davearm2

Baseball-Reference Similarity Scores I dunno. DeJesus really reminds me more of a Socks Seybold or a Dutch Zwilling.

:banghead: Extremely rare for a great FA to meet the $/production standards you're looking for. Overpaying in those terms is necessary and being able to overpay is a major advantage the Cubs have compared to other teams. I'm not against overpaying FOR THE RIGHT PLAYER(S). The right player(s) will have a better outlook for remaining healthy and productive than do Pujols and Fielder. I've given two examples of other recent 1Bs that fit (Tex and Gonzalez). They're not extremely rare. And they needn't play 1B either. You keep offering up these two examples, but neither is a guy who will be available in the next decade. Who are some guys that the Cubs should skip out on Pujols and Fielder for? No one really jumps to mind as guys the Cubs should wait on to possibly be available, nor do they seem like guys the Cubs would have to skip out on even if they signed one of Pujols or Fielder. Not only that, but when the next premium player comes along and the Yankees are offering up a greater chance at the playoffs and for bigger dollars than the Cubs can spend, the Cubs will be sitting their with egg on their face. It's really simple. Fielder and Pujols are two of the best at their position. The Cubs have a hole at that position. They have the money to spend now and whatever they spend to land either of those guys should not be a detriment to the team payroll at any time over the life of their contracts. We have brilliant front office guys who won't allow one big contract to kill the future success of this team. They will do everything possible to complement that contract with above average production from below market value, whether through the farm or guys other teams can no longer afford or diamonds in the rough. I don't think anyone would argue that either is the absolute perfect fit. But, they fill an immediate need and a long term need. And this big market team can afford to absorb it. I'm quite familiar with the pro-Pujols/Fielder talking points, trust me. This post is well stated, but it contains nothing new. I just happen to disagree. I think if the Cubs sign either guy to the length and dollars I expect are required, they will end up regretting it. Now if they do end up signing one of these guys, then of course I hope I'm wrong. That's how I see it, though.

:banghead: Extremely rare for a great FA to meet the $/production standards you're looking for. Overpaying in those terms is necessary and being able to overpay is a major advantage the Cubs have compared to other teams. I'm not against overpaying FOR THE RIGHT PLAYER(S). The right player(s) will have a better outlook for remaining healthy and productive than do Pujols and Fielder. I've given two examples of other recent 1Bs that fit (Tex and Gonzalez). They're not extremely rare. And they needn't play 1B either.

You are looking at this as the guy who started the site, of course you know the difference. But you are miniscule, and most people will only have vaguely heard about some bleacher something or other site that sucks balls. So they will lump you in with them and it's your fault, not theirs, for thinking people should automatically distinguish your site as valid. It's not a matter of people not being able to read the words. It's the fact that they are incredibly similar names, and one of them is much larger and very much regarded as junk. If you don't want to change it, that's fine, but you're fooling yourself if you think the only reason they would be identified together is because some careless readers don't automatically know the difference between bleacher nation and bleacher report. FWIW, I can never remember which one is which :shrug:

:banghead:

It's a rationale for taking risks with very good chances for high reward other teams can't afford to when you'll still have a ton of money to construct/improve your team outside of that investment. Do you want the Cubs to be a featherweight, constantly bouncing around the ring and able to skillfully dodge being hit, but can only land glancing, largely ineffective blows every once in a while, or do you want them to be the heavyweight, who can take those hits and then land knockout punches with much more regularity? Ugh, I hate analogies. I want the Cubs to be your proverbial heavyweight, but I want them to be smart about when and where they throw their big punches. This isn't the right spot for the haymaker. Signing players like Fielder or Pujols can easily be smart for the Cubs even with bad years at the end of their deals. A player doesn't have to be a sound investment for the duration of their contract for it to be a smart signing. It's smart if the price is right. The prices we're hearing aren't in the "right" range.

Obviously there is a price at which I'd be buying on each guy. Those strike prices just are not really very close to what the rumors are.

It's a rationale for taking risks with very good chances for high reward other teams can't afford to when you'll still have a ton of money to construct/improve your team outside of that investment. Do you want the Cubs to be a featherweight, constantly bouncing around the ring and able to skillfully dodge being hit, but can only land glancing, largely ineffective blows every once in a while, or do you want them to be the heavyweight, who can take those hits and then land knockout punches with much more regularity? Ugh, I hate analogies. I want the Cubs to be your proverbial heavyweight, but I want them to be smart about when and where they throw their big punches. This isn't the right spot for the haymaker.

I'm not arguing the Teixeira deal is a bargain. You aren't getting bargains at this price point. I'm arguing Teixeira is the type of player that is worth gambling on. I think at the time he signed, he was a much better bet to sustain both his health and his production, and therefore he was less risky than Pujols or Fielder. Same deal with Gonzalez. If a guy like that isn't available right away, then I'd rather wait than jump into a deal that I think is a loser.

People are fixated on the next few years, when the Cubs would be better off if they had one of these guys, and sweeping under the rug the several years thereafter, when the Cubs would be better off if they don't have one of these guys. Not sure what's so mind-boggling about thinking the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost. Because you have so much money available now and again after next season that, really, the Cubs not being competitive by 2013 at the latest should be viewed as failure. Having a bunch of money available is not a real solid rationale for spending it foolishly.

We've been over this. Can take a gamble /= should take a gamble.

Terrible analogy. 20% of someone's budget/income is a totally different game if you're talking about $150+ million. Let's say you've got Pujols making the bonkers $30 million a year. Even at $150 million you're still left with $120 million to make up the rest of your team. This is the crux that you seem to refuse to get; that the Cubs have a flexibility that most teams don't have. Well, I take that back; you get it, but you inexplicably want them to act like they don't have that flexibility and instead wait until the signs align and they can sign the mythical elite FA that freakishly/stupidly signs a super affordable deal a la A-Gon. Do you not trust this FO to be able to run this team and plan ahead to deal with situations like this? Do you not think the Cubs will have major money to spend 7-8 years from now? And yes, it would take a total catastrophe for me to ultimately view signing Pujols or Fielder as a mistake, something like them being all but worthless for more than half of their next contract. Soriano hasn't prevented the Cubs from being able to pursue other big-ticket free agents. So what's the problem? Oh right, it's because that contract was viewed as a mistake from day one. Well I view these players as mistakes from day one, at the years and dollars they're reportedly asking. Whether or not the Cubs FO can operate around these mistakes misses the point. Sure they can. But they shouldn't choose to do so when they can avoid it. Just like I demonstrated with my analogy. Then you're operating from an extreme, inflexible position that, thankfully, isn't realistically and, even more thankfully, there's almost zero chance the FO follows. You seem to be operating under the unrealistic idea that big ticket FA signings have to be perfect or not. There's no in-between. If you sign a guy for, say, an expensive 9 years, and get 6 years of elite production out of him and then the last 3 you're way overpaying then that's a mistake for you that needs to be avoided at all costs. That's absurd for a team with the resources the Cubs have. I'm not saying the Cubs should jump on every long-term, big name FA they come across, but you seem to be saying they need to avoid any unless they can all but guarantee themselves they're going to be getting elite production for the duration of the contract barring unforeseen, catastrophic injury. That's just not realistic, and it unnecessarily hampers the Cubs' ability to maximize the FA advantage they have over most other teams. Plus, not shockingly at all, this all comes back to Soriano. This is wrong, and proves once again that you're hearing what you want to hear, and not what it is I'm saying. I'm all for signing an elite free agent. Several, in fact. But like anything else, there are good risks and there are bad risks. IMO these two guys fall in the bad risk category. It's really not any more complicated than that.

People are fixated on the next few years, when the Cubs would be better off if they had one of these guys, and sweeping under the rug the several years thereafter, when the Cubs would be better off if they don't have one of these guys. Not sure what's so mind-boggling about thinking the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs. Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years. You also don't have to be elite in 2012 to justify signing an elite free agent. It's pretty much the heart of the insanity that defines the "don't sign these guys" reasoning. Why is it so hard for folks to get their heads around what it is I'm saying? I'm not against signing any/all elite free agents. But these two seem like bad bets to me -- not just for the the Cubs but for any team. I expect that for a large portion of their contract, they're going to be paid far above the value of their production. That's not universally true of *all* elite free agents. These two guys simply have risk profiles that are especially high. The fact that the Cubs are not well positioned (IMO) to capitalize on the most productive early years of the deal only exacerbates the problem. It isn't the main problem, though. Ignoring Fielder for a moment, isn't Pujols the very definition of elite? You don't get any more elite than one of the 5-10 greatest hitters ever, unless you're talking Bonds immediately pre-steroids. He has been elite, for sure. The obvious question is, how long will he remain so.

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs. Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years. How many non-elite teams are there in baseball every year? 10? 15? So over those 7 years, you've got 3 winners out of between 70 and 105.

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs. Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years. You also don't have to be elite in 2012 to justify signing an elite free agent. It's pretty much the heart of the insanity that defines the "don't sign these guys" reasoning. Why is it so hard for folks to get their heads around what it is I'm saying? I'm not against signing any/all elite free agents. But these two seem like bad bets to me -- not just for the the Cubs but for any team. I expect that for a large portion of their contract, they're going to be paid far above the value of their production. That's not universally true of *all* elite free agents. These two guys simply have risk profiles that are especially high. The fact that the Cubs are not well positioned (IMO) to capitalize on the most productive early years of the deal only exacerbates the problem. It isn't the main problem, though.

Terrible analogy. 20% of someone's budget/income is a totally different game if you're talking about $150+ million. Let's say you've got Pujols making the bonkers $30 million a year. Even at $150 million you're still left with $120 million to make up the rest of your team. This is the crux that you seem to refuse to get; that the Cubs have a flexibility that most teams don't have. Well, I take that back; you get it, but you inexplicably want them to act like they don't have that flexibility and instead wait until the signs align and they can sign the mythical elite FA that freakishly/stupidly signs a super affordable deal a la A-Gon. Do you not trust this FO to be able to run this team and plan ahead to deal with situations like this? Do you not think the Cubs will have major money to spend 7-8 years from now? And yes, it would take a total catastrophe for me to ultimately view signing Pujols or Fielder as a mistake, something like them being all but worthless for more than half of their next contract. Soriano hasn't prevented the Cubs from being able to pursue other big-ticket free agents. So what's the problem? Oh right, it's because that contract was viewed as a mistake from day one. Well I view these players as mistakes from day one, at the years and dollars they're reportedly asking. Whether or not the Cubs FO can operate around these mistakes misses the point. Sure they can. But they shouldn't choose to do so when they can avoid it. Just like I demonstrated with my analogy.

Yes, to the point where they can sign 1, but not 2. Or 4, but not 6. Or whatever the specific situation becomes years down the road. The opportunity cost of that money is what it is. Unless you're arguing that the Cubs shouldn't spend that money period that cost is going to be sunk regardless. $25 million tied up in Fielder in 2018 is spent the same as $25 million spent on 2-3 different players, and I can guarantee you that money will be spent. So then you're still in a situation where you have money spent and your budget to sign 1 instead of 2 or 3 instead of 4 is still hindered. If you want to argue the production value of those 2-3 players instead of Fielder, fine, but it's not like $25 million spent on Fielder is somehow more limiting financially than that same $25 million spent on 2-3 other players for that year. They'll spend the money, sure. Spending it on Fielder is surely the least flexible option, and in the latter years, the least efficient option as well. The money will be spent regardless. Dwelling on the back end particulars years ahead of time like they're representing some kind of impeding financial bind is, again, Chicken Little bull [expletive] unless you anticipate them doling out multiple big ticket deals that end up going bust at the same time and in general just continue to run the organization as poorly as it was run during the Hendry era. You keep coming back to this Chicken Little nonsense. It seems by your logic, the only bad ideas are the ones that result in a total catastrophe. I could lose 20% of my income tomorrow, and I wouldn't wind up living in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere. Nevertheless, I'm still trying to avoid making choices that would have that result.

So we wait 15 years for a 27 year old superstar to come along at a position of great organizational need(and then probably pass on him because his contract demands will be pretty off the charts too). You do realize that there isn't going to be another player who comes as close as Pujols to meeting your standard for being worth his contract, right? There isn't going to be another confluence of circumstance like this either. An inner circle hall of famer whose price may be slightly suppressed by a misleading "down season" coming available at a position where the team has absolutely no in-house options, when they have a ton of money freed up, and when they begin under new management that seems pretty certain to be producing cheap talent with regularity by the time these feared albatross years will be upon us. Perfect is the enemy of great as well as good, and to ignore your team's financial advantage in order to gain the incredible marginal value Pujols provides for fear that he becomes an invalid albatross at age 36 is how you never end up with teams as great as the Cubs resources ought to have. You're kind of all over the map here, but I think it's safe to say that we probably view Pujols' production over the next decade differently. At any rate, whether his down season was misleading or not is very much an open question.

Yes, to the point where they can sign 1, but not 2. Or 4, but not 6. Or whatever the specific situation becomes years down the road. The opportunity cost of that money is what it is. Unless you're arguing that the Cubs shouldn't spend that money period that cost is going to be sunk regardless. $25 million tied up in Fielder in 2018 is spent the same as $25 million spent on 2-3 different players, and I can guarantee you that money will be spent. So then you're still in a situation where you have money spent and your budget to sign 1 instead of 2 or 3 instead of 4 is still hindered. If you want to argue the production value of those 2-3 players instead of Fielder, fine, but it's not like $25 million spent on Fielder is somehow more limiting financially than that same $25 million spent on 2-3 other players for that year. They'll spend the money, sure. Spending it on Fielder is surely the least flexible option, and in the latter years, the least efficient option as well.

Yes, to the point where they can sign 1, but not 2. Or 4, but not 6. Or whatever the specific situation becomes years down the road. The opportunity cost of that money is what it is.

Your comprehension failure is a you problem, not a me problem. dave, you're the one that keeps talking like signing Pujols or Fielder is going to somehow effectively cripple the Cubs financially towards the end of their deals. Or are you now backing off the doom & gloom warnings that overpaying for the two of them would significantly hinder the Cubs' ability to sign FA or trade for and extend players? Define "significantly hinder". Paying a guy $25M to give you 1 or 2 wins in the last several years of the deal effectively shrinks your payroll by $15 to $20M annually during this stretch.

"Beast" is obviously an ambiguous term, but the guy has topped 4 wins twice in six years.

Your comprehension failure is a you problem, not a me problem.

OR WE COULD DO THIS AND SIGN IMPACT FREE AGENTS LIKE EVERY OTHER SUCCESSFUL BIG MARKET FRANCHISE I'm all for it. I just happen to think these two particular guys are poor risks, and more likely than your typical impact FA (if there is a typical impact FA) to turn out poorly.