XZero771679666304

EDIT: The Nationals maybe? I'd guess Texas if I had to.

Yeah, if I hear something like: "Cubs jump in and trump all offers, steal Pujols at last minute", I will go nuts. However, it looks like Fielder is the target now. Considering what's probably currently on the table, I'd be depressed. There's no way Theo's darkhorsing this thing. The Marlins are probably at 220-240 million over 10 years. I think any possibility of Albert to the Cubs died with the Marlins' 10 year offer. He can't turn down that kind of total value (be it from them or a matching Cards offer) and Theo and Jed are too smart to go there. A shorter, higher AAV offer might have worked if the competing offers were 7-9 years, but not now.

Rollins isn't getting 5 years Maybe not, but he's going to command more than he's worth because of reputation (imo). He's really not all that good anymore, so I hope you guys get him.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure they've already said they won't. I think Berkman moves back to 1B and maybe they go after Rollins and Buehrle with the Pujols' money that's unspent. I think that's will happen if Pujols leaves, except for maybe Rollins. Berkman to 1B is an obvious move and I think they're trying to clear a rotation spot for Buehrle. I could see them signing Alex Gonzalez rather than committing five years to Rollins.

Why don't we wait until, say... Februrary at the earliest before anyone makes the conscious decision to consider writing off the season, yeah? I agree with that. I will let the winter meetings play out and see who signs where. If Pujols and Prince are still on the board, I will feel better. I actually want Fielder more than Pujols. Well that's not very smart. Fielder in his best years is about as good as Pujols in a down year. In all likelihood Fielder's decline will be early, abrupt and severe... whereas Pujols has secondary skills that suggest he'll age more gracefully. Unless Fielder comes well north of 100 million dollars cheaper, there's no reason to prefer him. I hear what you're saying, but the more I look at Pujols, the more I see a player in pretty clear decline. Over the past four seasons you're looking at incremental (a bit precipitous in 2011) declines in WAR, wOBA, OPS, BB/K, OPS+ and a host of other stats. His plate discipline is suffering, as evidenced by increasing o-swing percentages over the past few seasons which as noted by other could be indicative of him cheating more due to decreased bat speed. 2011 looks like an outlier, but not by as much as it may seem, and is in line with a pretty clear downward trend in production. It would be reasonable to expect him to rebound a bit over the next season or maybe two, but I wouldn't be stunned if it wasn't by much if at all. I think we may have seen his last 1.000 OPS season and I wouldn't be shocked if he's less than an .850 OPS player within 3-4 years. If the cost of Pujols is 7+ years, I think you have to shift your focus elsewhere. JMHO.

Immediately? Sure. But give Epstein a couple offseasons to keep finding well-valued talent, and I don't see any reason why he couldn't put together a team that wins 90 games in the NL Central. I'm not saying it's the only way, or even the ideal way. There's just a lot of moving parts to trying to sign a major free agent, and I don't for a second believe that passing on a few of them means we are dooooooooomed. I'm not saying we're doomed, but if the team were run like the Oakland A's, that would be a far less than ideal scenario.

No, there are only free agents and draftees. Trades are the kind of things that only happen in fantasy baseball. Seriously, though...if the Marlins land Pujols for 10 years and an NTC, the Cubs should immediately see what they want for guys like Hanley and LoMo, and see what they'll give for Garza/Z/Marmol (though they're probably not interested in Marmol after signing Bell). Trading Garza for Hanley crossed my mind earlier.

This team is going to suck balls for a long time if they are happy with the Dejesuses of the world for a few years. Disagree. There's more talent here than you think. Maybe enough to hang around but not enough to contend.

I think we're going to see several of those in the near future.

I think they are serious when they say that their primary plan is to develop a long-term winner based on scouting and drafting. If they don't get Fielder or Pujols at a price they are happy with, I think they are more than happy to see what they can do with the DeJesuses of the world for a few years. I think they will focus on the draft and IFA, but I don't at all buy into the notion they'll be doing so to the exclusion of big free agents. It's going to have to be both to make substantial progress within five years.

Good, that means they are smarter than most of the other people on these boards. For someone who despises "these boards" as much as you appear to, you certainly can't help yourself commenting on it all the time. I've never said I despise these boards, but I didn't think Hoyer/Epstien were going to sign Puljos or Fielder to contracts longer than 5 years. I've pretty much said as much several times and been ridiculed for it. Now it looks very likely we won't be signing either one of them, and it feels good to be right. It's pretty presumptuous to say it doesn't appear we'll be signing Fielder. I for one am not buying Prince to Seattle for one second.

If true, that's it. Game over. pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease I'm feeling the need for some schadenfreude.

Exactly. And I sure as [expletive] don't see Albert agreeing to a team opt out. An opt out is a player perk. It improves the contract for the team if they achieved their goal of a splashy opening to their stadium, and they can cut bait and go back to their old ways. But Albert won't agree to a team opt out. That would be incredibly stupid.

A) I don't think Pujols is who the Cubs are really after B) At 10 years, the Marlins would be punking themselves I'm perfectly fine with Pujols to the marlins, given the reported terms. 10 years with an opt out after 3 could be a brilliant move for them. Yeah, but aren't opt outs at the player's discretion far more often than not? Given the spot he could be in if he declines in the next few years, I don't see Albert going for a scenario where he doesn't have control over the length of his contract. A contract allowing the Marlins to opt out of his contract after 3 years would not be something I could see him or his agent agreeing to. The best the Marlins could hope for would be a limited NTC, imo. I think he is saying a 3 year opt for Albert. Who knows what's going on in 3 years maybe the Dodgers and Mets are financially back on their feet and he can sign an even bigger contract. What are the chances a team is going to pay him more when he is 35? None, I'm thinking.

Exactly. And I sure as [expletive] don't see Albert agreeing to a team opt out. An opt out is a player perk.

A) I don't think Pujols is who the Cubs are really after B) At 10 years, the Marlins would be punking themselves I'm perfectly fine with Pujols to the marlins, given the reported terms. 10 years with an opt out after 3 could be a brilliant move for them. Yeah, but aren't opt outs at the player's discretion far more often than not? Given the spot he could be in if he declines in the next few years, I don't see Albert going for a scenario where he doesn't have control over the length of his contract. A contract allowing the Marlins to opt out of his contract after 3 years would not be something I could see him or his agent agreeing to. The best the Marlins could hope for would be a limited NTC, imo.

A) I don't think Pujols is who the Cubs are really after B) At 10 years, the Marlins would be punking themselves I'm perfectly fine with Pujols to the marlins, given the reported terms.

Anyone would because the Braves competed in many WS and actually won one. If they hadn't won that one, would you still pick the Braves? It's really a wonder the Braves didn't win more. The playoffs being what they are, being in them as often as possible trumps having the best team on paper every once in a while.

This. The way you win the most titles is by making it to the playoffs as much as possible, not loading up for the occasional run.

Not giving Albert 10 years is a sign of being prudent, imo.

It's a salary dump if you're sending more salary out than you'd be taking back. Unless the Cubs pick up all of his contract, It'd still be a salary dump. Not much of one, granted.

Me likey. I don't see Albert going for it. If he declines further, he could be SOL after a 4-5 year deal was up. OTOH, It could free him up to retire a Card after making a ton of money, if he were interested in such a thing. Uh...not talking about Albert. Yeah, I misread it. Albert on the brain and such.

Me likey. I don't see Albert going for it. If he declines further, he could be SOL after a 4-5 year deal was up. OTOH, It could free him up to retire a Card after making a ton of money, if he were interested in such a thing. EDIT: Yeah, I misread that as Pujols.

I would have given 25-year old Albert 10 years. You might have been able to sell me on 10 years for Griffey when he was in his early 20s (not in hindsight, obviously). Beyond that, I'm not sure I can think of any other players in my memory I would feel good about giving a decade long contract to. Maybe young ARod. How about a 27 year old Ryan Braun? No. Braun has never really approached Pujols level, and Griffey and Rodriguez were both better at younger ages and played defense first positions. Braun is really good, but no. I mean, Braun actually has a 10-year contract. I know they gave him one, but I wouldn't have.

Albert stands to lose more than Prince if he takes a shorter contract. As far as working through the NTC issue, giving him a limited NTC seems the obvious answer. Only certain teams would figure to be able to afford to take Albert on, and of those teams you'd figure Pujols would be willing to go to most or all of them. Let him make a list of teams he'd be willing to accept a trade to. Give him a limited NTC and an opt out clause.