Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Win or Lose, Boston Celtics' New Big 3 Era A Success

Please post all your Albert Pujols discussion here.

over 1 year ago Goofy_baby_face_tiny Bad Midget 408 comments 10 recs  | 

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

probably never going to happen but fun to think of all the Cardinal fans crying

by Bad Midget on Feb 14, 2011 10:25 PM CST reply actions  

One competing GM

says that the Cubs should trade Castro for 3 baseballs and 4 bats.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 14, 2011 10:27 PM CST reply actions  

No matter how much time goes by

this dumb-asses picture still has its fame.

Just win the next game...!

by blackhawk24 on Feb 15, 2011 9:35 AM CST up reply actions  

I saw a response to a Pujols article in a STL publication

Which included that very distinctive “Get a brain!” phrase!! I immediately assumed, or hoped, it was this guy….

by daily2b on Feb 15, 2011 12:45 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

That's my sister

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." John Lennon
"My favorite food is Macaroni and Cheese, from the blue box." Geovany Soto

by Cubbiegoon on Feb 15, 2011 8:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Ironically moronic?

My brain is hurting now lol

Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10

by Sandberg's evil twin on Feb 21, 2011 8:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Wow.

(that’s all)

<Don’t get excited, don’t get excited, don’t get excited…>

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Feb 14, 2011 10:44 PM CST reply actions  

Facepalm!

"I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die." - Anonymous

by Easy Ed on Feb 14, 2011 10:50 PM CST reply actions  

Uh huh......

I’ll mark the day on my calendar. All this Pujols talk will continue until he extends his contract with the Cards. I’d wish he’d do it already and be done with it but then all the drama would be over for the media.

by Swoosie on Feb 14, 2011 11:20 PM CST reply actions  

I wouldn't assume that he will sign with them.

I wasn’t convinced before and I am less convinced now. Everyone assumed here in st. louis that he would be signed this spring and look what happened there. He was going to get the big money after working for far less than he was worth for years now…when you assume he will sign for them you assume the Cards will suddenly fork over a lot more money and years than they have been willing to so far. If he was simply posturing for a higher salary or years or both…and the Cards were going to pay it, why didn’t they? Do you think going through free agency bidding is going to lessen the bid amounts?

Yes the market is deflated a little with the economy, but Albert Pujols is the best player and hitter in baseball. He’s going to get an ARod salary and contract. Time will tell with whom.

Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10

by Sandberg's evil twin on Feb 21, 2011 8:47 PM CST up reply actions  

I mean this isn't really anything new

The Cubs are the best fit for Pujols if he were to hit the open market, and we have the money to sign him. It’s a matter of Number 5 wanting to do it.

Viva la Cubs Révolution!!!

by Chanman25 on Feb 14, 2011 11:29 PM CST reply actions  

C'mon man

I am not a fan of speculative tweets. I feel journalists should do better. Maybe it’s simply for the sake of hype, drama, disinformation? I’d rather have sports “news”.

I’m torn on Pujols as a potential Cub. Very likely a great thing for us if it happens, but… does anyone else feel like he’s our long time foe? Would Star Wars have been as good if Vader helped blow up the Death Star?

(sorry, only handy analogy at the moment)

by Tat14 on Feb 15, 2011 12:44 AM CST reply actions  

Galling as that (impossible) construction would be...

It’s not really useful to engage in counterfactuals.

Also, you left out Pete Rose.

by MN exile on Feb 15, 2011 8:36 AM CST up reply actions  

Or, or, or...

Imagine if Jim Edmonds was playing CF!!!

wait…

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Feb 15, 2011 10:49 AM CST up reply actions  

Very clever

I would happily cheer Bonds, Everett, Bradley, Morgan, Neifi, Kent and McGwire if they won a World Series for the Cubs. I’d cheer Pierzynski under the “Rodman Clause” which is “Hate him when he’s somewhere else; love him here”

Clemens and LaTroy would be just fine. I could cheer for LaRussa.

As for Myers — well, my fondest hope would be that he pitched a gutty Game 5 — going into the 8th after just two days rest and then walked off the mound.

And then his arm fell off. And then he was arrested. And then a bus hit him. And then he was arrested again for littering.

"It's all in the game, yo"

by Worf on Feb 15, 2011 11:31 AM CST up reply actions  

Schottzie rocks...

Specially when he’s not crapping on my shoes.

Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10

by Sandberg's evil twin on Feb 21, 2011 8:50 PM CST up reply actions  

You bet.

GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.

by shoemile on Feb 15, 2011 2:17 PM CST up reply actions  

you missed Berkman

where is he in this mix of OMGWTFBBQ of a team

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 16, 2011 7:34 PM CST up reply actions  

Remember how quickly we came around on Jim Edmonds?

We hated that guy. And then, almost immediately, we loved him.

No one even hates Albert. We are frightened of him and respect his immense talent. But no one really despises him the way we despised Jim Edmonds.

MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown

by D98 on Feb 15, 2011 9:23 AM CST up reply actions  

Personally, I only tolerated Edmonds.

Pujols as a Cubs would be just plain weird. However, that contract would make me cry. And they wouldn’t be tears of joy.

Baseball is back!!

by cowsarecool220 on Feb 15, 2011 11:04 AM CST up reply actions  

That's a fair point.

I’d also add that the important thing is not so much whether us fans would want him but whether he wants to be here….I mean barring unruly fans picketing him during spring training he won’t know how he would be accepted in Chicago. So it really boils down to whether he is willing to play for his hated rival for so many years. Edmonds was pissed off at Tony, I doubt Albert is more than mildly irritated at him. He sure would be a wonderful asset to have. Imagine how many home runs he’d hit with 81 games in Wrigley.

Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10

by Sandberg's evil twin on Feb 21, 2011 8:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Sure he's a foe but he's not the asshole player

that makes you want to hate him because of his personality. He’s just damned good.

This tweet is doing exactly what he had hoped for; stir up a fan base or 2.

Just win the next game...!

by blackhawk24 on Feb 15, 2011 12:20 PM CST up reply actions  

You Know whos an asshole...Joey Votto

Hes the only first baseman i wouldnt want on the Cubs

by Mitchener on Feb 16, 2011 10:23 AM CST up reply actions  

He's only a DH (not designated hitter) because

he dissed the fan base, right? While agree with your assessment at this time, do you believe you would not ever cheer for him if he were in Cubbie Blue?

Just win the next game...!

by blackhawk24 on Feb 16, 2011 2:50 PM CST up reply actions  

Dude

That’s what I said about Andre Dawson before 1987. Look what happened with him!

Proud member of the Lee Elia 15% club!

by dansram on Feb 16, 2011 10:25 AM CST up reply actions  

Once again it's pure speculation

Not that it isn’t fun to speculate, but until something gets leaked out of the Cubs about their intentions I won’t be getting excited.

"Keep pushin' til' it's understood. And these badlands start treating us good."

by AussieCub on Feb 15, 2011 1:47 AM CST reply actions  

It's speculation

and I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t think the Cubs are a very likely destination if Pujols leaves St. Louis.

But if I were Albert Pujols agent, this is exactly the type of information I would want to get out into the media and for the Cardinals ownership to read.

So take it with a grain of salt for now.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 15, 2011 2:16 AM CST reply actions  

I suppose there are two ways to look at it

On one hand, a 10 year contract to someone (anyone) who will be in his 40s when the contract is over isa huge risk, even if he’s a future HOF and still in his prime. On the other hand, if that player delivers MVP type performance over the first half of the contract and helps the team win a title, then is it worth perhaps massively overpaying for the second half of the contract?

by Bender13 on Feb 15, 2011 4:59 AM CST reply actions  

Yes.

It would have been for Soriano if the Cubs had won in 2007 or 2008.

It would be even more worth it for Pujols.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 15, 2011 7:15 AM CST up reply actions  

Indeed

Soriano got us two back to back playoff appearances, which hadn’t happened in my lifetime, or in yours’, either, I suspect.

by The_Rock on Feb 15, 2011 8:04 AM CST up reply actions  

That had more to do with the shift to 6 divisions and 8 playoff teams, than the addition of Soriano.

If they expand to 16 playoff teams like the NHL and we make it 3 straight years, I’m not going to say Matt Garza or somebody “got us” to something that had never happened in our lifetimes.

Playoff appearances are a helluva lot cheaper than they were before realignment.

MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown

by D98 on Feb 15, 2011 9:25 AM CST up reply actions  

That team won the most games playing in a terrible division in a watered down

league. Not sure how old you are or if you’re just going by wins but I think I have rooted for better Cub teams in my lifetime.

by the nth on Feb 15, 2011 11:01 AM CST up reply actions  

I was going by wins

Terrible division? Watered down league? I don’t know about that. Unless you think baseball is worse today than it was in 1989, 1984 etc. I am not buying that argument as the talent pool is much larger.

I think you can make arguments for the 1989 and 1984 teams. The fact stands that the 2008 team did have the best record in the NL. Led the division basically wire-to-wire and led the league in runs scored. Only team to finish with above a .600 winning percentage since 1945.

I assumed that anyone posting in this thread wasn’t alive for the 1945 WS team too. Might be a couple exceptions, but generally true.

by JSB on Feb 15, 2011 11:22 AM CST up reply actions  

the 2007 and 2008 were the big fish in a small pond

and I would bet that in a series the 84 and 89 Cubs would beat both teams more often than not.

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 15, 2011 6:33 PM CST up reply actions  

2007? Yes. 2008? No.

I think most forget how dominant that 2008 team was because of the collapse against the Dodgers. That team damn near won 100 games.

by JSB on Feb 16, 2011 10:21 AM CST up reply actions  

The '08 team did not play well down the stretch either. They hit their

peak weeks before the end of the season. It might have been surprising how pitiful they looked against LA but it wasn’t surprising that they lost.

by the nth on Feb 16, 2011 10:27 AM CST up reply actions  

they damn near won 100 games in a horrible NL Central

not impressive, and their post season play showed that they were the big fish in a small pond, but not as good as the numbers

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 16, 2011 7:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Talent pool has expanded too

Larger population, more players from overseas etc.

Do you really think a higher quality of baseball was played in 1989 than in 2008? That players in 2008 couldn’t compete at the same level as in 1989? I would argue that just in terms of training methods alone 2008 is higher quality than 1989.

This is a pretty silly argument in general. The ’89 team was pretty good, but had just as many one-year wonders as the 2008 team.

by JSB on Feb 16, 2011 10:56 AM CST up reply actions  

I like silly arguments...

which is better slim jims or jack’s links?

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 16, 2011 11:51 AM CST up reply actions  

Nutter Butters

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 16, 2011 11:58 AM CST up reply actions  

Krystals

Just win the next game...!

by blackhawk24 on Feb 16, 2011 2:51 PM CST up reply actions  

I like Bicycle Day

If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.

by eths on Feb 17, 2011 1:51 AM CST up reply actions  

I've never had Jack's Links.

So someone needs to answer this question for me. Immediately.

GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.

by shoemile on Feb 17, 2011 3:10 AM CST up reply actions  

Featured Poll, Al. Featured Poll...

Do we really care how many games the Cubs are going to win this year? C’mon, seriously? That’s just a bunch of African water buffalo belly button lint compared to divining the answer to Jack’s vs Slim Jims…

Change the poll. Change the poll. Change the poll. Change the poll…

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 17, 2011 7:19 AM CST up reply actions  

I vote for poll dancing!

If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.

by eths on Feb 17, 2011 8:40 AM CST up reply actions  

Pat & Ron have broached that subject on occasion

Well, mostly Ron – and only late at night during rain delay theatre situations.

Pat would usually say something like “No comment” or “I’ll defer to your expertise in this matter, Ron”.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 17, 2011 9:46 AM CST up reply actions  

for the win!

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. -J.R.R. Tolkien

by Emelie on Feb 17, 2011 1:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Based on what?

That team won 8 fewer games, collapsed down the stretch, and missed the playoffs.

Sure, it might have had more raw talent but it wasn’t a better team.

by JSB on Feb 15, 2011 11:23 AM CST up reply actions  

Based on what you just said...
That team was much more talented than the 2008 team. It just didn't click as well as the '08 version did. Not to mention, the competition was much more intense that year.

by kanderber on Feb 15, 2011 12:39 PM CST up reply actions  

That's a pretty bad argument

I think you are going to have a hard time finding many to agree with you that the 2004 Cubs team that woefully underachieved was the best team of our lifetime.

This isn’t pre-season where ‘on paper’ matters.

by JSB on Feb 16, 2011 10:22 AM CST up reply actions  

2004

was a bad team with a ton of talent on it. 2003 was a better team despite not having quite the talent that the 04 club had. If Dusty had managed the personalities on that team better—who knows. But best team? No way 04 comes up in that conversation.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Feb 15, 2011 3:43 PM CST up reply actions  

playoff appearances are a helluva lot cheaper

than when only 2 teams made it – so I guess bah humbug to every team that has won the WS in the last 50 some odd years

by hansman1982 on Feb 15, 2011 2:32 PM CST up reply actions  

But if that contract alone is 20% of what the team owner seems willing to spend

each season, and there’s not an army of cheap incredibly talented position players in the minors ready to explode onto the scene, it’s hard to see how the HOFer will bring them a championship.

Even coming from the traditionally week NL Central the Cards have made it to the Series only twice winning once, with a mediocre team in 2006, when the Tigers just handed it to them with some of the sloppiest play in WS history.

My point is, it’s not like Pujols is so great he’s simply powers his team to the Series each season. It takes a team and Pujols won’t be joining a very good one next season should he decide to sign.

I’d love to sign Pujols if the Ricketts also announced they were also upping the payroll 50%. But if they sign one of the best players in baseball history hoping he will keep the turn-styes humming even during down seasons, it will feel like more of the same from my favorite team. .

by the nth on Feb 15, 2011 7:16 AM CST reply actions  

1 WS for the Cards in 2 appearances in true, but

how many playoff appearances did they have this past decade? 6 times by my count. (7 if you count 2000)

The Cubs had 3 – 03, 07 and 08.

TR

by The_Rock on Feb 15, 2011 8:03 AM CST up reply actions  

But much of that time the Cards have had better pitching and a better team than the Cubs.

Albert, while a massive part of the Cards’ success, didn’t and can’t do it alone. And if you pay him all of that money without also upping the payroll I don’t see the point.

by the nth on Feb 15, 2011 8:20 AM CST up reply actions  

why do they have to up the payroll?

they have more coming off the books than what this deal allegedly costs. It’s not your money, so why fight it. Adding the greatest right handed hitter in baseball history in the middle of his career is a no-brainer. And if some of the kids are as good as advertised, we have league minimum cost-controlled guys coming to the big league team—no need to spend 8 million on the Grabows and Miles of the world. They payroll will be fine. And I’ll bet they will sell thousands of Pujols jerseys in the first week giving a nice jolt of cash to the franchise.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 8:56 AM CST up reply actions  

He's not really in the middle of his career...

if you figure the likely productive years of an elite player are age 22-36, you’ll get Pujols with 10 years down and five years to go. That’s the problem with giving him a 10 year contract.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 9:27 AM CST up reply actions  

peak years do not begin at 22

but I understand what you are trying to say. I was mereley saying we will have him during his peak years meaning we would also have him during his decline. I’m not foolish enough to think he will OPS 1.036 during the entire 10 year deal. But he could go “Bonds” on the NL until he turns 41 and that deal looks small.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 10:21 AM CST up reply actions  

His next contract will be entirely post-peak...

as he will be 32 years old when the deal starts. No one is going “Bonds” anymore – there are NO regulars in their late 30s who are any good anymore. Ichiro is the only exception I can think of…

And the warning signs are there for Pujols – over the past five years he has gone from an elite defender to an average one.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 10:46 AM CST up reply actions  

useful but dangerous

Really Pujols is a pretty uncharted type of player.

You really need to limit the comps to the truly elite players. But, you need to throw out the elite players from the “juiced era”. So, now you would need to look back to elite players from 25 years ago or so. But, physical conditioning etc. is certainly better now than it was during the 80’s, so…

Long story short, it is impossible to predict what Pujols will be doing 10 years from now.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Feb 15, 2011 10:53 AM CST up reply actions  

There's this:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-do-baseball-players-age-part-2/

I think we can safely say two things: 1. On offense, over the next 4-5 years, Pujols is not going to get markedly better; he might decline a bit or stay the same, 2. His defense is going downhill at a steady clip.

If he becomes a liability at first (say, -10 runs) and stays the same hitter he won’t be better than a six win player. That’s great, but buying that for $30 million while also signing up for what will likely be a complete albatross in years 7-10 is just dumb.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 11:09 AM CST up reply actions  

you just don't know and neither do I

I think you and I both agree he is a once in a lifetime player. I believe Pujols will be contending for MVP awards from age 32- 36 years at a minimum. That’s half of the contract where I believe he will be one of the best if not the best player in the NL. I disagree with the “post-peak” comment.

I chuckled at your sentence “there are no regulars in their late 30’s. Oh wait—Ichiro.” So, suffice to say, there just isn’t a way to comp it. Even in your own words, you said no and then offered someone else—another once-in-a lifetime player which Pujols clearly is.

I’m not worried about his defense at 1B. You are. We can agree to disagree on that value.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 11:11 AM CST up reply actions  

Ichiro...

has a skill set that tends to age well, then he’s an outlier for those with that skill set. To take a different type of player with a completely different set of skills, ignore the obvious defensive decline, and sign him to a huge deal because one other guy out of dozens of elite players is still performing well is not a wise move. Just because he’s better than comps like Helton, ARod, Teixeira, and Howard doesn’t mean he can’t be compared to those guys.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 11:21 AM CST up reply actions  

Speed...

typically doesn’t age all that well.

by Kansas25 on Feb 15, 2011 1:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Speed gets less speedy...

but guys who are speedy tend to age better overall than big lumbering guys. I suppose this is due to their overall level of fitness. I don’t know if there’s been a study, but Lofton, Raines, Brock, Henderson, Wilson and others come to mind.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 2:10 PM CST up reply actions  

I suppose.

But in either case, as you just did, most people tend to point to outliers. I’m assuming Al and others are assuming Pujols will be an outlier—a reasonable deduction, IMO.

by Kansas25 on Feb 15, 2011 2:16 PM CST up reply actions  

I picked those names...

from the list of top single season stolen bases. There are a few that flamed out early: Coleman, Leflore, Rivers. You are right though, there needs to be a comprehensive look. I’d be shocked though if lean wasn’t better for longevity than hefty.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 2:23 PM CST up reply actions  

then the one who makes you question everything

Julio Franco

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 17, 2011 9:13 AM CST via mobile up reply actions  

Depends on how that speed was used.

If we’re talking young speed that turned shots to the gaps and/or down the lines into triples, then yeah, that probably ages well. Maybe those are only doubles or singles now, but that’s still a hit.

But if that young speed was getting a lot of bunt singles and/or beating out infield hits, then no – I wouldn’t expect that to age well, because those will likely turn into outs now.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 15, 2011 2:18 PM CST up reply actions  

I'll nitpick a bit..

and say that the first type of player you mentioned would have his value severely hurt, even if he was still getting hits. One of many knocks against Theriot would be his absurdly low SLG%. Even if he hits 300, his OPS makes it less valuable.

But yes, I would agree that speed is a trait that manifests itself differently in certain players and their individual games.

by Kansas25 on Feb 15, 2011 2:31 PM CST up reply actions  

What about Ted Williams?

Williams was clearly not as good at 39 as he was at 22. For one, he didn’t hit .400.

But Williams hitting line at 39 was .328/.458/.584. It wasn’t very good at 40, going .254/.372./.419. Not great, but still above average. In Williams final season at age 41, he hit an incredible .316/.451/.645.

To say Pujols can’t continue to play well up to 40 because he’s not taking steroids is just wrong. Guys like Ted Williams, Babe Ruth and Stan Musial were still productive ballplayers at 40. And to compare Pujols to anyone lesser than that is just wrong too.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 15, 2011 1:19 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Exactly.

This is a once in a generation player we’re talking about. Maybe you make the last two years of the deal some sort of mutual option — kind of like the deal Derek Jeter got.

But I have no problem giving Albert Pujols a 10-year contract.

Speaking of Stan Musial, who got the Presidential Medal of Freedom today, take a look at the season he had in 1962, when he was 41 years old. Pujols could do that. Incidentally, had Musial not missed a year for WWII — right at his peak — he could have had close to 3900 career hits.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 15, 2011 1:31 PM CST up reply actions  

You need to open it up and look at as many comparables as possible...

and not just cherry pick. I know some here argue there are no comparables because Pujols is so good, but that’s not really true. He’s human and he’s subject to the same, or at least similar, effects of aging as others. And like I said there are real red flags- Chronic PF, elbow issues, and his deteriorating performance at first.

If you look at his comps on Baseball Reference, you’ll see the median age for not being good anymore for those 10 guys is about 36.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 1:51 PM CST up reply actions  

Comps

I see what you are saying here, but at the same time Pujols likely requires different analysis. He has a unique ability to recognize pitches combined with a swing that has little to no holes in it. I think that is why guys like Musial and Williams should be compared with Pujols.

The bottom line is, truly gifted hitters have shown a better ability to adjust as their body ages. Will that happen with Pujols? Who knows? But, the elite hitters of the past have figured out how to keep hitting as they aged.

by okiecubbie on Feb 15, 2011 2:41 PM CST up reply actions  

The problem is

that there just aren’t any good comparables for Albert Pujols.

The best comparable for Pujols, IMO, is Lou Gehrig. Unfortunately, Gehrig isn’t a good comp for understanding how Pujols is going to age, since we can assume that Pujols doesn’t have a disease that’s going to kill him at age 37.

The comps on B-R are for amusement purposes only. They don’t take into account so many things that they really don’t have a lot of predictive value. Besides, are you really saying that Pujols is going to drink himself out of the game like Jimmie Foxx?

I’m not cherry picking any more than you are. The problem is that no one is similar to Albert Pujols. The red flags you mention aren’t even red flags. For all his “chronic injuries” that you talk about, he’s averaged 155 games a year over ten seasons. He’s never played in fewer than 143 games in a season. That means he’s that good even with what you’re talking about. Ted Williams had a lot more injury issues than Pujols ever had. Yet he was still a great player at 41.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 15, 2011 2:56 PM CST up reply actions  

You need a big sample...

that includes a lots of players, like the hardball times article I linked to above. It clearly shows that 32 is post-peak, which is all I was saying.

As for Pujols being indestructible, guys are consistent until they stop being consistent. Shit happens. Lou Gehrig was the Iron Horse, churning out monster seasons, then he was dead. The best thing to do is have a large sample size of the most similar players possible and see how they performed. All players are human, they are all variations of the same thing. Therefore, they are comparable.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 3:22 PM CST up reply actions  

I didn’t think Lou Gehrig’s death had anything to do with baseball.

by Villeslgr on Feb 15, 2011 4:12 PM CST up reply actions  

There is no big sample

of players comparable to Pujols. Even guys like Jimmie Foxx and Frank Robinson aren’t all that similar.

The issue isn’t whether or not Pujols will decline as he gets older. Of course he will. The issue is that he’s so good, he could decline and still be one of the best five players in baseball. Maybe even still the best.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 15, 2011 5:26 PM CST up reply actions  

+1

I believe that he is so far out in front of 99.99999% of the players that even at 37 and 38 he will still be an above average 1bman

by hansman1982 on Feb 16, 2011 10:27 AM CST up reply actions  

My feeling exactly...

He’s so much head and shoulders above the rest of the league that even at 38 he will still be mashing the ball…

R.I.P. Ronnie Santo... you will be missed...

by Endrick on Feb 16, 2011 10:42 AM CST up reply actions  

ok Josh

you sold me. As much has Pujols has been a top-5 all-time RH hitter so far, I was nervous about giving him 10 years. But I’m converted. Let’s do it.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Feb 15, 2011 3:46 PM CST up reply actions  

Hooray!

You and I agree!

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 15, 2011 5:07 PM CST up reply actions  

That makes 4 of us

give him what he wants – you figure we are going to have to pay $15 million a year to get anything remotely similar and probably closer to $20 – so you have to say to yourself is Pujols worth $15 million a year in extras and I say HELL YES. The Cubs #5 jerseys that you will sell will pay that off no problem

by hansman1982 on Feb 15, 2011 5:14 PM CST up reply actions  

Make that 5 for #5...

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 15, 2011 8:59 PM CST up reply actions  

I think 33 million a year for 8 years...

with 18 million dollar player options in years 9 and 10. Plus MVP incentives and such. Thats equals 300 million +.

Thats a huge amount of money but if he signs im sure the Cubs will enjoy a big revenue boost. Allowing them to increase the payroll.

by Mitchener on Feb 16, 2011 3:58 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't think

We’ll have to go to 33 million a year. I think more like $29 million would do it if you’re going to eight years.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 16, 2011 4:37 PM CST up reply actions  

I was just going by what i heard hes looking for

I havent really heard how close the Cards where to his offer.

But being a division rival might make the price tag go up.

Not many teams are gonna be able to able to add a 1st baseman and with such a high price but who knows its Albert Pujols.

by Mitchener on Feb 16, 2011 8:37 PM CST up reply actions  

The Cards offered

around $20 million a year, and the debate now is whether or not that was a deliberate insult.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 16, 2011 10:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Wow, that's it?

Doesn’t bode well for them moving forward.

GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.

by shoemile on Feb 16, 2011 10:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Ya i just heard that on mlb tv

Someone said that he offered a contract that would have made him the top 10 most paid player. So thats between 19-21 million.

Im a little skeptical of that information. Would they really offer him just slightly more than jason werth?

If hes not getting more than ryan howard then hell probably leave.

by Mitchener on Feb 17, 2011 1:48 AM CST up reply actions  

The Cardinals

have always operated on the “home town discount” method. Albert has made clear he’s not going to give that. Maybe they thought he was kidding.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 17, 2011 1:15 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah, that "Baseball Heaven" crap seems to have

been repeated so much that they actually believe it and expect people to give up 10s of millions of dollars to play in the empty shell of a mid-20th century city.

by the nth on Feb 17, 2011 2:11 PM CST up reply actions  

Well said.

If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.

by eths on Feb 17, 2011 1:52 AM CST up reply actions  

First you must figure out how old he is.

Everyone knows those birth certificates are likely to be phonies…yeah it’s a risk to sign him for that long, he’s been remarkably resiliant to play which means it’s likely he will have an injury sometime. I would balk at making it 10 years but in the end he is probably worth it.

Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10

by Sandberg's evil twin on Feb 21, 2011 9:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Everyone does not know that

If Pujols’ birth certificate was faked, it would have had to have been faked to get him into HS in KC when he was 16 when he moved to America. That doesn’t make much sense, since if your goal was to lie about your kid’s age to get him a better baseball contract, why in the world would you then move to Kansas City where he would be controlled by the draft?

Could Pujols be older than he claims? Possible, but unlikely. Cheap cynicism is no replacement for common sense.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 21, 2011 10:10 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Correct.

Plus, birth dates of foreign players were all double checked after 9/11. Some players did have years tacked on to their ages — including Alfonso Soriano, who had originally claimed a 1978 birth date, but it was confirmed he was born in 1976.

Pujols was born in 1980. I don’t think there’s a shadow of a doubt that’s a fact.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 22, 2011 11:09 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

a certain network

isnt letting it go though…every time they mention him they bring it up – “and there’s questions about his age” - god I wish there was a better network on cable that I didnt have to pay extra for…

by hansman1982 on Feb 22, 2011 2:17 PM CST up reply actions  

I want a Blue
  1. Jersey I can wear to games here at Hammon’s Field. Of course, the Cardinal fans in the park will likely string me up. Maybe, I can win the opportunity to throw out the first pitch when my company has it’s annual day at the park. Won’t that be a lot of fun!! ;p

I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.

by cub in louies nest on Feb 15, 2011 9:36 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

That was supposed to be

The number sign & a 5. I didn’t know it would do that.

I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.

by cub in louies nest on Feb 15, 2011 9:38 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

I agree completely...

…if this were basketball, where one player makes a huge difference, you go for it. With baseball, it just doesn’t work that way.

If he wants 30 mil per year for up to 10 years, I woudn’t touch that with a 10 foot pole and the Cards did the right thing for the long term health of their team.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 16, 2011 8:05 PM CST up reply actions  

Heyman is pretty good

however this is a reach. If Albert doesn’t have a deal by Nov. 2011, then maybe I will start thinking that he could become a Cub. For now he is a Cardinal.

by Grockcubs on Feb 15, 2011 7:17 AM CST reply actions  

I still wonder if

(minus an agreed-upon CBA) the Cardinals get any compensation for him if he walks.

by timh815 on Feb 15, 2011 7:26 AM CST reply actions  

I think you guys are a little too pessimistic about your chances...

if the Cubs are willing to go the full A-Rod, #5 will likely be yours.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 7:58 AM CST reply actions  

Depends on whether he actually hits the FA market

The Cards still have powerful incentives to find some way to swing a deal.

by ClarkFan on Feb 15, 2011 8:47 AM CST up reply actions  

They've gone plaid!

"Dad gum right this games gonna be played under protest. . . I guarantee this is gonna be one protest that's upheld." --Hawk Harrelson, 6/24/07

by RynoHoF on Feb 15, 2011 10:24 AM CST up reply actions  

My thoughts:

It’s a ludicrous amount of money. An he’s the best player I’ve ever seen, bar none.

It could really shackle our lateral movement—that’s a lot of money tied up in guys like Soriano, Pujols, Zambrano, Dempster—and we wouldn’t be able to make a lot of other signings.

Everything’s always peachy on the front end of the tunnel (Soriano), but how’s it going to look near the end of the contract? The man has shown no regression whatsoever.

I’d offer him max dollars for less years, perhaps $30M/year for 8 years. See if that does it.

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Feb 15, 2011 8:12 AM CST reply actions  

I would want to know what the plan was for the pitching staff

Unless Garza hits Hendry’s high-as-the-sky forecast and 1 or 2 other guys emerge from the farm system, Pujols + present Cubs pitching staff = probable disappointment. If sigining him was part of a plan to push the payroll to the Red Sox/Phillies level, that could also work. But I don’t see the Ricketts going to that kind of payroll before the short-term acquisition loan is repaid (set for 2013), if then.

by ClarkFan on Feb 15, 2011 8:52 AM CST up reply actions  

Fortunately, by Year 4 all that Soriano money finally falls off the table.

Put it this way – we know some free agent is going to bilk us out of this cash anyway… we might as well blow the money signing the greatest player of our generation away from our most hated rivals.

OR – and bear with me here – we could sign TWO mediocre guys for the same money!

Call me crazy, but I’d rather go down in flames having signed my FIRST choice, (the Beltrans and Pujolses of the world) than limp along waiting for Fukudome and Soriano’s contracts to expire.

MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown

by D98 on Feb 15, 2011 9:29 AM CST up reply actions  

I agree

Of course everyone wants Pujols for a 6-year deal. He would have 10+ teams willing to offer him 6 years. The team that grabs him is going to be the one that offers him 8-10 years. Either way the Cubs should be involved in the bidding to make it as painful as possible for the Cards even if they do manage to re-sign him.

by JSB on Feb 15, 2011 9:59 AM CST up reply actions  

+1

I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.

by cub in louies nest on Feb 15, 2011 9:41 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

Make it 12 years

front load it so a vast majority is paid in 8 years (>85%) and let the numbers fall off the table, like we’d expect his production to, in ages 39+.

Something like: 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 25, 25, 15, 10, 10, 5: Total: $300M

It’d look just like the long-term NHL deals (Hossa and Keith with the ’Hawks) only w/o the salary cap hit being the average of all seasons.

Cubs fans want Pujols? This is what it’ll take. Or something really, really close.

Just win the next game...!

by blackhawk24 on Feb 16, 2011 7:24 AM CST up reply actions  

i still say offer 10 years

1-7 guarantee
8 player option
9 mutual option
10 team option

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 16, 2011 7:28 PM CST up reply actions  

I think he would have

30 teams offering him a 6 year deal

by hansman1982 on Feb 16, 2011 10:30 AM CST up reply actions  

the pseudo GM's

are pretty funny. Everyone is worried about the Cubs payroll. Who cares? Given the chance to add the greatest right-handed hitter in history because our arch-rival couldn’t get it done is the best possible scenario—forget about payroll. There is more coming off the books that what this deal costs. Having Pujols in the lineup everyday makes the Cubs an annual contender—period. It is a Cubs fans dream. Oh, before I forget, our owner wants to pour $200MM of his own money into Wrigley Field. I don’t think we need to worry about money for this franchise. Pujols is far from a crippling factor. If Hendry goes and signs more Fukudome’s, Miles, and Grabows, that will hurt more than the one signing of Pujols. Enjoy this Cubs fans—this is a dream actually playing out in front of our eyes.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 9:06 AM CST reply actions  

No, Ricketts is offering to spend $200MM to build a restaurant/shopping building NEXT to Wrigley.

They aren’t offering to spend any money whatsoever on renovating Wrigley.

MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown

by D98 on Feb 15, 2011 9:49 AM CST up reply actions  

not true

read the transcript from Al’s interview that I pasted below.

we can do everything we need to do at the park and make the economic developments we need just outside the park

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 10:00 AM CST up reply actions  

What are you saying? It absolutely IS true.

The Ricketts have offered to build the Triangle Building, at a cost of $200MM, while the state sells bonds to renovate Wrigley with $200MM in public funds.

This isn’t even debatable. This is a black-and-white fact of their proposal.

Tom has said, point blank, that private money for Wrigley simply isn’t available b/c it’s not a revenue generator.

And more to the point, I don’t understand what the quote you’ve linked has to do with anything. Who is the “we”? What is the “everything we need to do”? Obviously, the “economic developments just outside the park” is what the Ricketts have “offered” to build – they’re offering to build the Triangle Building.

MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown

by D98 on Feb 15, 2011 10:34 AM CST up reply actions  

go read

Al’s 3 part interview. It’s Tom Rickett’s own words. You are trying to argue over sematics.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 11:22 AM CST up reply actions  

But obviously, I agree with pretty much everything in your post.

There are worse ways to spend $30MM. Like “Dome and Bradley and Grabow”.

MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown

by D98 on Feb 15, 2011 9:32 AM CST up reply actions  

Maybe

Ricketts could make a deal with Hendry that he lets him sign Pujols, but he isn’t allowed to make stupid signings anymore, particularly giving big contracts to essentially replacement level players.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Feb 15, 2011 1:08 PM CST up reply actions  

not true

BCB: It’s not just season ticket holders, it’s all ticket buyers, right?

TR: All ticket buyers, right. So it’s basically all tickets we sell have an amusement tax on them. Just the incremental increase from that over time is what we’re asking to keep back, which we can turn into a bond, which can be used to put dollars in the park today. And the concept is we bring the $200 million or so in from that bond, we add about $200 million from the family and then we can do everything we need to do at the park and make the economic developments we need just outside the park that not only enhance the game day experience, but raise the overall economic footprint of home games and hopefully all year round in the neighborhood.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 9:59 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't think you understand the proposal.

The $200MM that the family is proposing to spend will be used to build the Triangle Building, which will be a Ricketts-owned revenue generator.

They are not offering to spend a single cent renovating Wrigley itself.

I mean, this is all public record. It’s been explained by Al, by the press, and by the Ricketts, in rather exhaustive detail, and discussed here in thousands of posts.

I don’t think you understand the proposal.

It works like this.

The state would issue $200MM in bonds. That $200MM would be used to renovate Wrigley. Those bonds would be paid back by amusement tax monies generated over the next 35 years over and above the $16MM or so currently generated by the amusement tax.

Assuming that the marginal gain in amusement tax is insufficient to cover the $200MM in bonds – and it WILL be – the hotel tax would be used toward the balance.

The Ricketts, meanwhile, will build the Triangle Building next to Wrigley for $200MM, and own it outright. It will contain some mix of commercial properties, like a restaurant, a bar, and/or a museum, and also some offices and some parking.

MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown

by D98 on Feb 15, 2011 10:38 AM CST up reply actions  

taking my post out of context

I wrote, “our owner wants to pour $200MM into Wrigley.” I don’t care if it the Triangle Building or Wrigley itself. It is the entire Wrigley Complex. He is willing to spend $200MM of his own money and the point within my post was he has money to spend on this team so why are people so concerened about our payroll and how this contract would cripple the franchise? It’s pretty clear THE FAMILY has money it is willing to invest in the Cubs. Since the bid failed, it’s not like his money went away and he can’t invest it in a different capacity. They are willing to spend their own money—clearly. We are talking two different things.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 11:20 AM CST up reply actions  

Umm, its not so much that he took your quote out of context

it’s that your quote wasn’t accurate.

Pouring $200MM into Wrigley is in fact not the same as building a complex next to Wrigley.

"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer

by BoVandy on Feb 15, 2011 12:21 PM CST up reply actions  

my quote is very accurate

let me ask you this, did Ricketts in his own words say he was going to spend about $200MM of the family’s money? The answer is yes. If you have $200MM to invest on your team, do you have a financial problem where you couldn’t afford to sign the best player in baseball? The answer is no.

He said in the interview with Al, “And the concept is we bring the $200 million or so in from that bond, we add about $200 million from the family and then we can do everything we need to do at the park and make the economic developments we need just outside the park that not only enhance the game day experience.”

And how is that different from me saying “he wants to pour $200MM in Wrigley?” You are trying to nit-pick between Wrigley and the Triangle Building. I am not separating them, you are. They are one in the same as they are not going to put up a Triangle Building and do nothing to Wrigley. Something will be done to improve the entire infrastructure.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 1:34 PM CST up reply actions  

You know how you can tell the difference between Wrigley and the Triangle Building?

They play baseball in Wrigley.

The way you want to phrase it is “he wants to pour $200MM into the organization, improving existing infrastructure, and developing new infrastructure.”

by Flatley on Feb 15, 2011 1:40 PM CST up reply actions  

Triangle Building...

Massive revenue producer. Wrigley renovations-not as much.

You’re missing the point here.

by Kansas25 on Feb 15, 2011 1:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Depends on the renovations.

Take out the offices to put in more seats = additional revenues. Space for more vendors = additional revenues. Jumbotron = additional advertising revenues.

Well, you get my point. I’m not sure that the Wrigley renovation would result in a higher incremental increase in revenue than the Triangle Building would bring in. But it’s something to keep in mind.

by Flatley on Feb 15, 2011 2:00 PM CST up reply actions  

That's why I said...

not as much. There is definitely money to be made, but it most likely can’t compare to the Triangle’s appeal. Most of the 200 M invested in the Triangle will lead to increased revenue, while a smaller portion of the 200 M for Wrigley will be generating more revenue.

It’s splitting hairs a bit, but it seems like enough if Ricketts is absolutely willing to drop his money into the Triangle while seeking outside funds for Wrigley. If they were equal, I’d assume Ricketts wouldn’t have specifically phrased the proposal the way he did.

by Kansas25 on Feb 15, 2011 2:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Ah.

I interpreted your “not as much” as more of a “not so much,” as though the Wrigley renovation wouldn’t impact the park’s revenue stream. My bad.

by Flatley on Feb 15, 2011 2:35 PM CST up reply actions  

Nope--people replying about the buildings have missed the point

my initial point is continually glossed over which was WE DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT FINANCES WHEN OUR OWNER IN HIS OWN WORDS STATES HE IS WILLING TO SPEND $200 MILLION OF HIS OWN MONEY IN BUILDINGS. The alleged Pujols contract will not cripple this franchise and prohibit the Cubs from spending money on payroll. I really could care less about the buildings. Sorry if I was unclear as the money he is willing to spend on buildings was used a rationale that we don’t need to worry about payroll. The Cubs have plenty ’o money to pay for Pujols and not fill other needs.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions  

You're being rather dense about this.

It’s not a question of how much money the Ricketts’ have; it is a question of how much they are willing to spend on the team itself. There have already been comments about reducing payroll and they have sought public funds for the Cubs facilities. That means that Ricketts is very budget conscious. If we’re talking about building a team around a huge contract for Pujols, then it is necessary to predict how much money we might spend on the team around him.

Of course the owners have enough money, but they aren’t the Steinbrenners who will keep throwing money around regardless. In weighing the positives and negatives of a Pujols deal, we need to consider what the ownership may or may not be willing to spend. Having money and spending money are two very different things.

by Kansas25 on Feb 15, 2011 2:39 PM CST up reply actions  

nope, nice try

a simple argument — “Ricketts have money, said so in own words, willing to invest in Cubs = don’t worry about payroll enjoy the dream scenario” is too far beneath you to grasp. Jeez.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 3:21 PM CST up reply actions  

So if your wife decided to invest in the car...

buy getting it painted sparkly pink with unicorns on it instead of the bald tires and getting an alignment and new brakes, it’s OK by you because SHE PUT THE $ INTO THE CAR.

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 15, 2011 3:29 PM CST up reply actions  

you mean

like Hendry investing in Grabow, Miles, Nady, and Bradley? :-D

I’m ok with Ricketts signing Pujols to a big fat contract for 10 years. And I feel confident Ricketts can afford it and will not cut payroll if he signed Pujols if the team need additional players. Make sense?

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 3:43 PM CST up reply actions  

The Ricketts are willing to invest their money in guaranteed money making ventures

Like the Triangle Building. There’s no money in building new locker rooms under Wrigley.

GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.

by shoemile on Feb 15, 2011 3:29 PM CST up reply actions  

I disagree to a certain extent

improvements in your facilities can help attract talent. Your players need the proper facilities to train, condition, work on skills like most all the other teams currently provide to their players.

Winning baseball teams produce more revenue than lousy teams with great buildings.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 3:45 PM CST up reply actions  

Are you

just playing devil’s advocate here? You can’t really think that building locker room’s and such is going to be a good investment in the way building shops and restaurants is, can you?

Ricketts wants the state to pay for the Wrigley renovations, because Wrigley renovations aren’t a good financial investment. He tried to sell this as a “cooperative effort” but saying he would pay a similar amount for “neighborhood improvement” or something like that. But his idea of improving the neighborhood is building a bunch of Rickett’s-owned business to siphon business away from the neighborhood businesses.

If Ricketts wants to build a bunch of businesses around Wrigley that’s his right but he shouldn’t pretend like he’s doing the neighborhood a favor by doing so, and he shouldn’t be asking the city/state to help him pay for it.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Feb 15, 2011 3:52 PM CST up reply actions  

no I'm not

I am not saying anything is better than the other. I am saying, and it is painfully obvious, that Wrigley has to be one of the worst baseball facilities in MLB - from a players perpsective. Our players deserve top notch facilities-that is all I’m saying. And if we entertain players in the future to sign with us, having better facilities may make that difference.

My reply had nothing to do with weighing which option is better. Regardless, I still believe that having the best team on the field annually will bring in the most money. Throw a couple more 75-87 seasons (only saved by the Quade run) or God-forbid 60 win seasons and this team will be in bad shape financially. Winning puts butts in seats. Butts in seats spend money. Spending money drives profits. Profits allow reinvestment to continue winning. I know you get this cyclical business model.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 4:23 PM CST up reply actions  

how did I do that?

that should not have been “strike-through” text. That’s a first.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 4:24 PM CST up reply actions  

any good business owner

knows that there are certain things that are cash sinks that you NEED to stick alot of money into, such as comfortable work chairs, good software, good bathrooms, etc…

Ricketts is merely saying hey, rather than take all this money away from Wrigley that we are making the city and state lets keep a portion of it here to make the building (that you landmarked) better, in return I will stick a bunch of money into the neighborhood…oh and by the way, since I will be attracting more fans your amusement tax will continue to get paid so in 20 years you get your principle back and you get increased revenues…

by hansman1982 on Feb 15, 2011 5:12 PM CST up reply actions  

What he's saying is...

is that he will put money where he can get an identified and healthy return on his money while the public picks up the tab on the rest.

by Kansas25 on Feb 15, 2011 7:52 PM CST up reply actions  

He's not putting money

into the neighborhood, he’s taking money out of the neighborhood.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Feb 15, 2011 10:20 PM CST up reply actions  

well in order to build those businesses

outside of the triangle building he would have to get people to sell their land, unless there is alot of open space around wrigley that I missed the last time I was there

by hansman1982 on Feb 16, 2011 10:31 AM CST up reply actions  

whatever, smartass

you are so friggin’ smart, you can understand something so simple. Go back to quantum physics, eisntein.

by socalbob on Feb 15, 2011 9:06 PM CST up reply actions  

Well, either way...

… this wasn’t headed in the right direction.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 16, 2011 9:12 AM CST up reply actions  

I was being serious...

I didn’t mean to offend you. In your last post, you said you were enjoying a dream scenario. That’s why I wrote that I understood. No harm in that.

by Kansas25 on Feb 16, 2011 9:09 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't care about the Ricketts' money, I care that if Ricketts says he'll only spend

a certain amount and then spends 20% of that at one position, it doesn’t leave flexibility to build a decent team. If he wants to increase payroll then that’s a different matter. I realize money is coming off the books but I think even with the great Albert in the lineup, the Cubs will want someone to stand down at third. If you put say, a cheap Josh Vitters down there at the other corner infield position, you wipe away a good chunk of Albert’s production by having a below average player at a position you need a major offensive contribution from.

by the nth on Feb 15, 2011 11:17 AM CST up reply actions  

Someone let Josh Vitters know he'll be a below average 3B...

He’s 22, let’s not make assumptions based on what fits your story. Also, you have no idea what the Cubs payroll will look like over the next 10 years, so let’s leave the business side of this up to the people who actually know/see the business plan, shall we?

Making wild assumptions really does no good – and that goes for both directions, not just yours.

by bdlugz on Feb 16, 2011 11:30 AM CST up reply actions  

No assumption was made. I used Vitters because he'd be cheap.

Do you see any other cheap alternatives in the minor league system at third?

And leaving the business side to just those with actual knowledge of the business plan? Is there a thread with just the Ricketts posting? I’d love to know what they think.

All I know is that they don’t seem keen on spending like the Red Sox and Yankees so it doesn’t take intimate knowledge of a business plan to make certain assumptions. Sort of the fun of this whole sports blogging thing.

by the nth on Feb 17, 2011 9:00 AM CST up reply actions  

Its been one year!!!!

I’d also say with this…

a cheap Josh Vitters down there at the other corner infield position, you wipe away a good chunk of Albert’s production by having a below average player at a position you need a major offensive contribution from.

You make the assumption that Vitters would be the one offering below average offensive contributions.

It just gets annoying to see such pessimism on a topic (Ricketts’ spending habits) when Ricketts hasn’t even been given a year before he’s called cheap.

by bdlugz on Feb 17, 2011 10:09 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't think where the Cubs are payroll-wise (around $130 MIllion?) is cheap.

It’s just that if you want to give $30 Million to one guy and only have $100 Million left for the other 24, you’d best have some good, young cheap talent to fill a lot of those spots.

That’s the reason I don’t want them to sign Pujols if they aren’t willing to raise payroll.

by the nth on Feb 17, 2011 10:28 AM CST up reply actions  

Since there are no final 2011 contract numbers out yet, I'll base this off of 2010 opening day numbers.

Assuming the Cubs have a payroll set at 130M, and sign Pujols for 30M (which to note, I think the payroll number is a little low and the signing number is a little high), that leaves the Cubs with 100M to sign 24 players.

That 100M left to fill the 24 spots would still give them the 9th highest amount left to spend in baseball, and they’d already have the best hitter in the game on their team.

I know it’s not that simple, but to argue that it’d be hard to work with Pujols and “only” 100M to sign 24 players is crazy.

by bdlugz on Feb 17, 2011 11:21 AM CST up reply actions  

Well, for the first three years of the Pujols contract, no doubt among his most

productive years with the Cubs, you can also write off another $18 Million more for Soriano. So now you’ve got $82 Million for 23 players. Subtract more for the Dempsters, Garzas, Marmols etc. and I think you can see that it does become problematic pretty quickly.

Again, I don’t say the Cubs are cheap, just that it would be difficult to sign Pujols, stick to the current payroll and stay competitive.

by the nth on Feb 17, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions  

The argument against having a below average player?

Look at what Pujols did in STL for the first 8/9 years there, before Holliday. Scott Rolen, okay. he was there from part of 02-07. He wasn’t exceptional. He hit .286 which is very nice but averaged close to 20 HR’s a year.

by Lweb23 on Feb 16, 2011 12:45 PM CST up reply actions  

The Cards made it to the WS with Pujols in 2004 and 2006.

In 2004 Rolen hit .314 had 34 homers, 124 RBIs and an OPS of 1.007
In 2006 Rolen hit .296 had 22 homers, 95 RBIs and an OPS of .887

I think it’s safe to say that Rolen was absolutely exceptional in ‘04 and pretty good on that mediocre WS winner in ’06. Albert, great as he is, can’t go to the series on his own.

by the nth on Feb 17, 2011 9:11 AM CST up reply actions  

been saying this for a while

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2010/5/8/1464019/what-differentiates-the-cubs-from

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 15, 2011 9:22 AM CST reply actions  

clap, clap, clap, clap

is that what you’re looking for?

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Feb 15, 2011 1:10 PM CST up reply actions  

yes

specifically from you

my day is complete now.

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 15, 2011 1:58 PM CST up reply actions  

I'd rather see more money up front

for several years and defer some for after retirement.

A straight $27.5M / year is really going to be hard to swallow in years 8, 9 & 10.

Just win the next game...!

by blackhawk24 on Feb 15, 2011 9:33 AM CST reply actions  

How about we offer something like this

How about 30M/year 6 years guaranteed. IF in years 4/5/6 he gets a total of 1500 plate appearances, his years 7/8 become guaranteed. Then if in years 7/8 a total of 1000 plate appearances is met, years 9/10 become guaranteed.

Total breakdown:
2012-2017=30MM
2018=27.5MM
2019=25MM
2020=22.5MM
2021=20MM
HR goals=25MM total

Total would be the 275MM he is looking for with 25MM bonus for reaching HR goals. Totaling 300MM at this point. I believe would be fair with easy to meet the plate appearances if he’s healthy. (He’s never had a season of less than 634 plate appearances)

by ubercubsfan on Feb 15, 2011 9:54 AM CST reply actions  

Are we trying to sign him?

We will probably have to give him more years than would be ideal. I’m sure he’s already turned down that type of deal from the Cardinals.

by JSB on Feb 15, 2011 10:00 AM CST up reply actions  

uber's propsoal

is a 10 year deal

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 15, 2011 10:24 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't think players really like vesting options

Usually if they meet the requirements for the vesting options they would be able to get that on the open market anyways. I still think that whatever team signs Pujols had better be prepared to give more years than would be ideal.

by JSB on Feb 15, 2011 10:47 AM CST up reply actions  

Players may not like vesting options.

But you have to think when year 6 is over he’ll be 38 on when the season starts in 2018. My idea is a real lax requirement. He’ll need 1500 plate appearances from year 4/5/6. That would require him to get plate appearances a game in 125 games each of those years. If he stays somewhat healthy, it’s virtually his 10 year deal overall. He’s only played less than 150 games once in his career, and that was 143 games with 634 plate appearances. He averages 678 plate appearances a season. In my eyes, he’s a lock for the vesting options.

by ubercubsfan on Feb 15, 2011 10:54 AM CST up reply actions  

If it's so easy to meet, why not just give him the 10 years?

My point was I think someone will give him 8-10 years. Messing around with vesting options (no matter how easy to reach) probably won’t be enough to get the deal done.

by JSB on Feb 15, 2011 11:15 AM CST up reply actions  

Usually if you guaranteeing years the total amount goes down with more years.

My proposal gives him the money he is seeking if he stays moderately healthy and plays 125-140 games a year in years 2015-2019. The reason for the vesting options is a just in case he blows out his elbow on the 4/5/6/7/8 years it gives the team a way out. 180MM/6yr is nothing to laugh at either.

by ubercubsfan on Feb 15, 2011 11:23 AM CST up reply actions  

Actually the 3 years is worse

Because if he has a major injury in either one of the three years he loses his guaranteed money.

by JSB on Feb 15, 2011 11:26 AM CST up reply actions  

Pujols with 2 normal seasons will be around or over 1300 plate appearances.

Then 200PA at 4AB a game would be about 50 games. So short of him losing an entire season, he will make that first vesting option for years 7/8.

by ubercubsfan on Feb 15, 2011 11:30 AM CST up reply actions  

Well that's up to him, isn't it?

If another team in the NL wants to offer him a straight 275-300MM/10yr deal, that’s on them. But I don’t know if that will happen from any team in the NL. An AL team might be willing to do that.

by ubercubsfan on Feb 15, 2011 11:33 AM CST up reply actions  

He's apparently already turned that down from the Cardinals

Albert wants a contract for the rest of his baseball lifetime. He’ll probably get it from someone.

by JSB on Feb 15, 2011 11:25 AM CST up reply actions  

Very sensible...

the problem is vainglory and pride: Lozano wants to take the belt from Boras; Pujols wants a contract that reflects his standing as the best in baseball. ARod has his money guaranteed, therefore Pujols wants his money guaranteed.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 11:24 AM CST up reply actions  

Well if the NL had the DH it would be easier to give the man more guaranteed money.

ARod can be put in the DH when he gets older, not so with Pujols if he stays in the NL. So teams will look at that when they give him money.

by ubercubsfan on Feb 15, 2011 11:27 AM CST up reply actions  

Agreed...

Playing in the AL will extend his usefulness by a lot.

Sign Rodrigo Lopez!!!

by guayzimi on Feb 15, 2011 11:28 AM CST up reply actions  

the only problem

is that the yanks have too many DH guys on their roster…ESPN was actually saying that the Yanks were going to sign him…I have begun to hate the ESPNFL network

by hansman1982 on Feb 15, 2011 2:39 PM CST up reply actions  

No doubt the Players Association is also putting the screws to him

to hit the market for the general well-being of the union brotherhood

by EalyEagle on Feb 15, 2011 11:37 AM CST up reply actions  

You guys realize that this entire Pujols contract thing...

is really just one gigantic elaborate troll on the entire Cub’s fan-base right?

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 15, 2011 11:13 AM CST reply actions  

...

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 15, 2011 12:40 PM CST up reply actions   2 recs

He has a shiny head

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." John Lennon
"My favorite food is Macaroni and Cheese, from the blue box." Geovany Soto

by Cubbiegoon on Feb 15, 2011 8:21 PM CST up reply actions  

...

If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.

by eths on Feb 17, 2011 1:56 AM CST up reply actions  

Couldn't have said it better myself, SWL

It’s now become borderline pathetic.

"I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die." - Anonymous

by Easy Ed on Feb 15, 2011 12:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Whats the over/under

on the number of minutes before noon tomorrow that a deal is announced?

by hansman1982 on Feb 15, 2011 2:45 PM CST reply actions  

I say it doesn't happen...

If St. Louis wanted to keep Albert this would have been done months ago with no
hoopla and no speculation. Just a report all over the place that St. Louis opened
the vault and backed the truck up.

I would LOVE to see him in Cubbie Blue next season… Do I think it’ll happen…

50/50…

Cubs fans, myself included have said for a long time we need a SUPER STAR…
Well here he is and he’s gonna be a FA at the end of the season.

Here’s the kicker… if you WANT a super star you have to PAY him a super star
salary. There’s no getting around it… no deal you can make especially for a FA
super star.

We have a ton of cash coming free at the end of the year and honestly I wanna
see them (Ricketts and company) open the vault and get him here. He is the
premier FA next year and the greatest active player today and probably the
greatest 1st basemen ever. A sure fire first ballot HoF’er and by all accounts a
great guy in and out of the club house.

R.I.P. Ronnie Santo... you will be missed...

by Endrick on Feb 15, 2011 2:53 PM CST up reply actions  

He's not signing tomorrow

It’s just not happening. Now maybe the Cardinals come to him in two weeks and say “We know about your deadline, but will you really turn down ten years and $280 million?” and Pujols will throw out his deadline. But it’s not getting done by tomorrow.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 15, 2011 2:59 PM CST up reply actions  

I tend to think the same thing...

…and yet, what I don’t get is, if they’re really not close to a deal, then what was the point of extending the last deadline by 24 hours? I mean, to me that says that they’re very close and are just working out a few details.

At any rate, I still don’t see any way he’s leaving the Cardinals.

by bluekoolaide on Feb 15, 2011 3:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Extension

The deadline was extended so it wouldn’t be as much of a distraction to Stan Musial’s award celebration.

by okiecubbie on Feb 15, 2011 4:14 PM CST up reply actions  

very true

I just think come tomorrow morning the Cards GM and owner will wake up and say, is today the day we piss off our fans over $15 mil a year (figure you have to pay a good 1bman around $15 million anyway), damnit Big Al is worth it…

by hansman1982 on Feb 15, 2011 5:08 PM CST up reply actions  

I think I'm

ok either way. If St Louis signs him they are going to hamstring their budget for the next decade. If they don’t, chances are we get him, and our team should have more resources to keep a competitive team around him, and St Louis can be bitter forever the way Boston is about Babe Ruth.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Feb 15, 2011 3:55 PM CST up reply actions  

That's where I am now

At first the idea of a 10 yr/30m contract seemed outrageous. But the more I thought about it, the more it makes sense. The Cubs have to at least bid on Pujols. Make the Cardinals pay for the nose to keep him. I would rather sign Pujols for $30m than miss out on Pujols and end up paying Fielder $20m + a 3rd or 4th starter $10m.

by JSB on Feb 15, 2011 4:03 PM CST up reply actions  

When the Cardinal announce that Holiday and Carpenter agreed to rework their contracts so that the team could resign Albert...

everyone will ohh and ahh.

What are the chances Soriano and Z agree to do something similar?

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 15, 2011 5:34 PM CST up reply actions  

Oh goodie...

now about my original question…

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 15, 2011 5:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Why should they?

Do you give money to your employee that you bargained for? I think not.

by JSB on Feb 16, 2011 10:24 AM CST up reply actions  

Howsabout Albert rework his contract so the Cards can resign Albert?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m 100% on the Sign Albert bandwagon should he become available, but I always have to laugh when I hear about players offering to rework their contracts to free up money. Wouldn’t be a need for that if the desired player wasn’t asking for so much money….

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 15, 2011 9:06 PM CST up reply actions  

Sure

I think my point was kinda buried and/or not very clear. Let me try again.

Bottom line: if the team/player/city situation is such that everyone is one big happy family and seriously want to work something out so everybody stays together for the rest of their careers and kitten and rainbow bobbleheads are given out to all the fans… well, then it shouldn’t be just the Carpenters and Hollidays of the world willing to rework their deals – the Pujols and the owners of the world ought to be adjusting their demands/offers as well. Share the love? Then share the “pain” as well.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 16, 2011 12:07 PM CST up reply actions  

I understand

and my angst is mostly with the people in STL that are getting angry about Pujols when he said that it wasnt about the money – of course it is, you want to get paid what you think you are worth and unfortunately ARod set the bar pretty high and Pujols is worth more than ARod was

by hansman1982 on Feb 16, 2011 7:16 PM CST up reply actions  

But that's the creedo of the MLPBA

players going for the max. Reworking a deal (didn’t Demp do that a couple years ago?) just pushes monies out on some deferral schedule, perhaps an interest payment or two and makes the near term annual costs lower.

95% of the players go for the max. Sure, we’ll see the “hometown” discount or something like that. But as long as the CBA is structured like it is and as long as the higher-ups of the MLBPA are what they are, this will continue.

Just win the next game...!

by blackhawk24 on Feb 17, 2011 5:48 AM CST up reply actions  

Ha

I think Pujols eventually resigns in St. Louis. But neither Holliday nor Carpenter are giving money back. Not gonna happen.

by JSB on Feb 16, 2011 10:24 AM CST up reply actions  

Ninety

…and I’ll take the under.

Announcement will come just before noon time Eastern.

Just win the next game...!

by blackhawk24 on Feb 16, 2011 7:13 AM CST up reply actions  

Don't know if it's been mentioned, but...
Tony La Russa said again Albert feeling pressure from union. Not just arm twisting. “Dropping an anvil on his back thru roof of his house.”

what a ****

by Bad Midget on Feb 15, 2011 4:23 PM CST reply actions  

That's what unions do for their members....

besides tell them when to stop working.

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 15, 2011 4:32 PM CST up reply actions  

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

this is a true leak from inside the Cubs org, can that be considered tampering?

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 15, 2011 6:34 PM CST reply actions  

It didn't come from the Cubs

but I suppose if it could be proven that someone with the Cubs said it, then yes.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 15, 2011 6:38 PM CST up reply actions  

Comcast just said

That the Cardinals came to Pujols with an offer for 8 years for just under $30M per. I’m not sure what “just under $30M” exactly means, but I think that $29M might be a better number.

If that’s really the case, there are only two reasons that I can think of as to why he won’t sign:

1) He is getting pressure from the union to squeeze every ounce of blood from this stone
2) He really doesn’t want to be a Cardinal anymore.

My prediction is more 1 than 2. I say that the Cards increase their offer a bit by Thursday at 12:00 EST (New deadline) and Pujols will remain a Card until the day he retires.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 15, 2011 6:54 PM CST reply actions  

This union stuff is a red herring

The point is he wants to make more than A-Rod.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 15, 2011 7:17 PM CST up reply actions  

That might not be possible though

How much more than this is he going to get in FA? I guess that’s the question he has to ask himself. He has a public profile to worry about as well. That is worth money too. How much of an ass is he going to look like if he gets only a bit more in FA than StL offered him?

I think he’s going to settle (settle???) with StL here. They’ll come up a bit. In the end, the risk that his public profile can go bad won’t be worth just the few million more than he can get in FA.

Somewhere, Prince Fielder is smiling, while eating a bag of Oreos.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 15, 2011 7:40 PM CST up reply actions  

a friend who is a Cardinals fan is saying that Pujols is pissing off many fans

he paraded around about wanting to be a Cardinal for life, following in the footsteps of Stan Musial, and wants to be on a competitive team, and now is asking for more money that they can likely afford

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 15, 2011 7:44 PM CST up reply actions  

At this point, I hope he signs with StL

Let them deal with that contract and know that one bad slide into a bag and they’re irrelevant for the remainder of the deal.

If Pujols and his agents turn StL down, they are going “All In” on what they think is going to be the actions of Tom Ricketts. Ricketts has no track record on signings like this. None. If Tom Ricketts is thinking to himself, “I just paid $900m for a baseball team, I’ve committed $200M to developments. There is no way I’m gong to pay one player $300M even if it is Pujols.”, they are screwed.

Everybody hates the Miami Heat now and they didn’t do anything wrong. This situation is starting to resemble that.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 15, 2011 8:04 PM CST up reply actions  

Entirely different from the Heat...

and Pujols and his agents are not going “all in” on Ricketts. There will be other suitors, to be sure.

by Kansas25 on Feb 15, 2011 8:15 PM CST up reply actions  

Who?

But better yet, who at that price level? By my math, there have been only 2 organizations that have signed a guy to over a $200M contract, the Yankees and the Rangers, neither of which is in on this round.

Is Pujols $116M better than Mauer? $120M better than Teixeira?

I don’t blame any organization to be getting scared of heights after $200M and Pujols and his agents are looking way past that. Boston has a 1bman, The Mets and Dodgers could be in a world of financial mess. The White Sox are out. Angels? Moreno hasn’t shown the capacity for a deal like this. He’s less likely than Ricketts. Philadelphia is out.

Who’s left? And, seriously, who’s left at the over $200M range? That is really starting to mess with personal fortunes of the individual owners at that point.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 15, 2011 8:25 PM CST up reply actions  

As you mention...

there aren’t any perfect suitors. But the Mets, Dodgers, and Angels will certainly explore the option. IIRC, Gonzalez hasn’t been signed to an extension but I’m not positive there. And I would never count out the Yankees, no matter the cost. The Giants might also be in the mix.

And hitting free agency doesn’t mean Pujols can’t resign with StL for the contract they’re offering now.

by Kansas25 on Feb 15, 2011 8:49 PM CST up reply actions  

Gonzalez has not signed

but he will. We’ll see how much.

I don’t doubt that teams will sniff around Pujols, but it’s hard to see how any of the teams mentioned would be willing to fork out over $200M for anyone. There simply is no track record of it. The Giants may be on the list, they’ve surprised in the past, but if Zito is still there and then knowing that Posey and the pitchers are going to be asking for a lot of cash themselves, I don’t see it.

If Ricketts bows out, who’s to say that the offer the Cardinals make now would still be there? Without the threat of the Cubs, the Cards wil lmost certainly take the offer off the table. They’d be stupid if they didn’t.

I’m confident in the assumption that this whole market is dependent upon what Ricketts might or might not do. If Pujols is getting offered $240M, he better understand what he’s doing if he turns that down. He very well might not get that chance again.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 15, 2011 9:01 PM CST up reply actions  

could boston be waiting

to offer a signable deal to Gonzalez based on what happens with Pujols? I really really hope they are, I would take Gonzalez and his contract over Pujols in a minute

by hansman1982 on Feb 16, 2011 10:36 AM CST up reply actions  

well then

Gonzalez and Pujols will hit the market next year in your scenario – in which case I want Gonzo

by hansman1982 on Feb 16, 2011 11:44 AM CST up reply actions  

I'm guessing Gonzalez is more untouchable than Pujols at this point.

He’s about to be on the Red Sox for life. I’m just thinking he isn’t signing the extension till next off-season when Pujols drives the market up.

by mic on Feb 16, 2011 12:48 PM CST up reply actions  

That's true

but it’s mostly because they ended up with LeBron and, in that situation, they didn’t do anything wrong.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 15, 2011 8:26 PM CST up reply actions  

i think more people hate LeBron

and he happens to wear a Heat jersey

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 15, 2011 8:40 PM CST up reply actions  

Fair enough

but at what point does Pujols public profile become toxic like LeBron’s? Perhaps it won’t ever become THAT toxic, but it might get toxic. A year ago at this time, LeBron was well-liked by the nation.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 15, 2011 8:43 PM CST up reply actions  

We can really get stuck in the details of an analogy like this

I’ll admit it’s not perfect.

However, Pujols could really come out looking like an ass through all of this. That is not where they want to be.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 15, 2011 8:48 PM CST up reply actions  

or hold a bash in Vegas and so on

Pujols might be looking to get paid big time, but he isnt a dumb ass who will act a fool in the process. Pujols also is not walking out on his home town team from childhood

The King James “Las Vegas Coverup”: Was It Really Neccesary?

LeBron James parties in Vegas . . . and ESPN yanks the story

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 15, 2011 9:27 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't recall a massive backlash against the Rangers when A-Rod signed there

A huge reason that an issue arose from the Heat hoopla is because LeBron and Bosh “chickened out,” and decided they needed to join with another superstar (Wade) to win championships. Pujols joining a past his prime Soriano and an aging Ramirez (barring an opt out) isn’t creating a “super team,” like the LeBron, Bosh, and Wade did.

GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.

by shoemile on Feb 15, 2011 10:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Baseball...

really isn’t comparable to basketball in this regard.

by Kansas25 on Feb 15, 2011 10:37 PM CST up reply actions  

But the difference is that Seattle

was never in on the bidding when he went to TX. They didn’t offer him a “fair” deal. If this report turns out to be true, StL would have offered him a “fair” deal and he would have turned it down for the chance to get at most 25% more – at most, and much of that is because of 2 extra years.

I’ll admit, it’s not a great analogy if you get too far into it. My point is simply that he could very easily become tainted through this process. If he turns StL down and they offer him $240M, that;s a huge step in that direction.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 15, 2011 10:39 PM CST up reply actions  

The Heatles? pfft......makes me sick

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." John Lennon
"My favorite food is Macaroni and Cheese, from the blue box." Geovany Soto

by Cubbiegoon on Feb 15, 2011 8:27 PM CST up reply actions  

absolutely not...

the cardinals gave him 108 million as a 3rd year player…not a discount at all. It turned out to be a great deal for the Cardinals, but that was absolutely top dollar for a player of his service time.

The Cardinals should have tried to renogatiate his deal about 3 years ago…they could’ve given him a 10 year deal at that time that would’ve ran until he was 38.

Of course, there have been ongoing concerns with both his foot and elbow like the past 3 offseasons so I can why they would want to see how that played out. If I recall correctly it was recommended that he have Tommy John surgery, but instead he just had some bone spurs removed.

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Feb 16, 2011 6:30 PM CST up reply actions  

You can say

he didn’t give the Cardinal a break and you might be right. But the issue isn’t whether or not it’s true. The issue is whether Albert thinks it’s true.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 16, 2011 6:32 PM CST up reply actions  

I wonder if the Cubs are willing to compete against other teams

to sign Pujols and/or Fielder.

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." John Lennon
"My favorite food is Macaroni and Cheese, from the blue box." Geovany Soto

by Cubbiegoon on Feb 15, 2011 8:24 PM CST reply actions  

i hope the Cubs get Fielder and Pujols is stuck with a 5 year $100M deal

and dont get me wrong, I would love to be stuck like that as well

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 15, 2011 8:40 PM CST up reply actions  

The Cubs have plenty of time to worry about that

after they win the World Series ;)

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." John Lennon
"My favorite food is Macaroni and Cheese, from the blue box." Geovany Soto

by Cubbiegoon on Feb 15, 2011 10:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Tim Brown tweet
Source close to Pujols camp: Reports of a Cardinals offer today to Pujols is, “inaccurate, reckless and outrageous.”

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." John Lennon
"My favorite food is Macaroni and Cheese, from the blue box." Geovany Soto

by Cubbiegoon on Feb 15, 2011 8:44 PM CST reply actions  

If that's true

then the Cardinals are leaking lies to make Pujols look bad. That’s not likely to make him happy.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 15, 2011 10:02 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm officially sold on Pujols

At first I was being too conservative, worrying the contract could be the second coming of Soriano.

Then I took another glance at my season ticket invoice.

Sorry, but if the Cubs want to continue charging some of the highest ticket prices in MLB, they need to start acting like the other top teams, specifically the Red Sox and Yankees. They need to make a serious play for this guy if he hits the open market.

Next offseason, Ricketts will be making one of two statements. Either he allows Hendry to spend all that money on guys who will make a difference, and lets the league know that they are, indeed, serious about winning. Or he could cut payroll even more, essentially giving the finger to some of the most loyal fans in sports. At that point, I would give the finger right back and tell them where to shove their Daily Plan. I think I got offered tickets at a great time. Next offseason will tell us everything we need to know about the Ricketts family and their long-term plans for the organization.

by bluemagic9 on Feb 15, 2011 10:57 PM CST reply actions  

Unfortunately

it looks like the Ricketts care more about how clean the ballpark is then the actual product on the field.

Just look at his comment in the interview:

I think we use it as just how indicative of how powerful an attraction Wrigley is from a tourism standpoint. And you know as well as anyone, you can be sitting next to someone from Ohio or Iowa.

I don’t know why, but I get a feeling that if the ballpark is clean and people are still buying tickets, Ricketts really doesn’t care. I mean every single major action or decision that’s been made since he’s been in charge has been about fixing the ballpark, getting better facilities, blah, blah, blah. It gets annoying. He says the same crap about building through the draft, player development, yet the Cubs were one of the bottom spenders in the draft last year and just traded away three of their top prospects for a pitcher who you could argue isn’t better than anything they had. . I’ll still give him time before I officially declare him a failure.

by Bad Midget on Feb 15, 2011 11:20 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't know what the Ricketts will do if Pujols hits the FA market

But it will go a long way in judging the ownership group, for better or worse.

GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.

by shoemile on Feb 16, 2011 12:01 AM CST up reply actions  

Seriously?

Building better facilities for players is KEY in contributing to better player development and fitness. Fixing a 100 year old building to ensure it can stand for another 50 is extremely important – just like the Red Sox did with Fenway. The draft money for 2010 was already set in the business plan and wasn’t expected to be changed by Ricketts, that kind of stuff doesn’t just happen in big businesses.

People seem to forget that the Cubs are a business, and things don’t change overnight in a multi million dollar business. It takes years to change the direction and set up proper business plans. The only thing that is getting annoying, are posts like this that expect instant gratification and are now damning the new owner for things he can’t change YET.

by bdlugz on Feb 16, 2011 11:40 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't know

I haven’t seen anything that suggests the Ricketts are going to spend large amounts of money on the team. They signed a couple of terrible latin players, one who couldn’t handle the Caribbean league, and haven’t landed any big foreign prospects. I know its been only about a year since his family has been in total control, but nothing he’s done has made me convinced he’s going to spend on the team and player development.

From ticket prices to asking the public for $200MM to renovate an ancient, urine-soaked ballpark, what exactly has he done that would instill confidence that he’s going to be a good owner? I just haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe, “wow, thank god we have the Ricketts running the team.” He’s slashed payroll, asked for $200MM in public money in a crappy economy to renovate a freaking baseball stadium, and frozen ticket prices, fantastic. Hooray, he’s going to spend a ton of money upgrading the facilities from shitty to reasonable, and a bunch of players are going to come here. Color me pessimistic.

by Bad Midget on Feb 16, 2011 3:26 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

It's also Albert Pujols

If you can, you do what you can to get a player like that. Players like Pujols don’t come around very often on the free agent market. If the Cubs don’t attempt to go after Pujols as a free agent, then you can criticize ownership all you want.

RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010) and Ron Santo (February 25, 1940-December 2, 2010).

by Ace Venom on Feb 16, 2011 3:45 PM CST up reply actions  

Thanks for the response

Like I said before, I’m not going to declare him a failure after just one year. It’s just more a feel I get. All I hear about from the Ricketts is the Wrigley experience, the atmosphere, the bleachers, nothing about actually having a concrete plan. Maybe he changes, who knows. All I know is that he hasn’t actually done anything that has instilled confidence in me.

by Bad Midget on Feb 16, 2011 4:41 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

He hasn’t done anything that would lead me to believe he has a plan that will work. Almost every move he’s made has been a massive failure in my book.

by Bad Midget on Feb 16, 2011 5:22 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

Please see my post above?

And what was a single “massive failure” that Ricketts was responsible for? And don’t say the draft, because as I stated, that was likely in the budget long before Ricketts took over the team.

by bdlugz on Feb 16, 2011 6:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Reasons that I stated above

The Ridiculous proposal for $200MM in public money to renovate a baseball stadium, the egregious ticket prices, the draft—please don’t tell me picking a 6th round talent in the first round is defensible. The overall lack of urgency, the reality show, Todd Ricketts. Claiming to want to rebuild yet trading away three top prospects for a pitcher who was nothing better than what they already had. Other than that, The Ticketts errrrrr Ricketts have been great.

by Bad Midget on Feb 16, 2011 6:25 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

Then we'll agree to disagree...

I think you’re picking and choosing some pretty ridiculous points of contention, but to each their own.

by bdlugz on Feb 17, 2011 8:50 AM CST up reply actions  

Rec'd

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 16, 2011 5:54 PM CST up reply actions  

You can do whatever you want, I'm not going to try and change your mind...

because personally, I just don’t care enough. Do I think it’s crazy that businesses get to use public money to upgrade facilities? Yeah, pretty much. But have dozens of other teams done exactly what the Cubs are looking to do? You bet.

Do two wrongs make a right? No, but you can’t blame them for at least asking.

by bdlugz on Feb 17, 2011 11:23 AM CST up reply actions  

To be fair...

Tom isn’t the one running TAE. That’s Joe’s thing.

Are you the same person as your father?

by bluemagic9 on Feb 18, 2011 12:15 AM CST up reply actions  

I met Tom several times before he owned the Cubs and he's every bit

the anti-taxer his dad is. He is a fundamentalist Friedmanite from the U of C’s business school.

by the nth on Feb 18, 2011 9:49 AM CST up reply actions  

I've simply got to ask...

How in a few meetings with Tom Ricketts you were able to understand his fiscal beliefs with such confidence you can claim something like this?

by bdlugz on Feb 18, 2011 10:41 AM CST up reply actions  

We met a few times at a bar in Evanston with mutual friends.

I got into it with Tom (good natured – lots of beer was consumed) As an old Keynesian econ major I always enjoy a good debate with U of C business school grads. I’m not a fan of Milton Friedman and most of them adore him.

by the nth on Feb 18, 2011 4:09 PM CST up reply actions  

What is the date...

that other clubs can negotiate with FA’s this year? Is it known yet, or does it depend on the exact day that the WS ends?

by kanderber on Feb 16, 2011 9:47 AM CST reply actions  

It looks like neither the extension to the deadline

nor the proposed deal from StL was truthful. So, I guess we’re back to where we were yesterday morning.

by jerry morales rules on Feb 16, 2011 9:49 AM CST reply actions  

In order

1) LaRussa is a jackhole

2) Cards were stupid to give Holliday that money without making sure Albert was OK

3) Even if deadline passes, Cards will still have inside track to re-sign him after season

4) I think Handy Manny and Kelly the Hardware Store Owner are doing it

"It's all in the game, yo"

by Worf on Feb 16, 2011 11:02 AM CST reply actions   1 recs

Huh? Doing what?

"I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die." - Anonymous

by Easy Ed on Feb 16, 2011 11:34 AM CST up reply actions  

I tried...I couldn't concentrate because of the pictures.

"I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die." - Anonymous

by Easy Ed on Feb 16, 2011 11:40 AM CST up reply actions  

I agree with 2, 3, 4

and dont care about 1

this shows that eyeing the short term prize over long term planning can blind even the best of organizations…

by hansman1982 on Feb 16, 2011 11:46 AM CST up reply actions  

On #4

Have you ever seen Manny pay Kelly for anything? How do you think she gets paid?

"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.

by RiskyBusiness on Feb 16, 2011 1:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Workbench

"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.

by RiskyBusiness on Feb 16, 2011 1:35 PM CST up reply actions  

Kelly is kinda hot though

Mayor Rosa looks like she could teach a young man a thing or 12 abot life too.

"It's all in the game, yo"

by Worf on Feb 16, 2011 1:38 PM CST up reply actions  

And the Dance Instructor is smokin

Samba!

"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.

by RiskyBusiness on Feb 16, 2011 1:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Attention...Attention please...

it is now past noon EST… The deadline has come…and gone. ALL Pujols comments must now cease. Tampering on BCB will NOT be tolerated. You can still wear your “I heart Albert” t-shirts, but, contract talk must stop. Further contract talk will resume again 5 days after the final out of the 2011 World Series. You’ll know, too…it’ll start with the $350M the Yankees will throw out there at the onset. Thank you for your time. I now return you to your favorite “Koyie Hill Rocks” thread. Good day.

"I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die." - Anonymous

by Easy Ed on Feb 16, 2011 12:00 PM CST reply actions  

Actually, noon my time is 1 hour past the deadline...

This is getting as bad as the LeBron BS last summer and we still have 8 1/2 months to go yet. I commend you, Al, on the “No More Pujols Posts” post. He’s the enemy for right now and thus should be treated as such…but, that’s just me.

"I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die." - Anonymous

by Easy Ed on Feb 16, 2011 5:24 PM CST up reply actions  

Maybe...

but this Pujolmania is just getting started. His FA is 8-9 months away and already people need bibs to catch the drool.

"I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die." - Anonymous

by Easy Ed on Feb 17, 2011 10:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Big difference though is that I don't see Albert contributing to any of the mania that will ensue

LeBron certainly did his part in stoking the fires, but for Albert, I believe the play’s the thing – he’s gonna let his bat do the talking.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 18, 2011 8:11 AM CST up reply actions  

I hope he stops talking to the media.

That will at least slow this frenzy down a little.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 18, 2011 10:55 AM CST up reply actions  

It will take more than

years for us to get over Pujols in a Cubs uni. Maybe a WS title or 2.

by Riney on Feb 16, 2011 6:49 PM CST up reply actions  

We got over Maddux in a Braves uniform

But of course, we all blamed Larry Himes from the beginning.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 16, 2011 10:20 PM CST up reply actions  

Imagine if he spent

the 1st decade of his career there…..

by Riney on Feb 17, 2011 12:58 PM CST up reply actions  

What was it that Pujols said about Wrigley...

…and its facilities? I don’t remember hearing those comments.

"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana

by calicubfan on Feb 16, 2011 7:15 PM CST up reply actions  

Guess I blew my prediction the announcement

would come between 10:30 and noon.

So now I’ll go out on a limb and say they will still get something done and it’ll be before any player can hit FA.

No way can the Red Birds let this guy go. Just can’t see it.

Just win the next game...!

by blackhawk24 on Feb 16, 2011 3:19 PM CST up reply actions  

I think he hits FA for all of about 10 seconds

Unless they blow him out of the water mid-season, I think he will hold to his promise to not sign until after the season.

But it can still be a done deal.

"It's all in the game, yo"

by Worf on Feb 16, 2011 3:24 PM CST up reply actions  

I hear that Pujols is looking to leave baseball after this year

With lance Armstrong going into Retirement 2.0, Pujols thinks he has a great chance to win multiple Tour de France races.

He does have the thighs for the alpine climbs.

"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.

by RiskyBusiness on Feb 16, 2011 12:52 PM CST reply actions  

Now that Pujols is going to test the Free Agent market

I think there should be a Front page poll on predictions where he will sign.

by Mitchener on Feb 16, 2011 1:42 PM CST reply actions  

If we can't have any more Pujols posts

what about some Brian Roberts or Jake Peavy posts?

by Josh Timmers on Feb 16, 2011 3:04 PM CST reply actions  

LIND!

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 16, 2011 3:04 PM CST up reply actions  

We're forgetting about Mark DeRosa

RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010) and Ron Santo (February 25, 1940-December 2, 2010).

by Ace Venom on Feb 16, 2011 3:49 PM CST up reply actions  

for the win

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 17, 2011 9:09 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm all for that.

Please do start it at your earliest convenience.

"I'm not a broadcaster! I'm me!"--Ron Santo

by chilango2 on Feb 16, 2011 6:33 PM CST up reply actions  

Its interesting

listening to all the MLB analyst’s out there. They are about as mixed as the BCBers. Some say he wiil stay, some say he will go. Some say the cubs will easily swoop in, some say the cubs new ownership can’t afford him. While it is all interesting, if the people that do this for a living cant agreee, then you know this will be a season long debate here, or until he signs somewhere.

As much attention as this has gotten, I find it hard to believe it will just go away for Albert until the end of the season. Heck, everybody KNEW CC was leaving the brewers, and still that was a topic that kept coming up.

"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical." -Yogi Berra

by imacubman on Feb 16, 2011 4:19 PM CST reply actions  

No.

:-)

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 16, 2011 5:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Awww Geeee Whizzz............

If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.

by eths on Feb 17, 2011 2:00 AM CST up reply actions  

This thing has been very tough on the poor cats over at Viva El Birdos

Some guy is saying if Pujols signs with us that he will be booed at every home game for the rest of his career? Because there are always lots of Cards fans at every Cubs home game.

Guess booing your greatest player every game for the rest of their career is what makes you the “best fans in baseball”.

Not everyone over there is that crazy though, most are just understandably pissed with the situation.

"Keep pushin' til' it's understood. And these badlands start treating us good."

by AussieCub on Feb 16, 2011 5:19 PM CST reply actions  

They booed Ted Lilly at the 2009 ASG

Can’t say I really have a high opinion of them.

RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010) and Ron Santo (February 25, 1940-December 2, 2010).

by Ace Venom on Feb 16, 2011 6:16 PM CST up reply actions  

He'll be loved in Chicago

as long as the Cubs win.

They’ll re-name it Pujols Field if he leads us to the WS Title. They’ll build a statue of him holding the statues of Banks and Santo in each hand.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 16, 2011 6:40 PM CST up reply actions  

Albertageddon?

= Bad Goat Lender

"Keep pushin' til' it's understood. And these badlands start treating us good."

by AussieCub on Feb 16, 2011 5:38 PM CST reply actions  

The Yankees

are not interested in Pujols, according to ESPN New York.

It makes sense since they don’t have any room of him and they need pitching more than anything. On top of that, a $30 million a year contract for Pujols is actually a $42 million dollar a year contract for the Yankees since they’re way over the luxury tax threshold.

But it’s mentioned for those who insist that the Yankees will sign every big name FA.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 16, 2011 6:43 PM CST reply actions  

They may not sign every big money FA , but...

they’re always players in the game.

"I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die." - Anonymous

by Easy Ed on Feb 16, 2011 10:20 PM CST up reply actions  

More from Heyman:

Three competing executives say they expect the rival Cubs to make a big push for Pujols and, indeed, they do look like the greatest outside possibility at the moment. Wouldn’t that cast him in a new light for Cardinal Nation? The Cubs have the resources and the need, and execs feel they will pursue either Prince Fielder or more likely Pujols.
“They’ll give him the A-Rod deal,‘’ one exec opined.
“They’ll give him $33 million or $34 million for seven years,’’ guessed another exec.

by Bad Midget on Feb 16, 2011 7:38 PM CST reply actions  

"over pay" to shorten it, not a bad idea

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 16, 2011 8:08 PM CST up reply actions  

AKA "The Hendy Special"

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 16, 2011 8:40 PM CST up reply actions  

It's a great idea

Because giving anyone a 10 year deal is a horrible idea, even for Pujols. If he insists on a ten year deal or nothing, he could find himself without a job in 2012 if all the GMs retain their collective sanity. No way do I want the Cubs to sign him to a ten year deal. If that’s going to happen, let it be the Cards.

"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008

by BeerCub on Feb 17, 2011 8:12 AM CST up reply actions  

Boy, I'm glad they like to guess with other people's money!

$33-34 million per year? Yikes!

If you think you've seen it all...just wait!

by CubFanSince1970 on Feb 17, 2011 9:13 AM CST up reply actions  

Take that for Lou Brock!!

"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.

by RiskyBusiness on Feb 17, 2011 10:06 AM CST up reply actions  

Something I need help understanding

Mozeliak said there won’t be any consideration of trading Pujols at the deadline, which I get because he doesn’t want to piss off Albert and ruin any chance of him re-upping with the Cards. But let’s say the Cards change their minds and decide to deal him at the deadline…why would Albert veto the deal? Just so he can give the Cards the big F.U.?

by EalyEagle on Feb 16, 2011 11:39 PM CST reply actions  

Because

he doesn’t want to be a rent-a-player for two months nor does he want to be negotiating a new contract with a new team at the trade deadline.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 17, 2011 12:04 AM CST up reply actions  

Likewise

He has a special needs child and I don’t believe that he want to uproot his family for two plus months.

"All I want is food and creative love" - Rusted Root

by TheRiot Police on Feb 17, 2011 8:54 AM CST up reply actions  

Maybe the best thing the Cubs do is drive up the price on the Cards

From reading Jeff Passan’s column today, if the cards still hold the advantage, that’s fine. The cubs should make sure they a steep price to keep Pujols.

If the Cubs can’t win on Pujols, make the cards lose on other players.

"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.

by RiskyBusiness on Feb 17, 2011 9:54 AM CST reply actions  

Pena, that is...OOPS!

ITS 2011, TIME TO GO TO CUBBIE HEAVEN!

by superdave72760 on Feb 17, 2011 11:07 AM CST reply actions  

Pujols Press Conference in Fla...

I’ve been watching this on MLB Network and I have to say as much as I respect
him for his talent on the field, my respect for him off the field has gone up a notch.

The Deadline…
He initially set the deadline for yesterday, but when the Stan Musial event was
announced he shifted it to today and stayed out of camp an extra day so the media
frenzy didn’t take away from Stan Musial’s day.
To me that speaks volumes about his respect for the men who came before him.

The Press Conference…
He’s said he doesn’t want to negotiate in the press and from what I saw, he’s going
to stick to it. He never mentioned numbers, years or any details. Everytime some
writer asked a loaded question about he stuck to his guns.
I had to laugh a little when one of the writers asked why he won’t talk about it and
why he has the deadline he laughed, looked around at the zoo of reporters and
said something to the effect of “you really have to ask that question?”
He was firm about not talking details, didn’t say anything that might be taken as
using the media to negotiate.

The real question is will the media respect his wish to not talk about this all season?
LOL SNORT CHUCKLE Falls out of wheelchair holding his sides

My prediction is they’ll keep pushing and pushing and Albert is going to stop talking
to the media. About the only thing he can do to drive the point home is if they keep
trying to get him to talk about it is:

a.) Remind them a time or two and stick to his guns on this and failing that.
b.) Walk out of after game press conferences if the question gets asked.

If… if… Albert goes FA… I want him in Cubbie Blue…

I think I have a man crush…

R.I.P. Ronnie Santo... you will be missed...

by Endrick on Feb 17, 2011 11:40 AM CST reply actions  

We know or should know that

Sir Albert wants to be a Cardinal for the rest of his career. IMO he will test the FA market and then ultimately re-up with the Cards, which is the same as Holliday did.

Anything can happen between now and the end of the year, but I’ll choose to concentrate on the Cubs in 2011.

by Swoosie on Feb 17, 2011 4:12 PM CST reply actions  

Michael Wilbon says Pujols should sign with the Cubs. And I agree with his reasoning 100%.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 18, 2011 12:48 PM CST reply actions  

Included in that article

is an awesome illustration of Pujols at Wrigley in a Cub uniform.

It makes way too much sense for Pujols to come to the Cubs for it not to happen if St. Louis isn’t willing to payhim.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 18, 2011 4:02 PM CST up reply actions  

That's a great article and it all makes perfect sense.

But in our heart of hearts can we really see Pujols in a Cubs uniform?

Head says “yes,” heart says “no way on god’s green earth.”

"Keep pushin' til' it's understood. And these badlands start treating us good."

by AussieCub on Feb 18, 2011 6:20 PM CST up reply actions  

Here's something else to chew on...

Much to the chagrin of Doggie, Al and others, Cubs have continued to raise ticket prices in past few years, even in the face of falling attendance.

Hop aboard the “What if…” Express and ask yourself how ticket sales would go for 2012 if the Cubs actually do sign Pujols. And then think about all those tickets being sold at the now higher prices and do the math.

Cha-ching!!!!!!!!

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 18, 2011 2:44 PM CST reply actions  

Well, exactly.

That could pay for a good chunk of the contract.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 18, 2011 5:25 PM CST up reply actions  

Why?

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 18, 2011 5:25 PM CST up reply actions  

Is the money worrying you?

"Keep pushin' til' it's understood. And these badlands start treating us good."

by AussieCub on Feb 18, 2011 6:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes, it has to do with the money.

If I could sign 3 or 4 good players for about what Pujols would sign, I would. What happens if he get injured? What are you left with? Pujols is definitely worth that much .. just don’t know if you can really build a championship contender with 20 percent of the payroll going to one player.

Screw the haters. It's Cutler time.

by lexmarklover on Feb 19, 2011 4:42 PM CST up reply actions  

what happens if anyone gets injured

you cannot sign players with that fear. its like going on a date and being worried she wont like your socks

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 19, 2011 6:03 PM CST up reply actions  

No chance.

My socks are AWESOME.

"This is a football." "Slow down, coach! You're goin' too fast!"

by Cool Hand on Feb 20, 2011 10:57 AM CST up reply actions  

Comments from Rickets on signing a big free agent next year

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=6139075

Do people think Rickets is still gonna pass on Pujols?

It looks like if Pujols accepted less years then the Cubs will be willing to throw him a lot of money.

by Mitchener on Feb 19, 2011 3:23 PM CST reply actions  

I think the Ricketts have to at least try.

The backlash if they don’t would be awful.

GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.

by shoemile on Feb 19, 2011 7:26 PM CST up reply actions  

I think it's way too early to tell.

Obviously, he can’t say anything about Pujols because of the tampering rules.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like he is definitely on the Cubs radar.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 19, 2011 7:51 PM CST up reply actions  

Everyone thinks

the Cubs are “in” on Pujols. Overpaying Pena to take a one-year deal was part of that, although I think at the time they were thinking more “Gonzalez” or “Fielder” than “Pujols.”

But every indication is that the Cubs were setting up for a major free agent signing at first base next winter.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 19, 2011 9:25 PM CST up reply actions  

Well it's all dependent on Pujols actually reaching FA

If that does happen, and the Ricketts don’t make him a target, then the fanbase is not going to be happy.

GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.

by shoemile on Feb 19, 2011 10:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Agreed.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 20, 2011 8:09 AM CST up reply actions  

Kenny Williams

He goes off on a $30M/year player:

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=6147503

I have to say, for once, I agree with the guy, especially about a cap. Teams like the Pirates and Royals don’t have a chance when the season starts, and that’s not fair for their fans.

That said, if you’re going to cap team payrolls, you’ll have to also establish a minimum that teams can spend. As the article states, the Pirates and Padres are spending $35M & $38m respectively this year, which is equally as gross as the Yankees spending over $200M.

Scott Bora$ is satan.

by Canadian Cubs Fan on Feb 22, 2011 6:13 PM CST reply actions  

Kenny Williams

was just taking a pre-emptive shot at the Cubs there.

And as far as that “Pirates and Royals” stuff, people used to say the same stuff about the Rays and the Twins. Yet they seem to find a way to win anyway. Not having as much money hurts those teams because they aren’t allowed to make the same kinds of mistakes, but the biggest problem with the Pirates and the Royals over the past 20 years is that they’ve been run my morons. If you have a “salary floor,” those teams will just give bigger contracts to Derek Bell and Jeff Francoeur.

At least KC seems to get it now (Francoeur notwithstanding.) They’ve got the best farm system of any team in over a decade.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 23, 2011 4:59 AM CST up reply actions  

I agree to some extent

with a lot of what you’re saying. No, you can’t guarantee that teams will spend or develop wisely, but the Pirates aren’t even playing the same game as Yankees or Red Sox. When the league has one player making almost as much as another teams 25 man roster, there are structural problems that need to be addressed.

Nice Derek Bell reference, BTW…haven’t thought of that guy since Woody whiffed him to end the 20K game.

Scott Bora$ is satan.

by Canadian Cubs Fan on Feb 23, 2011 6:04 AM CST reply actions  

Oops!

Meant that as a reply to Josh :)

Scott Bora$ is satan.

by Canadian Cubs Fan on Feb 23, 2011 6:04 AM CST up reply actions  

Buster Olney on Pujols and the Cubs

Insider req.

The gist of the article is that the Cubs are going to be under tremendous pressure to sign Pujols if he hits the open market and that the Cubs are going to have enough money falling off the books to pay for him. If the Cubs don’t make a move for Albert, then the Ricketts family will forever get branded as “cheap,” which is not a good label for an owner to get. On top of that, every game the Cubs lose in 2012 will be met with cries of “We would have won with Pujols.” He says if the Ricketts make a serious attempt and that Pujols decides to stay in St. Louis anyway, the fans and the media would accept that. But for the Ricketts not to make a serious effort would be a disaster.

I’m just going to add that the last time the Cubs had the best player in baseball playing for them, they were called the White Stockings and it was the 1880s with Cap Anson.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 23, 2011 6:19 PM CST reply actions  

I beg to differ with one part of your post.

I agree, the Cubs almost have to go after Pujols for exactly that reason.

In 1958 and 1959, the Cubs probably had the best player in baseball in Ernie Banks. Too bad the rest of the team was so awful.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 23, 2011 9:09 PM CST up reply actions  

I disagree

He was the best player in the National League. The best player in baseball was Mickey Mantle.

I’m more going on what a player’s skill was over time. Sure, you can argue that Banks had a better 1959 than Mantle did. Ryne Sandberg probably had the best season of anyone in baseball in 1984. But that’s one year’s result. The best overall player in the game over the late 50s and early 60s was Mantle.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 23, 2011 10:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Best overall player in late 50s and early 60s - Mantle over Mays?

Had you said hitter, I might have let it slide, though I’d be inclined to look up Williams’ stats and compare. But when you say overall, I gotta give it to Mays – I don’t know the best way to compare them offensively, but I’d say it be close no matter what stat you use. Mays getting a gold glove every year seals it for me though. Mick only had one.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 24, 2011 7:36 AM CST reply actions  

Mantle was a great fielder

he wasn’t as good as Mays, but he was very good. At least in the 1950s before his knees got shot. By the 1960s, not so much.

The Gold glove issue is that they didn’t start giving out gold gloves until 1957, and not separate ones for each league until 1958. That meant that after they gave out the gloves to Al Kaline and Jimmy Piersall, there was only one left which they seemed to want to give to Jim Landis.

Besides, are we really going to judge fielding ability on the basis of gold glove voters in 1958?

But if you want to make a case for Mays (or even Aaron) being the best player in baseball in the late 50s, I can’t really argue with you. It’s not like Mantle is head and shoulders ahead of them. The Mantle vs. Mays argument dates back to when they both were rookies. They are both among the greatest ten players to ever play the game.

But I will grant Al this one point: Ernie Banks had the best season in all of baseball in 1959, and it’s not even particularly close. So if you want to say Ernie Banks was the best player in all of baseball for 1959, I guess I have to agree.

by Josh Timmers on Feb 24, 2011 1:14 PM CST up reply actions  

I certainly realize the folly and limitations of GG awards today...

…I guess I was hoping they stayed closer to their true intent in the early years. i.e. defense was paramount, offense not so much.

But the only reason I brought it up was upon looking at the baseball-reference pages for both guys, in that last column, seems like pretty much every year, Mantle had AS,MVP-# listed, but Mays did him one better with AS, MVP-#, GG listed.

At least during the time period in question (late 50s, early 60s). I still wake up in a cold sweat sometimes thinking about how Mays looked in a Mets uniform at end of his career… (shudder…)

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 24, 2011 4:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bleed Cubbie Blue, the Chicago Cubs blog for the SB Nation, created on February 9, 2005 by Al Yellon

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Maybe it's time to take a deep breath

Recent FanPosts

Seinfeld_jerk_store_black_shirt_small
Cubs pitching problems answered!
Zambrano_background_2_small
What is the most likely move in June regarding current players?
Small
Draft Prep: Pierce Johnson
Small
Trying to be positive (need some help)
Small
Soriano back to Second?
Small
Javier Baez Peoria Bound?
Small
Draft Prep: Conference Tournament Version
Despite-an-inflated-babip-lahair-is-no-one-month-wonder
Suddenly, I feel your pain
Small
Start of the LaHair Regression?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Former MLB PItcher Bob Ojeda On Pitching And Pain
Wrigley Field Supporters Propose Tearing Down Rest Of Chicago
Doug Glanville On His Teammate, Kerry Wood
Thanks.
Samardzija takes a dig at Hawk Harrelson

Recent FanShots

Baez to Peoria
2012 Stars and Stripes Hat
Sveum moves Castro back to #2 spot
OT: Tyler Colvin bats 2nd
The Pittsburgh Pirates Offensive Catastrophe
Roy Halladay Bobblehead Fail
Full sized image
All The Topps Baseball Card Cubs, 1951 - 2012

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Featured Poll

Poll
Should the National League adopt the designated hitter rule?

  997 votes | Results

Cubs By The Numbers

Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.

Click here to order your copy, available now!

Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads

Yahoo_full_count

Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges


Managing Editor

Alyellontoppscard_small Al Yellon

Front Page Contributors

Profile_small Josh Timmers

B_w_avatar_small Brett Taylor

Marvin_the_martian_small Shawn Domagal-Goldman

Other Contributors

Toonmike_small Mike Bojanowski

Dsc_0139_small David Sameshima