Sammy Sofa

You would look to "gut the roster?" And playing in the Eastern Conference finals against the Heat in a year when just making the second round would have been an accomplishment is "one of the must frustrating playoff series you've ever watched?" U mad?

I think the debate over how much profit Pujols has to bring in has ended, if that's what you're referring to (and I'm pretty sure it is). I know I'm done with it. Same here.

I actually posted that before I realized the contract was front loaded. That changes my opinion some, though ARod's very good numbers this year appear boosted by quite a bit of luck (.304 BABIP vs a 12.9 LD%). Right now he looks like a mid-.800s OPS guy being paid $25-29 mil over the next few years if he doesn't decline at all. Knowing it's frontloaded, I'd lean toward taking it but it gets a lot less attractive when you know you're missing out on the awesome numbers at the front end of the deal. Oh, definitely. I wouldn't be nearly as thrilled about this as when there were the rumors that he might look elsewhere a few years ago.

Meh, I'd still be willing to it if they're just inexplicably saying "here you go."

Of course, especially since his contract is front-loaded.

Personally I don't find it depressing at all. Even without the lack of projected star players right now the farm is still in better shape than it's been a long while and even just generating a few good everyday players would be a huge improvement. This is also a team with a lot of money at their disposal, so they can afford to sign the all-stars they need. Mix that with some smart, lower tier FA signings and some solid players developed internally and they can have a really good team that competes each year. What's going to be key is who ends up being the the next GM and when. Agreed for the most part, but, like you said, are we confident that we have a GM to benefit from those positive things? Also, as we've learned the hard way in the playoffs, without a few dominant starters and a few hitters people are afraid of, it's hard to win. It's nice to win 97 games, but when you don't have a no-doubt #1 pitcher or anyone who is almost guaranteed to hit in a series, it doesn't mean much. Then again, losing in the playoffs is much preferred to the purgatory we're in now. If we could figure out a way to sign Pujols AND build around him, we'd be talking! No, I'm not confident in Hendry doing all of those things. I'm also not confident in the Ricketts firing him before this Pujols thing plays out, too. Actually, I have little doubt he could handle signing the superstar FA's. My concern with him is mostly the mid-tier signings.

Personally I don't find it depressing at all. Even without the lack of projected star players right now the farm is still in better shape than it's been a long while and even just generating a few good everyday players would be a huge improvement. This is also a team with a lot of money at their disposal, so they can afford to sign the all-stars they need. Mix that with some smart, lower tier FA signings and some solid players developed internally and they can have a really good team that competes each year. What's going to be key is who ends up being the the next GM and when.

It not just those guys. It's if the Cubs keep talking themselves out of guys like Dunn and Fielder and Pujols and whoever shows up. There's always going to be a good argument against sinking a ton of money into a FA superstar. If the Cubs keep listening to that side of things they're not going to be very good unless they pull of some miracle trades and/or some miracles happen in the farm system. Isn't that pretty much any team, though? You have to have a solid combination of all of those things. Look at the Red Sox: yeah, they've traded for and resigned Gonzalez, signed Crawford, traded for Beckett, signed Lackey and Drew, etc... but they also have a ton of homegrown talent, including Pedroia, Youkilis, Lowrie, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Bucholz, Bard, Lester, etc... in addition to some good buy low candidates such as Salty and Ortiz. Basically, they've done everything right and the Cubs haven't and that's why they've won. Well, that and Manny and Ortiz were on the juice. Oh, there definitely has to be a balance. The problem is that the Cubs really don't have anyone in their farm system that project beyond beyond solid everyday players as their ceiling now that Castro is up. Those kind of prospects can still be plenty valuable, but the Cubs also need superstar "tent-pole" players they can build around.

It not just those guys. It's if the Cubs keep talking themselves out of guys like Dunn and Fielder and Pujols and whoever shows up. There's always going to be a good argument against sinking a ton of money into a FA superstar. If the Cubs keep listening to that side of things they're not going to be very good unless they pull of some miracle trades and/or some miracles happen in the farm system.

Very few, which is precisely why I jumped all over the "walking moneymaker" comment in the first place. It's a fantasy. But you do realize you've created your expectations for what that phrase means, right? I wasn't arguing that he would pay for himself. What it means to make money? I don't think I'm out in left field on that one. No; what "walking moneymaker" means. To you that apparently means somehow being able to completely offset the cost with some kind of identifiable, singular increase directly attributable to Pujols. To me, and seemingly everyone else, it means "make more money then they're making now."

Very few, which is precisely why I jumped all over the "walking moneymaker" comment in the first place. It's a fantasy. But you do realize you've created your expectations for what that phrase means, right? I wasn't arguing that he would pay for himself.

I have no idea what is going on here but I hope this wasn't just accepted as the base from which any disagreement would be discussed. What would you estimate the Cubs' average annual attendance will be over the next 10 seasons? For reference, it's averaged ~3.1M over the last ten years. Hey if you've got a much better guess, then I'm all ears. And for bonus points, give me one number with Pujols on the team, and one without. The decade average is based on the 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2008 teams and the "hangover seasons" that followed. What you see between in the 2000, 2001 and 2002 seasons is an average of about 2.7 million (you can also include 1999 and 1998 in that average). Before that it was even lower. If the Cubs went into the next ten years without shelling out for FA like Pujols or Fielder then their average annual attendance will probably be around 2 million (or worse) by the end of that decade.

What percentage of players do you think "pay for" the money they make?

I have no idea what is going on here but I hope this wasn't just accepted as the base from which any disagreement would be discussed. It wasn't. I've been repeatedly bringing up how faulty it is.

So if the Cubs sign Pujols, keep their payroll the same and their profit goes up, they haven't made money? They have. Despite Pujols. They could have made even more. So you can prove that the increase in profit was not due to Pujols and that he had no impact on the profit increase? How so? I showed the analysis earlier. A reasonable estimate for Pujols' impact on the Cubs' revenue is $10-15M. Here's the basis of his argument: Good luck.

But you didn't do most of that. All you did was break down whether $30 million would be offset by a gate revenue increased based on 3.3 million fans instead of 3.1 million fans. That's it. I didn't use gate revenue. I used average local revenue per fan. It's an all-in number. And it's in your Forbes article. Well, then we're both on different pages because I was just using a general average of what the average ticket costs at Wrigley ($46.90) and likely will in the coming years ($50). And even so, using local revenue per fan doesn't account for all the factors that you yourself listed above.

So if the Cubs sign Pujols, keep their payroll the same and their profit goes up, they haven't made money? They have. Despite Pujols. They could have made even more. But again that's a pointless tangent since nobody has any reason to talk about a fantasy world where we're all on the edge of their seats where the Cubs maximize their ever-shrinking profit margin by spending as little as possible. This is a team that has money to spend and will spend mightily.

Are you talking about the situation in general or what he said in the article?

But you didn't do most of that. All you did was break down whether $30 million would be offset by a gate revenue increased based on 3.3 million fans instead of 3.1 million fans. That's it.

Yes, in a loop of insanity. This statement you just made only makes sense if you are honestly convinced that the Cubs are running at a loss or would be running at a loss if they signed Pujols for $30 million a year. Which is it? Marginal analysis is completely beyond your grasp, I see. A loser deal is still a loser deal whether you're printing money like Google or taking it in the shorts like the Wilpons. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat isssssssssssssss thiiiiiiiiisssssssssssss. You're talking about this like the Cubs would automatically be spending more on their players than they are this year. You're also talking about the ticket revenue and Pujols' salary like they exist in a vacuum.

Yes, you're correct that the Cubs would be more profitable if they dropped payroll to $100 million and played Colvin at first. That's not something that might happen, though. Mojo's comment was in regard to Pujols making the Cubs more money than they are making now if they sign him - that's an accurate statement. The "walking moneybags" was in reference to how he would be more profitable to the team than any other FA or trade options they could invest that $30 million into - and that, as well, is accurate. If the debate were about whether or not to spend that $30 million extra each year, then you're argument would be completely relevant. However, the debate is which scenario is more profitable for the team - signing Pujols or allocating that $30 million to multiple other players. If the money is going to be spent either way - which it presumably is - then Pujols will make the Cubs more money than the alternatives, and that's what's relevant to Mojo's original comment. Yes, exactly. Thank you.

Yes, in a loop of insanity. This statement you just made only makes sense if you are honestly convinced that the Cubs are running at a loss or would be running at a loss if they signed Pujols for $30 million a year. Which is it?

You didn't, actually. The decline in attendance the Cubs have witnessed this year is due to a combination of factors: the team's not as good, the weather's been crappy, the economy's still bad, attendance is down around baseball, etc. Pujols only helps the first of those. Expecting some miraculous return to 2008 if they sign Pujols is foolish, but even more foolish would be to attribute it entirely to Pujols. I never did. Pujols would just be a huge part to putting a consistently playoff-competitive team on the field, which we've seen leads to the Cubs selling 3.2-3.3 million tickets during the regular season. And the obvious primary reason that attendance is down is because the team stinks. The Cubs have dealt with horrible weather and the bad economy and, hey, shocker, still sold 3.2+ million tickets. Why? Because the team was good, or at least competitive. And signing Pujols would be a huge singular move towards getting there again.

Just stop with, "the appeal of signing Pujols is his playing ability" and you'll be fine. ;) Nope. Alright you want to take a crack at computing how Pujols is going to generate more than $30M in additional revenue all by himself? Nobody ever said he needs to or would.

Oh, is that what it is? This is getting pretty crazy. Plus I trumped you with your crazy ticket sales uber alles thesis.