NOLA

Not that I want to agree with BB but that throw to 3B which allowed the runner to advance to 2B was atrocious. This is one of the worst fundamental Cubs teams I can remember. Who managed these guys down in the minors anyway?

Good point. Unless Hendry signs an extension before July, I think we all know that answer. I fear if we are within 6 games by the break, Ricketts will consider the first half to be a result of injuries. One more piece and the division is ours, baby!

Absolutely! It's worth the 20 minute drive from New Orleans.

OK, I really do not want to jump back into this fray again as I think we can just agree to disagree on the risk/reward. This, however, is NOT at all what I've heard anyone saying. Who here has said to go ahead but only with "very, very short contracts"? I don't know if the Fielder talk was in this thread or elsewhere, but there were some very vocal people saying things like "no way would I want Fielder for more than 5 years" and tlaking like the Cubs should be able to inexplicably sign him for 4 years. Probably the same folks being similarly adamant about saying no to Pujols if he won't take 6-7. OK. Again, I do not like the terms of the proposed Pujols deal, but that by comparison seems prudent compared to an 8 year Fielder deal.

Obviously it depends on the cost/years. If Pujols is $300 million/10 years and Prince is for $170 million/8 years, it gets to be a tough decision. Of course that's the maximum Pujols will get while Prince could get more than what I mentioned. Also, if Pujols continues to have a down year, all of the numbers mentioned could change dramatically. As much as I dislike the Pujols deal, I'd do that in a heartbeat before I took Fielder at that price for 8 years. Geez! He won't be able to even waddle out to 1B by the end of that deal.

OK, I really do not want to jump back into this fray again as I think we can just agree to disagree on the risk/reward. This, however, is NOT at all what I've heard anyone saying. Who here has said to go ahead but only with "very, very short contracts"?

Touche. But Maddux was just entering his prime back then. I don't think he wanted 10 years.

Matt Cain is a FA after next year, and he is very Giants-like. Not trying to be argumentative, I simply do not like the Pujols deal. IMO, our window to win and to make a move for a big FA is not this offseason, and not at that deal for any 32 year old 1B.

You're always going to have to sign a star to a "bloated" contract. The bigger/more valuable the star the bigger the contract. All I've seen you do in this thread is naysay pretty much any big offensive player the Cubs could sign in this upcoming offseason. What about my hope that they can sign Kemp after 2012? Is that bad idea, too? Is your desired plan just hoping that they shell out for pitchers and sign mid-tier players elsewhere and hope they stumble on a 2011-Berkman in the rough? What are you saving this money for? Which big offensive stars do you think they SHOULD sign? When we argue "bloated" contracts, I think we are just arguing the degree of bloated. Actually, I said I have reservations about Fielder, Reyes and Pujols for different reasons altogether. I did say I support signing a CJ Wilson. We have areas we can upgrade, definitely. I like Kemp, quite a bit actually. The aforementioned Josh Hamilton will be a FA soon. Not liking the terms of a Pujols deal is a far cry from some of your suggestions.

As I said, all signings are a risk. I wouldn't sign any pitcher to 10 years either, especially at that age, so I think that comparison isn't valid. Two pitchers, or a pitcher and a 1B, maybe also a long reliever could be signed without 10 year deals at the same price. As I also said, I realize last year is a small sample size, but it does show a path to a pennant that is less of a gamble. There aren't too many of the greatest hitters of all time that I would want at age 38-42 taking up 1/5 of the payroll.

None will be better. All will be cheaper. To me it just reeks of paying for past production. There's no question the guy's been unbelievable. I'd much rather be in the Cards' shoes, saying so long, we'll miss you... and then watching as his salary:production ratio flips completely from black to red. I could not have said it better, word for word.

As for the idea that not signing Pujols would be a typical Cubs move, I have to think that signing a star name to a bloated contract is much more Cub-like.

First let me say that I am about 65/35 against signing Pujols to that deal. I am not totally opposed to it, but the more I think about it the more I dislike it. I do not know what Pujols will play like in 6 years, but I definitely don't think it's far more likely a 38 year old will have good to great production. I know it's just one example, but as I said I am far from sold on Reyes or Fielder for that matter. Who do the Cubs sign then you may ask? I think the Giants showed that a dominant pitching staff can win a World Title. Besides Josh Hamilton, there wasn't a big-time star playing the field for either pennant winning team. I know this is just one year, but it shows a different path than with a monstrous 10 year deal for a 32 year old first baseman. Even Pujols. Yes, the Cubs have plenty of money to spend. But there is no way that they wouldn't be hamstrung by a multiyear deal with an aging player anchoring a key position, if god forbid he gets hurt or declines. Again, I'm not saying it WOULD happen, but I don't want that risk. I know any free agent signing is a risk, and Pujols himself is not the risk here. The 10 years are.

I don't disagree with this in regards to Reyes, but the point is the same. You can sign multiple players for production without the 10 year risk of Pujols' contract. Why is that automatically better? Why not sign one superstar player you can build around and then focus elsewhere instead of having to sign 2-3 to even or exceed that one player's contributions? Because the risk is far less than putting all your 32 year old eggs in one basket for the next 10 years. How far back would it set the Cubs to have Pujols with injury issues under that enormous contract for 6 or 7 years after his production has slipped? I'm not saying Pujols absolutely will break down but I don't want to take that kind of risk on any guy in his 30's. I know he hasn't been injury prone but the body breaks down much more often after 30. Even Kobe is slowing down. People say yeah, but he's Pujols. Even Willie Mays got old. If this deal went bad it could go VERY bad. Let's build around other guys in our system and out who won't tie our hands for years to come.

I don't disagree with this in regards to Reyes, but the point is the same. You can sign multiple players for production without the 10 year risk of Pujols' contract.

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts. Secondly, your rotating cast idea isn't all that hot. Ideally you want at least one superstar player that you can build around. Wright is a FA after his team option in 2013, so then he's going to get paid, too. No, not Pujols-money, but Pujols is going to get Pujols-money because he's better and much more valuable. I have zero problem with the Cubs making a go at getting both Pujols AND Wright (if he's even available), but I really don't see the wisdom in choosing Wright over Pujols. And why would Detroit be giving up Cabrera? I know we need stars, I just want younger ones. Let's say we give Pujols eight years, how many of those will he have an OPS above .900? Three, maybe? What happens if his heel problems pop up again? We can't DH him. I think Reyes makes a ton of sense for us. He's only 28, we keep him at 2b and with Soto, Castro, and Jackson we have the best combo up the middle in MLB. Let's build on that. Why not build on that + Pujols? And unless this year is indicative of a bigger problem, you're severely undervaluing Pujols if you think he's going to OPS at least .900 for only the first three years of his next contract. He's averaged an OPS of 1.064 over the last 5 seasons, so predicting a drop off of about .200 by age 35 is pretty severe. And yes, while Reyes would be a nice signing and is younger, he's had major injury issues, too, and his skills are tied in much more specifically to something that will decline much quicker than Pujols' abilities (especially due to injuries): his speed. But Reyes won't demand 10 years.

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind. yep.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6553188 COLUMBUS, Ohio -- An NCAA investigation into rules infractions by the Ohio State football program has delayed release of the team's 2010 "gold pants" charms, awards that team members receive if they beat rival Michigan. The Gold Pants Club that distributes the trinkets is waiting to see if the NCAA vacates any of last season's wins, President Jim Lachey, a former Ohio State All-America offensive lineman, told The Columbus Dispatch for a Sunday story. The university-licensed club pays about $50 each for the charms. Lachey said he's also considering withholding the charms in the future until players are no longer on the team and have used up their eligibility to play, when selling the items would no longer be an NCAA violation. That is both sad and hilarious.

I hear you, but that elbow last year and a few other injuries I can't remember scare me a bit. Not a ton like he should be some Superman, but enough to not want me to give that deal. Make it six or seven years and we're talking. he's averaged almost 156 games a year in his first 10 years, that's extremely durable. if you're worried about his injuries then you pretty much are going to be worried about signing any player. Yes, that's the point. I am worried about signing any player to that deal at his age. I'll leave it at this. If anyone should get that deal it is Albert Pujols. Despite my misgivings, I do see your points and a path to a title by signing him. There's just a ton of ifs involved for such a commitment expense in money and years. I also in the long term want us to continue to build the farm system like we seem to be doing. I just hope the next signing isn't Mike Cameron or JD Drew for 5 years.

I hear you, but that elbow last year and a few other injuries I can't remember scare me a bit. Not a ton like he should be some Superman, but enough to not want me to give that deal. Make it six or seven years and we're talking.

Buehrle, C Carpenter, Oswalt, CJ Wilson The next best I see is Joel Piniero, Aaron Cook caliber.

if you're saying he'll be like 2011 derrek lee then you're saying that he would suck. derrek lee has been terrible. and what is that bet based on? just a complete guess as to how he'll age? Yes, Derek Lee was awful. I said closer to D Lee than a $30 Million player. No one knows how he will age. I am however concerned due to his current age, his recent (albeit early) slump, day games in Wrigley, no DH to hide him, and the few number of players who have remained All Star level at that age excluding known steroid users. Again, no one knows and that's why it is a big gamble. I just don't like that deal for anyone at his age, even Albert Pujols.

If that is the case, then I am on board completely. Don't forget another starter.

The problem with waiting for the exact perfect free agent is that free agent doesn't exist. If you sit around and pass on each major free agent because there are some flaws or questions, you'll never make a big free agent signing and you'll probably never win a World Series. The Cubs are in a position right now where we have some good, young major league talent and we have a ton of prospects on their way up who look like good major leaguers. However, we have no real starpower in the minors or on the team. The potential is there for a very good supporting cast, but no core for that cast to support. We also don't have much money committed beyond 2012 and the third highest payroll in the MLB. Given all of that, one of the best players to ever play the game may just hit the open market this offseason and would give us that core player we don't have in the system. If we pass on Pujols and Fielder in the hopes that the perfect free agent falls in our lap, we'll see a lot more of the type seasons we saw in the 2000s (good teams that weren't great because they lacked a great player) in the coming years. Signing Pujols is a gamble, but sometimes you have to take gambles to win championships and if I'm going to take a gamble, I want to take one on the best player in the game. I see your points but the issue for me is the years at that money. I am not saying pass on each big free agent or the Cubs should wait on the perfect deal. I am just saying I think we pass on this deal as it is either feast or famine. I know you have to take your shots when you can but I am not willing to gamble this much as a number of things scare me: We play tons of day games. Is he really the age he says he is? True, he has played hurt at an incredible level but still he has had some worrisome injuries with more frequency in recent years-will he be as resilient as he ages? We are in the National League so no DH. Maybe I got carried away with the booing at Wrigley thing. But this just shrinks our window to win. Let's go get somebody else at a better deal when we get closer to contending. How is it "feast or famine?" All players have injury risks as they get older. Great players aren't going to settle on a safe contract that only pays them through ages 32-36 if you're signing them when they're around 30. And is really all that realistic for people to truly worry about his "real age" these days? Who honestly thinks he would have been able to hide it? And how does this shrink the Cubs' window to win? This is a team that can afford to eat contracts. They've just had issues coming to a head now because of the sale. Put a good team on the field and they make a ton of money and they can have a gigantic payroll, and Pujols is a huge step in the right direction to accomplish that. It's feast or famine as in the Cubs had better win in the next 5 years or it is not a good trade. I realize great players have injury risks and will not accept deals that only reach age 36. And I realize he is not just another great player. But this isn't just another pricey contract either. There are great players who won't insist on 10 years at $30 million per. It's a cost/value thing to me. That said, I realize if the Cubs win the title it is completely worth it. We all want them to go to the Series, this is just not the approach I would take. Too many eggs in one basket. If they don't win before a Pujols decline in a few years, the Cubs have an aging ex All-Star holding 1B, or worse spends half the season on the DL eating up that much salary. Barry Bonds is one of the very few who has had productive years late into his career, and we know about that story. Yes ownership might could painfully absorb the contract in financial terms, but he would be completely untradeable and a we could have a black hole at 1B for the last several years of that deal. Not saying he would suck, but I'd bet he'd be more like 2011 Derek Lee than a $30 million player at 37. Also, are we certain Rickett's won't be happy with butts in the seats and a superstar on the field, ala Sosa in the 90's? Is he going to surround him with talent for the length of the contract? I just think there are better routes to a title where we could continue to build.

As someone who has absolutely no horse in this race, I can tell you that I and everyone I talk to wants the Bulls to destroy LeBoo and the Heat. Anyone for a Derrick Rose led Bulls team against the Grizzlies? That would be huge story in Memphis.