davearm2

I'm not wanting to wait for guys like Baez Vogelbach etc. What I'd like to see is a few big trades for guys that are on the right side of 30, but about to get too expensive for their current team (or available for some other reason, like the Logan Morrison, Colby Rasmus situations). I mentioned someplace earlier, the Cubs added Ramirez and DLee in two trades within about 6 or 8 months of each other. Let's get a few of our impact guys that way. Or sign someone like Fielder and not give up anyone. Fielder's opportunity cost is still huge. It's just paid 100% in cash, and 0% in prospects.

I'm not wanting to wait for guys like Baez Vogelbach etc. What I'd like to see is a few big trades for guys that are on the right side of 30, but about to get too expensive for their current team (or available for some other reason, like the Logan Morrison, Colby Rasmus situations). I mentioned someplace earlier, the Cubs added Ramirez and DLee in two trades within about 6 or 8 months of each other. Let's get a few of our impact guys that way.

Well you've already heard me say I would have been happy handing out the contracts that Teixeira and Adrian Gonzalez received.

That'd be a pointless exercise. If they have to fill all open positions with FA, they're screwed.

Here's my view: 1: The Cubs are not going to be really good to elite in 2012. This team just finished 19 games under .500 and is losing Ramirez and Pena. Adding Pujols or Fielder puts them back to even, basically. There's still a ton of other building blocks needed and those aren't all going to be collected in one offseason. Quite possibly not two offseasons. I might be with you under different circumstances, but this Cubs team is just too far away from that elite level. 2: The Cubs could spend the money more efficiently after the first 4 or 5 years. After that, either guy is into that decline phase where you wish you could get out of the contract and spend the money elsewhere. Putting 1 and 2 together, the Cubs are looking at handing out a 7-to-9 year contract, and what they get for that is a window of 2-3 years where the player's salary and production are properly balanced. Before that, the elite production is essentially wasted on a non-elite team. After that, the downside of the decline years takes effect. Committing 9 years and $200M+ to Albert Pujols to get a 3-year window to win it all is an incredibly poor resource allocation IMO.

I've written a couple articles on the subject of Pujols' and Fielder's value. If you haven't seen them, you can find them on the NSBB front page. Just about any 1B alternative is better than paying these guys much more than they'll be worth, and being bound to them for several severely overpaid decline years. Who do you want at 1B for the Cubs in 2012? I'd look for an under-30 player that has the potential to develop into a longterm answer at the position. And under what kind of contract? Obviously, it depends on who it is. And if it's a stopgap guy, then what 1B do you foresee and when, that you think is a difference maker that we should go after? It's a common misconception that the Cubs need a difference maker at 1B. The Cubs need difference makers, period. They don't have to play 1B. They have plenty of room to acommodate an elite OF, an elite MI, an elite SP, an elite 3B, etc. This false urgency to add an elite 1B is misguided. Also, under what type of contract, both in years and money do you think Prince or Pujols makes sense for the Cubs? Pujols: 6 years, $160M Fielder: 5 years, $100M

Well, what you said was, "The Cubs have the resources going forward to "strategically" take on big name contracts that likely will be significantly overpaid in the final years of their deals." I interpreted that to mean, they should. Yes, when it's players like Fielder or Pujols available who so obviously fill the needs of the team, they should (and Fielder being all but a lock to even put the Cubs in that scenario is hardly a sure thing). What you "interpreted" is the made-up idea was that I was somehow suggesting they "fix" their bad signings of the last several years with big FA signings. How you possibly think I'm suggesting that when all of those bad contracts except one are gone after next season and don't require such inexplicable "fixing" is beyond me. It's like you go out of your way to be willfully obtuse to start really stupid arguments. So what is it I'm being obtuse about? You've stated three times now that you want the Cubs to sign guys that will likely be significantly overpaid in their final years. Just now you clarified that they should do so if the player obviously fills the needs of the team. I think this is a losing strategy. End of story.

I've written a couple articles on the subject of Pujols' and Fielder's value. If you haven't seen them, you can find them on the NSBB front page. Just about any 1B alternative is better than paying these guys much more than they'll be worth, and being bound to them for several severely overpaid decline years.

Not what I'm saying.

Well, what you said was, "The Cubs have the resources going forward to "strategically" take on big name contracts that likely will be significantly overpaid in the final years of their deals." I interpreted that to mean, they should.

Well run major market franchises waste money because they can get away with it? Yeah, I don't agree with that assessment. Putting a ton of money into a single guy isn't going to automatically sink the Cubs. But why is that the standard? Think about that team that is "just fine" after adding those other players still in their primes and developing players that can have impact. Now give that team another $20+M to spend another way than on a player at the easiest position to fill that's making 2 or 3x what his production is valued at.

So your fix for repeated bad signings is to take on big name contracts that likely will be significantly overpaid in the final years of their deals. How is that different than the current situation again? Makes one wonder what your definition of a bad signing is in the first place.

Who gives a rip about the Marlins. The Cubs have been demonstrating what happens when big-payroll teams spend poorly. 2 straight years of highest payroll in the division, and 5th place record. See also: Mets, New York; Dodgers, Los Angeles.

That's only true if you're the Marlins. The Cubs have plenty of money. A good GM should be able to put a team like the Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc. with money to spend in a position to still be very good even with 1 albatross contract on the roster 4-5 years from now. Pujols and Fielder are both going to be worth that money for at least 3 years, if they are a bad contract after that point, then so be it. Should be able to build a team with the other 125 Mil anyway. The fastest way to level the playing field for the teams that can't spend as much as the Cubs, is for the Cubs to spend unwisely.

The results are skewered because the two players are hitting in completely different environments. The results are skewered because the term "most valuable" is ambiguous. I really don't think folks realize they're not arguing over who most deserves the award. They're arguing over which definition should be used. (Or more specifically, how the various factors should be weighted.)

So this is what it has come to. The Royals are closer to contending than the Cubs.

The sensitivity cases that reduce the sample based on career longevity are specifically aimed at this issue. Well, they are to the extent that they screen out career-ending injuries anyway.

Poor analogy, but it's more like losing, and watching everyone else lose doing the same thing without knowing how many cards are left or the statistical probability of success to any degree. Darvish is is going to cost a substantial sum of money, enough that it is safe to say that it will will curtail spending in other areas. Given the risk and potential for failure, I would much rather see the money spent on Wilson, or Pujols or Fielder or Buehrle. I don't really know the impact but Darvish is a substantial risk to me given the cost and likelihood for success to justify the expense. It's actually a perfect analogy. Everyone understands that not all correct decisions work out in the end, and the blackjack example illustrates this. If Theo thinks he made a correct decision with Dice-K, he should not hesitate to make the same decision again.

So long as Theo still has faith in the fundamental analysis that led them to value Dice-K the way they did, you would hope he would be willing to apply the same method to the next guy, regardless of the outcome with the first guy. It's kind of like asking if a guy would be gun shy about splitting 8s in blackjack after he did so and lost.

??? Why? Mauer got a $5.15M signing bonus. The projected cap for the top pick is $7.2M.

This team just went 72-90 or whatever it ended up being. I don't agree that they're anywhere close to being an elite team. I might feel differently if they had a dynamic group of 4 or 5 young guys just waiting to break out, but realistically, that's just not the case. There's Castro, a bunch of guys that are what they are (limited), and then the next wave that haven't even reached the bigleagues yet and thus are complete unknowns. I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing a rapid turnaround with this group, as constructed now. Obviously, I hope Theo and co. can get things fixed quickly. They clearly have the track record, and are saying all the right things, but IMO it's a big job they've got ahead of them. It will be exciting to see the course they chart. Dave, How can you say the time isn't right now because you don't want to tie up funds in Pujols, but still maintain that they'll be ready in 1-2 years (or even 2-3)? Given the state of the farm, it will be much longer than that if we don't make use of our big-market muscle by signing some elite players in the short term. I just don't see your roadmap for how to do this being ready anytime before 2017 or so. I'd also argue that it's not Soriano's contract that is keeping us from Pujols + Wilson. It is Soriano + Dempster + Zambrano. Two of those come off the books after this coming season. And even with all three mediocre to bad contracts on the books, we can afford both Pujols and Wilson and fit in the budget for 2012. Things just aren't as dire as you seem to paint. I guess I don't have a roadmap per se. I just don't see signing a big-money free agent with a limited window before a decline phase sets in as being the logical first step in the process. I think the logical first step is to bulk up the young core first, so that you have the talent in place such that an impact player can put the team over the top. Absent that foundation, the impact player's limited remaining productive years are too likely to be wasted improving a bad team to average. And frankly, that rebuilding process doesn't necessarily have to take a long time. There's already been talk about guys like Darvish and Cespedes. In less than a year, the Cubs added two longterm cornerstones in Ramirez and Lee in shrewd trades. Who knows, mayber Hank Conger and Chase Headley will be the new Lee and Ramirez. Get those two, and one of the international guys, and perhaps we can start having that "missing piece" conversation. So I'm not really putting a timetable on all of this, I just think there's a smarter place to start than with Pujols/Fielder.

This team just went 72-90 or whatever it ended up being. I don't agree that they're anywhere close to being an elite team. I might feel differently if they had a dynamic group of 4 or 5 young guys just waiting to break out, but realistically, that's just not the case. There's Castro, a bunch of guys that are what they are (limited), and then the next wave that haven't even reached the bigleagues yet and thus are complete unknowns. I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing a rapid turnaround with this group, as constructed now. Obviously, I hope Theo and co. can get things fixed quickly. They clearly have the track record, and are saying all the right things, but IMO it's a big job they've got ahead of them. It will be exciting to see the course they chart.

Soriano isn't keeping the Cubs from adding Pujols/Fielder. He's keeping the Cubs from adding Pujols/Fielder and CJ Wilson. Or Pujols/Fielder and Wilson, and keeping Ramirez. The money going to Soriano represents an opportunity cost, and at $18M, it's a big opportunity.

Thanks for the feedback. This is probably a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty thing, but my perspective is, by the time the Cubs can develop those high WAR players, and the talent pipeline begins to flow, the thing that could kill all the momentum would be to be hamstrung by an enormous albatross contract. When they reach that point, they need to be fully poised to add the $20M+/year player (or two) that can push them over the top. I'd hate to have that money already spent on an aging, once-great but now mediocre Pujols. I find that POV a bit puzzling. Can you lay out what you think the team budget would look like three years from now with Albert and how that would hamstring the cubs from signing a $20M+/year (or two) players? It doesn't really matter what the Cubs' payroll will be. All that matters is that the money paid to Pujols would buy a heck of a lot. It's the opportunity cost that is important. Even though as a percentage of the total payroll it wouldn't impact the Cubs as much as many other teams, at the margin, $20M is still a ton of money to have available (or not). Any team can make themselves substantially better by having that amount of cash available to spend. Whoever signs Pujols will be foregoing that opportunity.

Thanks for the feedback. This is probably a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty thing, but my perspective is, by the time the Cubs can develop those high WAR players, and the talent pipeline begins to flow, the thing that could kill all the momentum would be to be hamstrung by an enormous albatross contract. When they reach that point, they need to be fully poised to add the $20M+/year player (or two) that can push them over the top. I'd hate to have that money already spent on an aging, once-great but now mediocre Pujols.