Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[davearm2]

Here's the problem - there's plenty of reason to believe most of the pitchers currently slated to be available, won't be.

Of course you're looking at it just from the teams' position.

 

Any/all of those guys (except Shields) could take the stance that they'd rather test FA than accept an extension with their current club.

[Backtobanks]

After reading all of these posts based on getting PuJols/Fielder, Wilson, Kemp (next year), Greinke (or someone like him next year), letting ARam go elsewhere, etc., I'm wondering what plan B is when most of these guys go elsewhere. I'm a fan of Theo and I realize he's not going to win the WS next year, but 2012 is on the surface looking atrocious. I understand his philosophy, but I don't want gradual improvement for 4-5 years. Most of the suggestions posted look like a team that will lose 90-95 games. Also, letting the kids play or using "filler" players for 2012 is going to hurt attendance unless people will come out to possibly catch a glimpse of Theo.

[Sammy Sofa]

Or Sandberg's majestic, slicked back hair glistening in the sun as he wearily takes his hat off in deference to yet another humiliating loss.

[Guest]

After reading all of these posts based on getting PuJols/Fielder, Wilson, Kemp (next year), Greinke (or someone like him next year), letting ARam go elsewhere, etc., I'm wondering what plan B is when most of these guys go elsewhere. I'm a fan of Theo and I realize he's not going to win the WS next year, but 2012 is on the surface looking atrocious. I understand his philosophy, but I don't want gradual improvement for 4-5 years. Most of the suggestions posted look like a team that will lose 90-95 games. Also, letting the kids play or using "filler" players for 2012 is going to hurt attendance unless people will come out to possibly catch a glimpse of Theo.

 

There's no reason we should have trouble being major players on most of the big ticket guys and being able to outbid the competition on at least a couple. There is something like $70M coming off the books in the next two offseasons.

[davell]

We're a major market team that's going to act like it. There's literally zero reason for us to go out and sign a bunch of Marlon Byrd type guys to 2 or 3 year deals so we can be average. Theo is going to spend wildly on the draft and international free agency and we're going to develop quite a few more guys than what we have previously. But he also will spend what it takes to get bigtime talent here as well. No reason whatsoever to think he won't continue to do this.

[dew1679666265]

Here's the problem - there's plenty of reason to believe most of the pitchers currently slated to be available, won't be.

Of course you're looking at it just from the teams' position.

 

Any/all of those guys (except Shields) could take the stance that they'd rather test FA than accept an extension with their current club.

 

Right. I never said they simply won't hit the market, I said there's a good chance many of them don't and I listed the reasons why. My point was that passing on a stud pitcher like Wilson because some guys comparable to him might be available next year isn't a good idea, nor is it a safe bet.

[dew1679666265]

After reading all of these posts based on getting PuJols/Fielder, Wilson, Kemp (next year), Greinke (or someone like him next year), letting ARam go elsewhere, etc., I'm wondering what plan B is when most of these guys go elsewhere. I'm a fan of Theo and I realize he's not going to win the WS next year, but 2012 is on the surface looking atrocious. I understand his philosophy, but I don't want gradual improvement for 4-5 years. Most of the suggestions posted look like a team that will lose 90-95 games. Also, letting the kids play or using "filler" players for 2012 is going to hurt attendance unless people will come out to possibly catch a glimpse of Theo.

 

The good thing is we don't need to sign all, or even most, of the big time FAs that have been discussed. We simply need to sign 1-2 this offseason and then make a couple shrewd signings (Sizemore? Chen? Francis? Headley? Stewart?) or trades and this team is a lot better.

 

With the money coming off the books, the much-heralded front office, the Cubs' history and tradition, and Ricketts' willingness to spend big on improving the team, we should have as good a chance as anybody to bring in a guy like Pujols or Prince or Wilson.

[davearm2]

Here's the problem - there's plenty of reason to believe most of the pitchers currently slated to be available, won't be.

Of course you're looking at it just from the teams' position.

 

Any/all of those guys (except Shields) could take the stance that they'd rather test FA than accept an extension with their current club.

 

Right. I never said they simply won't hit the market, I said there's a good chance many of them don't and I listed the reasons why. My point was that passing on a stud pitcher like Wilson because some guys comparable to him might be available next year isn't a good idea, nor is it a safe bet.

That's cool. Your post read as though the teams have control over the process. That's only half true, of course.

[dew1679666265]

That's cool. Your post read as though the teams have control over the process. That's only half true, of course.

 

Sorry, that wasn't my intent. dextermorgan was arguing that he has little interest in Wilson because of all the guys who will be available next year and I was pointing out the reasons why those guys may not hit the market and why it's not a safe bet to pass on one stud because more might come available in a year.

[17 Seconds]

Well, I mean I have little interest in him if he's going to cost what I think he's going to cost.

[dew1679666265]

Well, I mean I have little interest in him if he's going to cost what I think he's going to cost.

 

I think you're overrating his potential cost a bit. I've explained why the Yankees may target someone with a bit less commitment and teams like the Jays or Nats simply looking for a splash may be more intrigued by Darvish than Wilson.

 

Anybody we sign next year is going to cost easily what Wilson will or more and probably won't have the poor postseason potentially keeping teams a bit cooler on them.

[Guest]

Even Len Kasper (just on ESPN1000) thinks we should pass on Prince/Pujols... says those guys are special and definitely don't come around all the time, but you should only go after them if you're in a position for them to put you over the top.

 

Says we have a lot of money coming off the books and that a lot of that will go into the organization (where can you spend tens of millions?)

[Sammy Sofa]

*Sigh*

 

Even Len has come down with a dire case of ApprentlyPujolsorFielderwouldonlybeavailableforoneortwoyearsandthenmyseriouslyvanishordie-itis.

[Guest]

*Sigh*

 

Even Len has come down with a dire case of ApprentlyPujolsorFielderwouldonlybeavailableforoneortwoyearsandthenmyseriouslyvanishordie-itis.

 

I see the logic behind it... If you can't put a team together quickly enough, you're essentially wasting a year or two of that huge salary and of the player's productive remaining years. I just think it's a gamble you have to take and that you can take when you can spend $130-140M on payroll.

[jersey cubs fan]

*Sigh*

 

Even Len has come down with a dire case of ApprentlyPujolsorFielderwouldonlybeavailableforoneortwoyearsandthenmyseriouslyvanishordie-itis.

 

I see the logic behind it... If you can't put a team together quickly enough, you're essentially wasting a year or two of that huge salary and of the player's productive remaining years. I just think it's a gamble you have to take and that you can take when you can spend $130-140M on payroll.

 

I don't buy that logic at all. The fact is you can put a team together to, at the very least, be in the race in 2012. That's worth something. You don't have to win the World Series in year one to justify a signing. It's a slam dunk situation for the Cubs with everything lining up in favor of signing those guys. You can win more than you lose in 2012 and be in position in year two to really put together a powerful team.

[Guest]

*Sigh*

 

Even Len has come down with a dire case of ApprentlyPujolsorFielderwouldonlybeavailableforoneortwoyearsandthenmyseriouslyvanishordie-itis.

 

I see the logic behind it... If you can't put a team together quickly enough, you're essentially wasting a year or two of that huge salary and of the player's productive remaining years. I just think it's a gamble you have to take and that you can take when you can spend $130-140M on payroll.

 

I don't buy that logic at all. The fact is you can put a team together to, at the very least, be in the race in 2012. That's worth something. You don't have to win the World Series in year one to justify a signing. It's a slam dunk situation for the Cubs with everything lining up in favor of signing those guys. You can win more than you lose in 2012 and be in position in year two to really put together a powerful team.

 

 

That's only if you can actually sign those guys. There are a lot of moving parts to make that actually happen.

 

If you can't get CJ Wilson to sign, if you can't get a team to trade a decent starting pitcher or two, if you're being absolutely forced by ownership to move Zambrano, etc. - then it isn't very likely that you'll have a good team in 2012 even with Fielders/Pujols. You, yourself, said that selling them on actually being able to win early on will be tough... that's because it will be fairly tough to get everything done to get them to win in one offseason.

 

I fully believe it can be done... It's just very hard because it's not entirely up to us.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I see the logic behind it... If you can't put a team together quickly enough, you're essentially wasting a year or two of that huge salary and of the player's productive remaining years. I just think it's a gamble you have to take and that you can take when you can spend $130-140M on payroll.

 

Let's say the team is not competitive for 2012 or 2013, so you decide not to waste the huge salary for those two years.

 

What's the opportunity cost? What are you going to spend that money on instead that helps the team?

[jersey cubs fan]

You, yourself, said that selling them on actually being able to win early on will be tough... that's because it will be fairly tough to get everything done to get them to win in one offseason.

 

I fully believe it can be done... It's just very hard because it's not entirely up to us.

 

I said that because as things stand now, they are bad. But a big part of that is because 1B is complete crap. And selling a player on winning is selling them on the notion that your presence might make the team the best in the league. You aren't selling them on the notion of maybe winning 87 games. Adding Pujols to a great team with 1B hole is an easy sell from the "we are going to win" standpoint. If you add Pujols you can easily put together an above .500 team in 2012, and start looking pretty damn good by 2013.

 

You can say this team is 3-4 years away from really being a power, largely because there is no difference maker like Pujols on the team. But if you had Pujols on the team, and thus 1B settled and no need to keep patching that hole on a day-to-day basis, you can get started on building a great team a hell of a lot sooner.

[Sammy Sofa]

I see the logic behind it... If you can't put a team together quickly enough, you're essentially wasting a year or two of that huge salary and of the player's productive remaining years. I just think it's a gamble you have to take and that you can take when you can spend $130-140M on payroll.

 

Let's say the team is not competitive for 2012 or 2013, so you decide not to waste the huge salary for those two years.

 

What's the opportunity cost? What are you going to spend that money on instead that helps the team?

 

Exactly. It's not like not spending $28 million on Pujols in 2012 means they can add that additional $28 million to whatever money is free for spending in 2013. It's just not spent.

[Guest]

I see the logic behind it... If you can't put a team together quickly enough, you're essentially wasting a year or two of that huge salary and of the player's productive remaining years. I just think it's a gamble you have to take and that you can take when you can spend $130-140M on payroll.

 

Let's say the team is not competitive for 2012 or 2013, so you decide not to waste the huge salary for those two years.

 

What's the opportunity cost? What are you going to spend that money on instead that helps the team?

 

 

That's entirely up to the organization, I suppose. Ricketts could pocket it. They could use it on infrastructural improvements up and down the organization, I suppose. They could allocate it to future payroll. They could do a lot of things.

 

I'm not advocating any of this. I don't see the sense in not spending that money on payroll right now.

[Backtobanks]

After reading all of these posts based on getting PuJols/Fielder, Wilson, Kemp (next year), Greinke (or someone like him next year), letting ARam go elsewhere, etc., I'm wondering what plan B is when most of these guys go elsewhere. I'm a fan of Theo and I realize he's not going to win the WS next year, but 2012 is on the surface looking atrocious. I understand his philosophy, but I don't want gradual improvement for 4-5 years. Most of the suggestions posted look like a team that will lose 90-95 games. Also, letting the kids play or using "filler" players for 2012 is going to hurt attendance unless people will come out to possibly catch a glimpse of Theo.

 

The good thing is we don't need to sign all, or even most, of the big time FAs that have been discussed. We simply need to sign 1-2 this offseason and then make a couple shrewd signings (Sizemore? Chen? Francis? Headley? Stewart?) or trades and this team is a lot better.

 

With the money coming off the books, the much-heralded front office, the Cubs' history and tradition, and Ricketts' willingness to spend big on improving the team, we should have as good a chance as anybody to bring in a guy like Pujols or Prince or Wilson.

 

The rotation will probably be better with one mid-rotation starter because of Wells and Cashner being healthy (hopefully) all year. There will be lots of competition for Sizemore. Headley and/or Stewart would help assuming they are available. You still have a hard time convincing me that LaHair>Pena and Stewart(possibly)/Baker/Flaherty>ARam. In addition, Jackson in CF is still an unknown. Obviously the moves would be great assuming everything goes right (Jackson lives up to potential, LaHair continues hitting, Headley becomes available, our pitchers remain healthy, Soto gets back to peak performance, etc.). My original point is that without making some serious moves this year, we will still have holes at 1B, 3B, and RF going into 2013.

[davell]

I'm going to throw this out there and hope I'm wrong, but I think the Dodgers are going to definitely get one or the other of these guys. Now that McCourt has agreed to sell, I can see a Trib like spending spree coming out of them.

[shnsajax]

I'm going to throw this out there and hope I'm wrong, but I think the Dodgers are going to definitely get one or the other of these guys. Now that McCourt has agreed to sell, I can see a Trib like spending spree coming out of them.

 

Their finances are a mess and they likely won't have an owner till February at the earliest. They almost didn't make payroll during the season a couple of time. I just don't see how they spend anything without trading a lot of payroll first.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm going to throw this out there and hope I'm wrong, but I think the Dodgers are going to definitely get one or the other of these guys. Now that McCourt has agreed to sell, I can see a Trib like spending spree coming out of them.

 

How would they possibly do this during this offseason? They have practically no money.

[dew1679666265]

The rotation will probably be better with one mid-rotation starter because of Wells and Cashner being healthy (hopefully) all year.

 

Ideally we pursue and get CJ Wilson or Yu Darvish this offseason. Wilson is an elite pitcher and Darvish has the potential to be (but also carries great risk). We only need one of those two and we have the payroll room to afford either. If we miss on them, however, there are intriguing potential mid-rotation options such as Wei-Yin Chen and Jeff Francis who would be cheap and would represent a large improvement over the mess our 5th starter spot was last year - it would also allow Cashner to be rotation depth instead of counting on him.

 

There will be lots of competition for Sizemore.

 

Probably, but the Cubs will either not have a great need for him if we can sign Pujols and Wilson or we'll be able to pay him a relatively sizeable amount of money if we miss on one of those two.

 

Headley and/or Stewart would help assuming they are available.

 

Availability is a concern, no doubt, as is the prospect price we may have to pay to get either. However, both are players with considerable upside and due to Aramis' awful defense and baserunning, Headley would be nearly as valuable as Aramis was last year and perhaps moreso going forward.

 

You still have a hard time convincing me that LaHair>Pena and Stewart(possibly)/Baker/Flaherty>ARam.

 

Where did I argue that LaHair is better than Pena? I wouldn't argue that in any way and, in fact, if we have LaHair starting at first next season, we're nearly a shoe-in to be terrible. My first choice at first would be Pujols, then Fielder, then Pena. We could compete in 2012 with any of those guys if we make the correct corresponding moves.

 

As for getting better production than Aramis, it won't happen. However, we can get pretty close with either a combo of Baker (.900+ OPS v lefties) and someone like Flaherty or Kouzmanoff, or with a trade for Headley (Aramis 2011 WAR: 3.6; Headley 2011 WAR: 2.7). We can trade for Headley and still have the money to pursue both Pujols and Wilson, and even Wei-Yin Chen as well.

 

In addition, Jackson in CF is still an unknown. Obviously the moves would be great assuming everything goes right (Jackson lives up to potential, LaHair continues hitting, Headley becomes available, our pitchers remain healthy, Soto gets back to peak performance, etc.). My original point is that without making some serious moves this year, we will still have holes at 1B, 3B, and RF going into 2013.

 

Jackson is an unknown, but is a quality prospect and a guy who should, if nothing else, provide defensive value even if his offense struggles.

 

And I don't know what you're classifying as a "serious move", but we can trade for Headley, outbid other teams for Sizemore, and pick up either Pujols or Prince and have no holes at any of those three positions in 2013. And all three moves are realistic and affordable under our current $130 million payroll.

 

It won't be an easy offseason to bring in the guys we need, but we certainly have the means by which to get the job done.