Sammy Sofa

You're always going to have to sign a star to a "bloated" contract. The bigger/more valuable the star the bigger the contract. All I've seen you do in this thread is naysay pretty much any big offensive player the Cubs could sign in this upcoming offseason. What about my hope that they can sign Kemp after 2012? Is that bad idea, too? Is your desired plan just hoping that they shell out for pitchers and sign mid-tier players elsewhere and hope they stumble on a 2011-Berkman in the rough? What are you saving this money for? Which big offensive stars do you think they SHOULD sign?

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.

None will be better. All will be cheaper. To me it just reeks of paying for past production. There's no question the guy's been unbelievable. I'd much rather be in the Cards' shoes, saying so long, we'll miss you... and then watching as his salary:production ratio flips completely from black to red. Towards the end of his career, sure.

First let me say that I am about 65/35 against signing Pujols to that deal. I am not totally opposed to it, but the more I think about it the more I dislike it. I do not know what Pujols will play like in 6 years, but I definitely don't think it's far more likely a 38 year old will have good to great production. I know it's just one example, but as I said I am far from sold on Reyes or Fielder for that matter. Who do the Cubs sign then you may ask? I think the Giants showed that a dominant pitching staff can win a World Title. Besides Josh Hamilton, there wasn't a big-time star playing the field for either pennant winning team. I know this is just one year, but it shows a different path than with a monstrous 10 year deal for a 32 year old first baseman. Even Pujols. Yes, the Cubs have plenty of money to spend. But there is no way that they wouldn't be hamstrung by a multiyear deal with an aging player anchoring a key position, if god forbid he gets hurt or declines. Again, I'm not saying it WOULD happen, but I don't want that risk. I know any free agent signing is a risk, and Pujols himself is not the risk here. The 10 years are. So you'd rather the Cubs "risk" their money on a position where injury is an even more dicey proposition? And you're really just going to look back only to last year to argue against beefing up the Cubs' offense with possibly the greatest hitter of all time? And yes, there's a very good chance that a 38-year-old Pujols would still be giving the Cubs good production. Again, he has a long way to decline from his career numbers to where he'd no longer be a good player. That's the benefit of singing someone THAT great.

Why would I? Pujols would make the Cubs a lot more money. You're the one arguing like his salary would have to be paid for by increased revenue to justify the expense. I'm just talking about the money he'd bring in as an added bonus to him making the Cubs much, much better. And aren't the Cubs's attendance numbers projected to be around 2.6 million this year? That's a pretty big bounce-back if they have a good off-season.

I just don't understand what people are waiting for. Is it residual fear from the Soriano contract? Well, we're obviously not talking about Soriano-level players. The justification for not signing someone (Dunn, Fielder, now Pujols) seems to be always waiting for someone who maybe the Cubs COULD trade for down the line and they just have to put up with stop-gap players in the meantime.

Yeah, if they go back to sucking. And a "blip" in attendance? If they signed Pujols and generally have a good offseason they'll go back to selling out. But please, explain why you think the Cubs' payroll would go down if they put a better team on the field and attendance goes back up. Is there another sale coming up? Are the Ricketts going to be rocked by some kind of financial strife? What information are you privy to? What are you basing this on besides the payroll limitations they've primarily had due to the sale?

The Cubs don't have any likely stars in their system for the foreseeable future now that Castro is up. They need to look outside if they want impact players/superstars, and Pujols is by far the best option if he's actually available after this season. Passing on him to go with much lesser players and out of the fear that me might be terrible for 6-7 years(!) of his contract would be an awful idea and just more of the same form the Cubs. Pujols is far more likely to be giving the team very good to great production for a good 5-6 years of that contract, and the Cubs can afford to eat the last few years of that contract if he has a dramatic decline due to age and/or injury. Look at it this way: let's say the Cubs get Reyes and Fielder instead of Pujols. Each are signed for 6 years. You end up paying the two of them likely over $40 million a year. Why is that a better deal? Both have serious injury/health concerns despite being younger than Pujols. One is valuable primarily due to a skillset that almost declines much, much earlier and quicker than what makes Pujols valuable. I really wouldn't have a problem with either scenario, but it's foolish to act like signing Pujols holds dramatically more risk than the other likely big FA available after this season. And they wouldn't be "putting all of their eggs in one basket" with Pujols. They'd have plenty of other money to spend.

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts. Yeah it's probably going to be worse. Based on what? The Cubs make a ton of money. Pujols would lead to the Cubs making even more money. Why do you assume the payroll would actually go DOWN from what it is now if they signed him? Again, the Cubs' current payroll limitations are due primarily to the proximity to the sale. Each year away from that coupled with a walking moneymaker like Pujols makes the payroll actually going UP a distinct possibility. I think something around 1/5 would be the most likely possibility - around 30 of 150. That's what I'm thinking, too.

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts. Yeah it's probably going to be worse. Based on what? The Cubs make a ton of money. Pujols would lead to the Cubs making even more money. Why do you assume the payroll would actually go DOWN from what it is now if they signed him? Again, the Cubs' current payroll limitations are due primarily to the proximity to the sale. Each year away from that coupled with a walking moneymaker like Pujols makes the payroll actually going UP a distinct possibility.

I don't disagree with this in regards to Reyes, but the point is the same. You can sign multiple players for production without the 10 year risk of Pujols' contract. Why is that automatically better? Why not sign one superstar player you can build around and then focus elsewhere instead of having to sign 2-3 to even or exceed that one player's contributions?

But he'll probably want and get 5-6. He's a highly coveted player with an overvalued skillset who will only be 28 headed into this offseason's FA pool. Yes, you'd be technically paying less money and years than Pujols, but would you really be getting more value? You could easily argue that no, you wouldn't be getting any more value at all given the vast difference in production between the players, and especially since you'd still end up having to sign another big offensive FA to match or exceed Pujol's projected contributions.

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts. Secondly, your rotating cast idea isn't all that hot. Ideally you want at least one superstar player that you can build around. Wright is a FA after his team option in 2013, so then he's going to get paid, too. No, not Pujols-money, but Pujols is going to get Pujols-money because he's better and much more valuable. I have zero problem with the Cubs making a go at getting both Pujols AND Wright (if he's even available), but I really don't see the wisdom in choosing Wright over Pujols. And why would Detroit be giving up Cabrera? I know we need stars, I just want younger ones. Let's say we give Pujols eight years, how many of those will he have an OPS above .900? Three, maybe? What happens if his heel problems pop up again? We can't DH him. I think Reyes makes a ton of sense for us. He's only 28, we keep him at 2b and with Soto, Castro, and Jackson we have the best combo up the middle in MLB. Let's build on that. Why not build on that + Pujols? And unless this year is indicative of a bigger problem, you're severely undervaluing Pujols if you think he's going to OPS at least .900 for only the first three years of his next contract. He's averaged an OPS of 1.064 over the last 5 seasons, so predicting a drop off of about .200 by age 35 is pretty severe. And yes, while Reyes would be a nice signing and is younger, he's had major injury issues, too, and his skills are tied in much more specifically to something that will decline much quicker than Pujols' abilities (especially due to injuries): his speed.

That's [expletive] awesome.

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts. Secondly, your rotating cast idea isn't all that hot. Ideally you want at least one superstar player that you can build around. Wright is a FA after his team option in 2013, so then he's going to get paid, too. No, not Pujols-money, but Pujols is going to get Pujols-money because he's better and much more valuable. I have zero problem with the Cubs making a go at getting both Pujols AND Wright (if he's even available), but I really don't see the wisdom in choosing Wright over Pujols. And why would Detroit be giving up Cabrera?

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena. Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder. Yeah, the stars are aligned for us to get Pujols. But it's gonna be a bitch of a contract. Contracts for superstars always are. Would you agree that NY got the better of the Arod trade? I don't understand the question. You mean the better part of his years under the contract he signed while I Texas?

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena. Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder. Yeah, the stars are aligned for us to get Pujols. But it's gonna be a bitch of a contract. Contracts for superstars always are.

Kosuke Castro Pena Aramis Byrd Barney Sorinao Hill/Castillo

Whoa, really? How can you tell?

Nice work by Coleman tonight.

Nice to see Aramis and Byrd driving the ball this inning.

Deng was not the problem on offense. He was one of them. Everyone shot like garbage tonight, Deng included. Agreed. Which is why I'm not worked up over this. I'm let down, sure, but the Bulls still held the Heat to a very beatable 85. Just try not to shoot a brutal .341 again, boys. I'll be very surprised if the Bulls don't return the favor and take one of the games in Miami.

Deng was not the problem on offense. He was one of them. Everyone shot like garbage tonight, Deng included.

Hey, this miserable weather is finally doing some good.

Look beyond the average. Think of all the times they've had someone on 3B with one or no outs and all they need is a decently struck fly ball and they can't even manage that even when the heart of the lineup is up. There's a key aspect where the lack of power is hurting them in those chances.