Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[C.C.]

Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN)

11/27/11 6:31 AM

And neither Pujols nor Fielder is a perfect 1B long-term target for the Cubs -- Pujols because of his age, Fielder because of defense.

 

 

Completely agree.

 

That's just plain stupid!

[Guest]

In case anyone else was wondering what he was saying "And" after...

 

Buster_ESPN Buster Olney

@

@kylecoyne I think Epstein and Hoyer view first base as being among easiest to find production -- so no, don't see them on Pujols/Fielder.

4 hours ago

 

 

But that's just his opinion and not an actual report of anything, so it's pretty much worthless.

[Sammy Sofa]

Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN)

11/27/11 6:31 AM

And neither Pujols nor Fielder is a perfect 1B long-term target for the Cubs -- Pujols because of his age, Fielder because of defense.

 

 

Completely agree.

 

Me too. However, it's because there is no "perfect" long term option to be gained through free agency. If you only sign perfect free agents, you'll never sign any free agent. Voltaire said it best: "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"

 

Yup. You're not going to find anyone here who isn't going to acknowledge that both players have concerns/risks going in to a monster deal, but that's true for pretty much any impact FA a team signs. There's no such thing as the perfect FA.

[Gilby]

If you're going to sign someone for $22-25 million for 6-8 years, he better be pretty much perfect.

[Sammy Sofa]

Then you're going to be waiting forever.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What percentage of recent WS winners bought a massive free agent in order to get there? Some have, but I'm sure it's not all.

[Guest]

It all depends on the contracts these guys get. If the market is as down for them as it seems, the price may be more reasonable than expected.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Then you're going to be waiting forever.

Exactly. Perfect is not the enemy of the good. Or in this case, the really REALLY good. Not sure why the mainstream media can't realize that.

[Guest]

What percentage of recent WS winners bought a massive free agent in order to get there? Some have, but I'm sure it's not all.

 

A more important question is what percentage of playoff teams did, because that's all that really matters. Once you're in, you're in.

[rawaction]

If you're going to sign someone for $22-25 million for 6-8 years, he better be pretty much perfect.

 

That's only true if you're the Marlins. The Cubs have plenty of money. A good GM should be able to put a team like the Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc. with money to spend in a position to still be very good even with 1 albatross contract on the roster 4-5 years from now. Pujols and Fielder are both going to be worth that money for at least 3 years, if they are a bad contract after that point, then so be it. Should be able to build a team with the other 125 Mil anyway.

[UMFan83]

I think this is what your asking. This is each recent WS winner's highest paid player signed via FA. I counted players that were traded for and then resigned as unrestricted FAs, but not ones that were traded for and signed extensions before their contracts were up.

 

2011: Matt Holliday $17,000,000

2010: Barry Zito $18,500,000

2009: Alex Rodriguez $33,000,000

2008: Adam Eaton $7,958,333

2007: Manny Ramirez $17,016,381

2006: Jason Isringhausen $8,750,000

2005: Jermaine Dye $4,000,000

2004: Manny Ramirez $22,500,000

2003: Ivan Rodgiruez $10,000,000

2002: Aaron Sele $7,166,667

2001: Randy Johnson $13,350,000

2000: David Cone $12,000,000

1999: David Cone $9,500,000

1998: David Cone $6,666,667

1997: Alex Fernandez $7,000,000

1996: Kenny Rodgers $5,000,000

1995: Greg Maddux $6,500,000

[shnsajax]

2005 must have really sucked.

[davearm2]

If you're going to sign someone for $22-25 million for 6-8 years, he better be pretty much perfect.

 

That's only true if you're the Marlins. The Cubs have plenty of money. A good GM should be able to put a team like the Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc. with money to spend in a position to still be very good even with 1 albatross contract on the roster 4-5 years from now. Pujols and Fielder are both going to be worth that money for at least 3 years, if they are a bad contract after that point, then so be it. Should be able to build a team with the other 125 Mil anyway.

The fastest way to level the playing field for the teams that can't spend as much as the Cubs, is for the Cubs to spend unwisely.

 

[Sammy Sofa]

Signing either of those guys isn't going to put the Cubs at the Marlins' level.

[davearm2]

Signing either of those guys isn't going to put the Cubs at the Marlins' level.

Who gives a rip about the Marlins. The Cubs have been demonstrating what happens when big-payroll teams spend poorly.

 

2 straight years of highest payroll in the division, and 5th place record.

 

See also: Mets, New York; Dodgers, Los Angeles.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, due to repeated bad signings. The Cubs have the resources going forward to "strategically" take on big name contracts that likely will be significantly overpaid in the final years of their deals. Signing Prince or Fielder aren't bad or misguided signings off the bat like, say, Soriano. The Cubs can easily spend big on them to get their productive years and take the hit of when they slip (or if they slip in Fielder's case). There's a difference between spending poorly and spending on an impact player who won't cost significantly too much over value until later in their deal.

[davearm2]

Yes, due to repeated bad signings. The Cubs have the resources going forward to "strategically" take on big name contracts that likely will be significantly overpaid in the final years of their deals. Signing Prince or Fielder aren't bad or misguided signings off the bat like, say, Soriano. The Cubs can easily spend big on them to get their productive years and take the hit of when they slip (or if they slip in Fielder's case). There's a difference between spending poorly and spending on an impact player who won't cost significantly too much over value until later in their deal.

So your fix for repeated bad signings is to take on big name contracts that likely will be significantly overpaid in the final years of their deals.

 

How is that different than the current situation again?

 

Makes one wonder what your definition of a bad signing is in the first place.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, my solution is to only make big FA signings that will likely be significantly overpaid in their final years.

[Guest]

Albert Pujols(9 seasons of 7+ WAR), if he is overpaid, is still likely to be a very productive player. Every long term contract Jim Hendry ever signed has combined for 2 seasons of 7+ WAR, Soriano and Lee each did it once. They did not have such margin for error.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Who gives a rip about the Marlins. The Cubs have been demonstrating what happens when big-payroll teams drafts poorly.

 

FYP

[davell]

This is really an exercise of futility, it seems. Dave, can you acknowledge the Cubs can take on Prince at 7 or 8 years or Pujols at 8 to 10 years and be just fine longterm if they add other players still in their primes or develop players that can have impact instead of just role players? If the answer to this is "yes" then what's even being discussed here? Because with the amount of money coming off the books this year and next, we certainly have the ability to make 3 or 4 major moves, which can certainly put this team into true contendership. And if one or even two of them don't perform at an extreme level all the way to the end of their deals, we should be able to absorb them. That's what well ran major market franchises do, isn't it?

[Sammy Sofa]

No, big name FA signings have to put a team over the top (or at least over .500) in year one or it is all for naught.

[davearm2]

This is really an exercise of futility, it seems. Dave, can you acknowledge the Cubs can take on Prince at 7 or 8 years or Pujols at 8 to 10 years and be just fine longterm if they add other players still in their primes or develop players that can have impact instead of just role players? If the answer to this is "yes" then what's even being discussed here? Because with the amount of money coming off the books this year and next, we certainly have the ability to make 3 or 4 major moves, which can certainly put this team into true contendership. And if one or even two of them don't perform at an extreme level all the way to the end of their deals, we should be able to absorb them. That's what well ran major market franchises do, isn't it?

Well run major market franchises waste money because they can get away with it?

 

Yeah, I don't agree with that assessment.

 

Putting a ton of money into a single guy isn't going to automatically sink the Cubs. But why is that the standard?

 

Think about that team that is "just fine" after adding those other players still in their primes and developing players that can have impact.

 

Now give that team another $20+M to spend another way than on a player at the easiest position to fill that's making 2 or 3x what his production is valued at.

[davearm2]

Yes, my solution is to only make big FA signings that will likely be significantly overpaid in their final years.

Well, what you said was,

 

"The Cubs have the resources going forward to "strategically" take on big name contracts that likely will be significantly overpaid in the final years of their deals."

 

I interpreted that to mean, they should.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, my solution is to only make big FA signings that will likely be significantly overpaid in their final years.

Well, what you said was,

 

"The Cubs have the resources going forward to "strategically" take on big name contracts that likely will be significantly overpaid in the final years of their deals."

 

I interpreted that to mean, they should.

 

Yes, when it's players like Fielder or Pujols available who so obviously fill the needs of the team, they should (and Fielder being all but a lock to even put the Cubs in that scenario is hardly a sure thing).

 

What you "interpreted" is the made-up idea was that I was somehow suggesting they "fix" their bad signings of the last several years with big FA signings. How you possibly think I'm suggesting that when all of those bad contracts except one are gone after next season and don't require such inexplicable "fixing" is beyond me. It's like you go out of your way to be willfully obtuse to start really stupid arguments.