Hairyducked Idiot

1) I said "at least average." A couple of those spots could be a lot better than average. 2) We still have at least $35 million to spend 3) Average teams can have slightly above-average seasons, and above-average teams win the WS sometimes. 4) Your level of "inspiration" isn't really the end-goal towards which Hoystein should be working.

I don't know how many more times this needs to be said, but I'll quote it just so it appears one more time. The list of reasons the Cubs were bad the last two seasons, in order of importance: 1) The complete, horrific failure of the mid-2000s drafts. 2) The complete, horrific failure of the mid-2000s drafts. 3) The complete, horrific failure of the mid-2000s drafts. ... ... ... 998)The complete, horrific failure of the mid-2000s drafts. 999) Some bad luck in 2011 1000) Overpaying by a bit for some good but not elite free agents and contract extensions.

I think you are really underselling the state of the team. Assuming $130 million is the payroll, we have at least $35 million left to spend. We have likely average production, at least, from C, SS, 2b and RF, and could easily get it from LF and CF too. We have at least three average starting pitchers and an above-average bullpen.

He's really not. He's only finished in the top 3 in the NL in oWAR once, and that was 2009. (Also, just because I had to go on his B-R page to find that, his middle name is Semien. Come on.)

Depends on the terms, but assuming he signs a reasonable deal that tears up his next two arb years (5/70, beginning immediately?): You've lowered his short-term value by raising his salary for 2012 and 2013 without raising his pitching ability. You've increased his long-term value by signing him up for three additional seasons for which he'll likely be worth at least as much as his contract. So a contract extension would turn a short-term asset into a long-term one. Until he signs such an extension, he's a short-term asset. Honestly, this seems so self-evident that I'm confused as to what you are arguing about.

Agreed! Hurry up and sign that extension, Hoystein.

He may also be overvalued because last year was the first time he was that good. His stuff and age make it good signs that his performance was legit, but you can't completely ignore that he was a sub-2 WAR pitcher two years ago. I can't read the future minds of every MLB GM, but I'd be really surprised if you could get more at the next trade deadline or offseason than you could now. Yes, if the Cubs find themselves in the playoffs next season, then Garza's immediate pitching would be worth a lot more to them than cashing in on his value in a trade. Conversely, if they find themselves 72-90, then Garza's pitching was basically wasted. If we assume the former, then we keep Garza no matter what. If we assume the latter, then we dump him no matter what. I think the odds of competing next year are good enough that keeping Garza is a very viable option, but the odds of being bad are also good enough that trading him is a viable option if the return is high enough.

Okay, so maybe we are getting bogged down in confusion more than I realized. It's context dependent. Value can mean: A) How good is Player at helping a team win baseball games? B) How much can Player command in a transaction (contract or trade)? C) How much does controlling Player at his current contract status contribute to the team's ultimate goals? Under Definition A, Soriano has some value. Under definition B, Soriano has no value. Under definition C, Soriano has negative value. Unless more posters come down with Jersey-itis, I'll assume that most people can pick out which meaning is being used based on the context of conversation. It makes sense to trade Garza if you convince some team to make Garza's B larger than Garza's C. It'd have to be a ton, but in this fetid market for starting pitching and coming off a career year to date, I think you might be able to do it. The longer we hold on to Garza, the more his B and C go down. We'll essentially be spending some of his B and C value on wins. Nothing wrong with that, of course, because wins are good.

Pointless semantics. In this case, "value" and "status as an asset" are interchangeable. Because it's the only way you can try and defend your pointless stance? Because I'm a native speaker of English and I understand the words that I'm using. I'm beginning to wonder about you.

Once a player reaches the high minors and performs, I'm not really worried about how "unproven" he is. I've never been a big fan of the concept of "provenness." Players change, both in the bigs and in the minors. It's not like we know for sure that Garza has figured it out and won't be returning to the 1.6 WAR pitcher he was two years ago, either. Or with his stuff, maybe he has an even better season or two in him coming up. "Proven" in baseball is very shaky ground, imo.

So in two years you can have: $15-20 million earmarked for Garza or $15-20 million earmarked for a starting pitcher 2-3 MLB players in their pre-arb years. Scenario B sounds pretty nice. It's not perfect, of course. It's risky to write off extending Garza and assuming you can find pitching later. But if the return is good enough, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

Pointless semantics. In this case, "value" and "status as an asset" are interchangeable.

And every game that he pitches, every week that you hold on to him during the regular season, another bit of his value as a cost-controlled player gets spent. Once you spend it, there's no getting it back. Short-term asset. knew it couldn't last I know. It was fun while it lasted, but eventually people couldn't resist going back to pointlessly dismissive statements. Which part are you disagreeing with, exactly? 1) A significant part of Garza's value is in his relatively low salary because of his cost-controlled status, which lasts for two more seasons. 2) As time goes on, that value diminishes. 1.5 seasons of cost-controlled Garza is not as valuable as two seasons of cost-controlled Garza. 3) At this point, Garza is only under team control for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. That makes him a "short-term" asset. The only one that's remotely controversial is point 3, because some people will want to include a hypothetical extension into his value to the Cubs, which I think is absurd. You mineaswell include other teams' free agents that you want in assessing the state of the team, if we are just going to assume we can sign players we want. I'm not saying the Cubs absolutely have to trade Garza because he's a short-term asset. There's nothing wrong with spending his value in 2012 on him actually pitching in 2012. But the reason the Cubs are apparently looking into a trade is because there is a chance to turn that 2012 value into a longer-term asset, and I don't have a problem with that either if the price is right.

He probably thinks we should sign him and give him to the Red Sox for free as Theo compensation. Seriously, how does a Red Sox beat reporter get this info? My guess is there isn't a single reporter anywhere who truly has a clue as to what's going on tonight. A Red Sox reporter would presumably have a good relationship with Epstein. Though sully's true user name is a more likely source for all of these rumors.

In the Bakken oil region, that might get you a medium-sized farm.

The best part of that "plan" is that it usually involves burning pre-arb years on a bunch of useful prospects in a wasted season.

Fine, Jed. I know, I know, in practical terms there is no hurry. But just for fun, hurry up and do something, please.

Which after 400 or so innings is pretty silly. How predictive is 400 innings? Honestly asking, not being sarcastic.

In general, I tend to assume that players' agents know this as well. But it seems like players enjoy going for high-score total nominal values than getting the most real value.

You are asking if $70 million is a big deal? Over 5 years additional years before which you're likely already getting elite production and potentially more very productive years thereafter. Also, $70M in 2016 dollars isn't the same as $70M in 2011 dollars, baseball wise or in general. Or Cubs-wise, really, as we should have a lot more revenue at that point. 220/10 and 22 AAV isn't like some horror story compared to 150/5. So if Pujols isn't really declining and $70 million isn't really a lot of money, then yeah, $220/10 is fine.

How about he just says that he doesn't believe that Wilson has the stuff to keep up his elite performance from recent years?

6/165 is as far as I'd go, off the top of my head.

You are asking if $70 million is a big deal?

Counter-offer: We generously allow him to take up one of our roster spots instead of one of theirs.