Originally Posted by RedsManRick
If you have the money, who cares about efficiency? While I'm certainly keen on staying fiscally responsible, with the sport awash in cash, efficiency is a secondary consideration to talent.
In terms of their "average" status. Their pythag of 87 wins puts them just 4 wins behind the Rockies, who were first in the NL with 91. The average NL team had 80 pythag wins. The cubs are right there with the NL elite and this move only helps.
Granted, the Cubs don't need to be as salary-efficient as, say, the Reds, but at some point, at their current pace, the Cubs will have to worry about salary efficiency. I'm not necessarily saying the Cubs need to be more efficient with their money--it's more about roster space. It's kind of like the 2004 Yankees, who were paying a dozen different pitchers a minimum of nearly two million dollars. What was ridiculous was that the Yankees still
had a below average pitching staff. If they wanted to add an impact pitcher, they either would've needed to carry 13 pitchers or pay millions of dollars to one of their pitchers to pitch somewhere else. The Cubs aren't at that point yet, but they're rapidly approaching it. I doubt they'll ever get to that point--I'm just saying that their decisions in the past two off-seasons are reminiscent of the Yankees' in recent years.
And obviously, I was being subjective when I said the Cubs were an average NL team in 2007, but I think the Cubs' fortunate pythag record was largely in part due to A.) half the games being against NL Central opponents and B.) Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis having fluke years.