Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[davearm2]

And if those guys don't become available, too bad so sad.

 

Nevermind that Pujols's down season last year was better than each of their career averages (and better than all but one of Tex's seasons, Tex being the one of the two to actually hit free agency)

You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future.

 

If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal.

 

The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal.

 

A well-run Cubs team can easily take the hit of a player being overpaid in the final years of his deal.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

And if those guys don't become available, too bad so sad.

 

Nevermind that Pujols's down season last year was better than each of their career averages (and better than all but one of Tex's seasons, Tex being the one of the two to actually hit free agency)

You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future.

 

If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal.

 

The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal.

 

A well-run Cubs team can easily take the hit of a player being overpaid in the final years of his deal.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

Yeah, it kinda does.

[brinoch]

And if those guys don't become available, too bad so sad.

 

Nevermind that Pujols's down season last year was better than each of their career averages (and better than all but one of Tex's seasons, Tex being the one of the two to actually hit free agency)

You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future.

 

If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal.

 

The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal.

 

A well-run Cubs team can easily take the hit of a player being overpaid in the final years of his deal.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

Yeah, it kinda does.

 

Agreed.

 

If the Cubs have the highest payroll in the Central and among the highest in the NL (if not the highest), getting Pujols now while overpaying for his age 36-38 seasons by $10M or whatever is wise. It's a good use of the Cubs' financial advantage. A high payroll is not an advantage if you don't use it to your benefit. And there's no one like Pujols in baseball. There's no free agent coming after next season or the season after like him, either.

[KingCubsFan]

And there's no one like Pujols in baseball. There's no free agent coming after next season or the season after like him, either.

I'm not going to say he's equivalent to Pujols, but Mike Napoli will be a free agent next year. If you don't sign Pujols this year, you could give him something like 5/80, and still have plenty of money for two of Greinke, Cain, Hamel, Danks, etc.

[sneakypower]

camdendepot had a pretty good analysis of Fielder vs. Pujols and what type of contracts they'd be worth

 

I think it is almost interesting to keep in mind the contract projection of 8 years and 200 MM for Pujols and 8 years and 150 MM for Fielder. If those hold true, Fielder will be save his team 20-30 MM in terms of production while Pujols will cost his team 6 MM. The resulting question is how much does that 26-36 MM difference mean to wins and losses.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZXnNmes7sIE/TqwbauUN60I/AAAAAAAAAmo/H6Iw-lZr4dw/s400/pujols+fielder+predicted+money+worth.jpg

[mookie]

That is a left field suggestion. I don't think signing Naps to 5 years at 16 million carries any less risk than Pujols. Might as well fork it over for Pujols and still have money to get pitching help. I just, man, there has to be a better option than Napoli.

[brinoch]

Look, it may be that St. Louis is going to sign Pujols, come hell or high water, but I think when you have a chance to sign one of the best players in baseball, you take it. Honestly, I would be very happy with either Fielder or Pujols. It doesn't solve all the immediate issues for the team, but it is a tremendous upgrade. There's no question that there are holes that need filling beyond first base. But a slightly lesser player at 3B could be tolerated for a year if Pujols is at first.

[Guest]

camdendepot had a pretty good analysis of Fielder vs. Pujols and what type of contracts they'd be worth

 

I think it is almost interesting to keep in mind the contract projection of 8 years and 200 MM for Pujols and 8 years and 150 MM for Fielder. If those hold true, Fielder will be save his team 20-30 MM in terms of production while Pujols will cost his team 6 MM. The resulting question is how much does that 26-36 MM difference mean to wins and losses.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZXnNmes7sIE/TqwbauUN60I/AAAAAAAAAmo/H6Iw-lZr4dw/s400/pujols+fielder+predicted+money+worth.jpg

 

Interesting.

 

I'll say that I think he brushes aside the defensive difference WAY too easily and I think he's off in saying that Pujols won't play an, at least, acceptable 1B in 5 years.

[Sammy Sofa]

You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future.

 

If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal.

 

The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal.

 

A well-run Cubs team can easily take the hit of a player being overpaid in the final years of his deal.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

Yeah, it kinda does.

 

Agreed.

 

Yup. The Cubs should be the Yankees/Red Sox of the Midwest. Wanting or expecting them to play the relative pauper when they don't need to is ridiculous. They have the resources to take chances most other teams can't and to bring in players other teams can't and to eat financial costs other teams can't while still being able to sign impact FA. They don't have to tiptoe around looking for the perfect FA signing or the perfect confluence of events like they have to squeeze blood from a stone.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Conky]

And if those guys don't become available, too bad so sad.

 

Nevermind that Pujols's down season last year was better than each of their career averages (and better than all but one of Tex's seasons, Tex being the one of the two to actually hit free agency)

You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future.

 

If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal.

 

The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal.

 

A well-run Cubs team can easily take the hit of a player being overpaid in the final years of his deal.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

Yeah, it kinda does.

 

Yeah it does. Owners have no one to thank for this system, but themselves. Owners are the ones writing the contracts and offering guaranteed money. No sense in losing sleep over a system created to benefit a small group of rich investors. The market sets the price for these players. If no one is willing to go more than 6 years on Pujols or Fielder, guess what? They won't have that type of a contract.

 

The money is there to be spent. Fans want success and are willing to shell out big to get it. For once in our lifetimes, we have an owner that gets the concept of putting together a successful organization. TR understands that the fans want a winning product. Let's not complain when he wants to provide us with one.

[SABR Gamer]

Has anyone discussed how worrisome Pujols drastic drop in walks is?

 

He had two single-digit walk months, and not a single 20 walk month this past year.

 

Compared to 2010, where he didn't even have one single-digit walk month, and two 20 walk months.

 

Overall his walks went down from 103 to 61.

 

What is also troubling is both of his single-digit walk months came AFTER he broke out of his slump (September and July), so you can't attribute it to that.

 

 

Fielder on the other hand walked 107 times, and has 3 straight 100+ walk seasons and posted a better OPS than Pujols this past year, on top of the obvious age advantage.

 

I used to be firmly in the Pujols camp, but I am starting to lean towards Fielder. May be on gut, but that's how I feel right now.

[Tyrant]

And there's no one like Pujols in baseball.

 

I don't think that's really true. In 2011, Pujols was 27th in baseball in WAR among hitters. He was 17th in wOBA.

 

He's a very, very good baseball player. But he turns 32 in January. The Cubs shouldn't pay him based on what he did for the Cardinals, only what he's going to do for the next 6-8 years.

 

I guess it all depends on if you think Pujols can bounce back to produce a few more seasons with a 1.000-and-beyond OPS. Given the way he's trended and his age, I'm not so sure. I see Alex Rodriguez's numbers since turning 32 and worry about a similar decline from Pujols.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Tyrant

[jersey cubs fan]

And there's no one like Pujols in baseball.

 

I don't think that's really true. In 2012, Pujols was 27th in baseball in WAR among hitters. He was 17th in wOBA.

 

How did the Cubs do?

[Tyrant]

And there's no one like Pujols in baseball.

 

I don't think that's really true. In 2012, Pujols was 27th in baseball in WAR among hitters. He was 17th in wOBA.

 

How did the Cubs do?

 

62 wins.

[jersey cubs fan]

that sucks

 

 

but thanks for letting me know

[Tyrant]

that sucks

 

 

but thanks for letting me know

 

I remain pleased with myself that I even know what decade it is anymore.

[Guest]

And there's no one like Pujols in baseball.

 

I don't think that's really true. In 2011, Pujols was 27th in baseball in WAR among hitters. He was 17th in wOBA.

 

He's a very, very good baseball player. But he turns 32 in January. The Cubs shouldn't pay him based on what he did for the Cardinals, only what he's going to do for the next 6-8 years.

 

I guess it all depends on if you think Pujols can bounce back to produce a few more seasons with a 1.000-and-beyond OPS. Given the way he's trended and his age, I'm not so sure. I see Alex Rodriguez's numbers since turning 32 and worry about a similar decline from Pujols.

 

I'm more than willing to take my chances with someone of Pujols' ability and consistency throughout his career. I'd bet he finds himself back in the Top 10 in WAR next year, and when he declines, he declines from that point of being a 7 WAR guy.

[brinoch]

I like Pujols better than Fielder, but I'd be happy with either of them. Ultimately, though, I think most agree with the basic point: the Cubs have a financial advantage over the rest of the NL and can afford to overpay a bit for a marquee player. And I think most agree that it's time to start using that advantage properly. And, even better, I think most agree that the Cubs under Epstein will do that very thing.

[Gilby]

I'm with davearm2 on this one. Fielder's a one-dimensional (though that one dimension is outstanding) player with a scary body type. He's close to being a DH if he isn't already. I think it's a stretch to call him a superstar when he's one season removed from putting up a 3.4 WAR. Plus he put up a 1.7 WAR not too long before that. His upside just isn't all that great because of his defense and baserunning. 5-6 WAR is probably his max. These type of long deals are the reason we are where we are. We are not the Yankees; bad contracts hurt.

 

Now, I don't hate Prince and would definitely take him for 5 years and maybe 6, but I'm not sure that's possible. If Theo/Jed goes over 6 years for him, it better include a CC-like opt-out clause after year 3 or 4. Hopefully he would use it.

[davearm2]

I'm with davearm2 on this one. Fielder's a one-dimensional (though that one dimension is outstanding) player with a scary body type. He's close to being a DH if he isn't already. I think it's a stretch to call him a superstar when he's one season removed from putting up a 3.4 WAR. Plus he put up a 1.7 WAR not too long before that. His upside just isn't all that great because of his defense and baserunning. 5-6 WAR is probably his max. These type of long deals are the reason we are where we are. We are not the Yankees; bad contracts hurt.

 

Now, I don't hate Prince and would definitely take him for 5 years and maybe 6, but I'm not sure that's possible. If Theo/Jed goes over 6 years for him, it better include a CC-like opt-out clause after year 3 or 4. Hopefully he would use it.

Welcome to the board!

 

Just FYI, siding with me is not going to help your reputation around here.

 

I think both Pujols and Fielder are going to end up working out badly for whatever team signs them, unless, like you said, the deals end up being shorter in duration than I anticipate.

 

The notion that the Cubs can afford to absorb a bad contract strikes me as an exceedingly poor reason to take one on, yet that's what I keep hearing.

[Vinestal]

I'm with davearm2 on this one. Fielder's a one-dimensional (though that one dimension is outstanding) player with a scary body type. He's close to being a DH if he isn't already. I think it's a stretch to call him a superstar when he's one season removed from putting up a 3.4 WAR. Plus he put up a 1.7 WAR not too long before that. His upside just isn't all that great because of his defense and baserunning. 5-6 WAR is probably his max. These type of long deals are the reason we are where we are. We are not the Yankees; bad contracts hurt.

 

Now, I don't hate Prince and would definitely take him for 5 years and maybe 6, but I'm not sure that's possible. If Theo/Jed goes over 6 years for him, it better include a CC-like opt-out clause after year 3 or 4. Hopefully he would use it.

Welcome to the board!

 

Just FYI, siding with me is not going to help your reputation around here.

 

I think both Pujols and Fielder are going to end up working out badly for whatever team signs them, unless, like you said, the deals end up being shorter in duration than I anticipate.

 

The notion that the Cubs can afford to absorb a bad contract strikes me as an exceedingly poor reason to take one on, yet that's what I keep hearing.

 

 

For what its worth I agree with you as well. Though I've pretty much stayed out of the argument because there are so many people here that strongly disagree with us. 2-4 years of good production are not worth the 2-4 other years of mediocre to poor production/injured years you'll get on the back end of the contract. I believe there are players worth signing to deals like this but they are younger or healthier players.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm with davearm2 on this one. Fielder's a one-dimensional (though that one dimension is outstanding) player with a scary body type. He's close to being a DH if he isn't already. I think it's a stretch to call him a superstar when he's one season removed from putting up a 3.4 WAR. Plus he put up a 1.7 WAR not too long before that. His upside just isn't all that great because of his defense and baserunning. 5-6 WAR is probably his max. These type of long deals are the reason we are where we are. We are not the Yankees; bad contracts hurt.

 

Now, I don't hate Prince and would definitely take him for 5 years and maybe 6, but I'm not sure that's possible. If Theo/Jed goes over 6 years for him, it better include a CC-like opt-out clause after year 3 or 4. Hopefully he would use it.

Welcome to the board!

 

Just FYI, siding with me is not going to help your reputation around here.

 

I think both Pujols and Fielder are going to end up working out badly for whatever team signs them, unless, like you said, the deals end up being shorter in duration than I anticipate.

 

The notion that the Cubs can afford to absorb a bad contract strikes me as an exceedingly poor reason to take one on, yet that's what I keep hearing.

 

Because it's an ongoing game and you stagger the decline in production with one player by offsetting it, ideally, with other FA signings, trades and player development. Look at the Phillies and the Red Sox and the Yankees: all three teams have contracts where they will be or are now overpaying for the production they are getting in return. It's essentially impossible to avoid if you're looking to bolster your team via impact FA signings. All of you that want these magical players and contracts that somehow bypass this are expecting things that just don't happen often enough.

 

And 2-4 years? This is what we're worried that the Cubs would get in terms of quality production from Pujols or Fielder? Somewhere here thinks it's likely they could only get TWO years of worthwhile production from these guys? Come the [expletive] on. It's like people were traumatized by the Soriano signing and the limitations of the sale and think the Cubs must tread some fragile line of financial ability going forward.

 

Seriously, if the Cubs can indeed absorb unproductive years like the Phillies, Red Sox and Yankees why would anyone here not want them to do that? It's not like it will prevent them still signing other FA and building from within. This is a team with huge resources and they easily take the hit while still being able to be productive and build a winning team. Neither contract would cripple this team; not even close.

[bukie]

There's a point getting lost here: if a team wants to get top FA talent, you have to overpay for it in some way, either in length of contract or AAV. Otherwise, you will not get it.

[bukie]

I personally think it's a safe bet that both players will be worth at least 5 WAR each for at worst the first 4 years of any deal, likely 5.

 

The question you deal with, then, in signing them, is how far each would get above 5, and how much extra are you paying per year for it.

[Gilby]

I'm with davearm2 on this one. Fielder's a one-dimensional (though that one dimension is outstanding) player with a scary body type. He's close to being a DH if he isn't already. I think it's a stretch to call him a superstar when he's one season removed from putting up a 3.4 WAR. Plus he put up a 1.7 WAR not too long before that. His upside just isn't all that great because of his defense and baserunning. 5-6 WAR is probably his max. These type of long deals are the reason we are where we are. We are not the Yankees; bad contracts hurt.

 

Now, I don't hate Prince and would definitely take him for 5 years and maybe 6, but I'm not sure that's possible. If Theo/Jed goes over 6 years for him, it better include a CC-like opt-out clause after year 3 or 4. Hopefully he would use it.

Welcome to the board!

 

Just FYI, siding with me is not going to help your reputation around here.

 

I think both Pujols and Fielder are going to end up working out badly for whatever team signs them, unless, like you said, the deals end up being shorter in duration than I anticipate.

 

The notion that the Cubs can afford to absorb a bad contract strikes me as an exceedingly poor reason to take one on, yet that's what I keep hearing.

 

Because it's an ongoing game and you stagger the decline in production with one player by offsetting it, ideally, with other FA signings, trades and player development. Look at the Phillies and the Red Sox and the Yankees: all three teams have contracts where they will be or are now overpaying for the production they are getting in return. It's essentially impossible to avoid if you're looking to bolster your team via impact FA signings. All of you that want these magical players and contracts that somehow bypass this are expecting things that just don't happen often enough.

 

And 2-4 years? This is what we're worried that the Cubs would get in terms of quality production from Pujols or Fielder? Somewhere here thinks it's likely they could only get TWO years of worthwhile production from these guys? Come the [expletive] on. It's like people were traumatized by the Soriano signing and the limitations of the sale and think the Cubs must tread some fragile line of financial ability going forward.

 

Seriously, if the Cubs can indeed absorb unproductive years like the Phillies, Red Sox and Yankees why would anyone here not want them to do that? It's not like it will prevent them still signing other FA and building from within. This is a team with huge resources and they easily take the hit while still being able to be productive and build a winning team. Neither contract would cripple this team; not even close.

 

The Phillies, Red Sox, and Yankee payrolls are all quite a bit higher than the Cubs'.

 

And I'm not against giving out huge contracts. I'm against giving out huge contracts (7-8 years) to fat, one-dimensional first basemen.