Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[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.

Yeah it's probably going to be worse.

 

Based on what? The Cubs make a ton of money. Pujols would lead to the Cubs making even more money. Why do you assume the payroll would actually go DOWN from what it is now if they signed him? Again, the Cubs' current payroll limitations are due primarily to the proximity to the sale. Each year away from that coupled with a walking moneymaker like Pujols makes the payroll actually going UP a distinct possibility.

[Guest]

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.

 

Based on what? The Cubs make a ton of money. Pujols would lead to the Cubs making even more money. Why do you assume the payroll would actually go DOWN from what it is now if they signed him? Again, the Cubs' current payroll limitations are due primarily to the proximity to the sale. Each year away from that coupled with a walking moneymaker like Pujols makes the payroll actually going UP a distinct possibility.

I think something around 1/5 would be the most likely possibility - around 30 of 150.

[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.

Yeah it's probably going to be worse.

 

Based on what? The Cubs make a ton of money. Pujols would lead to the Cubs making even more money. Why do you assume the payroll would actually go DOWN from what it is now if they signed him? Again, the Cubs' current payroll limitations are due primarily to the proximity to the sale. Each year away from that coupled with a walking moneymaker like Pujols makes the payroll actually going UP a distinct possibility.

I think something around 1/5 would be the most likely possibility - around 30 of 150.

 

That's what I'm thinking, too.

[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.

 

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?

 

Because the risk is far less than putting all your 32 year old eggs in one basket for the next 10 years. How far back would it set the Cubs to have Pujols with injury issues under that enormous contract for 6 or 7 years after his production has slipped?

 

I'm not saying Pujols absolutely will break down but I don't want to take that kind of risk on any guy in his 30's. I know he hasn't been injury prone but the body breaks down much more often after 30. Even Kobe is slowing down. People say yeah, but he's Pujols. Even Willie Mays got old.

 

If this deal went bad it could go VERY bad. Let's build around other guys in our system and out who won't tie our hands for years to come.

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs don't have any likely stars in their system for the foreseeable future now that Castro is up. They need to look outside if they want impact players/superstars, and Pujols is by far the best option if he's actually available after this season. Passing on him to go with much lesser players and out of the fear that me might be terrible for 6-7 years(!) of his contract would be an awful idea and just more of the same form the Cubs. Pujols is far more likely to be giving the team very good to great production for a good 5-6 years of that contract, and the Cubs can afford to eat the last few years of that contract if he has a dramatic decline due to age and/or injury.

 

Look at it this way: let's say the Cubs get Reyes and Fielder instead of Pujols. Each are signed for 6 years. You end up paying the two of them likely over $40 million a year. Why is that a better deal? Both have serious injury/health concerns despite being younger than Pujols. One is valuable primarily due to a skillset that almost declines much, much earlier and quicker than what makes Pujols valuable.

 

I really wouldn't have a problem with either scenario, but it's foolish to act like signing Pujols holds dramatically more risk than the other likely big FA available after this season.

 

And they wouldn't be "putting all of their eggs in one basket" with Pujols. They'd have plenty of other money to spend.

[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.

 

Based on what? The Cubs make a ton of money. Pujols would lead to the Cubs making even more money. Why do you assume the payroll would actually go DOWN from what it is now if they signed him? Again, the Cubs' current payroll limitations are due primarily to the proximity to the sale. Each year away from that coupled with a walking moneymaker like Pujols makes the payroll actually going UP a distinct possibility.

Pujols is not a "walking moneymaker".

 

They're not going to make more in licensed merchandise.

They're not going to make more in tv/radio broadcast rights.

They're not going to make more in corporate sponsorships.

They might see a little blip in attendance the first year or two, but it'd probably be temporary.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, if they go back to sucking.

 

And a "blip" in attendance? If they signed Pujols and generally have a good offseason they'll go back to selling out.

 

But please, explain why you think the Cubs' payroll would go down if they put a better team on the field and attendance goes back up. Is there another sale coming up? Are the Ricketts going to be rocked by some kind of financial strife? What information are you privy to? What are you basing this on besides the payroll limitations they've primarily had due to the sale?

[javy knows my name]

Those who don't want to sign Pujols long-term - realistically, how many 1B are going to be better and cheaper in 6 years? There's too good a chance that he's still a top-5 1B at that time, locked up by a team with some freakin balls, and finally playing DOWN to the value of his contract (I believe it was Fangraphs that had his actual production during his 7/100 contract with Cards to be worth like $280M total.)

 

Yeah, he won't be worth $30M at ages 41 and 42. But all signs point to him being a STEAL for $30M/year in the front half of that contract. Sack up, Cubs, and make this happen. And fans, stop [expletive] on the chance to land a once-in-a-generation superstar because you have to pay him a little too much for a little too long.

[Sammy Sofa]

I just don't understand what people are waiting for. Is it residual fear from the Soriano contract? Well, we're obviously not talking about Soriano-level players. The justification for not signing someone (Dunn, Fielder, now Pujols) seems to be always waiting for someone who maybe the Cubs COULD trade for down the line and they just have to put up with stop-gap players in the meantime.

[NOLA]

The Cubs don't have any likely stars in their system for the foreseeable future now that Castro is up. They need to look outside if they want impact players/superstars, and Pujols is by far the best option if he's actually available after this season. Passing on him to go with much lesser players and out of the fear that me might be terrible for 6-7 years(!) of his contract would be an awful idea and just more of the same form the Cubs. Pujols is far more likely to be giving the team very good to great production for a good 5-6 years of that contract, and the Cubs can afford to eat the last few years of that contract if he has a dramatic decline due to age and/or injury.

 

Look at it this way: let's say the Cubs get Reyes and Fielder instead of Pujols. Each are signed for 6 years. You end up paying the two of them likely over $40 million a year. Why is that a better deal? Both have serious injury/health concerns despite being younger than Pujols. One is valuable primarily due to a skillset that almost declines much, much earlier and quicker than what makes Pujols valuable.

 

I really wouldn't have a problem with either scenario, but it's foolish to act like signing Pujols holds dramatically more risk than the other likely big FA available after this season.

 

And they wouldn't be "putting all of their eggs in one basket" with Pujols. They'd have plenty of other money to spend.

 

First let me say that I am about 65/35 against signing Pujols to that deal. I am not totally opposed to it, but the more I think about it the more I dislike it.

 

I do not know what Pujols will play like in 6 years, but I definitely don't think it's far more likely a 38 year old will have good to great production.

 

I know it's just one example, but as I said I am far from sold on Reyes or Fielder for that matter. Who do the Cubs sign then you may ask? I think the Giants showed that a dominant pitching staff can win a World Title. Besides Josh Hamilton, there wasn't a big-time star playing the field for either pennant winning team. I know this is just one year, but it shows a different path than with a monstrous 10 year deal for a 32 year old first baseman. Even Pujols.

 

Yes, the Cubs have plenty of money to spend. But there is no way that they wouldn't be hamstrung by a multiyear deal with an aging player anchoring a key position, if god forbid he gets hurt or declines. Again, I'm not saying it WOULD happen, but I don't want that risk.

 

I know any free agent signing is a risk, and Pujols himself is not the risk here. The 10 years are.

[davearm2]

Yeah, if they go back to sucking.

 

And a "blip" in attendance? If they signed Pujols and generally have a good offseason they'll go back to selling out.

 

But please, explain why you think the Cubs' payroll would go down if they put a better team on the field and attendance goes back up. Is there another sale coming up? Are the Ricketts going to be rocked by some kind of financial strife? What information are you privy to? What are you basing this on besides the payroll limitations they've primarily had due to the sale?

I didn't say I thought the Cubs' payroll would go down. I said it wasn't out of the question.

 

The Cubs' alltime attendance high was roughly 3.3M (in 2008). Last year it was about 3.1M. So they've got a ceiling of about 200K in additional fans through the gates. Divide $30M into that (Pujols' estimated salary) and you'd need every one of those fans to show up, and generate $150 in revenue apiece, to cover Pujols' salary.

 

The Yankees pull in about $45 in revenue per fan. The Giants are tops in MLB, at $78 per fan.

 

So even under the absolute best case ($78 per fan x 200,000 fans = $15.6M), your added revenue covers about half of Pujols' salary. Make it about a third, if the Cubs' revenue rate is on par with the Yanks'.

 

Want to rethink that "walking moneymaker" theory?

 

Attendance numbers: http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/2000-10attendance.htm

Revenues per fan: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ys-forbesmlbfans052209

[NOLA]

As for the idea that not signing Pujols would be a typical Cubs move, I have to think that signing a star name to a bloated contract is much more Cub-like.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why would I? Pujols would make the Cubs a lot more money. You're the one arguing like his salary would have to be paid for by increased revenue to justify the expense. I'm just talking about the money he'd bring in as an added bonus to him making the Cubs much, much better.

 

And aren't the Cubs's attendance numbers projected to be around 2.6 million this year? That's a pretty big bounce-back if they have a good off-season.

[davearm2]

Those who don't want to sign Pujols long-term - realistically, how many 1B are going to be better and cheaper in 6 years? There's too good a chance that he's still a top-5 1B at that time, locked up by a team with some freakin balls, and finally playing DOWN to the value of his contract (I believe it was Fangraphs that had his actual production during his 7/100 contract with Cards to be worth like $280M total.)

 

Yeah, he won't be worth $30M at ages 41 and 42. But all signs point to him being a STEAL for $30M/year in the front half of that contract. Sack up, Cubs, and make this happen. And fans, stop [expletive] on the chance to land a once-in-a-generation superstar because you have to pay him a little too much for a little too long.

None will be better.

 

All will be cheaper.

 

To me it just reeks of paying for past production. There's no question the guy's been unbelievable. I'd much rather be in the Cards' shoes, saying so long, we'll miss you... and then watching as his salary:production ratio flips completely from black to red.

[davearm2]

Why would I? Pujols would make the Cubs a lot more money. You're the one arguing like his salary would have to be paid for by increased revenue to justify the expense. I'm just talking about the money he'd bring in as an added bonus to him making the Cubs much, much better.

 

And aren't the Cubs's attendance numbers projected to be around 2.6 million this year? That's a pretty big bounce-back if they have a good off-season.

You would only consider revising your theory if you were capable of reading and digesting the analysis I just laid out.

 

Otherwise, I suppose you wouldn't. You'd probably just keep repeating things like "Pujols would make the Cubs a lot more money", as if saying it enough times will make it so.

Edited May 20, 2011 by davearm2

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs don't have any likely stars in their system for the foreseeable future now that Castro is up. They need to look outside if they want impact players/superstars, and Pujols is by far the best option if he's actually available after this season. Passing on him to go with much lesser players and out of the fear that me might be terrible for 6-7 years(!) of his contract would be an awful idea and just more of the same form the Cubs. Pujols is far more likely to be giving the team very good to great production for a good 5-6 years of that contract, and the Cubs can afford to eat the last few years of that contract if he has a dramatic decline due to age and/or injury.

 

Look at it this way: let's say the Cubs get Reyes and Fielder instead of Pujols. Each are signed for 6 years. You end up paying the two of them likely over $40 million a year. Why is that a better deal? Both have serious injury/health concerns despite being younger than Pujols. One is valuable primarily due to a skillset that almost declines much, much earlier and quicker than what makes Pujols valuable.

 

I really wouldn't have a problem with either scenario, but it's foolish to act like signing Pujols holds dramatically more risk than the other likely big FA available after this season.

 

And they wouldn't be "putting all of their eggs in one basket" with Pujols. They'd have plenty of other money to spend.

 

First let me say that I am about 65/35 against signing Pujols to that deal. I am not totally opposed to it, but the more I think about it the more I dislike it.

 

I do not know what Pujols will play like in 6 years, but I definitely don't think it's far more likely a 38 year old will have good to great production.

 

I know it's just one example, but as I said I am far from sold on Reyes or Fielder for that matter. Who do the Cubs sign then you may ask? I think the Giants showed that a dominant pitching staff can win a World Title. Besides Josh Hamilton, there wasn't a big-time star playing the field for either pennant winning team. I know this is just one year, but it shows a different path than with a monstrous 10 year deal for a 32 year old first baseman. Even Pujols.

 

Yes, the Cubs have plenty of money to spend. But there is no way that they wouldn't be hamstrung by a multiyear deal with an aging player anchoring a key position, if god forbid he gets hurt or declines. Again, I'm not saying it WOULD happen, but I don't want that risk.

 

I know any free agent signing is a risk, and Pujols himself is not the risk here. The 10 years are.

 

So you'd rather the Cubs "risk" their money on a position where injury is an even more dicey proposition?

 

And you're really just going to look back only to last year to argue against beefing up the Cubs' offense with possibly the greatest hitter of all time?

 

And yes, there's a very good chance that a 38-year-old Pujols would still be giving the Cubs good production. Again, he has a long way to decline from his career numbers to where he'd no longer be a good player. That's the benefit of singing someone THAT great.

[NOLA]

Those who don't want to sign Pujols long-term - realistically, how many 1B are going to be better and cheaper in 6 years? There's too good a chance that he's still a top-5 1B at that time, locked up by a team with some freakin balls, and finally playing DOWN to the value of his contract (I believe it was Fangraphs that had his actual production during his 7/100 contract with Cards to be worth like $280M total.)

 

Yeah, he won't be worth $30M at ages 41 and 42. But all signs point to him being a STEAL for $30M/year in the front half of that contract. Sack up, Cubs, and make this happen. And fans, stop [expletive] on the chance to land a once-in-a-generation superstar because you have to pay him a little too much for a little too long.

None will be better.

 

All will be cheaper.

 

To me it just reeks of paying for past production. There's no question the guy's been unbelievable. I'd much rather be in the Cards' shoes, saying so long, we'll miss you... and then watching as his salary:production ratio flips completely from black to red.

 

I could not have said it better, word for word.

[Sammy Sofa]

Those who don't want to sign Pujols long-term - realistically, how many 1B are going to be better and cheaper in 6 years? There's too good a chance that he's still a top-5 1B at that time, locked up by a team with some freakin balls, and finally playing DOWN to the value of his contract (I believe it was Fangraphs that had his actual production during his 7/100 contract with Cards to be worth like $280M total.)

 

Yeah, he won't be worth $30M at ages 41 and 42. But all signs point to him being a STEAL for $30M/year in the front half of that contract. Sack up, Cubs, and make this happen. And fans, stop [expletive] on the chance to land a once-in-a-generation superstar because you have to pay him a little too much for a little too long.

None will be better.

 

All will be cheaper.

 

To me it just reeks of paying for past production. There's no question the guy's been unbelievable. I'd much rather be in the Cards' shoes, saying so long, we'll miss you... and then watching as his salary:production ratio flips completely from black to red.

 

Towards the end of his career, sure.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why would I? Pujols would make the Cubs a lot more money. You're the one arguing like his salary would have to be paid for by increased revenue to justify the expense. I'm just talking about the money he'd bring in as an added bonus to him making the Cubs much, much better.

 

And aren't the Cubs's attendance numbers projected to be around 2.6 million this year? That's a pretty big bounce-back if they have a good off-season.

You would only consider revising your theory if you were capable of reading and digesting the analysis I just laid out.

 

Otherwise, I suppose you wouldn't. You'd probably just keep repeating things like "Pujols would make the Cubs a lot more money", as if saying it enough times will make it so.

 

So he WOULDN'T make the Cubs a lot of money? I'm confused. Your own post was breaking down how even increased ticket revenue of just 200,000 would bring in that much more money. We're talking about even more since the Cubs' attendance is down even further from the 2010 numbers you're using.

 

Though it's all moot since you seem to be hinging this one some kind of idea that if Pujols' salary can't be justified by increased attendance revenue then it's a bust instead of the reality that the Cubs can easily afford even his desired contract.

[Sammy Sofa]

As for the idea that not signing Pujols would be a typical Cubs move, I have to think that signing a star name to a bloated contract is much more Cub-like.

 

You're always going to have to sign a star to a "bloated" contract. The bigger/more valuable the star the bigger the contract.

 

All I've seen you do in this thread is naysay pretty much any big offensive player the Cubs could sign in this upcoming offseason. What about my hope that they can sign Kemp after 2012? Is that bad idea, too? Is your desired plan just hoping that they shell out for pitchers and sign mid-tier players elsewhere and hope they stumble on a 2011-Berkman in the rough? What are you saving this money for? Which big offensive stars do you think they SHOULD sign?

[NOLA]

So you'd rather the Cubs "risk" their money on a position where injury is an even more dicey proposition?

 

And you're really just going to look back only to last year to argue against beefing up the Cubs' offense with possibly the greatest hitter of all time?

 

And yes, there's a very good chance that a 38-year-old Pujols would still be giving the Cubs good production. Again, he has a long way to decline from his career numbers to where he'd no longer be a good player. That's the benefit of singing someone THAT great.

 

As I said, all signings are a risk. I wouldn't sign any pitcher to 10 years either, especially at that age, so I think that comparison isn't valid. Two pitchers, or a pitcher and a 1B, maybe also a long reliever could be signed without 10 year deals at the same price.

 

As I also said, I realize last year is a small sample size, but it does show a path to a pennant that is less of a gamble.

 

There aren't too many of the greatest hitters of all time that I would want at age 38-42 taking up 1/5 of the payroll.

[Sammy Sofa]

OK, but who else do you want them to sign? 1 or 2 starters, maybe a long reliever and a journeyman 1B isn't enough.

 

And what Giant-like starters are out there?

[NOLA]

As for the idea that not signing Pujols would be a typical Cubs move, I have to think that signing a star name to a bloated contract is much more Cub-like.

 

You're always going to have to sign a star to a "bloated" contract. The bigger/more valuable the star the bigger the contract.

 

All I've seen you do in this thread is naysay pretty much any big offensive player the Cubs could sign in this upcoming offseason. What about my hope that they can sign Kemp after 2012? Is that bad idea, too? Is your desired plan just hoping that they shell out for pitchers and sign mid-tier players elsewhere and hope they stumble on a 2011-Berkman in the rough? What are you saving this money for? Which big offensive stars do you think they SHOULD sign?

 

When we argue "bloated" contracts, I think we are just arguing the degree of bloated. Actually, I said I have reservations about Fielder, Reyes and Pujols for different reasons altogether. I did say I support signing a CJ Wilson. We have areas we can upgrade, definitely. I like Kemp, quite a bit actually. The aforementioned Josh Hamilton will be a FA soon.

 

Not liking the terms of a Pujols deal is a far cry from some of your suggestions.

[NOLA]

OK, but who else do you want them to sign? 1 or 2 starters, maybe a long reliever and a journeyman 1B isn't enough.

 

And what Giant-like starters are out there?

 

Matt Cain is a FA after next year, and he is very Giants-like.

 

Not trying to be argumentative, I simply do not like the Pujols deal. IMO, our window to win and to make a move for a big FA is not this offseason, and not at that deal for any 32 year old 1B.

[SouthSideRyan]

Why spend all that money on Maddux when we can get 2 aces in Guzman and Hibbard for the same price?