davearm2

Open 1B position + lots of money = Yes. On the 1 minor league positional asset that is viewed as likely to provide key help in the next 3 years: Jackson Szczur - I think 2013/2014 seems reasonable. LeMahieu - 2B? 3B? UTIL? Even UTL is a significant position in today's game, somewhat. Flaherty - See LeMahieu. Watkins - More interesting than given credit for, and lost in the shuffle. Castillo/Clevenger - Backup catchers are important. That's not even considering the possibility of someone like Javier Baez to fly through (that's if they got really lucky). This is a Cubs team that has alot of young, Cubs produced complimentary or secondary pieces (and Castro). Time to compliment that talent by getting some high end stuff in here. The position is open, the wallet has some money in it, the talent is out there...the whole situation fits like a glove. Clearly what toonsterwu is asking is, do the high end guys want to come join team chock full of complementary and secondary pieces? Or will they go where there are other high end guys? If it's the latter, they won't pick the Cubs. Let your mind drift for a second to a scene of high fives and spraying champagne in the home clubhouse at Wrigley field. What players do imagine in that picture? Castro, sure. Garza, yep. Brett Jackson, hopefully. Any others currently on the team or in the org?

Merchandise revenues are shared by all 30 teams. For every Cubs Pujols jersey sold, the Cards will get as much $ as the Cubs. (AFAIK It's not 100% that simple, but basically that's the case.) I believe it really is that simple when it comes to merchandise. IIRC, teams get to keep the revenue on merchandise sold in their own stores, but general merchandising goes into the general fund. That's my recollection too.

What is your standard for acceptable decline and does it fluctuate depending on how underpaid a player is early in his career or depending on the team's payroll? Good questions. I haven't thought of it in exactly those terms, but in the Cubs' situation, I could imagine honing in on an expected value for a given contract length, and offering a "superstar" premium of perhaps 20% or 25% above that. That gets me to a number anywhere from $200M to $240M on a 10-year deal.

Perhaps there's an updated one somewhere, but I didn't find it. I'd have to guess a WAR is worth somewhere around $6M at this point. Just putting that out there. Then I'd guess, we could adjust for inflation on the subsequent years as well... no? EDIT - But then maybe the market has stalled. Does anyone know if Fangraphs has a more recent number? An even larger consideration is that if wins continue to escalate in value year over year, rather than remaining constant, then the analysis would need to be updated to reflect that. I thought $5M was pretty widely accepted as a ballpark.

Here is what Pujols will be worth on 6-, 7-, 8- 9- and 10-year deals, if his career mirrors each of the individual comps: 6 7 8 9 10 Larry Walker $153 $159 $177 $177 $177 Juan Gonzalez $(5) $(5) $(5) $(5) $(5) Johnny Mize $208 $222 $230 $233 $234 Carlos Delgado $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 Joe DiMaggio $155 $155 $155 $155 $155 Duke Snider $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Jimmie Foxx $44 $44 $44 $44 $44 Ken Griffey $21 $21 $19 $14 $14 Frank Robinson $172 $196 $201 $203 $203 Hank Aaron $222 $241 $268 $278 $278 Lou Gehrig $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 Mickey Mantle $81 $81 $81 $81 $81 Mel Ott $142 $141 $141 $141 $141 Willie Mays $253 $270 $294 $327 $335 Manny Ramirez $151 $159 $157 $157 $157

I'm on a roll so might as well keep going :) Here's what you get back if you shrink the comp list from 15 to 5, by including only the 5 guys that played into their 40s*: 32 $32.6 33 $40.4 34 $36.4 35 $35.9 36 $15.0 37 $22.4 38 $15.0 39 $13.7 40 $10.1 41 $2.3 Total $224.0 * they are: Johnny Mize Ken Griffey Frank Robinson Hank Aaron Willie Mays

Merchandise revenues are shared by all 30 teams. For every Cubs Pujols jersey sold, the Cards will get as much $ as the Cubs. (AFAIK It's not 100% that simple, but basically that's the case.)

No.

FWIW, this morning I dug into the numbers and came up with my own estimates of what Pujols will be worth over the next 10 seasons. I can go into more detail if anyone cares, but I based the analysis on an assumed value of $5M per WAR, and the career trajectories of the players B-R lists as most similar to Pujols (I started with the 20 names on the two lists, removed 4 actives, and removed Juan Gonzalez because he's on both lists, leaving 15 comps*). What I got out is this set of annual values of Pujols' production, by age: 32 $31.9 33 $33.7 34 $30.1 35 $26.5 36 $16.8 37 $10.4 38 $6.5 39 $6.3 40 $3.8 41 $0.9 Total $166.9 Inherent in the above analysis is that a guy is worth $0 if he's not playing (duh). So I did a second analysis that removed the retired guys in the out years, such that the values are based purely on guys that were actually playing. Here are those results: 32 $31.4 33 $33.2 34 $29.6 35 $26.1 36 $17.4 37 $14.4 38 $12.5 39 $13.7 40 $11.2 41 $4.2 Total $193.6 Naturally, value in the out years is much better. But by the same token, it's likely that Pujols' value is going to lag his salary by ~$10M or more as early as age 36 -- about halfway through an 8-10 year deal. * The list of 15 comps is: Larry Walker Juan Gonzalez Johnny Mize Carlos Delgado Joe DiMaggio Duke Snider Jimmie Foxx Ken Griffey Frank Robinson Hank Aaron Lou Gehrig Mickey Mantle Mel Ott Willie Mays Manny Ramirez

Ok, you've made the statement that you think Pujols' decline is likely to mirror Soriano's in terms of value - meaning you think Pujols will become a similar albatross to Soriano at around the same time that Soriano has become one (with 4 years left on his deal). Now, what you haven't said is why you think that. There are a number of guys who have similarities to Pujols (which Soriano does not) who have been highly successful into their late 30s and early 40s. Why are you so confident that Pujols will tail off similarly to what Soriano has instead of being more like Willie Mays or Frank Robinson and still having solid value into his late 30s/early 40s? Just so we're clear. I don't think Pujols' decline is likely to mirror Soriano's, per se. What I think is that Pujols is going to decline such that when there are still several years left on his deal, his salary is going to be several times larger than what his production is worth. That's the only point of comparison I'm making -- people hate the Soriano contract because his pay is totally out of proportion to his production. I see the same thing happening with Pujols.

But it's not just his speed; Soriano has always been an obviously flawed, streaky player. Failing speed was hardly the only major concern, as that guys like him tend to not age well as their relatively limited skillset starts to decline. And I'm saying that all sounds like rubbish to me. A "streaky" player ages differently than a "non-streaky" player? A "flawed" player ages differently than a "non-flawed" player? (And dare I even ask how "streaky" and "flawed" are defined?) Really? How so? And what is that based upon? Sounds like something you made up, rather than anything that's actually been illustrated with rigorous research. Again, I'm open to being shown otherwise. There must be some article or study you're basing this upon. It's probably based on their results for the 10 years each of them have been in the league. Go on. What do the result for the 10 years each of them have been in the league tell us about how Pujols' skillset is going to impact his performance in his age 32-40 seasons?

I don't think you'll find many that think Reyes is not a good player. The problem is, he will cost a lot of money and plays a position where we don't have a huge hole to fill. Prince Fielder will cost a lot of money and fill a huge hole. Priorities, man. His injury history has to be on that list too. Probably at the top of the list, even.

How is it not flawed? Comparing their ages and contracts is hinged on what type of players they are. It's flawed because I don't think there's a strong connection between skillset and aging curve. The notion that Soriano should be expected to decline faster than Pujols because his game is more predicated on speed seems specious. The studies I remember seeing have shown the relationship to be weak or nonexistent. I'm open to being shown otherwise, though. But it's not just his speed; Soriano has always been an obviously flawed, streaky player. Failing speed was hardly the only major concern, as that guys like him tend to not age well as their relatively limited skillset starts to decline. And I'm saying that all sounds like rubbish to me. A "streaky" player ages differently than a "non-streaky" player? A "flawed" player ages differently than a "non-flawed" player? (And dare I even ask how "streaky" and "flawed" are defined?) Really? How so? And what is that based upon? Sounds like something you made up, rather than anything that's actually been illustrated with rigorous research. Again, I'm open to being shown otherwise. There must be some article or study you're basing this upon.

Not picking on you in particular, but I've always wondered where the .5 win decline per season was established as the aging curve. I'd always assumed there'd be an age (probably late 30s or early 40s) where the decline would accelerate. That's not to say your point doesn't stand. He's a hell of a valuable player. To begin with, it seems curious to be representing the decline curve in units of WAR. Obviously .5 WAR per year is not a one-size-fits-all deal. Seems like you'd want to come up with a curve that traces a guy's decline as fractions of career max, tapering from 100% at age 28ish down to 0% at retirement. Then multiply each year's percentage by max WAR and there you go. Beyond that, you'd want to construct multiple scenarios, weight them by their likelihood, and then compute the weighted average of that range of potential career paths.

I agree. And potentially the greatest player of all time is the time you make an exception. Exactly why this comparison is so flawed. There's a much higher chance that Pujols is useful to good late in his career than there was with Soriano, there's a lot further for Pujols to fall than there was with Soriano, and Pujols will provide us with far more production early in the contract than Soriano did. As for Pujols OPSing .850+ when he's 38-40, it probably is very unlikely but if there's going to be a player who beats the odds, Pujols very well could be that player. Comparing Pujols' skillset to Soriano's is flawed. Comparing their ages and contracts is not flawed. It's the latter we're doing here. How is it not flawed? Comparing their ages and contracts is hinged on what type of players they are. It's flawed because I don't think there's a strong connection between skillset and aging curve. The notion that Soriano should be expected to decline faster than Pujols because his game is more predicated on speed seems specious. The studies I remember seeing have shown the relationship to be weak or nonexistent. I'm open to being shown otherwise, though.

I don't think there's any campaign, at least not on this board. There's one camp that thinks he'd be terrible. There's another camp that thinks, well maybe not. I don't think he's at the top of anyone here's list, though.

I really don't think you can say that he wouldn't ascribe to small ball at this level. Why would he suddenly change his baseball philosophy upon getting a big league managing job? mul21 pretty much nailed what I was going to say. The reason to think Sandberg's managerial tendencies could change significantly would be because of the shift to prioritizing winning over development.

Mantle, DiMaggio, Snider and Griffey all had careers cut short due to chronic serious injuries (mostly with their knees). Pujols obviously isn't impervious or invincible, but he hasn't he had the repeated and serious issues those guys dealt with for long periods of time (or even the entirety of their careers). Foxx's career was sidelined by him being a ridiculous drunk. Ott did indeed fall off a cliff production and ability-wise, but that was after playing 18 120-game or more seasons (4 in the 120's, the rest all 135 and up), so it's not like he didn't have a very long career and fell out of the game prematurely; the guy was a full time player when he was just barely 19. Throw it all under "[expletive] happens". Like you said, Pujols isn't immune to [expletive] happening. Even if we can't envision where the [expletive] will come from as we sit here today. Nobody is, including players under 30. Yes, obviously the risk is inherently higher as they get older, but looking for insight into what can be expected/hoped of Pujols with players like seems pretty faulty since he's been fortunate to not suffer all the knee (and booze) problems those guys were wracked with. The risk is not only inherently higher as guys get older, but also as the contract gets longer and the dollars get larger. Obviously Pujols is a special player, but this is the proverbial perfect storm. You've heard me say this before: the Cards benefitted colossally from Pujols' massively underpaid peak years -- let them suffer from his massively overpaid decline years too.

I agree. And potentially the greatest player of all time is the time you make an exception. Exactly why this comparison is so flawed. There's a much higher chance that Pujols is useful to good late in his career than there was with Soriano, there's a lot further for Pujols to fall than there was with Soriano, and Pujols will provide us with far more production early in the contract than Soriano did. As for Pujols OPSing .850+ when he's 38-40, it probably is very unlikely but if there's going to be a player who beats the odds, Pujols very well could be that player. Comparing Pujols' skillset to Soriano's is flawed. Comparing their ages and contracts is not flawed. It's the latter we're doing here.

Mantle, DiMaggio, Snider and Griffey all had careers cut short due to chronic serious injuries (mostly with their knees). Pujols obviously isn't impervious or invincible, but he hasn't he had the repeated and serious issues those guys dealt with for long periods of time (or even the entirety of their careers). Foxx's career was sidelined by him being a ridiculous drunk. Ott did indeed fall off a cliff production and ability-wise, but that was after playing 18 120-game or more seasons (4 in the 120's, the rest all 135 and up), so it's not like he didn't have a very long career and fell out of the game prematurely; the guy was a full time player when he was just barely 19. Throw it all under "[expletive] happens". Like you said, Pujols isn't immune to [expletive] happening. Even if we can't envision where the [expletive] will come from as we sit here today.

It'd be cherry picking if I was using those two specifically to prove my point that Pujols would be great late in his career. My point was that there are other, better comparisons to be used than Soriano, who bears no resemblance to Pujols in any way, shape, or form. There are plenty of examples of historically great players who were very good to great into their late 30s and early 40s. There are also plenty of examples of historically great players who fell off a cliff quickly in their 30s. If we're going to talk about comparisons to Pujols, let's talk about those guys and not Alfonso Soriano, who most people on here seem to be using to argue against the Cubs giving out any more big contracts to anyone over the age of 26. Pujols and Soriano don't really need to be similar players for the point to be valid: if you're paying a guy $X million, and the guy's production is only worth $ X / 3 or $X / 4, then you've got a major problem on your hands. The larger $X is, the larger the problem. And Pujols' $X is obviously going to be enormous, like 25 or 30. Pretty easy to see how that's still going to be an ugly albatross even if (or when) his WAR drops into a still-useful range like 2.

Robinson and Mize are two of B-R's most similar batters to Pujols. They're also two historically great hitters, just as Pujols is a historically great hitter. They're also hitters who played into their very early 40s, like Pujols would should he sign a 10 year deal with the Cubs. If we're going to talk about a historically great player's likelihood to fall off a cliff in his late 30s and early 40s, shouldn't we compare him to other historically great hitters who played into their late 30s and early 40s? Instead of comparing him to a pretty good for his time hitter who everybody knew would fall apart a few years into his deal? B-R lists 20 similar players, not two. You weren't cherry-picking were you? Guys like Mickey Mantle, Jimmie Foxx, Joe DiMaggio, Mel Ott, Duke Snider and Ken Griffey Jr. don't help your argument. In fact those guys are exactly what you describe: historically great players that fell off a cliff in their late 30s.

Should we not be alarmed that Epstein just used Derek Jeter as an example? I thought the CW is that Jeter sucks at short.

If we set aside the smallball stuff (which we can't even definitively say Sandberg would ascribe to at the bigleague level), I can see Sandberg fitting well with a lot of the organization-building principles Epstein emphasizes. If ever there was a "do things the right way" player, it was Sandberg, and he'll surely hold people accountable. Personally, my fear with Sandberg is that his personality would be too overbearing to play well in a clubhouse full of veteran guys.

Theo's laptop