davearm2

Would it not make some sense to front-load a guy like Albert Pujols' next contract, so as to have his paycheck more closely mirror his actual production year to year? That is to say, paying him 30 28 26 24 22 20 etc. frees up a little payroll each year that can be used to offset Pujols' own decline. Do it the opposite way, and in the out years you're pretty screwed -- the guy's taking his largest bite out of payroll when he's producing the least. We all get that in present value terms, the backloaded deal is cheaper (assuming the same total dollars). That doesn't automatically make it optimal in the bigger picture.

That would be a short talk, if the Sox allow it. "Hi Theo, it's Tom. Wanna come break our drought too?"

From the perspective of the time-value of money, you're right. From the perspective of managing a payroll, you're not. Imagine if a team like the Royals signed a bunch of veterans to backloaded contracts that ramped up at the same time that guys like Hosmer, Moustakas, etc. were hitting arbitration/free agency. That would not be good, because the backloaded contracts would prevent them from keeping their younger stars. In that instance, they would be better served paying off the veterans while the young guys are still cheap.

Hey you asked the question ("how many HOF players at Pujols' level have you seen fall off of a cliff?"), clearly implying that the number is tiny, when in reality it's not tiny at all. Now it appears we agree -- as you said, there are plenty of great players that crashed and burned after 35-36.

I disagree with your guess at the odds. That's just my opinion vs yours though. I'm sure there's a lot of people that would agree with you. Maybe your right but I think it would be something we'd live to regret. Players break down toward the end of their careers and can become pretty much a faint shadow of the player they were when they signed, I've watched it happen to many times. People are always excited when they signed then 3 years later are asking why did we do that? But how many HOF players at Pujols' level have you seen fall off of a cliff? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it feels more like you're talking about someone like Soriano. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the players that had HOF careers did so expressly because they were able to avoid falling off a cliff. It's also self-fulfilling because very few have played at Pujols' level, so you leave yourself an easy out there, too. And in case that isn't enough, you gave yourself room to debate the definition of "falling off a cliff". Ask the question, "how many players were on a HOF track before falling off a cliff", and you get a heckuva list. With just a 30 second brainstorm of the last, oh, 20 years, I came up with: McGwire Rolen Manny Belle Canseco Sosa Gonzalez Griffey These were all superstars in their 20s, but virtually useless after 35. I'd argue that Pujols is either clearly significantly better than nearly everyone on the list (really, I'm stunned you're listing some of those players with a straight face), a number of those guys didn't suffer a significant decline or "fell off of a cliff" until their late 30's or were wracked by injuries that Pujols has been fortunate to mostly avoid (or they came crashing down off of PED regimens) that either caused them to decline or to retire abruptly. I mean, really, that's a hugely arbitrary list because you're using the umbrella term "superstar" instead of actually focusing on players with anything resembling Pujols' level of production. You call it an easy out; I simply say it's reality. No Pujols, isn't a lock to have to have a long productive career when he's pushing 40...but there's a decent chance he will be. Of course you'd argue the point, for exactly the reasons I predicted. If you intentionally make the target small enough, then of course there will be no hits. Looking more realistically, many elite, perennial all-star types have faced dramatic dropoffs at around the age Pujols will be halfway through his next deal. I gave you several examples, but it's hardly an exhaustive list.

I disagree with your guess at the odds. That's just my opinion vs yours though. I'm sure there's a lot of people that would agree with you. Maybe your right but I think it would be something we'd live to regret. Players break down toward the end of their careers and can become pretty much a faint shadow of the player they were when they signed, I've watched it happen to many times. People are always excited when they signed then 3 years later are asking why did we do that? But how many HOF players at Pujols' level have you seen fall off of a cliff? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it feels more like you're talking about someone like Soriano. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the players that had HOF careers did so expressly because they were able to avoid falling off a cliff. It's also self-fulfilling because very few have played at Pujols' level, so you leave yourself an easy out there, too. And in case that isn't enough, you gave yourself room to debate the definition of "falling off a cliff". Ask the question, "how many players were on a HOF track before falling off a cliff", and you get a heckuva list. With just a 30 second brainstorm of the last, oh, 20 years, I came up with: McGwire Rolen Manny Belle Canseco Sosa Gonzalez Griffey Bagwell Garciaparra These were all superstars in their 20s and early 30s, but virtually useless after 35.

"I really don't care if you agree or not" = "I've made up my mind and I'm not listening"

You don't need a veteran SS to teach Castro those things. A coach at any/all of his minor league stops should have been all over it, which was another of Valentine's points -- having a young SS with his head not in the game at the bigleague level is an indictment of the Cubs' player development process. Teaching those little things you just listed is what playing in the minors is all about.

The information being out there in the Wittemeyer article is the evidence. It clearly came from people within the organization. Right, and the organization's official word should be "no comment." Zambrano's done enough to bury himself. This is just a repeat of a trending pattern seen when the organization seemingly does little or nothing to clamp down on internal trashing of a player who the organization has apparently soured on due to personality or behavorial issues (or vice-versa). OK, I thought you were kidding with this glib summation before, but apparently you're serious. It should be painfully obvious that the point of the coffee and Red Bull story isn't that he drinks coffee and Red Bull. You're talking about that like they're trying to somehow drag him down by pointing what he drinks. No, the point is that he apparently drinks those to excess to the point that it helps lead to the cramping that's been a consistent problem throughout his career. The story is framed to portray Zambrano as not caring what the trainers and medical staff told him would help him be a better pitcher. Now, it very well could be true and probably is true, but it's a stupid thing to be letting out there. I have no idea how can say that based on the Wittemeyer article, which is full of tidbits slamming Zambrano that could have only come from within the organization. It's not nearly as nefarious as you're trying to make it sound like I'm saying. The Cubs simply have a track record of happily slamming players once they've decided to run them out of town by not giving a damn what people within the organization say when the press comes a-callin'. It's not some Machiavellian orchestration behind the scenes; it's just petty and predictable and stupid. I'd simply prefer it if for once they attempted to take the high road in this type of situation. The stuff in that article you're so hopping mad about is just Wittenmeyer dredging up a bunch of old stuff. None of the "tidbits slamming Zambrano" are new, or even remotely recent. Specifically, the coffee and Red Bull stuff, and the cramping issue with the training staff is from a couple years ago. Where are the damning anti-Z quotes from the last couple weeks? There are none. And you darn well know every writer has been digging for them furiously. The only logical conclusion is they are on lock-down, they are issuing "no comments", and they are trying to take the high road. They've given the media nothing since this latest episode went down. Just like you want them to do.

I don't care about the seeds. I don't care about the taking the glove off either. Those things don't correlate with not paying attention or not having your head in the game or whatever. But if you're caught on camera with your back to the plate kicking dirt around while a pitch is being thrown, then you deserve a big helping of criticism.

Yeah, just forget the fact that the A's have him under contract... For three more years. He's Billy Freakin' Beane and no contract can hold him. See now that's a legitimate obstacle. The A's would have to grant permission for Beane to interview, and be willing to release him from his deal. The ownership share, not really. If Beane wants the challenge/opportunity available in Chicago, then the ownership share should be a non-issue.

The notion that the Cubs will have to bribe Beane or anyone else to take their GM job is just goofball. Interest in this opening is going to be staggering. The Cubs will have their pick of just about whoever they want. If Beane would rather own 4% of the Oakland freaking A's than come be the GM of an iconic big-market franchise with huge resources and virtually unlimited potential to succeed, then fine. Scratch him off the list.

I'm completely mystified by this. How will the GM hire prove anything one way or another about what Kenney does and doesn't do, or who he does and doesn't influence? You make it sound like we'll know once and for all about Kenney as soon as the next GM is named. WTF is that all about?

If that skill fills a valuable role on next year's team at a reasonable cost, what's wrong with making use of that skill? Especially when there are 4-5 more bench spots that can be used for guys who can do more. Right. It's like saying, all Marmol can do is strike guys out.

Unless of course, the upgrade is bigger than the downgrade. Are you arguing that the net effect of those two counterbalancing moves is so large as to transform the entire offense from below average to something else? If not, then you're pointing that out for no other reason than disagreeing with me is the trendy thing to do around here. Be fair now...I started disagreeing with you long before it was trendy. :) Yes, indeed you did

The Rays have the 15th highest 3B OPS in the majors right now, at .704. There are two teams posting a 3B OPS above .800 - the Cubs (.861) and Red Sox (.822). There are 11 teams with a .600-.699 3B OPS and four teams with a .500-.599 3B OPS. Third base OPS is way, way down this year and if it stays that way, it really wouldn't be very hard to have an above average or better OPS there. Especially when you consider that Baker is almost a lock to give us an .850-900 OPS as one part of the platoon. This is a misguided and overly complicated way to look at the situation. All we really need to know is this: The Cubs have a below average offense. Upgrade at 1B (Pena to Fielder/Pujols), downgrade at 3B (Ramirez to Baker/Flaherty), leave the rest mostly unchanged, and they'll still have a below average offense. What sort of production the rest of the league is getting out of their 3Bs doesn't really matter. What matters is improving the lineup the Cubs are rolling out there now. Unless of course, the upgrade is bigger than the downgrade. Are you arguing that the net effect of those two counterbalancing moves is so large as to transform the entire offense from below average to something else? If not, then you're pointing that out for no other reason than disagreeing with me is the trendy thing to do around here.

I don't disagree with any of this, hence why I said "past success." Again, my point in this is mostly that it just reflects badly on the Cubs. It's enough of a mess of a situation already without them further dragging through the mud, even if the effect on trading him is minimal. But you're 100% wrong that the Cubs are "dragging (it) through the mud" or "piling on". Where's the evidence of that? There is none. Look since this situation blew up, you can be sure that every baseball writer in town, and several not in town, have been beating the bushes and leaving no stone unturned trying to squeeze out whatever juicy, salacious anti-Zambrano quote they can come up with, whether it be from the owner, the FO, the coaches, the players, or the batboy. So far here's what they've come up with: Z drinks coffee and Red Bull. You said (paraphrasing), the Cubs should be on lock-down on this whole thing. Well actually, it seems like that's exactly what they are. You're just too far gone with your assumed ineptitude and conspiracy theories to see it.

The Rays have the 15th highest 3B OPS in the majors right now, at .704. There are two teams posting a 3B OPS above .800 - the Cubs (.861) and Red Sox (.822). There are 11 teams with a .600-.699 3B OPS and four teams with a .500-.599 3B OPS. Third base OPS is way, way down this year and if it stays that way, it really wouldn't be very hard to have an above average or better OPS there. Especially when you consider that Baker is almost a lock to give us an .850-900 OPS as one part of the platoon. This is a misguided and overly complicated way to look at the situation. All we really need to know is this: The Cubs have a below average offense. Upgrade at 1B (Pena to Fielder/Pujols), downgrade at 3B (Ramirez to Baker/Flaherty), leave the rest mostly unchanged, and they'll still have a below average offense. What sort of production the rest of the league is getting out of their 3Bs doesn't really matter. What matters is improving the lineup the Cubs are rolling out there now.

I still think it's the Yankees and Red Sox. He's said he'll DH, and his agent is Scott Boras. The Yanks are DHng Jorge Posada, I believe and Pappy, while he's having a great season is something like 45. I could envision the Yankees moving Teixeira to the OF to make room for Fielder or Pujols.

The bold part isn't certain at all. He obviously will be declining at some point in the contract, but your wording makes it sound like he's all but a lock to have career-low WARs each year of his contract. Whatever Pujols' career low WAR is right now, IMO he's almost certainly going to have many years below that during his next contract. That's what I meant, but worded poorly. How they sequence is pretty irrelevant.

Yes, how dare THE CUBS let anyone know that Zambrano drinks coffee. AND RED BULL TOO! Please, please, please do not confuse "players" talking about Zambrano with "the Cubs." You're grasping at straws you desperately want there but don't know for sure. Makes you look bad. That's never stopped him before. LOL I was using sarcasm to highlight the absurdity of YOUR post. You are the one grasping at straws and looking bad doing so. What, exactly, did THE CUBS leak???

This is what is truly infuriating about the whole situation. The Soriano contract will go down as one of the worst in franchise history. This does not justify the organization conflating big contracts with catastrophes. Pujols, for example, is a generational talent. He has produced only 1 season in his career (3.9 and counting, this current season) of WAR less than Soriano's best season (5.7, 2006). Pujols is an investment. If you get a chance to sign a player of his caliber, you do so first and figure out how to build around him later. This completely ignores that Pujols will almost certainly be progressively setting career lows in WAR throughout the length of his next contract, while being paid $25-$30M a year.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/7128572-417/carlos-zambrano-and-the-cubs-what-went-wrong.html Sheds a bit more light on some of the private problems the team was alluding to. Oh, shocker that the Cubs are leaking this. Yes, how dare THE CUBS let anyone know that Zambrano drinks coffee. AND RED BULL TOO!

Not irony

I guess the question I keep coming back to is, how many times can this cycle be repeated? Z blows up. Team disciplines him. Everybody makes up and moves on. Can they keep doing that forever? Or does there come a point where a guy has used up all of his chances? And if it's the latter, are they not at that point now?