Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Guest]

I don't have a definite limit. I don't think I would go any longer on the years. Honestly, I'd prefer a 9/35 deal to a 10/30 one.

 

There's definitely a limit. But I don't know what that limit would be for what I'd consider.

[Guest]

You don't mind having another Soriano situation? (please I am not comparing the player, just the situation). Where maybe you get 5 years of great production, then the last 3-4 years you are hampered with an aging player, and not able to add any peices. Forced to wait to rebuild until his contract is finally up?

But we aren't having to wait until Sori's contract is over. So I guess I don"t see your point.

 

And it's not like Soriano is the only player making big money on the team. His salary accounts for only 13% of the payroll this year.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't have a definite limit. I don't think I would go any longer on the years. Honestly, I'd prefer a 9/35 deal to a 10/30 one.

 

 

Well that's madness. You'd rather pay a guy 15M more total for one less year?

[Guest]

I don't have a definite limit. I don't think I would go any longer on the years. Honestly, I'd prefer a 9/35 deal to a 10/30 one.

 

 

Well that's madness. You'd rather pay a guy 15M more total for one less year?

hmmm...

 

logical flaw on my part, I guess. Nope, I'd rather pay 10/300 and cut him the last year of the deal, if necessary.

[erik316wttn]

The Sun-Times is against signing Pujols for some reason:

 

Before Tuesday's game against the Cardinals, Jim Hendry and Albert Pujols exchanged a hug that got people talking. Yes, it's the same Albert Pujols who will be a free agent this offseason, poised to sign one of the richest contracts in major league history. Do the math and smile, Cubs fan. Then promptly pick up the nearest stapler and punch it into your chest to help snap you back to reality. Pujols is not going to be a Cubbie next year or in the foreseeable future. And thank goodness for that. It would be one of the worst baseball decisions for an organization that arguably had the market cornered on decisions gone bad over the last five years.

[dew1679666265]

And it's not like Soriano is the only player making big money on the team. His salary accounts for only 13% of the payroll this year.

 

This isn't directed at you soccer, your post just prompted this thought.

 

I've seen a lot of comments recently that the Cubs have multiple albatross contracts and a number of players locked up for big years/money. That's really not the case. Here's the Cubs' payroll obligations in upcoming years:

 

2012: Soriano - 19 mil; Zambrano - 19 mil; Dempster - 14 mil; Byrd - 6.5 mil; Marmol 7 mil; Marshall 3.1 mil; Aramis - 16 mil club option or 2 mil buyout. Total - 70.6 mil for 7 players or 84.6 mil for 8 players + 6 arbitration guys.

 

2013: Soriano - 19 mil; Marmol - 9.8 mil. Total - 28.8 mil for 2 players + 8 arbitration guys

 

2014: Soriano - 19 mil. Total - 19 mil for 1 player + 6 arbitration guys

 

2015: 4 arbitration guys

 

2016: 2 arbitration guys

 

Five of our top 10 prospects (according to BA) are currently either in AA or AAA and likely will be in the majors within the next two years. Six guys currently on the roster will get a minimal raise (if any) next year and three of those are starters - Castro, Barney and Cashner. The only guys we're set to lose off this year's roster: Reed, Wood, Grabow, Shark, Pena and Kosuke ($35 mil total off the books).

 

So we'll have 6 roster spots to fill next year and around $50-60 million to spend to fill those holes. Dempster and Aramis have options, but the likelihood is at least one or both will be back. If we signed Pujols to a 10/300 deal and paid him $30 mil next year, that'd leave us with $20-30 million to spend on 5 roster spots, spots we spent $24.9 million on this year - and that's with $8.1 mil going to Grabow and Shark alone. We could backload Pujols' deal and pay him something like $35 mil next year and still have enough to fill our holes with similarly priced players as long as we don't sign high priced free agent relievers.

[dew1679666265]

Well, strike that; I don't know the exact amount. I definitely wouldn't want him being signed for more than 10 years (and I'm optimistic that he can be had for 8), but the dollar amount, I don't know. I guess $35 million.

 

I'm on board with this. I'd probably go above $300 total if I had to, but not a lot. $32-35 mil per year is probably the highest I'd go.

[italianocubsfan7]

For some reason, I don't really like the idea of signing Jose Reyes for SS and moving Castro over to either 2B or SS. I wouldn't be overwhelmingly opposed, but Reyes will probably want maximum SS money. In all (especially for Nuts & Gum), do the Cubs actually have a realistic chance of signing both Pujols and Reyes, or something similar to that combo? I know they have a considerable amount of contracts coming off the books, but I didn't think it was that many.

 

Pujols is worth a 8-to-10 year deal somewhere in the $250-300 million range. He's the most feared hitter on the planet and probably the best overall hitter in baseball. If he legitimately seeks out other option than the Cardinals for whatever reason, the Cubs must pounce on that opportunity. It may be now or never for the franchise.

[dew1679666265]

For some reason, I don't really like the idea of signing Jose Reyes for SS and moving Castro over to either 2B or SS. I wouldn't be overwhelmingly opposed, but Reyes will probably want maximum SS money. In all (especially for Nuts & Gum), do the Cubs actually have a realistic chance of signing both Pujols and Reyes, or something similar to that combo? I know they have a considerable amount of contracts coming off the books, but I didn't think it was that many.

 

Signing both Pujols and Reyes would cost us in the area of $40-45 million next season, meaning we'd be left with somewhere in the range of $10-20 million to replace Reed, Pena, Grabow, Shark, Kosuke and Wood. That's if we retain both Dempster and Aramis.

 

However, we'd only have about $68 mil invested for 2013 - Soriano, Marmol, Pujols and Reyes - for non-arbitration guys with about $70-80 mil left for the rest of the roster. Question marks like Vitters and Jay Jackson would have to develop and become productive ML players, but I think we could do it.

[apete6]

I think going over 7 years and/or 210 million total for Pujols would just be a bad idea. I know its "only" 90 million more for 300 million, but there's just too much risk involved to go the extra 3 years and 90 million.

 

It's not like 1 guy can put you over the top in baseball anyway. Look at the Cards, they've gotten arguably the 10 best "clean" years out of a hitter in baseball history and they have 1 fluke World Series in a season where they won 83 games in the regular season. And that's WITH a pretty competent front office most of that time.

 

As much as I would love to have the best player in baseball on the Cubs and take him away from the damn Cardinals, it's going to be a dumb contract regardless of what the Cubs end up getting him for. That being said, if the Ricketts are ready to become the Yankees and just spend way more than anyone else in the NL, go right ahead and give him the 10/300.

[KingCubsFan]

I think going over 7 years and/or 210 million total for Pujols would just be a bad idea. I know its "only" 90 million more for 300 million, but there's just too much risk involved to go the extra 3 years and 90 million.

 

It's not like 1 guy can put you over the top in baseball anyway. Look at the Cards, they've gotten arguably the 10 best "clean" years out of a hitter in baseball history and they have 1 fluke World Series in a season where they won 83 games in the regular season. And that's WITH a pretty competent front office most of that time.

 

As much as I would love to have the best player in baseball on the Cubs and take him away from the damn Cardinals, it's going to be a dumb contract regardless of what the Cubs end up getting him for. That being said, if the Ricketts are ready to become the Yankees and just spend way more than anyone else in the NL, go right ahead and give him the 10/300.

I'll take a fluke championship

[dew1679666265]

I think going over 7 years and/or 210 million total for Pujols would just be a bad idea. I know its "only" 90 million more for 300 million, but there's just too much risk involved to go the extra 3 years and 90 million.

 

It's not like 1 guy can put you over the top in baseball anyway. Look at the Cards, they've gotten arguably the 10 best "clean" years out of a hitter in baseball history and they have 1 fluke World Series in a season where they won 83 games in the regular season. And that's WITH a pretty competent front office most of that time.

 

As much as I would love to have the best player in baseball on the Cubs and take him away from the damn Cardinals, it's going to be a dumb contract regardless of what the Cubs end up getting him for. That being said, if the Ricketts are ready to become the Yankees and just spend way more than anyone else in the NL, go right ahead and give him the 10/300.

 

In most of those 10 years, the Cardinals had Pujols, a pitcher or two and a whole bunch of grit. The Cardinals have had some good teams, but really not much to get all that excited about most years. The key to them being a highly competitive team was getting 7-8 wins a year from first base instead of 2-4. Teams don't win only because of just one player, but a hitter like Pujols can turn a mediocre team into a good one and a good team into a great one. The Cubs have all the resources in place to have a good team over the next decade, but adding Pujols instead of short term filler or a 3-4 win guy like Fielder could give them great teams in the upcoming years. That could be the difference between seeing a repeat of the 2000s or winning a World Series or two.

 

And if the Cubs invest $30 million a year into Pujols, they'll still have more than $100 million to spend on the rest of the roster. There's no reason whatsoever why they can't build a good to great team around Pujols with those resources.

[dew1679666265]

Just out of curiosity, for those who don't want Pujols - who would you go after for first base both short and long term? Is there anybody specific people are considering or is the desire simply to pass on the high risk/high reward contract and hope a better option comes along down the line?

 

Not trying to be confrontational, I'm legitimately curious what other plans might be if you support passing on Pujols.

[CubsInNC]

Hypothetically speaking, what's the year/dollar combination where you'd say "No thanks" to Pujols.

 

For me it's the length. I'd cap it at 10 years. I'm not so concerned with the per year salary, as honestly I see Ricketts being more involved in a negotiation of this magnitude, because of the major financial liability. I'd really like to see it be 8 years guaranteed and 2 vesting years at the end based on some measure of durability (PAs) or team success (don't know if that's within contract rules). I'd also front load the deal, in some sort of stretch or spread it out based on contract/financial progressions. I'm thinking 8/250 + 2/50 vesting or $10 buyout. Not that, if I'm albert I'd take that. But it's what I'd hope for.

[CubsInNC]

Just out of curiosity, for those who don't want Pujols - who would you go after for first base both short and long term? Is there anybody specific people are considering or is the desire simply to pass on the high risk/high reward contract and hope a better option comes along down the line?

 

Not trying to be confrontational, I'm legitimately curious what other plans might be if you support passing on Pujols.

 

 

This said, I'm definitely for Pujols. I honestly don't think we get him though (because he doesn't leave STL). That's made me think of other options. And I don't think that what Fielder will get on the market will be too bad. He's no Pujols, but if Pujols stays in STL at 23-25 per, I'm ok with fielder for 5-6/18-22 per which would give him a chance at 1 more big contract and puts him even with Ad. Gonzalez, according to BR his most comparable player. I think Prince's market, both in terms of what teams and what dollar per year figure is determined by what Albert does.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think going over 7 years and/or 210 million total for Pujols would just be a bad idea. I know its "only" 90 million more for 300 million, but there's just too much risk involved to go the extra 3 years and 90 million.

 

It's not like 1 guy can put you over the top in baseball anyway. Look at the Cards, they've gotten arguably the 10 best "clean" years out of a hitter in baseball history and they have 1 fluke World Series in a season where they won 83 games in the regular season. And that's WITH a pretty competent front office most of that time.

 

As much as I would love to have the best player in baseball on the Cubs and take him away from the damn Cardinals, it's going to be a dumb contract regardless of what the Cubs end up getting him for. That being said, if the Ricketts are ready to become the Yankees and just spend way more than anyone else in the NL, go right ahead and give him the 10/300.

 

The Cubs would be spending more money on their teams during their time with Pujols than the Cardinals did when they had him.

[Sammy Sofa]

For some reason, I don't really like the idea of signing Jose Reyes for SS and moving Castro over to either 2B or SS. I wouldn't be overwhelmingly opposed, but Reyes will probably want maximum SS money. In all (especially for Nuts & Gum), do the Cubs actually have a realistic chance of signing both Pujols and Reyes, or something similar to that combo? I know they have a considerable amount of contracts coming off the books, but I didn't think it was that many.

 

Signing both Pujols and Reyes would cost us in the area of $40-45 million next season, meaning we'd be left with somewhere in the range of $10-20 million to replace Reed, Pena, Grabow, Shark, Kosuke and Wood. That's if we retain both Dempster and Aramis.

 

However, we'd only have about $68 mil invested for 2013 - Soriano, Marmol, Pujols and Reyes - for non-arbitration guys with about $70-80 mil left for the rest of the roster. Question marks like Vitters and Jay Jackson would have to develop and become productive ML players, but I think we could do it.

 

The Reyes & Pujols thing is pure fantasy on my part, but I'd love to see the Cubs do it and then replace Grabow/Wood/Shark with internal options (unless Wood can still pitch and is willing to come back cheap again). Hell, I'd tolerate Colvin out in RF if it meant getting Reyes and Pujols, though ideally they could still net a pretty decent corner OF with the money leftover. Who is out there as an OF FA? If there's nobody essential I'd prefer to just sign a placeholder with the idea of throwing money at Kemp for 2013.

[TruffleShuffle]

i have no idea how we'd afford pujols, kemp, reyes and soriano for two years unless we just decide to go with a garbage pitching staff.

[Sammy Sofa]

i have no idea how we'd afford pujols, kemp, reyes and soriano for two years unless we just decide to go with a garbage pitching staff.

 

All depends on how much the Ricketts are willing to spend. Those 5 would probably be in the, what, $85 million range?

[TruffleShuffle]

i have no idea how we'd afford pujols, kemp, reyes and soriano for two years unless we just decide to go with a garbage pitching staff.

 

All depends on how much the Ricketts are willing to spend. Those 5 would probably be in the, what, $85 million range?

 

well that's four players but yeah i'd say you're probably looking at $80-85m. considering that a #2 starter is pushing $15m, the cubs would be hard-pressed to have any sort of pitching staff unless they have really good home-grown pitchers (and that's not looking too promising)

[Sammy Sofa]

Me count real good.

 

Again, it all depends on what the Ricketts are willing to spend. If they're willing to push the payroll to back up what a core of Castro/Reyes/Pujols/Kemp could do then it's all good in the hood. If they're going to insist on a self-imposed cap of around $120-130 million then it would suck.

[dew1679666265]

The Reyes & Pujols thing is pure fantasy on my part, but I'd love to see the Cubs do it and then replace Grabow/Wood/Shark with internal options (unless Wood can still pitch and is willing to come back cheap again). Hell, I'd tolerate Colvin out in RF if it meant getting Reyes and Pujols, though ideally they could still net a pretty decent corner OF with the money leftover. Who is out there as an OF FA? If there's nobody essential I'd prefer to just sign a placeholder with the idea of throwing money at Kemp for 2013.

 

It'd probably be an either/or with Reyes and Kemp if we get Pujols, and given the choice I'd definitely take Kemp. I think financially we could swing two of those three, though.

 

FA OFs:

Bobby Abreu LAA *

Carlos Beltran NYM

Milton Bradley SEA

Mike Cameron BOS

Ronny Cedeno PIT

Michael Cuddyer MIN

Jack Cust SEA

David DeJesus OAK

J.D. Drew BOS

Jeff Francoeur KC *

Jonny Gomes CIN

Gabe Gross OAK

Carlos Guillen DET

Raul Ibanez PHI

Conor Jackson OAK

Jason Kubel MIN

Ryan Ludwick SD

Nate McLouth ATL *

Juan Pierre CWS

Juan Rivera TOR

Cody Ross SF

Grady Sizemore CLE *

Nick Swisher NYY *

Josh Willingham WAS

Asterisks mean there's an option for 2012 - either club or player.

 

Jackson would be a cheap, one year filler. I'd also look at a Cody Ross/Tyler Colvin platoon for 2012 and then go hard after Kemp that offseason if he comes available. A Soriano/B Jackson/Kemp outfield in 2013 would be really nice, with Colvin perhaps platooning with Soriano. Swisher, Sizemore and Kubel would be the best players on the list, I think.

[dew1679666265]

Me count real good.

 

Again, it all depends on what the Ricketts are willing to spend. If they're willing to push the payroll to back up what a core of Castro/Reyes/Pujols/Kemp could do then it's all good in the hood. If they're going to insist on a self-imposed cap of around $120-130 million then it would suck.

 

Unless Ricketts is willing to go to $140-150+, I'd probably hold off on Reyes in the hopes I could get Kemp. We have tons of middle infield depth in the minors even after dealing Lee and some combo of Barney/DeWitt/Baker should be decent options until Lemahieu or somebody is ready or a cheaper (yet still good) FA option comes along. That's if we get Pujols, that is.

[Sammy Sofa]

Me count real good.

 

Again, it all depends on what the Ricketts are willing to spend. If they're willing to push the payroll to back up what a core of Castro/Reyes/Pujols/Kemp could do then it's all good in the hood. If they're going to insist on a self-imposed cap of around $120-130 million then it would suck.

 

Unless Ricketts is willing to go to $140-150+, I'd probably hold off on Reyes in the hopes I could get Kemp. We have tons of middle infield depth in the minors even after dealing Lee and some combo of Barney/DeWitt/Baker should be decent options until Lemahieu or somebody is ready or a cheaper (yet still good) FA option comes along. That's if we get Pujols, that is.

 

Yeah, it all hinges on what the money is. If they can afford them all, great. If it's a choice between signing Reyes for 2012 or waiting for Kemp in 2013, then I agree, wait for Kemp.

[Guest]

I don't have a definite limit. I don't think I would go any longer on the years. Honestly, I'd prefer a 9/35 deal to a 10/30 one.

 

 

Well that's madness. You'd rather pay a guy 15M more total for one less year?

 

I would. I'd pay a good bit more to make sure the contract isn't more than 8 years. Although I'm not sure how necessary that will be, especially the longer he slumps this year.