Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Guest]

I'm all for it. I just happen to think these two particular guys are poor risks, and more likely than your typical impact FA (if there is a typical impact FA) to turn out poorly.

 

So we wait 15 years for a 27 year old superstar to come along at a position of great organizational need(and then probably pass on him because his contract demands will be pretty off the charts too). You do realize that there isn't going to be another player who comes as close as Pujols to meeting your standard for being worth his contract, right? There isn't going to be another confluence of circumstance like this either. An inner circle hall of famer whose price may be slightly suppressed by a misleading "down season" coming available at a position where the team has absolutely no in-house options, when they have a ton of money freed up, and when they begin under new management that seems pretty certain to be producing cheap talent with regularity by the time these feared albatross years will be upon us. Perfect is the enemy of great as well as good, and to ignore your team's financial advantage in order to gain the incredible marginal value Pujols provides for fear that he becomes an invalid albatross at age 36 is how you never end up with teams as great as the Cubs resources ought to have.

[Sammy Sofa]

To the point where if that year's equivalent of Fielder or Pujols comes along (elite FA) and the Cubs are effectively automatically out because of the money they're already spending.

 

Obviously nobody is saying that they can't just act like they have all the money in the world, but at the same time the Cubs 6-8 years from now should have even more money flexibility than they do now.

Yes, to the point where they can sign 1, but not 2. Or 4, but not 6. Or whatever the specific situation becomes years down the road.

 

The opportunity cost of that money is what it is.

 

Unless you're arguing that the Cubs shouldn't spend that money period that cost is going to be sunk regardless. $25 million tied up in Fielder in 2018 is spent the same as $25 million spent on 2-3 different players, and I can guarantee you that money will be spent. So then you're still in a situation where you have money spent and your budget to sign 1 instead of 2 or 3 instead of 4 is still hindered. If you want to argue the production value of those 2-3 players instead of Fielder, fine, but it's not like $25 million spent on Fielder is somehow more limiting financially than that same $25 million spent on 2-3 other players for that year.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm all for it. I just happen to think these two particular guys are poor risks, and more likely than your typical impact FA (if there is a typical impact FA) to turn out poorly.

 

So we wait 15 years for a 27 year old superstar to come along at a position of great organizational need(and then probably pass on him because his contract demands will be pretty off the charts too). You do realize that there isn't going to be another player who comes as close as Pujols to meeting your standard for being worth his contract, right? There isn't going to be another confluence of circumstance like this either. An inner circle hall of famer whose price may be slightly suppressed by a misleading "down season" coming available at a position where the team has absolutely no in-house options, when they have a ton of money freed up, and when they begin under new management that seems pretty certain to be producing cheap talent with regularity by the time these feared albatross years will be upon us. Perfect is the enemy of great as well as good, and to ignore your team's financial advantage in order to gain the incredible marginal value Pujols provides for fear that he becomes an invalid albatross at age 36 is how you never end up with teams as great as the Cubs resources ought to have.

 

Well said.

[davearm2]

To the point where if that year's equivalent of Fielder or Pujols comes along (elite FA) and the Cubs are effectively automatically out because of the money they're already spending.

 

Obviously nobody is saying that they can't just act like they have all the money in the world, but at the same time the Cubs 6-8 years from now should have even more money flexibility than they do now.

Yes, to the point where they can sign 1, but not 2. Or 4, but not 6. Or whatever the specific situation becomes years down the road.

 

The opportunity cost of that money is what it is.

 

Unless you're arguing that the Cubs shouldn't spend that money period that cost is going to be sunk regardless. $25 million tied up in Fielder in 2018 is spent the same as $25 million spent on 2-3 different players, and I can guarantee you that money will be spent. So then you're still in a situation where you have money spent and your budget to sign 1 instead of 2 or 3 instead of 4 is still hindered. If you want to argue the production value of those 2-3 players instead of Fielder, fine, but it's not like $25 million spent on Fielder is somehow more limiting financially than that same $25 million spent on 2-3 other players for that year.

They'll spend the money, sure. Spending it on Fielder is surely the least flexible option, and in the latter years, the least efficient option as well.

[davearm2]

I'm all for it. I just happen to think these two particular guys are poor risks, and more likely than your typical impact FA (if there is a typical impact FA) to turn out poorly.

 

So we wait 15 years for a 27 year old superstar to come along at a position of great organizational need(and then probably pass on him because his contract demands will be pretty off the charts too). You do realize that there isn't going to be another player who comes as close as Pujols to meeting your standard for being worth his contract, right? There isn't going to be another confluence of circumstance like this either. An inner circle hall of famer whose price may be slightly suppressed by a misleading "down season" coming available at a position where the team has absolutely no in-house options, when they have a ton of money freed up, and when they begin under new management that seems pretty certain to be producing cheap talent with regularity by the time these feared albatross years will be upon us. Perfect is the enemy of great as well as good, and to ignore your team's financial advantage in order to gain the incredible marginal value Pujols provides for fear that he becomes an invalid albatross at age 36 is how you never end up with teams as great as the Cubs resources ought to have.

You're kind of all over the map here, but I think it's safe to say that we probably view Pujols' production over the next decade differently.

 

At any rate, whether his down season was misleading or not is very much an open question.

[Sammy Sofa]

To the point where if that year's equivalent of Fielder or Pujols comes along (elite FA) and the Cubs are effectively automatically out because of the money they're already spending.

 

Obviously nobody is saying that they can't just act like they have all the money in the world, but at the same time the Cubs 6-8 years from now should have even more money flexibility than they do now.

Yes, to the point where they can sign 1, but not 2. Or 4, but not 6. Or whatever the specific situation becomes years down the road.

 

The opportunity cost of that money is what it is.

 

Unless you're arguing that the Cubs shouldn't spend that money period that cost is going to be sunk regardless. $25 million tied up in Fielder in 2018 is spent the same as $25 million spent on 2-3 different players, and I can guarantee you that money will be spent. So then you're still in a situation where you have money spent and your budget to sign 1 instead of 2 or 3 instead of 4 is still hindered. If you want to argue the production value of those 2-3 players instead of Fielder, fine, but it's not like $25 million spent on Fielder is somehow more limiting financially than that same $25 million spent on 2-3 other players for that year.

They'll spend the money, sure. Spending it on Fielder is surely the least flexible option, and in the latter years, the least efficient option as well.

 

The money will be spent regardless. Dwelling on the back end particulars years ahead of time like they're representing some kind of impeding financial bind is, again, Chicken Little bull [expletive] unless you anticipate them doling out multiple big ticket deals that end up going bust at the same time and in general just continue to run the organization as poorly as it was run during the Hendry era.

[davearm2]

To the point where if that year's equivalent of Fielder or Pujols comes along (elite FA) and the Cubs are effectively automatically out because of the money they're already spending.

 

Obviously nobody is saying that they can't just act like they have all the money in the world, but at the same time the Cubs 6-8 years from now should have even more money flexibility than they do now.

Yes, to the point where they can sign 1, but not 2. Or 4, but not 6. Or whatever the specific situation becomes years down the road.

 

The opportunity cost of that money is what it is.

 

Unless you're arguing that the Cubs shouldn't spend that money period that cost is going to be sunk regardless. $25 million tied up in Fielder in 2018 is spent the same as $25 million spent on 2-3 different players, and I can guarantee you that money will be spent. So then you're still in a situation where you have money spent and your budget to sign 1 instead of 2 or 3 instead of 4 is still hindered. If you want to argue the production value of those 2-3 players instead of Fielder, fine, but it's not like $25 million spent on Fielder is somehow more limiting financially than that same $25 million spent on 2-3 other players for that year.

They'll spend the money, sure. Spending it on Fielder is surely the least flexible option, and in the latter years, the least efficient option as well.

 

The money will be spent regardless. Dwelling on the back end particulars years ahead of time like they're representing some kind of impeding financial bind is, again, Chicken Little bull [expletive] unless you anticipate them doling out multiple big ticket deals that end up going bust at the same time and in general just continue to run the organization as poorly as it was run during the Hendry era.

You keep coming back to this Chicken Little nonsense.

 

It seems by your logic, the only bad ideas are the ones that result in a total catastrophe.

 

I could lose 20% of my income tomorrow, and I wouldn't wind up living in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere. Nevertheless, I'm still trying to avoid making choices that would have that result.

[Sammy Sofa]

It seems by your logic, the only bad ideas are the ones that result in a total catastrophe.

 

I could lose 20% of my income tomorrow, and I wouldn't wind up living in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere. Nevertheless, I'm still trying to avoid making choices that would have that result.

 

Terrible analogy. 20% of someone's budget/income is a totally different game if you're talking about $150+ million. Let's say you've got Pujols making the bonkers $30 million a year. Even at $150 million you're still left with $120 million to make up the rest of your team. This is the crux that you seem to refuse to get; that the Cubs have a flexibility that most teams don't have. Well, I take that back; you get it, but you inexplicably want them to act like they don't have that flexibility and instead wait until the signs align and they can sign the mythical elite FA that freakishly/stupidly signs a super affordable deal a la A-Gon. Do you not trust this FO to be able to run this team and plan ahead to deal with situations like this? Do you not think the Cubs will have major money to spend 7-8 years from now?

 

And yes, it would take a total catastrophe for me to ultimately view signing Pujols or Fielder as a mistake, something like them being all but worthless for more than half of their next contract.

[Backtobanks]

While I would be happy to overpay for Pujols/Fielder, I would rather find a way to get Alonzo from the Reds. Maybe a deal centered around Marmol for Alonzo?

[Little Slide Rooter]

While I would be happy to overpay for Pujols/Fielder, I would rather find a way to get Alonzo from the Reds. Maybe a deal centered around Marmol for Alonzo?

 

If we want Alonzo its going be be Garza or bust.

[Tryptamine]

While I would be happy to overpay for Pujols/Fielder, I would rather find a way to get Alonzo from the Reds. Maybe a deal centered around Marmol for Alonzo?

 

If we want Alonzo its going be be Garza or bust.

 

I sure hope you don't mean straight up. If the Reds want Garza it had better pull 2 significant pieces on top of that. I would think Marmol would be plenty, especially if you kicked in 5M on an already relatively cheap deal.

[Little Slide Rooter]

While I would be happy to overpay for Pujols/Fielder, I would rather find a way to get Alonzo from the Reds. Maybe a deal centered around Marmol for Alonzo?

 

If we want Alonzo its going be be Garza or bust.

 

I sure hope you don't mean straight up. If the Reds want Garza it had better pull 2 significant pieces on top of that. I would think Marmol would be plenty, especially if you kicked in 5M on an already relatively cheap deal.

 

I'm not sayint that I would want to do it, I'm saying that if we want Alonzo, we're going to have to give up Garza. The only way they'd give him up for a package built around Marmol is if we added in 2 of our top prospects. If they wanted to give us Alonzo and Leake for Marmol, that would be great but I don't see that happening.If we were to do a Garza for Alonzo and something else, the best we could hope for is likely Homer Bailey.

[dew1679666265]

I sure hope you don't mean straight up. If the Reds want Garza it had better pull 2 significant pieces on top of that. I would think Marmol would be plenty, especially if you kicked in 5M on an already relatively cheap deal.

 

This is the problem the Cubs face today. We need elite talent, we don't have any coming up from the minors any time soon, and any player you acquire with elite talent is going to be severely overpaid in some way. The Reds already turned down giving Alonso for Andrew Bailey, so I don't see any way they do any variation of Alonso for Marmol. It'd probably take Garza to get it done, and while we might get a bit more than just Alonso, it wouldn't be much.

[dew1679666265]

1: The Cubs are not going to be really good to elite in 2012. This team just finished 19 games under .500 and is losing Ramirez and Pena. Adding Pujols or Fielder puts them back to even, basically. There's still a ton of other building blocks needed and those aren't all going to be collected in one offseason. Quite possibly not two offseasons. I might be with you under different circumstances, but this Cubs team is just too far away from that elite level.

 

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs.

 

Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years.

[jersey cubs fan]

1: The Cubs are not going to be really good to elite in 2012. This team just finished 19 games under .500 and is losing Ramirez and Pena. Adding Pujols or Fielder puts them back to even, basically. There's still a ton of other building blocks needed and those aren't all going to be collected in one offseason. Quite possibly not two offseasons. I might be with you under different circumstances, but this Cubs team is just too far away from that elite level.

 

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs.

 

Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years.

 

You also don't have to be elite in 2012 to justify signing an elite free agent. It's pretty much the heart of the insanity that defines the "don't sign these guys" reasoning.

[davearm2]

It seems by your logic, the only bad ideas are the ones that result in a total catastrophe.

 

I could lose 20% of my income tomorrow, and I wouldn't wind up living in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere. Nevertheless, I'm still trying to avoid making choices that would have that result.

 

Terrible analogy. 20% of someone's budget/income is a totally different game if you're talking about $150+ million. Let's say you've got Pujols making the bonkers $30 million a year. Even at $150 million you're still left with $120 million to make up the rest of your team. This is the crux that you seem to refuse to get; that the Cubs have a flexibility that most teams don't have. Well, I take that back; you get it, but you inexplicably want them to act like they don't have that flexibility and instead wait until the signs align and they can sign the mythical elite FA that freakishly/stupidly signs a super affordable deal a la A-Gon. Do you not trust this FO to be able to run this team and plan ahead to deal with situations like this? Do you not think the Cubs will have major money to spend 7-8 years from now?

 

And yes, it would take a total catastrophe for me to ultimately view signing Pujols or Fielder as a mistake, something like them being all but worthless for more than half of their next contract.

Soriano hasn't prevented the Cubs from being able to pursue other big-ticket free agents. So what's the problem?

 

Oh right, it's because that contract was viewed as a mistake from day one.

 

Well I view these players as mistakes from day one, at the years and dollars they're reportedly asking.

 

Whether or not the Cubs FO can operate around these mistakes misses the point. Sure they can. But they shouldn't choose to do so when they can avoid it. Just like I demonstrated with my analogy.

[davearm2]

1: The Cubs are not going to be really good to elite in 2012. This team just finished 19 games under .500 and is losing Ramirez and Pena. Adding Pujols or Fielder puts them back to even, basically. There's still a ton of other building blocks needed and those aren't all going to be collected in one offseason. Quite possibly not two offseasons. I might be with you under different circumstances, but this Cubs team is just too far away from that elite level.

 

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs.

 

Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years.

 

You also don't have to be elite in 2012 to justify signing an elite free agent. It's pretty much the heart of the insanity that defines the "don't sign these guys" reasoning.

Why is it so hard for folks to get their heads around what it is I'm saying?

 

I'm not against signing any/all elite free agents. But these two seem like bad bets to me -- not just for the the Cubs but for any team. I expect that for a large portion of their contract, they're going to be paid far above the value of their production. That's not universally true of *all* elite free agents. These two guys simply have risk profiles that are especially high.

 

The fact that the Cubs are not well positioned (IMO) to capitalize on the most productive early years of the deal only exacerbates the problem. It isn't the main problem, though.

[Banedon]

Sorry if I missed this in this thread somewhere:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_10_degrees_pujols_fielder_free_agents_112711

 

A team-by-team rundown with those executives placed the St. Louis Cardinals as heavy, heavy favorites – “I’m 100 percent certain he’s going back there,” one said – with … well, there’s the rub: They had trouble identifying another team Pujols seriously would consider.

[davearm2]

1: The Cubs are not going to be really good to elite in 2012. This team just finished 19 games under .500 and is losing Ramirez and Pena. Adding Pujols or Fielder puts them back to even, basically. There's still a ton of other building blocks needed and those aren't all going to be collected in one offseason. Quite possibly not two offseasons. I might be with you under different circumstances, but this Cubs team is just too far away from that elite level.

 

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs.

 

Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years.

How many non-elite teams are there in baseball every year? 10? 15?

 

So over those 7 years, you've got 3 winners out of between 70 and 105.

[MSG T]

1: The Cubs are not going to be really good to elite in 2012. This team just finished 19 games under .500 and is losing Ramirez and Pena. Adding Pujols or Fielder puts them back to even, basically. There's still a ton of other building blocks needed and those aren't all going to be collected in one offseason. Quite possibly not two offseasons. I might be with you under different circumstances, but this Cubs team is just too far away from that elite level.

 

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs.

 

Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years.

 

 

To go along with this, there's also no reason the Cubs can't make a significant turnaround next season. Since 2000, every team in baseball, except for Baltimore, has had at least one season where they improved at least 10 games from the previous season. Most, something like 26 or 27, had multiple seasons of doing that, including the Cubs doing that 3 different times. Hell, there were a number of 20+ and 30+ game improvements from one season to the next.

 

There were many reasons for it, also. Some were young teams that got experience, some were injury prone one year and not the next, some were unlucky one year and lucky the next and some made proper moves that fixed problems with the team. My point is, there is no reason for the Cubs to not turn around next season. Asking for a 90+ win team next year may not be reasonable, though turnarounds bigger than 19 games happen, but to think there is no way they can finish over .500 and be in the hunt (keeping interest, and more importantly profits, up) until the last few games is defeatist. It's just not that unreasonable, or unthinkable, for them to win 81-83 games next season. Then another similar improvement the following season puts them squarely in the playoff hunt.

 

Signing a big bat, such as Fielder/Pujols, and adding a good/great arm or two can do just that. Doing so will not hurt the Cubs long-term prospects for success, it will not hurt their chances of signing some un-named possible FA 6 years from now and it won't hurt the Cubs ability to build their system up through the draft and Int'l FA.

[MSG T]

1: The Cubs are not going to be really good to elite in 2012. This team just finished 19 games under .500 and is losing Ramirez and Pena. Adding Pujols or Fielder puts them back to even, basically. There's still a ton of other building blocks needed and those aren't all going to be collected in one offseason. Quite possibly not two offseasons. I might be with you under different circumstances, but this Cubs team is just too far away from that elite level.

 

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs.

 

Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years.

 

You also don't have to be elite in 2012 to justify signing an elite free agent. It's pretty much the heart of the insanity that defines the "don't sign these guys" reasoning.

Why is it so hard for folks to get their heads around what it is I'm saying?

 

I'm not against signing any/all elite free agents. But these two seem like bad bets to me -- not just for the the Cubs but for any team. I expect that for a large portion of their contract, they're going to be paid far above the value of their production. That's not universally true of *all* elite free agents. These two guys simply have risk profiles that are especially high.

 

The fact that the Cubs are not well positioned (IMO) to capitalize on the most productive early years of the deal only exacerbates the problem. It isn't the main problem, though.

 

 

Ignoring Fielder for a moment, isn't Pujols the very definition of elite? You don't get any more elite than one of the 5-10 greatest hitters ever, unless you're talking Bonds immediately pre-steroids.

[Hollandsworths mug]

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2011/11/forecasting-the-cubs-offseason-fielder-pitching-trades-garza/

[jersey cubs fan]

The Cubs in 2012 will be a lot better with an elite 1B than without an elite 1B. And by 2013 there is no reason they can't be the division favorite with those one of those guys. They will take advantage of those players remaining elite seasons by simply playing games. You will win more games, and you will have a better chance of making the playoffs in a weak division (that will get weaker by stealing a rival's best player). They don't have to be a lock for 100 wins to justify the signing. They have a glaring hole, and either player fills that glaring hole. It's absolutely mind boggling why people prefer to make excuses not to sign them and keep this team mediocre for several seasons.

[Guest]

The Cubs in 2012 will be a lot better with an elite 1B than without an elite 1B. And by 2013 there is no reason they can't be the division favorite with those one of those guys. They will take advantage of those players remaining elite seasons by simply playing games. You will win more games, and you will have a better chance of making the playoffs in a weak division (that will get weaker by stealing a rival's best player). They don't have to be a lock for 100 wins to justify the signing. They have a glaring hole, and either player fills that glaring hole. It's absolutely mind boggling why people prefer to make excuses not to sign them and keep this team mediocre for several seasons.

 

Exactly.

[Guest]

I'm all for it. I just happen to think these two particular guys are poor risks, and more likely than your typical impact FA (if there is a typical impact FA) to turn out poorly.

 

So we wait 15 years for a 27 year old superstar to come along at a position of great organizational need(and then probably pass on him because his contract demands will be pretty off the charts too). You do realize that there isn't going to be another player who comes as close as Pujols to meeting your standard for being worth his contract, right? There isn't going to be another confluence of circumstance like this either. An inner circle hall of famer whose price may be slightly suppressed by a misleading "down season" coming available at a position where the team has absolutely no in-house options, when they have a ton of money freed up, and when they begin under new management that seems pretty certain to be producing cheap talent with regularity by the time these feared albatross years will be upon us. Perfect is the enemy of great as well as good, and to ignore your team's financial advantage in order to gain the incredible marginal value Pujols provides for fear that he becomes an invalid albatross at age 36 is how you never end up with teams as great as the Cubs resources ought to have.

You're kind of all over the map here, but I think it's safe to say that we probably view Pujols' production over the next decade differently.

 

At any rate, whether his down season was misleading or not is very much an open question.

 

Actually, he's not all over the map. That is a perfectly described situation. His sentence about a slightly suppressed down season can be viewed two different ways:

 

1) A down year in production (which I could agree probably won't really hinder the overall value of the contract they receive this offseason.)

 

2) A year where the other big market teams are either stocked at 1b or in a financial pickle and won't be trying to outbid the few teams that will be shopping them.