that snow ball has melted. It's funny to read, because I actually agree with some of the reasoning on that thread why DeRosa wasn't the best signing. He really bucked a lot of trends by being good for 2 years (assuming he continues this year) when it did sort of look like he had just had a career year. It's fun to be wrong when it means the Cubs are a better team for it. statistical analysis is great and IMO is more important than scouting, but derosa's success is a lesson to those who think they can sit and look at a player's baseball reference page or PECOTA projections and think they know what's going to happen. Looking at DeRosa's pre-2006 PECOTA projections was almost pointless, given that he'd probably had a 2006 that was at or above his 90th percentile expectation. Focusing on his lousy 2004 numbers was the wrong idea given his change in approach (toe tap at the plate). His EqA and OPS+ trends: 2005: .271, 97 2006: .280, 108 2007: .275, 102 So his performance in 2007 is basically right in line with what he did the previous two seasons. At some point, scouting needs to be part of the equation, and obviously the people doing the scouting for the Cubs saw that DeRosa's improvements at the plate were no fluke. his performance to this date isn't likely to continue (~.298 EqA, 126 OPS+), but he is hitting line drives at a solid rate and continues to add some extra-base power to the mix. The idea that $13M over 3 years was a gross overpayment for derosa was preposterous, and looks even more ridiculous now. looking at PECOTA's projection that derosa would be worth $6.9M this year, i'd have to guess that he was worth about $7.5-8M last year, so he's just about earned his $13M in half the length of the contract. in terms of value, the DeRosa signing has to be regarded as one of the bigger bargains of the 2006-07 offseason. So is it more or less of a sham than trying to predict the weather? HIIIIIIIIIIIIII-OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.