Gilby

You really don't think the Cubs can or will be able to swing a $150+ million payroll? Or one around $170 million? Why not? I don't know what the Ricketts family's plans are, but $170 million is a pretty large jump from what it is now, especially if they want to spend a lot in the draft.

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. The Phillies, Red Sox, and Yankee payrolls are all quite a bit higher than the Cubs'. And I'm not against giving out huge contracts. I'm against giving out huge contracts (7-8 years) to fat, one-dimensional first basemen.

I'm with davearm2 on this one. Fielder's a one-dimensional (though that one dimension is outstanding) player with a scary body type. He's close to being a DH if he isn't already. I think it's a stretch to call him a superstar when he's one season removed from putting up a 3.4 WAR. Plus he put up a 1.7 WAR not too long before that. His upside just isn't all that great because of his defense and baserunning. 5-6 WAR is probably his max. These type of long deals are the reason we are where we are. We are not the Yankees; bad contracts hurt. Now, I don't hate Prince and would definitely take him for 5 years and maybe 6, but I'm not sure that's possible. If Theo/Jed goes over 6 years for him, it better include a CC-like opt-out clause after year 3 or 4. Hopefully he would use it.