Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[NOLA]

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

 

Touche.

 

But Maddux was just entering his prime back then. I don't think he wanted 10 years.

[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?

 

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.

 

Wilson would be alright, but he'd be getting up there in years and unless he's willing to sign a 3-4-year deal I'd rather just plug in one of the Cubs' pitching prospects instead.

 

Hamilton will be tricky, because he kicked his body's ass with hardcore drug abuse for several years, and that can very easily play out with him having his career drastically shortened as he can very likely be more susceptible to major or frequent injuries because of it. He'll be 31 for the 2013 season, so is he really going to be looking for or accepting anything less than a 6-7-year-deal?

[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?

 

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.

 

But a move for Pujols wouldn't be just a move to win next season. It would likely be a move to help the Cubs win for at least several seasons.

[Sammy Sofa]

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

 

Touche.

 

But Maddux was just entering his prime back then. I don't think he wanted 10 years.

 

It's a false point to keep bringing up other players not getting or asking for 10 years because they're not Pujols. Of course they're not going to be getting the same type of deal; because they're not nearly as good as him.

 

There's going to be bloat on pretty much any contract drawn up for a star FA, and the bloat is going to increase as the talent and value also increases.

[javy knows my name]

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

 

I was THIS close to bringing up Maddux

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

When do you foresee this window opening, and for how long will it be open?*

 

 

 

 

 

*Big market teams don't have windows. Oakland had a window. Minnesota and Cleveland have had a couple windows. Big market teams either do it right and win or do it wrong and lose, but there is no window involved.

[Tarver]

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 hate the Cards, but they're not stupid. He just wants too many years.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think it's more about the money.

[Tarver]

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.

 

I can't understand your tunnel vision on this one Mojo. If Ricketts ups the payroll to $160+, it's a different ballgame, but he has a ton of debt to service right now, and his triangle building dreams aren't happening anytime soon.

 

I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy.

[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.

 

I can't understand your tunnel vision on this one Mojo. If Ricketts ups the payroll to $160+, it's a different ballgame, but he has a ton of debt to service right now, and his triangle building dreams aren't happening anytime soon.

 

I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy.

 

But their investment in this offseason isn't just going to be for one guy (and I really don't think that Pujols is going to get both the money and the years he want. I think it's more likely it ends up being something like 30/8 instead of 30/10). They'll still have money to spend on other players.

 

Here's the Cubs' most recent financial report courtesy of Forbes:

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html

 

You couple that with the money the Cubs have coming off the books after this year and the next AND getting further away from the sale and the Cubs have a ton of money they can spend. Even a monster contract like Pujols isn't a make or break deal for them; not even close. They can sign Pujols AND be in the running for all of the other guys you listed.

 

Of course I'm not going to complain if the Cubs sign something like Reyes/Fielder instead of Pujols. My issue is with how adamant people are in this thread that signing Pujols is going to be this crippling, horrible deal.

[SouthSideRyan]

How much do you guys think a Kemp, Votto, or Felix are going to sign for? They're not going to be much cheaper than Pujols.

[Tarver]

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.

 

I can't understand your tunnel vision on this one Mojo. If Ricketts ups the payroll to $160+, it's a different ballgame, but he has a ton of debt to service right now, and his triangle building dreams aren't happening anytime soon.

 

I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy.

 

But their investment in this offseason isn't just going to be for one guy (and I really don't think that Pujols is going to get both the money and the years he want. I think it's more likely it ends up being something like 30/8 instead of 30/10). They'll still have money to spend on other players.

 

Here's the Cubs' most recent financial report courtesy of Forbes:

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html

 

You couple that with the money the Cubs have coming off the books after this year and the next AND getting further away from the sale and the Cubs have a ton of money they can spend. Even a monster contract like Pujols isn't a make or break deal for them; not even close. They can sign Pujols AND be in the running for all of the other guys you listed.

 

Of course I'm not going to complain if the Cubs sign something like Reyes/Fielder instead of Pujols. My issue is with how adamant people are in this thread that signing Pujols is going to be this crippling, horrible deal.

 

Albert's one of the best defensive 1b in the league, so I'm confident that this won't turn into a Carlos Lee situation, but eight years? You know in 2016 were gonna be right here, trying to think of ways to dump him.

[Tarver]

How much do you guys think a Kemp, Votto, or Felix are going to sign for? They're not going to be much cheaper than Pujols.

 

Depends. I think this attendance issue will be persist most of this decade, unless some economic miracle happens. If the TV dollars are as big as the MLB PR is stating, maybe I'll be wrong. No way Votto stays in Cincy though.

[Sammy Sofa]

How much do you guys think a Kemp, Votto, or Felix are going to sign for? They're not going to be much cheaper than Pujols.

 

Depends. I think this attendance issue will be persist most of this decade, unless some economic miracle happens. If the TV dollars are as big as the MLB PR is stating, maybe I'll be wrong. No way Votto stays in Cincy though.

 

Yeah, but how often do you keep putting off signing an actual superstar FA? People keep tossing out names that will be available a couple years or more from now...so what if these guys just have even better seasons in that time? Or catastrophic injuries? You can always make excuses for not signing someone to a huge contract. Keep passing up genuinely great players out of fear of bad contracts for lesser players in the past and you don't accomplish much. This is a big market team that can afford to eat contracts.

[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.

 

I can't understand your tunnel vision on this one Mojo. If Ricketts ups the payroll to $160+, it's a different ballgame, but he has a ton of debt to service right now, and his triangle building dreams aren't happening anytime soon.

 

I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy.

 

But their investment in this offseason isn't just going to be for one guy (and I really don't think that Pujols is going to get both the money and the years he want. I think it's more likely it ends up being something like 30/8 instead of 30/10). They'll still have money to spend on other players.

 

Here's the Cubs' most recent financial report courtesy of Forbes:

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html

 

You couple that with the money the Cubs have coming off the books after this year and the next AND getting further away from the sale and the Cubs have a ton of money they can spend. Even a monster contract like Pujols isn't a make or break deal for them; not even close. They can sign Pujols AND be in the running for all of the other guys you listed.

 

Of course I'm not going to complain if the Cubs sign something like Reyes/Fielder instead of Pujols. My issue is with how adamant people are in this thread that signing Pujols is going to be this crippling, horrible deal.

 

Albert's one of the best defensive 1b in the league, so I'm confident that this won't turn into a Carlos Lee situation, but eight years? You know in 2016 were gonna be right here, trying to think of ways to dump him.

 

Maybe. But the first 5+ years will likely be amazing.

[dew1679666265]

I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy.

 

Average WAR:

 

Fielder + Reyes: 6.5

Pujols: 8.0

 

Pujols is already more valuable than both Fielder and Reyes combined, and then you can tack on 1-2 WAR to the Pujols total when factoring in a young second baseman such as Barney or LeMahehieu's production (Barney's already been worth .9 WAR this year and LeMaheieu should be better). Bump the Pujols total up to 11.5 if the Ricketts allow both Pujols and Reyes to be signed.

 

As for cost, Fielder's agent is Scott Boras, so you know he's getting the biggest contract he possibly can. It's certainly not out of the question to pay Fielder 8 years and $25 million per year and then Reyes is going to want a minimum of 4-5 years and $11-14 million per year (comparable to the Furcal deal). So here's how the money looks:

 

Average cost per year:

Fielder + Reyes: $39 million

Pujols: $30 million

 

So you're paying more money for less value in Fielder and Reyes. Even considering both Fielder and Reyes have bodies and skillsets making them more likely to decline much more quickly than Pujols.

[Tarver]

How much do you guys think a Kemp, Votto, or Felix are going to sign for? They're not going to be much cheaper than Pujols.

 

Depends. I think this attendance issue will be persist most of this decade, unless some economic miracle happens. If the TV dollars are as big as the MLB PR is stating, maybe I'll be wrong. No way Votto stays in Cincy though.

 

Yeah, but how often do you keep putting off signing an actual superstar FA? People keep tossing out names that will be available a couple years or more from now...so what if these guys just have even better seasons in that time? Or catastrophic injuries? You can always make excuses for not signing someone to a huge contract. Keep passing up genuinely great players out of fear of bad contracts for lesser players in the past and you don't accomplish much. This is a big market team that can afford to eat contracts.

 

I don't disagree in principle. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we have the upper hand. Unless he just chases the $, what other major market team is in a position to give him what he wants?

[jersey cubs fan]

You couple that with the money the Cubs have coming off the books after this year and the next AND getting further away from the sale and the Cubs have a ton of money they can spend.

 

I don't understand your continued references to distance in time away from the sale. The only way "the sale" is affecting current payroll situations is because of how bloated it became leading up to the sale, and that is tied to the money coming off the books, which you already referenced. Then you have the normal increases in revenue over time. In what other way are you assuming the further away from the sale the higher the payroll will go?

[dew1679666265]

I hate the Cards, but they're not stupid. He just wants too many years.

 

The Cardinals have a payroll of $109 million and have half of that committed for next year and more than a quarter of that committed for 2013. Everything I've heard is that they want Pujols' money demands to drop more into the $23-25 range and then they'd have interest - I'm pretty sure they finally said they'd go 10 years, but at a $23 per year rate. Considering their payroll situation, it makes perfect sense to me why they wouldn't/couldn't pay Pujols.

 

However, the Cubs have as much payroll room as the Cardinals AFTER giving Pujols $30 million per year. We also have a lower percentage of our payroll committed each of the next two years than the Cardinals - meaning we have a bigger payroll and more money to spend than the Cardinals. We're in financial situation where we can afford Pujols, the Cards aren't. That's the only difference between the two.

[Sammy Sofa]

You couple that with the money the Cubs have coming off the books after this year and the next AND getting further away from the sale and the Cubs have a ton of money they can spend.

 

I don't understand your continued references to distance in time away from the sale. The only way "the sale" is affecting current payroll situations is because of how bloated it became leading up to the sale, and that is tied to the money coming off the books, which you already referenced. Then you have the normal increases in revenue over time. In what other way are you assuming the further away from the sale the higher the payroll will go?

 

Nothing. I was going for sexy, dramatic emphasis.

[Tarver]

I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy.

 

Average WAR:

 

Fielder + Reyes: 6.5

Pujols: 8.0

 

Pujols is already more valuable than both Fielder and Reyes combined, and then you can tack on 1-2 WAR to the Pujols total when factoring in a young second baseman such as Barney or LeMahehieu's production (Barney's already been worth .9 WAR this year and LeMaheieu should be better). Bump the Pujols total up to 11.5 if the Ricketts allow both Pujols and Reyes to be signed.

 

As for cost, Fielder's agent is Scott Boras, so you know he's getting the biggest contract he possibly can. It's certainly not out of the question to pay Fielder 8 years and $25 million per year and then Reyes is going to want a minimum of 4-5 years and $11-14 million per year (comparable to the Furcal deal). So here's how the money looks:

 

Average cost per year:

Fielder + Reyes: $39 million

Pujols: $30 million

 

So you're paying more money for less value in Fielder and Reyes. Even considering both Fielder and Reyes have bodies and skillsets making them more likely to decline much more quickly than Pujols.

 

Those WAR #s are a reach and you know it.

 

If Pujols was a Boras client he'd be signed to an extension by now. For whatever reason the StL FO and Boras are like peas and carrots. They've gotten discounts since Drew and Ankiel came up.

 

Like I said, unless these guys just chase dollars, what big market, perennially competitive clubs are in a position to offer big money?

[jersey cubs fan]

Albert's one of the best defensive 1b in the league, so I'm confident that this won't turn into a Carlos Lee situation, but eight years? You know in 2016 were gonna be right here, trying to think of ways to dump him.

 

Maybe. But the first 5+ years will likely be amazing.

 

Not only will the first half be glorious, but the cost certainty involved will allow the Cubs several years to plan for 2017 and beyond.

[Sammy Sofa]

I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy.

 

Average WAR:

 

Fielder + Reyes: 6.5

Pujols: 8.0

 

Pujols is already more valuable than both Fielder and Reyes combined, and then you can tack on 1-2 WAR to the Pujols total when factoring in a young second baseman such as Barney or LeMahehieu's production (Barney's already been worth .9 WAR this year and LeMaheieu should be better). Bump the Pujols total up to 11.5 if the Ricketts allow both Pujols and Reyes to be signed.

 

As for cost, Fielder's agent is Scott Boras, so you know he's getting the biggest contract he possibly can. It's certainly not out of the question to pay Fielder 8 years and $25 million per year and then Reyes is going to want a minimum of 4-5 years and $11-14 million per year (comparable to the Furcal deal). So here's how the money looks:

 

Average cost per year:

Fielder + Reyes: $39 million

Pujols: $30 million

 

So you're paying more money for less value in Fielder and Reyes. Even considering both Fielder and Reyes have bodies and skillsets making them more likely to decline much more quickly than Pujols.

 

Those WAR #s are a reach and you know it.

 

If Pujols was a Boras client he'd be signed to an extension by now. For whatever reason the StL FO and Boras are like peas and carrots. They've gotten discounts since Drew and Ankiel came up.

 

Like I said, unless these guys just chase dollars, what big market, perennially competitive clubs are in a position to offer big money?

 

Given that it's Pujols it's difficult to automatically dismiss too many teams from making an offer if he indeed goes to FA.

[Tarver]

I hate the Cards, but they're not stupid. He just wants too many years.

 

The Cardinals have a payroll of $109 million and have half of that committed for next year and more than a quarter of that committed for 2013. Everything I've heard is that they want Pujols' money demands to drop more into the $23-25 range and then they'd have interest - I'm pretty sure they finally said they'd go 10 years, but at a $23 per year rate. Considering their payroll situation, it makes perfect sense to me why they wouldn't/couldn't pay Pujols.

 

However, the Cubs have as much payroll room as the Cardinals AFTER giving Pujols $30 million per year. We also have a lower percentage of our payroll committed each of the next two years than the Cardinals - meaning we have a bigger payroll and more money to spend than the Cardinals. We're in financial situation where we can afford Pujols, the Cards aren't. That's the only difference between the two.

 

Why bid against ourselves?

[Sammy Sofa]

I hate the Cards, but they're not stupid. He just wants too many years.

 

The Cardinals have a payroll of $109 million and have half of that committed for next year and more than a quarter of that committed for 2013. Everything I've heard is that they want Pujols' money demands to drop more into the $23-25 range and then they'd have interest - I'm pretty sure they finally said they'd go 10 years, but at a $23 per year rate. Considering their payroll situation, it makes perfect sense to me why they wouldn't/couldn't pay Pujols.

 

However, the Cubs have as much payroll room as the Cardinals AFTER giving Pujols $30 million per year. We also have a lower percentage of our payroll committed each of the next two years than the Cardinals - meaning we have a bigger payroll and more money to spend than the Cardinals. We're in financial situation where we can afford Pujols, the Cards aren't. That's the only difference between the two.

 

Why bid against ourselves?

 

I don't understand your point. Nobody is saying the Cubs should just automatically give him what he wants without any negotiation. People are talking about things like 30/10 if that's what it takes to get him, not "oh, here's $30 million a year for a decade because we like you so much."