bukie

There won't be flaws on this player in his prime in 2 years? It's unacceptable to have the highest payroll in the division (even writing off Soriano and Z's contracts, we're still right around the Cardinals) and punt 2 seasons. The Cubs have a gaping crater at 1st base at the major league level and in the farm system. There is not a more perfect scenario for Fielder and Pujols to enter the market, and people want to pass on them because we can't guarantee we'd win the division the next 2 years?? These are 2 of the best players in baseball right now, and people are so worried because a contract everyone hated at the time wound up being a contract everyone hated. What the hell is wrong with everyone? No, I'd still want to sign Pujols. Rather get him for, say, 7 years than 9, but I think it's an investment well worth it for three reasons: 1 - The Cubs have nothing at first base. No slugging offensive players that will be ready at any time in the next 4-5 years unless they somehow luck into a huge draft boon next year. 2 - The division is winnable right away with a little pitching rotation depth and a star offensive player added. The Cubs are a .500 team now if Coleman, Davis and Russell didn't have to start. 3 - Even if a Fielder-like player is available 3 years down the road, players like Pujols don't come along every 3 years. And if they do, teams keep them. And if they're somehow available, sign them too. This isn't the Rays.

I guess I kind of get Keri's point (after a couple tweets). Fielder compares too well to Mo Vaughn and Cecil Fielder (both of which were basically Carlos Pena-productive by 31). Assuming Pujols is the age he says he is, you're basically looking at a 50/50 gamble that he stays as productive as he is now (which is his worst season, but still better than any Cub recently) for 5-6 years before falling off. If you're the Cubs, do you take that gamble now and bank on the division staying weak for a while until the rest of the franchise is in order the way it should be, or do you wait a couple years and bank on a player coming into his prime years being available through trade or FA when the team is more prepared to contend on an extended basis?

I disagree with your guess at the odds. That's just my opinion vs yours though. I'm sure there's a lot of people that would agree with you. Maybe your right but I think it would be something we'd live to regret. Players break down toward the end of their careers and can become pretty much a faint shadow of the player they were when they signed, I've watched it happen to many times. People are always excited when they signed then 3 years later are asking why did we do that? But how many HOF players at Pujols' level have you seen fall off of a cliff? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it feels more like you're talking about someone like Soriano. I think after the Sosa incident (and to a lesser extent the Soriano thing, just because he wasn't near a Sosa level when people thought he would be), some fans are a little hesitant to sign a 30+ slugger under the assumption that he won't work out. Not that I agree with it, but I think that's the reasoning.

One thing I think Keri overlooks is that the Cubs can afford to give 6-7 years to Pujols/Fielder and build up from within. The truth of the matter is, the Cubs just don't currently have a Pujols anywhere in the organization now, and have nobody close to that level of production on the major league roster.

CBS Sports ranks their top 100 players, 10 per day. Today they posted 6-10, and Rose isn't there, while Durant and Kobe are. Looks like the top 5 is LeBron, Howard, Wade, Dirk and Rose.

The Road Map to a Cubs Resurgence - by Jonah Keri, the guy that wrote The Other 2%, about the Rays development into a winner. Certainly a more pessimistic view of the upcoming Cubs offseason and current outlook.

Go all in, sign both, play one in LF, hilarity ensues.

Cubs fans seem pretty confident that Friedman will want to jump at the chance to be the next Red Sox or Yankees.

At this point I want Friedman even more, because I don't want Houston to get him.

The Cubs are 6th in the NL in wOBA (.319) and tied for 6th in the NL in OPS (.727). They're slightly above average to average on offense, not below average. A fairly significant upgrade at first and a slight to moderate downgrade at third could have a big impact on the offensive production. Then you can also include adding one of the best pitchers in the majors to the rotation because of that downgrade. I'd say the only thing they're clearly below average in is walks, and Ramirez doesn't exactly boost that.

The pessimist in me thought he got injured again.

I heard that Crane Kenney was behind 9/11 and the Great Potato Famine. Not Kenney alone. Aramis Ramirez and Carlos Zambrano helped him. I heard Milton Bradley started the Chicago Fire. And they've only won two games to this point, so he'd be a terrible GM.

The weird thing about the 3B position this year is that it's roughly equivalent to the SS position offensively, which hasn't been the case since before 1990. If the team can be confident that trend will continue into the near future, then I'd feel better letting Ramirez walk and spend the money on the more offensively dominant positions, like corner OF and 1B, hoping that a Baker/Flaherty platoon will provide above-average offense at the position.

1 ) If you had to choose between being a general manager at a club with a limited payroll but full freedom of choice of personnel within that payroll, or a club with a near unlimited payroll where personnel choices were constantly monitored and limited, which would you prefer? 2 ) Rank the following ten statistics in order of importance to you when evaluating an offensive player: AVG, BABIP, BB, EQA, HR, K, OPS, RBI, SB, WAR 3 ) Rank the following ten statistics in order of importance to you when evaluating a starting pitcher: BB/9, ERA, HRA, IP, K/9, QS, W, WAR, WHIP, xFIP 4 ) Rank the following ten statistics in order of importance to you when evaluating a relief pitcher: BB/9, BS, ERA, HLD, HRA, K/9, SV, WAR, WHIP, xFIP 5 ) On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most, how much do the following factors affect your judgment on a player: statistical measures, scouting, clubhouse presence, work ethic? 6 ) Rank the following factors in order of importance to a successful franchise: farm system, free agent signings, manager, fan base, front office personnel. 7 ) What is the worst way a manager can hurt his team? Best way a manager can help his team?

Running a top 3 baseball market team with a top 5 payroll in a division full of small market teams? I can't imagine how there'd be interest in a position like that.

Not that this is in any way an apples to apples comparison, but there are two things that dispute this: 1 - The death penalty didn't exactly kill Kentucky basketball after it was used on it in 1952. 2 - The death penalty has been used twice since SMU (albeit in D2, and not in a major sport).

If it shows anything, it shows how team-dependent a stat like RBI is.

Deserve a winner or believe Hollandsworth's garbage?

More first inning runs.

Of course, the additional thing about the Cubs-Astros comparison is that the Cubs are still the second-worst team in the NL. So the distance between the worst and second-worst teams is about the same as the distance between the second-worst team and a playoff spot.

Yay for early runs! Err...boo early runs!

I'm sure that's the average market for a platoon DH.

This would appear to be the biggest culprit as to why the team isn't anywhere near contention this year. Granted, a lot of teams are really good when their starters give up 3 or fewer runs, but the Cubs' starters simply don't do that very often.

At this rate they may finish behind the Cubs.

In just 3 weeks, the Cubs have gained nine games on what was a 13 game deficit to the first-place Pittsburgh Pirates. Unfortunately, over those 3 weeks the Pirates have fallen to fourth.