Jump to content
North Side Baseball

davearm2

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,776

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by davearm2

  1. davearm2
    C'mon Dave...it's rather disingenuous to use his age 21-22 seasons to do a projection at this point. I'm not a huge fan of signing Fielder at the money he's going to get, but let's be real about the projections. I wasn't using his age 21 season. If you toss his age 22 season as well, the result is an ~18% probability.
  2. davearm2
    he'll most likely be worth 25 mil per year for 4 of those years. i'd do both in a heartbeat. That scenario is not even close to being "most likely". If you're generous, and assume each year Fielder has a 50% likelihood of being worth $25M, then the probability of him doing it in 4 or more years out of the next 6 is ~34%. If you use Fielder's historical rate of being worth $25M (2 seasons out of 6), then the probability of him doing it in 4 or more years out of the next 6 is ~10%.
  3. davearm2
    My guess is Fielder is looking for a minimum of 6 years, and a minimum of $25M a year. I could do one or the other, but certainly not both.
  4. davearm2
    according to fangraps, fielder has been worth 3.5 more total war in 4 less seasons. he's far younger and he's far better, your logic is [expletive] Looking at average WARs is a helluva lot more logical than looking at total WAR.
  5. davearm2
    Hey CJ, maybe drop $5 of that $75M on some shoe polish. Just an idea.
  6. davearm2
    For the life of me, I can't figure out what it is you're trying to correct. "tests positive" is no different than "fails". And a positive test results in an automatic suspension. He can appeal, but unless/until he does, he is suspended (or will be). Obviously you need to be educated in how this stuff works. He has not failed the test yet nor has he been suspended 50 games. The thread says both are true. If he failed the test he would be suspended. Since he only has tested positive he has the right to appeal the results (which he is) therefore he has not been suspended yet which the thread suggests. I know exactly how this stuff works. What I need to be educated on is why you seem to think there's a meaningful distinction between "testing positive" and "failing the test". Testing positive is precisely what it means to fail the test. As you would have us understand, he "tested positive" a month ago or whatever, yet at some time in the future he will "fail the test". Really? That's what you're going with?
  7. davearm2
    amortized
  8. davearm2
    For the life of me, I can't figure out what it is you're trying to correct. "tests positive" is no different than "fails". And a positive test results in an automatic suspension. He can appeal, but unless/until he does, he is suspended (or will be).
  9. davearm2
    But like I said, you never know the next time that a 27 year old elite player will even be available regardless of their physical build. That may be true, but it's not a compelling argument for entering into a contract you think will turn out to be a mistake. I have no reason not to believe that Fielder doesnt have at least 4-5 prime years left. Could be more. Would you really be upset if we got 4-5 prime years of Fielder and then he hits an early decline around age 33? He'd still be young enough where we could send him off to DH. Have you read the frontpage article on Fielder? It provides reasons to believe Fielder doesn't have at least 4-5 prime years left. But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't be upset with 4-5 prime years and 1-2 decline years. I just don't have confidence that's how it's going to play out for this particular player.
  10. davearm2
    My recollection is that the posting fee is immediately placed in escrow by the winning bidder. If a contract is signed, the escrow is paid to the Japanese team. If not, it's returned to the MLB team. There is an expectation that the winning bidder will negotiate a contract in good faith. I can't recall what the penalties are for failing to do so, or how that would be determined, but there are rules/safeguards preventing a huge posting fee as a blocking strategy.
  11. davearm2
    Is it so hard for you to comprehend that I simply think Fielder is a poor risk on a long-term deal? Is that concept too difficult to get your head around? It doesn't mean I don't want the Cubs to sign any elite players, ever. Sheesh. If you're talking true elite players, they're almost always going to require a 6-8 year deal, unless they're at the tail end of their prime, at least the way the market is constructed now. Also, more and more teams are locking up young star players long term, which is why so many people want to jump on Fielder. Who knows the next time an elite player at a young age is going to even hit the maket. I'm not afraid of a 6-8 year deal for a guy that can be expected to age well. Fielder ain't that guy. But like I said, you never know the next time that a 27 year old elite player will even be available regardless of their physical build. That may be true, but it's not a compelling argument for entering into a contract you think will turn out to be a mistake.
  12. davearm2
    That isn't the logic. The logic is we have a need for more left-handed hitters, power, youth and a middle of the order bat. Turns out Fielder fits that and he is just coming into his prime. You will never be able to sign good players if you are unwilling to take the risk that it may not work out. We have money, plenty of it, and more coming off the books soon. We aren't the Pirates, if we make smart moves the majority of the time, we can afford to make a big mistake here and there, which I don't think Fielder would be. I'm not unwilling to take the risk that it may not work out. I'm unwilling to take the risk when I expect it will not work out.
  13. davearm2
    Is it so hard for you to comprehend that I simply think Fielder is a poor risk on a long-term deal? Is that concept too difficult to get your head around? It doesn't mean I don't want the Cubs to sign any elite players, ever. Sheesh. If you're talking true elite players, they're almost always going to require a 6-8 year deal, unless they're at the tail end of their prime, at least the way the market is constructed now. Also, more and more teams are locking up young star players long term, which is why so many people want to jump on Fielder. Who knows the next time an elite player at a young age is going to even hit the maket. I'm not afraid of a 6-8 year deal for a guy that can be expected to age well. Fielder ain't that guy.
  14. davearm2
    It is if you think Fielder is a poor risk on a longterm deal, which I do.
  15. davearm2
    The logic seems to be, "well we've got a hole at 1B and we've got money to spend, so let's go ahead and offer a big contract that we'll later regret, since it'll only hurt us, not cripple us." Sorry, not onboard with that plan.
  16. davearm2
    Is it so hard for you to comprehend that I simply think Fielder is a poor risk on a long-term deal? Is that concept too difficult to get your head around? It doesn't mean I don't want the Cubs to sign any elite players, ever. Sheesh.
  17. davearm2
    "At the expense of the future" is an obvious strawman argument. No one is asking to completely mortgage the future for next year. That doesn't mean you don't try to win next year, and, to this point, the Cubs are a worse team than their crappy 2011 team. Regardless, signing marquee free agents always -- always -- comes with such risk. To sign the best, you generally have to live with overpayment at the tail end of the deal. That's life as a big boy club. Well said. One would hope that by the time they do get around to dropping off in production, the powers that be have managed to construct a team to account for that dropoff. Or even better, the powers that be have steered clear of that dropoff altogether, so that when they have a strong team constructed, it's not hindered by an overpaid, declining veteran. Just because the Cubs can overcome such a situation, doesn't mean they should choose to put themselves in it.
  18. davearm2
    It's more likely that the NL adopt the DH than the AL give it up, that much I'm confident about. When such a change will take place is anyone's guess. I don't sense a strong movement heading in that direction.
  19. davearm2
    Just about everything you said in that first paragraph is open to debate. Some folks think Fielder has already passed through his prime, and the fact that his highest career WAR season was several years ago suggests the early aging curve for heavier players may very well apply to him. Fielder certainly has his own red flags, one of which is that he may soon have no position in the field. Some folks think Fielder isn't a star either. Some folks question whether Fielder is going to give you plenty of primetime production. Basically, if everything were as cut and dried as you make it out to be, then everyone would be onboard with pursuing the guy.
  20. davearm2
    We're the Cardinals going to break even or lose money if they offered $3.4 mil more? Or do the owners just not want to cut further into their profit margins? It's not just about making or losing money. It's about turning dollars into wins. At some point you can buy more wins by spending the money elsewhere. Not this year or next year perhaps, but over the life of the contract.
  21. davearm2
    Yeah this is starting to look like a (rare) case where winning bidder won't be able to reach an agreement with the player, and the guy will end up staying in Japan. If he's even remotely serious about that $20M number, that is.
  22. davearm2
    What Pujols has been for the Cardinals is not what he will be. Those days of him carrying mediocre offenses to the postseason are numbered. I agree the Cards played this right. They figured out their max price, put it out there, and let the chips fall. If offering more made business sense, they would have done so. Making emotional decisions that don't make good business sense don't usually turn out well (i.e., offering well above your comfort level out of loyalty or whatever).
  23. davearm2
    That's a terrible analysis. The majority of that money is not going to be spent at all, it'll be invested. Pujols will pay $10M for a house that would have cost $2M in St Louis. The rest is just noise, at the salary levels we're talking about. If a $10 carwash now costs $13, that matters when you're making $25K. It doesn't matter when you're making $25M.
  24. davearm2
    :lol:
  25. davearm2
    You misspelled fortunate Your point of view on this is just dumb. I'd bet $100 you couldn't accurately explain my point of view on this. Just the fact that you're so totally against giving either one of them any kind of contract is dumb. A shorter deal for a higher AAV is the way to go, but I will agree with you that going more than 6 years for either is a bad idea. Your failure to acknowledge the lack of impact bats becoming available in the next year or two (which the Cubs are in desperate need of) is blinding you. If the Cubs don't get one of these two, the rebuild (and potential ceiling for how good the team can be) will take much longer than if there's still a giant hole at first base. I'm not against giving either one of them any kind of contract. You owe me $100. ;)
×
×
  • Create New...