Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[davearm2]

dave, should the Cubs ever sign someone like Fielder?

I've already said that I'd be happy giving out the Teixeira and Adrian Gonzalez contracts.

[bukie]

The major flaw in the "wait until they're ready to contend to sign a Fielder/Pujols-caliber free agent" is that having a Fielder/Pujols-caliber free agent available is a once in a decade opportunity.

 

Well, Pujols is. Fielder, as good as he is, isn't really all that rare a player.

It's rare enough that a player even of Fielder's caliber becomes available for nothing but money. Add onto that the Yankees, Phillies and Red Sox aren't involved in the bidding, and it solves the team's most glaring positional need when there isn't a single viable option existing within the system, and it's easily an opportunity that almost never comes along.

[Sammy Sofa]

The major flaw in the "wait until they're ready to contend to sign a Fielder/Pujols-caliber free agent" is that having a Fielder/Pujols-caliber free agent available is a once in a decade opportunity.

 

Well, Pujols is. Fielder, as good as he is, isn't really all that rare a player.

It's rare enough that a player even of Fielder's caliber becomes available for nothing but money. Add onto that the Yankees, Phillies and Red Sox aren't involved in the bidding, and it solves the team's most glaring positional need when there isn't a single viable option existing within the system, and it's easily an opportunity that almost never comes along.

 

Agreed.

[davearm2]

The major flaw in the "wait until they're ready to contend to sign a Fielder/Pujols-caliber free agent" is that having a Fielder/Pujols-caliber free agent available is a once in a decade opportunity.

 

Well, Pujols is. Fielder, as good as he is, isn't really all that rare a player.

Right. Fielder is being way overhyped. Guys as good as him are available most years.

 

Pujols is definitely a rare case. Rare in terms of the cost too (I think it's safe to assume).

[sneakypower]

Debatable. I kept saying awhile ago to not rule out Fielder and the Nats. They reportedly like Espinosa long run at short, and have Desmond/Lombardozzi/Rendon to fit in the middle infield (it's possible Zimmerman moves to first and opens up 3rd for Rendon as well). Moving on a middle of the order bat makes sense, although I don't know if they can fit Fielder/SP unless they move some money (which is doable, DFA or trade Lannan/Gorzelanny and then look to shop LaRoche). Now, a top of the order bat should be a higher priority, but if they like their MI options, they may pursue a CF instead (but the Twins wanted Storen for Span, and they weren't willing to do that).

 

The Lerners want to win ... and win soon. With Philly aging, the Nats may see an opening.

 

________

 

I keep wondering why a lot of the media is suggesting the Cubs won't pursue a big ticket signing. Makes me wonder if there's some leaks that they've been getting from the front office. There seem to be a lot of folks that are suggesting that the Cubs won't push.

Fielder would be a slight upgrade from Morse, who can't play anywhere else but 1B, was my main point

 

if they want to spend, put it all towards pitchers who have actually been able to last through a full season of pitching; Wilson or Darvish make far more sense for them than Fielder

[Little Slide Rooter]

Also, if the season started today our lineup could look like

 

Jackson

Castro

Byrd

LaHair

Soriano

Soto

DeWitt

Barney

 

Couple that with a so-so rotation, its a recipe for 65 wins and alot of empty seats. With the farm system in its current state they need to do something.

[Guest]

The major flaw in the "wait until they're ready to contend to sign a Fielder/Pujols-caliber free agent" is that having a Fielder/Pujols-caliber free agent available is a once in a decade opportunity.

 

Well, Pujols is. Fielder, as good as he is, isn't really all that rare a player.

Right. Fielder is being way overhyped. Guys as good as him are available most years.

 

Pujols is definitely a rare case. Rare in terms of the cost too (I think it's safe to assume).

 

Who are these guys who are as good as him and when are they going to be available? And do they play 1b? I'm certainly not suggesting that Fielder is an elite player that the Cubs absolutely cannot pass up on, but who fits the Cubs biggest need next year or the year after that? And what are the chances that they will still be available at that time?

 

He's going to cost and he's probably going to cost more than he's worth over the life of his contract. But, that's the price one has to pay for not developing those true talents from within and having to sign them away from other teams. This is nothing new.

[Backtobanks]

Another option that I mentioned in a different discussion:

 

How about a deal centered around Marshall for Swisher? Maybe include Byrd with someone like Hughes coming back.

 

The Yankees need a LHRP and Marshall is one of the best. Cubs get a productive middle of the order bat on a 1-year deal ($10 million, with the inside track to sign him to an extension). Use the money saved on Pujols/Fielder to go after Cespedes/Wilson/Darvish.

[davell]

I'm actually a fan of a Marshall for Swisher type of deal. But Hughes isn't a throw in. They think way too much of him to put him in a deal like that.

[Sammy Sofa]

The major flaw in the "wait until they're ready to contend to sign a Fielder/Pujols-caliber free agent" is that having a Fielder/Pujols-caliber free agent available is a once in a decade opportunity.

 

Well, Pujols is. Fielder, as good as he is, isn't really all that rare a player.

Right. Fielder is being way overhyped. Guys as good as him are available most years.

 

Pujols is definitely a rare case. Rare in terms of the cost too (I think it's safe to assume).

 

Who are these guys who are as good as him and when are they going to be available? And do they play 1b? I'm certainly not suggesting that Fielder is an elite player that the Cubs absolutely cannot pass up on, but who fits the Cubs biggest need next year or the year after that? And what are the chances that they will still be available at that time?

 

He's going to cost and he's probably going to cost more than he's worth over the life of his contract. But, that's the price one has to pay for not developing those true talents from within and having to sign them away from other teams. This is nothing new.

 

Right. Fielder isn't as rare as Pujols, but he also likely isn't as common as dave thinks, and given how well he fits the Cubs' needs and the resources they have it's foolish for them to act like they have a strict budget crunch.

[davell]

Here's the best reason to go after Fielder, as far as I'm concerned. The following is a list of the BEST FA hitters for 2013 and their ages as well: Andre Ethier 31, Nick Swisher 32, Carlos Quentin 30, BJ Upton 28, Shane Victorino 32, Josh Hamilton 32, Howie Kendrick 29, Brandon Phillips 32, and Mike Napoli 31. Meanwhile, the pitching is excellent for that class. So, if we have needs in both areas but can only afford ONE big ticket guy this offseason, then hitting is definitely the way to go.

[SouthSideRyan]

If anything, I could see Theo wanting to get a better grasp of his new organization before spending huge on a single player. Not saying this is going to happen, but I think it's understandable, if it happens. Spend a year building up the system and having even more money fall off next year. In the end though, I think we'll add ONE big ticket guy this offseason.

 

I'd like to get this thing turned around, but before I do anything rash let me take a look at this LaHair fellow first

[Guest]

I expanded my thoughts on why we should pursue one of the top line 1B FA in an article for the front page.

 

Basically more of the same, but I included several of the arguments against signing one of them and tried to explain why those arguments don't hold much water.

[Guest]

"I'm going to look for moves that makes us better in the long run but don't negatively impact us in 2012," Epstein said.

 

But Epstein added he would "err on the side of the long haul" over 2012 if it comes down to it.

 

"I think that's the position we're in right here," he said.

 

That would seem to suggest tying up payroll with an eight-year deal for Prince Fielder is unlikely. And though the Cubs will have Cuban refugee Yoennis Cespedes work out, it's hard to picture them getting into a bidding war for the five-tool outfielder.

 

Epstein prides himself on being "unpredictable(because) being unpredictable is a competitive advantage."

 

All we know is he's taking copious notes about the Cubs thing, hoping to learn from the organization's past mistakes.

 

HOW DOES SIGNING PRINCE FIELDER NOT MAKE US BETTER IN THE LONG RUN AND NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE 2012 TEAM? WHY IS THE LOCAL MEDIA SO [expletive] AWFUL AT INTERPRETING SIMPLE COMMENTS?

 

Seriously, how the hell has "an eye toward the future" turned into substantially cut payroll for the next 2 years?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1120-cubs-chicago--20111120,0,357465.story

[Guest]

"I'm going to look for moves that makes us better in the long run but don't negatively impact us in 2012," Epstein said.

 

But Epstein added he would "err on the side of the long haul" over 2012 if it comes down to it.

 

"I think that's the position we're in right here," he said.

 

That would seem to suggest tying up payroll with an eight-year deal for Prince Fielder is unlikely. And though the Cubs will have Cuban refugee Yoennis Cespedes work out, it's hard to picture them getting into a bidding war for the five-tool outfielder.

 

Epstein prides himself on being "unpredictable(because) being unpredictable is a competitive advantage."

 

All we know is he's taking copious notes about the Cubs thing, hoping to learn from the organization's past mistakes.

 

HOW DOES SIGNING PRINCE FIELDER NOT MAKE US BETTER IN THE LONG RUN AND NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE 2012 TEAM? WHY IS THE LOCAL MEDIA SO [expletive] AWFUL AT INTERPRETING SIMPLE COMMENTS?

 

Seriously, how the hell has "an eye toward the future" turned into substantially cut payroll for the next 2 years?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1120-cubs-chicago--20111120,0,357465.story

I replied to that with the article I just finished writing. I wish the links worked because my article was basically a direct answer to his nonsense.

[davearm2]

I expanded my thoughts on why we should pursue one of the top line 1B FA in an article for the front page.

 

Basically more of the same, but I included several of the arguments against signing one of them and tried to explain why those arguments don't hold much water.

Any "Cubs should sign Pujols/Fielder" argument begs the question, "for how much/ how long?"

 

I'd be interested in seeing an accompanying article where you lay out an 8-year forecast of yearly WARs for each of these two guys, and explain the analysis that generated your numbers.

 

Better would be distinct "best case", "worst case" and "expected case" trendlines.

 

Better still would be percentiles akin to what I recall seeing on PECOTA cards back when I subscribed to BR.

 

Then conclude by discussing what the maximum contract you'd be willing to offer to each guy is.

[Guest]

I expanded my thoughts on why we should pursue one of the top line 1B FA in an article for the front page.

 

Basically more of the same, but I included several of the arguments against signing one of them and tried to explain why those arguments don't hold much water.

Any "Cubs should sign Pujols/Fielder" argument begs the question, "for how much/ how long?"

 

I'd be interested in seeing an accompanying article where you lay out an 8-year forecast of yearly WARs for each of these two guys, and explain the analysis that generated your numbers.

 

Better would be distinct "best case", "worst case" and "expected case" trendlines.

 

Better still would be percentiles akin to what I recall seeing on PECOTA cards back when I subscribed to BR.

 

Then conclude by discussing what the maximum contract you'd be willing to offer to each guy is.

It would certainly make an interesting article.

 

You seem to have missed the point of this one, though. I even state at the end that if you're against the signings because of the inherent risk that it is understandable. What borders on silly, imo, is to insist that the timing is simply not right to sign a big free agent.

[davearm2]

I expanded my thoughts on why we should pursue one of the top line 1B FA in an article for the front page.

 

Basically more of the same, but I included several of the arguments against signing one of them and tried to explain why those arguments don't hold much water.

Any "Cubs should sign Pujols/Fielder" argument begs the question, "for how much/ how long?"

 

I'd be interested in seeing an accompanying article where you lay out an 8-year forecast of yearly WARs for each of these two guys, and explain the analysis that generated your numbers.

 

Better would be distinct "best case", "worst case" and "expected case" trendlines.

 

Better still would be percentiles akin to what I recall seeing on PECOTA cards back when I subscribed to BR.

 

Then conclude by discussing what the maximum contract you'd be willing to offer to each guy is.

It would certainly make an interesting article.

 

You seem to have missed the point of this one, though. I even state at the end that if you're against the signings because of the inherent risk that it is understandable. What borders on silly, imo, is to insist that the timing is simply not right to sign a big free agent.

Fair enough. Those are two separate discussions, I suppose.

 

I feel safe assuming nobody here would be opposed to a 4/80 deal, and nobody would be in favor of a 12/400 deal. So the issue of "how much" is pretty central to the discussion IMO.

[Guest]

I expanded my thoughts on why we should pursue one of the top line 1B FA in an article for the front page.

 

Basically more of the same, but I included several of the arguments against signing one of them and tried to explain why those arguments don't hold much water.

Any "Cubs should sign Pujols/Fielder" argument begs the question, "for how much/ how long?"

 

I'd be interested in seeing an accompanying article where you lay out an 8-year forecast of yearly WARs for each of these two guys, and explain the analysis that generated your numbers.

 

Better would be distinct "best case", "worst case" and "expected case" trendlines.

 

Better still would be percentiles akin to what I recall seeing on PECOTA cards back when I subscribed to BR.

 

Then conclude by discussing what the maximum contract you'd be willing to offer to each guy is.

It would certainly make an interesting article.

 

You seem to have missed the point of this one, though. I even state at the end that if you're against the signings because of the inherent risk that it is understandable. What borders on silly, imo, is to insist that the timing is simply not right to sign a big free agent.

Fair enough. Those are two separate discussions, I suppose.

 

I feel safe assuming nobody here would be opposed to a 4/80 deal, and nobody would be in favor of a 12/400 deal. So the issue of "how much" is pretty central to the discussion IMO.

Sure - but that article was meant to be a response to those who say we have to focus on developing the farm first.

 

I'll be happy to write one tomorrow that talks about what deal might be reasonable for each.

[davearm2]

I expanded my thoughts on why we should pursue one of the top line 1B FA in an article for the front page.

 

Basically more of the same, but I included several of the arguments against signing one of them and tried to explain why those arguments don't hold much water.

Any "Cubs should sign Pujols/Fielder" argument begs the question, "for how much/ how long?"

 

I'd be interested in seeing an accompanying article where you lay out an 8-year forecast of yearly WARs for each of these two guys, and explain the analysis that generated your numbers.

 

Better would be distinct "best case", "worst case" and "expected case" trendlines.

 

Better still would be percentiles akin to what I recall seeing on PECOTA cards back when I subscribed to BR.

 

Then conclude by discussing what the maximum contract you'd be willing to offer to each guy is.

It would certainly make an interesting article.

 

You seem to have missed the point of this one, though. I even state at the end that if you're against the signings because of the inherent risk that it is understandable. What borders on silly, imo, is to insist that the timing is simply not right to sign a big free agent.

Fair enough. Those are two separate discussions, I suppose.

 

I feel safe assuming nobody here would be opposed to a 4/80 deal, and nobody would be in favor of a 12/400 deal. So the issue of "how much" is pretty central to the discussion IMO.

Sure - but that article was meant to be a response to those who say we have to focus on developing the farm first.

 

I'll be happy to write one tomorrow that talks about what deal might be reasonable for each.

That'd be terrific. Naturally you approach it how you want, but I'd love to see it built up from a WAR forecast like I described. Seems beyond certain that that's the approach Theo and co. will use.

[Tyrant]

Any "Cubs should sign Pujols/Fielder" argument begs the question, "for how much/ how long?"

 

That question was not begged.

[USSoccer]

Are we all about to start rationalizing why letting Ramirez walk, passing on Pujols and Fielder and trying to build around Castro, a Cuban defector who's workout video was only missing Yao Ming's folding chair, and gambling that Yu Darvish won't suck like every other Japanese import is the best offseason route because we can then go sign Matt Kem...er, build around the draft and compete in 3 years?

 

Because that's a recipe for bad.

[huff]

Are we all about to start rationalizing why letting Ramirez walk, passing on Pujols and Fielder and trying to build around Castro, a Cuban defector who's workout video was only missing Yao Ming's folding chair, and gambling that Yu Darvish won't suck like every other Japanese import is the best offseason route because we can then go sign Matt Kem...er, build around the draft and compete in 3 years?

 

Because that's a recipe for bad.

 

 

this.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Are we all about to start rationalizing why letting Ramirez walk, passing on Pujols and Fielder and trying to build around Castro, a Cuban defector who's workout video was only missing Yao Ming's folding chair, and gambling that Yu Darvish won't suck like every other Japanese import is the best offseason route because we can then go sign Matt Kem...er, build around the draft and compete in 3 years?

 

Because that's a recipe for bad.

 

Sort of. I'm really not sure about Cespedes, but I'm totally sold on Darvish. A 25-year-old who throws in the mid-90s with movement? I'll take my chances. Stuff plays, and he's got the stuff.

 

I don't think the roster we have right now is that bad, and I absolutely have faith in the brain trust to build a competitive team immediately, with or without Pujielder.

[RammyFanny]

Are we all about to start rationalizing why letting Ramirez walk, passing on Pujols and Fielder and trying to build around Castro, a Cuban defector who's workout video was only missing Yao Ming's folding chair, and gambling that Yu Darvish won't suck like every other Japanese import is the best offseason route because we can then go sign Matt Kem...er, build around the draft and compete in 3 years?

 

Because that's a recipe for bad.

Not important, but do you mean Yi Jianlian?