davearm2

To Ryan Howard? Seriously? They're both slugging, unathletic first basemen that hurt you in the field and on the bases. Howard slugs a little more. Fielder gets on base a little more. The WAR numbers are basically a wash. What the other guys give up at the plate, they make up for in the field and on the bases. I mean really. Just do a little homework before you come with this weak sauce.

Soriano was a bad contract from day one, and just about everyone here thought so. Ditto Werth, Zito, Howard, Wells, etc. Because none of those players would give you the exceptional production on the front end to make the hit on the back end acceptable. Pujols and Fielder are not comparable players to those guys. Fielder absolutely is comparable. Pujols is better, but several years older too.

Soriano was a bad contract from day one, and just about everyone here thought so. Ditto Werth, Zito, Howard, Wells, etc. Wow, I couldn't have asked for a more perfect post proving my "Soriano has left Cubs fans traumatized"-theory if I had begged for one. How are those guys an argument against signing Fielder or Pujols? People knew those were bad contracts because they'd never give you the top shelf production that could justify the backend expense. Soriano hasn't left me traumatized. I consider Fielder in the same class as him, and Howard and Werth. He's not elite, he's just the best available, flaws and all. Go check the WAR numbers and you'll see I'm right. Pujols is simply too old for me to want to make a huge bet on.

It's not racism how he dislikes players who are bad. It's racism how he inevitably falls on racial stereotypes to describe them. So if a Latin player truly is lazy, and I observe this personally, would it be racist for me to describe him as lazy? Hint: there's another explanation besides racism here. Nope. Using it seemingly as a default criticism, however, is rather telling. That's clearly how it seems to you. Doesn't mean you're right. Racism might have nothing to do with how he got to his conclusions.

If you describe enough Latin players as lazy while you haven't hated a white player since 2002, then it starts to become a pattern. How many is "enough". I know we've got Z and Ramirez so far.

LOL Zambrano IS hot tempered and fiery. You going to dispute that??? Pointing that fact out isn't automatically racist.

It's not racism how he dislikes players who are bad. It's racism how he inevitably falls on racial stereotypes to describe them. So if a Latin player truly is lazy, and I observe this personally, would it be racist for me to describe him as lazy? Hint: there's another explanation besides racism here.

Soriano was a bad contract from day one, and just about everyone here thought so. Ditto Werth, Zito, Howard, Wells, etc.

Either player is going to get the biggest contract in Cubs history. It'd be the biggest "bet" the team has ever made. And? Any big contract is a gamble. And I'd gamble it on someone else.

Welcome to the board! Just FYI, siding with me is not going to help your reputation around here. I think both Pujols and Fielder are going to end up working out badly for whatever team signs them, unless, like you said, the deals end up being shorter in duration than I anticipate. The notion that the Cubs can afford to absorb a bad contract strikes me as an exceedingly poor reason to take one on, yet that's what I keep hearing. Because it's an ongoing game and you stagger the decline in production with one player by offsetting it, ideally, with other FA signings, trades and player development. Look at the Phillies and the Red Sox and the Yankees: all three teams have contracts where they will be or are now overpaying for the production they are getting in return. It's essentially impossible to avoid if you're looking to bolster your team via impact FA signings. All of you that want these magical players and contracts that somehow bypass this are expecting things that just don't happen often enough. And 2-4 years? This is what we're worried that the Cubs would get in terms of quality production from Pujols or Fielder? Somewhere here thinks it's likely they could only get TWO years of worthwhile production from these guys? Come the [expletive] on. It's like people were traumatized by the Soriano signing and the limitations of the sale and think the Cubs must tread some fragile line of financial ability going forward. Seriously, if the Cubs can indeed absorb unproductive years like the Phillies, Red Sox and Yankees why would anyone here not want them to do that? It's not like it will prevent them still signing other FA and building from within. This is a team with huge resources and they easily take the hit while still being able to be productive and build a winning team. Neither contract would cripple this team; not even close. One more time: the notion that the Cubs can afford to absorb a bad contract strikes me as an exceedingly poor reason to take one on. One more time: there are other guys I'd be willing to offer mega-deals, even anticipating at the back end the salary will exceed the production. Fielder and Pujols just strike me as bad bets to maintain the sort of production that would justify their cost. Period.

Either player is going to get the biggest contract in Cubs history. It'd be the biggest "bet" the team has ever made.

I know WAR values differ from place to place. On B-R, Fielder has topped 5 twice. He's hardly a safe bet to be at that level annually going forward.

The Werth (and Soriano) contracts are what happens when you don't sign the premier hitters when you get a chance. You end up with a bunch of money to spend in a year where nobody's that good and blow it all on the best available option. That is precisely what Fielder represents, IMO. Couldn't have said it better, actually. Pujols is that good, he's just too far along the aging curve for me.

That point is not getting lost, as far as I can tell. Speaking just for myself, these are not the players I would bet my chips on. It's not any more complicated than that, really.

I'm sure you heard Theo Epstein in his introductory press conference, talking about all the silly intangible BS clubhouse cliches that you and others here love to mock. So who's right: Epstein, who thinks these more abstract, not readily quantifiable things matter, or you, who thinks they don't? Because if Epstein is right, then Zambrano's behavior has been a detriment to the team for years. I'm sure you heard Epstein allude to the fact that he's fine with that big meanie Zambrano coming to the team. I seriously want you or any of your ilk to provide me one example of a player who has performed worse because Zambrano called them names at recess. So you think you're right, and Epstein is wrong. What other reason would he have for promoting a harmonious clubhouse, if not to maximize the players' production? Why bother if there's no impact on the field, as you suggest?

Welcome to the board! Just FYI, siding with me is not going to help your reputation around here. I think both Pujols and Fielder are going to end up working out badly for whatever team signs them, unless, like you said, the deals end up being shorter in duration than I anticipate. The notion that the Cubs can afford to absorb a bad contract strikes me as an exceedingly poor reason to take one on, yet that's what I keep hearing.

I'm sure you heard Theo Epstein in his introductory press conference, talking about all the silly intangible BS clubhouse cliches that you and others here love to mock. So who's right: Epstein, who thinks these more abstract, not readily quantifiable things matter, or you, who thinks they don't? Because if Epstein is right, then Zambrano's behavior has been a detriment to the team for years.

You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future. If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal. The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal. A well-run Cubs team can easily take the hit of a player being overpaid in the final years of his deal. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future. If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal. The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal.

Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player? *Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015. Just looking for Dave's answer here. If now isn't the right time to be making an investment because it wouldn't put us over the top, when do you anticipate we're going to be there after changing over to building from within? I disregarded your last post since the snarky tone was uncalled for. Obviously it is not my desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending. As I see it, realistically the Cubs are a couple of years away from being that consistent 90-win team that will be contending every year. Team Theo is going to improve things significantly, but it isn't going to happen overnight. I understand that this is open to debate but that's where I stand. I'd love to be wrong. Meanwhile, I think Pujols has 4 or 5 more elite years left. After that, he's going to be paid more, and probably 2 or 3 times more, than his production is worth. So on a hypothetical 9-year deal, you get two or three years where Pujols is still playing at an elite level, and the team around him has improved to a championship-caliber. The other years, either the rest of the team isn't quite there yet, or Pujols is in his decline. That doesn't strike me as a recipe for success. Make it a 6- or 7-year deal, and the analysis changes dramatically. I personally don't think that's going to be available, but who knows. I'd be thrilled if it is. FWIW, I expect Pujols will stay in STL, and all of the discussion on this board (and a hundred others) will all have been for nothing. I understand how the length of the deal impacts whether it is worth signing Pujols or not. What I don't understand is how you are tying the length of a Pujols deal to whether or not it makes sense to invest in a star player this offseason, which is what you were saying in the post I responded to. Are you changing your position on that? The only star players available are Pujols and Fielder, and both have major longevity concerns. If a 28-year-old Mark Teixeira or Adrian Gonzalez was available, I'd be all in favor of giving them 8 years. Having those guys thru age 36 wouldn't worry me much at all.

Just to be clear: Is it your desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending while we wait for prospects that aren't even in the system yet to reach the majors? Once that first crop of theodrafts reaches the majors, which would realistically be 2015 at the earliest*, would it be worthwhile to make that big acquisition while those kids are still rookies and not likely to be big contributors? Or do you wait until they've had a couple years of big league experience so they can contribute (in 2017)? Or at that point, do you start to worry that you need to save cash for when they all hit their arbitration years together and start to get expensive? How many years do you want the cubs to be pathetic before it's the right time to invest in a star player? *Figure drafted in 2012, signed at the end of the summer, two years of playing experience, reach the majors full-time for the first time in 2015. Just looking for Dave's answer here. If now isn't the right time to be making an investment because it wouldn't put us over the top, when do you anticipate we're going to be there after changing over to building from within? I disregarded your last post since the snarky tone was uncalled for. Obviously it is not my desire to intentionally waste the next several years fielding teams with absolutely no hope of contending. As I see it, realistically the Cubs are a couple of years away from being that consistent 90-win team that will be contending every year. Team Theo is going to improve things significantly, but it isn't going to happen overnight. I understand that this is open to debate but that's where I stand. I'd love to be wrong. Meanwhile, I think Pujols has 4 or 5 more elite years left. After that, he's going to be paid more, and probably 2 or 3 times more, than his production is worth. So on a hypothetical 9-year deal, you get two or three years where Pujols is still playing at an elite level, and the team around him has improved to a championship-caliber. The other years, either the rest of the team isn't quite there yet, or Pujols is in his decline. That doesn't strike me as a recipe for success. Make it a 6- or 7-year deal, and the analysis changes dramatically. I personally don't think that's going to be available, but who knows. I'd be thrilled if it is. FWIW, I expect Pujols will stay in STL, and all of the discussion on this board (and a hundred others) will all have been for nothing.

I discussed the analysis I did that underlies my opinion on Pujols, but I'll show the numbers again. Here is a table that shows 3 different aging curves (plus the average), all based on different mixes of Pujols' B-R comps. WAR by year Age C1 C2 C3 Avg 32 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 33 6.7 6.6 7.8 7.1 34 6.0 5.9 7.1 6.3 35 5.3 5.2 7.0 5.8 36 3.4 3.5 2.8 3.2 37 2.1 2.9 4.1 3.0 38 1.3 2.5 2.9 2.2 39 1.3 2.7 2.5 2.2 40 0.8 2.2 1.7 1.6 41 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.5 C1 - Cohort 1 uses all 15 comps in all years C2 - Cohort 2 uses all 15 comps, but excludes years where individual players had retired C2 - Cohort 3 uses only the 5 comps that played to age 40. Here are those data converted to dollar values, based on $5M/win, followed by the cumulative value at 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years: Age C1 C2 C3 Avg 32 $31.9 $31.4 $31.4 $31.5 33 $33.7 $33.2 $39.0 $35.3 34 $30.1 $29.6 $35.4 $31.7 35 $26.5 $26.1 $34.8 $29.1 36 $16.8 $17.4 $14.2 $16.1 37 $10.4 $14.4 $20.5 $15.1 38 $ 6.5 $12.5 $14.6 $11.2 39 $ 6.3 $13.7 $12.4 $10.8 40 $ 3.8 $11.2 $ 8.6 $ 7.8 41 $ 0.9 $ 4.2 $ 1.9 $ 2.3 Value @6 $149.4 $152.1 $175.3 $159.0 Value @7 $155.9 $164.6 $189.9 $170.2 Value @8 $162.2 $178.3 $202.3 $180.9 Value @9 $166.0 $189.5 $210.9 $188.8 Value@10 $166.9 $193.6 $212.8 $191.1 I can't imagine anyone looking at these data beyond age 36 and not having serious reservations about signing Pujols for 8 or more years.

You've been pretty vocally opposed to signing marquee players this offseason or in the upcoming offseasons. I could be reading it wrong, but questioning the timing of signing an elite player and talking about wasting Pujols' prime years sounds like you oppose the idea of signing elite players until the ideal time. Am I wrong in that interpretation? Somebody earlier said it best -- the Cubs have to guard against a scenario where their financial flexibility is severely compromised when they are one or two key players away from being great. Personally, I think it's going to take awhile to get to that point. The fact is, I would be more than happy with either guy on a 6-year deal. It's really the 8-9-10 year stuff that makes me think they should walk away.

None of us has any idea where this team will be next year, so forming any judgements about Kemp or anyone else is premature. And free agency isn't the only avenue to acquire impact players. Turning down the tool factor a bit would be great. :good:

Well if you ascribe to the theory that a manager's most important job is to handle the pitching staff properly, then it stands to reason why there would be a lot of interest in hiring a top pitching coach to be the manager.