Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Guest]

For the record, I think the logic I posted sucks. If we miss out on both Pujols and Fielder, we're going to suck. And hard. We can trot out all the platoons and reclamation projects we want, but we're going to be like 72-90.

You realize that's actually an argument for *not* signing either of these guys. Finishing 79-83 rather than 72-90 is kinda pointless.

 

You sign a guy like this when you've got a team that's 82-80 (or better) without them.

 

The question, how far away are the Cubs from having that 82-80 team? And what will be the impact-player alternatives at that time?

 

I realize nobody wants to suck. But let's think about this objectively.

Not a one year contract.

Not a one year contract.

Not a one year contract.

Not a one year contract.

Not a one year contract.

Not a one year contract.

Not a one year contract.

Not a one year contract.

Not a one year contract.

Not a one year contract.

[Guest]

For the record, I think the logic I posted sucks. If we miss out on both Pujols and Fielder, we're going to suck. And hard. We can trot out all the platoons and reclamation projects we want, but we're going to be like 72-90.

You realize that's actually an argument for *not* signing either of these guys. Finishing 79-83 rather than 72-90 is kinda pointless.

 

You sign a guy like this when you've got a team that's 82-80 (or better) without them.

 

The question, how far away are the Cubs from having that 82-80 team? And what will be the impact-player alternatives at that time?

 

I realize nobody wants to suck. But let's think about this objectively.

 

 

WHY ARE YOU ACTING LIKE FIELDER WOULD ONLY BE HERE OR BE PRODUCTIVE FOR ONE YEAR?!!?

[Guest]

Ramirez is like 7-9 years older than Darvish/Cespedes. For their risk, those imports represent an attempt to win now and win later with a long term deal. Ramirez represents only the win now, and since we would have less room to add long term pieces with his new contract on the books, he would jeopardize the ability to add guys who can win later too.

 

Cespedes and Darvish are easy to bring up because they are free agents, but the more likely option, as has been the case with the vast majority of our lasting upgrades in production, is that it comes through the trade market.

 

But they're also complete unknowns with regards to their ability to be any good at the major league level. Why piss away money on two question marks at all? They are just as likely to be completely useless as they are decent, and if they are useless, where are you at?

 

This argument isn't just about Ramirez, either. It's about being turned off by paying Fielder $150m but being totally willing to roll the dice with $150m on those two.

Where have you seen TT argue against paying Fielder / Pujols?

[davearm2]

 

I feel like the hiring of Epstein and Hoyer have allowed people to run completely amok with their platoon and WAR fantasies, as if simply taking two guys with platoon splits and certain WAR numbers and putting them together would result into a fully functional offense capable of winning. I can't think of a single winning team that was built around reclamations projects and discarded parts with platoon splits. It makes sense in theory; after all, if you have a LH and a RH, who each bring 1 WAR based on platoon splits and defense and baserunning, have them both play 3B, and voila, you've completely replaced Aramis Ramirez with a 2 WAR player for $3m.

 

As much as I completely believe in stat analysis and SABR and all that jazz, I don't think tossing WAR sums around is the way for a major market team to build a winner.

Great, great point. Two .5 WAR players don't equal 1 WAR. It doesn't work that way. All you have are two .5 WAR guys sharing one position. In other words, two [expletive] players does not equal one mediocre player.

 

If WAR is supposed to be additive it's any even worse metric than I assumed.

It's a terrible point that illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of WAR.

 

Are two guys that hit 15 HRs each in 300 PAs as valuable as one guy that hits 30 HRs in 600 PAs? Answer: yes.

 

By the exact same logic, if the L and R halves of a platoon are both worth 1.5 wins in half-duty, together they're worth the same as a fulltime, 3-win player.

 

The guy that pointed out that WAR is a counting stat nailed it.

[USSoccer]

Ramirez is like 7-9 years older than Darvish/Cespedes. For their risk, those imports represent an attempt to win now and win later with a long term deal. Ramirez represents only the win now, and since we would have less room to add long term pieces with his new contract on the books, he would jeopardize the ability to add guys who can win later too.

 

Cespedes and Darvish are easy to bring up because they are free agents, but the more likely option, as has been the case with the vast majority of our lasting upgrades in production, is that it comes through the trade market.

 

But they're also complete unknowns with regards to their ability to be any good at the major league level. Why piss away money on two question marks at all? They are just as likely to be completely useless as they are decent, and if they are useless, where are you at?

 

This argument isn't just about Ramirez, either. It's about being turned off by paying Fielder $150m but being totally willing to roll the dice with $150m on those two.

Where have you seen TT argue against paying Fielder / Pujols?

 

I haven't. I'm just arguing 100000% against going after Darvish, Cespedes, and the logic that states we can just pay those two, trot out some platoons and other people's trash and turn that into a contender.

[Guest]

Ramirez is like 7-9 years older than Darvish/Cespedes. For their risk, those imports represent an attempt to win now and win later with a long term deal. Ramirez represents only the win now, and since we would have less room to add long term pieces with his new contract on the books, he would jeopardize the ability to add guys who can win later too.

 

Cespedes and Darvish are easy to bring up because they are free agents, but the more likely option, as has been the case with the vast majority of our lasting upgrades in production, is that it comes through the trade market.

 

But they're also complete unknowns with regards to their ability to be any good at the major league level. Why piss away money on two question marks at all? They are just as likely to be completely useless as they are decent, and if they are useless, where are you at?

 

This argument isn't just about Ramirez, either. It's about being turned off by paying Fielder $150m but being totally willing to roll the dice with $150m on those two.

Where have you seen TT argue against paying Fielder / Pujols?

 

I haven't. I'm just arguing 100000% against going after Darvish, Cespedes, and the logic that states we can just pay those two, trot out some platoons and other people's trash and turn that into a contender.

Who took that position?

[Guest]

FWIW, I don't think it's remotely likely that Darvish is completely useless....much less just as likely as him being "decent." In fact, it's more likely that he'd be very good than it is he'd be completely useless. Edited November 20, 2011 by David

[USSoccer]

I haven't. I'm just arguing 100000% against going after Darvish, Cespedes, and the logic that states we can just pay those two, trot out some platoons and other people's trash and turn that into a contender.

Who took that position?

 

I've seen it here and there by people rationalizing how missing out on Pujols or Fielder could be mitigated, or even a good thing because it would allow us to build for the future or something.

[davearm2]

For the record, I think the logic I posted sucks. If we miss out on both Pujols and Fielder, we're going to suck. And hard. We can trot out all the platoons and reclamation projects we want, but we're going to be like 72-90.

You realize that's actually an argument for *not* signing either of these guys. Finishing 79-83 rather than 72-90 is kinda pointless.

 

You sign a guy like this when you've got a team that's 82-80 (or better) without them.

 

The question, how far away are the Cubs from having that 82-80 team? And what will be the impact-player alternatives at that time?

 

I realize nobody wants to suck. But let's think about this objectively.

 

 

WHY ARE YOU ACTING LIKE FIELDER WOULD ONLY BE HERE OR BE PRODUCTIVE FOR ONE YEAR?!!?

 

Read the third sentence. And chill out.

[Guest]

I haven't. I'm just arguing 100000% against going after Darvish, Cespedes, and the logic that states we can just pay those two, trot out some platoons and other people's trash and turn that into a contender.

Who took that position?

 

I've seen it here and there by people rationalizing how missing out on Pujols or Fielder could be mitigated.

I haven't seen anyone that I recall arguing against signing P/F but for Cespedes & Darvish. People that I've seen are either arguing to spend money on 1B + more or to wait altogether.

 

I haven't seen people say pass on 1B and sign the other guys.

 

Now, if we miss the other guys, I don't think we ignore signing Darvish (in particular) since we need a #2 anyway.

[davearm2]

For the record, I think the logic I posted sucks. If we miss out on both Pujols and Fielder, we're going to suck. And hard. We can trot out all the platoons and reclamation projects we want, but we're going to be like 72-90.

You realize that's actually an argument for *not* signing either of these guys. Finishing 79-83 rather than 72-90 is kinda pointless.

 

You sign a guy like this when you've got a team that's 82-80 (or better) without them.

 

The question, how far away are the Cubs from having that 82-80 team? And what will be the impact-player alternatives at that time?

 

I realize nobody wants to suck. But let's think about this objectively.

 

So again, we're totally cool with gambling $150m on the two guys with zero MLB experience but investing that money in a cornerstone player would be a waste?

I don't recall saying that.

 

Although there is an obvious advantage to spending on guys that have yet to hit their prime years.

[Guest]

Preview of the article I'm writing in the outline format.

 

I've gotten deeper into the comps that I really expected. It is very difficult to make a projection, but I can say that if Pujols is actually older than 31 it would be folly to sign him to a long term deal.

 

Finished article should be up later today with lots of pretty graphs & such. :)

I worked too hard to get zero clicks on this. :)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

And I'm questioning what that's based on.

 

Besides, the platoon isn't even the important half of the equation. The point was that Ramirez's asking price was way too much for a 2.5-3.5 WAR player, and that 3b the easiest potential hole to fill internally for this organization, after CF.

 

So there was less risk in paying Ramirez, lets say $50m over 4 years than paying over $90m for a Japanese import and $40m for a Cuban defector? (yes in retrospect it doesn't sound like Aramis was even interested in coming back)

 

Your logic of Ramirez's asking price being too much seems to me to be immediately contradicted by being so willing to drop giant money on two complete unknowns.

 

It's not about "risk." Nobody said anything about risk. Even if Ramirez is frozen in time and doesn't continue to age, I don't think he's worth $50 million over four years to this organization. It's about opportunity cost. The Cubs don't have the money to replace every position with a high-cost player. Since we can only afford a few high-cost players, I'd rather focus our resources on the biggest holes. Out of SP, 1b and 3b, third is the best position of strength.

 

And I would definitely rather give $90 million to a 25-year-old with Darvish's stuff than a four-year deal to Ramirez.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

As far as I can tell, USsoccer's participation in this thread is to assume that anyone who doesn't think we'll be terrible without Pujols or Fielder doesn't want Pujols or Fielder.

[USSoccer]

As far as I can tell, USsoccer's participation in this thread is to assume that anyone who doesn't think we'll be terrible without Pujols or Fielder doesn't want Pujols or Fielder.

 

Yep. That's what I'm going for there.

[davearm2]

Preview of the article I'm writing in the outline format.

 

I've gotten deeper into the comps that I really expected. It is very difficult to make a projection, but I can say that if Pujols is actually older than 31 it would be folly to sign him to a long term deal.

 

Finished article should be up later today with lots of pretty graphs & such. :)

I worked too hard to get zero clicks on this. :)

Interesting stuff so far. I look forward to seeing more numbers and graphs.

[bukie]

Preview of the article I'm writing in the outline format.

 

I've gotten deeper into the comps that I really expected. It is very difficult to make a projection, but I can say that if Pujols is actually older than 31 it would be folly to sign him to a long term deal.

 

Finished article should be up later today with lots of pretty graphs & such. :)

I worked too hard to get zero clicks on this. :)

Pity click!

 

From the aggregate of the comps, it's a reasonable expectation for Pujols to offer at least 5 WAR of production per year over the next five years (assuming he's 31...which we really just have to do at this point). The major concern, then, is a contract of 9-10 years. Do you front-load it for his productive years so that his contract past age 36 is either trade-able or sinkable?

 

From my perspective, I think it's reasonable to expect both Fielder and Pujols to be top-10 productive at 1B over the next five years. I'd rather acquire the player that is worth more over that expected period of production. Past that, the concerns become:

- Who drops off in production faster past 5 years?

- Who will accept a contract friendlier to their potential back-end dropoff?

- Which has abilities less likely to deteriorate quickly due to age?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Heres another thing to think about: Even if we do sign Fielder, this could still be lost season, but a great way to start building. If they don't sign one of the big 2 and get going, it could be a lengthy building process. The wiser fans would be patient and stick around, but a lot of the casual fans and "meatballs" would say to hell with it, and their money is just as important as anyones. Say 3 years go by and the team doesn't look much better than it does now and we still have a middle of the road farm system. How many empty seats and lost revenue does it take before ownership forces management to do something drastic and stupid and next thing you know, the cycle is repeated? It doesn't have to be Fielder or Pujols, although they'd be great starts because you never know when guys like them will be available again, but there's really no reason to run this team like the Rays or Royals considering we have a lo more money and a lot less prospects.

[Guest]

Alright, I've got part two of my Pujols article up.

 

I could repost all the logic and pretty charts here, but you should really just click the link! :)

 

 

 

In summary, I'll borrow a phrase from Bears fans: "Pay the man!"

[KingCubsFan]

Alright, I've got part two of my Pujols article up.

 

I could repost all the logic and pretty charts here, but you should really just click the link! :)

 

 

 

In summary, I'll borrow a phrase from Bears fans: "Pay the man!"

So do you attribute this year's poor performance (by Pujols' standards, of course) to bad luck, as opposed to a sign of a sustained age-induced decline?

[Guest]

Albert Pujols on April 11: .150/.222/.225/.447

 

Albert Pujols after April 11: 155 games, 688 PA's, .314/.420/.578/.998 with 41 HR

[davell]

If you have serious doubt as to what Pujols' actual age is, but have absolutely no proof whatsoever, do you make the bigtime offer, or do you make Prince your top target regardless?

[KingCubsFan]

Albert Pujols on April 11: .150/.222/.225/.447

 

Albert Pujols after April 11: 155 games, 688 PA's, .314/.420/.578/.998 with 41 HR

That doesn't seem right. A bad week and a half at the beginning of the season won't knock almost 100 points off your OPS. Regardless, my concern is due more to the 40 walk dropoff.

[Guest]

Albert Pujols on April 11: .150/.222/.225/.447

 

Albert Pujols after April 11: 155 games, 688 PA's, .314/.420/.578/.998 with 41 HR

That doesn't seem right. A bad week and a half at the beginning of the season won't knock almost 100 points off your OPS. Regardless, my concern is due more to the 40 walk dropoff.

 

He had a .353/.463/.691/1.155 postseason line.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Albert Pujols on April 11: .150/.222/.225/.447

 

Albert Pujols after April 11: 155 games, 688 PA's, .314/.420/.578/.998 with 41 HR

 

*resists urge to say it ... tries not to say it... has to say it*

Did the games before April 11 not count?