Sammy Sofa

Plus the better plays know how to work that with the refs. Wade is an absolutely [expletive] master at working the refs (and I'm not slamming him for it), and that's going to be something that Rose needs to figure out if he expects to get the same kind of treatment as a star outside of the cursory "there was a flurry of action so he gets the benefit of the doubt...usually" call.

The Cubs' payroll is not overtaking the money they make, even if they added Pujols' asking price to the current payroll. It would definitely narrow the gap, and they really don't need to be spending $180 million a year, but let's be realistic here. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html I will it say it yet again: this is very confusing. davearm seems to honestly believe that a player's cost needs to be offset by an increase in ticket sales. He also seems to think that regular season ticket sales are the only way a team can make money.

This is still really confusing. I just explained as plainly as possible as how I think he would make the Cubs more money than they're making now. I really don't know how else I can break it down. And I can't help it if you're taking what I said in extreme ways I never meant. To you a "walking moneymaker" is apparently someone who is somehow farting out money. To me it's an impact player who is going to make the Cubs take in significantly more money than they are now. Like it's been pointed out, it's not like the Cubs wouldn't spend the Pujols money on other players, so the issue is whether or not it's spent on players that are going to significantly make the team better and thusly draw in more fans. It's not like the money is somehow spent "more" on Pujols.

Shhhh. This all makes sense in his head. Trust him.

No idea. If he is then he WAS rockin' it.

I feel like they are our big market clone. Lots of high priced aging talent. Except they have Reyes and Wright and we have Castro and....Brett Jackson? Oh and also they are broke and we are just frugal (for now). They've also got Davis and Beltran rockin' it.

Right. It's not an issue of "does this player make back his salary?!?!" It's an issue of "does this player make the team better AND thusly makes people spend money on the Cubs?"

Yeah, it's definitely more than a bit worrisome at this point.

So what moves are you assuming/hoping they would make that would keep them at those levels? The 3.1 average since 2003 was based out of having competitive teams in 2004, 2007 and 2008. Once you get a couple season away from those types of season things start to drop. You saw that in the number of people actually showing up in 2006 and 2010 and now without a bounceback year like they had in 2007 you're seeing the result of fielding a mediocre team for several seasons. If they continue to field a mediocre at best team? Of course. What you're seeing now is the trend that was very visible in 2006 but was curtailed by their success in 2007. Yes, they sold over 3.1 tickets; but nowhere near that number was ultimately showing up over the last 2+ months. This is the same thing we saw last year, where again they sold over 3.1 million...and now they're projected to sell 2.6-2.7 million. I have little doubt that you'd see continued similar sales, or worse, if the team doesn't becomes significantly better. That said, you seem to be now steering this towards the idea that I've been saying that the Cubs HAVE to sign Pujols or they're doomed. I'm not saying that. Signing Fielder and Reyes would no doubt provide similar renewed interest/enthusiasm in regards to attendance. Pujols isn't the "only answer." If he produces at a typical Pujols-level (though the first year alone would of course see a huge surge sight unseen)? Yes, I have little doubt that you'd see the numbers rebound by 600,000-700,000. He is not, however, the only option that would get people buying more tickets. Again, you're forcing this weird parameters that nobody is suggesting. I never said it's an all or nothing option in regards to signing Pujols. What I'm saying is that if the Cubs want to see their ticket sales to bounce back and consistently stay at the top of what they can sell they need to field a team that is a perennial playoff contender, and they have options in this coming FA class that could very easily put them right back in that position. I never said it would be a permanent drop in ticket sales if they don't sign some big FA's this offseason; that would be a crazy suggestion. What I'm saying is that they'll see lowered and lowering sales so long as they field a mediocre or worse team. If they can change that, they change their ticket sales. Simple.

And, yet again, your conclusion is based off of the faulty idea that the Cubs are going to sell 3.1 million tickets this year. Even if this was some kind of weird situation where Pujols' salary had to be offset by ticket revenue (once more, it doesn't have to since the Cubs are already running at a substantial profit), you're underestimating how much the Cubs can increase their ticket/food/drink revenue with a good offseason (actually increasing from around 2.6 million and not 3.1 million). If you're so adamant that his salary has to be offset by ticket revenue, then look at it accurately: let's say they're able to to boost fan interest by having a great offseason that includes Pujols. The Cubs go back to selling 3.3 million tickets a season. Let's use that $50 a head average again (actual annual average cost: $52.56). So a boost of approx. 700,000 more tickets sold for the season. 700,000 x 50 = $35,000,000. And that's using a lower average, not factoring in increased food/drink revenue, potential playoff money and whatever increase would come across baseball with the bump in Pujols merchandise (probably pretty minimal).

The Cubs are selling around 2.6 million tickets this year. Signing Pujols would make them sell a lot more tickets. Pujols' salary doesn't have to be offset by the ticket sales for the Cubs to make money since the Cubs are already a very profitable team; he would make them MORE profitable, due to increased ticket sales, due to making the playoffs and (on a smaller scale) due to increased merchandise sales (yes, those are split around baseball, but imagine how many Pujols jerseys and the like will be sold to the very, very large Cubs fanbase. Yes, not a huge bump, but hey, more money is more money). You're approaching this like the Cubs are operating at a loss. They're obviously not, and obviously signing Pujols would result in them making more money than they are now.

Changes to a swing/stance are pretty critical. Not sure what else you think is going on if you don't think he's cheating.

Yeah, I said it only in half-jest when I brought up how The Hug might have saved Hendry's job for another season no matter how bad the team gets this year.

Because Garza is likely only to miss this start and they have an off-day tomorrow.

Hey, I don't want an 8-year-deal for Fielder, either. But ultimately I don't want the Cubs passing on both players.

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 talking 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.

Holy crap. Talk about a battle of the rejects. I love that ESPN is probably all pissed that this is the match-up they get.

Not sure if this was addressed to me or just in general, but I never said steroids. I haven't got a clue what he's doing or whether or not it's even against the rules. There has to be something other than a change in his swing. Players just don't go from being borderline roster fodder to the best hitter in baseball. What's stranger is he's getting better by the day. Last year he was only doing damage by pulling the ball out of the park. This year he's starting to go the other way a little more. So then if you're not saying it's steroids...then what are you saying?

A surprising number of people don't want either of them unless they're willing to take very, very short contracts.

Which one?

You would only consider revising your theory if you were capable of reading and digesting the analysis I just laid out. Otherwise, I suppose you wouldn't. You'd probably just keep repeating things like "Pujols would make the Cubs a lot more money", as if saying it enough times will make it so. So he WOULDN'T make the Cubs a lot of money? I'm confused. Your own post was breaking down how even increased ticket revenue of just 200,000 would bring in that much more money. We're talking about even more since the Cubs' attendance is down even further from the 2010 numbers you're using. Though it's all moot since you seem to be hinging this one some kind of idea that if Pujols' salary can't be justified by increased attendance revenue then it's a bust instead of the reality that the Cubs can easily afford even his desired contract. I understand you're confused, so I'll try to make it as simple as I can for you. $30M > $10M. Both are a lot of money, though -- that much is true. Look if you want Pujols on the Cubs because he'd make them better, then fine. But just leave it at that. The business case for signing the guy is a total loser. I'm still confused. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that increased tickets sales should or need to offset Pujols' salary, or why you're thinking anyone here said that. Besides, aren't you basing this tangent on the idea of the Cubs selling 3.1 million tickets this year?

So much hate.

Uhhhhhh... Can you really hate them for showing a game between two CA teams in CA?

Im sure everyone is going to want in. However, like I said, unless some team like the Mariners or Blue Jays blow everyone else out of the water, and all offers are similar, the best business decision is to go with a big market team like Cubs, Yanks, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, or Mets. I know baseball players arent as marketable as basketball players, but Pujols could become a serious brand in the right market with the right exposure. He's already a "serious brand." He's Pujols.

When has not struggling on offense kept the Yankees from shelling out for the best players when they become available? And the Red Sox are in an even more prime position to be looking at someone like Pujols with both Drew and Ortiz coming off the books after this season. And every team "needs" Pujols. Again, you're being very naive if you think practically all of the teams in baseball are going to completely sit this out if he actually becomes available.