Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Sammy Sofa]

The Phillies, Red Sox, and Yankee payrolls are all quite a bit higher than the Cubs'.

 

You really don't think the Cubs can or will be able to swing a $150+ million payroll? Or one around $170 million? Why not?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And I'm not against giving out huge contracts. I'm against giving out huge contracts (7-8 years) to fat, one-dimensional first basemen.

 

Even when that one dimension and 1st base are our two biggest organizational holes? Seems a bit narrow-minded.

[Guest]

If, by "one dimensional," he means, "hitting," then that's a pretty big [expletive] dimension.

[Gilby]

The Phillies, Red Sox, and Yankee payrolls are all quite a bit higher than the Cubs'.

 

You really don't think the Cubs can or will be able to swing a $150+ million payroll? Or one around $170 million? Why not?

 

I don't know what the Ricketts family's plans are, but $170 million is a pretty large jump from what it is now, especially if they want to spend a lot in the draft.

[Sammy Sofa]

The Phillies, Red Sox, and Yankee payrolls are all quite a bit higher than the Cubs'.

 

You really don't think the Cubs can or will be able to swing a $150+ million payroll? Or one around $170 million? Why not?

 

I don't know what the Ricketts family's plans are, but $170 million is a pretty large jump from what it is now, especially if they want to spend a lot in the draft.

 

They're a family with a ton of money with a major market team that makes a ton of money. I don't think the payroll increasing between $30-$60 million is all that unlikely.

[Gilby]

If, by "one dimensional," he means, "hitting," then that's a pretty big [expletive] dimension.

 

Very true, hitting is important, but it's not the only thing. Runs are runs. He gives some runs back on defense and by being slow on the bases.

 

Prince is a very good player, I get that. I'd love to have him hitting 3rd or 4th for the next 5 years for us. If we sign him for 5 years, I'll be giddy like a school girl. But he's likely going to want more. And there are enough concerns for me to not want him for longer.

[Gilby]

The Phillies, Red Sox, and Yankee payrolls are all quite a bit higher than the Cubs'.

 

You really don't think the Cubs can or will be able to swing a $150+ million payroll? Or one around $170 million? Why not?

 

I don't know what the Ricketts family's plans are, but $170 million is a pretty large jump from what it is now, especially if they want to spend a lot in the draft.

 

They're a family with a ton of money with a major market team that makes a ton of money. I don't think the payroll increasing between $30-$60 million is all that unlikely.

 

Fair enough. If they have the payroll that high, I would have less of a problem with a Fielder signing.

[Sammy Sofa]

I have little doubt they'll spend money when they need/want to. I really don't think Theo, Hoyer and McLeod would have all come here if part of the plan was to effectively cap the Cubs payroll as it stands or barely increase it.

[dew1679666265]

Here's something a tad off topic - as it's a Mariners writer talking about the Mariners - but I think he sums up perfectly this debate over whether to sign a guy to a multi-year deal if you're ready to contend the next year or not.

 

What does it matter if the Mariners aren't going to be "ready" to contend before 2013 or 2014? You don't sign guys to multi-year deals -- and Fielder is said to be looking at five years or more -- based on what's going to happen in the next 12 months. Since when did we devolve into this myopic brand of roster construction? Here's a news flash: Fielder won't be around as a free agent a year from now and it's possible there won't be an impact hitter out there.

 

Free agents aren't sitting around waiting for the Mariners and their fans to decide when they're "ready" to contend. You build a team piece by piece based on what's available to you at the time.

 

If we took this "we're not ready to contend right now" approach to every player out there, why did this team even bother extending Felix Hernandez? We've now used up two of the five years in his extension and seen the M's lose 196 games over that span.

 

The answer is simple. Because major league teams don't operate this way. They know they'll never be able to dictate a perfect market and opportunity for contention. They know that stuff happens in baseball and that you jump at opportunities to improve long-term when they present themselves.

 

Cubs could pretty easily be inserted in place of Mariners pretty much everywhere and his point would still ring true (save for defending the Werth contract, that was awful).

[bukie]

(save for defending the Werth contract, that was awful).

The Werth (and Soriano) contracts are what happens when you don't sign the premier hitters when you get a chance. You end up with a bunch of money to spend in a year where nobody's that good and blow it all on the best available option.

[davearm2]

There's a point getting lost here: if a team wants to get top FA talent, you have to overpay for it in some way, either in length of contract or AAV. Otherwise, you will not get it.

That point is not getting lost, as far as I can tell.

 

Speaking just for myself, these are not the players I would bet my chips on. It's not any more complicated than that, really.

[davearm2]

(save for defending the Werth contract, that was awful).

The Werth (and Soriano) contracts are what happens when you don't sign the premier hitters when you get a chance. You end up with a bunch of money to spend in a year where nobody's that good and blow it all on the best available option.

That is precisely what Fielder represents, IMO. Couldn't have said it better, actually.

 

Pujols is that good, he's just too far along the aging curve for me.

[Sammy Sofa]

Who is talking about "betting their chips" on either player? They'd be a part of going forward, not what the team is hinging their future on. Or are you just talking about "betting" whether either will be productive enough to justify signing them?

[davearm2]

I personally think it's a safe bet that both players will be worth at least 5 WAR each for at worst the first 4 years of any deal, likely 5.

 

The question you deal with, then, in signing them, is how far each would get above 5, and how much extra are you paying per year for it.

I know WAR values differ from place to place.

 

On B-R, Fielder has topped 5 twice. He's hardly a safe bet to be at that level annually going forward.

[davearm2]

Who is talking about "betting their chips" on either player? They'd be a part of going forward, not what the team is hinging their future on. Or are you just talking about "betting" whether either will be productive enough to justify signing them?

Either player is going to get the biggest contract in Cubs history. It'd be the biggest "bet" the team has ever made.

[Sammy Sofa]

Who is talking about "betting their chips" on either player? They'd be a part of going forward, not what the team is hinging their future on. Or are you just talking about "betting" whether either will be productive enough to justify signing them?

Either player is going to get the biggest contract in Cubs history. It'd be the biggest "bet" the team has ever made.

 

And? Any big contract is a gamble.

[davearm2]

I'm with davearm2 on this one. Fielder's a one-dimensional (though that one dimension is outstanding) player with a scary body type. He's close to being a DH if he isn't already. I think it's a stretch to call him a superstar when he's one season removed from putting up a 3.4 WAR. Plus he put up a 1.7 WAR not too long before that. His upside just isn't all that great because of his defense and baserunning. 5-6 WAR is probably his max. These type of long deals are the reason we are where we are. We are not the Yankees; bad contracts hurt.

 

Now, I don't hate Prince and would definitely take him for 5 years and maybe 6, but I'm not sure that's possible. If Theo/Jed goes over 6 years for him, it better include a CC-like opt-out clause after year 3 or 4. Hopefully he would use it.

Welcome to the board!

 

Just FYI, siding with me is not going to help your reputation around here.

 

I think both Pujols and Fielder are going to end up working out badly for whatever team signs them, unless, like you said, the deals end up being shorter in duration than I anticipate.

 

The notion that the Cubs can afford to absorb a bad contract strikes me as an exceedingly poor reason to take one on, yet that's what I keep hearing.

 

Because it's an ongoing game and you stagger the decline in production with one player by offsetting it, ideally, with other FA signings, trades and player development. Look at the Phillies and the Red Sox and the Yankees: all three teams have contracts where they will be or are now overpaying for the production they are getting in return. It's essentially impossible to avoid if you're looking to bolster your team via impact FA signings. All of you that want these magical players and contracts that somehow bypass this are expecting things that just don't happen often enough.

 

And 2-4 years? This is what we're worried that the Cubs would get in terms of quality production from Pujols or Fielder? Somewhere here thinks it's likely they could only get TWO years of worthwhile production from these guys? Come the [expletive] on. It's like people were traumatized by the Soriano signing and the limitations of the sale and think the Cubs must tread some fragile line of financial ability going forward.

 

Seriously, if the Cubs can indeed absorb unproductive years like the Phillies, Red Sox and Yankees why would anyone here not want them to do that? It's not like it will prevent them still signing other FA and building from within. This is a team with huge resources and they easily take the hit while still being able to be productive and build a winning team. Neither contract would cripple this team; not even close.

One more time: the notion that the Cubs can afford to absorb a bad contract strikes me as an exceedingly poor reason to take one on.

 

One more time: there are other guys I'd be willing to offer mega-deals, even anticipating at the back end the salary will exceed the production.

 

Fielder and Pujols just strike me as bad bets to maintain the sort of production that would justify their cost. Period.

[davearm2]

Who is talking about "betting their chips" on either player? They'd be a part of going forward, not what the team is hinging their future on. Or are you just talking about "betting" whether either will be productive enough to justify signing them?

Either player is going to get the biggest contract in Cubs history. It'd be the biggest "bet" the team has ever made.

 

And? Any big contract is a gamble.

And I'd gamble it on someone else.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's not a "bad contract" for the duration of the contract, hence the advantage when a team can take the hit of the last couple of years after reaping the benefits of the good years.

[davearm2]

It's not a "bad contract" for the duration of the contract, hence the advantage when a team can take the hit of the last couple of years after reaping the benefits of the good years.

Soriano was a bad contract from day one, and just about everyone here thought so.

 

Ditto Werth, Zito, Howard, Wells, etc.

[brinoch]

Who, then? Who would you gamble on?

 

Because I see a couple of really good hitters and a couple of good pitchers. I think this is the time where I quote Voltaire: "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." The best is the enemy of good (alternately, the perfect is the enemy of good). The perfect free agent who meets your combination of productive years versus contract length is never going to appear. The best any team can hope to do is take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves each off season. Moving forward, a below average Cubs offense has already lost Ramirez -- who is starting to decline, in any event. They have the opportunity to improve from their pre-Free Agent Ramirez level by signing one player.

 

Yes, the rate of return in the latter years of a contract are too expensive. But that's the price of free agents. Unless the Cubs choose to compromise several years of competitiveness -- probably Theo's five year contract -- they are going to have to improve the current team significantly via free agency. Theo isn't going to do that. He's going to sign free agents AND build the pipeline. That way, the Cubs have a combination of young, cheap players and older, more expensive players. Eventually, we can all hope that the pipeline allows the Cubs to functionally replace players as they get too expensive on a regular basis.

 

Likewise, I'm uninterested in watching a crappy team finish under .500 for the sake of saving a bunch of money 5 years from now. Bring on the Pujols.

[dew1679666265]

It's not a "bad contract" for the duration of the contract, hence the advantage when a team can take the hit of the last couple of years after reaping the benefits of the good years.

Soriano was a bad contract from day one, and just about everyone here thought so.

 

Ditto Werth, Zito, Howard, Wells, etc.

 

Because none of those players would give you the exceptional production on the front end to make the hit on the back end acceptable. Pujols and Fielder are not comparable players to those guys.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's not a "bad contract" for the duration of the contract, hence the advantage when a team can take the hit of the last couple of years after reaping the benefits of the good years.

Soriano was a bad contract from day one, and just about everyone here thought so.

 

Ditto Werth, Zito, Howard, Wells, etc.

 

Wow, I couldn't have asked for a more perfect post proving my "Soriano has left Cubs fans traumatized"-theory if I had begged for one.

 

How are those guys an argument against signing Fielder or Pujols? People knew those were bad contracts because they'd never give you the top shelf production that could justify the backend expense.

[Cubswin11]

FWIW

 

The Los Angeles Dodgers will not be able to bid on free agents such as Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols until the team is sold, a source close to Dodgers owner Frank McCourt told ESPN.com on Wednesday.

 

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7213866/los-angeles-dodgers-lure-free-agents-sold-source-says

[davearm2]

It's not a "bad contract" for the duration of the contract, hence the advantage when a team can take the hit of the last couple of years after reaping the benefits of the good years.

Soriano was a bad contract from day one, and just about everyone here thought so.

 

Ditto Werth, Zito, Howard, Wells, etc.

 

Wow, I couldn't have asked for a more perfect post proving my "Soriano has left Cubs fans traumatized"-theory if I had begged for one.

 

How are those guys an argument against signing Fielder or Pujols? People knew those were bad contracts because they'd never give you the top shelf production that could justify the backend expense.

Soriano hasn't left me traumatized. I consider Fielder in the same class as him, and Howard and Werth. He's not elite, he's just the best available, flaws and all. Go check the WAR numbers and you'll see I'm right.

 

Pujols is simply too old for me to want to make a huge bet on.