dew1679666265

If the Cubs sign Pujols and don't increase the overall payroll, how much has their overall cost increased by signing Pujols? You're looking at this incorrectly. It's not a matter of Pujols making his personal cost and then some for him to generate revenue for the team. If the Cubs sign Pujols and stay within this year's payroll (~$130 mil), then their cost has not increased at all. If their revenue then increases by, say, $10 million over this year's then they're making a profit of $10 million from one season to the next. If Pujols is the primary offseason acquisition, then it's safe to assume he's the primary reason they're making more money in 2012 than they made in 2011 - that means Pujols has made the team money. Now, if the team bumped payroll up to ~$160 million next year in order to sign Pujols, then he'd have to generate them $30 million just to break even financially on his deal. If overall cost doesn't change, however, then any increase in revenue is pure profit and Pujols would be the primary catalyst for that increase - thus he's making the team money.

Soto.

Colvin was sent to Iowa on May 16, so it'll be another 4 days until he's in the minors long enough to be recalled. I'm not sure on the specifics of the exception, so I don't know if Berg's callup negates the use of the exception for Colvin or not. I have to assume it would negate it. The transaction bringing up Colvin would be him replacing Berg. Probably right. That would be the most logical thing.

Colvin was sent to Iowa on May 16, so it'll be another 4 days until he's in the minors long enough to be recalled. I'm not sure on the specifics of the exception, so I don't know if Berg's callup negates the use of the exception for Colvin or not.

Is it your assumption that the Cubs will raise payroll by $30 million if, and only if, they sign Pujols? If the plan is to keep payroll at $130 million with or without Pujols, then overall cost isn't increasing by adding Pujols. How you're allocating that cost is, but overall player cost is still $130 million. The Cubs are going to spend that $30 million on something over the next 10 years - they're not going to have a $90-100 million payroll for the next decade, so that cost can be assumed whether we sign Pujols or not. Thus, all Pujols has to do is be more profitable than the other options - and I think there's little question he'll generate more revenue than Prince or a journeyman stopgap would. Will Pujols generate $30 million worth of revenue each year he's in Chicago? No, but he doesn't need to. All he has to do is be more profitable than the alternatives, and there's no doubt he will be - probably by a substantial margin.

They said he never lost consciousness, so I doubt it'd be the 7-day concussion DL, but maybe those reports were wrong. Low-level concussions don't involve a loss of consciousness. Ah, was not aware of that. Thanks.

They said he never lost consciousness, so I doubt it'd be the 7-day concussion DL, but maybe those reports were wrong.

With Byrd on the DL, Colvin just may start. The options at that point would be Reed, Colvin and Campana and, hopefully, they'd go with Colvin. Or at least a platoon of Reed/Colvin (probably preferable, actually).

My guess is it hurts our chances considerably if Hendry is fired after the season because there's going to have to be a period of time for a GM search and another for the GM to fill any other openings in the front office. I couldn't imagine an owner like Ricketts offering a contract to Pujols without a GM in place - Cuban I could see doing that, but not Ricketts. If Hendry's fired midseason and they complete the search before the end of the year, however, it may not make that much of a difference. It's probably all about how quickly the spot is filled.

Right. Pujols is the greatest hitter in the game and one of the greatest ever while Prince is a great player with Boras as an agent. Eight years is probably the minimum for both, the only question is how much are you paying yearly. My guess is (assuming Pujols hits the market) Prince will wait to sign until after Pujols' deal. If Albert gets a 10/300 deal, Prince could be looking at as much as 8/200 (25/yr).

Yes. There's no one else to wait around for. These guys are true difference makers(one much moreso than the other) but we need one or the other and a true front line "ace" type pitcher as well, before I'll be ready to say we're truly in another window of chance again. I really think this is a contending team immediately if we sign Pujols. The Cardinals have fielded some pretty bad teams around Albert and still won 80-something games. We could easily get 5-6 extra wins by adding Pujols over Pena, which could easily be the difference between a playoff berth and none. That said, if we could get a true ace, I wouldn't complain. I'd prefer to use free agency to fill offensive holes, though, and let the farm fill the pitching spots. Mojo brought up the idea of getting Pujols this year and Kemp after next season and I like that idea a lot.

Most people, it seems, either are fine with whichever (though they prefer Pujols) or don't want either because both want longterm deals. I see Prince as more of a consolation prize. I want Pujols even if we need to spend 10/300 to get him, but if somebody outbids us then the focus needs to shift immediately to Prince. The soonest a big-time first baseman would come available after this offseason is probably after the 2013 season (Joey Votto) and even that's not a certainty. Out of curiosity, why do you prefer Prince over Pujols?

I'd probably go with Ortiz. Jackson is the last guy I'd call up since he's got some upside - he's been struggling in AAA and if he comes up and struggles in the majors it could shatter his confidence. Between Diamond, Mathes, Bibens-Dierks and Ortiz, I don't think there's much difference but Ortiz has pitched well so far at AAA. Might as well see if he can pull off a couple fluky good starts if Garza hits the DL. McNutt's blisters probably keeps him from being considered for a callup. With him on a pitchcount, it'd probably be a better idea to ease him in at AA.

Yes, by all means we should start the loogy who has proven that he has no business starting against one of the top offenses in baseball. Quade keeps getting better and better. There's no good option here. I wouldn't expect the starter to go more than a couple innings (maybe three tops) so plenty of pitchers will be in the game. If Russell didn't start, he'd almost certainly have to go 1-2 innings or more anyway. If they keep running him out there should Garza hit the DL, however, I start to disagree with Quade.

It's a concern, no doubt. If he picks it up fairly soon and finishes the year with more typical numbers, I don't think it will or should have much impact on opinions of him. If he doesn't start hitting like the Pujols we're used to or if it takes him until the ASB or something similar, then it'd be cause for pause coupled with the dip in WAR last season.

If Pujols actually does become a FA, it'll mean he's looking for probably $25+ million a year and probably closer to $30 mil. Otherwise the Cards would simply resign him for 10/230-240. If he's looking for that type of money, I think every team will at least look into his demands, but that most or all teams with payrolls at or below $100 million will bow out quickly. I can't see a team with an overall budget of $100 million investing 1/3 of that payroll into one player. That would leave the White Sox, Twins, Tigers, Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Giants, Angels and Cubs as the only teams over a $100 million payroll. The Angels have an opening at first (I believe Napoli is their first baseman) and money to spend with only $80 mil committed for next year and less from there. The Phillies don't have an opening at first and couldn't move Ryan Howard. The Giants could be a player with around $40 million to spend this offseason, but Lincecum and Jonathan Sanchez are hitting their third round of arbitration. I don't see the Giants going much higher than around $25 mil a year as between Pujols and Lincecum's raise, they'd have very little money left to spend this offseason. Then after 2012, Cain becomes a FA and Posey and Sandoval starting hitting arbitration years. A hefty bump in payroll would make them a legit contender, though. The Red Sox, as you said, will have Drew and Ortiz coming off the books and have a DH spot open. There'd be some animosity if they move Gonzalez to DH, but that won't keep them from competing. The Yankees are always a player in any big name FA, but they do have Teix at first. Jeter, I'd think, will also move off SS at some point and if he doesn't go to the OF, he may occupy the DH spot. The Tigers have Miggy Cabrera at first and Victor Martinez already DHing and making $13 mil. He might be tradeable and, if so, they could compete but would have to move Martinez first, I'd think. I had no idea the Twins were over $100 million, but they are. They also have Morneau at first and Mauer getting hurt a lot. I don't know that they want to fill the DH slot for the next 10 years and have nowhere to move Mauer to from behind the plate. The White Sox are near $130 million this year, but have Adam Dunn (2014) and Paul Konerko (2013) filling first and DH. Neither will be movable after the year, so I don't see how they could make a push for Pujols unless they're willing to play Dunn in the outfield for the next two years. Out of that group, the Angels are definitely a contender and the Giants and Tigers could be. The Blue Jays have also shown a willingness to spend big (Wells and Rios) and might be a factor as well. I think a lot of teams will try for Pujols, but the vast majority will bow out as the pricetag moves above $25 mil/yr.

I don't think teams like the Yankees and Red Sox will sit out a Pujols bidding war because they don't have first base open, I do think it'll make it a bit more difficult for them to get him, though. Obviously if one of them outbid everybody else considerably, Pujols will be in either New York or Boston. However, I think Pujols' preference (depending on how strong the preference is) to play first might lead him to accept a slightly lower offer from a team like the Cubs or Angels who have first open than from the Yankees or Red Sox. It's a slight advantage, if at all, but it still very well could be an advantage for the Cubs.

I think Pujols prefers to play first base, so the Red Sox (Gonzalez) and the Yankees (Teix) would have to either move their current first basemen to DH or sell Pujols on DHing. The Cubs probably will have the advantage going head-to-head with either and can pay a little less for Pujols to play first in Chicago.

They're the average of each player's career. I think at least for the next 4-5 years we can expect around those WAR numbers from each player. Even if they're on the high side, you have to assume they're on the high side for all three, so the gap remains. And Pujols has had a WAR greater than 8 every year from 2006-2009. He dropped off in 2010, however, and posted a 7.3 WAR - still higher than the total average between Fielder and Reyes. I'm not seeing your point. I don't think there's much of a chance the Cardinals will sign Fielder, but if they do and they get a discount then great for them. That doesn't change what he'd cost to the Cubs and that's what we're discussing. The Angels and Blue Jays are likely to be our biggest competition, I think. The Yankees and Red Sox always have a chance to get in on it, but neither has first base open at the moment and the Cubs have that to their advantage. The Dodgers, Phillies and Mets will have no chance at him and the Red Sox and Yankees will have to move big-time players in order to be on the same footing as the Cubs, so the competition is low. Which is all the more reason to go hard after Pujols. In most years, 10/300 is the baseline you start at in negotiations for Pujols. However, with teams likely in competition for him being so low, you can probably start at 8/184 (23/yr) and hopefully finish on a much lower number than 10/300. My argument isn't that we should give him 10/300, it's that we should be willing to do so if necessary.

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.

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.

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.

even with Barney getting everything to fall in for a hit, he's OBP is only at .348 on the season. i don't really see a need to keep him near the top of the order. Barney's wOBA is actually higher than Aramis and Soto and almost as high as Byrd's (.334 vs .338). Soriano has a much higher wOBA, but appears to be in the midst of one of his slumps(near .600 OPS past 14 days). Barney's been one of our more productive hitters so far this year even with the low OBP, though I understand he's very unlikely to keep this .300+ average up and he's really not walking much at all. He won't stay this productive and, because of that, I'd have no problem dropping him lower in the order. I'd keep Kosuke/Starlin/Pena as my 1/2/3, though.

Actually, Pena's recent lines would have looked great in the top part of the order: Past 28 days: .266/.392/.516/.908 Past 14 days: .371/.500/.657/1.157 Past 7 days: .294/.429/.647/1.076 If you want your best hitters at the top of the lineup, the top 4 spots need to be some combo of Kosuke/Barney/Starlin/Pena - at least while everything Barney hits falls in play.

Hopefully this is just a look to see what Millwood's got just in case he's needed later on - if, for instance, Cashner is out for a while and Davis goes ineffective or Wells reaggravates his injury or something.