davearm2

There's no way that's asking too much. If I'm selling an asset like Garza, on the right side of 30, signed for 2 years and producing at a high level in the majors, and someone tells me, "sorry, our A-ball phenom is offlimits," that's the end of the conversation.

Team's guns and wallets will be the same. Which means more reliance on having the proper information about who to go after. More old guys making [expletive] up about how calm a 16 year old's eyes are. Those are exactly the guys Theo and co. will continue to run circles around. You can change the rules, but the best GMs will still be the best GMs.

There's nothing like a point/counterpoint to demonstrate which perspective is correct or has a better return for the Cubs. Unless of course you would let Davearm go unrebutted... oh jeez get over yourself doug :D My article's ready, I just need to hand it off to someone that can host it.

Thanks for doing this Tim. I have some questions about your approach: * why did you trend out wOBA instead of WAR? WAR is ultimately what we care about, since it's more comprehensive. * I was curious why you didn't bake the injury risk into your analysis. It's easy to do, simply by including the comps that were impacted by injuries. Others may disagree, but I think it's a distinct risk with Pujols, and not some low-probability possibility. He's had chronic injuries in the past, and frankly he looked awful running late in the year this year. As you probably know, I did a pretty similar comp-driven analysis, and got some much different results... and of course an opposite conclusion. Specifically, I think you're incorrect about how likely Pujols is to hit the $200M and $275M value marks. The first seems about 50/50 to me, and the second seems about 10 or 20% likely. Only Aaron and Mays had career arcs that generated that level of value. Many more players had HOF-caliber careers through age 31, but didn't play well (or at all) into their 40s. The other glaring error seemed to be in the analysis that concluded with, "in every season in age 32 and beyond, these four players retained a minimum of 91% of their value from their age 29-31 seasons." They surely did not on a WAR basis, despite having pretty stable wOBAs, as you showed. Anyway, I'll try to write my stuff up more fully ASAP.

Personally, I'm loving this switch to a 0 day NBA season.

Here's a pretty informative article on the Sox, Matsuzaka, and revenue potential (or lack thereof): http://www.eagletribune.com/sports/x1876315329/Matsuzaka-wont-be-cash-cow-Red-Sox-need

I'd bet you're overestimating the marketing value by a factor of 10, easily. Probably even more. First, merchandizing revenue is split evenly by all 30 teams. The Cubs would make the most money on Darvish jersey sales if he signs with the Yankees Second, the Cubs don't own the television rights in Japan, so they can't sell something they don't own. If a bunch of Japanese folks start watching Cubs games, they'll do so online, via the Japanese version of MLB.TV. Any revenue generated for MLBAM would also be shared equally by the 30 teams. "We'll offset so-and-so's salary with marketing revenue" is by and large a huge fallacy.

I worked too hard to get zero clicks on this. :) Interesting stuff so far. I look forward to seeing more numbers and graphs.

You realize that's actually an argument for *not* signing either of these guys. Finishing 79-83 rather than 72-90 is kinda pointless. You sign a guy like this when you've got a team that's 82-80 (or better) without them. The question, how far away are the Cubs from having that 82-80 team? And what will be the impact-player alternatives at that time? I realize nobody wants to suck. But let's think about this objectively. So again, we're totally cool with gambling $150m on the two guys with zero MLB experience but investing that money in a cornerstone player would be a waste? I don't recall saying that. Although there is an obvious advantage to spending on guys that have yet to hit their prime years.

You realize that's actually an argument for *not* signing either of these guys. Finishing 79-83 rather than 72-90 is kinda pointless. You sign a guy like this when you've got a team that's 82-80 (or better) without them. The question, how far away are the Cubs from having that 82-80 team? And what will be the impact-player alternatives at that time? I realize nobody wants to suck. But let's think about this objectively. WHY ARE YOU ACTING LIKE FIELDER WOULD ONLY BE HERE OR BE PRODUCTIVE FOR ONE YEAR?!!? Read the third sentence. And chill out.

Great, great point. Two .5 WAR players don't equal 1 WAR. It doesn't work that way. All you have are two .5 WAR guys sharing one position. In other words, two [expletive] players does not equal one mediocre player. If WAR is supposed to be additive it's any even worse metric than I assumed. It's a terrible point that illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of WAR. Are two guys that hit 15 HRs each in 300 PAs as valuable as one guy that hits 30 HRs in 600 PAs? Answer: yes. By the exact same logic, if the L and R halves of a platoon are both worth 1.5 wins in half-duty, together they're worth the same as a fulltime, 3-win player. The guy that pointed out that WAR is a counting stat nailed it.

You realize that's actually an argument for *not* signing either of these guys. Finishing 79-83 rather than 72-90 is kinda pointless. You sign a guy like this when you've got a team that's 82-80 (or better) without them. The question, how far away are the Cubs from having that 82-80 team? And what will be the impact-player alternatives at that time? I realize nobody wants to suck. But let's think about this objectively.

Yep. Those blue Cub uni's look like PJs.

Never quite understood that one. So a guy that becomes chronically and/or seriously injured as he hits his mid/late 30s, you want the option to keep around longer? It's the league minimum part of the clause that makes it attractive. Basically, if you're paying the guy for a year to spend on the DL, you get a year of basically free service in return. However, I'm still not a fan of a five year deal for any but the most elite of pitchers. What you're getting in that "free" year sounds kinda dubious though, no? The guy's very likely coming off of surgery, and is certainly in his late 30s. Sure there's no risk to the team, but the reward seems pretty sketchy. Go ahead and add the clause I suppose, I just wouldn't value it very highly if I'm the team. The value of it depends on when in the contract the injury occurs, but yeah. I'm not a huge fan of it, either. Well maybe, maybe not. I don't think you can look at this through the same lens you would a 21-yo kid having TJS. Medical technology being what it is, and with a young body, that kid probably still has a terrific outlook after a year of rehab. But when a thirtysomething that's already logged ~15 years of professional pitching goes down with something serious, I'd imagine there's a pretty strong likelihood he's never the same guy again. Just a gut feeling though. Naturally, that torpedoes the option's value regardless of when in the contract the injury occurs.

Any "Cubs should sign Pujols/Fielder" argument begs the question, "for how much/ how long?" I'd be interested in seeing an accompanying article where you lay out an 8-year forecast of yearly WARs for each of these two guys, and explain the analysis that generated your numbers. Better would be distinct "best case", "worst case" and "expected case" trendlines. Better still would be percentiles akin to what I recall seeing on PECOTA cards back when I subscribed to BR. Then conclude by discussing what the maximum contract you'd be willing to offer to each guy is. It would certainly make an interesting article. You seem to have missed the point of this one, though. I even state at the end that if you're against the signings because of the inherent risk that it is understandable. What borders on silly, imo, is to insist that the timing is simply not right to sign a big free agent. Fair enough. Those are two separate discussions, I suppose. I feel safe assuming nobody here would be opposed to a 4/80 deal, and nobody would be in favor of a 12/400 deal. So the issue of "how much" is pretty central to the discussion IMO. Sure - but that article was meant to be a response to those who say we have to focus on developing the farm first. I'll be happy to write one tomorrow that talks about what deal might be reasonable for each. That'd be terrific. Naturally you approach it how you want, but I'd love to see it built up from a WAR forecast like I described. Seems beyond certain that that's the approach Theo and co. will use.

Never quite understood that one. So a guy that becomes chronically and/or seriously injured as he hits his mid/late 30s, you want the option to keep around longer? It's the league minimum part of the clause that makes it attractive. Basically, if you're paying the guy for a year to spend on the DL, you get a year of basically free service in return. However, I'm still not a fan of a five year deal for any but the most elite of pitchers. What you're getting in that "free" year sounds kinda dubious though, no? The guy's very likely coming off of surgery, and is certainly in his late 30s. Sure there's no risk to the team, but the reward seems pretty sketchy. Go ahead and add the clause I suppose, I just wouldn't value it very highly if I'm the team.

Any "Cubs should sign Pujols/Fielder" argument begs the question, "for how much/ how long?" I'd be interested in seeing an accompanying article where you lay out an 8-year forecast of yearly WARs for each of these two guys, and explain the analysis that generated your numbers. Better would be distinct "best case", "worst case" and "expected case" trendlines. Better still would be percentiles akin to what I recall seeing on PECOTA cards back when I subscribed to BR. Then conclude by discussing what the maximum contract you'd be willing to offer to each guy is. It would certainly make an interesting article. You seem to have missed the point of this one, though. I even state at the end that if you're against the signings because of the inherent risk that it is understandable. What borders on silly, imo, is to insist that the timing is simply not right to sign a big free agent. Fair enough. Those are two separate discussions, I suppose. I feel safe assuming nobody here would be opposed to a 4/80 deal, and nobody would be in favor of a 12/400 deal. So the issue of "how much" is pretty central to the discussion IMO.

Never quite understood that one. So a guy that becomes chronically and/or seriously injured as he hits his mid/late 30s, you want the option to keep around longer? Wouldn't it make way more sense to start with a shorter deal, and add easily-obtainable vesting player options? Something like 4 years guaranteed, with a string of player options that trigger with, say, 150IP the previous season.

Any "Cubs should sign Pujols/Fielder" argument begs the question, "for how much/ how long?" I'd be interested in seeing an accompanying article where you lay out an 8-year forecast of yearly WARs for each of these two guys, and explain the analysis that generated your numbers. Better would be distinct "best case", "worst case" and "expected case" trendlines. Better still would be percentiles akin to what I recall seeing on PECOTA cards back when I subscribed to BR. Then conclude by discussing what the maximum contract you'd be willing to offer to each guy is.

You're misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting any of these things are given. I'm asking, if you're presented with a trade offer that *is* for prospects, and this is the most attractive offer available, and it *does* leave you worse off in 2012 instantaneously, without considering any other moves, but does make you better down the road, do you do it? This is the only situation worthy of discussion. The other options that make you better now and better later are no-brainers.

The free agents are a separate issue entirely. If you're offered a trade that helps you now *and* in the future, then obviously you take it. Of course if you hold out for such a deal, then you probably won't ever trade anyone. Where the rubber meets the road is when you're offered a trade that hurts you now but helps you in the future (or visa versa). That's like 99% of the cases. You think 99% of trades are (major league player) for (minor league players at least one year away)? You don't think you're overstating that a smidge? I'd guess if we went through a transaction record that quite a few major leaguer for major leaguer trades happen, not to mention major leaguer for mlb ready prospect trades. No, 99% of trades involve sacrificing in one area to get better in another area. It could be bolstering the minor league system in exchange for a useful major leaguer, like we're talking about here. It could be getting a starting pitcher for a 3B. It could be getting one superstar for 2 great players. Point being, there's a tradeoff. This whole "let's make a trade that makes us better now and better in the future" sounds like getting something for nothing, and seems pointless to discuss.

To me trading Marmol is pretty much a no-brainer, for the reasons you mentioned. You can't really say these things about Soto or Marshall, and definitely not Garza. There's really no two ways about it -- you trade any of those three, and you're going to be worse in 2012... or you'll be paying more $$$ to get equal production on the FA market.

The free agents are a separate issue entirely. If you're offered a trade that helps you now *and* in the future, then obviously you take it. Of course if you hold out for such a deal, then you probably won't ever trade anyone. Where the rubber meets the road is when you're offered a trade that hurts you now but helps you in the future (or visa versa). That's like 99% of the cases.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future. If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion. Do you want to move all of our tradeable assets for the best possible return? So we should trade Garza, Marshall, Marmol, Byrd and anyone else we can get a return for? And then not sign any star free agents to fill the gaps, of course. I'm just trying to get at which is more important to you, fielding the best team possible in 2012 or building for the future. I've said right from the beginning that building for the future is more important to me. I've hardly kept that a secret. Not sure why everyone else is so afraid to pick one side or the other. A definite yes on Marshall, Marmol, and Byrd, presuming solid value is offered. Garza is more tricky since he could be a cornerstone for many years. It's not that we are afraid to pick one side or the other. We feel it is unnecessary to choose. Not sure why you feel it is required. It's necessary to choose the moment another team calls offering a package of prospects for one of these guys. You have to tell them yes or no.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future. If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion. Yes, we know how you're trying to frame this; that's the point. It's not an either/or proposition. The Cubs can do both and should do both and I want them to do both. So you'd trade Marmol for Hernandez. Thanks, that's very helpful to know.