Free Agent Predictions

[Exile on Waveland]

Did I miss something? Why do people think Pujols will stay with the Cards?

 

Just think it will end up that way. The 2 biggest overspenders are unlikely to be part of the bidding, I get the sense that Theo doesn't want to make a big splash this offseason because the team isn't ready for it. So this leaves teams like the Mets (financial issues), Dodgers (still some financial issues), Angels (possible but they blew a lot of money on Wells), Blue Jays (I say this respectfully but, Canada), Nationals (no tradition or strong fan base, might not appeal to someone coming from BFIB).

 

I guess I just don't see a team offering significantly more than what the Cardinals are going to eventually offer him, and with similar offers out there, the desire to remain on the one team he has played for and is beloved will win over. Plus they indirectly proved that they could win with Pujols making a lot more money (my logic: Wainwright hurt all year, and signing Pujols would probably cause the Cardinals to have to let him or Carp go), so the issue about the Cardinals being able to afford him and still win is lessened. It just seems like all the pieces are in place for him to stay in STL.

 

I am also of the mind that Pujols will eventually end up back with the Cardinals (hope not -- whether that means him signing with the Cubs or elsewhere).

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

 

It's not signing players over 30 that's the problem. It's signing players over 30 to asininely long contracts that are sure to bite you in the ass before they're over. Signing Pujols to anything more than a 6 year contract is a bad idea and there's no way he get less than 8. My perfect deal is to give Fielder the deal that Ryan Howard just got (5/$125) or maybe 6/$150 if you have to go that far.

 

I legitimately believe no one can convince me that it's a bad idea to sign the best bat in the game and a historically great player. THAT idea is asinine to me. To be an elite team we need elite players.

[Backtobanks]

 

It's not signing players over 30 that's the problem. It's signing players over 30 to asininely long contracts that are sure to bite you in the ass before they're over. Signing Pujols to anything more than a 6 year contract is a bad idea and there's no way he get less than 8. My perfect deal is to give Fielder the deal that Ryan Howard just got (5/$125) or maybe 6/$150 if you have to go that far.

 

I legitimately believe no one can convince me that it's a bad idea to sign the best bat in the game and a historically great player. THAT idea is asinine to me. To be an elite team we need elite players.

 

As mul21 said - at what cost and for how long? Everybody would love to have Pujols for the next 5-6 years, but if he's going to get 8-10 years, then you have 3-4 years of a dead-weight contract handcuffing your team from making the moves it needs to make.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

 

As mul21 said - at what cost and for how long? Everybody would love to have Pujols for the next 5-6 years, but if he's going to get 8-10 years, then you have 3-4 years of a dead-weight contract handcuffing your team from making the moves it needs to make.

 

Alot of money for alot of years. You assume he'll he dead weight in years 8-10. I believe that's kind of just made up. Plenty of truly great players lasted into their late 30s and even early 40s. You also assume that the contract would serve as a handcuff. Unless he shatters every bone in his body under his new contract I don't buy that. It's an assumption based on general concepts being applied to a talent that isn't general.

[UMFan83]

 

It's not signing players over 30 that's the problem. It's signing players over 30 to asininely long contracts that are sure to bite you in the ass before they're over. Signing Pujols to anything more than a 6 year contract is a bad idea and there's no way he get less than 8. My perfect deal is to give Fielder the deal that Ryan Howard just got (5/$125) or maybe 6/$150 if you have to go that far.

 

I legitimately believe no one can convince me that it's a bad idea to sign the best bat in the game and a historically great player. THAT idea is asinine to me. To be an elite team we need elite players.

 

I think anyone here would consider signing Pujols a good thing for the Cubs. But there's good things and better things. I understand your point of view and respect it but I believe that it would make more sense to try to pick up a younger talent than can produce over the life of the deal. You may believe he will put up 1.000 ops into his 40s and he may well do that, but every year he gets older its more of a gamble based on historical trends.

 

Now I am not saying they are in the same class at all or that Pujols' deal will end this poorly but 5 years ago there were people who didn't care if Sorianos performance dropped significantly in the later part of his deal they just said gimme gimme gimme who cares about 2011. Well obviously we should have because his contract is not a major roadblock to building a winning team.

[XZero771679666304]

Very, very, very few players, particularly position players, are really productive into their late 30's and early 40's. Albert Pujols is the best player in baseball right now, but you're really rolling the dice if you're going to pay him like he is when he's 38 years old. Not only his age is a concern, but health issues that could easily become more chronic as he ages.

 

I've said it before, but the only way I'd sign Albert is at a higher AAV with fewer years (5/165-175 or something). Paying him $30MM per when he's 38 is a gamble that teams with money to burn can take. It easy to rationalize while you're watching him do what he did a couple nights ago, but make no mistake, it would be a huge risk.

 

If the Cardinals want to hamstring themselves by doing that, more power to them. If he's willing to give another deep discount, we never had a chance anyway.

[dew1679666265]

I think anyone here would consider signing Pujols a good thing for the Cubs. But there's good things and better things. I understand your point of view and respect it but I believe that it would make more sense to try to pick up a younger talent than can produce over the life of the deal. You may believe he will put up 1.000 ops into his 40s and he may well do that, but every year he gets older its more of a gamble based on historical trends.

 

He can put up a .900 OPS with very good defense (which would be a decline in both offense and fielding) and still not be a handcuff on the franchise. There's little chance he'll be OPSing 1.000 when he's in his late 30s, but at the same time there's little chance he'll be OPSing .750 in his late 30s. He's a patient, intelligent, well-conditioned player who is probably one of the 2-3 greatest players ever - and maybe the best ever. Those players have a higher rate of success late in their careers than your general good player.

 

Now I am not saying they are in the same class at all or that Pujols' deal will end this poorly but 5 years ago there were people who didn't care if Sorianos performance dropped significantly in the later part of his deal they just said gimme gimme gimme who cares about 2011. Well obviously we should have because his contract is not a major roadblock to building a winning team.

 

The mindset with Soriano by some people was "maybe he'll play great for a couple years because he's going to be terrible soon." With Pujols, it's "he'll likely be incredible for about 3-5 years and then probably really good from there."

 

There's really no way to compare Soriano and Pujols' deals in any way, shape, or form. There was no indication whatsoever that Soriano would age well, he was a very inconsistent player at the time, and he didn't have the skills to have any success once he started to decline. Pujols is a 100% different player than Soriano in every aspect, even without regard to the fact that Pujols is historically great. There's plenty of reason to think Pujols could be productive into his mid-late 30s, whereas there was none with Soriano.

[jersey cubs fan]

Very, very, very few players, particularly position players, are really productive into their late 30's and early 40's. Albert Pujols is the best player in baseball right now, but you're really rolling the dice if you're going to pay him like he is when he's 38 years old. Not only his age is a concern, but health issues that could easily become more chronic as he ages.

 

I've said it before, but the only way I'd sign Albert is at a higher AAV with fewer years (5/165-175 or something). Paying him $30MM per when he's 38 is a gamble that teams with money to burn can take. It easy to rationalize while you're watching him do what he did a couple nights ago, but make no mistake, it would be a huge risk.

 

If the Cardinals want to hamstring themselves by doing that, more power to them. If he's willing to give another deep discount, we never had a chance anyway.

 

The 2018 Cubs will have money to burn.

[dew1679666265]

Paying him $30MM per when he's 38 is a gamble that teams with money to burn can take.

 

Isn't that likely to be the Cubs? By the time he's 38, it'll be 2018 and Theo will be 7 years into his Cubs reign and Ricketts will have had 7 more opportunities to boost payroll a bit. If it's a gamble only a team with money to burn can take, which I agree it is, then the Cubs should be all over it.

 

I'm not advocating wasting money or spending frivolously, however the benefit to being a team like the Cubs, Yankees, or Red Sox is that you have the high payroll to be able to spend some extra money to bring in an elite talent and gamble that he'll still be productive late in his career. You don't do it with anybody but elite talent, but you also shouldn't avoid it when historically great players come along (which rarely happens).

[Backtobanks]

 

As mul21 said - at what cost and for how long? Everybody would love to have Pujols for the next 5-6 years, but if he's going to get 8-10 years, then you have 3-4 years of a dead-weight contract handcuffing your team from making the moves it needs to make.

 

Alot of money for alot of years. You assume he'll he dead weight in years 8-10. I believe that's kind of just made up. Plenty of truly great players lasted into their late 30s and even early 40s. You also assume that the contract would serve as a handcuff. Unless he shatters every bone in his body under his new contract I don't buy that. It's an assumption based on general concepts being applied to a talent that isn't general.

 

The real scary thing about Pujols is that he might already be in his late 30s. :lol:

[davearm2]

I think anyone here would consider signing Pujols a good thing for the Cubs. But there's good things and better things. I understand your point of view and respect it but I believe that it would make more sense to try to pick up a younger talent than can produce over the life of the deal. You may believe he will put up 1.000 ops into his 40s and he may well do that, but every year he gets older its more of a gamble based on historical trends.

 

He can put up a .900 OPS with very good defense (which would be a decline in both offense and fielding) and still not be a handcuff on the franchise. There's little chance he'll be OPSing 1.000 when he's in his late 30s, but at the same time there's little chance he'll be OPSing .750 in his late 30s. He's a patient, intelligent, well-conditioned player who is probably one of the 2-3 greatest players ever - and maybe the best ever. Those players have a higher rate of success late in their careers than your general good player.

 

Now I am not saying they are in the same class at all or that Pujols' deal will end this poorly but 5 years ago there were people who didn't care if Sorianos performance dropped significantly in the later part of his deal they just said gimme gimme gimme who cares about 2011. Well obviously we should have because his contract is not a major roadblock to building a winning team.

 

The mindset with Soriano by some people was "maybe he'll play great for a couple years because he's going to be terrible soon." With Pujols, it's "he'll likely be incredible for about 3-5 years and then probably really good from there."

 

There's really no way to compare Soriano and Pujols' deals in any way, shape, or form. There was no indication whatsoever that Soriano would age well, he was a very inconsistent player at the time, and he didn't have the skills to have any success once he started to decline. Pujols is a 100% different player than Soriano in every aspect, even without regard to the fact that Pujols is historically great. There's plenty of reason to think Pujols could be productive into his mid-late 30s, whereas there was none with Soriano.

The point of comparison is obviously that Pujols may one day be grossly overpaid relative to his production, just as Soriano is now.

 

Soriano is getting superstar money to be barely average.

 

If Pujols is getting best-in-the-game money and is simply pretty good, the situations will be very comparable. In both cases, the value of the production will be a small fraction of the salary.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

The 2018 Cubs will have money to burn.

 

Especially if they make the investment and get Pujols.

[A New Era]

Very, very, very few players, particularly position players, are really productive into their late 30's and early 40's. Albert Pujols is the best player in baseball right now, but you're really rolling the dice if you're going to pay him like he is when he's 38 years old. Not only his age is a concern, but health issues that could easily become more chronic as he ages.

 

I've said it before, but the only way I'd sign Albert is at a higher AAV with fewer years (5/165-175 or something). Paying him $30MM per when he's 38 is a gamble that teams with money to burn can take. It easy to rationalize while you're watching him do what he did a couple nights ago, but make no mistake, it would be a huge risk.

 

If the Cardinals want to hamstring themselves by doing that, more power to them. If he's willing to give another deep discount, we never had a chance anyway.

 

The 2018 Cubs will have money to burn.

 

Just because you assume they will, that's no reason to say "Let's go ahead and plan to have burnt money in 2018". I highly doubt Epstein thinks that way either. Pojuls is an incredible player, don't assume I'm thinking otherwise. But we've got to get off this addiction of signing the best free agents whenever they are available, no matter how much we have to give them, and into what age we have to sign them. No trade clause? sure! That was the Hendry way. I'm not against signing that elite guy when the time is right. But that is the old way.

 

Personally? I'd much rather spend $30 million a year for the next 5 years on the international signings, than having Pojuls on the team as we built the Cubs Dynasty. That will make us all the more stronger LATER, than falling in love with the idea of another "fix it quick" free agent like we have done in the past.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

But we've got to get off this addiction of signing the best free agents whenever they are available, no matter how much we have to give them, and into what age we have to sign them.

 

Exactly how many times are you imagining the Cubs fed this "addiction"?

 

Personally? I'd much rather spend $30 million a year for the next 5 years on the international signings, than having Pojuls on the team as we built the Cubs Dynasty. That will make us all the more stronger LATER, than falling in love with the idea of another "fix it quick" free agent like we have done in the past.

 

$30 million a year on international signings would mean giving every kid on Hispanola a few hundred thou, whether they can play baseball or not. There is a diminishing return on this stuff.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm damn sick and tired of the Cubs signing the best free agent on the market.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Kyle said it.

 

So basically what you're saying is that you want the payroll to go up significantly, but by that you mean the minor league payroll? Just like winning franchises draw it up. It makes no sense to have 50 million dollars come off the payroll after hiring a star PoBO and his former protege as his cuckold/GM and there's talk of rebuilding. If the Phillies can put up a 170 million dolllar payroll, then theres no reason the Cubs can't and won't get there. I think the Cubs are looking to make some noise.

[SouthSideRyan]

I mean did I miss Fielder and Pujols getting diagnosed with some incurable disease giving them 18 months to live?

[Little Slide Rooter]

I'm really bad at this, but here it goes:

 

Albert Pujols - Angles (the Cubs will be bidders)

Prince Fielder - Blue Jays (the Cubs will be bidders)

CC Sabathia - Yankees

CJ Wilson - Rangers

Jose Reyes - Cardinals

Jimmy Rollins - Giants

Aramis Ramirez - Angles

Carlos Beltran - Nationals

David Ortiz - Rangers

Jonathan Papelbon - Red Sox

Francisco Rodriguez - Dodgers

Heath Bell - Padres

Brad Lidge - Yankees

Joe Nathan - Minnesota

Jonathan Broxton - Dodgers

Ryan Madson - Nationals

Mark Buehrle - White Sox

Michael Cuddyer - Brewers

Carlos Pena - Cubs

Yu Darvish - Yankees

Edwin Jackson - Red Sox

Johnny Damon - Retired

 

Unless Theo has some interesting trades on the horizon, losing Ramirez and re-signing Pena doesn't look good for 2012.

 

Yeah, if we dont sign any big free agents, its by Theos design, not mssing out. It would be do to rebuilding, so Pena wouldnt be back and like it or not, LaHair would be probably be given the chance at 1B and go from there, unless he had his eye on another young guy who he could get at a reasonable trade price like Chris Carter or even James Loney.

[dew1679666265]

The point of comparison is obviously that Pujols may one day be grossly overpaid relative to his production, just as Soriano is now.

 

Soriano is getting superstar money to be barely average.

 

If Pujols is getting best-in-the-game money and is simply pretty good, the situations will be very comparable. In both cases, the value of the production will be a small fraction of the salary.

 

Part of risk-taking is figuring out the likelihood of the risk blowing up in your face. That's where the comparison between Soriano and Pujols goes from very, very weak to completely nonexistant. When we signed Soriano, there was an extreme likelihood he'd be awful by the end of his contract. He's not awful quite yet, but he's heading that way. Many people on this board, myself included, noted this likelihood at the time of the signing. With Pujols, the likelihood of him being an albatross late in the deal is significantly lower than with Soriano. There's a very realistic chance Pujols is a 3-4 WAR player late in his 30s (look at ARod and numerous all-time greats for examples) which is still productive enough to not be an albatross holding us back.

 

A guy like Soriano has to remain as good as his peak (or close to it) to retain any form of value to the team. A guy like Pujols can regress a great deal and still be quite valuable. Sure he'll still be overpaid, but a team with the payroll like the Cubs have and almost certainly will continue to have can afford to overpay guys late in their deals if they're still getting a solid level of value and productivity from that player.

[jersey cubs fan]

But we've got to get off this addiction of signing the best free agents whenever they are available, no matter how much we have to give them, and into what age we have to sign them.

 

are you freaking kidding me? When the hell did this ever happen? this isn't an addiction that exists

[davearm2]

The point of comparison is obviously that Pujols may one day be grossly overpaid relative to his production, just as Soriano is now.

 

Soriano is getting superstar money to be barely average.

 

If Pujols is getting best-in-the-game money and is simply pretty good, the situations will be very comparable. In both cases, the value of the production will be a small fraction of the salary.

 

Part of risk-taking is figuring out the likelihood of the risk blowing up in your face. That's where the comparison between Soriano and Pujols goes from very, very weak to completely nonexistant. When we signed Soriano, there was an extreme likelihood he'd be awful by the end of his contract. He's not awful quite yet, but he's heading that way. Many people on this board, myself included, noted this likelihood at the time of the signing. With Pujols, the likelihood of him being an albatross late in the deal is significantly lower than with Soriano. There's a very realistic chance Pujols is a 3-4 WAR player late in his 30s (look at ARod and numerous all-time greats for examples) which is still productive enough to not be an albatross holding us back.

 

A guy like Soriano has to remain as good as his peak (or close to it) to retain any form of value to the team. A guy like Pujols can regress a great deal and still be quite valuable. Sure he'll still be overpaid, but a team with the payroll like the Cubs have and almost certainly will continue to have can afford to overpay guys late in their deals if they're still getting a solid level of value and productivity from that player.

I might be inclined to agree with you, if I thought Pujols would be in his late 30s at the end of his deal. 41 or 42 seems more plausible to me.

 

Pujols for 6 years, $180M? Sign me up. Pujols for 10 years, $240M? IMO you're going to have a very similar situation as Soriano for the last 3-4 of those years. I'd say the "albatross odds" are about equal.

[dew1679666265]

I might be inclined to agree with you, if I thought Pujols would be in his late 30s at the end of his deal. 41 or 42 seems more plausible to me.

 

Pujols for 6 years, $180M? Sign me up. Pujols for 10 years, $240M? IMO you're going to have a very similar situation as Soriano for the last 3-4 of those years. I'd say the "albatross odds" are about equal.

 

Ok, for 2 years of a 10 year deal Pujols would be in his 40s (2020- 40; 2021- 41). The contract may turn into an albatross, I've never denied that. But the likelihood of it is so much lower with Pujols than with Soriano simply because of the differences between the two players. Pujols' success is derived from having a great approach at the plate, being a patient and disciplined hitter, understanding and manipulating the strike zone, and staying very well conditioned. Soriano's success was derived from being exceptionally athletic. The chances of Pujols' success remaining later in age are far higher than Soriano's.

 

Does that make late career success a sure thing for Pujols? Of course not. But his chances of being Frank Robinson and Johnny Mize are higher than his chances of being Alfonso Soriano.

 

Just for reference sake:

Soriano 4 years before his deal was up (2011 season): .325 wOBA/1.3 WAR

Robinson 4 years before retirement (age 38): .383 wOBA/4.4 WAR

Mize 4 years before retirmenet (age 37): .412 wOBA/2.3 WAR

[BeerHere]

Brewers get Rollins

 

Reyes stays a Met

 

Pujols stays a tard

 

Sabathia stays a Yankee for more money

 

Wilson is a Cub

 

Fielder becomes an Angel

[BeerHere]

If I can assume that neither Fielder nor Pujols are in the plans for the Cubs, I want Theo to at least make it look like we're in the running to drive the price up. I don't really see the Cardinals letting Pujols go and the more they spend on him, the less they have to spend everywhere else. Likewise for wherever Fielder ends up.

[jersey cubs fan]

If I can assume that neither Fielder nor Pujols are in the plans for the Cubs,

 

Of course you can assume that. I don't know why you would, or why you would want to, but you can.