Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[jersey cubs fan]

Dont take this as me being against signing Fielder/Pujols, because I'm not. However, a lot of people seem to be equating the potential of this offseason making the same kind of difference as the '06-'07 offseason did, because it is a very different situation. Soriano, DeRosa, and Lilly were great additions at the time, but remember, in addition we had the return of Derrek Lee and we already had Aramis, and Jacque Jones was a very solid bat as well. so we were essentially adding 2 potent bats to what was a ready made lineup with existing 3-4 hitters. Even if we did sign Pujols or Fielder and Cespedes, we woultn't be adding them to the core that we had then, they'd be the key guys and we'd need to build around them, so this being said, while I think that we could be dark horses if everyone was healthy and we had some rebounds from key players, I think it would still be at least 2013 before we could get back to where we were then and that's assuming we could add 1 front end starter and 1 mid rotation starter to replace Z and Demp and keep Garza.

 

Yes, they are different situation, but Fielder/Pujols are much better than anything the Cubs added that year. And while you did have core hitters to build around, you also had black holes at SS and CF to worry about. Those Cubs didn't have anybody like Starlin Castro on the squad poised for a breakout. And it's not like that 2007 squad was all that special. They still ended up no better than average at best on offense, being weighted down by a lack of power and patience (they ranked 15th in walks and 11th in HR, and were 8th in OPS). I don't think it will be hard for the Cubs to construct an average lineup, or better, following the addition of a stud 1B.

[jersey cubs fan]

I watched a couple minutes of the hot stove show last night while they talked Pujols/Fielder. The focus was on Seattle probably not being a realistic destination for Fielder and Washington being a legit spender this offseason. But they also talked about the Cubs and for one of the few times this offseason media people talked about how much sense it makes for the Cubs to sign one of these guys. But it was all the analyst types making those statements (plus Peter Gammons actually), while Matt Vasgersian went with a new one, saying "this isn't the Tribune money Cubs, we still have no idea how this new ownership group of the Ricketts family will spend money." The Ricketts family was chosen as the buyers nearly three years ago now. They've been in control for more than 2 years. They have made it clear at every opportunity that they are willing to spend and spend big. Why are people who get paid to talk about this sport so freaking clueless?

[Guest]

Kurkjian (trying my best to paraphrase here)

 

 

- Cubs desperately need a dominant bat

- Would be foolish not to be in on Pujols

- Still thinks no way the Cardinals let him go, but at least in their involvement they could drive up the price on Pujols

- Fielder is a great player in his own right and is one hell of a consolation prize

- Not like either guy is going to come in and they'll suddenly be good but you gotta start somewhere

- Thinks they'll make a serious run at Fielder

- If they don't get him, there's still a lot of money to be spent

 

 

All in all, it doesn't sound like much of it was sourced but at least he has more common sense than our local guys.

Edited November 30, 2011 by David

[Guest]

I watched a couple minutes of the hot stove show last night while they talked Pujols/Fielder. The focus was on Seattle probably not being a realistic destination for Fielder and Washington being a legit spender this offseason. But they also talked about the Cubs and for one of the few times this offseason media people talked about how much sense it makes for the Cubs to sign one of these guys. But it was all the analyst types making those statements (plus Peter Gammons actually), while Matt Vasgersian went with a new one, saying "this isn't the Tribune money Cubs, we still have no idea how this new ownership group of the Ricketts family will spend money." The Ricketts family was chosen as the buyers nearly three years ago now. They've been in control for more than 2 years. They have made it clear at every opportunity that they are willing to spend and spend big. Why are people who get paid to talk about this sport so freaking clueless?

 

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts.

[Hollandsworths mug]

Basically Kurkjian is saying that he feels the Cubs are going to go after either Fielder or Pujols, but that in the end, he sees no way possible that Albert leaves for the "arch rival". He feels Fielder is a better fit here and that the Cubs need a big bat.

[Hollandsworths mug]

Also said he did not know if Mike Maddux was indeed the top choice for the managers job. He said MM is a "weird guy" but in a "good way" and it's possible that he knew the Cubs wanted Sveum and that caused him to back out.

[jersey cubs fan]

Kurkjian (trying my best to paraphrase here)

 

 

- Cubs desperately need a dominant bat

- Would be foolish not to be in on Pujols

- Still thinks no way the Cardinals let him go, but at least in their involvement they could drive up the price on Fielder.

 

I assume he said something about at least they could drive up STL's cost for Pujols.

[Guest]

Kurkjian (trying my best to paraphrase here)

 

 

- Cubs desperately need a dominant bat

- Would be foolish not to be in on Pujols

- Still thinks no way the Cardinals let him go, but at least in their involvement they could drive up the price on Fielder.

 

I assume he said something about at least they could drive up STL's cost for Pujols.

 

Sorry, that's what I meant.

[jersey cubs fan]

I watched a couple minutes of the hot stove show last night while they talked Pujols/Fielder. The focus was on Seattle probably not being a realistic destination for Fielder and Washington being a legit spender this offseason. But they also talked about the Cubs and for one of the few times this offseason media people talked about how much sense it makes for the Cubs to sign one of these guys. But it was all the analyst types making those statements (plus Peter Gammons actually), while Matt Vasgersian went with a new one, saying "this isn't the Tribune money Cubs, we still have no idea how this new ownership group of the Ricketts family will spend money." The Ricketts family was chosen as the buyers nearly three years ago now. They've been in control for more than 2 years. They have made it clear at every opportunity that they are willing to spend and spend big. Why are people who get paid to talk about this sport so freaking clueless?

 

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts.

 

Because the payroll was already $140+ million. Anybody who is paying attention knows the Cubs have a hell of a lot more freed up money today than they have in the first two years of Ricketts ownership. They've already allowed their GM to eat money on Bradley, and then Silva, and appeared very open to the possibility of eating money on Soriano and Zambrano. They've spent big on international/draft, and went big with management. How in the hell does somebody have doubts about whether this ownership group will be willing to spend money?

[bukie]

Kurkjian (trying my best to paraphrase here)

 

 

- Cubs desperately need a dominant bat

- Would be foolish not to be in on Pujols

- Still thinks no way the Cardinals let him go, but at least in their involvement they could drive up the price on Fielder.

 

I assume he said something about at least they could drive up STL's cost for Pujols.

 

Sorry, that's what I meant.

Which would still inadvertently drive the price up on Fielder. I still think it's in the Cubs' best interest, if they really want to land one of the two, to be the first team to sign one of them so they can set the market, rather than follow it.

[Guest]

I watched a couple minutes of the hot stove show last night while they talked Pujols/Fielder. The focus was on Seattle probably not being a realistic destination for Fielder and Washington being a legit spender this offseason. But they also talked about the Cubs and for one of the few times this offseason media people talked about how much sense it makes for the Cubs to sign one of these guys. But it was all the analyst types making those statements (plus Peter Gammons actually), while Matt Vasgersian went with a new one, saying "this isn't the Tribune money Cubs, we still have no idea how this new ownership group of the Ricketts family will spend money." The Ricketts family was chosen as the buyers nearly three years ago now. They've been in control for more than 2 years. They have made it clear at every opportunity that they are willing to spend and spend big. Why are people who get paid to talk about this sport so freaking clueless?

 

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts.

 

And payroll has gone down. Expecting these guys to know exactly how all 30 teams operate isn't all that realistic, IMO.

[Guest]

I watched a couple minutes of the hot stove show last night while they talked Pujols/Fielder. The focus was on Seattle probably not being a realistic destination for Fielder and Washington being a legit spender this offseason. But they also talked about the Cubs and for one of the few times this offseason media people talked about how much sense it makes for the Cubs to sign one of these guys. But it was all the analyst types making those statements (plus Peter Gammons actually), while Matt Vasgersian went with a new one, saying "this isn't the Tribune money Cubs, we still have no idea how this new ownership group of the Ricketts family will spend money." The Ricketts family was chosen as the buyers nearly three years ago now. They've been in control for more than 2 years. They have made it clear at every opportunity that they are willing to spend and spend big. Why are people who get paid to talk about this sport so freaking clueless?

 

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts.

 

Because the payroll was already $140+ million. Anybody who is paying attention knows the Cubs have a hell of a lot more freed up money today than they have in the first two years of Ricketts ownership. They've already allowed their GM to eat money on Bradley, and then Silva, and appeared very open to the possibility of eating money on Soriano and Zambrano. They've spent big on international/draft, and went big with management. How in the hell does somebody have doubts about whether this ownership group will be willing to spend money?

[jersey cubs fan]

I watched a couple minutes of the hot stove show last night while they talked Pujols/Fielder. The focus was on Seattle probably not being a realistic destination for Fielder and Washington being a legit spender this offseason. But they also talked about the Cubs and for one of the few times this offseason media people talked about how much sense it makes for the Cubs to sign one of these guys. But it was all the analyst types making those statements (plus Peter Gammons actually), while Matt Vasgersian went with a new one, saying "this isn't the Tribune money Cubs, we still have no idea how this new ownership group of the Ricketts family will spend money." The Ricketts family was chosen as the buyers nearly three years ago now. They've been in control for more than 2 years. They have made it clear at every opportunity that they are willing to spend and spend big. Why are people who get paid to talk about this sport so freaking clueless?

 

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts.

 

And payroll has gone down. Expecting these guys to know exactly how all 30 teams operate isn't all that realistic, IMO.

 

Why? It's all they do. They are professional baseball followers. The Cubs are among the top 5-6 brands/storylines in baseball. Why can't I expect somebody whose job it is to follow MLB to have an accurate description of how the MLB teams operate? I don't expect him to know their minor league system or anything, but absolutely nothing in their 2+ years of ownership indicates a lack of willingness to spend. The Mets and Dodgers are big market teams whose ownership is a complete mess. The Cubs were sold more than 2 years ago to a financially solvent and very rich family that has been open in their discussion about plans. Yet many people lump the Cubs in with those teams who have ownership turmoil. It's nonsense.

[jersey cubs fan]

I watched a couple minutes of the hot stove show last night while they talked Pujols/Fielder. The focus was on Seattle probably not being a realistic destination for Fielder and Washington being a legit spender this offseason. But they also talked about the Cubs and for one of the few times this offseason media people talked about how much sense it makes for the Cubs to sign one of these guys. But it was all the analyst types making those statements (plus Peter Gammons actually), while Matt Vasgersian went with a new one, saying "this isn't the Tribune money Cubs, we still have no idea how this new ownership group of the Ricketts family will spend money." The Ricketts family was chosen as the buyers nearly three years ago now. They've been in control for more than 2 years. They have made it clear at every opportunity that they are willing to spend and spend big. Why are people who get paid to talk about this sport so freaking clueless?

 

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts.

 

Because the payroll was already $140+ million. Anybody who is paying attention knows the Cubs have a hell of a lot more freed up money today than they have in the first two years of Ricketts ownership. They've already allowed their GM to eat money on Bradley, and then Silva, and appeared very open to the possibility of eating money on Soriano and Zambrano. They've spent big on international/draft, and went big with management. How in the hell does somebody have doubts about whether this ownership group will be willing to spend money?

 

I'm not sure how bolding that defends a professional baseball media member to be clueless about the Cubs.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Dont take this as me being against signing Fielder/Pujols, because I'm not. However, a lot of people seem to be equating the potential of this offseason making the same kind of difference as the '06-'07 offseason did, because it is a very different situation. Soriano, DeRosa, and Lilly were great additions at the time, but remember, in addition we had the return of Derrek Lee and we already had Aramis, and Jacque Jones was a very solid bat as well. so we were essentially adding 2 potent bats to what was a ready made lineup with existing 3-4 hitters. Even if we did sign Pujols or Fielder and Cespedes, we woultn't be adding them to the core that we had then, they'd be the key guys and we'd need to build around them, so this being said, while I think that we could be dark horses if everyone was healthy and we had some rebounds from key players, I think it would still be at least 2013 before we could get back to where we were then and that's assuming we could add 1 front end starter and 1 mid rotation starter to replace Z and Demp and keep Garza.

 

Yes, they are different situation, but Fielder/Pujols are much better than anything the Cubs added that year. And while you did have core hitters to build around, you also had black holes at SS and CF to worry about. Those Cubs didn't have anybody like Starlin Castro on the squad poised for a breakout. And it's not like that 2007 squad was all that special. They still ended up no better than average at best on offense, being weighted down by a lack of power and patience (they ranked 15th in walks and 11th in HR, and were 8th in OPS). I don't think it will be hard for the Cubs to construct an average lineup, or better, following the addition of a stud 1B.

 

The '07 team wasn't all that special but with or without Fielder or Pujols, there's nothing we have right now that would be as good as what we had then. I believe it was something like Soriano, DeRosa, Lee, Ram, Jones as the 1-5. With what we have now built around F/P they probably wouldnt be pitched too all that often. Castro is likely the 2 hitter and even if we also got Cespedes there's no reason to believe he can step in and immediately be a heart of the lineup bat.

[Guest]

I watched a couple minutes of the hot stove show last night while they talked Pujols/Fielder. The focus was on Seattle probably not being a realistic destination for Fielder and Washington being a legit spender this offseason. But they also talked about the Cubs and for one of the few times this offseason media people talked about how much sense it makes for the Cubs to sign one of these guys. But it was all the analyst types making those statements (plus Peter Gammons actually), while Matt Vasgersian went with a new one, saying "this isn't the Tribune money Cubs, we still have no idea how this new ownership group of the Ricketts family will spend money." The Ricketts family was chosen as the buyers nearly three years ago now. They've been in control for more than 2 years. They have made it clear at every opportunity that they are willing to spend and spend big. Why are people who get paid to talk about this sport so freaking clueless?

 

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts.

 

Because the payroll was already $140+ million. Anybody who is paying attention knows the Cubs have a hell of a lot more freed up money today than they have in the first two years of Ricketts ownership. They've already allowed their GM to eat money on Bradley, and then Silva, and appeared very open to the possibility of eating money on Soriano and Zambrano. They've spent big on international/draft, and went big with management. How in the hell does somebody have doubts about whether this ownership group will be willing to spend money?

 

I'm not sure how bolding that defends a professional baseball media member to be clueless about the Cubs.

 

I wasn't defending anybody.

[Guest]

I watched a couple minutes of the hot stove show last night while they talked Pujols/Fielder. The focus was on Seattle probably not being a realistic destination for Fielder and Washington being a legit spender this offseason. But they also talked about the Cubs and for one of the few times this offseason media people talked about how much sense it makes for the Cubs to sign one of these guys. But it was all the analyst types making those statements (plus Peter Gammons actually), while Matt Vasgersian went with a new one, saying "this isn't the Tribune money Cubs, we still have no idea how this new ownership group of the Ricketts family will spend money." The Ricketts family was chosen as the buyers nearly three years ago now. They've been in control for more than 2 years. They have made it clear at every opportunity that they are willing to spend and spend big. Why are people who get paid to talk about this sport so freaking clueless?

 

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts.

 

And payroll has gone down. Expecting these guys to know exactly how all 30 teams operate isn't all that realistic, IMO.

 

Why? It's all they do. They are professional baseball followers. The Cubs are among the top 5-6 brands/storylines in baseball. Why can't I expect somebody whose job it is to follow MLB to have an accurate description of how the MLB teams operate? I don't expect him to know their minor league system or anything, but absolutely nothing in their 2+ years of ownership indicates a lack of willingness to spend. The Mets and Dodgers are big market teams whose ownership is a complete mess. The Cubs were sold more than 2 years ago to a financially solvent and very rich family that has been open in their discussion about plans. Yet many people lump the Cubs in with those teams who have ownership turmoil. It's nonsense.

 

For the very reasons David and I just explained. You have a fairly new owner who has yet to sign anyone of any significance (including a partitioned contract for a late signing 1b, which gives the impression you couldn't afford the entire contract for the year it was signed) and payroll is going down. Someone outside of the organization might even think that payroll might have gone down even more if there weren't so many locked in no trade clause contracts on the roster. Add in that the sound of crickets is about all we have heard this offseason in regards to 2 players that are ideal fits to the Cubs offseason needs, and all that they can discern is that the owner isn't going to commit big money. Add in that they just brought in baseball minds that are creative in finding talent on the cheap and I could reasonably see how Vasgersian would think that the new ownership is more about developing from within and spending less.

[Guest]

What's worse is that our local guys are that stupid.

[davell]

I would like to think that any analyst on ESPN or wherever else, would be able to look at what Ricketts inherited and understand completely as to WHY there have been no major moves made. And if not, I would certainly like to hope that the hiring of Theo would assure these guys that Ricketts is willing to spend. Because Theo didn't leave Boston to take over a middle of the road payroll team that happens to be in a HUGE market.

[Guest]

What's worse is that our local guys are that stupid.

 

That I can agree with.

[Guest]

I would like to think that any analyst on ESPN or wherever else, would be able to look at what Ricketts inherited and understand completely as to WHY there have been no major moves made. And if not, I would certainly like to hope that the hiring of Theo would assure these guys that Ricketts is willing to spend. Because Theo didn't leave Boston to take over a middle of the road payroll team that happens to be in a HUGE market.

 

I certainly think it signifies that Ricketts is willing to spend, but I had my doubts prior to the signing of Theo and co. Ricketts paid an astronomical amount of money to purchase the team, and he inherited a very high payroll (and certainly way more than the production dictates). However, we still don't really know what his ideal operating budget will be.

[jersey cubs fan]

For the very reasons David and I just explained. You have a fairly new owner who has yet to sign anyone of any significance (including a partitioned contract for a late signing 1b, which gives the impression you couldn't afford the entire contract for the year it was signed) and payroll is going down. Someone outside of the organization might even think that payroll might have gone down even more if there weren't so many locked in no trade clause contracts on the roster. Add in that the sound of crickets is about all we have heard this offseason in regards to 2 players that are ideal fits to the Cubs offseason needs, and all that they can discern is that the owner isn't going to commit big money. Add in that they just brought in baseball minds that are creative in finding talent on the cheap and I could reasonably see how Vasgersian would think that the new ownership is more about developing from within and spending less.

 

How in the world does Theo have a reputation as a guy who gets players on the cheap?

 

And the Ricketts are not new. They've spent $140m on payroll in back to back years. It's very clear they have a lot of money to spend on payroll and will spend a lot of money on payroll.

[jersey cubs fan]

I would like to think that any analyst on ESPN or wherever else, would be able to look at what Ricketts inherited and understand completely as to WHY there have been no major moves made. And if not, I would certainly like to hope that the hiring of Theo would assure these guys that Ricketts is willing to spend. Because Theo didn't leave Boston to take over a middle of the road payroll team that happens to be in a HUGE market.

 

I certainly think it signifies that Ricketts is willing to spend, but I had my doubts prior to the signing of Theo and co. Ricketts paid an astronomical amount of money to purchase the team, and he inherited a very high payroll (and certainly way more than the production dictates). However, we still don't really know what his ideal operating budget will be.

 

Ricketts paid a hell of a lot less for the team than it was reportedly going to cost. He's not embroiled in the Madoff scandal or going through a divorce that will force the sale of the team. Why would anybody think he's suddenly going to go cheap?

[jersey cubs fan]

What's worse is that our local guys are that stupid.

 

It's worse, but it doesn't excuse nonsensical statements about "this not being the Tribune money Cubs". Like they were bastions of lavish spending.

[javy knows my name]

Jersey. Take a step back and ask yourself who you are arguing with right now.