Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[TruffleShuffle]

I don't have a definite limit. I don't think I would go any longer on the years. Honestly, I'd prefer a 9/35 deal to a 10/30 one.

 

 

Well that's madness. You'd rather pay a guy 15M more total for one less year?

 

I would. I'd pay a good bit more to make sure the contract isn't more than 8 years. Although I'm not sure how necessary that will be, especially the longer he slumps this year.

 

that makes absolutely no sense. you'd rather pay him $315M over 9 years than $300M over 10 years? if he's producing anything positive you get that 10th season at a "cost" to the team of -$15M, and if he's not producing anything positive then you just release him.

[Guest]

I don't have a definite limit. I don't think I would go any longer on the years. Honestly, I'd prefer a 9/35 deal to a 10/30 one.

 

 

Well that's madness. You'd rather pay a guy 15M more total for one less year?

 

I would. I'd pay a good bit more to make sure the contract isn't more than 8 years. Although I'm not sure how necessary that will be, especially the longer he slumps this year.

 

that makes absolutely no sense. you'd rather pay him $315M over 9 years than $300M over 10 years? if he's producing anything positive you get that 10th season at a "cost" to the team of -$15M, and if he's not producing anything positive then you just release him.

 

I don't think the accounting folks will amortize the contract quite like that, but I probably agreed with something that wasn't quite what I was saying. My point is that in sealing the deal, I would much rather go higher in dollars than in years. I don't know if I'd prefer 45 million additional dollars to drop one year, but directionally I'm on board with the idea.

[SouthSideRyan]

You think very little of the Cubs accountants if you don't think they could set aside money to invest in future payroll.

[Guest]

You think very little of the Cubs accountants if you don't think they could set aside money to invest in future payroll.

 

They could, my point is they probably don't want to in that case. My math is probably wrong, but at 3% inflation, I have 9/35 being only 12 million(edit: a calculator tells me 17, but the point is still made) more in 2012 dollars than 10/30. Pay much more of that up front and you're eliminating the reason to go to a 10th year. Especially since we aren't going to want 42 year old Pujols at even one third that price.

[NCCubFan]

For some reason, I don't really like the idea of signing Jose Reyes for SS and moving Castro over to either 2B or SS.

I wouldn't move Castro to SS either. :D

[Garwilly]

You think very little of the Cubs accountants if you don't think they could set aside money to invest in future payroll.

 

They could, my point is they probably don't want to in that case. My math is probably wrong, but at 3% inflation, I have 9/35 being only 12 million(edit: a calculator tells me 17, but the point is still made) more in 2012 dollars than 10/30. Pay much more of that up front and you're eliminating the reason to go to a 10th year. Especially since we aren't going to want 42 year old Pujols at even one third that price.

 

Correct me if I am misunderstanding, but are you advocating that entering the 2021 season (theoretical year 10) you would rather have your hands completely washed of Pujols, rather than have him (for free) AND 12 (17, whatever number people agree to) million in your pocket?

[Guest]

I said in my previous post that I probably don't agree with preferring 9/35 v. 10/30, but used those numbers for the sake of the example, which is to say that signing him to a 10 year deal and amortizing it like a 9 year deal eliminates some of the benefit of going 10 years to begin with.

[Tarver]

Just out of curiosity, for those who don't want Pujols - who would you go after for first base both short and long term? Is there anybody specific people are considering or is the desire simply to pass on the high risk/high reward contract and hope a better option comes along down the line?

 

Not trying to be confrontational, I'm legitimately curious what other plans might be if you support passing on Pujols.

 

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind.

[NOLA]

Just out of curiosity, for those who don't want Pujols - who would you go after for first base both short and long term? Is there anybody specific people are considering or is the desire simply to pass on the high risk/high reward contract and hope a better option comes along down the line?

 

Not trying to be confrontational, I'm legitimately curious what other plans might be if you support passing on Pujols.

 

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind.

 

yep.

[dew1679666265]

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind.

 

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena.

 

Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder.

[Tarver]

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind.

 

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena.

 

Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder.

 

Yeah, the stars are aligned for us to get Pujols. But it's gonna be a bitch of a contract.

 

Illich is on his last nerve in Detroit, and the scuttlebutt is if they don't make noise this year, they're cleaning house. Maybe we can make a play for Miggy? Then throw a $80/4 at Reyes to play 2b.

[Sammy Sofa]

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind.

 

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena.

 

Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder.

 

Yeah, the stars are aligned for us to get Pujols. But it's gonna be a bitch of a contract.

 

Contracts for superstars always are.

[Tarver]

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind.

 

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena.

 

Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder.

 

Yeah, the stars are aligned for us to get Pujols. But it's gonna be a bitch of a contract.

 

Contracts for superstars always are.

 

Would you agree that NY got the better of the Arod trade?

[Sammy Sofa]

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind.

 

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena.

 

Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder.

 

Yeah, the stars are aligned for us to get Pujols. But it's gonna be a bitch of a contract.

 

Contracts for superstars always are.

 

Would you agree that NY got the better of the Arod trade?

 

I don't understand the question. You mean the better part of his years under the contract he signed while I Texas?

[Tarver]

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind.

 

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena.

 

Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder.

 

Yeah, the stars are aligned for us to get Pujols. But it's gonna be a bitch of a contract.

 

Contracts for superstars always are.

 

Would you agree that NY got the better of the Arod trade?

 

I don't understand the question. You mean the better part of his years under the contract he signed while I Texas?

 

Yeah, the Yanks took advantage of a nasty contract for a great player. So did the Sox with Thome. I know Pujols is gonna be a bad contract. Let's get creative, go for Cabrera, or Wright, the backend of some other team's shitty contract, someone who isn't gonna take up a sixth of the payroll.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, the Yanks took advantage of a nasty contract for a great player. So did the Sox with Thome. I know Pujols is gonna be a bad contract. Let's get creative, go for Cabrera, or Wright, the backend of some other team's [expletive] contract, someone who isn't gonna take up a sixth of the payroll.

 

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts.

 

Secondly, your rotating cast idea isn't all that hot. Ideally you want at least one superstar player that you can build around. Wright is a FA after his team option in 2013, so then he's going to get paid, too. No, not Pujols-money, but Pujols is going to get Pujols-money because he's better and much more valuable. I have zero problem with the Cubs making a go at getting both Pujols AND Wright (if he's even available), but I really don't see the wisdom in choosing Wright over Pujols. And why would Detroit be giving up Cabrera?

[jersey cubs fan]

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind.

 

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena.

 

Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder.

 

You are confusing "not spending huge money" with not committing to long term contracts. If you want production at 1B you still need to spend big unless you are bringing up your own stud. And unless you have a whole bunch of studs elsewhere, you need 1B to be very productive if you want to contend. It may be the easiest place to find a hitter, but you still need that hitter.

[Tarver]

Yeah, the Yanks took advantage of a nasty contract for a great player. So did the Sox with Th90ome. I know Pujols is gonna be a bad contract. Let's get creative, go for Cabrera, or Wright, the backend of some other team's [expletive] contract, someone who isn't gonna take up a sixth of the payroll.

 

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts.

 

Secondly, your rotating cast idea isn't all that hot. Ideally you want at least one superstar player that you can build around. Wright is a FA after his team option in 2013, so then he's going to get paid, too. No, not Pujols-money, but Pujols is going to get Pujols-money because he's better and much more valuable. I have zero problem with the Cubs making a go at getting both Pujols AND Wright (if he's even available), but I really don't see the wisdom in choosing Wright over Pujols. And why would Detroit be giving up Cabrera?

 

I know we need stars, I just want younger ones. Let's say we give Pujols eight years, how many of those will he have an OPS above .900? Three, maybe? What happens if his heel problems pop up again? We can't DH him.

 

I think Reyes makes a ton of sense for us. He's only 28, we keep him at 2b and with Soto, Castro, and Jackson we have the best combo up the middle in MLB. Let's build on that.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, the Yanks took advantage of a nasty contract for a great player. So did the Sox with Th90ome. I know Pujols is gonna be a bad contract. Let's get creative, go for Cabrera, or Wright, the backend of some other team's [expletive] contract, someone who isn't gonna take up a sixth of the payroll.

 

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts.

 

Secondly, your rotating cast idea isn't all that hot. Ideally you want at least one superstar player that you can build around. Wright is a FA after his team option in 2013, so then he's going to get paid, too. No, not Pujols-money, but Pujols is going to get Pujols-money because he's better and much more valuable. I have zero problem with the Cubs making a go at getting both Pujols AND Wright (if he's even available), but I really don't see the wisdom in choosing Wright over Pujols. And why would Detroit be giving up Cabrera?

 

I know we need stars, I just want younger ones. Let's say we give Pujols eight years, how many of those will he have an OPS above .900? Three, maybe? What happens if his heel problems pop up again? We can't DH him.

 

I think Reyes makes a ton of sense for us. He's only 28, we keep him at 2b and with Soto, Castro, and Jackson we have the best combo up the middle in MLB. Let's build on that.

 

Why not build on that + Pujols? And unless this year is indicative of a bigger problem, you're severely undervaluing Pujols if you think he's going to OPS at least .900 for only the first three years of his next contract. He's averaged an OPS of 1.064 over the last 5 seasons, so predicting a drop off of about .200 by age 35 is pretty severe.

 

And yes, while Reyes would be a nice signing and is younger, he's had major injury issues, too, and his skills are tied in much more specifically to something that will decline much quicker than Pujols' abilities (especially due to injuries): his speed.

[NOLA]

Yeah, the Yanks took advantage of a nasty contract for a great player. So did the Sox with Th90ome. I know Pujols is gonna be a bad contract. Let's get creative, go for Cabrera, or Wright, the backend of some other team's [expletive] contract, someone who isn't gonna take up a sixth of the payroll.

 

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts.

 

Secondly, your rotating cast idea isn't all that hot. Ideally you want at least one superstar player that you can build around. Wright is a FA after his team option in 2013, so then he's going to get paid, too. No, not Pujols-money, but Pujols is going to get Pujols-money because he's better and much more valuable. I have zero problem with the Cubs making a go at getting both Pujols AND Wright (if he's even available), but I really don't see the wisdom in choosing Wright over Pujols. And why would Detroit be giving up Cabrera?

 

I know we need stars, I just want younger ones. Let's say we give Pujols eight years, how many of those will he have an OPS above .900? Three, maybe? What happens if his heel problems pop up again? We can't DH him.

 

I think Reyes makes a ton of sense for us. He's only 28, we keep him at 2b and with Soto, Castro, and Jackson we have the best combo up the middle in MLB. Let's build on that.

 

Why not build on that + Pujols? And unless this year is indicative of a bigger problem, you're severely undervaluing Pujols if you think he's going to OPS at least .900 for only the first three years of his next contract. He's averaged an OPS of 1.064 over the last 5 seasons, so predicting a drop off of about .200 by age 35 is pretty severe.

 

And yes, while Reyes would be a nice signing and is younger, he's had major injury issues, too, and his skills are tied in much more specifically to something that will decline much quicker than Pujols' abilities (especially due to injuries): his speed.

 

But Reyes won't demand 10 years.

[Sammy Sofa]

But he'll probably want and get 5-6. He's a highly coveted player with an overvalued skillset who will only be 28 headed into this offseason's FA pool. Yes, you'd be technically paying less money and years than Pujols, but would you really be getting more value? You could easily argue that no, you wouldn't be getting any more value at all given the vast difference in production between the players, and especially since you'd still end up having to sign another big offensive FA to match or exceed Pujol's projected contributions.

[NOLA]

But he'll probably want and get 5-6. He's a highly coveted player with an overvalued skillset who will only be 28 headed into this offseason's FA pool. Yes, you'd be technically paying less money and years than Pujols, but would you really be getting more value? You could easily argue that no, you wouldn't be getting any more value at all given the vast difference in production between the players, and especially since you'd still end up having to sign another big offensive FA to match or exceed Pujol's projected contributions.

 

I don't disagree with this in regards to Reyes, but the point is the same. You can sign multiple players for production without the 10 year risk of Pujols' contract.

[Sammy Sofa]

But he'll probably want and get 5-6. He's a highly coveted player with an overvalued skillset who will only be 28 headed into this offseason's FA pool. Yes, you'd be technically paying less money and years than Pujols, but would you really be getting more value? You could easily argue that no, you wouldn't be getting any more value at all given the vast difference in production between the players, and especially since you'd still end up having to sign another big offensive FA to match or exceed Pujol's projected contributions.

 

I don't disagree with this in regards to Reyes, but the point is the same. You can sign multiple players for production without the 10 year risk of Pujols' contract.

 

Why is that automatically better? Why not sign one superstar player you can build around and then focus elsewhere instead of having to sign 2-3 to even or exceed that one player's contributions?

[davearm2]

Yeah, the Yanks took advantage of a nasty contract for a great player. So did the Sox with Thome. I know Pujols is gonna be a bad contract. Let's get creative, go for Cabrera, or Wright, the backend of some other team's [expletive] contract, someone who isn't gonna take up a sixth of the payroll.

 

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts.

Yeah it's probably going to be worse. Paying Pujols *only* 1/6th of the Cubs' payroll is the absolute best-case scenario. $25M out of $150M, roughly.

 

He could make up closer to 1/4th of the payroll actually -- $30M out of $120M wouldn't be out of the question.

 

At any rate, thinking you could get by for less than 1/6th is not being realistic.

[jersey cubs fan]

Pujols for 10 is probably not much more risky than Reyes for 5-6, considering so much of Reyes game is predicated on his legs, the fact that his legs are brittle and he will turn 30 in the first half of his next contract.

 

It's also a mistake to think of 2B as interchangable with SS in terms of being a premium position for offense. 2B need to produce more to be considered good, along the lines of what 3B do. If you sign a big money free agent to play 2B, he better be damn good to justify it.