Hendry gone from the Cubs?

[Clark]

Just curious. What numbers do you think the Cubs could get Fielder or Pujols for?

First, I think the market for both will be limited to about 5 teams (STL, Washington, Mil, Cubs, Texas)

I think Pujols will get about 25-30/year for about 6 or 7 years. (150-200 million) I think it will be somewhere in between, probably close to 190 million total over 7 years. I've been seeing people throw around 10/300 for him, which is utterly ridiculous. Really, 27 mil a year for seven years isn't a horrible deal for Pujols.

I think Fielder will be in the same neighborhood in terms of years, but the dollar value will be around the 125-150 million mark over 7 years. For Fielder it depends on how many teams get in the race for him. While the dollar value on him is less, I believe it would be better to pay an extra 7 million a year for the less risky Pujols.

The key thing to remember is that the high revenue teams either are cash strapped right now (Mets, Dodgers) or already have high dollar first basemen (Boston, NYY, Det) There just aren't enough teams that are in the market for a first baseman who are also willing to fork over a 100+ million contract to drive up the price.

 

[hawkfarmer]

First, I think the market for both will be limited to about 5 teams (STL, Washington, Mil, Cubs, Texas)

I think Pujols will get about 25-30/year for about 6 or 7 years. (150-200 million) I think it will be somewhere in between, probably close to 190 million total over 7 years. I've been seeing people throw around 10/300 for him, which is utterly ridiculous. Really, 27 mil a year for seven years isn't a horrible deal for Pujols.

I think Fielder will be in the same neighborhood in terms of years, but the dollar value will be around the 125-150 million mark over 7 years. For Fielder it depends on how many teams get in the race for him. While the dollar value on him is less, I believe it would be better to pay an extra 7 million a year for the less risky Pujols.

The key thing to remember is that the high revenue teams either are cash strapped right now (Mets, Dodgers) or already have high dollar first basemen (Boston, NYY, Det) There just aren't enough teams that are in the market for a first baseman who are also willing to fork over a 100+ million contract to drive up the price.

I would say those are the numbers I had heard. My concern is the years of committment to the players. The cubs have been burnt by that at the end of deals, and if you can get a 4 or 5 good years at the beginning great, but what if you waste the first 2 or 3 years on bad teams. Then what. The numbers you threw out aren't bargains.

 

[woodyk1]

First, I think the market for both will be limited to about 5 teams (STL, Washington, Mil, Cubs, Texas)

I think Pujols will get about 25-30/year for about 6 or 7 years. (150-200 million) I think it will be somewhere in between, probably close to 190 million total over 7 years. I've been seeing people throw around 10/300 for him, which is utterly ridiculous. Really, 27 mil a year for seven years isn't a horrible deal for Pujols.

I think Fielder will be in the same neighborhood in terms of years, but the dollar value will be around the 125-150 million mark over 7 years. For Fielder it depends on how many teams get in the race for him. While the dollar value on him is less, I believe it would be better to pay an extra 7 million a year for the less risky Pujols.

The key thing to remember is that the high revenue teams either are cash strapped right now (Mets, Dodgers) or already have high dollar first basemen (Boston, NYY, Det) There just aren't enough teams that are in the market for a first baseman who are also willing to fork over a 100+ million contract to drive up the price.

I think it is possible Anaheim and San Francisco might be in there as well. Long shots, but possible. However, as proven with Soriano (although we will have a new GM, Crane Kennedy is still there) sometimes it only takes 2 to tango.

I would not give either of these 2 players 7 years. Pujols may be at the beginning of the decline (and not really 31 years old ) and Fielder does not have the body type for long term success as a 1B (DH maybe).

 

[tm3308]

I think it is possible Anaheim and San Francisco might be in there as well. Long shots, but possible. However, as proven with Soriano (although we will have a new GM, Crane Kennedy is still there) sometimes it only takes 2 to tango.

I would not give either of these 2 players 7 years. Pujols may be at the beginning of the decline (and not really 31 years old ) and Fielder does not have the body type for long term success as a 1B (DH maybe).

Agreed on both counts, especially Fielder. I've been wary about him because he's just like his dad. Once his power starts to dwindle, his value will disappear in a hurry. He's not a good defensive player who can't run. Not that Pujols can run with Brett Gardner by any means, but he is a terrific first baseman who hits for high average. Fielder, pending the final results of this season, has never hit over .300. Meanwhile, Pujols (again, pending this season's results) has never hit BELOW .312.

Not sure that either are guys that I want us to go after, but Pujols is the less risky, more valuable option, IMO. His consistently better play over Fielder is enough for me to overlook Prince's age (especially considering that Fielder's body will not age well).

 

[hawkfarmer]

Agreed on both counts, especially Fielder. I've been wary about him because he's just like his dad. Once his power starts to dwindle, his value will disappear in a hurry. He's not a good defensive player who can't run. Not that Pujols can run with Brett Gardner by any means, but he is a terrific first baseman who hits for high average. Fielder, pending the final results of this season, has never hit over .300. Meanwhile, Pujols (again, pending this season's results) has never hit BELOW .312.

Not sure that either are guys that I want us to go after, but Pujols is the less risky, more valuable option, IMO. His consistently better play over Fielder is enough for me to overlook Prince's age (especially considering that Fielder's body will not age well).

All good points. If the cubs could get 5 year deals on either of these guys (never gonna happen) that would be ideal. However, depending on who the Ricketts hire I'm hoping that a guy wouldn't even entertain the idea of spendign that much on that many years (7 or8 ). That's definitely a hendry move.

 

[Clark]

A) it's not your money, nor will it prevent them from improving the farm system

B) It's not like the Cubs have a great option in the minor leagues for first base


Just because the Cubs aren't likely to be contending next year doesn't mean they shouldn't be trying to improve the club. What else are the Cubs going to spend that money on this winter? If there were other good players to go after, I could see keeping Pena and fixing that hole at a later date.

The 3b crop is horrendous (which is why we should pick up A-Ram's option)

The outfield group isn't much better. I mean seriously, Carlos Beltran is the best outfielder available. no thanks.

SP would be nice, but after CJ Wilson, I don't really like any of the rest and I think the competition on him will be ridiculous.

Also, just because I'm in favor of signing Pujols doesn't mean I'm not in favor of trading just about everyone else on that roster outside of Castro.

 

[Clark]

All good points. If the cubs could get 5 year deals on either of these guys (never gonna happen) that would be ideal. However, depending on who the Ricketts hire I'm hoping that a guy wouldn't even entertain the idea of spendign that much on that many years (7 or8 ). That's definitely a hendry move.

If the Cubs won't ever consider a 7 year deal, I'm done being a Cubs fan. Theo Epstein is the best GM in baseball and just gave up two huge seven year deals in one offseason.

You act like the Cubs are operating at the Pirates income level.

Obviously it's important to choose the right players to give those deals to but to choose not to do them at all would eliminate any benefits of being a large revenue team.

I'm not saying give a 7 year deal to a player with horrendous defense and low OBP skills (hello mr. Soriano). I'm talking about giving a 7 year deal to the best baseball player in the game.

 

[ssckelley]

If Lehair could hit .280 with Pena like power in the majors, he wouldn't be playing in AAA in his late 20's.

How do we know he can't? He got 136 At Bats with Seattle back in 2008 and he batted .250 with 3 Homers. While he is not as good defensively as Pena I would trade better offensive numbers than defensive any day at first base. LaHair also has experience playing in left field which could set up a potential platoon situation with Soriano.

With what the Cubs have in their system, there is no reason not to kick the tires on Fielder or Pujols. They wouldn't help for next year necessarily but contending in 2013 isn't out of the question.

This will be a multi-step rebuilding process. While it's true that the Cubs likely won't be true contenders until 2014 at the earliest, you can't expect to fill every hole in one offseason. Since the Cubs don't have a 1b of the future why not fill that hole now while there are two elite players available. I really think the Cubs will get one of them and I think it will cost less than many people are predicting.

I agree! But because you are building for 2013 I think the Cubs are better off going after Fielder who is 4 years younger rather than Pujols. It is not very often a 27 year old elite talent like Fielder comes available in free agency. Pujols is already 31 and is coming off a down year, is this a sign he is not invincible? The Cubs need to avoid throwing another huge long term contract at a player that is on the backside of his career (see Soriano). Don't get me wrong I would love to see either in a Cub uniform but out on the open market but I can see someone giving Pujols that 8-10 year contract at 25+ million per year he is looking for. Since the Cubs already have some expensive contracts they are already eating I do not think they can afford to chance on another one.

 

[ColumbusHawk]

Thirty years ago the Cubs began changing the losing culture. The Cubs were on their way to becoming one of the top organizations in baseball. In 1981, the Cubs hired Dallas Green to be the general manager. Green came in fresh from winning the World Series as manager of the Phillies, into an absolute hell hole of an organization.

All he did in his tenure was challenge the losing culture, take on the neighborhood in a fight that eventually led to lights at Wrigley Field, re-shaped the roster in short order to be a contender in less than two seasons, made a widely unpopular trade for future hall of famer Ryne Sandberg, and rebuilt a barren farm system.

His farm director Gordon Goldsberry re-shaped the Cubs system that eventually produced Greg Maddux, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark Grace, Jamie Moyer, Joe Girardi, Dave Martinez, Shawon Dunston & others, including the 1989 Rookie of the Year Jerome Walton.

Green's biggest downfall was his huge ego and thirst for power. He clashed many times with Tribune brass and wanted the team presidency which he eventulally got. In addition, Jim Frey was manuevering behind the scenes with the Tribune to replace Green. Green also by all accounts had the personality of an ashtray.

After the 1987 season, Green wanted to hire John Vukovich as manager. The Tribune said no, and suggested Green himself manage the club. Rumor is that if Green became manager, Jim Frey would become the general manager. Exit Green. He left just before all his work could have really paid off.

At the time of his abrupt departure, the Cubs were considered to have the best farm system in baseball. Look at the roster of the '89 team that had the best record in the National League. The team was loaded with players developed by the farm system. Plus, the Cubs should have had Rafael Palmeiro & Lee Smith on that team.

The Cubs then hired Jim Frey as GM, Frey quickly got rid of Goldsberry & decimated the scouting staff. He then got rid of Lee Smith which then led to the trading of Palmeiro and Moyer.

The Lee Smith deal is every bit as bad as the Lou Brock trade. Smith was traded the Red Sox for Al Nipper & Calvin Schiraldi because Smith was "washed up" according to Fry. Smith would go on to save almost three hundred games after leaving the Cubs. Nipper would pitch exactly eighty inning for the Cubs with a 2-4 record. Schiraldi would go 12-19 on one plus seasons with the Cubs. Near the end of the '89 season, Schiraldi was shipped to the Padres along with Darren Jackson, one of the many Cubs' top prospects, & a player to be named to the Padres for Luis Salazar & Marvell Wynne.

The Palmeiro trade was almost as bad as the Smith deal. You may view Palmeiro's career differently due to PED's but let's face it, he was a very talented hitter without them.

Frey and his farm director then went on to set the franchise back for ages with just horrid, horrid drafts.

The Cubs should have been a power house had Green stayed and put the right pieces around that nucleus. Maddux, Grace, Sandberg, Palmeiro, Moyer were some of the 90's best players. Together with Dunson & other players the farm system would have produce, the Cubs should have been a very good team for many years.

In the seven seasons that Dallas Green was running the baseball operations, the Cubs produced more talent than they have done in the past twenty-four years. The Tribune & Jim Frey ruined everything.

 

[hawkfarmer]

A) it's not your money, nor will it prevent them from improving the farm system

B) It's not like the Cubs have a great option in the minor leagues for first base


Just because the Cubs aren't likely to be contending next year doesn't mean they shouldn't be trying to improve the club. What else are the Cubs going to spend that money on this winter? If there were other good players to go after, I could see keeping Pena and fixing that hole at a later date.

The 3b crop is horrendous (which is why we should pick up A-Ram's option)

The outfield group isn't much better. I mean seriously, Carlos Beltran is the best outfielder available. no thanks.

SP would be nice, but after CJ Wilson, I don't really like any of the rest and I think the competition on him will be ridiculous.

Also, just because I'm in favor of signing Pujols doesn't mean I'm not in favor of trading just about everyone else on that roster outside of Castro.

Ok, I agree that making the team better is great, but how does adding 1 player help that. The cubs aren't going to be able to make great strides as not that much money comes off the books at the end of the season.

Silva, Fukudome, Pena, and that is it, if they pickup the option on Ramirez, which like you said I think they should as well, he's the best 1 year option. Do you want to invest all that money you take off the books on 1 player for 7 to 8 years. Like I said sign them for 4 or 5 years, but not 7 or 8. It's too risky. I agree that most of the FA this year aren't as attractive as they will be in a few years. Now what I say is you try to trade Z and pay his contract, which will hold you down for a year, but that's all. Then after next year reconvene and see what you have for options.

But again the cubs aren't going to solve any problems with a few big name free agents. They need to work on the farm system. And if you save money on the big league team you can invest that into the farm system. They've got some young guys that can play. Jackson for example, and give LaHair a shot this fall and see what you can get out of him possibly for next year. The reason he hasn't been called up is due to Pena being there. I say trade Byrd, you could get a decent prospect for him and then just let Jackson play.

I'm not saying don't get Fielder or Pujols, but don't break the bank for them, or commit for too long.

 

[Clark]

Ok, I agree that making the team better is great, but how does adding 1 player help that. The cubs aren't going to be able to make great strides as not that much money comes off the books at the end of the season.

Silva, Fukudome, Pena, and that is it, if they pickup the option on Ramirez, which like you said I think they should as well, he's the best 1 year option. Do you want to invest all that money you take off the books on 1 player for 7 to 8 years. Like I said sign them for 4 or 5 years, but not 7 or 8. It's too risky. I agree that most of the FA this year aren't as attractive as they will be in a few years. Now what I say is you try to trade Z and pay his contract, which will hold you down for a year, but that's all. Then after next year reconvene and see what you have for options.

But again the cubs aren't going to solve any problems with a few big name free agents. They need to work on the farm system. And if you save money on the big league team you can invest that into the farm system. They've got some young guys that can play. Jackson for example, and give LaHair a shot this fall and see what you can get out of him possibly for next year. The reason he hasn't been called up is due to Pena being there. I say trade Byrd, you could get a decent prospect for him and then just let Jackson play.

I'm not saying don't get Fielder or Pujols, but don't break the bank for them, or commit for too long.

Yes, I'm saying spend the money saved on those three contracts coming off the books on Pujols. I agree that it won't help make the 2012 team any better (in fact spreading that money around would actually do the 2012 club more good) However, I thought we agreed that the 2012 team is a lost cause anyway? What difference does it make if the 2012 teams is basically this craptastic team and Pujols or this craptastic team and 4 other lesser players. Then after the 2012 season when more contracts come off the books, address a few more areas, and repeat. Hopefully by the time 2014 rolls around the Cubs will have a good farm system and 5-6 elite players to build around.

Just to make clear, no signing or trade should in any way take away from the farm system until they're ready to compete. I don't believe signing Pujols would, but if it did I'd reconsider that deal.

 

[hawkfarmer]

Yes, I'm saying spend the money saved on those three contracts coming off the books on Pujols. I agree that it won't help make the 2012 team any better (in fact spreading that money around would actually do the 2012 club more good) However, I thought we agreed that the 2012 team is a lost cause anyway? What difference does it make if the 2012 teams is basically this craptastic team and Pujols or this craptastic team and 4 other lesser players. Then after the 2012 season when more contracts come off the books, address a few more areas, and repeat. Hopefully by the time 2014 rolls around the Cubs will have a good farm system and 5-6 elite players to build around.

Just to make clear, no signing or trade should in any way take away from the farm system until they're ready to compete. I don't believe signing Pujols would, but if it did I'd reconsider that deal.

So you think 7-8 years for Pujols or Prince is a good idea? At that money it is not good. I like your premise, but the execution isn't ideal in my opinion.

 

[Clark]

So you think 7-8 years for Pujols or Prince is a good idea? At that money it is not good. I like your premise, but the execution isn't ideal in my opinion.

No for Prince, yes for Pujols. Even if he's 33 rather than 31, that still only puts him at 40 for the last year. I wouldn't want to give that contract to any other 30-something. First of all, Pujols plays a position where it's easier to say healthy and play longer than other positions. He's a good athlete, which will help him age more gracefully.

Also, 7 years is as long as I would go. I'd prefer 6 but I don't think 6 gets it done.

 

[tm3308]

If the Cubs won't ever consider a 7 year deal, I'm done being a Cubs fan. Theo Epstein is the best GM in baseball and just gave up two huge seven year deals in one offseason.

You act like the Cubs are operating at the Pirates income level.

Obviously it's important to choose the right players to give those deals to but to choose not to do them at all would eliminate any benefits of being a large revenue team.

I'm not saying give a 7 year deal to a player with horrendous defense and low OBP skills (hello mr. Soriano). I'm talking about giving a 7 year deal to the best baseball player in the game.

Crawford and Gonzo are not Pujols, in more ways than one. They were 29 and 28, respectively, when they signed those 7-year contracts. Pujols is AT LEAST 31 years old, and Fielder is 27, but with a body that is not going to age well. His career will be several years shorter than Gonzo's, barring injuries in Boston.

It's true that Pujols is, has been, and will be the best player in the game. But he's likely not that far away from decline, as the first signs have shown themselves this year. I don't think it's going to be a very steep decline (Prince's will be), but it'll be a decline nonetheless.

Hawkfarmer wasn't suggesting that we never give out a 7-year deal (At least I don't think he is). He just doesn't think we should give one out to Pujols or Fielder. And I agree, though Pujols would be the only guy I would ever even consider pulling that trigger on.

 

[hawkfarmer]

Crawford and Gonzo are not Pujols, in more ways than one. They were 29 and 28, respectively, when they signed those 7-year contracts. Pujols is AT LEAST 31 years old, and Fielder is 27, but with a body that is not going to age well. His career will be several years shorter than Gonzo's, barring injuries in Boston.

It's true that Pujols is, has been, and will be the best player in the game. But he's likely not that far away from decline, as the first signs have shown themselves this year. I don't think it's going to be a very steep decline (Prince's will be), but it'll be a decline nonetheless.

Hawkfarmer wasn't suggesting that we never give out a 7-year deal (At least I don't think he is). He just doesn't think we should give one out to Pujols or Fielder. And I agree, though Pujols would be the only guy I would ever even consider pulling that trigger on.

I wasn't. I feel that 7 year contracts are for guys that you had in your farm system and had a few great years for you and when you have to give them a contract you make it worth their while, like what I expect Cincy will do with Votto etc. (25-28 range). Definitely not 31+ and 27 with the body of a 33 year old.

 

[hawkfarmer]

There is a certain starting pitcher coming into FA at the end of 2011 that will bring big money and big years, but he's only 23 years old at the time. More hints, he's a lefty and he plays for a team in financial distress. Oh and he leads the NL in wins. If you haven't figured it out it's Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers. He's my number 1 goal for the cubs to sign. Of course last time I said this (A. Gonzalez) he got signed by another team and had an outstanding season, so we'll see what happens.

Edit: he is up for arbitration after 2011, but he will be done with his contract a few years after that, and rumors are the dodgers won't resign him. Still like the kid a lot though.

 

[hawkfarmer]

Spend wisely: Prince or Pujols? - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN

good write up on Pujols v. Fielder

 

[Clark]

There is a certain starting pitcher coming into FA at the end of 2011 that will bring big money and big years, but he's only 23 years old at the time. More hints, he's a lefty and he plays for a team in financial distress. Oh and he leads the NL in wins. If you haven't figured it out it's Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers. He's my number 1 goal for the cubs to sign. Of course last time I said this (A. Gonzalez) he got signed by another team and had an outstanding season, so we'll see what happens.

Edit: he is up for arbitration after 2011, but he will be done with his contract a few years after that, and rumors are the dodgers won't resign him. Still like the kid a lot though.

Absolutely he'd be a good guy to go after when he's available, as would Felix from Seattle.

 

[tm3308]

There is a certain starting pitcher coming into FA at the end of 2011 that will bring big money and big years, but he's only 23 years old at the time. More hints, he's a lefty and he plays for a team in financial distress. Oh and he leads the NL in wins. If you haven't figured it out it's Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers. He's my number 1 goal for the cubs to sign. Of course last time I said this (A. Gonzalez) he got signed by another team and had an outstanding season, so we'll see what happens.

Edit: he is up for arbitration after 2011, but he will be done with his contract a few years after that, and rumors are the dodgers won't resign him. Still like the kid a lot though.

Agreed, Kershaw has been a guy that I've had my eye on as a possibility for some time now. He'd give us a legit, left-handed ace, something I can't ever even remember us having. C.J. Wilson is another guy that I'm intrigued by, but I'm not sure we'd be able to get him (Yankees I believe have serious interest).

 

[bogeyman]

Absolutely he'd be a good guy to go after when he's available, as would Felix from Seattle.

I would be more confident in Kershaw's arm holding up than Felix's for some reason. I just could see him having issues in a few years.