The question is simple. Should the Cubs try to acquire Albert Pujols in light of the negotiating deadline in his rear-view mirror? He's reportedly asking for something in the neighborhood of $300 million over 10 years. That's a really nice neighborhood. Anyway, I asked this question to a group of Cubs insiders to get their opinions, and here are their answers:
Carrie Muskat, cubs.com: Pujols is under contract with the Cardinals. Making an offer now would be tampering.
Paul Sullivan, Chicago Tribune: Yeah, the Cubs need to give $30-million contracts to more old guys.
Phil Rogers, Chicago Tribune: Only if they can sign Tony LaRussa as well and trade the Wrigley Building for the Gateway Arch. But it's unclear whether St. Louis would go for that.
Rick Morrissey, Chicago Sun-Times: I'll answer that question with another question: would you trade Flintstone vitamins for anabolic steroids? Would you plant an old, overripe watermelon in the ground and use a falsified birth certificate for fertilizer? Do you read my column instead of prescription drug warning labels? I'm not saying he's juicing and lying about his age and doomed to suck. I'm just saying.
Rick Reilly, ESPN: Signing Albert Pujols to a $300 million contract would be riskier than tightroping across the Grand Canyon on the final thread of talent still remaining in Alfonso Soriano's career.
Bruce Levine, ESPN Chicago: Should they sign the best player in baseball? Of course. But can they? The last I heard, the Ricketts family had to ask to borrow money just to clean the bathrooms at Wrigley.
Judd Sirott, WGN Radio: OF COURSE THEY SHOULD! HE'S A DIFFERENCE MAKER! DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO SHOUT ABOUT WHAT KOYIE FREAKING HILL IS DOING ON THE FIELD? THIS ISN'T AS EASY AS IT SOUNDS. I NEED SOMEONE TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING GREAT TO KEEP THIS VOLUME UP FOR MUCH LONGER.
Steve Rosenbloom, Chicago Tribune: Do the Cubs need another overpaid diva from another country? The question answers itself.
David Kaplan, WGN Radio: Albert Pujols is the best in the business. If you have a shot to bring him to the North Side, you take it. I want a World Series for the Cubs as much as anybody, and no one can ensure that that happens better than Jose Alberto Pujols. And when Prince Albert hoists the World Series trophy in the parade through Wrigleyville, and he needs a new best friend to share the moment with? I'll be there.
Editor's note: the following contributors did not return requests for comments. Answers were supplied on their behalf: Carrie Muskat, Paul Sullivan, Phil Rogers, Rick Morrissey, Rick Reilly, Bruce Levine, Judd Sirott, Steve Rosenbloom, David Kaplan
That Phil Rogers deal would have the Cubs at +1. They should do it!
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of funny because I agree with all of the comments (at least the arguments, no matter how silly they may be). For what it's worth, I don't think it's a question of whether or not they should sign Pujols, but rather a question of how much is he worth. I feel like people are asking the wrong question. Pujols would be awesome in a Cubs uniform, but I can't help but wonder if the Cubs can improve more by investing a similar amount of money into the team except getting a few players instead.
ReplyDeleteThis is all sorts of awesome
ReplyDeleteThanks, guys.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I see what you're saying. I think my impulse is, that in theory the Cubs could improve more. But I think signing Pujols would be the option least likely to lead to a colossal screw up. Maybe the Cubs could make five or six smaller moves that would work just as well, but they'd probably all have to work to do that.
ReplyDeleteRick Telander just sent me his answer:
ReplyDeleteOf course.
Why wouldn't they?
I mean, serously.
Why.
Wouldn't.
They.
Amirite?
Awesome. I wanted to throw him in there. But there were too many Ricks. I also wanted to have Al give a "wait and see" answer but I flaked out.
ReplyDeleteYou left out Chris DeLuca - What's a Cub?
ReplyDeleteAll I know is that theory was tried out when Maddux left the Cubs for Atlanta. It didn't work so well then. Of course, that was Himes and now we have Hendry. But then again...
ReplyDeleteI missed this last night. Fabulous! JUDD SIROTT'S RESPONSE IS MY FAVORITE.
ReplyDeleteTHANK YOU SO MUCH!
ReplyDelete