Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Guest]

Maybe it's not clear. But it's as close to clear as you can get. Even the best players in the game have to adhere to the natural rule of age. And even though Pojuls will continue to be great, he is past his prime years.

 

The article isn't about Pojuls.

[Splendid Splinter]

Whether you choose to acknowledge them or not, there are definitely warning signs with some of Pujols's 2011 peripherals:

 

Strikeout-to-walk ratio

2008 - 0.52

2009 - 0.56

2010 - 0.74

2011 - 0.95

 

It's not just fewer walks. It's also more strikeouts.

 

I agree with the rest, but I disagree on this part.

 

Pujols Ks

2008- 54

2009- 64

2010- 76

2011- 58

 

It's because of fewer walks (not just fewer, but a HUGE drop in one year), not more Ks that lead to a higher BB:K ratio. Pujols still rarely Ks for a slugger. He was also a bit unlucky with a BABIP of .277 this year. Still, you gotta worry when a guy go from 100+ BBs the past 3 years then drop to 61 this year.

[Guest]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/how-will-prince-fielder-age/

 

Fangraphs weighs in (get it?) on the aging curve of heavy players.

 

Thanks. Good analysis and date. However, the conclusion -- "Either way, it is clear that his best days are behind him. -- is, well, speculative at best. Sorry, that's not "clear"; it may be likely, it may be supported by the evidence. But it's not "clear." Unless fangraphs has also developed the ability to see the future. Not that my complaint defeats the overall thesis, it does no such thing, but that is some poor (arrogant?) word usage.

 

Yep.

 

Also, it may sound like nitpicking, but I think it's flawed to base this simply on weight and not on body composition. But then the sample size would be even smaller and without knowing the body fat percentage of every one of these players, it would get a lot more subjective to sift through the names.

 

LOL if Pujols has gained 15 lbs over his listed weight in muscle and/or fat (I'm not sure when the 230 listing is from), he'd qualify for the fat list.

[Guest]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/how-will-prince-fielder-age/

 

Fangraphs weighs in (get it?) on the aging curve of heavy players.

 

Thanks. Good analysis and date. However, the conclusion -- "Either way, it is clear that his best days are behind him. -- is, well, speculative at best. Sorry, that's not "clear"; it may be likely, it may be supported by the evidence. But it's not "clear." Unless fangraphs has also developed the ability to see the future. Not that my complaint defeats the overall thesis, it does no such thing, but that is some poor (arrogant?) word usage.

 

Yep.

 

Also, it may sound like nitpicking, but I think it's flawed to base this simply on weight and not on body composition. But then the sample size would be even smaller and without knowing the body fat percentage of every one of these players, it would get a lot more subjective to sift through the names.

 

LOL if Pujols has gained 15 lbs over his listed weight in muscle and/or fat (I'm not sure when the 230 listing is from), he'd qualify for the fat list.

David,

 

Take a look at the URL, even if you don't read the article. ;)

[Guest]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/how-will-prince-fielder-age/

 

Fangraphs weighs in (get it?) on the aging curve of heavy players.

 

Thanks. Good analysis and date. However, the conclusion -- "Either way, it is clear that his best days are behind him. -- is, well, speculative at best. Sorry, that's not "clear"; it may be likely, it may be supported by the evidence. But it's not "clear." Unless fangraphs has also developed the ability to see the future. Not that my complaint defeats the overall thesis, it does no such thing, but that is some poor (arrogant?) word usage.

 

Yep.

 

Also, it may sound like nitpicking, but I think it's flawed to base this simply on weight and not on body composition. But then the sample size would be even smaller and without knowing the body fat percentage of every one of these players, it would get a lot more subjective to sift through the names.

 

LOL if Pujols has gained 15 lbs over his listed weight in muscle and/or fat (I'm not sure when the 230 listing is from), he'd qualify for the fat list.

David,

 

Take a look at the URL, even if you don't read the article. ;)

 

I did read the article...as far as the URL, what am I missing here?

[Guest]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/how-will-prince-fielder-age/

 

Fangraphs weighs in (get it?) on the aging curve of heavy players.

 

Thanks. Good analysis and date. However, the conclusion -- "Either way, it is clear that his best days are behind him. -- is, well, speculative at best. Sorry, that's not "clear"; it may be likely, it may be supported by the evidence. But it's not "clear." Unless fangraphs has also developed the ability to see the future. Not that my complaint defeats the overall thesis, it does no such thing, but that is some poor (arrogant?) word usage.

 

Yep.

 

Also, it may sound like nitpicking, but I think it's flawed to base this simply on weight and not on body composition. But then the sample size would be even smaller and without knowing the body fat percentage of every one of these players, it would get a lot more subjective to sift through the names.

 

LOL if Pujols has gained 15 lbs over his listed weight in muscle and/or fat (I'm not sure when the 230 listing is from), he'd qualify for the fat list.

David,

 

Take a look at the URL, even if you don't read the article. ;)

 

I did read the article...as far as the URL, what am I missing here?

Nevermind, now I understand the point you were making. I thought you were saying the article was about Pujols. Now I see that you're saying something entirely different.

 

#-o

[Guest]

Nevermind, now I understand the point you were making. I thought you were saying the article was about Pujols. Now I see that you're saying something entirely different.

 

#-o

 

 

Hah, I see it.

 

No worries. :-)

[dew1679666265]

This looks promising:

 

"I don't want to prognosticate at all, but in the next week or so we'll hear from [La Russa].... Albert may take a little while, I guess.... Who knows? Maybe we'll get something done in the quiet period (during which teams are only permitted to negotiate with their own free agents). But if you've waited this long, you're probably going to see what's out there."

[Clem Fandango]

Tim Kurkjan gives his $0.02

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7165040/ten-questions-heading-offseason

 

9. Where will Prince Fielder sign?

It won't be with the Brewers. They'd love to have him back -- they can afford him at $13 million a year, but not at $19 million a year. He's likely to command more than $20 million per year for five seasons, at least.

 

Remember, Scott Boras is his agent. Fielder is only 27, has missed one game in the last three years, has missed 13 games in the last six years and has never been on the disabled list. He is a better runner than people think, an average defender at first base and is, by all accounts, a great teammate.

 

Logically, he would fit best with the Cubs. They need a dominant hitter and a dominant personality in the clubhouse. Do they have the money to sign him?

 

10. Where will Albert Pujols sign?

The market likely won't be as brisk as he would like given that the two biggest spenders, the Yankees and Red Sox, have first basemen signed to long-term deals.

 

So maybe the Cubs, Rangers, Marlins, Giants or Dodgers will find $200 million somewhere and make a run at one of the greatest hitters in history who is close to his prime at age 31.

 

But chances are Pujols will re-sign with the Cardinals. They simply can't afford to lose him, he's too important to the team and the town. Plus, he'll hit his 500th home run sometime in 2013. He's on his way to becoming one of the three greatest hitters of all time, and he's the greatest first baseman who ever lived. How are the Cardinals going to let him walk away?

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I agree with the rest, but I disagree on this part.

 

Pujols Ks

2008- 54

2009- 64

2010- 76

2011- 58

 

It's because of fewer walks (not just fewer, but a HUGE drop in one year), not more Ks that lead to a higher BB:K ratio. Pujols still rarely Ks for a slugger. He was also a bit unlucky with a BABIP of .277 this year. Still, you gotta worry when a guy go from 100+ BBs the past 3 years then drop to 61 this year.

 

Do you really?

[javy knows my name]

Haha Timmy writes exactly how he talks

[The Post]

If I had to choose, I wouldn't sign either of them. If the Cubs are committed to building from within and having a plan of attack, they need to leave these two alone. The idea of signing the best player from two of the Cubs' rivals sounds intriguing but it's not a smart move. I'd rather throw money at pitchers and piece together a line up. Pujols is aging and still great, but not worth the money. He is just flat out getting old...there's no way around that one. But if it's between Pujols and Fielder, I'm going Fielder. He's younger and hits from the left side. But again, I'd rather not sign either.

[Banedon]

Didn't wanna start a new thread for this, and obviously this would only be a thought if for some reason neither Albert or Prince worked out...but HBT has a thread speculating if some NL teams might take a chance on Big Papi at 1B...

 

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/30/will-david-ortiz-have-national-league-suitors/

 

“I think more and more teams will look into it. To have that kind of bat in the middle of an NL lineup at relatively short years and money for that type of production might be worth the deficiency you’d have at first base. You could always replace him in the late innings. I think he can handle the position in terms of balls hit at him. It’s just the range would be limited. Teams have those types of players even now.”

[Clem Fandango]

Didn't wanna start a new thread for this, and obviously this would only be a thought if for some reason neither Albert or Prince worked out...but HBT has a thread speculating if some NL teams might take a chance on Big Papi at 1B...

 

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/30/will-david-ortiz-have-national-league-suitors/

 

“I think more and more teams will look into it. To have that kind of bat in the middle of an NL lineup at relatively short years and money for that type of production might be worth the deficiency you’d have at first base. You could always replace him in the late innings. I think he can handle the position in terms of balls hit at him. It’s just the range would be limited. Teams have those types of players even now.”

 

Pass. Nice little resurgence this year, but he was 35 and in a contract year. Don't trust it one bit. I know the contract year is, ideally, a myth... but I still don't trust it. Pena would be a more valuable option. They'd put up similar production numbers, and while the batting average would be substantially lower, the defense would more than makeup for it, and he'd probably cost less in both dollars and years

Edited October 30, 2011 by The Logan

[dew1679666265]

If I had to choose, I wouldn't sign either of them. If the Cubs are committed to building from within and having a plan of attack, they need to leave these two alone. The idea of signing the best player from two of the Cubs' rivals sounds intriguing but it's not a smart move. I'd rather throw money at pitchers and piece together a line up. Pujols is aging and still great, but not worth the money. He is just flat out getting old...there's no way around that one. But if it's between Pujols and Fielder, I'm going Fielder. He's younger and hits from the left side. But again, I'd rather not sign either.

 

Welcome to the board!

 

Building from within is only half of what Theo said his plan is. He talked about "parallel fronts," referring to both building up from within through the farm system and international signings as well as finding talent on the free agent market. A team with the money the Cubs have don't need to and shouldn't focus all of their resources on just building from within or just bringing in free agents.

 

Basically, signing Pujols won't force the Cubs to take money from the amateur side. If you think Pujols won't be worth his next contract, that's understandable and up for debate, but signing him won't go against Theo's stated plan for building up the system.

[Guest]

If I had to choose, I wouldn't sign either of them. If the Cubs are committed to building from within and having a plan of attack, they need to leave these two alone. The idea of signing the best player from two of the Cubs' rivals sounds intriguing but it's not a smart move. I'd rather throw money at pitchers and piece together a line up. Pujols is aging and still great, but not worth the money. He is just flat out getting old...there's no way around that one. But if it's between Pujols and Fielder, I'm going Fielder. He's younger and hits from the left side. But again, I'd rather not sign either.

Welcome to the forum!

 

Why do you think that signing one of those two and building from within are mutually exclusive?

[The Post]

Thanks guys, have been reading the board for years and finally decided to jump on.

 

I understand that Theo will be building from within AND signing Free Agents. I may have worded it wrong but my line of thinking is that if I'm going out and spending money on FA's, I'm going to go sign pitching. I don't feel that it is worth signing either Fielder or Pujols when more than one area in the field can be addressed with the money spent on 1 player. The Cubs aren't a 1 player fix from a championship or even a 500 record. That is obviously my own opinion but I don't feel that either will be worth the money in the long run. Now, if Theo is looking to put butts in the seats and get the casual fan excited for the upcoming season, Pujols is the way to go. If you want Castro to break an MLB record for errors in one season, go with Fielder.

 

But with all this set aside, I'd be pretty stoked to get Fielder. Would I be stoked to get Pujols? I would have mixed emotions...I just hate the guy too much.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If I had to choose, I wouldn't sign either of them. If the Cubs are committed to building from within and having a plan of attack, they need to leave these two alone. The idea of signing the best player from two of the Cubs' rivals sounds intriguing but it's not a smart move. I'd rather throw money at pitchers and piece together a line up. Pujols is aging and still great, but not worth the money. He is just flat out getting old...there's no way around that one. But if it's between Pujols and Fielder, I'm going Fielder. He's younger and hits from the left side. But again, I'd rather not sign either.

 

I am all for building from within, but as a large market team, we can afford to spend when it is prudent.

 

I have no doubt that Pujols and Fielder both will probably not be worth the money at the end of their contracts. On the other hand, both will likely be worth it early on. This, in my opinion, is the time to go big with an impact FA...and then by the time the contracts are burdensome, the building from within will hopefully produce players that help the Cubs weather the large contracts when the players aren't living up to that value.

 

Pujols and Fielder are the type of FA that likely are going to produce worthy of the expediture early on.

[Guest]

Thanks guys, have been reading the board for years and finally decided to jump on.

 

I understand that Theo will be building from within AND signing Free Agents. I may have worded it wrong but my line of thinking is that if I'm going out and spending money on FA's, I'm going to go sign pitching. I don't feel that it is worth signing either Fielder or Pujols when more than one area in the field can be addressed with the money spent on 1 player. The Cubs aren't a 1 player fix from a championship or even a 500 record. That is obviously my own opinion but I don't feel that either will be worth the money in the long run. Now, if Theo is looking to put butts in the seats and get the casual fan excited for the upcoming season, Pujols is the way to go. If you want Castro to break an MLB record for errors in one season, go with Fielder.

 

But with all this set aside, I'd be pretty stoked to get Fielder. Would I be stoked to get Pujols? I would have mixed emotions...I just hate the guy too much.

I understand your concerns about signing anyone to a contract as long and high in dollar value as these guys will be receiving. I'm inclined to believe that it is worth the risk in this case, but I certainly acknowledge the risk.

 

On the other hand, I'd have to use that same logic if you are going to go out and sign one of the key pitching FA's to a contract. There's far more risk with any pitcher contract than there is with hitters. Injury alone causes the risk to be far greater on that side.

[17 Seconds]

Didn't wanna start a new thread for this, and obviously this would only be a thought if for some reason neither Albert or Prince worked out...but HBT has a thread speculating if some NL teams might take a chance on Big Papi at 1B...

 

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/30/will-david-ortiz-have-national-league-suitors/

 

“I think more and more teams will look into it. To have that kind of bat in the middle of an NL lineup at relatively short years and money for that type of production might be worth the deficiency you’d have at first base. You could always replace him in the late innings. I think he can handle the position in terms of balls hit at him. It’s just the range would be limited. Teams have those types of players even now.”

 

Pass. Nice little resurgence this year, but he was 35 and in a contract year. Don't trust it one bit. I know the contract year is, ideally, a myth... but I still don't trust it. Pena would be a more valuable option. They'd put up similar production numbers, and while the batting average would be substantially lower, the defense would more than makeup for it, and he'd probably cost less in both dollars and years

 

he had an .899 OPS 2010. the only bad year he had was 09.

 

i don't want him either, just saying

[davearm2]

If I had to choose, I wouldn't sign either of them. If the Cubs are committed to building from within and having a plan of attack, they need to leave these two alone. The idea of signing the best player from two of the Cubs' rivals sounds intriguing but it's not a smart move. I'd rather throw money at pitchers and piece together a line up. Pujols is aging and still great, but not worth the money. He is just flat out getting old...there's no way around that one. But if it's between Pujols and Fielder, I'm going Fielder. He's younger and hits from the left side. But again, I'd rather not sign either.

 

I am all for building from within, but as a large market team, we can afford to spend when it is prudent.

 

I have no doubt that Pujols and Fielder both will probably not be worth the money at the end of their contracts. On the other hand, both will likely be worth it early on. This, in my opinion, is the time to go big with an impact FA...and then by the time the contracts are burdensome, the building from within will hopefully produce players that help the Cubs weather the large contracts when the players aren't living up to that value.

 

Pujols and Fielder are the type of FA that likely are going to produce worthy of the expediture early on.

Seems to me the way to do it is to sign the big FA's *after* (or at the same time as) the "building from within" plan is bearing fruit.

 

Don't you want the expensive guys' prime years to overlap with the years the young guys are actually producing in the bigleagues, not the ones they're playing in high-A?

 

Your plan has the expensive guy producing while the kids are developing, and the kids producing while the expensive guy is declining. Better would be for both to be producing at the same time.

[Guest]

If I had to choose, I wouldn't sign either of them. If the Cubs are committed to building from within and having a plan of attack, they need to leave these two alone. The idea of signing the best player from two of the Cubs' rivals sounds intriguing but it's not a smart move. I'd rather throw money at pitchers and piece together a line up. Pujols is aging and still great, but not worth the money. He is just flat out getting old...there's no way around that one. But if it's between Pujols and Fielder, I'm going Fielder. He's younger and hits from the left side. But again, I'd rather not sign either.

 

I am all for building from within, but as a large market team, we can afford to spend when it is prudent.

 

I have no doubt that Pujols and Fielder both will probably not be worth the money at the end of their contracts. On the other hand, both will likely be worth it early on. This, in my opinion, is the time to go big with an impact FA...and then by the time the contracts are burdensome, the building from within will hopefully produce players that help the Cubs weather the large contracts when the players aren't living up to that value.

 

Pujols and Fielder are the type of FA that likely are going to produce worthy of the expediture early on.

Seems to me the way to do it is to sign the big FA's *after* (or at the same time as) the "building from within" plan is bearing fruit.

 

Don't you want the expensive guys' prime years to overlap with the years the young guys are actually producing in the bigleagues, not the ones they're playing in high-A?

 

Your plan has the expensive guy producing while the kids are developing, and the kids producing while the expensive guy is declining. Better would be for both to be producing at the same time.

Your plan is to be awful for a few years?

[Sammy Sofa]

Seems to me the way to do it is to sign the big FA's *after* (or at the same time as) the "building from within" plan is bearing fruit.

 

Don't you want the expensive guys' prime years to overlap with the years the young guys are actually producing in the bigleagues, not the ones they're playing in high-A?

 

Your plan has the expensive guy producing while the kids are developing, and the kids producing while the expensive guy is declining. Better would be for both to be producing at the same time.

 

That's all well and good, but it's difficult to operate as if prospects panning out and the right FA being available line up more often than not. Many times you need to take the real opportunity that presents itself lest you be stuck in a "well, I guess Soriano is the best option out there"-type scenario because the team was sitting around hoping another prospect or two pans out. If true impact players are available in a position of need and you have the money it's likely a good idea to take the plunge instead of hinging on the crapshoot of baseball prospects to pan out when the timing is just right for whoever the next big FA is down the line.

[davearm2]

If I had to choose, I wouldn't sign either of them. If the Cubs are committed to building from within and having a plan of attack, they need to leave these two alone. The idea of signing the best player from two of the Cubs' rivals sounds intriguing but it's not a smart move. I'd rather throw money at pitchers and piece together a line up. Pujols is aging and still great, but not worth the money. He is just flat out getting old...there's no way around that one. But if it's between Pujols and Fielder, I'm going Fielder. He's younger and hits from the left side. But again, I'd rather not sign either.

 

I am all for building from within, but as a large market team, we can afford to spend when it is prudent.

 

I have no doubt that Pujols and Fielder both will probably not be worth the money at the end of their contracts. On the other hand, both will likely be worth it early on. This, in my opinion, is the time to go big with an impact FA...and then by the time the contracts are burdensome, the building from within will hopefully produce players that help the Cubs weather the large contracts when the players aren't living up to that value.

 

Pujols and Fielder are the type of FA that likely are going to produce worthy of the expediture early on.

Seems to me the way to do it is to sign the big FA's *after* (or at the same time as) the "building from within" plan is bearing fruit.

 

Don't you want the expensive guys' prime years to overlap with the years the young guys are actually producing in the bigleagues, not the ones they're playing in high-A?

 

Your plan has the expensive guy producing while the kids are developing, and the kids producing while the expensive guy is declining. Better would be for both to be producing at the same time.

Your plan is to be awful for a few years?

If the choice is between awful now and awesome in 3 years, or average now and average in 3 years, I'll take the former.

 

Of course I'm squarely in the camp that thinks no amount of Theo magic is going to make this team a contender right away. Just too many holes to fill, too many average guys, and too many overpaid guys to overcome quickly. I think any honest evaluation of the roster will conclude it's simply not very good. They weren't 20 games under .500 by accident and rotten luck.

[Sammy Sofa]

Signing Fielder or Pujols doesn't mean they're hinging their bets on being real contenders again immediately. Passing on both because 2012 is a long shot to be much better than around .500 at best is stupid.