Sammy Sofa

Seems like a pretty hollow complaint when this thread has had barely any posts in it for over a week until your tirade.

Fitting avatar.

*Wink-wink* *Nudge-nudge*

YEAH.

What DIDN'T he do?

I was less than 4K over. The point stands however -- a slightly larger ballpark could generate more revenue. A different location could allow the Cubs to increase advertising revenue etc. I realize that this is an unpopular position around here and that any differing opinions are usually met with insults and arguments over minutia. Nope. Nice cross, though.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

It makes negative sense for the White Sox to do that unless they're convinced that Dunn is done. Then it makes negative sense for the Cubs to do it.

Deals for players like that rarely are.

It's a rationale for taking risks with very good chances for high reward other teams can't afford to when you'll still have a ton of money to construct/improve your team outside of that investment. Do you want the Cubs to be a featherweight, constantly bouncing around the ring and able to skillfully dodge being hit, but can only land glancing, largely ineffective blows every once in a while, or do you want them to be the heavyweight, who can take those hits and then land knockout punches with much more regularity? Ugh, I hate analogies. I want the Cubs to be your proverbial heavyweight, but I want them to be smart about when and where they throw their big punches. This isn't the right spot for the haymaker. Signing players like Fielder or Pujols can easily be smart for the Cubs even with bad years at the end of their deals. A player doesn't have to be a sound investment for the duration of their contract for it to be a smart signing.

I'm not arguing the Teixeira deal is a bargain. You aren't getting bargains at this price point. I'm arguing Teixeira is the type of player that is worth gambling on. I think at the time he signed, he was a much better bet to sustain both his health and his production, and therefore he was less risky than Pujols or Fielder. Same deal with Gonzalez. If a guy like that isn't available right away, then I'd rather wait than jump into a deal that I think is a loser. You can't wait for those type of deals, especially if you're likely on a year away from being a regular contender. dave, seriously, I'm really curious as to who you think fulfills your standards out of the projected FA between now and the 2014 season.

It's a rationale for taking risks with very good chances for high reward other teams can't afford to when you'll still have a ton of money to construct/improve your team outside of that investment. Do you want the Cubs to be a featherweight, constantly bouncing around the ring and able to skillfully dodge being hit, but can only land glancing, largely ineffective blows every once in a while, or do you want them to be the heavyweight, who can take those hits and then land knockout punches with much more regularity? Ugh, I hate analogies.

We've been over this. Can take a gamble /= should take a gamble. And the Cubs should fall under the latter, not the former. Chicken Little strikes again.

Terrible analogy. 20% of someone's budget/income is a totally different game if you're talking about $150+ million. Let's say you've got Pujols making the bonkers $30 million a year. Even at $150 million you're still left with $120 million to make up the rest of your team. This is the crux that you seem to refuse to get; that the Cubs have a flexibility that most teams don't have. Well, I take that back; you get it, but you inexplicably want them to act like they don't have that flexibility and instead wait until the signs align and they can sign the mythical elite FA that freakishly/stupidly signs a super affordable deal a la A-Gon. Do you not trust this FO to be able to run this team and plan ahead to deal with situations like this? Do you not think the Cubs will have major money to spend 7-8 years from now? And yes, it would take a total catastrophe for me to ultimately view signing Pujols or Fielder as a mistake, something like them being all but worthless for more than half of their next contract. Soriano hasn't prevented the Cubs from being able to pursue other big-ticket free agents. So what's the problem? Oh right, it's because that contract was viewed as a mistake from day one. Well I view these players as mistakes from day one, at the years and dollars they're reportedly asking. Whether or not the Cubs FO can operate around these mistakes misses the point. Sure they can. But they shouldn't choose to do so when they can avoid it. Just like I demonstrated with my analogy. Then you're operating from an extreme, inflexible position that, thankfully, isn't realistically and, even more thankfully, there's almost zero chance the FO follows. You seem to be operating under the unrealistic idea that big ticket FA signings have to be perfect or not. There's no in-between. If you sign a guy for, say, an expensive 9 years, and get 6 years of elite production out of him and then the last 3 you're way overpaying then that's a mistake for you that needs to be avoided at all costs. That's absurd for a team with the resources the Cubs have. I'm not saying the Cubs should jump on every long-term, big name FA they come across, but you seem to be saying they need to avoid any unless they can all but guarantee themselves they're going to be getting elite production for the duration of the contract barring unforeseen, catastrophic injury. That's just not realistic, and it unnecessarily hampers the Cubs' ability to maximize the FA advantage they have over most other teams. Plus, not shockingly at all, this all comes back to Soriano. This is wrong, and proves once again that you're hearing what you want to hear, and not what it is I'm saying. I'm all for signing an elite free agent. Several, in fact. But like anything else, there are good risks and there are bad risks. IMO these two guys fall in the bad risk category. It's really not any more complicated than that. I'm hearing you loud and clear; you're all for signing elite FA that aren't typically available. A-Gon surprisingly/stupidly signing the affordable deal he did after being traded to the Red Sox is not typical. The Teixieira deal is not the bargain you seem to inexplicably think it is. Based on the unreasonable standards you've set the vast majority of elite or arguably elite FA signings that will come the Cubs' way would likely fall on the "bad risk" side of things. That's essentially the inherent nature of such big ticket FA signings. Plus, again, you're trying to break things down into an either/or; in this case whether something is a good risk or a bad risk, seemingly with no in-between. "Risk" is a on a very broad scale, and the Cubs fortunately have the resources to gamble on more "bad risk" investments that also give a good chance of a big return than most other teams, and yes, they SHOULD take advantage of that.

People are fixated on the next few years, when the Cubs would be better off if they had one of these guys, and sweeping under the rug the several years thereafter, when the Cubs would be better off if they don't have one of these guys. Not sure what's so mind-boggling about thinking the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost. Because you have so much money available now and again after next season that, really, the Cubs not being competitive by 2013 at the latest should be viewed as failure.

Yet it could easily apply to them in just the second year of that kind of deal. I mean, that just seems like such a stupid, self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. "OK, we sucked last year, so let's pass on a player who makes us significantly better (even though we have assloads of money after this last season and after the next) and puts on the right track to being consistently good in the very near future because there's a good chance we'll only just be less sucky in the first year of their deal." Hooray, failure indefinitely until the crap shoot that is the farm system maybe starts paying off years from now!

Fortunately the Cubs are one of the few teams in MLB who can take that gamble, reap the benefits of how much elite production he has left and then roll with the punches in the final years of his deal.

Terrible analogy. 20% of someone's budget/income is a totally different game if you're talking about $150+ million. Let's say you've got Pujols making the bonkers $30 million a year. Even at $150 million you're still left with $120 million to make up the rest of your team. This is the crux that you seem to refuse to get; that the Cubs have a flexibility that most teams don't have. Well, I take that back; you get it, but you inexplicably want them to act like they don't have that flexibility and instead wait until the signs align and they can sign the mythical elite FA that freakishly/stupidly signs a super affordable deal a la A-Gon. Do you not trust this FO to be able to run this team and plan ahead to deal with situations like this? Do you not think the Cubs will have major money to spend 7-8 years from now? And yes, it would take a total catastrophe for me to ultimately view signing Pujols or Fielder as a mistake, something like them being all but worthless for more than half of their next contract. Soriano hasn't prevented the Cubs from being able to pursue other big-ticket free agents. So what's the problem? Oh right, it's because that contract was viewed as a mistake from day one. Well I view these players as mistakes from day one, at the years and dollars they're reportedly asking. Whether or not the Cubs FO can operate around these mistakes misses the point. Sure they can. But they shouldn't choose to do so when they can avoid it. Just like I demonstrated with my analogy. Then you're operating from an extreme, inflexible position that, thankfully, isn't realistically and, even more thankfully, there's almost zero chance the FO follows. You seem to be operating under the unrealistic idea that big ticket FA signings have to be perfect or not. There's no in-between. If you sign a guy for, say, an expensive 9 years, and get 6 years of elite production out of him and then the last 3 you're way overpaying then that's a mistake for you that needs to be avoided at all costs. That's absurd for a team with the resources the Cubs have. I'm not saying the Cubs should jump on every long-term, big name FA they come across, but you seem to be saying they need to avoid any unless they can all but guarantee themselves they're going to be getting elite production for the duration of the contract barring unforeseen, catastrophic injury. That's just not realistic, and it unnecessarily hampers the Cubs' ability to maximize the FA advantage they have over most other teams. Plus, not shockingly at all, this all comes back to Soriano.

Terrible analogy. 20% of someone's budget/income is a totally different game if you're talking about $150+ million. Let's say you've got Pujols making the bonkers $30 million a year. Even at $150 million you're still left with $120 million to make up the rest of your team. This is the crux that you seem to refuse to get; that the Cubs have a flexibility that most teams don't have. Well, I take that back; you get it, but you inexplicably want them to act like they don't have that flexibility and instead wait until the signs align and they can sign the mythical elite FA that freakishly/stupidly signs a super affordable deal a la A-Gon. Do you not trust this FO to be able to run this team and plan ahead to deal with situations like this? Do you not think the Cubs will have major money to spend 7-8 years from now? And yes, it would take a total catastrophe for me to ultimately view signing Pujols or Fielder as a mistake, something like them being all but worthless for more than half of their next contract.

Yes, to the point where they can sign 1, but not 2. Or 4, but not 6. Or whatever the specific situation becomes years down the road. The opportunity cost of that money is what it is. Unless you're arguing that the Cubs shouldn't spend that money period that cost is going to be sunk regardless. $25 million tied up in Fielder in 2018 is spent the same as $25 million spent on 2-3 different players, and I can guarantee you that money will be spent. So then you're still in a situation where you have money spent and your budget to sign 1 instead of 2 or 3 instead of 4 is still hindered. If you want to argue the production value of those 2-3 players instead of Fielder, fine, but it's not like $25 million spent on Fielder is somehow more limiting financially than that same $25 million spent on 2-3 other players for that year. They'll spend the money, sure. Spending it on Fielder is surely the least flexible option, and in the latter years, the least efficient option as well. The money will be spent regardless. Dwelling on the back end particulars years ahead of time like they're representing some kind of impeding financial bind is, again, Chicken Little bull [expletive] unless you anticipate them doling out multiple big ticket deals that end up going bust at the same time and in general just continue to run the organization as poorly as it was run during the Hendry era.

So we wait 15 years for a 27 year old superstar to come along at a position of great organizational need(and then probably pass on him because his contract demands will be pretty off the charts too). You do realize that there isn't going to be another player who comes as close as Pujols to meeting your standard for being worth his contract, right? There isn't going to be another confluence of circumstance like this either. An inner circle hall of famer whose price may be slightly suppressed by a misleading "down season" coming available at a position where the team has absolutely no in-house options, when they have a ton of money freed up, and when they begin under new management that seems pretty certain to be producing cheap talent with regularity by the time these feared albatross years will be upon us. Perfect is the enemy of great as well as good, and to ignore your team's financial advantage in order to gain the incredible marginal value Pujols provides for fear that he becomes an invalid albatross at age 36 is how you never end up with teams as great as the Cubs resources ought to have. Well said.

Yes, to the point where they can sign 1, but not 2. Or 4, but not 6. Or whatever the specific situation becomes years down the road. The opportunity cost of that money is what it is. Unless you're arguing that the Cubs shouldn't spend that money period that cost is going to be sunk regardless. $25 million tied up in Fielder in 2018 is spent the same as $25 million spent on 2-3 different players, and I can guarantee you that money will be spent. So then you're still in a situation where you have money spent and your budget to sign 1 instead of 2 or 3 instead of 4 is still hindered. If you want to argue the production value of those 2-3 players instead of Fielder, fine, but it's not like $25 million spent on Fielder is somehow more limiting financially than that same $25 million spent on 2-3 other players for that year.

To the point where if that year's equivalent of Fielder or Pujols comes along (elite FA) and the Cubs are effectively automatically out because of the money they're already spending. Obviously nobody is saying that they can't just act like they have all the money in the world, but at the same time the Cubs 6-8 years from now should have even more money flexibility than they do now.

"Beast" is obviously an ambiguous term, but the guy has topped 4 wins twice in six years. And he's just gonna get even better as a Cub. It'll be awesome.