The Cubs absolutely, positively should -- not only should, but must -- go after Albert Pujols if he leaves St. Louis.
Feb 24, 2011 - Earlier today, SB Nation Chicago's George Castle posted this column stating why the Cubs and chairman Tom Ricketts shouldn't sign Albert Pujols when he (presumably) leaves the Cardinals via free agency after this season. Of course, there's always the possibility that the Cardinals and Pujols will reach agreement in the five-day window after the World Series when he can only reach a deal with them; or maybe he'll stand down off his pledge to not negotiate during the season. But it appears likely that this will be the last season for Pujols in Cardinals red, and I'm here to tell you that the Cubs absolutely, positively must go after Pujols as priority No. 1 this offseason. The good folks at Fangraphs agree that the Cubs should pursue him.
First, the Cubs signed Carlos Pena to a one-year deal to play first base. There were other choices available who could have been signed to longer deals -- or even Pena, coming off a rough, injury-filled year, could have been given a two-year contract or at least a one-year deal with an option season. But he wasn't. The fact that the Cubs must again go after a first baseman this offseason leaves the door wide open for Pujols, even if Pena has a rebound season.
Second, George writes: "He can only look at his own payroll with three more fat years of probable dead money owed to Alfonso Soriano after this season." Irrelevant, I would argue. There is a ton of money coming off the Cubs' books after this year, including deals for Kosuke Fukudome, Carlos Silva, John Grabow and Aramis Ramirez. True, the Cubs may re-up Ramirez, but the other three deals alone would pay nearly two-thirds of what Pujols is reportedly looking for.
The other thing about the Soriano deal is this: fans look at that deal and blanch, because Soriano's production has been up and down and he's been injured. Nevertheless, the Cubs wouldn't have won the NL Central without Soriano's great September that year, and, more importantly -- Pujols isn't Soriano. Alfonso Soriano is a good player who occasionally puts up All-Star numbers.
Albert Pujols is the best hitter in baseball today and when he's done, he will likely go down as the best righthanded hitter in the history of baseball. George's comparison to Barry Bonds is irrelevant. The comparison to Pujols isn't Bonds; Bonds somehow increased his numbers after turning 34, which is nearly unique in baseball history and, of course, there are the accusations of PED/steroid usage for Bonds that likely made the difference in his numbers.
The proper comparison for Albert Pujols isn't Barry Bonds. Instead, it's Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams and Stan Musial -- first-tier Hall of Famers, all of whom had outstanding seasons in their late 30s and early 40s. There's no question in my mind that Pujols, though he will likely decline in performance as he gets older -- as all players do -- can and will still perform at an All-Star level in his late 30s. That's worth having. A creative contract could be devised where Pujols would get his 10 years and approximately $300 million that he's rumored to want, without breaking the bank in the last years of the deal.
There's one more thing that's a key here, and that is the perception of Tom Ricketts and the Ricketts family as owners of the Cubs. Some fans already view them as "cheap" and claim their focus is "fixing the bathrooms at Wrigley", although that's not true; the family has already beefed up their scouting department, is preparing to build new facilities in Arizona and the Dominican Republic, and still will have this year one of the top-five payrolls in the major leagues.
But if Albert Pujols -- as I noted, the best player of his generation and soon to be the greatest righthanded hitter in baseball history, with a real shot at breaking the home run record now held by the reviled Bonds -- becomes available, the Cubs and the Ricketts absolutely have to go after him and sign him, almost at any cost, or risk being labeled as "cheap" for as long as they own the team. That may not be a fair characterization, but it will be reality if Pujols leaves the Cardinals for any team other than the Cubs.
It's more than just tweaking the nose of your biggest divisional rival. It's making a statement that you want to not just raise ticket prices to the level of the "big boys" in New York and Boston -- it's a statement that you'll play their game. Just think of all the $150 blue pinstripe Pujols jerseys they'll sell, not to mention the tickets and TV ratings.
Finally, in Pujols' ten years in St. Louis, they have made the playoffs seven times, been in two World Series and won one of them. As Cubs fans, we'd take that over the next decade. Do it, Tom. Bring Albert Pujols to Wrigley.
2 comments
Comments
Pujols to Cubs?
I think the Ricketts family should reconsider about this….I personally think they should go after Hanley Ramirez since he is young or a #1 draft pick which he can be trained by the coaches well enough to be a future All-Star 1st Baseman.
But $30 million per year in 10 years contract? Forget Pujols, find some one better than him, I’m sure some one will show up sooner or later.
by James Millring on Feb 26, 2011 1:42 AM CST reply actions
Money coming off the books doesn't mean it's available to be spent
Just because current deals are expiring doesn’t equate to the Cubs having available these amounts to spend in the future. The Soriano, Fukodome, Zambrano, etc. deals were signed during more flush times when the Tribune was still the owner of the Cubs. These deals were likely predicated on future growth in sales that may no longer be realistic.
There are several factors that would indicate the Cubs ownership would have to accept lower profits (or possibly losses) were they to turn around and commit to spending the money from these expiring contracts:
1) the state of the economy
2) the money they’re going to have to invest in upgrading/repairing Wrigley, especially if they can’t fool the city/state into floating them a loan
3) if they continue to lose, the team could become less popular, leading to lower gate receipts, merchandise, etc. After all, towards the end of last season, we started to see a lot of empty seats at Wrigley.
Of those 3 factors, the only one that Pujols could directly affect is #3, and the question would be whether he alone could offset the other factors enough to make it worth it.
My guess is that Ricketts does not want to lock the Cubs into a much higher fixed cost structure given the uncertainty that surrounds the economy and the stadium. Presumably he has the obligation to run the team at a profit. Investing $300M over 10 years in Pujols is too risky given his constraints.
The bases were drunk, and I painted the black with my best yakker. But blue squeezed me, and I went full. I came back with my heater, but the stick flares one the other way and chalk flies for two bases. Three earnies! Next thing I know, skipper hooks me and I'm sipping suds with the clubby
by moroots on Feb 26, 2011 12:22 PM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed