Sammy Sofa

Average WAR: Fielder + Reyes: 6.5 Pujols: 8.0 Pujols is already more valuable than both Fielder and Reyes combined, and then you can tack on 1-2 WAR to the Pujols total when factoring in a young second baseman such as Barney or LeMahehieu's production (Barney's already been worth .9 WAR this year and LeMaheieu should be better). Bump the Pujols total up to 11.5 if the Ricketts allow both Pujols and Reyes to be signed. As for cost, Fielder's agent is Scott Boras, so you know he's getting the biggest contract he possibly can. It's certainly not out of the question to pay Fielder 8 years and $25 million per year and then Reyes is going to want a minimum of 4-5 years and $11-14 million per year (comparable to the Furcal deal). So here's how the money looks: Average cost per year: Fielder + Reyes: $39 million Pujols: $30 million So you're paying more money for less value in Fielder and Reyes. Even considering both Fielder and Reyes have bodies and skillsets making them more likely to decline much more quickly than Pujols. Those WAR #s are a reach and you know it. If Pujols was a Boras client he'd be signed to an extension by now. For whatever reason the StL FO and Boras are like peas and carrots. They've gotten discounts since Drew and Ankiel came up. Like I said, unless these guys just chase dollars, what big market, perennially competitive clubs are in a position to offer big money? Given that it's Pujols it's difficult to automatically dismiss too many teams from making an offer if he indeed goes to FA.

I don't understand your continued references to distance in time away from the sale. The only way "the sale" is affecting current payroll situations is because of how bloated it became leading up to the sale, and that is tied to the money coming off the books, which you already referenced. Then you have the normal increases in revenue over time. In what other way are you assuming the further away from the sale the higher the payroll will go? Nothing. I was going for sexy, dramatic emphasis.

I can't understand your tunnel vision on this one Mojo. If Ricketts ups the payroll to $160+, it's a different ballgame, but he has a ton of debt to service right now, and his triangle building dreams aren't happening anytime soon. I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy. But their investment in this offseason isn't just going to be for one guy (and I really don't think that Pujols is going to get both the money and the years he want. I think it's more likely it ends up being something like 30/8 instead of 30/10). They'll still have money to spend on other players. Here's the Cubs' most recent financial report courtesy of Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html You couple that with the money the Cubs have coming off the books after this year and the next AND getting further away from the sale and the Cubs have a ton of money they can spend. Even a monster contract like Pujols isn't a make or break deal for them; not even close. They can sign Pujols AND be in the running for all of the other guys you listed. Of course I'm not going to complain if the Cubs sign something like Reyes/Fielder instead of Pujols. My issue is with how adamant people are in this thread that signing Pujols is going to be this crippling, horrible deal. Albert's one of the best defensive 1b in the league, so I'm confident that this won't turn into a Carlos Lee situation, but eight years? You know in 2016 were gonna be right here, trying to think of ways to dump him. Maybe. But the first 5+ years will likely be amazing.

Depends. I think this attendance issue will be persist most of this decade, unless some economic miracle happens. If the TV dollars are as big as the MLB PR is stating, maybe I'll be wrong. No way Votto stays in Cincy though. Yeah, but how often do you keep putting off signing an actual superstar FA? People keep tossing out names that will be available a couple years or more from now...so what if these guys just have even better seasons in that time? Or catastrophic injuries? You can always make excuses for not signing someone to a huge contract. Keep passing up genuinely great players out of fear of bad contracts for lesser players in the past and you don't accomplish much. This is a big market team that can afford to eat contracts.

I can't understand your tunnel vision on this one Mojo. If Ricketts ups the payroll to $160+, it's a different ballgame, but he has a ton of debt to service right now, and his triangle building dreams aren't happening anytime soon. I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy. But their investment in this offseason isn't just going to be for one guy (and I really don't think that Pujols is going to get both the money and the years he want. I think it's more likely it ends up being something like 30/8 instead of 30/10). They'll still have money to spend on other players. Here's the Cubs' most recent financial report courtesy of Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html You couple that with the money the Cubs have coming off the books after this year and the next AND getting further away from the sale and the Cubs have a ton of money they can spend. Even a monster contract like Pujols isn't a make or break deal for them; not even close. They can sign Pujols AND be in the running for all of the other guys you listed. Of course I'm not going to complain if the Cubs sign something like Reyes/Fielder instead of Pujols. My issue is with how adamant people are in this thread that signing Pujols is going to be this crippling, horrible deal.

I think it's more about the money.

Touche. But Maddux was just entering his prime back then. I don't think he wanted 10 years. It's a false point to keep bringing up other players not getting or asking for 10 years because they're not Pujols. Of course they're not going to be getting the same type of deal; because they're not nearly as good as him. There's going to be bloat on pretty much any contract drawn up for a star FA, and the bloat is going to increase as the talent and value also increases.

Matt Cain is a FA after next year, and he is very Giants-like. Not trying to be argumentative, I simply do not like the Pujols deal. IMO, our window to win and to make a move for a big FA is not this offseason, and not at that deal for any 32 year old 1B. But a move for Pujols wouldn't be just a move to win next season. It would likely be a move to help the Cubs win for at least several seasons.

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? When we argue "bloated" contracts, I think we are just arguing the degree of bloated. Actually, I said I have reservations about Fielder, Reyes and Pujols for different reasons altogether. I did say I support signing a CJ Wilson. We have areas we can upgrade, definitely. I like Kemp, quite a bit actually. The aforementioned Josh Hamilton will be a FA soon. Not liking the terms of a Pujols deal is a far cry from some of your suggestions. Wilson would be alright, but he'd be getting up there in years and unless he's willing to sign a 3-4-year deal I'd rather just plug in one of the Cubs' pitching prospects instead. Hamilton will be tricky, because he kicked his body's ass with hardcore drug abuse for several years, and that can very easily play out with him having his career drastically shortened as he can very likely be more susceptible to major or frequent injuries because of it. He'll be 31 for the 2013 season, so is he really going to be looking for or accepting anything less than a 6-7-year-deal?

OK, but who else do you want them to sign? 1 or 2 starters, maybe a long reliever and a journeyman 1B isn't enough. And what Giant-like starters are out there?

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?