Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[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.

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.

 

Then you're operating from an extreme, inflexible position that, thankfully, isn't realistically and, even more thankfully, there's almost zero chance the FO follows. You seem to be operating under the unrealistic idea that big ticket FA signings have to be perfect or not. There's no in-between. If you sign a guy for, say, an expensive 9 years, and get 6 years of elite production out of him and then the last 3 you're way overpaying then that's a mistake for you that needs to be avoided at all costs. That's absurd for a team with the resources the Cubs have. I'm not saying the Cubs should jump on every long-term, big name FA they come across, but you seem to be saying they need to avoid any unless they can all but guarantee themselves they're going to be getting elite production for the duration of the contract barring unforeseen, catastrophic injury. That's just not realistic, and it unnecessarily hampers the Cubs' ability to maximize the FA advantage they have over most other teams.

 

Plus, not shockingly at all, this all comes back to Soriano.

[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.

 

 

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.

He has been elite, for sure. The obvious question is, how long will he remain so.

[Sammy Sofa]

Fortunately the Cubs are one of the few teams in MLB who can take that gamble, reap the benefits of how much elite production he has left and then roll with the punches in the final years of his deal.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The biggest reason it is sometimes okay for a team to "overpay" for elite production and suffer the backend is because they know that production in the short-term will be highly valuable to them because they are almost certain to be in a playoff race.

 

That doesn't apply to the Cubs.

[Sammy Sofa]

The biggest reason it is sometimes okay for a team to "overpay" for elite production and suffer the backend is because they know that production in the short-term will be highly valuable to them because they are almost certain to be in a playoff race.

 

That doesn't apply to the Cubs.

 

Yet it could easily apply to them in just the second year of that kind of deal.

 

I mean, that just seems like such a stupid, self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. "OK, we sucked last year, so let's pass on a player who makes us significantly better (even though we have assloads of money after this last season and after the next) and puts on the right track to being consistently good in the very near future because there's a good chance we'll only just be less sucky in the first year of their deal." Hooray, failure indefinitely until the crap shoot that is the farm system maybe starts paying off years from now!

Edited November 28, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[davearm2]

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.

People are fixated on the next few years, when the Cubs would be better off if they had one of these guys, and sweeping under the rug the several years thereafter, when the Cubs would be better off if they don't have one of these guys.

 

Not sure what's so mind-boggling about thinking the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The biggest reason it is sometimes okay for a team to "overpay" for elite production and suffer the backend is because they know that production in the short-term will be highly valuable to them because they are almost certain to be in a playoff race.

 

That doesn't apply to the Cubs.

 

Yet it could easily apply to them in just the second year of that kind of deal.

 

It certainly could. But it also might not.

 

I'm not saying that means "don't sign Pujols or Fielder." I'm just saying that the Cubs aren't in some sort of identical boat to all the other big market teams who sign big-money free agents.

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

People are fixated on the next few years, when the Cubs would be better off if they had one of these guys, and sweeping under the rug the several years thereafter, when the Cubs would be better off if they don't have one of these guys.

 

Not sure what's so mind-boggling about thinking the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.

 

Because you have so much money available now and again after next season that, really, the Cubs not being competitive by 2013 at the latest should be viewed as failure.

[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.

 

Then you're operating from an extreme, inflexible position that, thankfully, isn't realistically and, even more thankfully, there's almost zero chance the FO follows. You seem to be operating under the unrealistic idea that big ticket FA signings have to be perfect or not. There's no in-between. If you sign a guy for, say, an expensive 9 years, and get 6 years of elite production out of him and then the last 3 you're way overpaying then that's a mistake for you that needs to be avoided at all costs. That's absurd for a team with the resources the Cubs have. I'm not saying the Cubs should jump on every long-term, big name FA they come across, but you seem to be saying they need to avoid any unless they can all but guarantee themselves they're going to be getting elite production for the duration of the contract barring unforeseen, catastrophic injury. That's just not realistic, and it unnecessarily hampers the Cubs' ability to maximize the FA advantage they have over most other teams.

 

Plus, not shockingly at all, this all comes back to Soriano.

This is wrong, and proves once again that you're hearing what you want to hear, and not what it is I'm saying.

 

I'm all for signing an elite free agent. Several, in fact.

 

But like anything else, there are good risks and there are bad risks. IMO these two guys fall in the bad risk category. It's really not any more complicated than that.

[jersey cubs fan]

The biggest reason it is sometimes okay for a team to "overpay" for elite production and suffer the backend is because they know that production in the short-term will be highly valuable to them because they are almost certain to be in a playoff race.

 

That doesn't apply to the Cubs.

 

Yet it could easily apply to them in just the second year of that kind of deal.

 

It certainly could. But it also might not.

 

I'm not saying that means "don't sign Pujols or Fielder." I'm just saying that the Cubs aren't in some sort of identical boat to all the other big market teams who sign big-money free agents.

 

They are in the same boat as almost all of them. The Yankees and Red Sox are the only two perpetual contenders that only add elite talent to elite teams.

[davearm2]

Fortunately the Cubs are one of the few teams in MLB who can take that gamble, reap the benefits of how much elite production he has left and then roll with the punches in the final years of his deal.

We've been over this.

 

Can take a gamble /= should take a gamble.

[Hollandsworths mug]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Albert-pujols-prince-fielder-top-free-agent-market-112711

 

Both factors point to Fielder having more suitors than Pujols.

 

The Cardinals and Marlins appear to be the strongest candidates to sign Pujols, with each team known to have offered a nine-year contract during the last year – St. Louis in spring training, Miami earlier this month.

 

Fielder, meanwhile, has been pursued by a group believed to include the Cubs, Nationals, Rangers and Mariners. Boras declined to say which teams have offered Fielder a contract, but he pointed out that his biggest free-agent hitter last offseason (Jayson Werth) signed the night before the winter meetings began – with a team (Washington) no one expected.

 

"People were still at the airport," Boras said. "The most predictable part of the winter meetings is the lack of predictability

[davearm2]

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.

People are fixated on the next few years, when the Cubs would be better off if they had one of these guys, and sweeping under the rug the several years thereafter, when the Cubs would be better off if they don't have one of these guys.

 

Not sure what's so mind-boggling about thinking the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.

 

Because you have so much money available now and again after next season that, really, the Cubs not being competitive by 2013 at the latest should be viewed as failure.

Having a bunch of money available is not a real solid rationale for spending it foolishly.

[mookie]

Is Fielder looking for an eight year deal?

[Hollandsworths mug]

Is Fielder looking for an eight year deal?

 

With Boras leading the charge, 10 years would not at all surprise me.

[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?

 

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.

 

While I'm the one who wanted Alonzo, I do think you're over-valueing him. If the Marmol + $$$ isn't enough, then go for a trade centered around Garza for Alonzo + Leake + ?. The Reds need an ace badly and having a butcher (Alonzo) in LF certainly isn't going to help the pitching staff.

[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.

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.

 

Then you're operating from an extreme, inflexible position that, thankfully, isn't realistically and, even more thankfully, there's almost zero chance the FO follows. You seem to be operating under the unrealistic idea that big ticket FA signings have to be perfect or not. There's no in-between. If you sign a guy for, say, an expensive 9 years, and get 6 years of elite production out of him and then the last 3 you're way overpaying then that's a mistake for you that needs to be avoided at all costs. That's absurd for a team with the resources the Cubs have. I'm not saying the Cubs should jump on every long-term, big name FA they come across, but you seem to be saying they need to avoid any unless they can all but guarantee themselves they're going to be getting elite production for the duration of the contract barring unforeseen, catastrophic injury. That's just not realistic, and it unnecessarily hampers the Cubs' ability to maximize the FA advantage they have over most other teams.

 

Plus, not shockingly at all, this all comes back to Soriano.

This is wrong, and proves once again that you're hearing what you want to hear, and not what it is I'm saying.

 

I'm all for signing an elite free agent. Several, in fact.

 

But like anything else, there are good risks and there are bad risks. IMO these two guys fall in the bad risk category. It's really not any more complicated than that.

 

I'm hearing you loud and clear; you're all for signing elite FA that aren't typically available. A-Gon surprisingly/stupidly signing the affordable deal he did after being traded to the Red Sox is not typical. The Teixieira deal is not the bargain you seem to inexplicably think it is.

 

Based on the unreasonable standards you've set the vast majority of elite or arguably elite FA signings that will come the Cubs' way would likely fall on the "bad risk" side of things. That's essentially the inherent nature of such big ticket FA signings. Plus, again, you're trying to break things down into an either/or; in this case whether something is a good risk or a bad risk, seemingly with no in-between. "Risk" is a on a very broad scale, and the Cubs fortunately have the resources to gamble on more "bad risk" investments that also give a good chance of a big return than most other teams, and yes, they SHOULD take advantage of that.

[Sammy Sofa]

Fortunately the Cubs are one of the few teams in MLB who can take that gamble, reap the benefits of how much elite production he has left and then roll with the punches in the final years of his deal.

We've been over this.

 

Can take a gamble /= should take a gamble.

 

And the Cubs should fall under the latter, not the former. Chicken Little strikes again.

[Sammy Sofa]

Having a bunch of money available is not a real solid rationale for spending it foolishly.

 

It's a rationale for taking risks with very good chances for high reward other teams can't afford to when you'll still have a ton of money to construct/improve your team outside of that investment.

 

Do you want the Cubs to be a featherweight, constantly bouncing around the ring and able to skillfully dodge being hit, but can only land glancing, largely ineffective blows every once in a while, or do you want them to be the heavyweight, who can take those hits and then land knockout punches with much more regularity?

 

Ugh, I hate analogies.

[davearm2]

I'm hearing you loud and clear; you're all for signing elite FA that aren't typically available. A-Gon surprisingly/stupidly signing the affordable deal he did after being traded to the Red Sox is not typical. The Teixieira deal is not the bargain you seem to inexplicably think it is.

 

I'm not arguing the Teixeira deal is a bargain. You aren't getting bargains at this price point.

 

I'm arguing Teixeira is the type of player that is worth gambling on. I think at the time he signed, he was a much better bet to sustain both his health and his production, and therefore he was less risky than Pujols or Fielder. Same deal with Gonzalez.

 

If a guy like that isn't available right away, then I'd rather wait than jump into a deal that I think is a loser.

[davearm2]

Having a bunch of money available is not a real solid rationale for spending it foolishly.

 

It's a rationale for taking risks with very good chances for high reward other teams can't afford to when you'll still have a ton of money to construct/improve your team outside of that investment.

 

Do you want the Cubs to be a featherweight, constantly bouncing around the ring and able to skillfully dodge being hit, but can only land glancing, largely ineffective blows every once in a while, or do you want them to be the heavyweight, who can take those hits and then land knockout punches with much more regularity?

 

Ugh, I hate analogies.

I want the Cubs to be your proverbial heavyweight, but I want them to be smart about when and where they throw their big punches. This isn't the right spot for the haymaker.

[jersey cubs fan]

If you can't get the deal you want for the guys, fine, that's understandable. But this notion that the Cubs shouldn't even be involved is just flat out stupid.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm hearing you loud and clear; you're all for signing elite FA that aren't typically available. A-Gon surprisingly/stupidly signing the affordable deal he did after being traded to the Red Sox is not typical. The Teixieira deal is not the bargain you seem to inexplicably think it is.

 

I'm not arguing the Teixeira deal is a bargain. You aren't getting bargains at this price point.

 

I'm arguing Teixeira is the type of player that is worth gambling on. I think at the time he signed, he was a much better bet to sustain both his health and his production, and therefore he was less risky than Pujols or Fielder. Same deal with Gonzalez.

 

If a guy like that isn't available right away, then I'd rather wait than jump into a deal that I think is a loser.

 

You can't wait for those type of deals, especially if you're likely on a year away from being a regular contender.

 

dave, seriously, I'm really curious as to who you think fulfills your standards out of the projected FA between now and the 2014 season.

[Sammy Sofa]

Having a bunch of money available is not a real solid rationale for spending it foolishly.

 

It's a rationale for taking risks with very good chances for high reward other teams can't afford to when you'll still have a ton of money to construct/improve your team outside of that investment.

 

Do you want the Cubs to be a featherweight, constantly bouncing around the ring and able to skillfully dodge being hit, but can only land glancing, largely ineffective blows every once in a while, or do you want them to be the heavyweight, who can take those hits and then land knockout punches with much more regularity?

 

Ugh, I hate analogies.

I want the Cubs to be your proverbial heavyweight, but I want them to be smart about when and where they throw their big punches. This isn't the right spot for the haymaker.

 

Signing players like Fielder or Pujols can easily be smart for the Cubs even with bad years at the end of their deals. A player doesn't have to be a sound investment for the duration of their contract for it to be a smart signing.

[davearm2]

If you can't get the deal you want for the guys, fine, that's understandable. But this notion that the Cubs shouldn't even be involved is just flat out stupid.

Obviously there is a price at which I'd be buying on each guy.

 

Those strike prices just are not really very close to what the rumors are.