Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[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.

 

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.

I understand you're confused, so I'll try to make it as simple as I can for you.

 

$30M > $10M.

 

Both are a lot of money, though -- that much is true.

 

Look if you want Pujols on the Cubs because he'd make them better, then fine. But just leave it at that. The business case for signing the guy is a total loser.

[davell]

I gotta admit, I'm confused here. Where is it in those articles that proves Pujols isn't going to make the Cubs money? Isn't it conceivable that while he'll help increase attendance, he'll also help the club get more money spent per person as well? I have no idea as to whether or not he can actually PAY for himself(in fact, i doubt it). But, if he pays for a third of himself even, the gargantuan contract he's going to receive becomes a lot easier for ANY team to swallow, including the Cubs.

[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.

I understand you're confused, so I'll try to make it as simple as I can for you.

 

$30M > $10M.

 

Both are a lot of money, though -- that much is true.

 

Look if you want Pujols on the Cubs because he'd make them better, then fine. But just leave it at that. The business case for signing the guy is a total loser.

 

I'm still confused. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that increased tickets sales should or need to offset Pujols' salary, or why you're thinking anyone here said that.

 

Besides, aren't you basing this tangent on the idea of the Cubs selling 3.1 million tickets this year?

[Derwood]

holy [expletive], is this circular argument still going on?

[Sammy Sofa]

Which one?

[Guest]

To me, the playoffs are the big lever if you're talking about additional revenue. Not only is that the biggest opportunity the club has to increase revenues, but adding Pujols also marks a significant increase in the probability that they make the playoffs.

[OleMissCub]

I'm sorta new to this thread. What's the split on who wants Prince and who wants Pujols? I think I'm in the Prince camp.

[Sammy Sofa]

A surprising number of people don't want either of them unless they're willing to take very, very short contracts.

[Backtobanks]

I'm sorta new to this thread. What's the split on who wants Prince and who wants Pujols? I think I'm in the Prince camp.

 

Obviously it depends on the cost/years. If Pujols is $300 million/10 years and Prince is for $170 million/8 years, it gets to be a tough decision. Of course that's the maximum Pujols will get while Prince could get more than what I mentioned. Also, if Pujols continues to have a down year, all of the numbers mentioned could change dramatically.

[NOLA]

A surprising number of people don't want either of them unless they're willing to take very, very short contracts.

 

OK, I really do not want to jump back into this fray again as I think we can just agree to disagree on the risk/reward. This, however, is NOT at all what I've heard anyone saying. Who here has said to go ahead but only with "very, very short contracts"?

[NOLA]

I'm sorta new to this thread. What's the split on who wants Prince and who wants Pujols? I think I'm in the Prince camp.

 

Obviously it depends on the cost/years. If Pujols is $300 million/10 years and Prince is for $170 million/8 years, it gets to be a tough decision. Of course that's the maximum Pujols will get while Prince could get more than what I mentioned. Also, if Pujols continues to have a down year, all of the numbers mentioned could change dramatically.

 

As much as I dislike the Pujols deal, I'd do that in a heartbeat before I took Fielder at that price for 8 years. Geez! He won't be able to even waddle out to 1B by the end of that deal.

[Sammy Sofa]

A surprising number of people don't want either of them unless they're willing to take very, very short contracts.

 

OK, I really do not want to jump back into this fray again as I think we can just agree to disagree on the risk/reward. This, however, is NOT at all what I've heard anyone saying. Who here has said to go ahead but only with "very, very short contracts"?

 

I don't know if the Fielder talk was in this thread or elsewhere, but there were some very vocal people saying things like "no way would I want Fielder for more than 5 years" and talking like the Cubs should be able to inexplicably sign him for 4 years. Probably the same folks being similarly adamant about saying no to Pujols if he won't take 6-7.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[NOLA]

A surprising number of people don't want either of them unless they're willing to take very, very short contracts.

 

OK, I really do not want to jump back into this fray again as I think we can just agree to disagree on the risk/reward. This, however, is NOT at all what I've heard anyone saying. Who here has said to go ahead but only with "very, very short contracts"?

 

I don't know if the Fielder talk was in this thread or elsewhere, but there were some very vocal people saying things like "no way would I want Fielder for more than 5 years" and tlaking like the Cubs should be able to inexplicably sign him for 4 years. Probably the same folks being similarly adamant about saying no to Pujols if he won't take 6-7.

 

OK. Again, I do not like the terms of the proposed Pujols deal, but that by comparison seems prudent compared to an 8 year Fielder deal.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hey, I don't want an 8-year-deal for Fielder, either. But ultimately I don't want the Cubs passing on both players.

[davell]

Hey, I don't want an 8-year-deal for Fielder, either. But ultimately I don't want the Cubs passing on both players.

 

Yes. There's no one else to wait around for. These guys are true difference makers(one much moreso than the other) but we need one or the other and a true front line "ace" type pitcher as well, before I'll be ready to say we're truly in another window of chance again.

[dew1679666265]

I'm sorta new to this thread. What's the split on who wants Prince and who wants Pujols? I think I'm in the Prince camp.

 

Most people, it seems, either are fine with whichever (though they prefer Pujols) or don't want either because both want longterm deals.

 

I see Prince as more of a consolation prize. I want Pujols even if we need to spend 10/300 to get him, but if somebody outbids us then the focus needs to shift immediately to Prince. The soonest a big-time first baseman would come available after this offseason is probably after the 2013 season (Joey Votto) and even that's not a certainty.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer Prince over Pujols?

[dew1679666265]

Hey, I don't want an 8-year-deal for Fielder, either. But ultimately I don't want the Cubs passing on both players.

 

Yes. There's no one else to wait around for. These guys are true difference makers(one much moreso than the other) but we need one or the other and a true front line "ace" type pitcher as well, before I'll be ready to say we're truly in another window of chance again.

 

I really think this is a contending team immediately if we sign Pujols. The Cardinals have fielded some pretty bad teams around Albert and still won 80-something games. We could easily get 5-6 extra wins by adding Pujols over Pena, which could easily be the difference between a playoff berth and none.

 

That said, if we could get a true ace, I wouldn't complain. I'd prefer to use free agency to fill offensive holes, though, and let the farm fill the pitching spots. Mojo brought up the idea of getting Pujols this year and Kemp after next season and I like that idea a lot.

[Backtobanks]

These two guys aren't idiots. Neither one is going to take anything less than 7-8 years unless Pujols continues to struggle and takes a 1-year to rebuild his worth. Both of them realize that this is their last big payday.

[dew1679666265]

These two guys aren't idiots. Neither one is going to take anything less than 7-8 years unless Pujols continues to struggle and takes a 1-year to rebuild his worth. Both of them realize that this is their last big payday.

 

Right. Pujols is the greatest hitter in the game and one of the greatest ever while Prince is a great player with Boras as an agent. Eight years is probably the minimum for both, the only question is how much are you paying yearly.

 

My guess is (assuming Pujols hits the market) Prince will wait to sign until after Pujols' deal. If Albert gets a 10/300 deal, Prince could be looking at as much as 8/200 (25/yr).

[UMFan83]

If this has been discussed in this thread I apologize. How much do our chances of getting Pujols depend on retaining Jim Hendry? I cant see the Cubs canning Hendry if there is still a shot at getting him. And because we probably won't get that answer until well into the offseason, its doubtful we fire him no matter how bad this season goes.

[Sammy Sofa]

If this has been discussed in this thread I apologize. How much do our chances of getting Pujols depend on retaining Jim Hendry? I cant see the Cubs canning Hendry if there is still a shot at getting him. And because we probably won't get that answer until well into the offseason, its doubtful we fire him no matter how bad this season goes.

 

Yeah, I said it only in half-jest when I brought up how The Hug might have saved Hendry's job for another season no matter how bad the team gets this year.

[dew1679666265]

If this has been discussed in this thread I apologize. How much do our chances of getting Pujols depend on retaining Jim Hendry? I cant see the Cubs canning Hendry if there is still a shot at getting him. And because we probably won't get that answer until well into the offseason, its doubtful we fire him no matter how bad this season goes.

 

My guess is it hurts our chances considerably if Hendry is fired after the season because there's going to have to be a period of time for a GM search and another for the GM to fill any other openings in the front office. I couldn't imagine an owner like Ricketts offering a contract to Pujols without a GM in place - Cuban I could see doing that, but not Ricketts.

 

If Hendry's fired midseason and they complete the search before the end of the year, however, it may not make that much of a difference. It's probably all about how quickly the spot is filled.

[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.

 

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.

I understand you're confused, so I'll try to make it as simple as I can for you.

 

$30M > $10M.

 

Both are a lot of money, though -- that much is true.

 

Look if you want Pujols on the Cubs because he'd make them better, then fine. But just leave it at that. The business case for signing the guy is a total loser.

 

I'm still confused. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that increased tickets sales should or need to offset Pujols' salary, or why you're thinking anyone here said that.

 

Besides, aren't you basing this tangent on the idea of the Cubs selling 3.1 million tickets this year?

You've said repeatedly that Pujols would make the Cubs a lot of money.

 

How exactly do you figure the guy's going to make the Cubs a lot of money if the added revenue he generates isn't even enough to offset his salary? Doesn't exactly take a CPA to see the flaw in that logic.

[MSG T]

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.

I understand you're confused, so I'll try to make it as simple as I can for you.

 

$30M > $10M.

 

Both are a lot of money, though -- that much is true.

 

Look if you want Pujols on the Cubs because he'd make them better, then fine. But just leave it at that. The business case for signing the guy is a total loser.

 

I'm still confused. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that increased tickets sales should or need to offset Pujols' salary, or why you're thinking anyone here said that.

 

Besides, aren't you basing this tangent on the idea of the Cubs selling 3.1 million tickets this year?

You've said repeatedly that Pujols would make the Cubs a lot of money.

 

How exactly do you figure the guy's going to make the Cubs a lot of money if the added revenue he generates isn't even enough to offset his salary? Doesn't exactly take a CPA to see the flaw in that logic.

 

 

If they sign Pujols and have a payroll at, or lower than, current levels, he doesn't need to pay for his own salary to make the Cubs money. Any increase he provides will make them money. It appears you're trying to look at it that he needs to cause a $30+ mil increase for the Cubs, that's not true. If they have a payroll of $125 mil and a profit of $5 mil this year, and they sign him for $30 mil per next year which eventually leads to a payroll of $125 mil and his presence creates a profit of $10 mil, he made them $5 mil. All that needs to happen is his presence causes them to make more money next year.

 

As for that entire argument, I actually disagree with it, to a point. I don't think he needs to make them more money. All he needs to do is make them a better team and he's earned his money. If they win the WS next year with him at first, even if they lose money, it's worth it. And, quite frankly, that's all I care about. I understand the Cubs want to make money and that's fine, they should care about that, but as a fan, I want them to win and Albert gives them the best chance to do that. That's why it's worth it to give him $30 mil per year if that's what it takes. If signing him breaks the bank and they can't sign anyone else that's any good which causes them to be a worse team, then no they shouldn't sign him. That, however, isn't reality. Reality says they can give Albert $30+ mil per year and still bring in other, needed, good players.

[Guest]

*Prince is going to go into every negotiation with Howard's contract as a baseline.

 

 

 

Really, Boras in representation of Prince, I guess.