davearm2

I agree with distinguishing international from draft. It would require two separate, but parallel analyses. I guess I just lumped them together for sake of simplicity.

This has already played out once before. Check the archives for the the showdown between the Nats and Soriano re: moving to leftfield circa spring training 2006. My decidedly vague recollection was that the club couldn't void the contract, but probably could put the player on the restricted list and not pay him for as long as the player chose to be noncompliant.

The fact that many people here are realistic about what we can possibly expect from Colvin doesn't mean the majority of Cubs fans think that way. Well obviously some fans will overrate him. Same is true of anyone really. It just sounds odd to hear someone say his offensive skills are overrated when all you ever hear around here is how much the guy sucks. The bolded/underlined part is what I'm getting at. What you hear around here doesn't necessarily mirror the opinion of the majority of Cubs fans. Read comments by Cubs fans on other sites, and it's somewhat easy to see that there's no shortage of people who think Colvin is fantastic. I guess I'll take your word for it. I admit don't have my finger on the pulse of the majority of Cubs fans, although I'm certain there are plenty of oblivious and overly optimistic ones. I know the vibe I get here, and the vibe I get listening to Pat/Ron/Len/Bob, don't support this overrated label.

I would, actually, but not because they spent $2m to get him. A Latin American arm worth $1m would be pretty special; that's more than some first round draft picks get. Basically, by saying the guy is worth $1m, the Cubs are saying he has the potential to develop into a top of the rotation starter or a closer. That's special for someone who's 16/17. If the Cubs feel that he's worth $1m and he has the leverage to ask for $2m and get it from some other team, then I wouldn't have a problem with that sort of signing. Now, from the spirit of your post, I'm guessing you're talking about spending money for the sake of spending money; i.e. if the Cubs randomly decide a player is only worth $50,000 and end up giving him $2m just so they can say they spent in the draft. Judging from what some other posters have said and what I have said, that is not at all what we are arguing the Cubs should do. We're saying the Cubs need to spend money in order to obtain high end talent and bolster the farm system. The Cubs are not a small market team that needs to pinch pennies. Cripes, even some of those teams actually spend in the draft compared to the Cubs (Pirates, Royals, etc.). Highly talented players with a lot of leverage cost money and the fact of the matter is, the Cubs rarely draft those sorts of players. This is a team that has the revenue streams and the resources to spend the money needed to develop a consistently high quality farm system, rather than a farm system that relies on lottery tickets. For the draft, all it would take is another $2m-$3m a year. That would make all the difference in the world. I'd rather the team spend that money on the draft than on miserably overrated relief pitchers. I wonder if you would feel the same way if it could be demonstrated that spending top dollar on the cream of the crop amateurs works out about as well as spending top dollar on the cream of the crop free agents (the Sorianos and Teixeiras and Sabathias and Zitos etc.). What if it's the case that to land that elite caliber of amateur player necessarily requires overspending to the point of yielding a negative expected value? I don't have the data to prove it, but it stands to reason that these markets quite possibly function in a similar way, where the prices at the very top escalate exponentially, and out of proportion to the talent difference. I guess what I'm saying is, there seems to be a presumption that spending (relatively) big in these amateur areas is inherently good and smart. It's pretty much accepted as given that you want your team doing this. Nobody seems to stop and think, maybe it's not smart at all, once a robust risk/reward analysis is applied. The reason that it IS a good idea to spend on these guys is the fact that the ones that DO pan out become cheap, good, controllable players for a while. Even if the risk is higher, it pays off more in the longrun by hitting on a couple of them every once in a while. It makes alot more sense to augment your team with free agents than it does to go try and buy a team, which is basically what the Cubs have done recently. Oh I get the theory. I just question whether the empirical data would support the notion that it's effective, especially as it pertains to the top-level guys that cost upwards of $1M to land.

I would, actually, but not because they spent $2m to get him. A Latin American arm worth $1m would be pretty special; that's more than some first round draft picks get. Basically, by saying the guy is worth $1m, the Cubs are saying he has the potential to develop into a top of the rotation starter or a closer. That's special for someone who's 16/17. If the Cubs feel that he's worth $1m and he has the leverage to ask for $2m and get it from some other team, then I wouldn't have a problem with that sort of signing. Now, from the spirit of your post, I'm guessing you're talking about spending money for the sake of spending money; i.e. if the Cubs randomly decide a player is only worth $50,000 and end up giving him $2m just so they can say they spent in the draft. Judging from what some other posters have said and what I have said, that is not at all what we are arguing the Cubs should do. We're saying the Cubs need to spend money in order to obtain high end talent and bolster the farm system. The Cubs are not a small market team that needs to pinch pennies. Cripes, even some of those teams actually spend in the draft compared to the Cubs (Pirates, Royals, etc.). Highly talented players with a lot of leverage cost money and the fact of the matter is, the Cubs rarely draft those sorts of players. This is a team that has the revenue streams and the resources to spend the money needed to develop a consistently high quality farm system, rather than a farm system that relies on lottery tickets. For the draft, all it would take is another $2m-$3m a year. That would make all the difference in the world. I'd rather the team spend that money on the draft than on miserably overrated relief pitchers. Exactly. I don't really even care if the money comes off the major league payroll for the next couple of seasons, but if Wilken was given 10-12 million to work with for the draft and international signees, I truly believe we'd see some serious talent come through Wrigley within the next 4-5 seasons. And what I'm asking is, what's the basis for the assumption that spending big will yield big results at the major league level? I don't mean to single you out because this is how everybody seems to think. I'd be interested to see a list of the 25 highest paid international free agents from, say, 2003 through 2007. Guys that got signing bonuses in excess of $1M. How many of those guys are impact major leaguers right now? Seems like you'd have to have an understanding of those results before you could say confidently that spending the sort of money you mentioned is indeed worthwhile and advisable.

I would, actually, but not because they spent $2m to get him. A Latin American arm worth $1m would be pretty special; that's more than some first round draft picks get. Basically, by saying the guy is worth $1m, the Cubs are saying he has the potential to develop into a top of the rotation starter or a closer. That's special for someone who's 16/17. If the Cubs feel that he's worth $1m and he has the leverage to ask for $2m and get it from some other team, then I wouldn't have a problem with that sort of signing. Now, from the spirit of your post, I'm guessing you're talking about spending money for the sake of spending money; i.e. if the Cubs randomly decide a player is only worth $50,000 and end up giving him $2m just so they can say they spent in the draft. Judging from what some other posters have said and what I have said, that is not at all what we are arguing the Cubs should do. We're saying the Cubs need to spend money in order to obtain high end talent and bolster the farm system. The Cubs are not a small market team that needs to pinch pennies. Cripes, even some of those teams actually spend in the draft compared to the Cubs (Pirates, Royals, etc.). Highly talented players with a lot of leverage cost money and the fact of the matter is, the Cubs rarely draft those sorts of players. This is a team that has the revenue streams and the resources to spend the money needed to develop a consistently high quality farm system, rather than a farm system that relies on lottery tickets. For the draft, all it would take is another $2m-$3m a year. That would make all the difference in the world. I'd rather the team spend that money on the draft than on miserably overrated relief pitchers. I wonder if you would feel the same way if it could be demonstrated that spending top dollar on the cream of the crop amateurs works out about as well as spending top dollar on the cream of the crop free agents (the Sorianos and Teixeiras and Sabathias and Zitos etc.). What if it's the case that to land that elite caliber of amateur player necessarily requires overspending to the point of yielding a negative expected value? I don't have the data to prove it, but it stands to reason that these markets quite possibly function in a similar way, where the prices at the very top escalate exponentially, and out of proportion to the talent difference. I guess what I'm saying is, there seems to be a presumption that spending (relatively) big in these amateur areas is inherently good and smart. It's pretty much accepted as given that you want your team doing this. Nobody seems to stop and think, maybe it's not smart at all, once a robust risk/reward analysis is applied.

The fact that many people here are realistic about what we can possibly expect from Colvin doesn't mean the majority of Cubs fans think that way. Well obviously some fans will overrate him. Same is true of anyone really. It just sounds odd to hear someone say his offensive skills are overrated when all you ever hear around here is how much the guy sucks.

See these last two posts prove my point. Hard to argue Colvin's offensive skills are overrated, when many folks think he has no offensive skills.

I'm willing to bet the exact opposite. The government is not going to lay down in such a high-profile case.

A bunch of foolish overspending just to send a message to fans doesn't sound like the greatest plan, either. Say they've scouted some Latin player, and they like him and according to their intel they think he's worth a $1M bonus. They offer him the $1M and the player comes back and says I'll only sign for $2M. Would you like to see the Cubs pay the $2M just so they have a big $$$ int'l signee to trot out to fans?

Opinions on Colvin are all over the board. His offensive skills are quite likely being underrated by the crowd that has already written him off as nothing but a funamentally flawed career 4th OF.

How someone could spin this as a negative is amazing. People the alternative is giving Xavier freakin Nady those ABs. We already know what he can do. Kudos to the Cubs for doing some experimenting that could prove useful down the road.

It's too bad he hasn't had some more time there. At this point his ability to be at least adequate at 1B is pretty much a complete unknown.

Not surprisingly, the Cubs' play on the field has been somewhere between miserable and sad every day.

Reports say that Lee passed through waivers. So nobody wanted him for free at his salary. Throwing cash into the deal was Hendry's only option.

No. Nothing Samardzija could do in the remaining small sample size would make me confident in him going into 2011.

Count me as intrigued by Pena. IIRC his defense is considered very good, he's got great patience at the plate, the power's obviously there, and a move to the NL/Wrigley could be beneficial.

Dunn will be overpriced? If he gets something close to the 4/60 deal he's looking for, yes, he will be overpriced - and I'm a pretty big Dunn fan. And I think he may get something similar to that since the other best free agents on the market are Jorge Cantu and maybe Russell Branyan. Dunn didn't get anywhere close to 4/60 two years ago. 2/20 is what he got -- half the years and 1/3 the dollars. Not sure why he'd get a significantly better deal than 2/20 now, considering he's 2 years older, and generally speaking, MLB is in no better financial shape.

He's grasping the point just fine. The point is, the Cubs have a particular inventory of players that are already on the roster, and their salaries are a sunk cost. The exercise here is to deploy them in the most effective way. Specifically, which of the following regular lineups wins the most games: a) Soriano 1B, Colvin LF, Hoffpauir/LeHair bench b) Colvin 1B, Soriano LF, Hoffpauir/LeHair bench c) Soriano LF, Hoffpauir/LeHair 1B, Colvin bench d) Colvin LF, Hoffpauir/LeHair 1B, Soriano bench Cost is no consideration. All are paid for. The only value question is, which lineup wins the most games. Now of course you could complicate the equation by adding a free agent 1B for $X, but then the analysis would look like this: e) best option of a), b), c) and d) above, PLUS $X to spend elsewhere f) FA 1B for $X, Colvin/Soriano LF, Hoffpauir/LeHair + Colvin/Soriano bench

Well that's awfully unclear. Is there "profound disappointment" that key vets are being sold off when they shouldn't be? Or "profound disappointment" that they've sucked so much that the only logical course is to sell off key vets?

The pitching prospect part is totally predictable. The three part is surprising.

This. This is a salary dump, where the money hopefully goes back into the system. That's about it. Not sure it's a salary dump. The Cubs are going to eat some money in all likelihood. Rationale being, Lee cleared waivers, meaning no team (Braves included) wanted him for free at 100% of his salary.

It's not better than Houston, San Antonio, or Dallas. Not even close. You couldn't pay me enough to live in Texas during the heat of the summer. Granted StL gets awfully hot too, but Texas is just stifling. When you're playing baseball with the roof closed on a typical summer afternoon, it's a problem. It's not that much hotter (~7-8 degrees on average) but I think StL is a lot more humid. They play with the roof closed because they have one to close. And they have one to close because they had to build their stadium that way to deal with the oppressive weather. Heck even their football stadium has a roof for heaven's sake. It ain't because of rain.

Or, perhaps the Cubs planned all along that the bullpen gig would be temporary. What would make you think that? They talked about him as though he was a starter when they drafted him, and they've groomed him in the minors to be a starter. Seems perfectly reasonable that the longterm plan is still to use him as a starter.

Picks? The Cubs weren't getting any picks for Lee.