Sammy Sofa

I think the given that has to be assumed with any big contract for a star player there's going to be some loss. Unless it's a player your team developed from the farm and got some cheap, below-value production from you're going to have to overpay for a star. Whether that means you're technically overpaying each year or some of the seasons at the end are a wash, well, them's the breaks. The key is ending up in that type of situation with a player like Pujols as opposed to one like Soriano. When I argue for something like signing Pujols for 8 years I'm pretty damn sure the last 2-3 years of that deal aren't going to be too hot. Nobody should ever look at these type of signings and think they're going to walk away paying the player what they "should" be making or getting a deal or that they're going to live up to what you want/need of them for the length of the contract. That just doesn't usually happen.

Definitely things to consider. The bottom line is that it's likely impossible to have a concrete answer along those lines when it comes time to decide whether or not they want to sign him. There's always going to be an inherent risk.

Well, yeah, I'm talking hypothetically a la he essentially repeats this season. That means he'd be 28 starting the 2013 season as a Cub. Would you be comfortable signing him if he couldn't be had for less than 8 years?

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. That's fantastic. Pujols has been a better player leading up to his age 32 season than ARod. He has more room to decline and still be an upper tier player. That's a flawed analysis that assumes a lot of things about the human body that we can't answer without knowing more detailed information about Pujols medical record. We could go back and forth on this, and in the end, neither party would have anything more than speculation on when he might decline or if he'll manage to defy nature. But you do leave out the other point that I made in conjunction with that - Pujols has already shown some slippage in play over the last 2 seasons. That's been marked by a steady increase of Pujols chasing pitches outside the zone. His great hit tool has allowed him to still maintain star performance, just not elite performance, but when that bat speed slows down ... what happens next. Furthermore, he's had some more struggles on the fastball than in year's past. Like I said, it's not a lock that he wouldn't be hit with the serious injury. The problem with that, however, is then you can effectively talk yourself out of signing ANY impact player who is 30 or older.

You think he'll get more than 8 years? I sure don't. I don't even think it's a given he gets more than 6. And the Cubs wouldn't be signing him at age 31; you'd be getting him for this typical peak years of 28-32. So you want them to pass on both? What about signing someone like Kemp to a big deal after 2012?

Yeah, I really hope that if they do sign him they opt to give him the money he wants over the years if comes down to the line.

My problem with this line of thinking is that we haven't seen guys of his ilk try to produce late into their 30s outside of the steroid era when pitching is used like it is now. I mean, you're looking at guys who were elite(ish) late in their careers in the 60s-80s before the 6 inning start became prevalent and you're seeing a different reliever every time you come up late in games and those guys are throwing mid to upper 90s pretty regularly. The loss of bat speed, especially against those late inning guys, along with the fact that you're seeing guys be able to give more max effort early in games makes me nervous about aging superstars in the near future. Perhaps. I'd still rather they take the chance.

Man, I haven't even thought about Oswalt. He's always been so adamant about returning after his last contract ended to be with his family.

Doesn't mean the shape of their career WARP curves aren't likely to mirror each other when all is said and done. And if so, the point about Pujols being a significant liability in the second half of his next deal is very valid. In fact I think that's essentially a given. Nobody's arguing that he wouldn't decline over the course of a 6-10 contract at this point in his career. The point in him being better than ARod is that it means there's a very good chance that his decline would still leave him at a level where he's better than most longer than the typical player, or even someone at ARod's level. Do you want the Cubs to not sign either Pujols or Fielder? Best case is you give 'em a deal with an opt-out, and they take the opt out. The Yankees should have let ARod walk. And they should let CC walk too, if they get that chance this year. So if they can't sign them with such a clause they shouldn't do so? What if they have the opportunity to sign Kemp after next season? When do you think the Cubs should actually dish out a big contract? Only if the player is homegrown and they can do it earlier in their career? You can talk yourself out of these types of deals, but it's absurd for a team with the Cubs' resources to pass on such players given what they need. This isn't Soriano part deux.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. Pujols is entering his age 32 season and has had two years where his performance has slipped a bit. If he's looking for a gigantic deal that is 7 or more years, how certain are you that he won't decline in 2-3 years the way ARod is? Now that we aren't in the steroid era anymore, the expectation should be for normal human declines, and mid-30's was typically the area where decline started to happen. Everyone is different, but therein lies my concern with a Pujols deal. Another impact of the end of the steroid era -- we have to question whether the next wave of superstars will remain productive as long as guys like Manny and Bonds did. So there weren't players productive into their mid-30's prior to the "steroid era?" Of course there were. But the percentages were smaller. Pujols compares to a lot of guys like that. That level of talent tends to allow such players to age more gracefully than the usual rabble.

It blows my mind how some poeple lose sight of just how incredible a player Pujols is. In no way am I saying he's a lock to still be productive at, say, age 37, but he has such a bigger curve than other players due to how fantastically good he is. Look at how so many of the greats he compares to lasted late into their 30's as productive (or better) players.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. Pujols is entering his age 32 season and has had two years where his performance has slipped a bit. If he's looking for a gigantic deal that is 7 or more years, how certain are you that he won't decline in 2-3 years the way ARod is? Now that we aren't in the steroid era anymore, the expectation should be for normal human declines, and mid-30's was typically the area where decline started to happen. Everyone is different, but therein lies my concern with a Pujols deal. Another impact of the end of the steroid era -- we have to question whether the next wave of superstars will remain productive as long as guys like Manny and Bonds did. So there weren't players productive into their mid-30's prior to the "steroid era?"

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. That's fantastic. Pujols has been a better player leading up to his age 32 season than ARod. He has more room to decline and still be an upper tier player.

Doesn't mean the shape of their career WARP curves aren't likely to mirror each other when all is said and done. And if so, the point about Pujols being a significant liability in the second half of his next deal is very valid. In fact I think that's essentially a given. Nobody's arguing that he wouldn't decline over the course of a 6-10 contract at this point in his career. The point in him being better than ARod is that it means there's a very good chance that his decline would still leave him at a level where he's better than most longer than the typical player, or even someone at ARod's level. Do you want the Cubs to not sign either Pujols or Fielder?

Pujols is better than ARod.

Why the [expletive] had I been thinking Danks was 30?

That would be best case scenario. Considering we'd have him for his ages 33-35 seasons, my point is he may well decline from the 3.4 or so WAR player he's been. Even if he declines some, he becomes not close to worth what he'd get. Even if he ages well, he probably will still decline to some degree. If we were getting a 29 or 30 year old Buerhle, I might change my mind. But a 33 year old Buerhle isn't very enticing. So you don't have the same concern about paying Wilson much more than Buehrle for those same 33-35 seasons and beyond? I understand he has more room to fall in order to be average. I also understand that he doesn't have as many pitches on that arm, but he could become a huge burden at the end of his contract. He is going to command a salary that you can't afford to have him fall back a whole lot. The big difference is that Wilson has been a starter for a much shorter period of time than Buerhle. Buerhle has pitched just under 2500 innings (Just over 2000 when he finished up his age 30 season like Wilson is). CJ Wilson has thrown just over 700 innings. There's a LOT less wear and tear on Wilson's body. That said, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to Buerhle if he could be had for the right price and number of years. He's going to be declining, but some of that might be offset by a switch to the NL.

I just think the question posed by the title of this thread is shortsighted; it's not an either/or option to be all in for 2012 or just "giving up" as a part of a rebuilding process. The Cubs can be, as most have pointed out, competitive next year without shooting for the moon and going with a "win now" approach. In this division being competitive next season can mean winning 85 games. That would be a huge step in the right direction.

I'm all for the Mike Maddux idea, just out of the hope of finally proving that there is no Mike Maddux and it's just Greg with a really shitty mustache.

I hope they go nuts. No problem with more ads, a jumbotron, the renovations, starting their own TV network...DO IT ALL.

he doesn't say "well i think most hispanic guys are lazy and don't care" since he'd obviously get fired, but curiously his whipping boys all happen to be latin american and he seems to criticize all of them for lack of hustle, leadership and effort. Seems like a pretty racist observation on your part. Your telling me Kaplan has never criticized a "white player"? I don't remember him liking Todd Hundley very much. He didn't give Prior any grief for being injured all of the time? Kaplan's complaints about hustle, leadership, and effort are pretty much echoed by all of the media. How was that possibly "racist" on Truffle's part? Please, go ahead and explain.

Guy pointlessly compares Fielder/Pujols to Soriano for the billionth time. Somewhere a baby explodes.

I really hope he doesn't run out of rockets.

In this age of evil rich people it's refreshing to have one on the side of justice and good. He's like the baseball Batman.

I'm pretty sure he'd rip on a white guy if he turned a double into a single by standing and watching it go off the wall. Nah. He'd just turn it into a criticism of the Cubs overall.