Bryants Disco Ball
-
Posts
8,242 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Bryants Disco Ball
-
If he's contending for the MVP for the first five years of an eight year deal, then I was wrong and I would be down with that. Make it happen! Sarcasm is noticed. Maybe 5 years is a bit of a stretch, and I understand that people don't stay in peak form until age 38 anymore, but Pujols is such a fantastic hitter with an approach that can keep him highly productive despite a decline in bat speed. Hank Aaron: .928 career OPS, .906 OPS ages 35-42 Babe Ruth: 1.164 career OPS, 1.116 OPS ages 35-40 Stan Musial: .976 career OPS, .893 OPS ages 35-42 Ted Williams: 1.116 career OPS, 1.102 OPS ages 35-41 Now I realize these are different eras we are talking about and its much harder to get away with declining bat speed in this era (its obviously hard to measure the players from the late 80's/90's era) but the point stands that some of the best hitters this game has ever seen have been able to keep it going well into their late 30's. PS I havent read maybe the last 30 pages of this thread, so if this "declining skills" discussion has been had ad nauseum, I am sorry for likely bringing up stuff already discussed. I apologize if that came off as sarcastic. I was just saying that if you are right about that, then I will be way wrong and would love for that to happen. No disrespect intended.
-
I guess my whole point is that I have very deep concerns that Albert Pujols is starting to decline. It's true I didn't rant about Pujols last season, but it's because I never even pondered the chance that he'd be a Cub two years from then. That said, no doubt Pujols had a great season in 2010 and I'd have been all over giving him a huge contract. Watching him this season, no matter if the numbers support it or not (I know, stupid statement), it just looks like Albert is taking his first real steps toward a decline. I appreciate the thinking that even a declined Pujols is better than most, but I'm just not sure how I feel about that. I'm not convinced that he won't decline quickly. I'm not convinced that he's not going to just be a really good player when we need him to be a great one for the investment. I guess we will see how he looks at the end of this season and go from there. I have a feeling that by October there will be more people like me who aren't as interested as they previously had been.
-
Yup. Was going to bring that up, too. He's not walking because he's swinging at a ton more crap. Maybe he's pressing to get a big contract, but the dude is swinging at more junk than ever before. "A ton" in this case = 0.7% more than last year. that's a bit of a dishonest way of framing it yes, he's swung at 28.2% of pitches outside the zone this year compared to 27.5% last year, which isn't a big deal until you realize his previous worst rate was just 22.9% (the year before) and that his career average is 20.8% PleasewinCubs' statement about Pujols swinging at more crap is very defensible, and makes his low BABIP look like less of a fluke; still, it's pretty rash to discount him altogether based solely on this Good stuff. I'll admit, I respect people here based on all the numbers people come up with to frame discussions. I'd be more like the old-school scouts people hate. I just watch players and feel like you can tell when they just aren't the same anymore. I'll leave the numbers stuff to smarter guys on this board, but when I watch Albert this year as opposed to years past, I just know he's swinging at more junk because it stands out so much. One of those, 'Wow, I've never seen him chase that pitch before' type thing.
-
I'd be stunned if he actually gets that money from the Cardinals. And I understand the "peak years" argument, but again, we're talking about a very, very exceptional player here. What do you think the contract will end up being? More like 10 years, $250? And do you have him returning to the Cardinals like I do?
-
If he's contending for the MVP for the first five years of an eight year deal, then I was wrong and I would be down with that. Make it happen!
-
I guess I don't mind overpaying them as much if I thought they were still going to enjoy their peak years with my team. It would really bother me paying Pujols for what he has done and not what he is going to do, especially when he did all that stuff for another team. Pujols is going to get the $30 million from the Cardinals based on what he already has accomplished. I'd rather get Prince for lesser money and perhaps fewer years knowing that I still might get the best offensive seasons of his career.
-
Yup. Was going to bring that up, too. He's not walking because he's swinging at a ton more crap. Maybe he's pressing to get a big contract, but the dude is swinging at more junk than ever before. "A ton" in this case = 0.7% more than last year. And it's only going to get worse.
-
You're just going to have to trust him. At least give me this: Albert Pujols is not as good of a baseball player this year as he has been throughout his career and it's not impossible to imagine that he is starting to decline. And that in four years, he isn't going to be worth anywhere near the money the Cardinals (hopefully) pay him.
-
I respect that. But just be prepared to have people like me bashing you when this goes bad and you've saddled our franchise with yet another crappy contract midway through. But if he wins us a World Series in the first three seasons, I'll praise you as a hero.
-
No ace. Just a very, very confident feeling from watching Albert Pujols play baseball this year as to past years. You obviously want Pujols. So, play GM for a second. Would you pay Albert $30 mil for eight years? If not, how high would you go to get him and how many years?
-
Yup. Was going to bring that up, too. He's not walking because he's swinging at a ton more crap. Maybe he's pressing to get a big contract, but the dude is swinging at more junk than ever before.
-
I do. His numbers are declining in his age 31 season and I see a natural progression that they are going to continue to decline to the point that paying him $30 million per season for eight years would be a horrible deal. He will transform from an MVP player to a good one. We also will start to watch his defense dwindle to below average and his games missed due to injury increase by the middle of the deal.
-
So you want us to ignore his decade of dominance and trust you cuz you saw him have a few bad swings? Oh ok good plan Every player starts to decline at some point, and Albert is starting to. Does that mean he isn't worth a really nice contract? No. But he will not be worth the huge contract he is going to receive and the years to go with it. People can show all the numbers they want to, but I have a hard time believing the same people can't also see that the guy is starting to show cracks. You don't go from Superman to crap overnight, but I have no interest in paying for a declining guy when we didn't even get his MVP years.
-
I'm asking you all to trust me on this. :) No matter what the numbers say, no matter what you think of Albert Pujols, throw it out the window and just trust me: We do not want this man for the $25 to $30 million and the six, seven or eight years he is going to cost.
-
Pujols over the last week: .385 .407 .808 1.215 Last two weeks: .309 .333 .655 .988 Last month: .295 .330 .625 .955 Great last week for Pujols against two of the worst teams in MLB The numbers for the last two weeks and month is a decline from his previous big bad self. Most (Avg., OBP, OPS) all are much lower or lower than his career numbers and the slugging is right at his career numbers. I certainly don't want to act like I don't think Albert Pujols is a good baseball player anymore. But the dude is no longer the old Pujols and is not going to be worth near the contract the Cards (hopefully) give him.
-
Not that the Cubs are going to listen to me, but even if there is a chance to get him, I officially no longer want Albert Pujols this offseason for the price tag he is going to command. I will admit I haven't watched him all season, but he doesn't look anywhere near the player I've seen in the past. Against the Brewers tonight, he had three of the worst swings I've ever seen him take. I know it sounds foolish to base anything off a few games, etc., but the dude just doesn't pass the eye test anymore. He is in a decline, and I want nothing to do with him for the next seven years at $25 million plus.
-
Watching yet another performance like this again made me wonder: How in the world can a team like ours not be interested in basically trading any of our players? I understand the whole "well, who do you replace so and so with next year?" thinking, but it just seems embarrassing that we don't really want to move anybody considering how bad our team is.
-
OR. It says or. And that's probably not right, either Where are you seeing 'or'? I'm hoping you are right, but I don't see it. This is what he tweeted. "The Angels likely would have to give up nothing more than mid- to lower tiered prospect or 2. Cubs would pay big part of salary." Wow. Good call. Totally thought he was saying a low tier prospect or two. Thanks.
-
OR. It says or. And that's probably not right, either Where are you seeing 'or'? I'm hoping you are right, but I don't see it. This is what he tweeted. "The Angels likely would have to give up nothing more than mid- to lower tiered prospect or 2. Cubs would pay big part of salary."
-
Exactly. If Beltran is worth a top 35 prospect, then Aramis has to be as well. And he should be even more valuable to the Cubs, since they can still retain him for one more season after this. Thus, they better not trade him just to get rid of him.
-
Bob Nightengale is saying Angels are very interested in Aramis. That's cool, except I'm a bit worried what he said afterward: Saying the Angels would only have to give up low tier to middle tier prospects and the Cubs would pay most of the salary. Ahhhhhh, they better not do that. http://twitter.com/#!/BNightengale
-
I do see your point, and I'm willing to concede that I am foolish to think nobody would just take Z.
-
To add one more thing: I don't understand why in a market that craves pitching, that several teams wouldn't line up to grab Z and give up a nice prospect if he was wanted so much and the Cubs were willing to pay a lot of his salary? The Mets didn't have a problem getting a top 35 prospect for Beltran. Why would we have such a hard time getting a top 35 prospect for Z if we are willing to pay a team to take him? It's because most teams don't think he's that good or don't want to deal with what some perceive to be a problem child.
-
I guess I'll have to be considered the moron on this one. Because I just feel that at various points over the last two seasons (including during last season's timeout) that the Cubs would have been fine trading Zambrano. And I do believe that they'd be willing to all but give him away if a team would just take his contract......or would also be fine with having to eat salary to get a good prospect back because nobody was willing to just take his contract with no salary relief.
-
Then I just don't understand why if Z is such a valuable asset that no team seems to want him despite the Cubs willing to pay a lot of his contract. Even IF the Cubs wanted some good prospect back in return, you'd think they'd have a real easy time doing that if people desired Zambrano so much. The Cubs have been trying to trade Z at various points, and have never been able to do it. That Z is still a Cub, even though they don't really want him to be anymore, proves to me that contending teams just don't want him.