Author Topic: 2012 Free Agent Watch  (Read 5904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39401
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #25: February 06, 2011, 04:13:38 PM »
His name is mud if he doesn't violate a slew of league and ethics rules in order to help a giant market team avoid the luxury tax?
yes.  No one will take his word again.  It is not the first time a guy will have made a promise, identify a range, etc...  Agreements in principle do not violate ethics rules.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21606
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #26: February 06, 2011, 04:18:06 PM »
yes.  No one will take his word again.  It is not the first time a guy will have made a promise, identify a range, etc...  Agreements in principle do not violate ethics rules.

Only because they aren't binding, if someone let's it slip that they already have something in place and are just waiting to avoid the luxury tax, I'd like to see the league have the balls to void the deal 'in the best interests of the game'. If they just have a range, extensions that look like a sure thing often have a way of not happening. Gonzalez has a lot of leverage and his agent would be failing him if he doesn't use it

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #27: February 07, 2011, 10:48:38 AM »
The Lerners would be foolish if they did not try to bring in Pujols.  Fans would flock to the stadium.  The city's sports teams are pathetic.  The Redskins are terrible year after year and nobody cares about the rest of the teams.  A lineup with Pujols, Zim, and Werth would be great even if we had 5 Nyjer Morgans and a pitcher filling it out.  Then we'd have Harper to add to the mix.  I doubt it happens, though.  And I don't want Prince Fielder.

The pitchers next year anren't too exciting though.  I hope the Angels lose their minds and decide to trade one of their really good pitchers during the season. 

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39401
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #28: February 10, 2011, 09:06:57 AM »
More on Gonzalez on today's Boston.com (Boston Globe):

Quote
The Sox acquired Gonzalez from San Diego Dec. 6, sending the Padres three top prospects and utilityman Eric Patterson. The deal was made without the Sox agreeing on a contract extension with Gonzalez, who is signed only through the end of this season.

According to a major league source, the sides have agreed on the parameters of an extension that will be announced after Opening Day to save the Sox from a bigger bite of baseball’s competitive-balance tax on high payrolls.
Parameters does not mean a deal is done, but it does mean there is a range.  I suppose if Pujols or other contracts come in higher than expected, it'll be at the high end, but if there is no Pujols deal, it would be lower.

Quote
Gonzalez does not seem concerned.

“We don’t have any deadline or anything like that,’’ he said. “When I’m healthy and they see that I’m healthy and we all decide to sit down and talk about something, then that’s what we’ll do at that point.

“There’s no rush for anything right now. The main thing is for me to get healthy.’’

Gonzalez’s agent, John Boggs, is expected here around March 8 and presumably will discuss the situation with the Sox at that time.

There also were some less crucial matters to attend to. Gonzalez has a place to live in Boston, although he doesn’t quite know where, as his wife, Betsy, handled the details.

And in what will be big news for the jersey-wearing segment of Red Sox Nation, he decided on No. 28.

Gonzalez considered asking Mike Cameron for No. 23, the number he wore with the Padres. The two even discussed it. But with a new team will come a new number.

“I really didn’t want 23,’’ said Gonzalez. “It was a number that was given to me in San Diego. I never picked it or anything.’’

Gonzalez considered 29. Then he researched religious numerology and picked 28. The number, he said, represents God’s strength.
Kaf (20) + Het (8 ) = Ko-ah, or strength/ power.  Explains Morse's power surge last year. who has 28 now?
                        

Online imref

  • Posts: 42514
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #29: February 10, 2011, 09:57:15 AM »
The Lerners would be foolish if they did not try to bring in Pujols.  Fans would flock to the stadium.  The city's sports teams are pathetic.  The Redskins are terrible year after year and nobody cares about the rest of the teams.  A lineup with Pujols, Zim, and Werth would be great even if we had 5 Nyjer Morgans and a pitcher filling it out.  Then we'd have Harper to add to the mix.  I doubt it happens, though.  And I don't want Prince Fielder.

Signing a 32 year old Albert Pujols to a $25 million a year contract over 8 or 10 years would arguably be the dumbest move in the history of D.C. sports, maybe worse than Albert, Jeff George, Donovan, Deion and the ball coach put together, and something that even Wes Unseld would shake his head in disbelief at.

Let the Mets ruin their team long-term for a couple of good years.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21606
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #30: February 10, 2011, 10:11:26 AM »
any NL team giving him a long term deal is making a mistake

Offline Potomac Cannons

  • Posts: 3279
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #31: February 10, 2011, 10:16:53 AM »
Is Pujols really only 31 right now?  It's a legit question with the Dominican players.  If he's actually 34-35 next year then that 10 year deal he's asking for looks even worse.

Throw a 5/200 deal at him and see if he bites.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 18482
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #32: February 10, 2011, 10:36:49 AM »
Is Pujols really only 31 right now?  It's a legit question with the Dominican players.  If he's actually 34-35 next year then that 10 year deal he's asking for looks even worse.

Throw a 5/200 deal at him and see if he bites.

He went to High School and Jr. College in Missouri it seems a bit far fetched to lie about your age for no benefit. Pujols was a 13th round draft pick and received less than a $60K signing bonus*



* Cots

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #33: February 10, 2011, 10:41:20 AM »
I'd give him whatever he wants to come here.  I don't see him slowing down for the next what, 5 years?  Even if he declines, he's declining from a point that almost no one else alive has even sniffed.

Even if, by the end, we're paying a 41 year old Pujols 25 million to hit .250 with 14 hr's at 1B, it's worth it.  Think of the intervening years with a lineup of Zim, Pujols, Werth, and Harper anchoring it. 

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21606
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #34: February 10, 2011, 10:46:17 AM »
Even if, by the end, we're paying a 41 year old Pujols 25 million to hit .250 with 14 hr's at 1B, it's worth it.  Think of the intervening years with a lineup of Zim, Pujols, Werth, and Harper anchoring it. 

In 2014, Pujols would be making ~25 million, Werth is due another 20 million, if Zimmerman chooses to stay, he be in the 20 million range too, that three players making ~65 million. Cobbling together the rest of the team would be interesting

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #35: February 10, 2011, 10:54:05 AM »
In 2014, Pujols would be making ~25 million, Werth is due another 20 million, if Zimmerman chooses to stay, he be in the 20 million range too, that three players making ~65 million. Cobbling together the rest of the team would be interesting

The Lerners can use some of the money they've saved up these past few seasons.  I haven't complained about low payrolls because I have bought into the idea they're building for something bigger - that they'll spend when the time is right.  When is the time not right if not for someone who most likely will be considered the greatest 1B ever?  And we have a young Harper and Stras and (relatively) prime Werth and Zim?  What would they be waiting for, exactly?


Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19050
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #36: February 10, 2011, 10:55:24 AM »
I'd give him whatever he wants to come here.  I don't see him slowing down for the next what, 5 years?  Even if he declines, he's declining from a point that almost no one else alive has even sniffed.

Even if, by the end, we're paying a 41 year old Pujols 25 million to hit .250 with 14 hr's at 1B, it's worth it.  Think of the intervening years with a lineup of Zim, Pujols, Werth, and Harper anchoring it. 

Exactly. We're talking about a first 5 years of production at a rate which the best projections say will be worth $35m per year without the "Nationals premium." People seem to think that at age 40, Albert Pujols will basically be Paul Konerko. Except that he's Albert Pujols.

Offline Potomac Cannons

  • Posts: 3279
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #37: February 10, 2011, 11:12:34 AM »
I'd give him whatever he wants to come here.  I don't see him slowing down for the next what, 5 years?  Even if he declines, he's declining from a point that almost no one else alive has even sniffed.

His wOBA has dropped 3 straight years.  His defensive numbers have dropped 3 straight years.  Last season was his 2nd lowest WAR as a pro.  His K% has risen 3 straight years.  His OBP has dropped 3 straight years.

Notice a trend?  He wasn't the best 1B in the game last year (Cabrera's bat and Votto's overall game were better).  He's already starting what is likely the steady decline from being the best player in the game.  A 10 year deal for him would be absolutely awful half way through.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #38: February 10, 2011, 11:35:03 AM »
I don't even konw how to respond to that.  Fine - we should stikc with Adam LaRoche and Chris Marrero?

When will there ever be a better option than Albert Pujols - the best of all time!!!(Kanye West) - to play 1B for us?  Serious question.  Even if we have to pay through the nose. 

And the stats you've cherry picked - are you telling me he's getting worse already?  Just want to be clear on that.  And - he's clearly the best 1B in baseball.  He's the best player in baseball.  By a lot.  So much so, that the years he doesn't win MVP, he's being underrated.  Possible hyperbole or mindfact, but you get the point.

I'd ask again - is there a better option than Pujols?  If so, I'd like to hear what that would be.

Offline Potomac Cannons

  • Posts: 3279
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #39: February 10, 2011, 11:39:54 AM »
And the stats you've cherry picked -

Let's see here.  He's striking out more, he's not hitting for as much power, he's not getting on base as much, and he's not playing as good of defense.  The major rate stats for those are all on a 3 year downward trend (not a 1 year glitch).  10 years,especially if 30m+/yr, for a guy who is no longer the clear best 1B in the game, when he's 31 and already starting a steady decline, is stupid.

It's not about nonsense like who's a better option than Pujols, it's about whether you pay ridiculous money for who he was 4 years ago compared to who he is now.  He's still one of the top 2-3 1B in the game.  He USED TO BE the best 1B, and probably best overall player, in the game.  St. Louis has reason to pay him silly money for that, no one else does.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21606
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #40: February 10, 2011, 11:41:01 AM »
He's not the best 1b in baseball anymore. I'd take votto, Gonzalez (especially not that Pepco wont kill his numbers) Cabrera.

By what measure is he currently the best player in baseball?

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #41: February 10, 2011, 12:01:06 PM »
It has everything to do with who is a better option than Pujols.  It's about sending the best possible team out onto the field - not about managing to avoid this or that player.  I honestly don't give a crap if we have to overpay.

As for those stats - look at what those stats are.  He had a career year in 2008 - one of the best non-Bonds single seasons ever.  You're telling me he declined from that.  OK, his OPS+ went from 190 to 189 in 2009.  Technically, it's true that he declined.  But it's a silly argument to make.  Even last year, which was a relative down year, was HOF caliber, with an OPS+ of 173 - a whopping one point less than Votto.

He's a mindfact best player in baseball.  I don't know how you'd measure it.  But I wouldn't take any of those guys over Pujols.  It's not even close.

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19050
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #42: February 10, 2011, 12:04:44 PM »
Let's see here.  He's striking out more, he's not hitting for as much power, he's not getting on base as much, and he's not playing as good of defense.

That's like saying that George W. Bush is getting smarter, or that sometimes Seinfeld wasn't as funny. When you have some of the best seasons ever, a declining wOBA does not = not being valuable. It means, instead of best player in the last 10 years, you get the best player in the NL East.

Offline Potomac Cannons

  • Posts: 3279
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #43: February 10, 2011, 12:06:14 PM »
It has everything to do with who is a better option than Pujols. 

You don't pay 10 years, at a level never seen before, for a player who was the best player in baseball for a few years but is now arguably as low as 4th at his position.  10 years for Pujols, at 30m+, is crazy.

Offline Potomac Cannons

  • Posts: 3279
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #44: February 10, 2011, 12:08:06 PM »
It means, instead of best player in the last 10 years, you get the best player in the NL East.

For how long?  If he was coming off a one season dip then you go all out.  If he's coming off 3 years of consistent decline then you don't.

His defense is also slipping.  At what point are you stuck with a former great player who is simply a really good hitter who doesn't have a position anymore?  It's a bad way to do business.

If he has another drop in production this year do you still pay crazy money over 10 years for him?

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19050
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #45: February 10, 2011, 12:13:19 PM »
2010 stats...
WAR
Longoria 7.7
Choo 7.3
Pujols 7.2
Ubaldo 6.5
Halladay 6.5
Adrian Gonzalez 6.3

Offensive WAR
Cabrera 7.4
Pujols 7.4
Bautista 7.1
Votto 6.9
Hamilton 6.6

In 2010 Pujols was the only player in the NL top 5 for average, OBP, SLG, OPS, PA, hits, home runs, RBIs, AND walks.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #46: February 10, 2011, 12:18:58 PM »
You don't pay 10 years, at a level never seen before, for a player who was the best player in baseball for a few years but is now arguably as low as 4th at his position.  10 years for Pujols, at 30m+, is crazy.

Irrespective of whether or not he's the best - because for whatever reason, you don't seem to buy it even though the rest of the baseball universe does - you haven't answered the question of how to upgrade 1B in a better fashion than overpaying for Pujols. 

I would argue that the team would be best served by bringing in Pujols - whatever the cost.  Hell I'd tell Lerner to give him part ownership of the team if that's what it would take. 

What would you do if not overpay Pujols, even if he is 'arguably as low as 4th at his position?'  The supposed top 3 probably won't be traded anytime soon.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33783
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #47: February 10, 2011, 12:20:23 PM »
He's not the best 1b in baseball anymore. I'd take votto, Gonzalez (especially not that Pepco wont kill his numbers) Cabrera.

Pepco would cause anyone to lose power.

 8)

Offline Potomac Cannons

  • Posts: 3279
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #48: February 10, 2011, 12:30:17 PM »
Irrespective of whether or not he's the best - because for whatever reason, you don't seem to buy it even though the rest of the baseball universe does - you haven't answered the question of how to upgrade 1B in a better fashion than overpaying for Pujols.  

I would argue that the team would be best served by bringing in Pujols - whatever the cost.  Hell I'd tell Lerner to give him part ownership of the team if that's what it would take.  

What would you do if not overpay Pujols, even if he is 'arguably as low as 4th at his position?'  The supposed top 3 probably won't be traded anytime soon.


Did you miss the part where I said offer 5/200 to him?  It doesn't matter what he was in 07/08.  A 10 year deal is just stupid.  Half way through that you'll be trying to trade a 30-35m/yr DH.  

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012 Free Agent Watch
« Reply #49: February 10, 2011, 12:36:51 PM »
Well, yeah, I'd take him at that price too.  I'd take him at a lower price, as well, if he would come here for that. 

And to address what you wrote - even if it's true that we'd be trying to trade him after 5 years, we'd still have 5 years with what could be the best lineup in baseball with Werth, Zim, Harper, and Pujols.  You add another really good starter to Stras and Zimmermann, and that's championship level baseball.  For 5 years.  In the supposed worst case scenario you paint.