Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
The baseball world is not set up in a way that, to improve by a win, you must spend $4.5 million dollars. That isn't how it works.
And without pujols, trout, and wilson how many games would they have won?
Willingham-3 WAR, $7 million
Aramis-5 WAR, $6 million
Pujols-4 WAR, $12 million
Reyes-3 WAR, $10 million
This is just blisteringly dishonest accounting.
Aramis Ramirez was signed for 36M over three years that happens to be arrange 6 / 10 / 16 / 4 (buyout). Pujols signed for 10/240 with a cheap first year. Reyes signed for 6/106 with two $10M seasons to begin and then a bunch of $22M years to close out the contract.
The argument has always been that the Cubs could have contended this year and still built for the future.
There's no such thing as a "revamp the entire system philosophy." And you can revamp the system and put competitive teams on the field at the same time. Saying you can't is a false choice, if not a flat-out con.
They didn't gain anything tangible by insituting the "philosophy" of losing 101 games in 2012.
Five core internal guys improved by 9.8 WAR in 2012. There's a reason they actually play 162 games on the field every year.
Dempster, Maholm, Soto, and Marshall were tangible, too.
Then where are the net tangible gains?
. Trying to win doesn't mean the midseason trades couldn't have happened.
Well, as you said to me earlier that is awfully hard to know. But even if it somehow did cost the Cubs Soler that still doesn't mean much. Soler is a risk that might pay off some time in the future.
When was the last time a billy beane team lost 100+ games. The a's have done the be good for a long time and then go 77-85 for awhile and yet they have occasionally contended and built for the future.
They also got a sandwich pick by letting Aramis walk.
Hey, I'd pay to watch Chris Volstead pitch but there is no way I'd pay to see that child-killer Chris Volstad pitch.
Odds are that whoever you pick will never have as much value as three years of Aramis.
Wait, you told us WAR was useless and we couldn't trust any of the components of it.
But if you're telling me he doesn't have that magic, that the Cubs will only be good if Theo hits it big on the same picks that anybody who reads BA can make, then we're in serious trouble and definitely followed the wrong strategy last offseason.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (9 members)
Page rendered in 1.0580 seconds, 59 querie(s) executed