2012 - Throw away/Go for it?

[mul21]

It blows my mind how some poeple lose sight of just how incredible a player Pujols is. In no way am I saying he's a lock to still be productive at, say, age 37, but he has such a bigger curve than other players due to how fantastically good he is. Look at how so many of the greats he compares to lasted late into their 30's as productive (or better) players.

 

My problem with this line of thinking is that we haven't seen guys of his ilk try to produce late into their 30s outside of the steroid era when pitching is used like it is now. I mean, you're looking at guys who were elite(ish) late in their careers in the 60s-80s before the 6 inning start became prevalent and you're seeing a different reliever every time you come up late in games and those guys are throwing mid to upper 90s pretty regularly. The loss of bat speed, especially against those late inning guys, along with the fact that you're seeing guys be able to give more max effort early in games makes me nervous about aging superstars in the near future.

 

Perhaps. I'd still rather they take the chance.

 

I'd love to as well, especially if they could get him to sign a 7/$210 deal or something along those lines. Assuming payroll is increased anyway.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'd love to as well, especially if they could get him to sign a 7/$210 deal or something along those lines. Assuming payroll is increased anyway.

 

Yeah, I really hope that if they do sign him they opt to give him the money he wants over the years if comes down to the line.

[dew1679666265]

If you don't like the Soriano contract, then it's pretty hard to justify offering the same deal to Fielder. And you probably can't even get Fielder @ Soriano's numbers.

 

We signed Soriano to 8 years when he was 31 years old, I'm advocating giving Fielder 8 years when he's 28. Also, Soriano had a lot of WAR tied into his very good defense in a number of years. Generally that's a good thing, but with Soriano, his defense wasn't going to stay any good since it was primarily based on his great athleticism making up for bad reads and poor routes. His offense has been marginally comparable to Prince, but Soriano's best wOBA seasons are some of Prince's worst. For instance, in 11 seasons Soriano has posted 5 wOBAs over .370, none of those over .380. In 6 seasons, Prince has posted a .370+ wOBA 5 times, with 3 of those over .400. And they're largely OBP based, meaning that offensive value will remain as long as his back doesn't give out.

 

Soriano had a few star level seasons because he was super athletic, Prince is a star level player. Add in that we're signing Prince 3 years earlier than we signed Soriano and the deals aren't very comparable.

[toonsterwu]

Pujols is better than ARod.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season.

 

That's fantastic. Pujols has been a better player leading up to his age 32 season than ARod. He has more room to decline and still be an upper tier player.

 

That's a flawed analysis that assumes a lot of things about the human body that we can't answer without knowing more detailed information about Pujols medical record. We could go back and forth on this, and in the end, neither party would have anything more than speculation on when he might decline or if he'll manage to defy nature. But you do leave out the other point that I made in conjunction with that - Pujols has already shown some slippage in play over the last 2 seasons. That's been marked by a steady increase of Pujols chasing pitches outside the zone. His great hit tool has allowed him to still maintain star performance, just not elite performance, but when that bat speed slows down ... what happens next. Furthermore, he's had some more struggles on the fastball than in year's past.

Edited October 22, 2011 by toonsterwu

[dew1679666265]

Yeah, but I don't see the Cubs being a player for the best arm on the market.

 

In order for me. (top 5 MLB arms)

 

Wilson

Jackson

Maholm

Bedard

Vazquez

 

There's really no reason not to be a player for Wilson. If you don't get him, that can be understandable (there's a limit to what I'd be willing to pay him, for instance), but there's no reason to not even get involved in the bidding.

[davearm2]

Pujols is better than ARod.

Doesn't mean the shape of their career WARP curves aren't likely to mirror each other when all is said and done. And if so, the point about Pujols being a significant liability in the second half of his next deal is very valid. In fact I think that's essentially a given.

 

Nobody's arguing that he wouldn't decline over the course of a 6-10 contract at this point in his career. The point in him being better than ARod is that it means there's a very good chance that his decline would still leave him at a level where he's better than most longer than the typical player, or even someone at ARod's level.

 

Do you want the Cubs to not sign either Pujols or Fielder?

Best case is you give 'em a deal with an opt-out, and they take the opt out.

 

The Yankees should have let ARod walk. And they should let CC walk too, if they get that chance this year.

 

So if they can't sign them with such a clause they shouldn't do so?

 

What if they have the opportunity to sign Kemp after next season? When do you think the Cubs should actually dish out a big contract? Only if the player is homegrown and they can do it earlier in their career? You can talk yourself out of these types of deals, but it's absurd for a team with the Cubs' resources to pass on such players given what they need. This isn't Soriano part deux.

I don't think the risk/reward equation for Fielder is all that different than Soriano's was. I posted the WARP numbers earlier. I anticipate Fielder's contract numbers will be larger.

 

Of course there are some gigantic contracts out there that I would be comfortable with the Cubs handing out. Obviously each one needs to be evaluated independently. Personally, I anticipate both of these guys are going to turn out badly at the dollars and years being speculated.

[toonsterwu]

Going all in immediately doesn't seem like anything Theo would even think about. You do your player evaluations and just go from there. If you aren't convinced Wilson is the answer, then you pass on him and wait for what you think is a better option down the line. But, that doesn't mean you tank either. Adding a Kuroda, Oswalt, Bedard, or Vazquez helps our rotation quite a bit and all of them should be available on one or two year deals, maybe Oswalt gets 3. But I doubt the others do. It's just checks and balances. We've got Z and Demp gone soon anyway, so we've got to invest in pitching somehow.

 

Furthermore, he didn't do that early in his Red Sox tenure. The first year was marked by heavy attempts to find bargains in Rule 5, small signings in Mueller, Millar, Ortiz, adding guys like Arroyo. Granted, markedly different situations he's walking into so you never know if he changes his approach. That said, they didn't get really aggressive, overall, until, IIRC, 2006 (at least, that's the first year I remember the Red Sox aggressively over-slotting in the draft).

[dew1679666265]

So you don't have the same concern about paying Wilson much more than Buehrle for those same 33-35 seasons and beyond? I understand he has more room to fall in order to be average. I also understand that he doesn't have as many pitches on that arm, but he could become a huge burden at the end of his contract. He is going to command a salary that you can't afford to have him fall back a whole lot.

 

As mojo said, the mileage on the arm is vastly different between Buerhle and Wilson. It can't be dismissed. Also, Buerhle at his best is a nice pitcher, but if he declines at all he's nothing particularly special. Wilson is an elite arm who nearly doubled Buerhle's value this year (5.9 WAR vs 3.4 WAR).

 

There's definitely risk involved in Wilson, but we have guys in the minors who have the upside to be Mark Buerhle (McNutt, maybe Whitenack). We don't have anybody above probably rookie ball who has Wilson's potential.

[toonsterwu]

It blows my mind how some poeple lose sight of just how incredible a player Pujols is. In no way am I saying he's a lock to still be productive at, say, age 37, but he has such a bigger curve than other players due to how fantastically good he is. Look at how so many of the greats he compares to lasted late into their 30's as productive (or better) players.

 

My problem with this line of thinking is that we haven't seen guys of his ilk try to produce late into their 30s outside of the steroid era when pitching is used like it is now. I mean, you're looking at guys who were elite(ish) late in their careers in the 60s-80s before the 6 inning start became prevalent and you're seeing a different reliever every time you come up late in games and those guys are throwing mid to upper 90s pretty regularly. The loss of bat speed, especially against those late inning guys, along with the fact that you're seeing guys be able to give more max effort early in games makes me nervous about aging superstars in the near future.

 

Perhaps. I'd still rather they take the chance.

 

I'm not against them taking the chance, particularly depending on how the deal is structured (I'd feel a bit better if it wasn't as bottom-heavy of a deal, and instead, perhaps utilized the expiring Zambrano and Soriano contracts to make it top heavy ... few teams do that, although one contract recently was along those lines, can't think of which one though), I'm just wary enough to be concerned when there are legitimate reasons to be. Look, if they win it all in 2012 or 2013, then screw it, the future be damned and we can piss and moan about it here in a couple years.

[davearm2]

If you don't like the Soriano contract, then it's pretty hard to justify offering the same deal to Fielder. And you probably can't even get Fielder @ Soriano's numbers.

 

We signed Soriano to 8 years when he was 31 years old, I'm advocating giving Fielder 8 years when he's 28. Also, Soriano had a lot of WAR tied into his very good defense in a number of years. Generally that's a good thing, but with Soriano, his defense wasn't going to stay any good since it was primarily based on his great athleticism making up for bad reads and poor routes. His offense has been marginally comparable to Prince, but Soriano's best wOBA seasons are some of Prince's worst. For instance, in 11 seasons Soriano has posted 5 wOBAs over .370, none of those over .380. In 6 seasons, Prince has posted a .370+ wOBA 5 times, with 3 of those over .400. And they're largely OBP based, meaning that offensive value will remain as long as his back doesn't give out.

 

Soriano had a few star level seasons because he was super athletic, Prince is a star level player. Add in that we're signing Prince 3 years earlier than we signed Soriano and the deals aren't very comparable.

Actually Soriano's defense was universally considered below average until he moved off of 2B. That happened one year before he signed with the Cubs.

 

Anyway, I maintain that a big fat 28 year old Fielder represents as much or more risk of decline as a lithe and athletic 31 year old Soriano.

 

My guess is, so long as he stays healthy, Fielder will hit about like he has to this point. The rest of his game will slide.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think the risk/reward equation for Fielder is all that different than Soriano's was. I posted the WARP numbers earlier. I anticipate Fielder's contract numbers will be larger.

 

You think he'll get more than 8 years? I sure don't. I don't even think it's a given he gets more than 6. And the Cubs wouldn't be signing him at age 31; you'd be getting him for this typical peak years of 28-32.

 

Of course there are some gigantic contracts out there that I would be comfortable with the Cubs handing out. Obviously each one needs to be evaluated independently. Personally, I anticipate both of these guys are going to turn out badly at the dollars and years being speculated.

 

So you want them to pass on both? What about signing someone like Kemp to a big deal after 2012?

[toonsterwu]

Yeah, but I don't see the Cubs being a player for the best arm on the market.

 

In order for me. (top 5 MLB arms)

 

Wilson

Jackson

Maholm

Bedard

Vazquez

 

There's really no reason not to be a player for Wilson. If you don't get him, that can be understandable (there's a limit to what I'd be willing to pay him, for instance), but there's no reason to not even get involved in the bidding.

 

I think we'll be in on the bidding, but it's going to be tough to win. There are enough teams that could potentially spend money. I mean, if the Nats move John Lannan, they'll have additional money to fit Wilson in the short and long term.

 

I think overpaying could win us the deal, as it seems like the rumors suggest that he's targeting a specific number, perhaps 100 mil. That said, 5/100 for Wilson? Ugh. I guess it's passable, as you hope he has strong performances for 2-3 years, but still ... 5/100 for him is pretty ... ugh.

[dew1679666265]

I think the 2nd part is somewhat debatable. Again, I'm more concerned about years than money, as I noted initially. Pujols is in his early 30's. Unless he's an exception to the rule, father time will catch up soon and you never know how fast a guy can slip. I'm not saying he'll go from star to irrelevant, but he could be a significant burden a few years down the road. I mean, Alex Rodriguez has really fallen of late and is a significant burden.

 

Fielder is a different equation, due to his youth. I'm just not keen on giving any player 7-8 year deals, but of the two, I'd be more open to that.

 

ARod has never had the patience or OBP that Pujols has. Because of his IsoD, if Pujols can keep his slugging above .500 like ARod has, his value will be higher than the 3-4 WAR ARod has given the Yankees the past couple of years. And given that Pujols has posted a nearly 9 WAR on average in his career, I'd say he's the very definition of an exception to the rule.

 

When you have a chance to get possibly the greatest baseball player to ever play the game, you do it.

[davearm2]

I don't think the risk/reward equation for Fielder is all that different than Soriano's was. I posted the WARP numbers earlier. I anticipate Fielder's contract numbers will be larger.

 

You think he'll get more than 8 years? I sure don't. I don't even think it's a given he gets more than 6. And the Cubs wouldn't be signing him at age 31; you'd be getting him for this typical peak years of 28-32.

No, I think he'll get more than $18M/year.

[Sosa21MVP]

You always go for it. That doesn't mean the Cubs should over pay for any given player but I don't see any reason to just assume 2012 will be a bad season.

[toonsterwu]

I don't think the risk/reward equation for Fielder is all that different than Soriano's was. I posted the WARP numbers earlier. I anticipate Fielder's contract numbers will be larger.

 

You think he'll get more than 8 years? I sure don't. I don't even think it's a given he gets more than 6. And the Cubs wouldn't be signing him at age 31; you'd be getting him for this typical peak years of 28-32.

 

Of course there are some gigantic contracts out there that I would be comfortable with the Cubs handing out. Obviously each one needs to be evaluated independently. Personally, I anticipate both of these guys are going to turn out badly at the dollars and years being speculated.

 

So you want them to pass on both? What about signing someone like Kemp to a big deal after 2012?

 

I tend to think Boras won't operate like Casey Close and others and is going to target years for Fielder, knowing how many people have concerns about his body size. Some agents may prefer shorter deals for guys at Fielder's age, on account of the fact that they could get a 2nd big deal (which was sort of the intent behind Furcal going with the Dodgers then, higher AAV and quicker turnaround to the next deal), but, and I'm just guessing, but I think Boras is going to want the years. At the very least, I think it's going to be 6 years and some player options.

 

Can I cheat and say let me take a wait and see on Kemp? In general, I'd be more open to Kemp (even though I'd move him to RF right away) because he'd be 28/29 in 2013 and is a good athletic specimen. That said, I sort of want to see if Kemp keeps up this ridiculous performance. It's hard to know if he's rounding into shape, or if this was an anomaly of a season offensively that he might not repeat.

[Sammy Sofa]

Pujols is better than ARod.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season.

 

That's fantastic. Pujols has been a better player leading up to his age 32 season than ARod. He has more room to decline and still be an upper tier player.

 

That's a flawed analysis that assumes a lot of things about the human body that we can't answer without knowing more detailed information about Pujols medical record. We could go back and forth on this, and in the end, neither party would have anything more than speculation on when he might decline or if he'll manage to defy nature. But you do leave out the other point that I made in conjunction with that - Pujols has already shown some slippage in play over the last 2 seasons. That's been marked by a steady increase of Pujols chasing pitches outside the zone. His great hit tool has allowed him to still maintain star performance, just not elite performance, but when that bat speed slows down ... what happens next. Furthermore, he's had some more struggles on the fastball than in year's past.

 

Like I said, it's not a lock that he wouldn't be hit with the serious injury. The problem with that, however, is then you can effectively talk yourself out of signing ANY impact player who is 30 or older.

[Sammy Sofa]

Can I cheat and say let me take a wait and see on Kemp? In general, I'd be more open to Kemp (even though I'd move him to RF right away) because he'd be 28/29 in 2013 and is a good athletic specimen. That said, I sort of want to see if Kemp keeps up this ridiculous performance. It's hard to know if he's rounding into shape, or if this was an anomaly of a season offensively that he might not repeat.

 

Well, yeah, I'm talking hypothetically a la he essentially repeats this season. That means he'd be 28 starting the 2013 season as a Cub. Would you be comfortable signing him if he couldn't be had for less than 8 years?

[toonsterwu]

Pujols is better than ARod.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season.

 

That's fantastic. Pujols has been a better player leading up to his age 32 season than ARod. He has more room to decline and still be an upper tier player.

 

That's a flawed analysis that assumes a lot of things about the human body that we can't answer without knowing more detailed information about Pujols medical record. We could go back and forth on this, and in the end, neither party would have anything more than speculation on when he might decline or if he'll manage to defy nature. But you do leave out the other point that I made in conjunction with that - Pujols has already shown some slippage in play over the last 2 seasons. That's been marked by a steady increase of Pujols chasing pitches outside the zone. His great hit tool has allowed him to still maintain star performance, just not elite performance, but when that bat speed slows down ... what happens next. Furthermore, he's had some more struggles on the fastball than in year's past.

 

Like I said, it's not a lock that he wouldn't be hit with the serious injury. The problem with that, however, is then you can effectively talk yourself out of signing ANY impact player who is 30 or older.

 

Hence, my 2nd point. To what extent is the offensive decline of Pujols the last 2 years an anomaly or a sign of things to come? There are some interesting numbers to look at, and there were times this year when he wasn't catching up to fastballs as much as he had in the past.

[dew1679666265]

Another impact of the end of the steroid era -- we have to question whether the next wave of superstars will remain productive as long as guys like Manny and Bonds did.

 

Or he could be really productive like his 3rd most similar player, Frank Robinson (4.7 and 3.6 WARs at 37 and 38) who played well before the steroid era. Guys all throughout the history of baseball have been very productive well into their 30s and even their 40s long before the steroid era. Pujols is one of the greatest players in the history of the game and is a very disciplined, patient hitter at the plate. This isn't a guy you assume is going to follow the trends that normal baseball players follow.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hence, my 2nd point. To what extent is the offensive decline of Pujols the last 2 years an anomaly or a sign of things to come? There are some interesting numbers to look at, and there were times this year when he wasn't catching up to fastballs as much as he had in the past.

 

Definitely things to consider. The bottom line is that it's likely impossible to have a concrete answer along those lines when it comes time to decide whether or not they want to sign him. There's always going to be an inherent risk.

[toonsterwu]

Can I cheat and say let me take a wait and see on Kemp? In general, I'd be more open to Kemp (even though I'd move him to RF right away) because he'd be 28/29 in 2013 and is a good athletic specimen. That said, I sort of want to see if Kemp keeps up this ridiculous performance. It's hard to know if he's rounding into shape, or if this was an anomaly of a season offensively that he might not repeat.

 

Well, yeah, I'm talking hypothetically a la he essentially repeats this season. That means he'd be 28 starting the 2013 season as a Cub. Would you be comfortable signing him if he couldn't be had for less than 8 years?

 

In general, I think I'll always have my stomach churning a bit on any 8 year deal, but say he keeps his offensive performance next year and is showing legitimate signs of maintaining it (his walk rate increased this year, he made excellent contact outside of the strike zone), then yes, I'd be as comfortable as I'd ever be for any 8 year deal and yeah, as a fan, I'd be fine with it.

 

There are also potentially slightly different club dynamics for next season that enter into the equation as well (but by itself, I would be okay with it). We'd be one year closer to the end of Soriano, and Z's contract comes off the books. The system should have more guys moving into the upper levels that are intriguing enough. Thus the potential would be higher for the team to swing some additional moves on top of a big signing like Kemp (say you add one big ticket FA pitcher this year and one next year to go with Garza, that gives an excellent trio at the top). Ideally, Kemp/Castro would provide the 2 key cogs that most championship cores would have positionally, with Brett Jackson perhaps looking like a solid 2.5-3 WAR role player at that point.

[toonsterwu]

Hence, my 2nd point. To what extent is the offensive decline of Pujols the last 2 years an anomaly or a sign of things to come? There are some interesting numbers to look at, and there were times this year when he wasn't catching up to fastballs as much as he had in the past.

 

Definitely things to consider. The bottom line is that it's likely impossible to have a concrete answer along those lines when it comes time to decide whether or not they want to sign him. There's always going to be an inherent risk.

 

Okay, we've come to a point of agreement. Thus, my point in a post above - I'm always wary of long term deals, I guess, but if you could somehow frontload the deal and take advantage of say, Z and Soriano's contracts expiring by spiking a FA contract up in those years, I'd feel much better about any long term ramifications. It isn't just the decline the worries me ... it's the potential of a decline PLUS a backloaded deal. And with some of the numbers floating out there on Pujols potential AAV (weren't they suggesting 25-30 million at some point, a backloaded deal could see the back end in the 30+ range) ... it's definitely something to be concerned about, IMO.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think the given that has to be assumed with any big contract for a star player there's going to be some loss. Unless it's a player your team developed from the farm and got some cheap, below-value production from you're going to have to overpay for a star. Whether that means you're technically overpaying each year or some of the seasons at the end are a wash, well, them's the breaks. The key is ending up in that type of situation with a player like Pujols as opposed to one like Soriano. When I argue for something like signing Pujols for 8 years I'm pretty damn sure the last 2-3 years of that deal aren't going to be too hot. Nobody should ever look at these type of signings and think they're going to walk away paying the player what they "should" be making or getting a deal or that they're going to live up to what you want/need of them for the length of the contract. That just doesn't usually happen.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hence, my 2nd point. To what extent is the offensive decline of Pujols the last 2 years an anomaly or a sign of things to come? There are some interesting numbers to look at, and there were times this year when he wasn't catching up to fastballs as much as he had in the past.

 

Definitely things to consider. The bottom line is that it's likely impossible to have a concrete answer along those lines when it comes time to decide whether or not they want to sign him. There's always going to be an inherent risk.

 

Okay, we've come to a point of agreement. Thus, my point in a post above - I'm always wary of long term deals, I guess, but if you could somehow frontload the deal and take advantage of say, Z and Soriano's contracts expiring by spiking a FA contract up in those years, I'd feel much better about any long term ramifications. It isn't just the decline the worries me ... it's the potential of a decline PLUS a backloaded deal. And with some of the numbers floating out there on Pujols potential AAV (weren't they suggesting 25-30 million at some point, a backloaded deal could see the back end in the 30+ range) ... it's definitely something to be concerned about, IMO.

 

Why would you rather frontload the deal? Backloading is almost always a better option for a team financially.