Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

NOLA · May 15, 2011

We've invested wisely the last few years, and we're almost done paying off some debt. We're not ready to commit a huge chunk of our budget into a home whose value will absolutely decline down the road. And then there's the volatile housing market...
Nevermind, I'll quit now.

The problem with waiting for the exact perfect free agent is that free agent doesn't exist. If you sit around and pass on each major free agent because there are some flaws or questions, you'll never make a big free agent signing and you'll probably never win a World Series.

The Cubs are in a position right now where we have some good, young major league talent and we have a ton of prospects on their way up who look like good major leaguers. However, we have no real starpower in the minors or on the team. The potential is there for a very good supporting cast, but no core for that cast to support. We also don't have much money committed beyond 2012 and the third highest payroll in the MLB. Given all of that, one of the best players to ever play the game may just hit the open market this offseason and would give us that core player we don't have in the system. If we pass on Pujols and Fielder in the hopes that the perfect free agent falls in our lap, we'll see a lot more of the type seasons we saw in the 2000s (good teams that weren't great because they lacked a great player) in the coming years.

Signing Pujols is a gamble, but sometimes you have to take gambles to win championships and if I'm going to take a gamble, I want to take one on the best player in the game.

I see your points but the issue for me is the years at that money.

I am not saying pass on each big free agent or the Cubs should wait on the perfect deal. I am just saying I think we pass on this deal as it is either feast or famine. I know you have to take your shots when you can but I am not willing to gamble this much as a number of things scare me:

We play tons of day games. Is he really the age he says he is? True, he has played hurt at an incredible level but still he has had some worrisome injuries with more frequency in recent years-will he be as resilient as he ages? We are in the National League so no DH.

Maybe I got carried away with the booing at Wrigley thing. But this just shrinks our window to win. Let's go get somebody else at a better deal when we get closer to contending.

Sammy Sofa · May 15, 2011

It's Pujols.

And he's going to turn 32 this offseason while looking for a massive deal, possibly 10 years long. I have trouble believing that doesn't make more people at least pause and think a little bit before getting out the spray charts.

If you do it, you better be prepared to add a few other pieces and go for it all-out in the next 3-5 years.

It's Pujols. And the Cubs will have plenty of money to spend. And then again for 2013. They could easily, say, sign Pujols and Reyes after this year, then sign Kemp after 2012, and still have quite a bit of money left over for a good starting pitcher and position player.

Quite frankly, I really don't care if Pujols is garbage the last few years of his contract. If he's great to good for like 5-7 years of a 10-year-contract it's worth it, and the success that would ideally come with the Cubs during that time would make eating his contract at the end even easier. Again, this is a major market team that can easily afford a $130+ million payroll.

And the pie in the sky sentiment that people have here of signing magical contracts for great players that are somehow a guarantee to not have any decline aren't going to happen. Great players look to get paid and aren't going to settle for a contract that just stops at age 34 or 35 because the team is worried about decline.

If arguable the greatest hitter to play the game is available and he's still crushing 1.000+ OPS like it ain't no thang and you can afford him, then yes, you sign him. If he really struggles this year, OK, fine, maybe you don't leap in to things...but he'll probably still end up with beast numbers.

Sammy Sofa · May 15, 2011

We've invested wisely the last few years, and we're almost done paying off some debt. We're not ready to commit a huge chunk of our budget into a home whose value will absolutely decline down the road. And then there's the volatile housing market...
Nevermind, I'll quit now.

The problem with waiting for the exact perfect free agent is that free agent doesn't exist. If you sit around and pass on each major free agent because there are some flaws or questions, you'll never make a big free agent signing and you'll probably never win a World Series.

The Cubs are in a position right now where we have some good, young major league talent and we have a ton of prospects on their way up who look like good major leaguers. However, we have no real starpower in the minors or on the team. The potential is there for a very good supporting cast, but no core for that cast to support. We also don't have much money committed beyond 2012 and the third highest payroll in the MLB. Given all of that, one of the best players to ever play the game may just hit the open market this offseason and would give us that core player we don't have in the system. If we pass on Pujols and Fielder in the hopes that the perfect free agent falls in our lap, we'll see a lot more of the type seasons we saw in the 2000s (good teams that weren't great because they lacked a great player) in the coming years.

Signing Pujols is a gamble, but sometimes you have to take gambles to win championships and if I'm going to take a gamble, I want to take one on the best player in the game.

I see your points but the issue for me is the years at that money.

I am not saying pass on each big free agent or the Cubs should wait on the perfect deal. I am just saying I think we pass on this deal as it is either feast or famine. I know you have to take your shots when you can but I am not willing to gamble this much as a number of things scare me:
We play tons of day games. Is he really the age he says he is? True, he has played hurt at an incredible level but still he has had some worrisome injuries with more frequency in recent years-will he be as resilient as he ages? We are in the National League so no DH.
Maybe I got carried away with the booing at Wrigley thing. But this just shrinks our window to win. Let's go get somebody else at a better deal when we get closer to contending.

How is it "feast or famine?"

All players have injury risks as they get older. Great players aren't going to settle on a safe contract that only pays them through ages 32-36 if you're signing them when they're around 30.

And is really all that realistic for people to truly worry about his "real age" these days? Who honestly thinks he would have been able to hide it?

And how does this shrink the Cubs' window to win? This is a team that can afford to eat contracts. They've just had issues coming to a head now because of the sale. Put a good team on the field and they make a ton of money and they can have a gigantic payroll, and Pujols is a huge step in the right direction to accomplish that.

NOLA · May 15, 2011

We've invested wisely the last few years, and we're almost done paying off some debt. We're not ready to commit a huge chunk of our budget into a home whose value will absolutely decline down the road. And then there's the volatile housing market...
Nevermind, I'll quit now.

The problem with waiting for the exact perfect free agent is that free agent doesn't exist. If you sit around and pass on each major free agent because there are some flaws or questions, you'll never make a big free agent signing and you'll probably never win a World Series.

The Cubs are in a position right now where we have some good, young major league talent and we have a ton of prospects on their way up who look like good major leaguers. However, we have no real starpower in the minors or on the team. The potential is there for a very good supporting cast, but no core for that cast to support. We also don't have much money committed beyond 2012 and the third highest payroll in the MLB. Given all of that, one of the best players to ever play the game may just hit the open market this offseason and would give us that core player we don't have in the system. If we pass on Pujols and Fielder in the hopes that the perfect free agent falls in our lap, we'll see a lot more of the type seasons we saw in the 2000s (good teams that weren't great because they lacked a great player) in the coming years.

Signing Pujols is a gamble, but sometimes you have to take gambles to win championships and if I'm going to take a gamble, I want to take one on the best player in the game.

I see your points but the issue for me is the years at that money.

I am not saying pass on each big free agent or the Cubs should wait on the perfect deal. I am just saying I think we pass on this deal as it is either feast or famine. I know you have to take your shots when you can but I am not willing to gamble this much as a number of things scare me:
We play tons of day games. Is he really the age he says he is? True, he has played hurt at an incredible level but still he has had some worrisome injuries with more frequency in recent years-will he be as resilient as he ages? We are in the National League so no DH.
Maybe I got carried away with the booing at Wrigley thing. But this just shrinks our window to win. Let's go get somebody else at a better deal when we get closer to contending.

How is it "feast or famine?"

All players have injury risks as they get older. Great players aren't going to settle on a safe contract that only pays them through ages 32-36 if you're signing them when they're around 30.

And is really all that realistic for people to truly worry about his "real age" these days? Who honestly thinks he would have been able to hide it?

And how does this shrink the Cubs' window to win? This is a team that can afford to eat contracts. They've just had issues coming to a head now because of the sale. Put a good team on the field and they make a ton of money and they can have a gigantic payroll, and Pujols is a huge step in the right direction to accomplish that.

It's feast or famine as in the Cubs had better win in the next 5 years or it is not a good trade. I realize great players have injury risks and will not accept deals that only reach age 36. And I realize he is not just another great player. But this isn't just another pricey contract either. There are great players who won't insist on 10 years at $30 million per. It's a cost/value thing to me. That said, I realize if the Cubs win the title it is completely worth it.

We all want them to go to the Series, this is just not the approach I would take. Too many eggs in one basket. If they don't win before a Pujols decline in a few years, the Cubs have an aging ex All-Star holding 1B, or worse spends half the season on the DL eating up that much salary. Barry Bonds is one of the very few who has had productive years late into his career, and we know about that story.

Yes ownership might could painfully absorb the contract in financial terms, but he would be completely untradeable and a we could have a black hole at 1B for the last several years of that deal. Not saying he would suck, but I'd bet he'd be more like 2011 Derek Lee than a $30 million player at 37.

Also, are we certain Rickett's won't be happy with butts in the seats and a superstar on the field, ala Sosa in the 90's? Is he going to surround him with talent for the length of the contract? I just think there are better routes to a title where we could continue to build.

Hairyducked Idiot · May 15, 2011

With the team on the field now, adding Pujols is paying a lot for wins 79 through 85. If you are going to do it, I think you need to be willing to pay for the next 5-7 wins worth of marginal talent over what we have. I'm not an expert on our farm system, but I get the impression most of it isn't ready to step in and be major-league average in the next couple seasons.

Given the injuries and performance thus far, you can just as easily say it's wins 83 through 88 or something like that. And those marginal wins above .500 are the most valuable. Also, BA's top 5 prospects in the system(Jackson, McNutt, Jackson, Carpenter, Vitters) are all at AA or AAA, and none of them have their position blocked by a long term guy on the MLB roster.

I'd like to see Pujols kick it in gear soon to assuage some lingering doubts, but if there was ever a player worthy of making that gamble with, it's him. Adding Pujols and making a smart decision with a rotation slot and 3B could make the team a NL Central favorite quite reasonably.

It's the second two parts of that that worry me. If the plan is to sign Pujols and two more good players to put together a mega-team that cruises to the next 5 NL Central titles, then of course it's worth it. If the plan is to sign Pujols for the PR aspects and then stop, I'm not as sure.

TruffleShuffle · May 15, 2011

Yes ownership might could painfully absorb the contract in financial terms, but he would be completely untradeable and a we could have a black hole at 1B for the last several years of that deal. Not saying he would suck, but I'd bet he'd be more like 2011 Derek Lee than a $30 million player at 37.

if you're saying he'll be like 2011 derrek lee then you're saying that he would suck. derrek lee has been terrible.

and what is that bet based on? just a complete guess as to how he'll age?

Sammy Sofa · May 15, 2011

With the team on the field now, adding Pujols is paying a lot for wins 79 through 85. If you are going to do it, I think you need to be willing to pay for the next 5-7 wins worth of marginal talent over what we have. I'm not an expert on our farm system, but I get the impression most of it isn't ready to step in and be major-league average in the next couple seasons.

Given the injuries and performance thus far, you can just as easily say it's wins 83 through 88 or something like that. And those marginal wins above .500 are the most valuable. Also, BA's top 5 prospects in the system(Jackson, McNutt, Jackson, Carpenter, Vitters) are all at AA or AAA, and none of them have their position blocked by a long term guy on the MLB roster.

I'd like to see Pujols kick it in gear soon to assuage some lingering doubts, but if there was ever a player worthy of making that gamble with, it's him. Adding Pujols and making a smart decision with a rotation slot and 3B could make the team a NL Central favorite quite reasonably.

It's the second two parts of that that worry me. If the plan is to sign Pujols and two more good players to put together a mega-team that cruises to the next 5 NL Central titles, then of course it's worth it. If the plan is to sign Pujols for the PR aspects and then stop, I'm not as sure.

Hopefully it's the former, since they can afford to do so.

Follow me on my crusade, people of NSSB...PUJOLS AND REYES FOR 2012. KEMP FOR 2013.

NOLA · May 15, 2011

It's the second two parts of that that worry me. If the plan is to sign Pujols and two more good players to put together a mega-team that cruises to the next 5 NL Central titles, then of course it's worth it. If the plan is to sign Pujols for the PR aspects and then stop, I'm not as sure.

Hopefully it's the former, since they can afford to do so.

Follow me on my crusade, people of NSSB...PUJOLS AND REYES FOR 2012. KEMP FOR 2013.

If that is the case, then I am on board completely. Don't forget another starter.

Sammy Sofa · May 16, 2011

I'd put off looking for another starter until 2013 since that's when both Zambrano and Dempster are coming off the books. Hell, I wouldn't mind having Zambrano back if he could be had for a smart deal. Obviously, if there's a primo FA pickup to be had after this year, definitely kick the tires. What does the starting pitching FA class look like after the 2011 season?

NOLA · May 16, 2011

Yes ownership might could painfully absorb the contract in financial terms, but he would be completely untradeable and a we could have a black hole at 1B for the last several years of that deal. Not saying he would suck, but I'd bet he'd be more like 2011 Derek Lee than a $30 million player at 37.

if you're saying he'll be like 2011 derrek lee then you're saying that he would suck. derrek lee has been terrible.

and what is that bet based on? just a complete guess as to how he'll age?

Yes, Derek Lee was awful. I said closer to D Lee than a $30 Million player.

No one knows how he will age. I am however concerned due to his current age, his recent (albeit early) slump, day games in Wrigley, no DH to hide him, and the few number of players who have remained All Star level at that age excluding known steroid users. Again, no one knows and that's why it is a big gamble. I just don't like that deal for anyone at his age, even Albert Pujols.

Sammy Sofa · May 16, 2011

But again, you have to look at him on Pujols-levels. If he's just declining as players do as they hit their mid-30's then he's still going to better than most anyone else out there for a while. It would take some pretty serious injuries to knock him down to being that bad that relatively quickly.

NOLA · May 16, 2011

I'd put off looking for another starter until 2013 since that's when both Zambrano and Dempster are coming off the books. Hell, I wouldn't mind having Zambrano back if he could be had for a smart deal. Obviously, if there's a primo FA pickup to be had after this year, definitely kick the tires. What does the starting pitching FA class look like after the 2011 season?

Buehrle, C Carpenter, Oswalt, CJ Wilson

The next best I see is Joel Piniero, Aaron Cook caliber.

NOLA · May 16, 2011

But again, you have to look at him on Pujols-levels. If he's just declining as players do as they hit their mid-30's then he's still going to better than most anyone else out there for a while. It would take some pretty serious injuries to knock him down to being that bad that relatively quickly.

I hear you, but that elbow last year and a few other injuries I can't remember scare me a bit. Not a ton like he should be some Superman, but enough to not want me to give that deal. Make it six or seven years and we're talking.

TruffleShuffle · May 16, 2011

But again, you have to look at him on Pujols-levels. If he's just declining as players do as they hit their mid-30's then he's still going to better than most anyone else out there for a while. It would take some pretty serious injuries to knock him down to being that bad that relatively quickly.

I hear you, but that elbow last year and a few other injuries I can't remember scare me a bit. Not a ton like he should be some Superman, but enough to not want me to give that deal. Make it six or seven years and we're talking.

he's averaged almost 156 games a year in his first 10 years, that's extremely durable. if you're worried about his injuries then you pretty much are going to be worried about signing any player.

SouthSideRyan · May 16, 2011

Those of you who don't want Pujols, who do you suggest we do spend this money on? I can't think of a more perfect situation for us. A wide open 1B slot, tons of money freeing up, gaping holes in the corner spots, and one of the greatest players of all time a free agent. What are you waiting for?

NOLA · May 16, 2011

But again, you have to look at him on Pujols-levels. If he's just declining as players do as they hit their mid-30's then he's still going to better than most anyone else out there for a while. It would take some pretty serious injuries to knock him down to being that bad that relatively quickly.

I hear you, but that elbow last year and a few other injuries I can't remember scare me a bit. Not a ton like he should be some Superman, but enough to not want me to give that deal. Make it six or seven years and we're talking.

he's averaged almost 156 games a year in his first 10 years, that's extremely durable. if you're worried about his injuries then you pretty much are going to be worried about signing any player.

Yes, that's the point. I am worried about signing any player to that deal at his age.

I'll leave it at this. If anyone should get that deal it is Albert Pujols. Despite my misgivings, I do see your points and a path to a title by signing him. There's just a ton of ifs involved for such a commitment expense in money and years. I also in the long term want us to continue to build the farm system like we seem to be doing. I just hope the next signing isn't Mike Cameron or JD Drew for 5 years.

TruffleShuffle · May 16, 2011

somebody who is both awesome and baseball and not interested in a long-term contract, apparently. that player can be found hiding in a cave with a unicorn and the tooth fairy.

dew1679666265 · May 16, 2011

Yes, that's the point. I am worried about signing any player to that deal at his age.

If we take a step down in years and money, here are the recent contracts/players we'd be looking at getting (age is when they signed): (note: I limited it to free agents or players who were traded and then re-signed, eliminating the hometown discount issue. I also focused only on $100+ mil contracts since you're not going to see an established elite hitter sign for less)

Jayson Werth, 31, 7/129 ($21 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 2.75

Alex Rodriguez, 33, 10/275 ($27 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 7.0

Mark Teixeira, 29, 8/180 ($22.5 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 4.6

Miguel Cabrera, 25, 8/152 ($19 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 4.7

Carlos Beltran, 28, 7/119 ($17 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 4.2

Matt Holliday, 30, 7/120 ($17 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 5.1

Carlos Lee, 31, 6/100 ($16 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 2.5

Vernon Wells, 30, 7/126 ($18 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 2

Adrian Gonzalez, 28, 7/154 ($22 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 3.2

Albert Pujols, 31, 10/300 ($30 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 8.0 (hypothetical contract)

I limited it to players somewhat similar to Pujols - power hitters, primarily corner guys - and I left out some pretty dreadful contracts (like Ryan Howard's). None of the players on that list, save for ARod, have been close to as productive as Pujols. Most of them have barely been half as good as Pujols over their careers (all careers have lasted nearly 10 years). So we can sign a guy for less than what we'd have to give for Pujols, but we're going to get production similar to that dropoff.

Basically, Pujols could fall off a cliff from his current production and be half as good as he is now for the entire second half of his contract and still be nearly as good as, or better than, most of the guys on that list. What kind of a free agent deal are you looking to give out?

Tarver · May 16, 2011

Yes, that's the point. I am worried about signing any player to that deal at his age.

If we take a step down in years and money, here are the recent contracts/players we'd be looking at getting (age is when they signed): (note: I limited it to free agents or players who were traded and then re-signed, eliminating the hometown discount issue. I also focused only on $100+ mil contracts since you're not going to see an established elite hitter sign for less)

Jayson Werth, 31, 7/129 ($21 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 2.75
Alex Rodriguez, 33, 10/275 ($27 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 7.0
Mark Teixeira, 29, 8/180 ($22.5 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 4.6
Miguel Cabrera, 25, 8/152 ($19 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 4.7
Carlos Beltran, 28, 7/119 ($17 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 4.2
Matt Holliday, 30, 7/120 ($17 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 5.1
Carlos Lee, 31, 6/100 ($16 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 2.5
Vernon Wells, 30, 7/126 ($18 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 2
Adrian Gonzalez, 28, 7/154 ($22 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 3.2

Albert Pujols, 31, 10/300 ($30 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 8.0 (hypothetical contract)

I limited it to players somewhat similar to Pujols - power hitters, primarily corner guys - and I left out some pretty dreadful contracts (like Ryan Howard's). None of the players on that list, save for ARod, have been close to as productive as Pujols. Most of them have barely been half as good as Pujols over their careers (all careers have lasted nearly 10 years). So we can sign a guy for less than what we'd have to give for Pujols, but we're going to get production similar to that dropoff.

Basically, Pujols could fall off a cliff from his current production and be half as good as he is now for the entire second half of his contract and still be nearly as good as, or better than, most of the guys on that list. What kind of a free agent deal are you looking to give out?

Should the downward trend in attendance persist, how much would you amend your offer?

May 16, 2011

Yes, that's the point. I am worried about signing any player to that deal at his age.

If we take a step down in years and money, here are the recent contracts/players we'd be looking at getting (age is when they signed): (note: I limited it to free agents or players who were traded and then re-signed, eliminating the hometown discount issue. I also focused only on $100+ mil contracts since you're not going to see an established elite hitter sign for less)

Jayson Werth, 31, 7/129 ($21 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 2.75
Alex Rodriguez, 33, 10/275 ($27 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 7.0
Mark Teixeira, 29, 8/180 ($22.5 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 4.6
Miguel Cabrera, 25, 8/152 ($19 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 4.7
Carlos Beltran, 28, 7/119 ($17 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 4.2
Matt Holliday, 30, 7/120 ($17 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 5.1
Carlos Lee, 31, 6/100 ($16 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 2.5
Vernon Wells, 30, 7/126 ($18 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 2
Adrian Gonzalez, 28, 7/154 ($22 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 3.2

Albert Pujols, 31, 10/300 ($30 mil/yr) - avg WAR: 8.0 (hypothetical contract)

I limited it to players somewhat similar to Pujols - power hitters, primarily corner guys - and I left out some pretty dreadful contracts (like Ryan Howard's). None of the players on that list, save for ARod, have been close to as productive as Pujols. Most of them have barely been half as good as Pujols over their careers (all careers have lasted nearly 10 years). So we can sign a guy for less than what we'd have to give for Pujols, but we're going to get production similar to that dropoff.

Basically, Pujols could fall off a cliff from his current production and be half as good as he is now for the entire second half of his contract and still be nearly as good as, or better than, most of the guys on that list. What kind of a free agent deal are you looking to give out?

Should the downward trend in attendance persist, how much would you amend your offer?

If we sign Pujols and start winning, people will be excited again and go to the ballpark.

dew1679666265 · May 16, 2011

Should the downward trend in attendance persist, how much would you amend your offer?

Adding Pujols would only increase attendance, so if I were to amend the offer I'd make it larger if attendance continues to decrease. That said, I don't think we'd have to bump up an offer of 10/300 much at all since all but about 2-3 teams won't be able to match it. The Yankees, Red Sox and Angels are probably the only teams that can afford that kind of an investment and two of those three would have to finagle things to play Pujols at first (something I think he wants to do, if I'm remembering right).

dew1679666265 · May 16, 2011

If we sign Pujols and start winning, people will be excited again and go to the ballpark.

Exactly. Attendance is tied directly to excitement and winning. By signing Pujols you increase both of those substantially, meaning attendance will rise.

Tarver · May 16, 2011

I was speaking of the league-wide attendance decline. Granted, the unusual situations in LA and NY are pushing the numbers, but 10 years seems waaay too excessive to me considering we don't how the labor situation is gonna work out, the recession, the new TV deals, etc.

If he wants ten years, start at 23 and go from there. If he wants 30, we should be talking about a six years tops. Unless you just want to drive up the price to hamstring the Cards, seems like ourselves and Anaheim are the only teams with the right set of circumstances to make sense for him(unless he just wants the $ and will play for someone like Baltimore or Seattle, of course).

Edited May 16, 2011 by Tarver

May 16, 2011

On a selfish note, attendance here would increase, too. :D

Sammy Sofa · May 16, 2011

I was speaking of the league-decline. Granted, the unusual situations in LA and NY are pushing the numbers, but 10 years seems waaay too excessive to me.

If he wants ten years, start at 23 and go from there. If he wants 30, we should be talking about a six years tops. Unless you just want to drive up the price to hamstring the Cards, seems like ourselves and Anaheim are the only teams with the right set of circumstances to make sense for him(unless he just wants the $ and will play for someone like Baltimore or Seattle, of course).

IT'S PUJOLS.

THE CUBS HAVE LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY.

IT'S PUJOLS.

Seriously, the Cubs can easily afford him even if he did get what he's asking for. Having Pujols would just make an already profitable team shoot through the roof. He'll all but pay for himself for a bunch of those years.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs