Sammy Sofa

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.

Your comprehension failure is a you problem, not a me problem. dave, you're the one that keeps talking like signing Pujols or Fielder is going to somehow effectively cripple the Cubs financially towards the end of their deals. Or are you now backing off the doom & gloom warnings that overpaying for the two of them would significantly hinder the Cubs' ability to sign FA or trade for and extend players?

That's the "idea" that basically everyone but dave wants.

Jesus went into beast Jedi-mode after that. Teabow may not be as merciful.

I'd prefer Fielder, too. I really don't have a problem with the 8 years because he hasn't had an injury history like guys tend to start showing already by the point he's reached in his career. This is a guy who has played at least 157 games for 6 straight seasons, and plenty of big guys start having issues once they've logged that much time. I think he's got a good shot of being a beast production-wise for 5-6 years of an 8-year deal.

So you don't mind overpaying Fielder so you can be sarcastic about him a few years from now too? My main fear of Feilder is that he could completely fall off due to his weight. I'm not completly against him either, I just has some major fears of his weight. I'm not saying Teixiera has a bad deal. I'm using him as an example of how you typically have to overpay for marquee FA signings. The Red Sox got a hell of a deal for A-Gon, and the cold heard reality is that players that good usually don't lock themselves into deals that favorable for a team that didn't bring them up. He's an outlier, and the Red Sox lucked out.

Wait, what? If that's "unfair" then it's "unfair" for him or any of us to talk about any hypothetical FA signing. You're asking him to look up possible FA's over the next 4 or 5 years and list specifically guys who he wants to target, while all you have to say is "Let's add fielder or Pojuls". You are asking him to do a bunch of research just to disagree with you when you do not. Yes it's unfair. Why don't you research a list of 5 years of free agents then tell HIM why Fielder is better than all of the names you come up with? Because I'm not necessarily arguing the bold part. Because I'm not presenting anywhere near the same type of narrow parameters towards the Cubs and FA going forward as he is. I want the Cubs to spend money and have brought up numerous players I want or wanted the Cubs to spend money on in the coming years and I disagree wholeheartedly with his Chicken Little mentality towards free agent spending for a team with the resources of the Cubs. He's the one repeatedly naysaying the idea of spending so I want him to clarify just who exactly he thinks a big money team like the Cubs should be spending their money on in the next 3 years as opposed to someone like Fielder or Pujols. He doesn't have to do this, but I know I, and others probably are as well, curious as to who he'd pick since he's offered little more than "I'd have no problem signing someone like Tex or A-Gon to the deals they got." OK, great. Who is on the horizon that also gets the lofty davearm2 seal of approval when it comes to big ticket FA spending?

Oh, and Teixeira: worth what the Yankees are paying him each season for the next five seasons only twice in his career. But yeah, HE'D be a slam dunk!

Wait, what? If that's "unfair" then it's "unfair" for him or any of us to talk about any hypothetical FA signing.

Yeah, it's pretty great.

And have a ton of cash freeing up after next year, too.

I'm not wanting to wait for guys like Baez Vogelbach etc. What I'd like to see is a few big trades for guys that are on the right side of 30, but about to get too expensive for their current team (or available for some other reason, like the Logan Morrison, Colby Rasmus situations). I mentioned someplace earlier, the Cubs added Ramirez and DLee in two trades within about 6 or 8 months of each other. Let's get a few of our impact guys that way. Or sign someone like Fielder and not give up anyone.

Well you've already heard me say I would have been happy handing out the contracts that Teixeira and Adrian Gonzalez received. I know, and now I want to know who you think the Cubs should hypothetically sign now, after 2012 or after 2013 given the FA projected to be available. Let's narrow it down and just say they're signing 2-3 FA in each of those offseasons. Who would you be comfortable with them signing? Who would you consider to be elite and worth pursuing? Who do you think will be overrated/overpriced vs. the return as you continually argue Pujols and Fielder will be?

It's a hypothetical so we can get a better grasp as to who you want the Cubs to target instead of Pujols or Fielder via FA and to see what you consider to be elite talent.

yea, they both were. i'm saying they should have been given more than 22 carries when they were averaging a combined 5.5 yard per rush. instead, hanie is chucking it 36 times at a 50% completion percentage. Uh, SOME people are able to literally do the Lord's work with that type of percentage, you [expletive] heathen.

dave, I want you to look at the lists of the projected FA available now, after 2012 and 2013 and, thinking hypothetically that the Cubs have to fill all open positions with FA, tell us who you'd want them to sign and for how much. Let us know which ones are the elite talent, too.