Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[A New Era]

Dave, while I agree completely that having an elite talent at 1B is NOT a necessity, having elitee bats period, is. And if you look at what's out there this offseason and next, you build whichever way makes the most sense. And we have a need at 1B and that's where the elite talent is. Adding another elite bat next season is not going to be easy through FA as there just aren't many out there. We have the ability to add an elite pitcher in both classes as well. So, if you add 2 bigtime bats and 2 bigtime pitchers to this team, aren't they contenders? Because we can probably afford 4 guys at a combined 70 mill or so heading into the 2013 season. I think doing it this way takes advantage of still having Castro well below cost value at that point. Waiting until 3 or 4 seasons to start spending and you're paying him much closer to market value by then. With development from Brett Jackson, we may have another very cheap solid regular as well. By your way of thinking, it seems like you want to wait until Baez, Vogelbach, Maples, or whoever else is in the same position Castro and maybe. Jackson are right now. Positions don't matter, I'll agree, but you take what you can get and as far as I'm concerned, I think we're lucky we have a need where the impact guys from this FA class play.

I'm not wanting to wait for guys like Baez Vogelbach etc.

 

What I'd like to see is a few big trades for guys that are on the right side of 30, but about to get too expensive for their current team (or available for some other reason, like the Logan Morrison, Colby Rasmus situations). I mentioned someplace earlier, the Cubs added Ramirez and DLee in two trades within about 6 or 8 months of each other. Let's get a few of our impact guys that way.

 

Or sign someone like Fielder and not give up anyone.

 

I'm not Dave so I won't speak for him. But asking to name specific guys is kind of unfair since he's not the one that has to make these moves. I would be ok with Fielder depending on the years. I think though the idea guy would be someone who is 28'ish and doesn't have any major question marks. Pojuls major question marks are his age and enormous "overpaying" contract. Fielder's question mark is his weight. If a guy somewhat LIKE Tex or Gonzo comes around, I would be more comfortable going after that guy, because of the fact they have less questions marks as guys like Fielder or Pojuls.

 

I do agree that the #1 thing they should be trying to do now is talk to teams who have low payrolls and inquire about some of the guys who are close to FA who they might not beable to afford. Get a couple guys like that added to Castro and Garza and start to build around them.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not Dave so I won't speak for him. But asking to name specific guys is kind of unfair since he's not the one that has to make these moves.

 

Wait, what? If that's "unfair" then it's "unfair" for him or any of us to talk about any hypothetical FA signing.

[buckeye27]

Albert is still, and will be a beast for years to come. His "off" year was still pretty productive, and his problems early on stemmed from him chasing bad pitches, getting behind in the count and then reaching for "junk". He'd make contact with a bad pitch, but obviously couldnt get good wood on it, and the result were groundouts or double plays.

 

Following him for 11 years, I've seen him go into this, just not as long as he did this year. Obviously, he turned it around and still had a productive season, including taking us to the WS and winning it.

 

Wherever he lands, people will not be disappointed. He is truely a once in a lifetime player, but you dont need me to tell you that.

[A New Era]

I'm not Dave so I won't speak for him. But asking to name specific guys is kind of unfair since he's not the one that has to make these moves.

 

Wait, what? If that's "unfair" then it's "unfair" for him or any of us to talk about any hypothetical FA signing.

 

You're asking him to look up possible FA's over the next 4 or 5 years and list specifically guys who he wants to target, while all you have to say is "Let's add fielder or Pojuls". You are asking him to do a bunch of research just to disagree with you when you do not. Yes it's unfair. Why don't you research a list of 5 years of free agents then tell HIM why Fielder is better than all of the names you come up with?

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh, and Teixeira: worth what the Yankees are paying him each season for the next five seasons only twice in his career. But yeah, HE'D be a slam dunk!

[A New Era]

Oh, and Teixeira: worth what the Yankees are paying him each season for the next five seasons only twice in his career. But yeah, HE'D be a slam dunk!

 

So you don't mind overpaying Fielder so you can be sarcastic about him a few years from now too? My main fear of Feilder is that he could completely fall off due to his weight. I'm not completly against him either, I just has some major fears of his weight.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not Dave so I won't speak for him. But asking to name specific guys is kind of unfair since he's not the one that has to make these moves.

 

Wait, what? If that's "unfair" then it's "unfair" for him or any of us to talk about any hypothetical FA signing.

 

You're asking him to look up possible FA's over the next 4 or 5 years and list specifically guys who he wants to target, while all you have to say is "Let's add fielder or Pojuls". You are asking him to do a bunch of research just to disagree with you when you do not. Yes it's unfair. Why don't you research a list of 5 years of free agents then tell HIM why Fielder is better than all of the names you come up with?

 

Because I'm not necessarily arguing the bold part. Because I'm not presenting anywhere near the same type of narrow parameters towards the Cubs and FA going forward as he is. I want the Cubs to spend money and have brought up numerous players I want or wanted the Cubs to spend money on in the coming years and I disagree wholeheartedly with his Chicken Little mentality towards free agent spending for a team with the resources of the Cubs. He's the one repeatedly naysaying the idea of spending so I want him to clarify just who exactly he thinks a big money team like the Cubs should be spending their money on in the next 3 years as opposed to someone like Fielder or Pujols. He doesn't have to do this, but I know I, and others probably are as well, curious as to who he'd pick since he's offered little more than "I'd have no problem signing someone like Tex or A-Gon to the deals they got." OK, great. Who is on the horizon that also gets the lofty davearm2 seal of approval when it comes to big ticket FA spending?

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh, and Teixeira: worth what the Yankees are paying him each season for the next five seasons only twice in his career. But yeah, HE'D be a slam dunk!

 

So you don't mind overpaying Fielder so you can be sarcastic about him a few years from now too? My main fear of Feilder is that he could completely fall off due to his weight. I'm not completly against him either, I just has some major fears of his weight.

 

I'm not saying Teixiera has a bad deal. I'm using him as an example of how you typically have to overpay for marquee FA signings. The Red Sox got a hell of a deal for A-Gon, and the cold heard reality is that players that good usually don't lock themselves into deals that favorable for a team that didn't bring them up. He's an outlier, and the Red Sox lucked out.

[A New Era]

I'm not Dave so I won't speak for him. But asking to name specific guys is kind of unfair since he's not the one that has to make these moves.

 

Wait, what? If that's "unfair" then it's "unfair" for him or any of us to talk about any hypothetical FA signing.

 

You're asking him to look up possible FA's over the next 4 or 5 years and list specifically guys who he wants to target, while all you have to say is "Let's add fielder or Pojuls". You are asking him to do a bunch of research just to disagree with you when you do not. Yes it's unfair. Why don't you research a list of 5 years of free agents then tell HIM why Fielder is better than all of the names you come up with?

 

Because I'm not necessarily arguing the bold part. Because I'm not presenting anywhere near the same type of narrow parameters towards the Cubs and FA going forward as he is. I want the Cubs to spend money and have brought up numerous players I want or wanted the Cubs to spend money on in the coming years and I disagree wholeheartedly with his Chicken Little mentality towards free agent spending for a team with the resources of the Cubs. He's the one repeatedly naysaying the idea of spending so I want him to clarify just who exactly he thinks a big money team like the Cubs should be spending their money on in the next 3 years as opposed to someone like Fielder or Pujols. He doesn't have to do this, but I know I, and others probably are as well, curious as to who he'd pick since he's offered little more than "I'd have no problem signing someone like Tex or A-Gon to the deals they got." OK, great. Who is on the horizon that also gets the lofty davearm2 seal of approval when it comes to big ticket FA spending?

 

Oh ok. I understand. My ideal guy would be someone who you are not overpaying immensely for. I realize you have to overpay in free agency. I just have a feeling that the 2nd half of Albert's contract will be overpaying to such a large extent that only the Yankee's could absorb it.

 

My answer as to "who". Would simply be "Not Pojuls". :)

[davell]

Levine thinks our payroll will be around 130 mill for next season. Personally, I think it could grow closer to 140 because of the new CBA. But, I'll use 130 for this exercise. We have tons of flexibility. We can trade Marmol and save 7 mill and probably replace him with someone already on the team. We can trade Byrd and save another 6.5. Hell, we may wind up trading Z, in which case we probably save between 5 and 8 mill. This doesn't even count moving Garza, Soto, or Marshall, who could all net solid to excellent returns including guys who'd help the major league roster THIS year. But, let's just figure we trade Byrd and Marmol. That would give us 45 mill to play with and that's using Levine's possible low figure. You can sign Prince, Cespedes, CJ, and add a low priced SP as well by trading prospects and keep it inside that range. I'm using Fielder's 1st year at 20, Cespedes at 5, CJ's at 15, and a low cost frontline pitcher(figure an Oakland guy) for 5 as well. A lineup of Jackson/Castro/Fielder/Cespedes/Soriano/Soto/LeMahieu/Barney is solid and a staff of Garza/Wilson/Oakland guy/Dempster/Zambrano is damn good. Team could win the division next year if Jackson hits enough and Cespedes is solid. If not? You've got Demp and Z coming off the books after the season, along with a few smaller contracts as well and you'll have another 35 mill or so to spend on upgrades, not even counting on a guy like Cashner, McNutt, Sczcur, Lake, Vitters, or whoever else making it all the more easier to fill another spot or two by then.

[A New Era]

Oh, and Teixeira: worth what the Yankees are paying him each season for the next five seasons only twice in his career. But yeah, HE'D be a slam dunk!

 

So you don't mind overpaying Fielder so you can be sarcastic about him a few years from now too? My main fear of Feilder is that he could completely fall off due to his weight. I'm not completly against him either, I just has some major fears of his weight.

 

I'm not saying Teixiera has a bad deal. I'm using him as an example of how you typically have to overpay for marquee FA signings. The Red Sox got a hell of a deal for A-Gon, and the cold heard reality is that players that good usually don't lock themselves into deals that favorable for a team that didn't bring them up. He's an outlier, and the Red Sox lucked out.

 

If we have to overpay I'd chose Fielder. I just wish someone was available that wasn't a) way too old for an 8+ year contract or B) has weight issues and isn't a + on defense. It's too bad you couldn't combine Fielders age and bat, with Pojuls body and D. :) I would overpay even more for the right "makeup".

[Sammy Sofa]

I'd prefer Fielder, too. I really don't have a problem with the 8 years because he hasn't had an injury history like guys tend to start showing already by the point he's reached in his career. This is a guy who has played at least 157 games for 6 straight seasons, and plenty of big guys start having issues once they've logged that much time. I think he's got a good shot of being a beast production-wise for 5-6 years of an 8-year deal.

[Guest]

What I'd like to see is a few big trades for guys that are on the right side of 30, but about to get too expensive for their current team (or available for some other reason, like the Logan Morrison, Colby Rasmus situations). I mentioned someplace earlier, the Cubs added Ramirez and DLee in two trades within about 6 or 8 months of each other. Let's get a few of our impact guys that way.

 

OR WE COULD DO THIS AND SIGN IMPACT FREE AGENTS LIKE EVERY OTHER SUCCESSFUL BIG MARKET FRANCHISE

[A New Era]

What I'd like to see is a few big trades for guys that are on the right side of 30, but about to get too expensive for their current team (or available for some other reason, like the Logan Morrison, Colby Rasmus situations). I mentioned someplace earlier, the Cubs added Ramirez and DLee in two trades within about 6 or 8 months of each other. Let's get a few of our impact guys that way.

 

OR WE COULD DO THIS AND SIGN IMPACT FREE AGENTS LIKE EVERY OTHER SUCCESSFUL BIG MARKET FRANCHISE

 

Oh now that's an idea I can get behind. It woulda had more "umph" if you capitalized only AND.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's the "idea" that basically everyone but dave wants.

[davearm2]

What I'd like to see is a few big trades for guys that are on the right side of 30, but about to get too expensive for their current team (or available for some other reason, like the Logan Morrison, Colby Rasmus situations). I mentioned someplace earlier, the Cubs added Ramirez and DLee in two trades within about 6 or 8 months of each other. Let's get a few of our impact guys that way.

 

OR WE COULD DO THIS AND SIGN IMPACT FREE AGENTS LIKE EVERY OTHER SUCCESSFUL BIG MARKET FRANCHISE

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.

[davearm2]

That's the "idea" that basically everyone but dave wants.

Your comprehension failure is a you problem, not a me problem.

[davearm2]

I'd prefer Fielder, too. I really don't have a problem with the 8 years because he hasn't had an injury history like guys tend to start showing already by the point he's reached in his career. This is a guy who has played at least 157 games for 6 straight seasons, and plenty of big guys start having issues once they've logged that much time. I think he's got a good shot of being a beast production-wise for 5-6 years of an 8-year deal.

"Beast" is obviously an ambiguous term, but the guy has topped 4 wins twice in six years.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's the "idea" that basically everyone but dave wants.

Your comprehension failure is a you problem, not a me problem.

 

dave, you're the one that keeps talking like signing Pujols or Fielder is going to somehow effectively cripple the Cubs financially towards the end of their deals. Or are you now backing off the doom & gloom warnings that overpaying for the two of them would significantly hinder the Cubs' ability to sign FA or trade for and extend players?

Edited November 28, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Sammy Sofa]

I'd prefer Fielder, too. I really don't have a problem with the 8 years because he hasn't had an injury history like guys tend to start showing already by the point he's reached in his career. This is a guy who has played at least 157 games for 6 straight seasons, and plenty of big guys start having issues once they've logged that much time. I think he's got a good shot of being a beast production-wise for 5-6 years of an 8-year deal.

"Beast" is obviously an ambiguous term, but the guy has topped 4 wins twice in six years.

 

And he's just gonna get even better as a Cub. It'll be awesome.

[davell]

Dave, your method basically squashes our chances for the next couple of seasons. The way I lined it up, does that team not look like a team that can compete? Jackson/Castro/Fielder/Cespedes/Soriano/Soto/LeMahieu/Barney as the lineup with a rotation of Garza/Wilson/Oakland guy/Dempster/Zambrano. Followed by having another 30 mill or so the following season to spend as well. In this exact scenario, you may have added 2 elite bats AND 2 elite pitchers in ONE offseason with the ability to certainly add at least one more of each the following one as well. Especially with the amount of FA pitching available next offseason. Isn't it worth trying to compete this way instead of trying to find an elusive trade that right now doesn't even appear to be on the horizon.

[Guest]

P-U-J-O-L-S

[davearm2]

That's the "idea" that basically everyone but dave wants.

Your comprehension failure is a you problem, not a me problem.

 

dave, you're the one that keeps talking like signing Pujols or Fielder is going to somehow effectively cripple the Cubs financially towards the end of their deals. Or are you now backing off the doom & gloom warnings that overpaying for the two of them would significantly hinder the Cubs' ability to sign FA or trade for and extend players?

Define "significantly hinder".

 

Paying a guy $25M to give you 1 or 2 wins in the last several years of the deal effectively shrinks your payroll by $15 to $20M annually during this stretch.

[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.

[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.