dew1679666265

Wilson apparently had an elbow injury in 2004, but has shown no ill effects from it over the past 7 years. I don't think it should be a concern at this point. And Buerhle is actually the model of a short term band aid that people on here have bemoaned the Cubs pursuing (not directing that at you dfnowak as I don't recall you every saying that). He's going to help us far more in 2012 than he will in 2014 and he's not the type of pitcher who will make a big impact in us going from cellar dweller to division winner. The Cubs need to pursue either legit stars or young guys with upside in free agency, not moderate short term upgrades.

If we could get Melky for something relatively insignificant, I might have interest. If they want any prospects of significance, I have no interest at all. Melky's minor league career line: .296/.349/.420/.769 with a roughly 7% walk rate Melky's major league career line: .275/.331/.398/.729 with a 7.4% walk rate Last year could be a turning point for Melky power-wise, but he's never hit for close to this kind of power in his minor or major league career and his HR/FB ratio was second highest of his career (9.8%). During this career year, his OBP was right in line with his career numbers while his BB% dipped to 5% and his K% rose to 13.3%. He also had a career high BABIP at .332 (.299 career average). His IsoD was also at a career low of .034. Considering he also is a poor defender according to UZR (-12.7 and -6.7 the past two years) and last year was the first time he provided any positive value on the basepaths since 2006, I don't see him as a good bet to continue to improve.

This is all good news for the Cubs, I think. By committing $9 million next year and $12 million in 2013 to Wainwright, the Cards now only have $35 million before arbitration raises in free money next year. Pujols would have to accept a very team friendly deal at this point to have any chance of returning to St. Louis. As for CC possibly re-upping with the Yankees, they have $54 million (pre-arbitration raises) freed up if they don't raise payroll. If CC eats up something like $5-8 of that in a raise, it may make them less of a player for high-end arms like Wilson and Darvish. I don't know that Wilson would get $100 million, especially if the Yankees don't get involved. A 5/$80-85 type deal would be pretty realistic, I think. That becomes more likely if the Red Sox, Rangers, or Nats get infatuated with Darvish.

You're correct. I completely blanked out on the extension he signed.

That was probably a pretty conservative estimate on my part.

He's also nowhere near as good as Wilson and older with much more mileage on his arm. Buerhle will be 33 when next season starts and has pitched 2,476 innings over the course of his career. Wilson will be 31 when next season starts and has pitched 708 innings over the course of his career. As a starter, Wilson has posted WARs of 4.6 and 5.9, Buerhle has averaged 3.8 WAR over the course of his career and has been between 3.4 and 3.7 the past three years. Buerhle will come cheaper, but will likely still get 3 years and $10-12 million (at least) per year while he likely declines. I wouldn't hate bringing in Buerhle, but I don't really see the value in bringing in a decent pitcher who's likely to hit a decline soon as he enters his mid-30s. If we pass on Wilson, it should probably be for somebody who might have some upside - a Jeff Francis or somebody, not Buerhle.

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.

What you're ignoring is payroll. The Cubs have the payroll level to be able to afford to sign a guy who will give us 2 WAR his final 3-4 years if he gives us 7 WAR on average the first 5. Mid-small payroll teams couldn't do that, but the Cubs can. By your reasoning, there should basically never be major contracts handed out to players at any point in time. You're not going to do it when a player is in his early to mid 20s since he's under team control and by the time 99.9% of players get into their mid 30s, they decline below a 6-7 WAR area (the few that are there to start with). So 8-10 year deals are out the window to anyone older than 24-25. If you have the means to sign a guy who will give you exceptional production for the majority of his contract, you should be open to doing that, even if it's not the most efficient way to do it.

Ok, that makes more sense. I took that as you not caring if we non-tendered him and the way some on here underrate Baker that was what I assumed you meant. The difficult part about trading him is that we probably wouldn't get much more than we gave up to get him - Al Alburquerque, who at the time was not even on Cubs' prospect lists anywhere. It probably wouldn't be worth it, but it'd be worth looking into it.

He started the year after surgery on his left knee, then he injured his right knee and suffered a sports hernia on the same play in July. He might be an ok gamble on a very cheap, 1-year deal but nothing more, I don't think.

I wouldn't even consider non-tendering Baker. He won't cost much more than what he made this year (can't remember the automatic raise they must get) and you won't find a guy who will OPS .900+ against lefties for that cheap really anywhere else on the market. DeWitt I'm not as sure about. I'd probably bring him back just in case a series of trades either end up including him or make him useful to us. He won't make very much at all and could be useful in one way or another.

Something to think about and take however you will: Here are B-R's 19 most similar players to Pujols both overall and through their age 31 season - with one player repeated in both lists. I've listed their wOBA from their age 35 season until they retired and their average WAR from 35 to retirement. Larry Walker - retired after age 38 season; .431/.388/.432/.382/3.7WAR Juan Gonzalez (repeat) - retired at age 35 season Johnny Mize - retired after age 40 season; .435/.370/.412/.344/.346/.340/2.3WAR Carlos Delgado - retired after age 37 season; .336/.364/.394/1.4WAR Vladimir Guerrero - still playing after age 36 season; .360/.318/.85WAR Joe DiMaggio - retired after age 36 season; .432/.367/4.7WAR Todd Helton - still playing after age 38 season; .347/.392/.328/.368/1.6WAR Duke Snider - retired after age 38 season; .403/.397/.328/.279/1.1WAR Lance Berkman - still playing after age 34 season David Ortiz - still playing after age 34 season Jimmie Foxx - retired after age 38 season; .418/.322/.128/.358/1.6WAR Ken Griffey, Jr. - retired during age 40 season; .397/.336/.369/.335/.323/.214/.2WAR Frank Robinson - retired after age 40 season; .403/.398/.362/.383/.369/.399/.325/3.1WAR Hank Aaron - retired after age 42 season; .432/.416/.466/.406/.450/.373/.319/.318/4.4WAR Lou Gehrig - retired then died during age 36 season; (age 35 year shown) .424/6.0WAR Mickey Mantle - retired after age 37 season; .402/.373/.362/4.0WAR Mel Ott - retired after age 37 season; .447/.429/.161/2.5WAR Willie Mays - retired after age 42 season; .399/.354/.388/.360/.400/.416/.365/.302/4.9WAR Manny Ramirez - forced(?) retired after age 38 season; .375/.432/.396/.382/2.8WAR Of the 19 players, 5 played into their 40s and all but Griffey were productive. Six fell completely off a cliff (Mays/Ott/Aaron/Griffey/Snider/Vlad) and two of those cliffs were fallen off of either during Pujols' last season or after when we'd no longer have Pujols (Mays and Aaron falling off a cliff after age 41 seasons).

This season was definitely a concern and has tempered my excitement over going after Pujols a bit. However, this past season alone isn't enough for me to oppose the Cubs putting forth a strong push to get him. Maybe you don't hand him the blank check I thought we should at the start of the year, but you still hand him a really, really big check. This is what people keep ignoring. If the Cubs' payroll keeps going up like it should under Ricketts and if Theo/Hoyer do the job like we all expect they will, we'll have both the payroll room and the cheap, very good talent necessary to absorb the likely dropoff we'll get from Pujols late in the deal. Soriano's contract alone wouldn't be all that bad if we didn't have the vast majority of the production of the team coming from guys we didn't develop on our own. That can't be stressed enough, I don't think.

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.

I do agree with this. If Theo chooses not to go with Prince or Pujols, I'll trust his judgement but I'll be extremely confused as to what his strategy is to build the team.

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? There's vastly more comparison between Pujols and them than there is between Pujols and Soriano. Your statement should have read: "Alfonso Soriano has about as much to do with this as Fran Tarkenton and Bill Russell." I'm queasy about it too, but I'm willing to take the risk because of the exceptional performance he's likely to give us through his first 4-5 years and then the likelihood that he ages gracefully rather than falling off the cliff early.

Ok, for 2 years of a 10 year deal Pujols would be in his 40s (2020- 40; 2021- 41). The contract may turn into an albatross, I've never denied that. But the likelihood of it is so much lower with Pujols than with Soriano simply because of the differences between the two players. Pujols' success is derived from having a great approach at the plate, being a patient and disciplined hitter, understanding and manipulating the strike zone, and staying very well conditioned. Soriano's success was derived from being exceptionally athletic. The chances of Pujols' success remaining later in age are far higher than Soriano's. Does that make late career success a sure thing for Pujols? Of course not. But his chances of being Frank Robinson and Johnny Mize are higher than his chances of being Alfonso Soriano. Just for reference sake: Soriano 4 years before his deal was up (2011 season): .325 wOBA/1.3 WAR Robinson 4 years before retirement (age 38): .383 wOBA/4.4 WAR Mize 4 years before retirmenet (age 37): .412 wOBA/2.3 WAR

With Darvish, Oswalt, and possibly CC on the market, plus the outside possibility of Wainwright and/or Carpenter hitting the market should the Cards either bring back Pujols or need the salary help, there's a very good chance Wilson won't be the main target of either the Yankees or Red Sox. Bidding for Wilson could get into the $20 million range, but it's certainly not the most likely scenario. Most likely salary range for Wilson, I'd guess, would be in the $16-18 per range.

Part of risk-taking is figuring out the likelihood of the risk blowing up in your face. That's where the comparison between Soriano and Pujols goes from very, very weak to completely nonexistant. When we signed Soriano, there was an extreme likelihood he'd be awful by the end of his contract. He's not awful quite yet, but he's heading that way. Many people on this board, myself included, noted this likelihood at the time of the signing. With Pujols, the likelihood of him being an albatross late in the deal is significantly lower than with Soriano. There's a very realistic chance Pujols is a 3-4 WAR player late in his 30s (look at ARod and numerous all-time greats for examples) which is still productive enough to not be an albatross holding us back. A guy like Soriano has to remain as good as his peak (or close to it) to retain any form of value to the team. A guy like Pujols can regress a great deal and still be quite valuable. Sure he'll still be overpaid, but a team with the payroll like the Cubs have and almost certainly will continue to have can afford to overpay guys late in their deals if they're still getting a solid level of value and productivity from that player.

One thing I think a lot of people are missing is that pushing for signing Pujols/Prince/Wilson is not the same as arguing that we should make a major push in 2012. I've not advocated really making any moves other than the hypothetical Pujols/Prince and Wilson additions. You can keep a long term outlook on the team and focus on building the farm and infrastructure of the team and still add two of those three players. They're the kind of players who will be highly productive for 4-5 years going forward, meaning we don't have to have high expectations for 2012 in order for it to make sense to sign them. Adding these two is one facet of an overall rebuilding plan that includes improving the farm and finding other good values in FA and trades. Building a long term base and core and adding two of Pujols/Prince and Wilson are not mutually exclusive goals - in fact, they are very much harmonious ideas that make the long term health of the club better.

That would be the logical thing, so that's what I'm assuming is the case.

Yeah, and I'm not sure what to take from it. How strict will he be with that? Does he oppose ever giving any big contracts to any guy who is outside his prime years? What if he's in his prime when you give the contract, but he'll exit it during the contract (Prince)? It's a great rule to follow in general terms, but I think it has to be a flexible rule when considering specifics and I'd imagine that's what Theo will do in practice. I'm not sure about that, though.

It's funny you direct this at me after I've been such a huge and vocal supporter of taking the risk to pursue Fielder, Pujols, and Wilson and haven't opposed CC because of his age, but because he'd keep us from taking other risks (Pujols/Prince). I'm all for taking risks, but they need to be calculated risks. If you're going to take a risk on a player who's been on the decline, you shouldn't pay for him as if he isn't. However, if you have the chance to land a historically great player when he may well have 5 years of excellence left, you do it. Risk taking is good, if those risks are well calculated. I don't think Wright at the cost of top prospects is a calculated risk, nor is paying a monster posting fee on top of a monster contract for a question mark Japanese pitcher.

It's definitely a huge risk, but one I think is worth taking with the Cubs' monetary outlook going forward and Theo/Hoyer/McLeod's ability to build a farm system exceptionally well.

Isn't that likely to be the Cubs? By the time he's 38, it'll be 2018 and Theo will be 7 years into his Cubs reign and Ricketts will have had 7 more opportunities to boost payroll a bit. If it's a gamble only a team with money to burn can take, which I agree it is, then the Cubs should be all over it. I'm not advocating wasting money or spending frivolously, however the benefit to being a team like the Cubs, Yankees, or Red Sox is that you have the high payroll to be able to spend some extra money to bring in an elite talent and gamble that he'll still be productive late in his career. You don't do it with anybody but elite talent, but you also shouldn't avoid it when historically great players come along (which rarely happens).