Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And you're always paying for past performance when you sign a big FA you haven't developed internally.

 

Then don't.

 

But that's not really true. Most of the time, when you see a guy get huge money, it's from a team who is placing a very high value on immediate wins.

[MSG T]

I prefer Fielder, not only due to his age, but for his hitting left-handed as well. If your 1B hits right-handed, you're a little bit stuck as far as finding a solid lefty or two to stick in the lineup, especially if we keep Soriano in the lineup. This sort of bothered me when Lee was at first as well. Always nice to have a big righty-masher in the middle of the order (also makes the opposition burn relievers more quickly which could up the value of some platoon guys).

 

 

I don't know how long this will continue, but Fielder has had better numbers than Pujols twice, in 2007 and 2011. Overall, Pujols hasn't had much in splits between LHP and RHP, whereas Fielder has had decent sized splits between the two. Basically, Pujols is an overall better hitter and tends to be better against pitchers throwing with either hand.

[UMFan83]

I prefer Fielder, not only due to his age, but for his hitting left-handed as well. If your 1B hits right-handed, you're a little bit stuck as far as finding a solid lefty or two to stick in the lineup, especially if we keep Soriano in the lineup. This sort of bothered me when Lee was at first as well. Always nice to have a big righty-masher in the middle of the order (also makes the opposition burn relievers more quickly which could up the value of some platoon guys).

 

Albert Pujols career vs. RHP - .325 .415 .607 1.021

Prince Fielder career vs. RHP - .294 .411 .577 .988

 

Albert Pujols career vs. LHP - .338 .437 .648 1.085

Prince Fielder career vs. LHP - .257 .340 .458 .799

Edited November 6, 2011 by UMFan83

[Ski]

I prefer Fielder, not only due to his age, but for his hitting left-handed as well. If your 1B hits right-handed, you're a little bit stuck as far as finding a solid lefty or two to stick in the lineup, especially if we keep Soriano in the lineup. This sort of bothered me when Lee was at first as well. Always nice to have a big righty-masher in the middle of the order (also makes the opposition burn relievers more quickly which could up the value of some platoon guys).

 

Albert Pujols career vs. RHP - .325 .415 .607 1.021

Prince Fielder career vs. RHP - .294 .411 .577 .988

 

Albert Pujols career vs. RHP - .338 .437 .648 1.085

Prince Fielder career vs. RHP - .257 .340 .458 .799

So, which stats are for LHP?

[mul21]

I prefer Fielder, not only due to his age, but for his hitting left-handed as well. If your 1B hits right-handed, you're a little bit stuck as far as finding a solid lefty or two to stick in the lineup, especially if we keep Soriano in the lineup. This sort of bothered me when Lee was at first as well. Always nice to have a big righty-masher in the middle of the order (also makes the opposition burn relievers more quickly which could up the value of some platoon guys).

 

Albert Pujols career vs. RHP - .325 .415 .607 1.021

Prince Fielder career vs. RHP - .294 .411 .577 .988

 

Albert Pujols career vs. LHP - .338 .437 .648 1.085

Prince Fielder career vs. LHP - .257 .340 .458 .799

So, which stats are for LHP?

 

Better? Pretty obvious if you're paying attention.

[Benchwarmer]

Look, you're likely looking at between $26 million and $30 million a year, so let's not act like $30 million is some huge leap from a more reasonable annual salary.

 

And you're always paying for past performance when you sign a big FA you haven't developed internally.

 

I just don't see the Cubs(under Theo) putting that much into one player. $4M gets you a middle inning reliever or a good bench player. And with the current roster, we could use both. It's Pujols at 31(not 27) and according to Theo's philosophy, at the back end of his peak production.

 

And there have been FA that put up their best numbers after they signed with another team. The Cardinals won't pay him $30M for 8 years.

[MSG T]

Look, you're likely looking at between $26 million and $30 million a year, so let's not act like $30 million is some huge leap from a more reasonable annual salary.

 

And you're always paying for past performance when you sign a big FA you haven't developed internally.

 

I just don't see the Cubs(under Theo) putting that much into one player. $4M gets you a middle inning reliever or a good bench player. And with the current roster, we could use both. It's Pujols at 31(not 27) and according to Theo's philosophy, at the back end of his peak production.

 

And there have been FA that put up their best numbers after they signed with another team. The Cardinals won't pay him $30M for 8 years.

 

The Cubs don't need to sign bench players and middle relievers, they need at least one middle of the order hitter (either 3B or 1B) and starting pitching. They have plenty of guys, both on the ML roster and in the minors that can fill bench and relief roles. Hendry signed enough bench guys and relievers for that kind of money to last the next 20 years.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Look, you're likely looking at between $26 million and $30 million a year, so let's not act like $30 million is some huge leap from a more reasonable annual salary.

 

And you're always paying for past performance when you sign a big FA you haven't developed internally.

 

I just don't see the Cubs(under Theo) putting that much into one player. $4M gets you a middle inning reliever or a good bench player. And with the current roster, we could use both. It's Pujols at 31(not 27) and according to Theo's philosophy, at the back end of his peak production.

 

And there have been FA that put up their best numbers after they signed with another team. The Cardinals won't pay him $30M for 8 years.

 

As the other poster put it, the Cubs don't need to pay for bench players and relievers. That's the one thing their system is set up to produce in abundance, cheaply.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Lol at a 71-win team spending $20 million on a new President of BO, remaking its entire front office, and then throwing $4 million at an effing middle reliever.

[javy knows my name]

Lol at a 71-win team spending $20 million on a new President of BO, remaking its entire front office, and then throwing $4 million at an effing middle reliever.

 

Isn't this the same guy who said he was sick of Hendry signing the best free agent all the time? So, Hendry's achilles heel is always paying the best guy and Theo's MO is to give medium contracts to middle relievers? OK dude.

[JeffH]

If Theo and Jed start handing out Grabowish contracts, it will be extremely difficult for people to continue insisting that the curse doesn't exist.

[davearm2]

The Cubs 8 years from now will ideally be able to swallow a $30 million contract like it ain't no thang.

$30 million is always going to be a "thang". That's likely to be ~20% of the payroll.

 

Besides, just because they could doesn't mean they should. It's still $30M they can't spend elsewhere.

[davell]

In the end, I think a contending team needs someone you fear in the lineup. I don't think we have that obviously. Castro COULD get there, but I really see him more as a secondary superstar. Jeter wasn't feared. AROD was. If we sign one of these guys and in the last few years of their contract, they absolutely suck, the system has to pick it up. And with the money spent on it through Theo and Ricketts, it should. Either in producing another feared guy or by having lots of cheap solid starters that you can still afford to go out and buy another one, if need be.

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs 8 years from now will ideally be able to swallow a $30 million contract like it ain't no thang.

$30 million is always going to be a "thang". That's likely to be ~20% of the payroll.

 

Maybe. Maybe the payroll will be higher. Or maybe they'll be developing enough players internally that they can swing investing that much in a player to get impact years from him previously in the deal. I'm thinking optimistically here; if the Cubs are still constrained by similar financial and player development restrictions 8 years from now that they face now then they've failed, period.

 

Besides, just because they could doesn't mean they should. It's still $30M they can't spend elsewhere.

 

Oh well. For most of that contract that's $30 million that likely wouldn't have been better spent.

[dew1679666265]

The Cubs 8 years from now will ideally be able to swallow a $30 million contract like it ain't no thang.

$30 million is always going to be a "thang". That's likely to be ~20% of the payroll.

 

Besides, just because they could doesn't mean they should. It's still $30M they can't spend elsewhere.

 

From 2003-2011, the Cubs increased their payroll roughly $55 million (79-134). If they raise payroll by that much over the next 8-9 years (more than realistic given their ownership), Pujols would cost around 15% of the Cubs' payroll. If Ricketts bumps payroll an average of $10 million per year for 8 years, we'd be looking at Pujols being 14% of payroll.

 

That's significant, but if we're not producing enough young, cheap talent to offset that cost, then the Theo/Hoyer/McLeod trio isn't doing as good a job as we all expect.

[Guest]

The bigger the amount of payroll you have, the less value 20% of the overall payroll becomes.

 

Is 20% of the payroll really that much if your overall payroll is 150m and every other team in your division has 100m or less as their payroll cap?

 

Sign Pujols and still have 20m more than nearly every other team to play with is a pretty big advantage in my book.

 

I'm really surprised that not signing one of Pujols or Fielder is even up for any serious discussion. I can understand arguing for one or the other, but neither just isn't an option in my book unless someone of equal talent that plays 1b all of a sudden becomes available.

 

Cubs= big money to spend, no 1b

Fielder or Pujols= 1b's looking to sign for big money.

 

It really is that simple. Where the talent of Theo and his brain trust comes in is what he does with the rest of the team after he locks up one of those guys.

[SouthSideRyan]

[From 2003-2011, the Cubs increased their payroll roughly $55 million (79-134). If they raise payroll by that much over the next 8-9 years (more than realistic given their ownership), Pujols would cost around 15% of the Cubs' payroll. If Ricketts bumps payroll an average of $10 million per year for 8 years, we'd be looking at Pujols being 14% of payroll.

 

I wouldn't call that "more than realistic. There's a cap to what major league teams are worth. Assuming linear increases is foolish.

[dew1679666265]

I wouldn't call that "more than realistic. There's a cap to what major league teams are worth. Assuming linear increases is foolish.

 

You don't think it's realistic to think that the third biggest market in MLB could be worth enough to have a $180-190 million payroll 8 years from now? The Red Sox and Phillies are in the $160s now and I have trouble believing we can't be at least where they are in payroll or a decent amount higher if the new front office is able to make this a successful franchise on the field. If the new Cubs TV idea comes to fruition, that would do nothing but help, I would think.

[Guest]

I wouldn't call that "more than realistic. There's a cap to what major league teams are worth. Assuming linear increases is foolish.

 

You don't think it's realistic to think that the third biggest market in MLB could be worth enough to have a $180-190 million payroll 8 years from now? The Red Sox and Phillies are in the $160s now and I have trouble believing we can't be at least where they are in payroll or a decent amount higher if the new front office is able to make this a successful franchise on the field. If the new Cubs TV idea comes to fruition, that would do nothing but help, I would think.

 

It's the fans that have to absorb the brunt of that payroll increase, and times are pretty tough today and will likely still be pretty tough 8 years from now. I wouldn't project them to be there 8 years from now. I'd expect them to be very similar to what they are today, and possibly lower.

[davearm2]

I wouldn't call that "more than realistic. There's a cap to what major league teams are worth. Assuming linear increases is foolish.

 

You don't think it's realistic to think that the third biggest market in MLB could be worth enough to have a $180-190 million payroll 8 years from now? The Red Sox and Phillies are in the $160s now and I have trouble believing we can't be at least where they are in payroll or a decent amount higher if the new front office is able to make this a successful franchise on the field. If the new Cubs TV idea comes to fruition, that would do nothing but help, I would think.

What I think is that 8 years from now, $30M in payroll is still going to be worth a heckuva lot.

 

Poo-poohing it as something the Cubs can just swallow without missing a beat is just silly (to me).

 

Just to be clear: I'm not opposed to shelling out a massive contract for an elite player. I do question the timing of it right now though. Ideally, Team Theo kills it in the next few years and gets that pipeline of cheap young talent flowing to the bigleagues... THEN you sign the 2014 or 2015 version of Pujols, so that the marquee guy's prime years coincide with the homegrown guys' cheap years.

 

Using up Pujols' remaining prime years while the bigleague team around him just isn't that good (sorry, it's not) seems misguided.

[dew1679666265]

It's the fans that have to absorb the brunt of that payroll increase, and times are pretty tough today and will likely still be pretty tough 8 years from now. I wouldn't project them to be there 8 years from now. I'd expect them to be very similar to what they are today, and possibly lower.

 

The country is in some real trouble if the economy doesn't improve in the next 8 years. That said, there are other avenues through which to increase revenue other than to raise ticket prices. They're not going to cover a $55 million in payroll increases, but it's not going to happen all at once either. I'll be shocked if we're still sitting at $130 million or less 8 years from now.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's the fans that have to absorb the brunt of that payroll increase, and times are pretty tough today and will likely still be pretty tough 8 years from now.

 

Based on what?

[Backtobanks]

The bigger the amount of payroll you have, the less value 20% of the overall payroll becomes.

 

Is 20% of the payroll really that much if your overall payroll is 150m and every other team in your division has 100m or less as their payroll cap?

 

Sign Pujols and still have 20m more than nearly every other team to play with is a pretty big advantage in my book.

 

I'm really surprised that not signing one of Pujols or Fielder is even up for any serious discussion. I can understand arguing for one or the other, but neither just isn't an option in my book unless someone of equal talent that plays 1b all of a sudden becomes available.

 

Cubs= big money to spend, no 1b

Fielder or Pujols= 1b's looking to sign for big money.

 

It really is that simple. Where the talent of Theo and his brain trust comes in is what he does with the rest of the team after he locks up one of those guys.

 

While most of us agree with you, I'm not sure Theo and his brain trust agree.

[dew1679666265]

What I think is that 8 years from now, $30M in payroll is still going to be worth a heckuva lot.

 

Poo-poohing it as something the Cubs can just swallow without missing a beat is just silly (to me).

 

I've not said it won't be worth a lot nor have I said it's irrelevant. What I've said is that we should have the payroll room and young, cheap talent coming up through the system at that point to absorb the cost. $30 million is a lot of money, but it shouldn't be crippling if the new front office builds this franchise properly.

 

Just to be clear: I'm not opposed to shelling out a massive contract for an elite player. I do question the timing of it right now though. Ideally, Team Theo kills it in the next few years and gets that pipeline of cheap young talent flowing to the bigleagues... THEN you sign the 2014 or 2015 version of Pujols, so that the marquee guy's prime years coincide with the homegrown guys' cheap years.

 

Two problems with this:

 

1) The Cubs shouldn't act like a mid market team for multiple years. Signing nothing but filler and reclamation projects does nothing but guarantee we won't contend for 2-5 years and waste money.

2) Players as good as Pujols don't come around all the time. Adam Dunn (31, 2.7 avg WAR) was the best available in 2010, Jason Bay (32, 2.7 avg WAR) was the best available in 2009, Mark Teixeira (29, 4.4 avg WAR) was the best available in 2008. Only one of those free agents can be compared in any way to Pujols (Teix) and Pujols will have to really regress in a couple years to hit that average WAR. When you have an elite player on the market, you have the need for him, and the money to afford him, you should pursue him.

 

Using up Pujols' remaining prime years while the bigleague team around him just isn't that good (sorry, it's not) seems misguided.

 

It'd get a ton better if we added Pujols. And we don't need to have a World Series favorite in order for it to make sense to sign Pujols or Prince. Ideally you want to be better, but all we need to do is make the playoffs to have a shot at the World Series. Without Pujols we have no shot whatsoever at that, with him we might. A slightly better than .500 record might win the division next year and we've already seen the Cardinals with Pujols, a couple really good players, and gritty filler win the World Series.

 

The Cubs with Pujols/Garza/Castro and a few improvements could be similar to that Cardinals team. It certainly could if we're able to get both Pujols and Wilson. Throwing away multiple years because the situation isn't ideal to try to improve isn't productive.

[davearm2]

What I think is that 8 years from now, $30M in payroll is still going to be worth a heckuva lot.

 

Poo-poohing it as something the Cubs can just swallow without missing a beat is just silly (to me).

 

I've not said it won't be worth a lot nor have I said it's irrelevant. What I've said is that we should have the payroll room and young, cheap talent coming up through the system at that point to absorb the cost. $30 million is a lot of money, but it shouldn't be crippling if the new front office builds this franchise properly.

That part of my post was more in response to the flippant "ain't no thang" comment made earlier by someone else.

 

Paying a guy $30M to provide $10M worth of production is a "thang" for any team.

 

There seems to be this rather bizarre sentiment that so long as it's not crippling, then it's smart. There are obviously all sorts of shades of bad between crippling and smart.