Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Guest]

Interesting. I think the first conclusion isn't supported by the data.

 

I think a more correct conclusion is that if the Cubs want to win a World Series in the near future, a player like Pujols will be a key component for the next 4-5 years at a price that is more or less correctly valued for his WAR. After that, his contract will be somewhat of an albatross -- paying for past production rather than future performance.

 

Furthermore, looking outside the data, if the Cubs can develop high WAR players in the next 4-5 years, they can easily offset the Pujols contract with cheap production. Essentially, I think the Cubs can jumpstart their team with the addition of Pujols, making them very competitive until the changes implemented by Theo, et al. can take root in the organization and the talent pipeline flows.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

This is probably a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty thing, but my perspective is, by the time the Cubs can develop those high WAR players, and the talent pipeline begins to flow, the thing that could kill all the momentum would be to be hamstrung by an enormous albatross contract.

 

When they reach that point, they need to be fully poised to add the $20M+/year player (or two) that can push them over the top. I'd hate to have that money already spent on an aging, once-great but now mediocre Pujols.

I find that POV a bit puzzling. Can you lay out what you think the team budget would look like three years from now with Albert and how that would hamstring the cubs from signing a $20M+/year (or two) players?

[davearm2]

Interesting. I think the first conclusion isn't supported by the data.

 

I think a more correct conclusion is that if the Cubs want to win a World Series in the near future, a player like Pujols will be a key component for the next 4-5 years at a price that is more or less correctly valued for his WAR. After that, his contract will be somewhat of an albatross -- paying for past production rather than future performance.

 

Furthermore, looking outside the data, if the Cubs can develop high WAR players in the next 4-5 years, they can easily offset the Pujols contract with cheap production. Essentially, I think the Cubs can jumpstart their team with the addition of Pujols, making them very competitive until the changes implemented by Theo, et al. can take root in the organization and the talent pipeline flows.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

This is probably a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty thing, but my perspective is, by the time the Cubs can develop those high WAR players, and the talent pipeline begins to flow, the thing that could kill all the momentum would be to be hamstrung by an enormous albatross contract.

 

When they reach that point, they need to be fully poised to add the $20M+/year player (or two) that can push them over the top. I'd hate to have that money already spent on an aging, once-great but now mediocre Pujols.

I find that POV a bit puzzling. Can you lay out what you think the team budget would look like three years from now with Albert and how that would hamstring the cubs from signing a $20M+/year (or two) players?

It doesn't really matter what the Cubs' payroll will be. All that matters is that the money paid to Pujols would buy a heck of a lot. It's the opportunity cost that is important.

 

Even though as a percentage of the total payroll it wouldn't impact the Cubs as much as many other teams, at the margin, $20M is still a ton of money to have available (or not). Any team can make themselves substantially better by having that amount of cash available to spend. Whoever signs Pujols will be foregoing that opportunity.

[Tracer Bullet]

OH GOD SOMEONE I DON'T LIKE HAS WRITTEN AN ARTICLE AND I'M GOING TO JUDGE IT BEFORE I EVEN READ IT!!!

 

little less drama please

[MSG T]

I don't disagree in theory, Dave. But, one Pujols/Fielder-like contract won't keep the Cubs from being able to add another Pujols/Fielder-like contract. They have a much worse contract currently, in terms of performance/value, in Soriano and that won't keep the Cubs from adding Pujols/Fielder.

 

Now, if they added 3-4 of those contracts in the next year and they all got old, bad, expensive and immoveable all at once, that could prevent signing another big name. I'm not worried about that 5-6 years down the road, though. Theo and Jed have plenty on time to consider those things and work solutions to them. There is very little chance of that happening.

[davearm2]

I don't disagree in theory, Dave. But, one Pujols/Fielder-like contract won't keep the Cubs from being able to add another Pujols/Fielder-like contract. They have a much worse contract currently, in terms of performance/value, in Soriano and that won't keep the Cubs from adding Pujols/Fielder.

 

Now, if they added 3-4 of those contracts in the next year and they all got old, bad, expensive and immoveable all at once, that could prevent signing another big name. I'm not worried about that 5-6 years down the road, though. Theo and Jed have plenty on time to consider those things and work solutions to them. There is very little chance of that happening.

Soriano isn't keeping the Cubs from adding Pujols/Fielder. He's keeping the Cubs from adding Pujols/Fielder and CJ Wilson. Or Pujols/Fielder and Wilson, and keeping Ramirez.

 

The money going to Soriano represents an opportunity cost, and at $18M, it's a big opportunity.

[dew1679666265]

It doesn't really matter what the Cubs' payroll will be. All that matters is that the money paid to Pujols would buy a heck of a lot. It's the opportunity cost that is important.

 

Even though as a percentage of the total payroll it wouldn't impact the Cubs as much as many other teams, at the margin, $20M is still a ton of money to have available (or not). Any team can make themselves substantially better by having that amount of cash available to spend. Whoever signs Pujols will be foregoing that opportunity.

 

There's a very high probability that using this logic is setting up another Soriano signing, to be honest. If you keep passing on elite players because the time isn't perfect, you force yourself into a corner where when the timing is perfect you absolutely must sign the best FA available that offseason. If it works out that this FA is a truly elite player, then great. But there's also a very real chance that this FA is Alfonso Soriano, a nice player who you have to severely overpay.

 

If you pass on this non-elite FA and don't make that big signing, are you going to be able to put the team over the top some other way? Basically, there's a very real chance that you'll be in a position where you either have to overpay considerably for a non-elite talent or you take the chance that you gave up on 2-3 seasons for nothing because that major piece that could put you over the top isn't available.

 

You can't look at this from a purely economic standpoint because there are too many variables at play. In the business world, it's pretty much never a good idea to be inefficient because profit and the bottom line is all that matters. In sports, a little inefficiency is ok if it helps you win.

[davell]

Dave, given how much money the Cubs have to spend between now and next offseason, it would appear to me that with a group of moves made solely to add impact players, the Cubs would have an excellent 3 or 4 year window, where they're an elite team with an excellent shot at winning it all. I understand Pujols would be signed for another 4 years or so past then, but doesn't getting his elite production during a period where the team is also elite make him worth more than you're equating, for that factor alone. To me, if we could steal one title during his 4 or 5 year window, the rest of his contract becomes worth it, by default. Keep in mind, I'm actually more for signing Prince than Pujols, by the way. Just wonder when you're thinking we'll have a true"window" and if that makes paying up for a difference maker more OK in your eyes.

[MSG T]

It sounds like the value of the contract is what might keep the Cubs from signing Wilson, not the actual cost. I'd be willing to bet that if CJ got what might be considered a reasonable contract, say 5/$90, they'd be willing to go for it, but not at 6-7 years and more money per year. Basically that he wouldn't be worth adding at a longer, more expensive contract. They would probably be willing to do that, everything else being equal, if he were three years younger.

 

It's not just the overall cost of the contract they'll consider, but the value. Even with the posting fee, it appears at the moment that they consider Darvish a better value. Personally, I'd be happy either way, but you can't say that Soriano is keeping them from making those moves, when it looks like they are being given the option to do what it takes to improve both the team and the farm.

 

Now, saying that CJ is or isn't worth that contract is a perfectly valid argument. But it will also depend on other moves the Cubs make that we haven't seen happen yet to tell if he's worth it to the Cubs. It will also have to be looked at 2-3-4 years in the future. Maybe they sign Darvish, trade Soto for a good young pitcher, sign the Cubans and Fielder and win the WS in 2013. Then you could say the made the right move. Maybe they sign Darvish and he falls on his face and CJ wins two Cy Youngs in the next 4 years, that would tell us he might have been worth it.

 

That's what Theo and Jed are getting paid for. To make those decisions and take those risks. And why every one of us reserves the right to either say "I told you so" or complain about the move in two years.

[davearm2]

Dave, given how much money the Cubs have to spend between now and next offseason, it would appear to me that with a group of moves made solely to add impact players, the Cubs would have an excellent 3 or 4 year window, where they're an elite team with an excellent shot at winning it all. I understand Pujols would be signed for another 4 years or so past then, but doesn't getting his elite production during a period where the team is also elite make him worth more than you're equating, for that factor alone. To me, if we could steal one title during his 4 or 5 year window, the rest of his contract becomes worth it, by default. Keep in mind, I'm actually more for signing Prince than Pujols, by the way. Just wonder when you're thinking we'll have a true"window" and if that makes paying up for a difference maker more OK in your eyes.

This team just went 72-90 or whatever it ended up being. I don't agree that they're anywhere close to being an elite team.

 

I might feel differently if they had a dynamic group of 4 or 5 young guys just waiting to break out, but realistically, that's just not the case. There's Castro, a bunch of guys that are what they are (limited), and then the next wave that haven't even reached the bigleagues yet and thus are complete unknowns.

 

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing a rapid turnaround with this group, as constructed now. Obviously, I hope Theo and co. can get things fixed quickly. They clearly have the track record, and are saying all the right things, but IMO it's a big job they've got ahead of them. It will be exciting to see the course they chart.

[Guest]

Dave, given how much money the Cubs have to spend between now and next offseason, it would appear to me that with a group of moves made solely to add impact players, the Cubs would have an excellent 3 or 4 year window, where they're an elite team with an excellent shot at winning it all. I understand Pujols would be signed for another 4 years or so past then, but doesn't getting his elite production during a period where the team is also elite make him worth more than you're equating, for that factor alone. To me, if we could steal one title during his 4 or 5 year window, the rest of his contract becomes worth it, by default. Keep in mind, I'm actually more for signing Prince than Pujols, by the way. Just wonder when you're thinking we'll have a true"window" and if that makes paying up for a difference maker more OK in your eyes.

This team just went 72-90 or whatever it ended up being. I don't agree that they're anywhere close to being an elite team.

 

I might feel differently if they had a dynamic group of 4 or 5 young guys just waiting to break out, but realistically, that's just not the case. There's Castro, a bunch of guys that are what they are (limited), and then the next wave that haven't even reached the bigleagues yet and thus are complete unknowns.

 

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing a rapid turnaround with this group, as constructed now. Obviously, I hope Theo and co. can get things fixed quickly. They clearly have the track record, and are saying all the right things, but IMO it's a big job they've got ahead of them. It will be exciting to see the course they chart.

Dave,

 

How can you say the time isn't right now because you don't want to tie up funds in Pujols, but still maintain that they'll be ready in 1-2 years (or even 2-3)? Given the state of the farm, it will be much longer than that if we don't make use of our big-market muscle by signing some elite players in the short term.

 

I just don't see your roadmap for how to do this being ready anytime before 2017 or so.

 

I'd also argue that it's not Soriano's contract that is keeping us from Pujols + Wilson. It is Soriano + Dempster + Zambrano. Two of those come off the books after this coming season.

 

And even with all three mediocre to bad contracts on the books, we can afford both Pujols and Wilson and fit in the budget for 2012. Things just aren't as dire as you seem to paint.

[davearm2]

Dave, given how much money the Cubs have to spend between now and next offseason, it would appear to me that with a group of moves made solely to add impact players, the Cubs would have an excellent 3 or 4 year window, where they're an elite team with an excellent shot at winning it all. I understand Pujols would be signed for another 4 years or so past then, but doesn't getting his elite production during a period where the team is also elite make him worth more than you're equating, for that factor alone. To me, if we could steal one title during his 4 or 5 year window, the rest of his contract becomes worth it, by default. Keep in mind, I'm actually more for signing Prince than Pujols, by the way. Just wonder when you're thinking we'll have a true"window" and if that makes paying up for a difference maker more OK in your eyes.

This team just went 72-90 or whatever it ended up being. I don't agree that they're anywhere close to being an elite team.

 

I might feel differently if they had a dynamic group of 4 or 5 young guys just waiting to break out, but realistically, that's just not the case. There's Castro, a bunch of guys that are what they are (limited), and then the next wave that haven't even reached the bigleagues yet and thus are complete unknowns.

 

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing a rapid turnaround with this group, as constructed now. Obviously, I hope Theo and co. can get things fixed quickly. They clearly have the track record, and are saying all the right things, but IMO it's a big job they've got ahead of them. It will be exciting to see the course they chart.

Dave,

 

How can you say the time isn't right now because you don't want to tie up funds in Pujols, but still maintain that they'll be ready in 1-2 years (or even 2-3)? Given the state of the farm, it will be much longer than that if we don't make use of our big-market muscle by signing some elite players in the short term.

 

I just don't see your roadmap for how to do this being ready anytime before 2017 or so.

 

I'd also argue that it's not Soriano's contract that is keeping us from Pujols + Wilson. It is Soriano + Dempster + Zambrano. Two of those come off the books after this coming season.

 

And even with all three mediocre to bad contracts on the books, we can afford both Pujols and Wilson and fit in the budget for 2012. Things just aren't as dire as you seem to paint.

I guess I don't have a roadmap per se. I just don't see signing a big-money free agent with a limited window before a decline phase sets in as being the logical first step in the process. I think the logical first step is to bulk up the young core first, so that you have the talent in place such that an impact player can put the team over the top. Absent that foundation, the impact player's limited remaining productive years are too likely to be wasted improving a bad team to average.

 

And frankly, that rebuilding process doesn't necessarily have to take a long time. There's already been talk about guys like Darvish and Cespedes. In less than a year, the Cubs added two longterm cornerstones in Ramirez and Lee in shrewd trades. Who knows, mayber Hank Conger and Chase Headley will be the new Lee and Ramirez. Get those two, and one of the international guys, and perhaps we can start having that "missing piece" conversation.

 

So I'm not really putting a timetable on all of this, I just think there's a smarter place to start than with Pujols/Fielder.

[Guest]

Having Pujols in place does nothing to prevent the Cubs from pursuing Darvish/Cespedes/Soler/Conger/etc.

[davell]

Allright, but with the amount of money we've got coming off the books between now and the 2013 season, we can add 2 bigtime bats and 2 front of the rotation types. Add that grouping with Castro, Garza, Soto and probably Brett Jackson and Cashner and you've got an excellent core group. Not to mention, Theo will almost assuredly make a couple of trades as well that net us some very solid younger guys that are contributors at that time as well. Seems like a lot of work to do obviously, but we have the ability and the means to do it. And what's on the market now and next offseason almost makes a Fielder or even Pujols a "must get" if you ask me. Is this too much for you to think can happen over that time frame? Because monetarily, it can certainly work.

[WrigleyField 22]

When the Red Sox won their first title they hadn't built up their young core yet. They won with a group of pretty established players that were expensive or about to get expensive. By the time they won their second championship they had built up their young core through the draft and development process while still having some of those more expensive players from the first group. One doesn't have to come before the other.

 

All you can do is be prepared at all times to add talent to the roster. If you are prepared to do so, by any means, you take advantage of the opportunity and don't worry about some specific timeline which is less important that acquiring talent. That doesn't mean you throw out all vision, but there are no absolutes and acquiring an elite talent through FA is not something to pass up because of timing.

[Guest]

Dave did a similar analysis on Fielder.

 

Personally, I still think it's flawed to try to predict injuries based on the injury history of a few other players. Predicting performance dropoff due to age from a set of comps is tough enough - I think that injury history just isn't as transferable as aging profiles.

 

But it's certainly an interesting analysis, nonetheless. And not a very happy one, to say the least.

[davearm2]

Dave did a similar analysis on Fielder.

 

Personally, I still think it's flawed to try to predict injuries based on the injury history of a few other players. Predicting performance dropoff due to age from a set of comps is tough enough - I think that injury history just isn't as transferable as aging profiles.

 

But it's certainly an interesting analysis, nonetheless. And not a very happy one, to say the least.

The sensitivity cases that reduce the sample based on career longevity are specifically aimed at this issue.

 

Well, they are to the extent that they screen out career-ending injuries anyway.

[Guest]

Dave did a similar analysis on Fielder.

 

Personally, I still think it's flawed to try to predict injuries based on the injury history of a few other players. Predicting performance dropoff due to age from a set of comps is tough enough - I think that injury history just isn't as transferable as aging profiles.

 

But it's certainly an interesting analysis, nonetheless. And not a very happy one, to say the least.

The sensitivity cases that reduce the sample based on career longevity are specifically aimed at this issue.

 

Well, they are to the extent that they screen out career-ending injuries anyway.

It is one part of why I believe WAR is the incorrect measure to use for the analysis, though. A rate measure better isolates the impact of performance from the impact of injury.

 

The second reason to use an offensive measure is because you are comparing players of different positions with different positional value. How a CF declines and has his WAR impacted as a result really doesn't matter when projecting the career path of a 1B.

[Guest]

LoMoMarlins

Breaking News: Talked to my boy Pujols, he said he wont be playing with the Birds anymore...

[Guest]

LoMoMarlins Logan Morrison

Should've been more clear, my buddy Renee Pujols' landlord is making him get rid of his beloved pet cockatoos...

[Butterscup1679666578]

Cards fans were freaking out on Twitter.

 

Logan Morrison: Today's greatest troll.

[Clem Fandango]

Logan Morrison kicks ass

[Vinestal]

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.

[XZero771679666304]

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.

 

Perhaps the closest thing to a "perfect" long term solution would have been AGon, but that ship has sailed. Obviously neither Pujols or Fielder are optimal, but the Cubs should absolutely pursue one or both of them.

[jersey cubs fan]

If you wait for perfection you will never sign anybody. Passing because they aren't perfect is foolish.

[dew1679666265]

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"