sabathia and Santana are the only ones where a seven year deal probably would have been worth it (and Santana is obviously questionable).

Makes sense if they aren't trying to beat the Heat this year. But if they are (and they probably should), they have to keep Boozer. Why does Boozer matter against the Heat? Seems to me this move is based in part on the fact that they're comfortable with moving Butler to the 2 guard if they can get some more outside shooting elsewhere.

i wouldn't hate that. While the value would be there and it fits a need, I would not like it. MLB don't win football games in today's NFL. MLB aren't difference makers. In the Bears defense, it's important though (especially one who is good in pass coverage). If the Bears are committed to sticking to the 4-3, I could see them taking someone like T'eo in the first round as a replacement for Urlacher.

If they make the WS in 2015, for example, what's it worth to you to be there? You aren't helping the rational side of my brain, ha! Wonder how many people have bought them in their lifetime with that same thought in mind? Just hard for me also considering the fact I could only make 5-6 games a year personally, at best. I live in West Loop and don't plan on going to anymore than 20 games a year. Basically expecting a $1,000 loss this season on nights/weekends. FWIW, last year I was able to sell most of my bleacher tickets at the season ticket face value for most games through early August or so (and then nobody wanted to go to games).

ND accidentally put Vanderdoes on their press release.

I bet Ole Miss swoops in.

you got Vonn Bell http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2013/2/6/3937742/vonn-bell-signs-with-over Reports (from everybody) were wrong - Vonn just announced for Ohio State. Must be nice rooting for schools that are serious about winning football games. Just enjoy the hell that kiffin has wrought. ole miss definitely playing the $ec game now. Maybe they just needed a HC with the right moral fiber. Is that two programs destroyed in 4 years for Kiffin? He's like Willingham. If the NCAA isn't giving out death penalties anymore, it makes sense for a school like Ole Miss to just go for it. If they can avoid sanctions for 3 or 4 years, and have another stellar recruiting class or two, they could conceivably pull an Auburn and then just self-sanction themselves.

You guys missed the best question:

Kind of surprised the neighborhood associations are so against Saturday night games. The traffic there is horrible on Saturday nights anyways, and having the games at night lessens the amount of time a large mass of drunk people are hanging out in the neighborhood. And it's been a few years since I lived around there, but I think the bar and restaurant owners are overestimating the impact too. The night crowd v. Cubs crowd rarely overlap in terms of bars. Nobody was ever at Bernie's on a Saturday night, for example.

Law really has a thing for good defensive shortstops. Lindor at 7 this year, following Hak-Ju Lee last year.

Think how the A&M guy must feel. He has to make 75 or 80 stops.

Hopefully him and Baez will both reach Tennessee this year.

A 22-year-old Ronny Cedeno isn't our No. 25 prospect, either. Correct, because he could field a tough position. Because when a 22-year-old hits at AAA, nobody has 24 better prospects. I doubt Marwin Gonzalez would have been much higher than 25 last year.

I don't think they'd ever talk bad about any of their prospects. But when Callis asks them to describe the system or guys they're really excited about (clearly Pierce Johnson fits into this category), BA places some weight on that. Clearly, they didn't have much to say about Vitters.

That's a good point. BA relies pretty heavily on what the team tells them (David Kelton is the best example), so this ranking lines up with how we think the Cubs perceive Vitters.

Instead of basing their opinion strictly on the .275/20 projection, don't you think it is just as others have said? That BA is weighing his brief time in MLB last year a little too heavily and that's why he is ranked so low? To me, that's the most likely explanation at least. I think it's just simply that nobody really expects him to stay at 3B longterm, and his value plummets the moment he leaves that position.

It's interesting he filed a counter complaint so quickly.

I feel like some people are relying far too heavily on completely unproven ranking systems to determine the value of football players. Isn't this like the antithesis of NSBB? I mean, I understand that baseball advanced metrics are a million times more reliable and proven, but there was a time when they weren't as widely acclaimed. Also, there's a lot of discussion of PER in NBA threads, FO ratings are used as gospel in most NFL threads, and even pass blocking efficiency (which is the ranking system I assume you're referring to) has been used to make many an argument without being questioned. Why all the sudden is this system "completely unproven"? I may be in the minority, but I think it's just as ludicrous when people value a baseball player solely on WAR. All numbers are useful, but determining a player's worth based on one number or formula isn't that helpful. it's essentially a reflection of a player's net contribution to run production and run prevention. how isn't that extremely helpful? The formula itself is very helpful as a data point in determining a player's value. What is not helpful is when discussions revolve around "[x] player is clearly better than [y] player because his WAR was higher was last year."

First time Miami has probably been mentioned in a basketball thread. They're really bad this year (just like every MAC team).

I feel like some people are relying far too heavily on completely unproven ranking systems to determine the value of football players. Isn't this like the antithesis of NSBB? I mean, I understand that baseball advanced metrics are a million times more reliable and proven, but there was a time when they weren't as widely acclaimed. Also, there's a lot of discussion of PER in NBA threads, FO ratings are used as gospel in most NFL threads, and even pass blocking efficiency (which is the ranking system I assume you're referring to) has been used to make many an argument without being questioned. Why all the sudden is this system "completely unproven"? I may be in the minority, but I think it's just as ludicrous when people value a baseball player solely on WAR. All numbers are useful, but determining a player's worth based on one number or formula isn't that helpful.

There's no need to cross him off the board yet because the "possibility" of other guys is useless. The Bears need a LT. They cannot miss out on one by only looking at ideal candidates. Yeah, you have to target them all. And isn't Albert getting franchised? I feel like some people are not realizing just how bad Long has been. Couple that with the amount of money he is going to get and you absolutely do cross him out unless that number comes way down from what it seems likely to be. And even then, I'm not sure he's all that useful. If the Bears are comfortable with his medicals, I don't have a problem with it. That's the only reason his play has dropped off the few years.

There's no need to cross him off the board yet because the "possibility" of other guys is useless. The Bears need a LT. They cannot miss out on one by only looking at ideal candidates. Yeah, you have to target them all. And isn't Albert getting franchised?