Tarver

I wouldn't be surprised to see Joe move in to protect his investment.

How about Chris Hahn from the Sox? He's supposedly the go-to guy stat guy behind Williams, and I'm sure he's had enough of Ozzieball to last a lifetime. That whole FO is probably gonna be dynamited in October anyhow. If not him, let's at least start bouncing around names. Ricketts is sensitive to fan pressure; maybe if we can come to a consensus on a replacement BCB will pick it up and we can trumpet our collective wisdom.

It would be really stupid of them to fire him. He's likely gone in October anyway.

Should we trust Hendry to handle the trade deadline with our long-term goals in mind?

It would help if you run the argument through your a head a few times before you start a new topic.

It's a shame that an excellent article will be overshadowed by a few off-hand comments. Should he have refrained from commenting on current players? Yes. But he's right.

And starting him after last night's dreadful performance. Quade needs to go.

Well that was a dandy of a ballgame

In that case let's think about ways to get Jesus Montero.

Average WAR: Fielder + Reyes: 6.5 Pujols: 8.0 Pujols is already more valuable than both Fielder and Reyes combined, and then you can tack on 1-2 WAR to the Pujols total when factoring in a young second baseman such as Barney or LeMahehieu's production (Barney's already been worth .9 WAR this year and LeMaheieu should be better). Bump the Pujols total up to 11.5 if the Ricketts allow both Pujols and Reyes to be signed. As for cost, Fielder's agent is Scott Boras, so you know he's getting the biggest contract he possibly can. It's certainly not out of the question to pay Fielder 8 years and $25 million per year and then Reyes is going to want a minimum of 4-5 years and $11-14 million per year (comparable to the Furcal deal). So here's how the money looks: Average cost per year: Fielder + Reyes: $39 million Pujols: $30 million So you're paying more money for less value in Fielder and Reyes. Even considering both Fielder and Reyes have bodies and skillsets making them more likely to decline much more quickly than Pujols. Those WAR #s are a reach and you know it. If Pujols was a Boras client he'd be signed to an extension by now. For whatever reason the StL FO and Boras are like peas and carrots. They've gotten discounts since Drew and Ankiel came up. Like I said, unless these guys just chase dollars, what big market, perennially competitive clubs are in a position to offer big money? Given that it's Pujols it's difficult to automatically dismiss too many teams from making an offer if he indeed goes to FA. Sure, but unless the Dodgers or Mets are sold by November we shouldn't have much competition.

The Cardinals have a payroll of $109 million and have half of that committed for next year and more than a quarter of that committed for 2013. Everything I've heard is that they want Pujols' money demands to drop more into the $23-25 range and then they'd have interest - I'm pretty sure they finally said they'd go 10 years, but at a $23 per year rate. Considering their payroll situation, it makes perfect sense to me why they wouldn't/couldn't pay Pujols. However, the Cubs have as much payroll room as the Cardinals AFTER giving Pujols $30 million per year. We also have a lower percentage of our payroll committed each of the next two years than the Cardinals - meaning we have a bigger payroll and more money to spend than the Cardinals. We're in financial situation where we can afford Pujols, the Cards aren't. That's the only difference between the two. Why bid against ourselves?

Average WAR: Fielder + Reyes: 6.5 Pujols: 8.0 Pujols is already more valuable than both Fielder and Reyes combined, and then you can tack on 1-2 WAR to the Pujols total when factoring in a young second baseman such as Barney or LeMahehieu's production (Barney's already been worth .9 WAR this year and LeMaheieu should be better). Bump the Pujols total up to 11.5 if the Ricketts allow both Pujols and Reyes to be signed. As for cost, Fielder's agent is Scott Boras, so you know he's getting the biggest contract he possibly can. It's certainly not out of the question to pay Fielder 8 years and $25 million per year and then Reyes is going to want a minimum of 4-5 years and $11-14 million per year (comparable to the Furcal deal). So here's how the money looks: Average cost per year: Fielder + Reyes: $39 million Pujols: $30 million So you're paying more money for less value in Fielder and Reyes. Even considering both Fielder and Reyes have bodies and skillsets making them more likely to decline much more quickly than Pujols. Those WAR #s are a reach and you know it. If Pujols was a Boras client he'd be signed to an extension by now. For whatever reason the StL FO and Boras are like peas and carrots. They've gotten discounts since Drew and Ankiel came up. Like I said, unless these guys just chase dollars, what big market, perennially competitive clubs are in a position to offer big money?

Depends. I think this attendance issue will be persist most of this decade, unless some economic miracle happens. If the TV dollars are as big as the MLB PR is stating, maybe I'll be wrong. No way Votto stays in Cincy though. Yeah, but how often do you keep putting off signing an actual superstar FA? People keep tossing out names that will be available a couple years or more from now...so what if these guys just have even better seasons in that time? Or catastrophic injuries? You can always make excuses for not signing someone to a huge contract. Keep passing up genuinely great players out of fear of bad contracts for lesser players in the past and you don't accomplish much. This is a big market team that can afford to eat contracts. I don't disagree in principle. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we have the upper hand. Unless he just chases the $, what other major market team is in a position to give him what he wants?

Depends. I think this attendance issue will be persist most of this decade, unless some economic miracle happens. If the TV dollars are as big as the MLB PR is stating, maybe I'll be wrong. No way Votto stays in Cincy though.

I can't understand your tunnel vision on this one Mojo. If Ricketts ups the payroll to $160+, it's a different ballgame, but he has a ton of debt to service right now, and his triangle building dreams aren't happening anytime soon. I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy. But their investment in this offseason isn't just going to be for one guy (and I really don't think that Pujols is going to get both the money and the years he want. I think it's more likely it ends up being something like 30/8 instead of 30/10). They'll still have money to spend on other players. Here's the Cubs' most recent financial report courtesy of Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html You couple that with the money the Cubs have coming off the books after this year and the next AND getting further away from the sale and the Cubs have a ton of money they can spend. Even a monster contract like Pujols isn't a make or break deal for them; not even close. They can sign Pujols AND be in the running for all of the other guys you listed. Of course I'm not going to complain if the Cubs sign something like Reyes/Fielder instead of Pujols. My issue is with how adamant people are in this thread that signing Pujols is going to be this crippling, horrible deal. Albert's one of the best defensive 1b in the league, so I'm confident that this won't turn into a Carlos Lee situation, but eight years? You know in 2016 were gonna be right here, trying to think of ways to dump him.

I can't understand your tunnel vision on this one Mojo. If Ricketts ups the payroll to $160+, it's a different ballgame, but he has a ton of debt to service right now, and his triangle building dreams aren't happening anytime soon. I threw out Reyes and Fielder because I think they'd provide better value for the money. Yes, Reyes is a huge injury risk. Let's talk about Josh Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, and Joey Votto. Albert isn't gonna make us an immediate contender, and that's one hell of an investment for just ONE guy.

None will be better. All will be cheaper. To me it just reeks of paying for past production. There's no question the guy's been unbelievable. I'd much rather be in the Cards' shoes, saying so long, we'll miss you... and then watching as his salary:production ratio flips completely from black to red. I hate the Cards, but they're not stupid. He just wants too many years.

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts. Secondly, your rotating cast idea isn't all that hot. Ideally you want at least one superstar player that you can build around. Wright is a FA after his team option in 2013, so then he's going to get paid, too. No, not Pujols-money, but Pujols is going to get Pujols-money because he's better and much more valuable. I have zero problem with the Cubs making a go at getting both Pujols AND Wright (if he's even available), but I really don't see the wisdom in choosing Wright over Pujols. And why would Detroit be giving up Cabrera? I know we need stars, I just want younger ones. Let's say we give Pujols eight years, how many of those will he have an OPS above .900? Three, maybe? What happens if his heel problems pop up again? We can't DH him. I think Reyes makes a ton of sense for us. He's only 28, we keep him at 2b and with Soto, Castro, and Jackson we have the best combo up the middle in MLB. Let's build on that.

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena. Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder. Yeah, the stars are aligned for us to get Pujols. But it's gonna be a bitch of a contract. Contracts for superstars always are. Would you agree that NY got the better of the Arod trade? I don't understand the question. You mean the better part of his years under the contract he signed while I Texas? Yeah, the Yanks took advantage of a nasty contract for a great player. So did the Sox with Thome. I know Pujols is gonna be a bad contract. Let's get creative, go for Cabrera, or Wright, the backend of some other team's shitty contract, someone who isn't gonna take up a sixth of the payroll.

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena. Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder. Yeah, the stars are aligned for us to get Pujols. But it's gonna be a bitch of a contract. Contracts for superstars always are. Would you agree that NY got the better of the Arod trade?

Almost always I would agree with you on not spending huge money on first base - I argued that this past offseason when debating against the idea of overpaying Adam Dunn. The logic I used was that we could spend $40-50+ million for 4 years of a Dunn and get a 3-4 WAR player or we could spend $10 million over one year (or two, I guess) for 2-3 WAR out of Carlos Pena. Pujols is such a different player, though. It's easy to find 2-4 WAR any offseason out of first base, but it's impossible to find 8 WAR out of any position at any time - except for this offseason, potentially. And the positive thing about him playing first is that any defensive dropoff he had (and he'll have a defensive dropoff in an 8-10 year contract) would be much easier to deal with than if he were a third baseman or an outfielder. Yeah, the stars are aligned for us to get Pujols. But it's gonna be a bitch of a contract. Illich is on his last nerve in Detroit, and the scuttlebutt is if they don't make noise this year, they're cleaning house. Maybe we can make a play for Miggy? Then throw a $80/4 at Reyes to play 2b.

Pujols is obviously an all-time great: he would legitimize our lineup, put butts in seats, weaken our enemy etc. But 1b is such an easy place to find productive stopgaps year to year. I like the idea of Castro and Reyes up the middle. Keep money free for guys like Cain, Votto, Johnson. If Pujols could play 3rd for 150 games I'd change my mind.

Exactly. Attendance is tied directly to excitement and winning. By signing Pujols you increase both of those substantially, meaning attendance will rise. Yeah, just look at the difference between 06 and 07/08. There was nobody in the ballpark for the majority of 06 but things changed completely the next two years with a couple free agent signings which didn't even come close to an Albert Pujols. Start winning and Wrigley will start to fill up day in and day out again. Just to use NSBB as an example. In September of 06, most threads were no more than a couple pages and the longest ones were in Rich Hill starts. Even in the summer they only got up into the 7-9 range. In September of 07, there were 15-20 page threads for Brewers games with the Cub games routinely 30+ pages. In 08, threads were tended to be at least 15-20 pages, though the four-game sweep of the Brewers in August were 69-31-32-31. There were also plenty of others over 30 and over 40. MLB in the early oughts almost seems like a fad now. The bandwagoner folks who hung on every Sox/Yanks or Cubs/Cards newsbit seemed to have moved on.

I said I don't hate him. I just don't view him with same mystique as others here do. You want another 6+ year contract?

i don't care if he lives on the moon. if the guy was a serial rapist i'd have a problem with signing him, but his great character flaw is that he's a fundamental Christian? who gives a crap. Leave it to you to take this BS too seriously. Should I dig up another username just for you?