Free Agent Predictions

[Guest]

It's not just his age. I felt a lot better about Pujols prior to this season. It could well have been the spectre of the contract situation hanging over him, but he did drop 100 points of his career OPS this year. In 2011 he had the lowest OPS, OPS+ and WAR of his career. And he has not been injury free in recent seasons, either.

 

For reference, Pujols' 5.1 WAR this season was as good or better than 4 of Fielder's 6 seasons. Also, after a slow start, he hit .316/.383/.571/.954 over his last 520 PA's this year. Those numbers surpass Fielder's 2011 when you include park factors. That's the big difference. When Albert slows down, he puts up Prince Fielder seasons on the way down instead of Ted Williams seasons. When Fielder slows down, he puts up Dmitri Young seasons on the way down.

Unless you think that Pujols will rebound somewhat and remain relatively injury-free, though, going forward the best case for Albert Pujols is Prince Fielder seasons with passable defense. The next five years, the comparison will be between Fielder's age 28-32 seasons and Pujols' age 32-36 seasons. Even if we all assume Fielder will drop off a cliff after that, Pujols will likely be well declined by then as well.

 

So, over the next five years, who will have more value? Pujols, who is already declining, or Fielder, who may still be improving yet for a couple years?

 

Well Fielder has already had sub-all-star caliber seasons in 2008 and 2010, so he doesn't need to be on the downslope of his career to be at risk for that. And while Pujols had the worst season of his career this year, the way he finished leads me to believe it's more of a happenstance of him having a really crappy month of April and then returning to his typical 7 WAR self. When we start seeing projections for next year, I can say with a good bit of certainty that 2011 will not be at the high end of what's expected of Albert. To crib an example I've seen elsewhere, look at Ted Williams. His OPS+ from age 27 to 32 were 215, 205, 189, 191, 167, and 164. Pretty clear decline right? Well all he did was put up seasons of , 201, 208, 171, 233, 179, 114, and 190 to close out his career. The point is that at a certain point, black ink HOF numbers are just HOF numbers. Pujols having a troublesome April and then rampaging through the league as always doesn't really change my impression that he should be a 7 WAR guy next year and age pretty gracefully, making him well worth his next contract(in all likelihood).

[dew1679666265]

Something to think about and take however you will:

 

Here are B-R's 19 most similar players to Pujols both overall and through their age 31 season - with one player repeated in both lists. I've listed their wOBA from their age 35 season until they retired and their average WAR from 35 to retirement.

 

Larry Walker - retired after age 38 season; .431/.388/.432/.382/3.7WAR

Juan Gonzalez (repeat) - retired at age 35 season

Johnny Mize - retired after age 40 season; .435/.370/.412/.344/.346/.340/2.3WAR

Carlos Delgado - retired after age 37 season; .336/.364/.394/1.4WAR

Vladimir Guerrero - still playing after age 36 season; .360/.318/.85WAR

Joe DiMaggio - retired after age 36 season; .432/.367/4.7WAR

Todd Helton - still playing after age 38 season; .347/.392/.328/.368/1.6WAR

Duke Snider - retired after age 38 season; .403/.397/.328/.279/1.1WAR

Lance Berkman - still playing after age 34 season

David Ortiz - still playing after age 34 season

Jimmie Foxx - retired after age 38 season; .418/.322/.128/.358/1.6WAR

Ken Griffey, Jr. - retired during age 40 season; .397/.336/.369/.335/.323/.214/.2WAR

Frank Robinson - retired after age 40 season; .403/.398/.362/.383/.369/.399/.325/3.1WAR

Hank Aaron - retired after age 42 season; .432/.416/.466/.406/.450/.373/.319/.318/4.4WAR

Lou Gehrig - retired then died during age 36 season; (age 35 year shown) .424/6.0WAR

Mickey Mantle - retired after age 37 season; .402/.373/.362/4.0WAR

Mel Ott - retired after age 37 season; .447/.429/.161/2.5WAR

Willie Mays - retired after age 42 season; .399/.354/.388/.360/.400/.416/.365/.302/4.9WAR

Manny Ramirez - forced(?) retired after age 38 season; .375/.432/.396/.382/2.8WAR

 

Of the 19 players, 5 played into their 40s and all but Griffey were productive. Six fell completely off a cliff (Mays/Ott/Aaron/Griffey/Snider/Vlad) and two of those cliffs were fallen off of either during Pujols' last season or after when we'd no longer have Pujols (Mays and Aaron falling off a cliff after age 41 seasons).

Edited October 27, 2011 by dew

[davearm2]

B-R lists 20 similar players, not two. You weren't cherry-picking were you?

 

Guys like Mickey Mantle, Jimmie Foxx, Joe DiMaggio, Mel Ott, Duke Snider and Ken Griffey Jr. don't help your argument. In fact those guys are exactly what you describe: historically great players that fell off a cliff in their late 30s.

 

It'd be cherry picking if I was using those two specifically to prove my point that Pujols would be great late in his career. My point was that there are other, better comparisons to be used than Soriano, who bears no resemblance to Pujols in any way, shape, or form.

 

There are plenty of examples of historically great players who were very good to great into their late 30s and early 40s. There are also plenty of examples of historically great players who fell off a cliff quickly in their 30s. If we're going to talk about comparisons to Pujols, let's talk about those guys and not Alfonso Soriano, who most people on here seem to be using to argue against the Cubs giving out any more big contracts to anyone over the age of 26.

Pujols and Soriano don't really need to be similar players for the point to be valid: if you're paying a guy $X million, and the guy's production is only worth $ X / 3 or $X / 4, then you've got a major problem on your hands.

 

The larger $X is, the larger the problem. And Pujols' $X is obviously going to be enormous, like 25 or 30. Pretty easy to see how that's still going to be an ugly albatross even if (or when) his WAR drops into a still-useful range like 2.

[davearm2]

B-R lists 20 similar players, not two. You weren't cherry-picking were you?

 

Guys like Mickey Mantle, Jimmie Foxx, Joe DiMaggio, Mel Ott, Duke Snider and Ken Griffey Jr. don't help your argument. In fact those guys are exactly what you describe: historically great players that fell off a cliff in their late 30s.

 

Mantle, DiMaggio, Snider and Griffey all had careers cut short due to chronic serious injuries (mostly with their knees). Pujols obviously isn't impervious or invincible, but he hasn't he had the repeated and serious issues those guys dealt with for long periods of time (or even the entirety of their careers). Foxx's career was sidelined by him being a ridiculous drunk. Ott did indeed fall off a cliff production and ability-wise, but that was after playing 18 120-game or more seasons (4 in the 120's, the rest all 135 and up), so it's not like he didn't have a very long career and fell out of the game prematurely; the guy was a full time player when he was just barely 19.

Throw it all under "[expletive] happens".

 

Like you said, Pujols isn't immune to [expletive] happening. Even if we can't envision where the [expletive] will come from as we sit here today.

[dew1679666265]

Pujols and Soriano don't really need to be similar players for the point to be valid: if you're paying a guy $X million, and the guy's production is only worth $ X / 3 or $X / 4, then you've got a major problem on your hands.

 

The larger $X is, the larger the problem. And Pujols' $X is obviously going to be enormous, like 25 or 30. Pretty easy to see how that's still going to be an ugly albatross even if (or when) his WAR drops into a still-useful range like 2.

 

What you're ignoring is payroll. The Cubs have the payroll level to be able to afford to sign a guy who will give us 2 WAR his final 3-4 years if he gives us 7 WAR on average the first 5. Mid-small payroll teams couldn't do that, but the Cubs can.

 

By your reasoning, there should basically never be major contracts handed out to players at any point in time. You're not going to do it when a player is in his early to mid 20s since he's under team control and by the time 99.9% of players get into their mid 30s, they decline below a 6-7 WAR area (the few that are there to start with). So 8-10 year deals are out the window to anyone older than 24-25.

 

If you have the means to sign a guy who will give you exceptional production for the majority of his contract, you should be open to doing that, even if it's not the most efficient way to do it.

[XZero771679666304]

Pujols and Soriano don't really need to be similar players for the point to be valid: if you're paying a guy $X million, and the guy's production is only worth $ X / 3 or $X / 4, then you've got a major problem on your hands.

 

The larger $X is, the larger the problem. And Pujols' $X is obviously going to be enormous, like 25 or 30. Pretty easy to see how that's still going to be an ugly albatross even if (or when) his WAR drops into a still-useful range like 2.

 

What you're ignoring is payroll. The Cubs have the payroll level to be able to afford to sign a guy who will give us 2 WAR his final 3-4 years if he gives us 7 WAR on average the first 5. Mid-small payroll teams couldn't do that, but the Cubs can.

 

By your reasoning, there should basically never be major contracts handed out to players at any point in time. You're not going to do it when a player is in his early to mid 20s since he's under team control and by the time 99.9% of players get into their mid 30s, they decline below a 6-7 WAR area (the few that are there to start with). So 8-10 year deals are out the window to anyone older than 24-25.

 

If you have the means to sign a guy who will give you exceptional production for the majority of his contract, you should be open to doing that, even if it's not the most efficient way to do it.

 

Yeah, the only realistic scenario in which you sign a guy to a contract that long that includes all of their "prime" years is if you can wrest a young stud from another team and sign them to an extension. Players don't generally reach free agency in their mid-twenties.

 

That said, handing such contracts out to guys over 30 isn't a good strategy, though certain exceptions could reasonably be made.

 

The problem with Soriano is that so much of his perceived value was tied to his legs, which are usually the first things to go, and he was already 31. At least all Pujols has to do to retain most of his value is hit. I am highly skeptical he'll still be OPSing 850+ when he's 38-40, though.

[Sammy Sofa]

B-R lists 20 similar players, not two. You weren't cherry-picking were you?

 

Guys like Mickey Mantle, Jimmie Foxx, Joe DiMaggio, Mel Ott, Duke Snider and Ken Griffey Jr. don't help your argument. In fact those guys are exactly what you describe: historically great players that fell off a cliff in their late 30s.

 

Mantle, DiMaggio, Snider and Griffey all had careers cut short due to chronic serious injuries (mostly with their knees). Pujols obviously isn't impervious or invincible, but he hasn't he had the repeated and serious issues those guys dealt with for long periods of time (or even the entirety of their careers). Foxx's career was sidelined by him being a ridiculous drunk. Ott did indeed fall off a cliff production and ability-wise, but that was after playing 18 120-game or more seasons (4 in the 120's, the rest all 135 and up), so it's not like he didn't have a very long career and fell out of the game prematurely; the guy was a full time player when he was just barely 19.

Throw it all under "[expletive] happens".

 

Like you said, Pujols isn't immune to [expletive] happening. Even if we can't envision where the [expletive] will come from as we sit here today.

 

Nobody is, including players under 30. Yes, obviously the risk is inherently higher as they get older, but looking for insight into what can be expected/hoped of Pujols with players like seems pretty faulty since he's been fortunate to not suffer all the knee (and booze) problems those guys were wracked with.

[dew1679666265]

Yeah, the only realistic scenario in which you sign a guy to a contract that long that includes all of their "prime" years is if you can wrest a young stud from another team and sign them to an extension. Players don't generally reach free agency in their mid-twenties.

 

That said, handing such contracts out to guys over 30 isn't a good strategy, though certain exceptions could reasonably be made.

 

I agree. And potentially the greatest player of all time is the time you make an exception.

 

The problem with Soriano is that so much of his perceived value was tied to his legs, which are usually the first things to go, and he was already 31. At least all Pujols has to do to retain most of his value is hit. I am highly skeptical he'll still be OPSing 850+ when he's 38-40, though.

 

Exactly why this comparison is so flawed. There's a much higher chance that Pujols is useful to good late in his career than there was with Soriano, there's a lot further for Pujols to fall than there was with Soriano, and Pujols will provide us with far more production early in the contract than Soriano did.

 

As for Pujols OPSing .850+ when he's 38-40, it probably is very unlikely but if there's going to be a player who beats the odds, Pujols very well could be that player.

[davearm2]

Yeah, the only realistic scenario in which you sign a guy to a contract that long that includes all of their "prime" years is if you can wrest a young stud from another team and sign them to an extension. Players don't generally reach free agency in their mid-twenties.

 

That said, handing such contracts out to guys over 30 isn't a good strategy, though certain exceptions could reasonably be made.

 

I agree. And potentially the greatest player of all time is the time you make an exception.

 

The problem with Soriano is that so much of his perceived value was tied to his legs, which are usually the first things to go, and he was already 31. At least all Pujols has to do to retain most of his value is hit. I am highly skeptical he'll still be OPSing 850+ when he's 38-40, though.

 

Exactly why this comparison is so flawed. There's a much higher chance that Pujols is useful to good late in his career than there was with Soriano, there's a lot further for Pujols to fall than there was with Soriano, and Pujols will provide us with far more production early in the contract than Soriano did.

 

As for Pujols OPSing .850+ when he's 38-40, it probably is very unlikely but if there's going to be a player who beats the odds, Pujols very well could be that player.

Comparing Pujols' skillset to Soriano's is flawed.

 

Comparing their ages and contracts is not flawed.

 

It's the latter we're doing here.

[davearm2]

B-R lists 20 similar players, not two. You weren't cherry-picking were you?

 

Guys like Mickey Mantle, Jimmie Foxx, Joe DiMaggio, Mel Ott, Duke Snider and Ken Griffey Jr. don't help your argument. In fact those guys are exactly what you describe: historically great players that fell off a cliff in their late 30s.

 

Mantle, DiMaggio, Snider and Griffey all had careers cut short due to chronic serious injuries (mostly with their knees). Pujols obviously isn't impervious or invincible, but he hasn't he had the repeated and serious issues those guys dealt with for long periods of time (or even the entirety of their careers). Foxx's career was sidelined by him being a ridiculous drunk. Ott did indeed fall off a cliff production and ability-wise, but that was after playing 18 120-game or more seasons (4 in the 120's, the rest all 135 and up), so it's not like he didn't have a very long career and fell out of the game prematurely; the guy was a full time player when he was just barely 19.

Throw it all under "[expletive] happens".

 

Like you said, Pujols isn't immune to [expletive] happening. Even if we can't envision where the [expletive] will come from as we sit here today.

 

Nobody is, including players under 30. Yes, obviously the risk is inherently higher as they get older, but looking for insight into what can be expected/hoped of Pujols with players like seems pretty faulty since he's been fortunate to not suffer all the knee (and booze) problems those guys were wracked with.

The risk is not only inherently higher as guys get older, but also as the contract gets longer and the dollars get larger.

 

Obviously Pujols is a special player, but this is the proverbial perfect storm.

 

You've heard me say this before: the Cards benefitted colossally from Pujols' massively underpaid peak years -- let them suffer from his massively overpaid decline years too.

[Guest]

Here's a quick table showing what Pujols' projected value will be for a contract of various lengths. I assume he has 2 more years of "peak" performance(7 WAR, he has averaged 8 WAR/season for his career), and then follows a normal aging curve for his decline(0.5 WAR/season).

 

                Cumulative
Year WAR  Value   Value      AAV
1     7    35       35        35
2     7    35       70        35
3    6.5  32.5     102.5      34
4     6    30      132.5      33
5    5.5  27.5     160        32
6     5    25      185        31
7    4.5  22.5     207.5      30
8     4    20      227.5      28
9    3.5  17.5     245        27
10    3    15      260        26

 

As you can see, Albert maintains a lot of value for a very long time. Personally, something along the lines of 7/205 or 8/225 would be the middle ground I'd shoot for in terms of years and dollars. I'd also look into deferring the crap out of as much of the contract as Albert would let me, especially if he insists on a number that exceeds A-Rod's deal for pride reasons.

[Sammy Sofa]

B-R lists 20 similar players, not two. You weren't cherry-picking were you?

 

Guys like Mickey Mantle, Jimmie Foxx, Joe DiMaggio, Mel Ott, Duke Snider and Ken Griffey Jr. don't help your argument. In fact those guys are exactly what you describe: historically great players that fell off a cliff in their late 30s.

 

Mantle, DiMaggio, Snider and Griffey all had careers cut short due to chronic serious injuries (mostly with their knees). Pujols obviously isn't impervious or invincible, but he hasn't he had the repeated and serious issues those guys dealt with for long periods of time (or even the entirety of their careers). Foxx's career was sidelined by him being a ridiculous drunk. Ott did indeed fall off a cliff production and ability-wise, but that was after playing 18 120-game or more seasons (4 in the 120's, the rest all 135 and up), so it's not like he didn't have a very long career and fell out of the game prematurely; the guy was a full time player when he was just barely 19.

Throw it all under "[expletive] happens".

 

Like you said, Pujols isn't immune to [expletive] happening. Even if we can't envision where the [expletive] will come from as we sit here today.

 

Nobody is, including players under 30. Yes, obviously the risk is inherently higher as they get older, but looking for insight into what can be expected/hoped of Pujols with players like seems pretty faulty since he's been fortunate to not suffer all the knee (and booze) problems those guys were wracked with.

The risk is not only inherently higher as guys get older, but also as the contract gets longer and the dollars get larger.

 

Obviously Pujols is a special player, but this is the proverbial perfect storm.

 

You've heard me say this before: the Cards benefitted colossally from Pujols' massively underpaid peak years -- let them suffer from his massively overpaid decline years too.

 

You need to overpay for good FA, much less one of Pujol's caliber. That's a given. The Cubs are fortunate enough to be a team that can eat big contracts, even one as big as what Pujol's might command. The primary risk is in whether or not you get enough of a return from his above average years. If you think those aren't going to last long enough to justify what he's likely to get, so be it, nothing is going to convince you otherwise.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, the only realistic scenario in which you sign a guy to a contract that long that includes all of their "prime" years is if you can wrest a young stud from another team and sign them to an extension. Players don't generally reach free agency in their mid-twenties.

 

That said, handing such contracts out to guys over 30 isn't a good strategy, though certain exceptions could reasonably be made.

 

I agree. And potentially the greatest player of all time is the time you make an exception.

 

The problem with Soriano is that so much of his perceived value was tied to his legs, which are usually the first things to go, and he was already 31. At least all Pujols has to do to retain most of his value is hit. I am highly skeptical he'll still be OPSing 850+ when he's 38-40, though.

 

Exactly why this comparison is so flawed. There's a much higher chance that Pujols is useful to good late in his career than there was with Soriano, there's a lot further for Pujols to fall than there was with Soriano, and Pujols will provide us with far more production early in the contract than Soriano did.

 

As for Pujols OPSing .850+ when he's 38-40, it probably is very unlikely but if there's going to be a player who beats the odds, Pujols very well could be that player.

Comparing Pujols' skillset to Soriano's is flawed.

 

Comparing their ages and contracts is not flawed.

 

It's the latter we're doing here.

 

How is it not flawed? Comparing their ages and contracts is hinged on what type of players they are.

[Rob]

Here's a quick table showing what Pujols' projected value will be for a contract of various lengths. I assume he has 2 more years of "peak" performance(7 WAR, he has averaged 8 WAR/season for his career), and then follows a normal aging curve for his decline(0.5 WAR/season).

 

                Cumulative
Year WAR  Value   Value      AAV
1     7    35       35        35
2     7    35       70        35
3    6.5  32.5     102.5      34
4     6    30      132.5      33
5    5.5  27.5     160        32
6     5    25      185        31
7    4.5  22.5     207.5      30
8     4    20      227.5      28
9    3.5  17.5     245        27
10    3    15      260        26

 

As you can see, Albert maintains a lot of value for a very long time. Personally, something along the lines of 7/205 or 8/225 would be the middle ground I'd shoot for in terms of years and dollars. I'd also look into deferring the crap out of as much of the contract as Albert would let me, especially if he insists on a number that exceeds A-Rod's deal for pride reasons.

 

Not picking on you in particular, but I've always wondered where the .5 win decline per season was established as the aging curve. I'd always assumed there'd be an age (probably late 30s or early 40s) where the decline would accelerate.

 

That's not to say your point doesn't stand. He's a hell of a valuable player.

[davearm2]

Yeah, the only realistic scenario in which you sign a guy to a contract that long that includes all of their "prime" years is if you can wrest a young stud from another team and sign them to an extension. Players don't generally reach free agency in their mid-twenties.

 

That said, handing such contracts out to guys over 30 isn't a good strategy, though certain exceptions could reasonably be made.

 

I agree. And potentially the greatest player of all time is the time you make an exception.

 

The problem with Soriano is that so much of his perceived value was tied to his legs, which are usually the first things to go, and he was already 31. At least all Pujols has to do to retain most of his value is hit. I am highly skeptical he'll still be OPSing 850+ when he's 38-40, though.

 

Exactly why this comparison is so flawed. There's a much higher chance that Pujols is useful to good late in his career than there was with Soriano, there's a lot further for Pujols to fall than there was with Soriano, and Pujols will provide us with far more production early in the contract than Soriano did.

 

As for Pujols OPSing .850+ when he's 38-40, it probably is very unlikely but if there's going to be a player who beats the odds, Pujols very well could be that player.

Comparing Pujols' skillset to Soriano's is flawed.

 

Comparing their ages and contracts is not flawed.

 

It's the latter we're doing here.

 

How is it not flawed? Comparing their ages and contracts is hinged on what type of players they are.

It's flawed because I don't think there's a strong connection between skillset and aging curve. The notion that Soriano should be expected to decline faster than Pujols because his game is more predicated on speed seems specious.

 

The studies I remember seeing have shown the relationship to be weak or nonexistent.

 

I'm open to being shown otherwise, though.

[davearm2]

Here's a quick table showing what Pujols' projected value will be for a contract of various lengths. I assume he has 2 more years of "peak" performance(7 WAR, he has averaged 8 WAR/season for his career), and then follows a normal aging curve for his decline(0.5 WAR/season).

 

                Cumulative
Year WAR  Value   Value      AAV
1     7    35       35        35
2     7    35       70        35
3    6.5  32.5     102.5      34
4     6    30      132.5      33
5    5.5  27.5     160        32
6     5    25      185        31
7    4.5  22.5     207.5      30
8     4    20      227.5      28
9    3.5  17.5     245        27
10    3    15      260        26

 

As you can see, Albert maintains a lot of value for a very long time. Personally, something along the lines of 7/205 or 8/225 would be the middle ground I'd shoot for in terms of years and dollars. I'd also look into deferring the crap out of as much of the contract as Albert would let me, especially if he insists on a number that exceeds A-Rod's deal for pride reasons.

 

Not picking on you in particular, but I've always wondered where the .5 win decline per season was established as the aging curve. I'd always assumed there'd be an age (probably late 30s or early 40s) where the decline would accelerate.

 

That's not to say your point doesn't stand. He's a hell of a valuable player.

To begin with, it seems curious to be representing the decline curve in units of WAR. Obviously .5 WAR per year is not a one-size-fits-all deal.

 

Seems like you'd want to come up with a curve that traces a guy's decline as fractions of career max, tapering from 100% at age 28ish down to 0% at retirement. Then multiply each year's percentage by max WAR and there you go.

 

Beyond that, you'd want to construct multiple scenarios, weight them by their likelihood, and then compute the weighted average of that range of potential career paths.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, the only realistic scenario in which you sign a guy to a contract that long that includes all of their "prime" years is if you can wrest a young stud from another team and sign them to an extension. Players don't generally reach free agency in their mid-twenties.

 

That said, handing such contracts out to guys over 30 isn't a good strategy, though certain exceptions could reasonably be made.

 

I agree. And potentially the greatest player of all time is the time you make an exception.

 

The problem with Soriano is that so much of his perceived value was tied to his legs, which are usually the first things to go, and he was already 31. At least all Pujols has to do to retain most of his value is hit. I am highly skeptical he'll still be OPSing 850+ when he's 38-40, though.

 

Exactly why this comparison is so flawed. There's a much higher chance that Pujols is useful to good late in his career than there was with Soriano, there's a lot further for Pujols to fall than there was with Soriano, and Pujols will provide us with far more production early in the contract than Soriano did.

 

As for Pujols OPSing .850+ when he's 38-40, it probably is very unlikely but if there's going to be a player who beats the odds, Pujols very well could be that player.

Comparing Pujols' skillset to Soriano's is flawed.

 

Comparing their ages and contracts is not flawed.

 

It's the latter we're doing here.

 

How is it not flawed? Comparing their ages and contracts is hinged on what type of players they are.

It's flawed because I don't think there's a strong connection between skillset and aging curve. The notion that Soriano should be expected to decline faster than Pujols because his game is more predicated on speed seems specious.

 

The studies I remember seeing have shown the relationship to be weak or nonexistent.

 

I'm open to being shown otherwise, though.

 

But it's not just his speed; Soriano has always been an obviously flawed, streaky player. Failing speed was hardly the only major concern, as that guys like him tend to not age well as their relatively limited skillset starts to decline.

[dfnowak]

Lot of people here talk about the Cubs pursuing CJ Wilson, but what about Mark Buehrle instead? Has proven to be a work horse and will be cheaper than Wilson.

[dew1679666265]

Lot of people here talk about the Cubs pursuing CJ Wilson, but what about Mark Buehrle instead? Has proven to be a work horse and will be cheaper than Wilson.

 

He's also nowhere near as good as Wilson and older with much more mileage on his arm. Buerhle will be 33 when next season starts and has pitched 2,476 innings over the course of his career. Wilson will be 31 when next season starts and has pitched 708 innings over the course of his career. As a starter, Wilson has posted WARs of 4.6 and 5.9, Buerhle has averaged 3.8 WAR over the course of his career and has been between 3.4 and 3.7 the past three years.

 

Buerhle will come cheaper, but will likely still get 3 years and $10-12 million (at least) per year while he likely declines. I wouldn't hate bringing in Buerhle, but I don't really see the value in bringing in a decent pitcher who's likely to hit a decline soon as he enters his mid-30s. If we pass on Wilson, it should probably be for somebody who might have some upside - a Jeff Francis or somebody, not Buerhle.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I would be all kinds of on it if Buehrle only wanted 3/$30.

[dew1679666265]

I would be all kinds of on it if Buehrle only wanted 3/$30.

 

That was probably a pretty conservative estimate on my part.

[RynoRules]

Pujols will send the dominos falling in terms of the big-time guys, IMO, so lets assume he signs with us:

 

Albert Pujols - Cubs

 

Then perhaps....

 

Prince Fielder - Cards

CC Sabathia - Yankees

CJ Wilson - Red Sox

Jose Reyes - Giants

Jimmy Rollins - Reds

Aramis Ramirez - Angels

Carlos Beltran - Giants

David Ortiz - Yankees

Jonathan Papelbon - Red Sox

Francisco Rodriguez - Braves

Heath Bell - Twins

Brad Lidge - Dodgers

Joe Nathan - Astros

Jonathan Broxton - Phillies

Ryan Madson - Phillies

Mark Buehrle - Rangers

Michael Cuddyer - Phillies

Carlos Pena - Brewers

Yu Darvish - Yankees

Edwin Jackson - White Sox

Johnny Damon - Retired

Juan Pierre - Unemployed...maybe the St Paul Saints

Roy Oswalt - Rockies

Jim Thome - Red Sox

 

EDIT: Under this scenario I would do what I had to in order to trade Soriano to a team in need of a DH (Mariners? Tampa Bay? Twins?)

[dfnowak]

Didn't CJ Wilson have some arm injuries in the past? I think Buehrle has proven he can stay healthy, which is probably due to his smooth delivery and that he doesn't seem to over exert himself on every pitch. I think he could do really well in the NL and prove to be good value for a 3 or 4 year deal.

[dew1679666265]

Didn't CJ Wilson have some arm injuries in the past? I think Buehrle has proven he can stay healthy, which is probably due to his smooth delivery and that he doesn't seem to over exert himself on every pitch. I think he could do really well in the NL and prove to be good value for a 3 or 4 year deal.

 

Wilson apparently had an elbow injury in 2004, but has shown no ill effects from it over the past 7 years. I don't think it should be a concern at this point.

 

And Buerhle is actually the model of a short term band aid that people on here have bemoaned the Cubs pursuing (not directing that at you dfnowak as I don't recall you every saying that). He's going to help us far more in 2012 than he will in 2014 and he's not the type of pitcher who will make a big impact in us going from cellar dweller to division winner. The Cubs need to pursue either legit stars or young guys with upside in free agency, not moderate short term upgrades.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't have a problem with short-term upgrades. There are only so many long-term upgrades to be had, and you won't be able to spend your money on all of them.