Lee + New Contract = Soon?

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

He's worth 15 per.

 

If Furcal is worth 13 per, and Damon is worth 14 per, Lee is easily worth 15.

None of them are worth that much. They were both overpaid and Lee would certainly be overpaid at 15 a year.

That's the market now.

 

Do you refuse to pay big money to big stars because the market's inflated? I'm not saying we should be the Yankees, but we also shouldn't be Kansas City.

 

Is he a "big star?" He had one stellar year.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

He's worth 15 per.

 

If Furcal is worth 13 per, and Damon is worth 14 per, Lee is easily worth 15.

None of them are worth that much. They were both overpaid and Lee would certainly be overpaid at 15 a year.

That's the market now.

 

Do you refuse to pay big money to big stars because the market's inflated? I'm not saying we should be the Yankees, but we also shouldn't be Kansas City.

 

Is he a "big star?" He had one stellar year.

 

I know the WS changed things a little however was Konerko a big star? I'd rather have Lee than Konerko.

 

-edit wow both are 30...

 

Baseball Prospectus PECOTA projects

 

Konerko VORP

 

06 - 27.1

07 - 22.9

08 - 13.7

09 - 11.8

 

 

Lee VORP

 

06 - 51.1

07 - 40.3

08 - 40.3

09 - 27.3

[burnt out cubbie fan]

He's worth 15 per.

 

If Furcal is worth 13 per, and Damon is worth 14 per, Lee is easily worth 15.

None of them are worth that much. They were both overpaid and Lee would certainly be overpaid at 15 a year.

That's the market now.

 

Do you refuse to pay big money to big stars because the market's inflated? I'm not saying we should be the Yankees, but we also shouldn't be Kansas City.

Damon isn't a star and didn't deserve that much money. Neither is Furcal. Tell me, how did the contract that the Mets gave to Beltran work out? In order for a team to pay a player that much money at 30-31 years of age or older, they better have one hell of a track record in my opinion.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

He's worth 15 per.

 

If Furcal is worth 13 per, and Damon is worth 14 per, Lee is easily worth 15.

None of them are worth that much. They were both overpaid and Lee would certainly be overpaid at 15 a year.

That's the market now.

 

Do you refuse to pay big money to big stars because the market's inflated? I'm not saying we should be the Yankees, but we also shouldn't be Kansas City.

Damon isn't a star and didn't deserve that much money. Neither is Furcal. Tell me, how did the contract that the Mets gave to Beltran work out? In order for a team to pay a player that much money at 30-31 years of age or older, they better have one hell of a track record.

 

So do you suggest the Cubs shouldn't enter the FA market? Is that realistic?

[ManCrushOnNomar]

So do you suggest the Cubs shouldn't enter the FA market? Is that realistic?

For once I'm completely agreeing with you.

[Andy]

He's worth 15 per.

 

If Furcal is worth 13 per, and Damon is worth 14 per, Lee is easily worth 15.

None of them are worth that much. They were both overpaid and Lee would certainly be overpaid at 15 a year.

That's the market now.

 

Do you refuse to pay big money to big stars because the market's inflated? I'm not saying we should be the Yankees, but we also shouldn't be Kansas City.

Damon isn't a star and didn't deserve that much money. Neither is Furcal. Tell me, how did the contract that the Mets gave to Beltran work out? In order for a team to pay a player that much money at 30-31 years of age or older, they better have one hell of a track record in my opinion.

Beltran DID have a pretty damn good track record. Why he fell off so precipitously is a mystery to some.

 

FWIW, if the Cubs were to give DLee 15M a year, he wouldn't have to adjust to a new team, as Beltran, Beltre and other recent FA busts have had to do.

[Drew Doughty]

I thought Beltran was playing hurt last year?

[burnt out cubbie fan]

He's worth 15 per.

 

If Furcal is worth 13 per, and Damon is worth 14 per, Lee is easily worth 15.

None of them are worth that much. They were both overpaid and Lee would certainly be overpaid at 15 a year.

That's the market now.

 

Do you refuse to pay big money to big stars because the market's inflated? I'm not saying we should be the Yankees, but we also shouldn't be Kansas City.

Damon isn't a star and didn't deserve that much money. Neither is Furcal. Tell me, how did the contract that the Mets gave to Beltran work out? In order for a team to pay a player that much money at 30-31 years of age or older, they better have one hell of a track record.

 

So do you suggest the Cubs shouldn't enter the FA market? Is that realistic?

No, I just suggest that they don't pay ridiculous amounts of money for players that are 32 years old and have a game based around speed. I also don't think that they should shell out 15 mil a year to a player that has only shown a superstar ability for 1 year in his career. If he puts up numbers that are equal to or better than last year again this year then I am fine with it. Until then, though, I don't want to see us blowing a large portion of the payroll on somebody that may have caught lightening in a bottle.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

He's worth 15 per.

 

If Furcal is worth 13 per, and Damon is worth 14 per, Lee is easily worth 15.

None of them are worth that much. They were both overpaid and Lee would certainly be overpaid at 15 a year.

That's the market now.

 

Do you refuse to pay big money to big stars because the market's inflated? I'm not saying we should be the Yankees, but we also shouldn't be Kansas City.

Damon isn't a star and didn't deserve that much money. Neither is Furcal. Tell me, how did the contract that the Mets gave to Beltran work out? In order for a team to pay a player that much money at 30-31 years of age or older, they better have one hell of a track record in my opinion.

Beltran DID have a pretty damn good track record. Why he fell off so precipitously is a mystery to some.

He had a decent track record. He certainly didn't have one to even remotely justify the contract that he got until he tore the cover off of the ball the 2nd have of the 2004 season. He gained 4-5 mil a year on that contract due to that hot streak that he had.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

If Lee wants that big of a contract, he better carry the Cubs to the playoffs this year. If you look at all of the big contracts that have been handed out in the last 2 years, the ones that have been in the 12-13+ mil a year region have all gone to players that were in the playoffs and in most cases played a very central role to their being there. Beltran, Konerko, Beltre, Drew, Damon, Furcal, and I am sure there are others all played a large role in their team getting to the playoffs/winning the world series.

[Shilzzz]

i don't understand. we have all this money to spend, what do you spend it on? i mean, if this doesn't get done before the end of the year he will more than likely go FA. and if he does he will go somewhere else.

 

who is your other option at first when he goes? how do you make up for lee's production in 2007 if you let him walk by not paying him what the market, over paying or not, currently dictates?

[Drew Doughty]

Just because you might not have someone to replaces him doesn't mean you overpay for him. He has had one spectacular season and a gaggle of good ones. Let's see how he does this year and re-sign him based on that. I don't want to have a "good" firstbaseman for 15m a season. I want a spectacular one for that price.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

I would like to see us give contracts to Aramis, Zambrano, Prior, another couple of pitchers since we might lose Wood and will hopefully lose Maddux. Don't get me wrong, I want to have Lee around. I just don't want to give him a ridiculous contract, especially before he shows that he can put up numbers like he did last year again.

 

Oh yeah, I would like to see us give a contract to Carlos Lee if he isn't asking for 13+ mil a year. It would be nice to have a good outfielder for once.

Edited February 21, 2006 by burnt out cubbie fan

[burnt out cubbie fan]

Just because you might not have someone to replaces him doesn't mean you overpay for him. He has had one spectacular season and a gaggle of good ones. Let's see how he does this year and re-sign him based on that. I don't want to have a "good" firstbaseman for 15m a season. I want a spectacular one for that price.

BINGO!!!

[USSoccer]

i don't understand. we have all this money to spend, what do you spend it on? i mean, if this doesn't get done before the end of the year he will more than likely go FA. and if he does he will go somewhere else.

 

who is your other option at first when he goes? how do you make up for lee's production in 2007 if you let him walk by not paying him what the market, over paying or not, currently dictates?

 

Well, you can always move Ramirez to 1B (mostly kidding). You could trade for the Reds-Player-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named and stick him at 1B. Dopirak might explode. Sing could be serviceable for half a year. There are usually other 1B available via trade...

 

...it's not a knock against Derrek Lee, it's more like being realistic as far as how much you pay him. He's got to prove that 2005 wasn't a blip, a fluke, before he's worth Konerko-type money.

[RynoRules]

The only reason you sign Lee now if you're the Cubs is if he'll give you a reasonable contract demand to get it done. If he's asking for the moon, then there's no incentive on the Cubs part to do anything now. He's signed for 2006, let him put up similar numbers again and THEN offer him the big money next winter.

 

Because if duplicates his 2005 performance (unlikely), he'll get the $15MM/year anyway (not more). If he's back to his more similar career year of maybe .280/.380/.525 with 30/90, then he's worth $10MM/year, no more.

 

Onus is on Lee here, not the Cubs. I'll extend him now if he wants no more than $12MM/year, anything more than that and he'll need to wait.

 

Agreed. Take it with a grain of salt, but I heard Levine on ESPN Radio earlier, and he opined that it would take something like Konerko's deal to ink him during ST.

[USSoccer]

The only reason you sign Lee now if you're the Cubs is if he'll give you a reasonable contract demand to get it done. If he's asking for the moon, then there's no incentive on the Cubs part to do anything now. He's signed for 2006, let him put up similar numbers again and THEN offer him the big money next winter.

 

Because if duplicates his 2005 performance (unlikely), he'll get the $15MM/year anyway (not more). If he's back to his more similar career year of maybe .280/.380/.525 with 30/90, then he's worth $10MM/year, no more.

 

Onus is on Lee here, not the Cubs. I'll extend him now if he wants no more than $12MM/year, anything more than that and he'll need to wait.

 

Agreed. Take it with a grain of salt, but I heard Levine on ESPN Radio earlier, and he opined that it would take something like Konerko's deal to ink him during ST.

 

Which is exactly why you wait. You have an exclusive window to negotiate with him after the season. If he's great again, like a .300/.375 type year with 35HR/110 RBI, then fine, give him his contract, but if he puts up 2004-like numbers, then maybe not.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

i don't understand. we have all this money to spend, what do you spend it on? i mean, if this doesn't get done before the end of the year he will more than likely go FA. and if he does he will go somewhere else.

 

who is your other option at first when he goes? how do you make up for lee's production in 2007 if you let him walk by not paying him what the market, over paying or not, currently dictates?

 

Well, you can always move Ramirez to 1B (mostly kidding). You could trade for the Reds-Player-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named and stick him at 1B. Dopirak might explode. Sing could be serviceable for half a year. There are usually other 1B available via trade...

 

...it's not a knock against Derrek Lee, it's more like being realistic as far as how much you pay him. He's got to prove that 2005 wasn't a blip, a fluke, before he's worth Konerko-type money.

 

Lee has always been better than Konerko and will be better in the future. I'm not saying the Cubs should go hog wild however they are a team that can overpay a little, considering the Yanks and BSox might be looking for a 1B in 07 this looks like a situation where it might be justified. If the Cubs can agree with 5\70 type deal I'd pull the trigger.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

i don't understand. we have all this money to spend, what do you spend it on? i mean, if this doesn't get done before the end of the year he will more than likely go FA. and if he does he will go somewhere else.

 

who is your other option at first when he goes? how do you make up for lee's production in 2007 if you let him walk by not paying him what the market, over paying or not, currently dictates?

 

Well, you can always move Ramirez to 1B (mostly kidding). You could trade for the Reds-Player-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named and stick him at 1B. Dopirak might explode. Sing could be serviceable for half a year. There are usually other 1B available via trade...

 

...it's not a knock against Derrek Lee, it's more like being realistic as far as how much you pay him. He's got to prove that 2005 wasn't a blip, a fluke, before he's worth Konerko-type money.

 

Lee has always been better than Konerko and will be better in the future. I'm not saying the Cubs should go hog wild however they are a team that can over pay a little and considering the Yanks and BSox might be looking for a 1B in 07 this looks like a situation where it might be justified. If the Cubs can agree with 5\65 type deal I'd pull the trigger.

What about 5/75? Cause that was the type of contract that I was saying was stupid.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Lee says he'd like to stay with the Cubs

 

"If it's a deal I feel is fair for me, I would sign it. It's still a business. I always look at it as if there is a deal that makes me happy now, why not sign it? I don't think $2-3 million a year more is going to change my life," he said.

 

:evil:

[Mark Priors Calves]

Lee says he'd like to stay with the Cubs

 

"If it's a deal I feel is fair for me, I would sign it. It's still a business. I always look at it as if there is a deal that makes me happy now, why not sign it? I don't think $2-3 million a year more is going to change my life," he said.

 

:evil:

 

That's a breath of fresh air.

[SouthSideRyan]

i don't understand. we have all this money to spend, what do you spend it on? i mean, if this doesn't get done before the end of the year he will more than likely go FA. and if he does he will go somewhere else.

 

who is your other option at first when he goes? how do you make up for lee's production in 2007 if you let him walk by not paying him what the market, over paying or not, currently dictates?

 

Well, you can always move Ramirez to 1B (mostly kidding). You could trade for the Reds-Player-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named and stick him at 1B. Dopirak might explode. Sing could be serviceable for half a year. There are usually other 1B available via trade...

 

...it's not a knock against Derrek Lee, it's more like being realistic as far as how much you pay him. He's got to prove that 2005 wasn't a blip, a fluke, before he's worth Konerko-type money.

 

Lee has always been better than Konerko and will be better in the future. I'm not saying the Cubs should go hog wild however they are a team that can overpay a little, considering the Yanks and BSox might be looking for a 1B in 07 this looks like a situation where it might be justified. If the Cubs can agree with 5\70 type deal I'd pull the trigger.

 

Konerko's deal was 5/60, not 70. 5/60 for Lee would be acceptable even with regression. I'd prefer it only be 4 years, but it's far from an albatross, nor would it likely become one.

[Outshined_One]

Konerko's deal was 5/60, not 70. 5/60 for Lee would be acceptable even with regression. I'd prefer it only be 4 years, but it's far from an albatross, nor would it likely become one.

 

Signing Lee for 5/60 or a comparable 4 year deal at this point would be most excellent, imo.

[Brian]

Lee says he'd like to stay with the Cubs

 

"If it's a deal I feel is fair for me, I would sign it. It's still a business. I always look at it as if there is a deal that makes me happy now, why not sign it? I don't think $2-3 million a year more is going to change my life," he said.

 

:evil:

 

:lol: I skimmed over this saw quotes from lee, didn't really read them, saw the sad face, and was getting worried then saw "Lee says he'd like to stay with the Cubs", and then saw the 2-3 million not changing his life and I was al confused and then I checked the posters name and it all made sense :D.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The Cubs might get him to shave some money off the future years by upping this year's salary by a couple of million as well.

 

Tear up his current deal and replace it with one that pays:

 

06: 11 million

07: 11.5 million

08: 12 million

09: 13 million

10: 15 million mutual option with a 2 million buyout.

 

If he plays out the entire deal, he gets a 5/62.5 deal. If the option is declined by either party, he gets 4/49.5 deal.

 

While that could be below what he would get on the open market, it nets him a raise of 2.5 million this year which he only gets if he signs the extension. Lee gets a little bump for a career year in exchange for signing the extension.

 

I think the Cubs could get him to agree to such a deal.