Sammy Sofa

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.

Nobody said they were washed up. Again: it's Pujols. Teams and players will likely go above and beyond to land him. To just automatically assume that a team with a ton of money and room for him will pass on trying to sign him just because "guys like to play defense" is really naive.

I think Pujols prefers to play first base, so the Red Sox (Gonzalez) and the Yankees (Teix) would have to either move their current first basemen to DH or sell Pujols on DHing. Obviously, but that's relatively incidental compared to being able to effectively give him whatever he wants when it comes to years and money. And I don't think it would be too hard to convince either guy to move to DH if it means they get Pujols on their team.

Yeah, it's pretty rough. If he was thinking this was going to open some doors to broadcasting...no. Just...no.

RABBLERABBLERABBLE

More innings like that, Dougie.

Yeah, to hell with those guys on base.

Reed, now would be a great time to keep being a freak.

[expletive], I didn't know Crawford had foot surgery before this season. No wonder he's one of several turds in on my Home Run Derby team.

Buckner sounds like my soul.

I can't believe it's gotten to a point in my lifetime where I wish I had been born a Red Sox fan.

Buckner is brutally awful.

Though I think the DH ultimately makes that irrelevant. The Red Sox especially could decide to get in on this with Ortiz' contract up after this season and Youkilis' up after 2012 with him being 34 in 2013. Posada's contract is also up after this year, so both could easily be in on this if they so choose (both, however, have valuable 3B that could benefit from being DH sooner rather than later, although that obviously hinges on what the Sox' plans for Youk are).

Again, given the FA we're talking about here it's far too premature to dismiss almost all of the other teams as being able to put together deals to appeal to him.

Maybe. But the first 5+ years will likely be amazing. Not only will the first half be glorious, but the cost certainty involved will allow the Cubs several years to plan for 2017 and beyond. Very true.

The Cardinals have a payroll of $109 million and have half of that committed for next year and more than a quarter of that committed for 2013. Everything I've heard is that they want Pujols' money demands to drop more into the $23-25 range and then they'd have interest - I'm pretty sure they finally said they'd go 10 years, but at a $23 per year rate. Considering their payroll situation, it makes perfect sense to me why they wouldn't/couldn't pay Pujols. However, the Cubs have as much payroll room as the Cardinals AFTER giving Pujols $30 million per year. We also have a lower percentage of our payroll committed each of the next two years than the Cardinals - meaning we have a bigger payroll and more money to spend than the Cardinals. We're in financial situation where we can afford Pujols, the Cards aren't. That's the only difference between the two. Why bid against ourselves? I don't understand your point. Nobody is saying the Cubs should just automatically give him what he wants without any negotiation. People are talking about things like 30/10 if that's what it takes to get him, not "oh, here's $30 million a year for a decade because we like you so much."