Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Guest]

praverbeal

 

Stunning.

Doesn't every recent browser have built in spell check?

Not the iPhone, which is where I post from a lot of the time.

[Little Slide Rooter]

praverbeal

 

Stunning.

Doesn't every recent browser have built in spell check?

Not the iPhone, which is where I post from a lot of the time.

 

My I Phone has a built in spell checker to a fault.

[javy knows my name]

praverbeal

 

Stunning.

Doesn't every recent browser have built in spell check?

Not the iPhone, which is where I post from a lot of the time.

 

My I Phone has a built in spell checker to a fault.

 

To be fair, autocorrect has probably never seen a word butchered that badly before

[Guest]

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.

Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player?

 

*Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015.

[KingCubsFan]

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.

Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player?

 

*Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015.

So just because we don't sign Pujols or Fielder, we're throwing away the next several years? I think all he's trying to convey is that, given the Cubs' blueprint under Epstein, we should be in a much better position to field a consistently competitive team in a few years, whether that's through our own homegrown players or players obtained from other teams in exchange for our prospects. Once we're in that position, it would really suck to be constrained from acquiring star players because we have a 36 year-old Pujols tying up $25-30 million in payroll and producing at a rate that is replaceable at a much lower cost. Under that theory, it might be better to maintain as much flexibility as possible so that we can address certain needs when we're in a better position to compete long-term. I don't necessarily agree that we should avoid handing out long-term contracts (Fielder would be a good fit), but I'm surprised at how quickly people dismiss Pujols' down year, given the huge drop in walks. His age has always been a question mark and, coupled with some serious injuries throughout his career, I wouldn't blame Epstein for passing on him.

[buckeye27]

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.

Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player?

 

*Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015.

So just because we don't sign Pujols or Fielder, we're throwing away the next several years? I think all he's trying to convey is that, given the Cubs' blueprint under Epstein, we should be in a much better position to field a consistently competitive team in a few years, whether that's through our own homegrown players or players obtained from other teams in exchange for our prospects. Once we're in that position, it would really suck to be constrained from acquiring star players because we have a 36 year-old Pujols tying up $25-30 million in payroll and producing at a rate that is replaceable at a much lower cost. Under that theory, it might be better to maintain as much flexibility as possible so that we can address certain needs when we're in a better position to compete long-term. I don't necessarily agree that we should avoid handing out long-term contracts (Fielder would be a good fit), but I'm surprised at how quickly people dismiss Pujols' down year, given the huge drop in walks. His age has always been a question mark and, coupled with some serious injuries throughout his career, I wouldn't blame Epstein for passing on him.

 

for the cubs, prince makes sense. i doubt albert is going to be playing anywhere next year but stlouis. and if he is true about what he says, you can rule the cubs out due to the fact that they have a lot of work to be done. if the cubs were just one guy away (albert) from winning the ws, i could see him going there if the price was right, but between not liking the stadium, and the fact the cubs are way off of what he is probably looking for, he wont go there. i also doubt theo is even going to pursue him.

 

fielder on the other hand, makes a lot more sense due to his age and the fact that when the cub prospects are hitting the majors, prince would be 30-31ish and still have prime years of production left.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why is going to a WS-ready team going to be a dealbreaker priority for Pujols? He's already won two.

[Guest]

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.

Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player?

 

*Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015.

So just because we don't sign Pujols or Fielder, we're throwing away the next several years? I think all he's trying to convey is that, given the Cubs' blueprint under Epstein, we should be in a much better position to field a consistently competitive team in a few years, whether that's through our own homegrown players or players obtained from other teams in exchange for our prospects. Once we're in that position, it would really suck to be constrained from acquiring star players because we have a 36 year-old Pujols tying up $25-30 million in payroll and producing at a rate that is replaceable at a much lower cost. Under that theory, it might be better to maintain as much flexibility as possible so that we can address certain needs when we're in a better position to compete long-term. I don't necessarily agree that we should avoid handing out long-term contracts (Fielder would be a good fit), but I'm surprised at how quickly people dismiss Pujols' down year, given the huge drop in walks. His age has always been a question mark and, coupled with some serious injuries throughout his career, I wouldn't blame Epstein for passing on him.

If we do not sign any impact players between now and 2015, it will be very hard for us to compete within the division, let alone compete for a title.

 

We have very few real holes on this team. The big issue is a lack of impact talent. Fortunately, there is impact talent available at the places we have holes. We should be very competitive if we plug the holes with the high end talent.

[davell]

There's no doubt in my mind that we'll be talking to both of them. In the end, it's going to be Theo's call as to whether or not he sees either of them as "must haves". If he does, then I feel very confident we'll land one of them. If not, then Theo has plan B somewhere as well.

[Guest]

Why is going to a WS-ready team going to be a dealbreaker priority for Pujols? He's already won two.

He has learned to like winning?

 

A better question would be why people don't think the cubs could contend if we added Albert and a #2 starter, along with a couple more tweaks.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why is going to a WS-ready team going to be a dealbreaker priority for Pujols? He's already won two.

He has learned to like winning?

 

Sure, he might have a taste for blood and that's now all he craves, but I think him having already won a couple WS actually makes him more likely to go to a non-immediate contender than someone like Fielder. This isn't a LeBron/ARod-type situation, so sky's probably pretty much the limit so long as the money is right.

[KingCubsFan]

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.

Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player?

 

*Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015.

So just because we don't sign Pujols or Fielder, we're throwing away the next several years? I think all he's trying to convey is that, given the Cubs' blueprint under Epstein, we should be in a much better position to field a consistently competitive team in a few years, whether that's through our own homegrown players or players obtained from other teams in exchange for our prospects. Once we're in that position, it would really suck to be constrained from acquiring star players because we have a 36 year-old Pujols tying up $25-30 million in payroll and producing at a rate that is replaceable at a much lower cost. Under that theory, it might be better to maintain as much flexibility as possible so that we can address certain needs when we're in a better position to compete long-term. I don't necessarily agree that we should avoid handing out long-term contracts (Fielder would be a good fit), but I'm surprised at how quickly people dismiss Pujols' down year, given the huge drop in walks. His age has always been a question mark and, coupled with some serious injuries throughout his career, I wouldn't blame Epstein for passing on him.

If we do not sign any impact players between now and 2015, it will be very hard for us to compete within the division, let alone compete for a title.

 

We have very few real holes on this team. The big issue is a lack of impact talent. Fortunately, there is impact talent available at the places we have holes. We should be very competitive if we plug the holes with the high end talent.

We obviously need impact players, but again the question is whether it's more beneficial to maintain flexibility so that we can better address needs a few years down the line, as opposed to giving the money to guys with legitimate longevity question marks simply because we have a hole at first base. I see both sides of the argument.

 

But I disagree that we have very few real holes on this team. This is a bad team, plain and simple. Outside of shortstop, catcher and Sean Marshall, there's not much there. Particularly in the rotation.

[davell]

Two impact bats and 2 impact pitchers. 2 offseasons to acquire them. And we're a legitimate World Series threat. One of each this year and we're definitely a division contender.

[C.C.]

Why is going to a WS-ready team going to be a dealbreaker priority for Pujols? He's already won two.

He has learned to like winning?

 

Sure, he might have a taste for blood and that's now all he craves, but I think him having already won a couple WS actually makes him more likely to go to a non-immediate contender than someone like Fielder. This isn't a LeBron/ARod-type situation, so sky's probably pretty much the limit so long as the money is right.

 

He's going to the highest bidder.

[Sammy Sofa]

We obviously need impact players, but again the question is whether it's more beneficial to maintain flexibility so that we can better address needs a few years down the line, as opposed to giving the money to guys with legitimate longevity question marks simply because we have a hole at first base. I see both sides of the argument.

 

Even paying Pujols $30 million a year doesn't automatically kill their flexibility to change and improve the team down the line. Again, this is a big market team that can handle having a $130-$150 million payroll and ideally could handle an even higher one down the road. It's not an either/or proposition.

[KingCubsFan]

We obviously need impact players, but again the question is whether it's more beneficial to maintain flexibility so that we can better address needs a few years down the line, as opposed to giving the money to guys with legitimate longevity question marks simply because we have a hole at first base. I see both sides of the argument.

 

Even paying Pujols $30 million a year doesn't automatically kill their flexibility to change and improve the team down the line. Again, this is a big market team that can handle having a $130-$150 million payroll and ideally could handle an even higher one down the road. It's not an either/or proposition.

Never said it was. But putting 20-25% of your payroll into one player will certainly limit your flexibility to an extent.

[A New Era]

You all can forget Pojuls, I just don't think it's gonna happen. IF Hoyer does end up signing one of the elite players it will probably be Fielder. Because atleast he is still young and going into his prime. Even though weight is a concern his age does make him more deserving of a 6-8 year contract, thus making Theo and Hoyer more likely to sign him. Because they might see Prince more of "paying him for future performance" as they have said recently.

 

And I could get more excited about Fielder to the Cubs than Pojuls. He's still young enough to kinda grow with the new Cubs core that will be coming through the system soon (the likes of Castro, Jackson, and hopefully more very very soon).

[Guest]

We obviously need impact players, but again the question is whether it's more beneficial to maintain flexibility so that we can better address needs a few years down the line, as opposed to giving the money to guys with legitimate longevity question marks simply because we have a hole at first base. I see both sides of the argument.

 

But I disagree that we have very few real holes on this team. This is a bad team, plain and simple. Outside of shortstop, catcher and Sean Marshall, there's not much there. Particularly in the rotation.

There's a difference between maintaining flexibility and not signing ANY players to a long term contract at all. And if you're going to sign someone to a long term contract, make it a superstar.

 

There is a wide gulf between having a hole at a position and what the Cubs have at most spots. Dempster is a league average third starter. I know his ERA was terrible last year, but read my article on the 2011 rotation - he wasn't nearly as bad as his ERA would suggest.

 

Between Z, Wells, Samardzija & Cashner, we should be able to get league average production from the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation. If the team feels the need to move Z, it's not a hard spot to fill.

 

I'm going to assume you simply forgot about Garza.

 

You already mentioned Soto & Starlin. Barney's nothing special, but he's not a gaping hole, either. His above average defense lifts his overall value to around league average at second base.

 

Soriano and Byrd are below the mean, but they're within shouting distance of it. Again, not true holes in the lineup. We have our top prospect breaking into the other spot in the outfield.

 

The bullpen is full of non-holes. Whom do you consider a hole out of Marmol, Marshall, Wood, Russell, Samardzija/Cashner? Beyond that in a bullpen, who really cares? (plus we still have many more good bp arms in the pipeline)

 

It's a team that is stuffed full of decent players. What it really needs are stars. And that's what people are arguing against signing for some reason.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

We obviously need impact players, but again the question is whether it's more beneficial to maintain flexibility so that we can better address needs a few years down the line, as opposed to giving the money to guys with legitimate longevity question marks simply because we have a hole at first base. I see both sides of the argument.

 

Even paying Pujols $30 million a year doesn't automatically kill their flexibility to change and improve the team down the line. Again, this is a big market team that can handle having a $130-$150 million payroll and ideally could handle an even higher one down the road. It's not an either/or proposition.

 

If the Phillies can hold up a 175+ payroll, there is zero reason the Cubs can't when the the time is right. Even the Twins topped 100 million this year....Pay Pujols.

[A New Era]

....Pay Fielder.

 

Fixed.

[Guest]

....Pay Fielder.

 

Fixed.

whichever.

[Sammy Sofa]

We obviously need impact players, but again the question is whether it's more beneficial to maintain flexibility so that we can better address needs a few years down the line, as opposed to giving the money to guys with legitimate longevity question marks simply because we have a hole at first base. I see both sides of the argument.

 

Even paying Pujols $30 million a year doesn't automatically kill their flexibility to change and improve the team down the line. Again, this is a big market team that can handle having a $130-$150 million payroll and ideally could handle an even higher one down the road. It's not an either/or proposition.

Never said it was. But putting 20-25% of your payroll into one player will certainly limit your flexibility to an extent.

 

Sure, to a relative extent. So will paying one $27 million a year, or $25 million, or even $20 million. That said, however, none of us know what the Cubs' financial situation will be 5+ years from now. Personally, I don't see them decreasing the payroll or even maintaining the current one. Like I said, if they're at a point 5-10 years from now where they cannot maintain a payroll at or above $130 million then they've failed. Or something catastrophic has happened to the Ricketts and/or their money. And yes, putting 20% of your payroll sounds crippling when you have a payroll of, say, $60 million, but if you're a big market team like the Cubs that can and should maintain a payroll around $150 million then that still leaves you a ton of room to work with. We're not talking about the situation of the last 5 years where you had the impending sale throwing limiting everything money-wise after the big Soriano spending spree and a bad FO behind it.

[Sammy Sofa]

....Pay Fielder.

 

Fixed.

whichever.

 

Yup.

[Guest]

But moreso Pujols.

[A New Era]

But moreso Fielder.

 

I agree. :D