Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

November 8, 2011

It's Theo Epstein's Cubs- dare to dream.

We all have battered wife syndrome. Fielder or Pujols; if we get either one for less than 8 years we win.

SouthSideRyan · November 8, 2011

I can't imagine anyone looking at the Cubs payroll with their front office and thinking they can't be the best team in baseball within 4 years.

I also can't imagine anyone looking at Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder and thinking they'll be well into collapse mode in 4 years.

I also can't imagine anyone looking at Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder pre-collapse and thinking you can't trade nearly all of their contract in 4 years so you can sign this mythical free agent who will never appear.

Sammy Sofa · November 8, 2011

Somebody earlier said it best -- the Cubs have to guard against a scenario where their financial flexibility is severely compromised when they are one or two key players away from being great. Personally, I think it's going to take awhile to get to that point.

OK, for one, it shouldn't have to take a "while," especially for a team with the resources the Cubs have. Two, it's not a "great or bust" proposition. They are just 2-3 players away from at least being good.

davearm2 · November 8, 2011

I can't imagine anyone looking at the Cubs payroll with their front office and thinking they can't be the best team in baseball within 4 years.

I also can't imagine anyone looking at Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder and thinking they'll be well into collapse mode in 4 years.

I also can't imagine anyone looking at Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder pre-collapse and thinking you can't trade nearly all of their contract in 4 years so you can sign this mythical free agent who will never appear.

I discussed the analysis I did that underlies my opinion on Pujols, but I'll show the numbers again.

Here is a table that shows 3 different aging curves (plus the average), all based on different mixes of Pujols' B-R comps.

WAR by year

Age	C1	 C2	 C3   Avg
32	6.4	6.3	6.3	6.3
33	6.7	6.6	7.8	7.1
34	6.0	5.9	7.1	6.3
35	5.3	5.2	7.0	5.8
36	3.4	3.5	2.8	3.2
37	2.1	2.9	4.1	3.0
38	1.3	2.5	2.9	2.2
39	1.3	2.7	2.5	2.2
40	0.8	2.2	1.7	1.6
41	0.2	0.8	0.4	0.5

C1 - Cohort 1 uses all 15 comps in all years

C2 - Cohort 2 uses all 15 comps, but excludes years where individual players had retired

C2 - Cohort 3 uses only the 5 comps that played to age 40.

Here are those data converted to dollar values, based on $5M/win, followed by the cumulative value at 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years:

Age   	   C1  	    C2  	  C3  	   Avg
32     	 $31.9 	 $31.4 	 $31.4 	 $31.5 
33     	 $33.7 	 $33.2 	 $39.0 	 $35.3 
34     	 $30.1 	 $29.6 	 $35.4 	 $31.7 
35     	 $26.5 	 $26.1 	 $34.8 	 $29.1 
36     	 $16.8 	 $17.4 	 $14.2 	 $16.1 
37     	 $10.4 	 $14.4 	 $20.5 	 $15.1 
38     	 $ 6.5 	 $12.5 	 $14.6 	 $11.2 
39     	 $ 6.3 	 $13.7 	 $12.4 	 $10.8 
40     	 $ 3.8 	 $11.2 	 $ 8.6 	 $ 7.8 
41     	 $ 0.9 	 $ 4.2 	 $ 1.9 	 $ 2.3 
Value @6	 $149.4     $152.1 	 $175.3 	 $159.0 
Value @7	 $155.9 	 $164.6 	 $189.9 	 $170.2 
Value @8	 $162.2 	 $178.3 	 $202.3 	 $180.9 
Value @9	 $166.0 	 $189.5 	 $210.9 	 $188.8 
Value@10	 $166.9 	 $193.6 	 $212.8 	 $191.1

I can't imagine anyone looking at these data beyond age 36 and not having serious reservations about signing Pujols for 8 or more years.

Sammy Sofa · November 8, 2011

Nobody who is arguing signing him for 8 or more years is doing so thinking he's going to be some kind of powerhouse at age 40 and up. They're talking about paying for that if that's what it takes to get him for his remaining good years. I understand the reservations about that, but, again, we're talking about a team that shouldn't have much of a problem eating such a contract by that point and still having $100-$120 million (or more) to spend on the rest of the team.

Conky · November 8, 2011

I can't imagine anyone looking at the Cubs payroll with their front office and thinking they can't be the best team in baseball within 4 years.

I also can't imagine anyone looking at Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder and thinking they'll be well into collapse mode in 4 years.

I also can't imagine anyone looking at Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder pre-collapse and thinking you can't trade nearly all of their contract in 4 years so you can sign this mythical free agent who will never appear.

Which brings up a good point. Wondering how many no trade clauses Theo has given out over the years? On the current roster, looks like Daisuke has the only full no trade. Crawford and A-Gon have partials. Crawford's stipulates that he may block 2 teams. Further, no team may trade for him and them deal him to the Yankees. lol

Personally I would do 6/200 for either and give them the no trades if that is what it took. 6 years for Pujols because of his age, 6 years for Fielder due to weight concerns. Anything longer than 6 years would have to be structured favorably for the organization. I realize the perceived effects of inflation on front-loading, but in a case like Pujols, it might make some sense.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Conky

Sammy Sofa · November 8, 2011

Which brings up a good point. Wondering how many no trade clauses Theo has given out over the years? On the current roster, looks like Daisuke has the only full no trade. Crawford and A-Gon have partials. Crawford's stipulates that he may block 2 teams. Further, no team may trade for him and them deal him to the Yankees. lol

Personally I would do 6/200 for either and give them the no trades if that is what it took. 6 years for Pujols because of his age, 6 years for Fielder due to weight concerns. Anything longer than 6 years would have to be structured favorably for the organization. I realize the perceived effects of inflation on front-loading, but in a case like Pujols, it might make some sense.

Yes, 6 years is definitely ideal for both. Personally, I wouldn't lose much sleep going up to 8 with both, but ideally that would be accomplished mostly somehow through options and/or incentives. Above 8 I'd really, really prefer not to do, but I think they have to walk away with one of them signed.

Tyrant · November 8, 2011

I would give Pujols 6 years/240 without thinking twice about it quite honestly. Just get that guy on our team please. He's superhuman, age doesn't matter.

I realize you're exaggerating, but his WAR and OPS+ has dipped four straight years since turning 28. It's still at a very high level, but age is absolutely affecting him to some degree.

dew1679666265 · November 8, 2011

Somebody earlier said it best -- the Cubs have to guard against a scenario where their financial flexibility is severely compromised when they are one or two key players away from being great. Personally, I think it's going to take awhile to get to that point.

The fact is, I would be more than happy with either guy on a 6-year deal. It's really the 8-9-10 year stuff that makes me think they should walk away.

You're really confusing me right now. On one hand it appears you're saying we should pass on Pujols because we could be an awesome team in 2014 or 2015 and you think he won't help us much in those seasons (the Pujols will be past his prime, and we should wait to sign an elite player until 2014 or 2015 comments). Then in this post, you indicate you don't have a problem having Pujols in 2014 and 2015, it's the 2019, 2020, and 2021 seasons you want to save payroll flexibility for.

Can you clear this up for me?

davell · November 8, 2011

If you sign a big ticket guy to an 8 or 10 year deal, I'm not sure why having one guy under contract at that point is THAT big of a deal. In signing these guys, you kind of go in knowing the back ends of these deals are going to be iffy, at the absolute best. Which is why we're going to concentrate so much effort into building from within. There's absolutely no guarantee that we'll have been producing a tremendous pipeline of high upside, superstar type talent, but in spending much more, the chances are certainly enhanced. It's not ideal to give out more than one of those type deals, but you're looking at something so far in advance that taking a risk like this right now, shouldn't register to what our team looks like a decade in the future.

dew1679666265 · November 8, 2011

If you sign a big ticket guy to an 8 or 10 year deal, I'm not sure why having one guy under contract at that point is THAT big of a deal. In signing these guys, you kind of go in knowing the back ends of these deals are going to be iffy, at the absolute best. Which is why we're going to concentrate so much effort into building from within. There's absolutely no guarantee that we'll have been producing a tremendous pipeline of high upside, superstar type talent, but in spending much more, the chances are certainly enhanced. It's not ideal to give out more than one of those type deals, but you're looking at something so far in advance that taking a risk like this right now, shouldn't register to what our team looks like a decade in the future.

Exactly. Take the previous salary issue we've gone through. Our problem putting together a good team hasn't been because we had Soriano on the roster. It's because we had Soriano, Grabow, Miles, Reed, Koyie, Howry, Eyre, Kosuke, Byrd, etc., on the roster at the same time (some of those were productive players, but all were overpaid). If it were Soriano and then a bunch of cheap, productive minor leaguers, we'd have been in fine shape to go get a major impact bat and field a very good team.

Going forward, if we have Pujols, expensive FA reliever, overpaid gritty MI, overpaid OF, overpaid unproductive C, overpaid productive reliever, overpaid productive reliever, overpaid productive FA OF, and average-ish FA OF, all on the roster at the same time, we're going to have trouble building a good team. But if we have Pujols, a couple of homegrown stars, and a bunch of cheap, productive players, we should have no problem building a great team.

The key isn't to avoid big contracts, it's giving star contracts to star players and avoiding overpaying for support players and filler. We couldn't do that under Hendry, we absolutely should be able to do that under Theo and that's why it won't cripple us in the future.

javy knows my name · November 8, 2011

If you sign a big ticket guy to an 8 or 10 year deal, I'm not sure why having one guy under contract at that point is THAT big of a deal. In signing these guys, you kind of go in knowing the back ends of these deals are going to be iffy, at the absolute best. Which is why we're going to concentrate so much effort into building from within. There's absolutely no guarantee that we'll have been producing a tremendous pipeline of high upside, superstar type talent, but in spending much more, the chances are certainly enhanced. It's not ideal to give out more than one of those type deals, but you're looking at something so far in advance that taking a risk like this right now, shouldn't register to what our team looks like a decade in the future.

Exactly. Take the previous salary issue we've gone through. Our problem putting together a good team hasn't been because we had Soriano on the roster. It's because we had Soriano, Grabow, Miles, Reed, Koyie, Howry, Eyre, Kosuke, Byrd, etc., on the roster at the same time (some of those were productive players, but all were overpaid). If it were Soriano and then a bunch of cheap, productive minor leaguers, we'd have been in fine shape to go get a major impact bat and field a very good team.

Going forward, if we have Pujols, expensive FA reliever, overpaid gritty MI, overpaid OF, overpaid unproductive C, overpaid productive reliever, overpaid productive reliever, overpaid productive FA OF, and average-ish FA OF, all on the roster at the same time, we're going to have trouble building a good team. But if we have Pujols, a couple of homegrown stars, and a bunch of cheap, productive players, we should have no problem building a great team.

The key isn't to avoid big contracts, it's giving star contracts to star players and avoiding overpaying for support players and filler. We couldn't do that under Hendry, we absolutely should be able to do that under Theo and that's why it won't cripple us in the future.

This is correct. It's also what Nuts has been saying for pages and pages on end when talking about how $25 million to Pujols in 2017 will only cripple us if horrible, horrible things have happened in the organization along the way.

November 9, 2011

Just to be clear: I'm not opposed to shelling out a massive contract for an elite player. I do question the timing of it right now though. Ideally, Team Theo kills it in the next few years and gets that pipeline of cheap young talent flowing to the bigleagues... THEN you sign the 2014 or 2015 version of Pujols, so that the marquee guy's prime years coincide with the homegrown guys' cheap years.

Using up Pujols' remaining prime years while the bigleague team around him just isn't that good (sorry, it's not) seems misguided.
Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player?

*Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015.

Just looking for Dave's answer here. If now isn't the right time to be making an investment because it wouldn't put us over the top, when do you anticipate we're going to be there after changing over to building from within?

November 9, 2011

There's a difference between maintaining flexibility and not signing ANY players to a long term contract at all. And if you're going to sign someone to a long term contract, make it a superstar.
I don't disagree. But the important thing is signing the right player to a longterm contract.

There is a wide gulf between having a hole at a position and what the Cubs have at most spots. Dempster is a league average third starter. I know his ERA was terrible last year, but read my article on the 2011 rotation - he wasn't nearly as bad as his ERA would suggest.
I know it's common for people to point to his FIP as proof that he was unlucky. But his BABIP didn't stray too far from his career average. What really killed him was the increase in line drive percentage. That could be luck, but that could also be a decline in his stuff, which wouldn't be too surprising given his age. I don't have a problem with Dempster, but it's not a given that he'll go back to a mid 3's ERA.

Between Z, Wells, Samardzija & Cashner, we should be able to get league average production from the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation. If the team feels the need to move Z, it's not a hard spot to fill.
This is another assumption that isn't the guarantee you paint it to be. Samardzija has been nothing but awful as a starter. It would be nice if he could build on last year, but it shouldn't be a surprise if he struggles again as a starter. Cashner shouldn't be counted on for anything. Z and Wells could be average, but it's just as likely they repeat last year.

I'm going to assume you simply forgot about Garza.
Yep.

You already mentioned Soto & Starlin. Barney's nothing special, but he's not a gaping hole, either. His above average defense lifts his overall value to around league average at second base.
I don't get the acceptance of Barney. After April, he was the worst or second worst regular second baseman in baseball offensively. We're basically relying on questionable defensive metrics to derive value from him. He's a guy that needs to be replaced.

Soriano and Byrd are below the mean, but they're within shouting distance of it. Again, not true holes in the lineup. We have our top prospect breaking into the other spot in the outfield.

Again, guys on the downside of their careers that weren't even average last year. They're probably not going to get better next year, and they may get worse.

The bullpen is full of non-holes. Whom do you consider a hole out of Marmol, Marshall, Wood, Russell, Samardzija/Cashner? Beyond that in a bullpen, who really cares? (plus we still have many more good bp arms in the pipeline)
I don't really have a problem with the bullpen, but it's the easiest part of a team to build.

It's a team that is stuffed full of decent players. What it really needs are stars. And that's what people are arguing against signing for some reason.
The problem isn't just that we don't have stars. The problem is also the fact the best-case scenario for a lot of our players is that, if everything breaks in our favor, they're average. We need players with higher ceilings than that.

So my position was that all those players were within hailing distance of league average last year. Your position is that they might all suck in the future. I won't argue that there is a worst case scenario for all those players (as there is for everyone in baseball). However, I cannot agree with your characterization of the current state of the team as being terrible and full of holes when that was clearly not the case in 2011.

But I'm pretty sure I'm not going to make you feel better about that in the space of a couple of posts.

davearm2 · November 9, 2011

Just to be clear: I'm not opposed to shelling out a massive contract for an elite player. I do question the timing of it right now though. Ideally, Team Theo kills it in the next few years and gets that pipeline of cheap young talent flowing to the bigleagues... THEN you sign the 2014 or 2015 version of Pujols, so that the marquee guy's prime years coincide with the homegrown guys' cheap years.

Using up Pujols' remaining prime years while the bigleague team around him just isn't that good (sorry, it's not) seems misguided.
Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player?

*Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015.
Just looking for Dave's answer here. If now isn't the right time to be making an investment because it wouldn't put us over the top, when do you anticipate we're going to be there after changing over to building from within?

I disregarded your last post since the snarky tone was uncalled for. Obviously it is not my desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending.

As I see it, realistically the Cubs are a couple of years away from being that consistent 90-win team that will be contending every year. Team Theo is going to improve things significantly, but it isn't going to happen overnight. I understand that this is open to debate but that's where I stand. I'd love to be wrong.

Meanwhile, I think Pujols has 4 or 5 more elite years left. After that, he's going to be paid more, and probably 2 or 3 times more, than his production is worth.

So on a hypothetical 9-year deal, you get two or three years where Pujols is still playing at an elite level, and the team around him has improved to a championship-caliber. The other years, either the rest of the team isn't quite there yet, or Pujols is in his decline.

That doesn't strike me as a recipe for success.

Make it a 6- or 7-year deal, and the analysis changes dramatically. I personally don't think that's going to be available, but who knows. I'd be thrilled if it is.

FWIW, I expect Pujols will stay in STL, and all of the discussion on this board (and a hundred others) will all have been for nothing.

November 9, 2011

Just to be clear: I'm not opposed to shelling out a massive contract for an elite player. I do question the timing of it right now though. Ideally, Team Theo kills it in the next few years and gets that pipeline of cheap young talent flowing to the bigleagues... THEN you sign the 2014 or 2015 version of Pujols, so that the marquee guy's prime years coincide with the homegrown guys' cheap years.

Using up Pujols' remaining prime years while the bigleague team around him just isn't that good (sorry, it's not) seems misguided.
Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player?

*Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015.
Just looking for Dave's answer here. If now isn't the right time to be making an investment because it wouldn't put us over the top, when do you anticipate we're going to be there after changing over to building from within?
I disregarded your last post since the snarky tone was uncalled for. Obviously it is not my desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending.

As I see it, realistically the Cubs are a couple of years away from being that consistent 90-win team that will be contending every year. Team Theo is going to improve things significantly, but it isn't going to happen overnight. I understand that this is open to debate but that's where I stand. I'd love to be wrong.

Meanwhile, I think Pujols has 4 or 5 more elite years left. After that, he's going to be paid more, and probably 2 or 3 times more, than his production is worth.

So on a hypothetical 9-year deal, you get two or three years where Pujols is still playing at an elite level, and the team around him has improved to a championship-caliber. The other years, either the rest of the team isn't quite there yet, or Pujols is in his decline.

That doesn't strike me as a recipe for success.

Make it a 6- or 7-year deal, and the analysis changes dramatically. I personally don't think that's going to be available, but who knows. I'd be thrilled if it is.

FWIW, I expect Pujols will stay in STL, and all of the discussion on this board (and a hundred others) will all have been for nothing.

I understand how the length of the deal impacts whether it is worth signing Pujols or not. What I don't understand is how you are tying the length of a Pujols deal to whether or not it makes sense to invest in a star player this offseason, which is what you were saying in the post I responded to. Are you changing your position on that?

davearm2 · November 9, 2011

Just to be clear: I'm not opposed to shelling out a massive contract for an elite player. I do question the timing of it right now though. Ideally, Team Theo kills it in the next few years and gets that pipeline of cheap young talent flowing to the bigleagues... THEN you sign the 2014 or 2015 version of Pujols, so that the marquee guy's prime years coincide with the homegrown guys' cheap years.

Using up Pujols' remaining prime years while the bigleague team around him just isn't that good (sorry, it's not) seems misguided.
Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player?

*Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015.
Just looking for Dave's answer here. If now isn't the right time to be making an investment because it wouldn't put us over the top, when do you anticipate we're going to be there after changing over to building from within?
I disregarded your last post since the snarky tone was uncalled for. Obviously it is not my desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending.

As I see it, realistically the Cubs are a couple of years away from being that consistent 90-win team that will be contending every year. Team Theo is going to improve things significantly, but it isn't going to happen overnight. I understand that this is open to debate but that's where I stand. I'd love to be wrong.

Meanwhile, I think Pujols has 4 or 5 more elite years left. After that, he's going to be paid more, and probably 2 or 3 times more, than his production is worth.

So on a hypothetical 9-year deal, you get two or three years where Pujols is still playing at an elite level, and the team around him has improved to a championship-caliber. The other years, either the rest of the team isn't quite there yet, or Pujols is in his decline.

That doesn't strike me as a recipe for success.

Make it a 6- or 7-year deal, and the analysis changes dramatically. I personally don't think that's going to be available, but who knows. I'd be thrilled if it is.

FWIW, I expect Pujols will stay in STL, and all of the discussion on this board (and a hundred others) will all have been for nothing.
I understand how the length of the deal impacts whether it is worth signing Pujols or not. What I don't understand is how you are tying the length of a Pujols deal to whether or not it makes sense to invest in a star player this offseason, which is what you were saying in the post I responded to. Are you changing your position on that?

The only star players available are Pujols and Fielder, and both have major longevity concerns.

If a 28-year-old Mark Teixeira or Adrian Gonzalez was available, I'd be all in favor of giving them 8 years. Having those guys thru age 36 wouldn't worry me much at all.

SouthSideRyan · November 9, 2011

And if those guys don't become available, too bad so sad.

Nevermind that Pujols's down season last year was better than each of their career averages (and better than all but one of Tex's seasons, Tex being the one of the two to actually hit free agency)

CubColtPacer · November 9, 2011

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/princes-improved-approach-at-the-plate/

An article from Fangraphs on trying to isolate Fielder's improved strikeout rate this season.

It looks like he hit more ground balls this season and his HR/FB percentage wasn't quite as good as his best two seasons, which is why he hit less home runs despite striking out a lot less.

KingCubsFan · November 9, 2011

So my position was that all those players were within hailing distance of league average last year. Your position is that they might all suck in the future. I won't argue that there is a worst case scenario for all those players (as there is for everyone in baseball). However, I cannot agree with your characterization of the current state of the team as being terrible and full of holes when that was clearly not the case in 2011.

But I'm pretty sure I'm not going to make you feel better about that in the space of a couple of posts.

My position is that calling them average for the coming year is, in most cases, either based on a reliance of what I consider to be questionable metrics that don't tell the whole story (FIP, defensive ratings) or fails to account for a likely continued decline given the age and skillset of the players involved. Given the information available, I think it's more likely then not that they won't be average next year. Obviously we have a fundamental disagreement on the realistic performance of most of our players, and hopefully I'm wrong and you're right.

davearm2 · November 9, 2011

And if those guys don't become available, too bad so sad.

Nevermind that Pujols's down season last year was better than each of their career averages (and better than all but one of Tex's seasons, Tex being the one of the two to actually hit free agency)

You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future.

If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal.

The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal.

SouthSideRyan · November 9, 2011

And if those guys don't become available, too bad so sad.

Nevermind that Pujols's down season last year was better than each of their career averages (and better than all but one of Tex's seasons, Tex being the one of the two to actually hit free agency)
You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future.

If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal.

The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal.

Sounds like a better deal than Mark Teixiera's.

November 9, 2011

I could be wrong, but I think the hand-wringing over "I WOULDN'T GIVE ALBERT 9 OR 10 YEARS" is for naught.

November 9, 2011

Kind of strange that he'd be saying this now, since Levine has been all like "why on earth would Pujols or Fielder ever want to come lose in Chicago???!"

but the other day Levine blogged this...

Sveum might bring something special to the equation for the Cubs, considering his strong relationship with top-ranked free agent Prince Fielder, whose name has been floated as a possible future Cub. Sveum has been Fielder's hitting coach for the last three seasons.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7206086/chicago-cubs-interview-dale-sveum-manager-job

and today said this in the chat..

Paul (Denver, CO)

Bruce, if the Cubs hire Dale Sveum, do you see the Cubs chances of landing Prince Fielder increasing?
Bruce Levine
(1:26 PM)

Having a comfort zone for Fielder is a nice idea. But Scott Boras is probably more interested in net dollars and the ability to market the player. Chicago, Washington, L.A. will be on Boras' mind.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chicago/chat/_/id/41134

Just thought it was sort of strange that he has been so openly dismissive of their chances of signing one of the 1B's, and now he's saying stuff like this (which was fairly obvious stuff to begin with, but I couldn't believe his original stance on it).

Sammy Sofa · November 9, 2011

And if those guys don't become available, too bad so sad.

Nevermind that Pujols's down season last year was better than each of their career averages (and better than all but one of Tex's seasons, Tex being the one of the two to actually hit free agency)
You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future.

If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal.

The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal.

A well-run Cubs team can easily take the hit of a player being overpaid in the final years of his deal.

Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

Guest

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Guest

Guest

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