DLEE IS SIGNED!

[srbin84]

I think this is too much for Lee. I'm glad he's locked up, but I think we've overpaid. Tree's prediction is probably dead on.

 

Regarding Ramirez, I'm probably the biggest Aramis backer here, and I think that if he sees Lee getting this deal after just one, albeit sensational season, he's going to opt out because he could get far, FAR more than 2/22.5m on the open market. Do we have the budget to sign them both to these kinds of deals, PLUS locking up Pierre and Z?

 

I'll say this-if paying Lee means we have a shot at losing Aramis, it's a terrible deal. I think Aramis has more value than Derrek does. If signing Lee means we just overpaid for Lee, then fine. We're in our contending window, so it's not such a big deal. I just don't want to see us losing a great, younger slugger because we overreached on Lee AND splurged on the Jones/Perez/Rusch contracts long term.

 

I'm confident he would have gotten more money and possibly even an extra year from the likes of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Orioles. Nevermind the Yankees and Red Sox who could easily get into a bidding war, if Ned Colletti gave 13 mil to Furcal, what makes you think he wouldn't give 15 or 16 to Lee? Despite those three options, he would have Baltimore as well, which has coveted him for years and has Angelos as their owner...not to mention a disgruntled Tejada. I put him in the same class as Pujols and he's making about the same amount of money as him.

[USSoccer]

I think this is too much for Lee. I'm glad he's locked up, but I think we've overpaid. Tree's prediction is probably dead on.

 

Regarding Ramirez, I'm probably the biggest Aramis backer here, and I think that if he sees Lee getting this deal after just one, albeit sensational season, he's going to opt out because he could get far, FAR more than 2/22.5m on the open market. Do we have the budget to sign them both to these kinds of deals, PLUS locking up Pierre and Z?

 

I'll say this-if paying Lee means we have a shot at losing Aramis, it's a terrible deal. I think Aramis has more value than Derrek does. If signing Lee means we just overpaid for Lee, then fine. We're in our contending window, so it's not such a big deal. I just don't want to see us losing a great, younger slugger because we overreached on Lee AND splurged on the Jones/Perez/Rusch contracts long term.

 

I'm confident he would have gotten more money and possibly even an extra year from the likes of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Orioles. Nevermind the Yankees and Red Sox who could easily get into a bidding war, if Ned Colletti gave 13 mil to Furcal, what makes you think he wouldn't give 15 or 16 to Lee? Despite those three options, he would have Baltimore as well, which has coveted him for years and has Angelos as their owner...not to mention a disgruntled Tejada. I put him in the same class as Pujols and he's making about the same amount of money as him.

 

You could put him in that class, but you'd be dead wrong. He's nowhere near as good as Pujols, and not worth as much as he is in any reality.

[srbin84]

I think this is too much for Lee. I'm glad he's locked up, but I think we've overpaid. Tree's prediction is probably dead on.

 

Regarding Ramirez, I'm probably the biggest Aramis backer here, and I think that if he sees Lee getting this deal after just one, albeit sensational season, he's going to opt out because he could get far, FAR more than 2/22.5m on the open market. Do we have the budget to sign them both to these kinds of deals, PLUS locking up Pierre and Z?

 

I'll say this-if paying Lee means we have a shot at losing Aramis, it's a terrible deal. I think Aramis has more value than Derrek does. If signing Lee means we just overpaid for Lee, then fine. We're in our contending window, so it's not such a big deal. I just don't want to see us losing a great, younger slugger because we overreached on Lee AND splurged on the Jones/Perez/Rusch contracts long term.

 

I'm confident he would have gotten more money and possibly even an extra year from the likes of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Orioles. Nevermind the Yankees and Red Sox who could easily get into a bidding war, if Ned Colletti gave 13 mil to Furcal, what makes you think he wouldn't give 15 or 16 to Lee? Despite those three options, he would have Baltimore as well, which has coveted him for years and has Angelos as their owner...not to mention a disgruntled Tejada. I put him in the same class as Pujols and he's making about the same amount of money as him.

 

You could put him in that class, but you'd be dead wrong. He's nowhere near as good as Pujols, and not worth as much as he is in any reality.

 

Well, even if you don't, he'd be in at least the same price range were he to test free agency.

[USSoccer]

I think this is too much for Lee. I'm glad he's locked up, but I think we've overpaid. Tree's prediction is probably dead on.

 

Regarding Ramirez, I'm probably the biggest Aramis backer here, and I think that if he sees Lee getting this deal after just one, albeit sensational season, he's going to opt out because he could get far, FAR more than 2/22.5m on the open market. Do we have the budget to sign them both to these kinds of deals, PLUS locking up Pierre and Z?

 

I'll say this-if paying Lee means we have a shot at losing Aramis, it's a terrible deal. I think Aramis has more value than Derrek does. If signing Lee means we just overpaid for Lee, then fine. We're in our contending window, so it's not such a big deal. I just don't want to see us losing a great, younger slugger because we overreached on Lee AND splurged on the Jones/Perez/Rusch contracts long term.

 

I'm confident he would have gotten more money and possibly even an extra year from the likes of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Orioles. Nevermind the Yankees and Red Sox who could easily get into a bidding war, if Ned Colletti gave 13 mil to Furcal, what makes you think he wouldn't give 15 or 16 to Lee? Despite those three options, he would have Baltimore as well, which has coveted him for years and has Angelos as their owner...not to mention a disgruntled Tejada. I put him in the same class as Pujols and he's making about the same amount of money as him.

 

You could put him in that class, but you'd be dead wrong. He's nowhere near as good as Pujols, and not worth as much as he is in any reality.

 

Well, even if you don't, he'd be in at least the same price range were he to test free agency.

 

No he wouldn't. Not even close. Pujols would get close to Manny money in this past FA market. Maybe more. I'm not even kidding.

 

Pujols is light years better than Lee in every facet of the game except defense, and his freakish hitting ability more than makes up for that.

 

We overpaid for Lee. It's different (and better) than overpaying for fringe talent like Hendry tends to do, because at least Lee should be productive for most of his deal. As I said, the only downside of overpaying Lee is that it could hinder an effort to either prevent Aramis from opting out or prevent us from resigning him should he opt out. However, to say he's in Pujols' class and thus deserves this contract is just silly.

[srbin84]

I think this is too much for Lee. I'm glad he's locked up, but I think we've overpaid. Tree's prediction is probably dead on.

 

Regarding Ramirez, I'm probably the biggest Aramis backer here, and I think that if he sees Lee getting this deal after just one, albeit sensational season, he's going to opt out because he could get far, FAR more than 2/22.5m on the open market. Do we have the budget to sign them both to these kinds of deals, PLUS locking up Pierre and Z?

 

I'll say this-if paying Lee means we have a shot at losing Aramis, it's a terrible deal. I think Aramis has more value than Derrek does. If signing Lee means we just overpaid for Lee, then fine. We're in our contending window, so it's not such a big deal. I just don't want to see us losing a great, younger slugger because we overreached on Lee AND splurged on the Jones/Perez/Rusch contracts long term.

 

I'm confident he would have gotten more money and possibly even an extra year from the likes of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Orioles. Nevermind the Yankees and Red Sox who could easily get into a bidding war, if Ned Colletti gave 13 mil to Furcal, what makes you think he wouldn't give 15 or 16 to Lee? Despite those three options, he would have Baltimore as well, which has coveted him for years and has Angelos as their owner...not to mention a disgruntled Tejada. I put him in the same class as Pujols and he's making about the same amount of money as him.

 

You could put him in that class, but you'd be dead wrong. He's nowhere near as good as Pujols, and not worth as much as he is in any reality.

 

Well, even if you don't, he'd be in at least the same price range were he to test free agency.

 

No he wouldn't. Not even close. Pujols would get close to Manny money in this past FA market. Maybe more. I'm not even kidding.

 

Pujols is light years better than Lee in every facet of the game except defense, and his freakish hitting ability more than makes up for that.

 

We overpaid for Lee. It's different (and better) than overpaying for fringe talent like Hendry tends to do, because at least Lee should be productive for most of his deal. As I said, the only downside of overpaying Lee is that it could hinder an effort to either prevent Aramis from opting out or prevent us from resigning him should he opt out. However, to say he's in Pujols' class and thus deserves this contract is just silly.

 

I never said Pujols wouldn't have gotten more money as a free agent, of course he would have. I hope it doesn't hurt us in other ways either, but he would have got a better contract from another team.

[brinoch]

We might have overpaid a little, but also consider that contracts will only continue to increase in value. The fact is that the market is set by demand. A player of Lee's caliber will demand a much higher price were he to hit free agency. I suspect that this will be a fair deal in the next few years, and perhaps a little tilted in Lee's favor at the end, but if Lee continues to hit at a high level (allowing for some regression) this will be a pretty good deal.

 

I'm pretty pleased by this. A little higher than I expected, but it's not awfully high.

Edited April 11, 2006 by brinoch

[stitchface]

Pujols is light years better than Lee in every facet of the game except defense

 

not for the last 167 games he isn't. I think you are over-stating your case here. It remains to be seen if Lee can maintain last year's pace, but last year he was the better player - I don't think its accurate to say Pujols is light years better in every facet of the game.

[SouthSideRyan]

Light years better?? Lee's a better baserunner as well.

[srbin84]

Pujols is light years better than Lee in every facet of the game except defense

 

not for the last 167 games he isn't. I think you are over-stating your case here. It remains to be seen if Lee can maintain last year's pace, but last year he was the better player - I don't think its accurate to say Pujols is light years better in every facet of the game.

 

And what about speed/baserunning? I think Lee is better than him there too.

[Mizzou]

USS, when you say that we overpaid for Lee, what do you mean by that? Too many years? Too much money? Relative to the market? I'm just trying to understand your position, because I really don't see it being close to overpaying.

[imb]

It's a risk, because he's only been good for one year, but this is really the best we could hope for.

[jjgman21]

if we overpaid for Lee, the overpayment was marginal at best. attacking this deal is nitpicking at it's finest.

[Brian]

It's a risk, because he's only been good for one year, but this is really the best we could hope for.

 

exactly, if we didn't sign him, We'd probably be dealing with a Jacque-esque signing at 1st.

[Illini Iceman]

if we overpaid for Lee, the overpayment was marginal at best. attacking this deal is nitpicking at it's finest.

 

Actually I think complaining about a fishing analogy is nitpicking at it's finest but this is probably a close second.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's a risk, because he's only been good for one year, but this is really the best we could hope for.

 

He's only been great for one year. He's been good for several years.

[stitchface]

if we overpaid for Lee, the overpayment was marginal at best. attacking this deal is nitpicking at it's finest.

 

Actually I think complaining about a fishing analogy is nitpicking at it's finest but this is probably a close second.

 

being a baseball fan is all about nitpicking . . . and beer.

[jjgman21]

if we overpaid for Lee, the overpayment was marginal at best. attacking this deal is nitpicking at it's finest.

 

Actually I think complaining about a fishing analogy is nitpicking at it's finest but this is probably a close second.

 

huh?

[Andy]

if we overpaid for Lee, the overpayment was marginal at best. attacking this deal is nitpicking at it's finest.

 

Actually I think complaining about a fishing analogy is nitpicking at it's finest but this is probably a close second.

 

huh?

See "Dusty Being Dusty" thread

[srbin84]

Here's a list of the upcoming 1B free agents I pulled off the net minus Lee, Ortiz, and some of the obvious bench players:

 

Sean Casey

Phil Nevin

Shea Hillenbrand

Dmitri Young

Erubiel Durazo

Kevin Millar

Frank Thomas

J.T. Snow

Nomar Garciaparra

Doug Mientkiewicz

Carl Everett (Team Option)

Jeff Conine (Mutual Option)

Darin Erstad

Dimitri Young (Team Option)

Craig Wilson

Aubrey Huff

 

I wouldn't want any of those guys starting for us.

[jjgman21]

if we overpaid for Lee, the overpayment was marginal at best. attacking this deal is nitpicking at it's finest.

 

Actually I think complaining about a fishing analogy is nitpicking at it's finest but this is probably a close second.

 

huh?

See "Dusty Being Dusty" thread

 

I see. I know I tick alot of people off, but that seemed waaaaaaaay out of the blue. I hate fishing, so I thought maybe I insulted fishing in rants or something.

[imb]

It's a risk, because he's only been good for one year, but this is really the best we could hope for.

 

He's only been great for one year. He's been good for several years.

 

He never appeared very good to me. His numbers seemed pretty average for a firstbaseman not in his prime. Either way, i'll take 5/65.

[BCVM22]

Carl Everett (Team Option)

 

Carl Everett has never played first base in his career. Maybe he doesn't believe in the position?

[srbin84]

Carl Everett (Team Option)

 

Carl Everett has never played first base in his career. Maybe he doesn't believe in the position?

 

Yeah, I didn't think so either, but he was on the list. I wouldn't want him making one at bat for this team and his presence on the list makes it look even worse so I left him on.

Edited April 11, 2006 by srbin84

[Handlebar McSkullet]

I wouldn't want any of those guys starting for us.

 

You wouldnt want them because the cubs have one of the best players in major league baseball, and to sign any of those players, while would be fine for other clubs with lesser 1bs, is unacceptable to cubs fans who are spoiled with Lee.

 

Hence, It was an amazing bargin for the amount of money Lee signed for.

 

To prove my point would one of the number crunchers compare Lee's numbers and his contract amount to other players with simular monetary compensation.

[srbin84]

I wouldn't want any of those guys starting for us.

 

You wouldnt want them because the cubs have one of the best players in major league baseball, and to sign any of those players, while would be fine for other clubs with lesser 1bs, is unacceptable to cubs fans who are spoiled with Lee.

 

Hence, It was an amazing bargin for the amount of money Lee signed for.

 

To prove my point would one of the number crunchers compare Lee's numbers and his contract amount to other players with simular monetary compensation.

 

You're going to get a Pujols comparison (same pay rate) and debate as to if they are equal players or not.