Surprising. Sounded before like he seemed pretty set on hitting the market and maximizing his return, but maybe I'm misremembering.

This would be a good thing for baseball. Hoping it comes true.

I am fine with this.

I know its hard to speculate, but who would have been his suitors in 2013 anyway? Red Sox, Yanks, Angels, Tigers are locked up at 1B. Dodgers seem like an obvious candidate. Nats? Marlins? Jays?

I think RR hits the nail on the head in #4. Votto intended to test the market, but after looking at the potential suitors and the teams that are already locked into longterm contracts at first base, he seems to have realized that he's probably better off signing a pre-FA extension.

Votto is from Toronto; with the splash that BC native Brett Lawrie has made simply by playing (well) for the Blue Jays, it probably would have been a Pretty Big Deal for Votto to return to his spawning ground.

10 year deal?

I know its hard to speculate, but who would have been his suitors in 2013 anyway? Red Sox, Yanks, Angels, Tigers are locked up at 1B. Dodgers seem like an obvious candidate. Nats? Marlins? Jays?

Dodgers and Cubs. I am assuming that the Reds are backing up the proverbial dump truck to prevent him from reaching FA. He would be a 200mm candidate for the Dodgers.

Cubs just traded for Anthony Rizzo, who might not pan out, but they should try to see what he can do before signing Votto.

Cubs just traded for Anthony Rizzo, who might not pan out, but they should try to see what he can do before signing Votto.

Votto isn't a free agent til after 2013, so presumably you'd get about a year and a half of Rizzo.

Votto projects to be worth a ~$200M contract. If the Reds can lock him up for anything less than Fielder money, that's a solid deal.

MLBTR has it as an 8 year extension.

Cubs just traded for Anthony Rizzo, who might not pan out, but they should try to see what he can do before signing Votto.

Votto isn't a free agent til after 2013, so presumably you'd get about a year and a half of Rizzo.

Anthony Rizzo doesn't block Joey Votto on a well-run ballclub.

This and the Cain contract are why you spend now when the talent is available instead of waiting to buy the talent down the road.

Anthony Rizzo doesn't block Joey Votto on a well-run ballclub.

Cubs hasn't been well run in a while though. It'll take a while for Espstein and Hoyer to change that.

This and the Cain contract are why you spend now when the talent is available instead of waiting to buy the talent down the road.

And Contracts like Alfonso Soriano and Vernon Wells are why you don't spend now, when you aren't ready. By the time you are ready, 'talent' might not be the best word to describe them.

10 years, $225M per MLBTR.com

And Contracts like Alfonso Soriano and Vernon Wells are why you don't spend now, when you aren't ready. By the time you are ready, 'talent' might not be the best word to describe them.

No, that is why you don't hire stupid GMs. Soriano's and Wells' contracts are not hurting their respective teams.

Wow. Well, that seems to be the going rate for elite 1B these days. Fair deal.

Damn, $225 million. That's a spicy meatball. I like this deal a lot better than either the Fielder or Pujols signings.

Presumably it's an 8-year extension worth 198.5M on top of the 26.5M he was due for 2012-13.

That's ~24.8M/8 for his age 30-37 seasons...awfully rich for a mid-market team like the Reds...

Really, really surprised by this. Votto signed a three-year deal buying out just his arb years previously, which I thought was a sure sign that he'd test the market. They'll certainly be better off in the medium-term with Votto locked down. How this looks in 2020 is anyone's guess.

Per Rotowire it's 10 years on top of the 2 years remaining, keeping him a Red until he's 40. Prince's deal starts to look a little better.

No, that is why you don't hire stupid GMs. Soriano's and Wells' contracts are not hurting their respective teams.

Soriano's contract isn't hurting the Cubs? In what world? Wells is only not hurting the Jays, because they found a sucker to take him off their hands.

No GM bats 1.000 on FA's. They get hurt, fall of cliffs etcetera all the time. It's not like I couldn't have rattled off a list of big money FA busts as long as my arm. By the way, the GM you have in place, who I assume you don't think is stupid, is perfectly capable of throwing 142m at Crawford, 85m at Lackey, 70m at JD Drew, 100m at Matsuzake, 38m at Julio Lugo...

Per Rotowire it's 10 years on top of the 2 years remaining, keeping him a Red until he's 40. Prince's deal starts to look a little better.

How good does the Adrian Gonzalez deal look?

This deal will only look good if there is some serious US Dollar inflation over the next 12 years...

Fancy Pants is right. The Gonzalez contract looks like an absolute steal now.

Is baseball plannning on some sort of takeover of the worldwide banking system?

Per Rotowire it's 10 years on top of the 2 years remaining, keeping him a Red until he's 40. Prince's deal starts to look a little better.

10 years, 225 million is a bit of a risk two years out, but it remains a substantial discount to what he would have gotten on the open market. He most likely would have cleared 300 million

Soriano's contract isn't hurting the Cubs? In what world?

This one.

It's not like I couldn't have rattled off a list of big money FA busts as long as my arm. By the way, the GM you have in place, who I assume you don't think is stupid, is perfectly capable of throwing 142m at Crawford, 85m at Lackey, 70m at JD Drew, 100m at Matsuzake, 38m at Julio Lugo...


Did that team have a winning record? When was the last time they had a losing record? They are a large market team they can afford to overpay and even make mistakes.

Wells is only not hurting the Jays, because they found a sucker to take him off their hands.



And that sucker isn't hurting either so what is your point?


PS: I think pretty much everybody on the planet thought the tail end of Soriano's contract would be ugly-bad the day he was signed.

At what point do the few remaining good free agent players realize that the market is going to be absolutely insane and stop signing pre-FA extensions?

Now we've got the Cubs, new Dodgers ownership, the Nationals, among others who will be looking to spend money to contend in the short term future, and very few players that are going to reach free agency who will be premiere players. If a guy like Hamels eschews re-signing, he could be looking at $300M in free agency simply due to low supply and high demand.

Soriano's contract isn't hurting the Cubs? In what world?

This one.

Well delusion is kind of evidence I guess... Did it ever occur to you, that without the Soriano contract, the Cubs might have been in a position, where they didn't feel like they needed to punt the next two years, and dump dead payroll and build up assets?

Did that team have a winning record? When was the last time they had a losing record? They are a large market team they can afford to overpay and even make mistakes.

Sure, which is why they made the playoffs each of the last two years... oh no wiat, they didn't. But at least they were able to go out this offseason and use their financial superiority to get Yu Darvish, Mark Buehrle, and Jose Reyes. Oh no wait, they are maxed out on payroll, and are going with Aviles, Punto and Doubront.

Pretending that big market teams can spend infinity dollars, and will never be hurt by bad sinings is just bizarre.

31. Dan Posted: April 02, 2012 at 08:59 PM (#4095104)
At what point do the few remaining good free agent players realize that the market is going to be absolutely insane and stop signing pre-FA extensions?

Now we've got the Cubs, new Dodgers ownership, the Nationals, among others who will be looking to spend money to contend in the short term future, and very few players that are going to reach free agency who will be premiere players. If a guy like Hamels eschews re-signing, he could be looking at $300M in free agency simply due to low supply and high demand.

This assumes that potential free agents want to risk an injury that will hurt them in free agency, and that owners/GM will spend their money regardless on the quality of the free agent pool. I mean, how many times can Scott Boras snooker an owner-

...Yeah, players should probably wait on free agency.

Did it ever occur to you, that without the Soriano contract, the Cubs might have been in a position, where they didn't feel like they needed to punt the next two years, and dump dead payroll and build up assets?

no. Why should it have? The Cubs are not the Pirates. Even with Soriano and his contract on this team the Cubs have a payroll somewhere between 105 to 110 million.

Sure, which is why they made the playoffs each of the last two years... oh no wiat, they didn't. But at least they were able to go out this offseason and use their financial superiority to get Yu Darvish, Mark Buehrle, and Jose Reyes. Oh no wait, they are maxed out on payroll, and are going with Aviles, Punto and Doubront.

Pretending that big market teams can spend infinity dollars, and will never be hurt by bad sinings is just bizarre.


How long is their WS drought? How many games are they expected to win this year? I'm not pretending that big market teams can spend infinity dollars I simply believe that they can spend more than 100 million dollars a year in payroll.

This and the Cain contract are why you spend now when the talent is available instead of waiting to buy the talent down the road.

Not if you suck, and the Cubs suck right now. They sucked last year, they sucked the year before, and they were going to inevitably suck this year.

If they need an elite bat when they no longer suck, I have zero doubt that there will elite and expensive players available if the Cubs want to assume the middle and back-end of a deal. A-Rod got traded in the midst of a mega-contract. So did Gary Sheffield. So did Dan Haren. So did Jim Thome. So did Jake Peavey.

The idea that there won't be any teams looking to shed big expensive contracts in the middle of a rebuild is nonsensical - there always are and always will be.

no. Why should it have? The Cubs are not the Pirates. Even with Soriano and his contract on this team the Cubs have a payroll somewhere between 105 to 110 million.

How long is their WS drought? How many games are they expected to win this year? I'm not pretending that big market teams can spend infinity dollars I simply believe that they can spend more than 100 million dollars a year in payroll.

Sure, the Cubs can spend more, and I expect they will, when they are ready. But right now, they are a solid 15 wins out from being competitive - not favourites in the central, just competitive. If they didn't have Soriano, they could get there by going to ~150m, they might have gone for that. Bumping it to 170-180, for a ~30% chance at the playoffs, is a much tougher sell.

So why go to 150m now? To win 78 games instead of 70? And in 2-3 years, when you are ready to compete, you might have 50m extra in dead weight on your payroll, and your back to effectively playing with a 100m payroll.

There is a lot of crazy in this thread.

But right now, they are a solid 15 wins out from being competitive -

How many wins is Pujols worth? How many is ARam worth? How many is Reyes worth? How many is Wilson worth?

Those 4 guys will probably combine for about 20 WAR and the Cubs' players will probably put up something like a total of 5 WAR. So right there is your 15 wins to be competitive. Then factor in growth for Castro, Jackson being added, DeJesus being added, perhaps a healthy year for Soto and that very well could be another 5 wins right there.

you might have 50m extra in dead weight on your payroll, and your back to effectively playing with a 100m payroll.

By that point Soriano, Dempster, and Zambrano's contracts are all off the books and Aramis would have one year left on his contract.

As a sabermetrically-inclined baseball fan, I think the Reds are paying far too much to see what a 40ish year old Joey Votto will do. As a lifelong Reds fanboy, I couldn't be happier that my favorite team has locked up my favorite player for a cool decade. Ahh, the paradox of fandom.

Soriano's and Wells' contracts are not hurting their respective teams

They're getting 1 WAR annually for $19 million. So how much would they have to be paying Soriano before it hurt them? $30M/yr? 40?

Those 4 players will get paid 30 million more dollars than their Cubs' counterparts this season. So having those guys on the team would push the Cubs to about 135 to 140 million dollars this season. In 2013 those 4 guys are making 47 million dollars. The Cubs will have about 37 million dollars coming off the books from having Dempster, Zambrano, and Byrd's contract being up. The Cubs will likely have have internal options for replacing Dempster and Byrd so the Cubs will probably stay at around 130 to 140 million. Then in 2014 those 4 players get paid 71 million dollars. This is the year that if the Cubs had structured the deals exactly the same would take their biggest hit because Soriano would be in the last year of his contract. Though the Marmol and his 10 million would be off the books. So this is the year that the Cubs would come close to 180 million dollar payroll. But in 2015 Soriano's contract and his 19 million dollars salary is off the books and you also don't have to pick up Ramirez's option. So the 4 players cost 68 million this year and 19 million is coming off the books. In 2015 the Cubs payroll could very well be around 150 million. 2016 has the three players owed 68 million dollars but it is the last year of CJ's contract.

They're getting 1 WAR annually for $19 million. So how much would they have to be paying Soriano before it hurt them? $30M/yr? 40?

His production hurts them if they play him but they can afford to "waste" 19 million dollars by getting rid of him.

Not if you suck, and the Cubs suck right now. They sucked last year, they sucked the year before, and they were going to inevitably suck this year.

And they will suck in 2013, they will suck in 2014 and they will keep sucking until they add significant talent. The new draft rules (per Theo himself) make it harder for them to add talent that way. And there is very little elite FA talent coming over the next few years no matter how much salary the Cubs have to play with. (Assets for the future? Really? You think they're saving the $20-30 M reduction in payroll for future use?) The Votto and Cain extensions are very bad news for the Cubs.

If they need an elite bat when they no longer suck, I have zero doubt that there will elite and expensive players available

Name names please. If Votto is extended, the best hitters available prior to 2016 (from memory) are Cano and Kinsler who will both be in their 30s. And things don't really look that bright for 2016 (and those guys will probably get extended). Of course there might be a Cain or a Votto sitting there with a few $25 M years left on their contracts and their "poor" teams not wanting to pay them that but that will generally only be when they're on the decline (Votto's extension apparently doesn't even kick in until his age 30 season).

Things seem to have changed. There is virtually no young player who doesn't have at least his first 2 FA years bought out already. For crying out loud, the Derek Hollands and Jon Nieses of the world aren't coming available.

Top WAR, position players, 2009-11, no older than 29 in 2011:

Longoria -- tied up
Cabrera -- tied up
Braun -- tied up
Kemp -- tied up
Tulo -- tied up
Votto -- tied up
Cano -- FA at 31
Pedroia -- tied up
Mauer -- tied up and not exactly a contract anybody wants right now
Fielder -- tied up
Choo -- FA at 31
Gonzalez -- tied up
Zimmerman -- tied up
McCutchen -- tied up
Bourn -- FA for 2013!
J Upton -- tied up
Escobar -- ties up
Sandoval -- FA at 28 in 2015
Gardner -- FA at 31 in 2015
Hanley -- FA at 31, 3/$46 remaining, probably available
Crawford -- tied up thank god!
Stubbs -- FA at 31
McCann -- FA at 30 in 2014
CarGo -- tied up
Aybar -- FA at 28 in 2013
BJ Upton -- FA at 28 in 2013
Young -- tied up
Molina -- tied up
Ellsbury -- FA at 30 in 2014
Kendrick -- tied up
Reyes -- tied up
Kinsler -- FA at 31 in 2014
Stanton -- tied up
Pence -- FA at 31 in 2014

That's really pretty much it for 8-9 WAR players under 30 over the last 3 years. While guys like BJ Upton or Erick Aybar (not for the Cubs) would likely provide pretty nice value for the money, they aren't going to turn losers into winners. And, if the kids develop, the Cubs won't need a SS or CF so double bad luck for us. Sure the Tigers might want to move Cabrera in the next year or two (Rizzo) or the DBacks might pull a Padres/Gonzalez level of dumb and move J Upton or if you believe Mauer can stay healthy and catch he might be available.

There was more coming available on the pitching side last I saw but they're dropping like flies.

Plus to get that talent the Cubs have to trade their young cheap prospects which makes them having to suck for the next few years rather pointless.

This notion that the Cubs can simply wait until they are good to spend money on free agent talent is false. First because without FA talent the Cubs might very well never be good enough to spend money on FA talent and secondly because that FA talent simply isn't becoming available as often as it once was. So you have to strike when you can.

Wow. That's a pretty depressing list, Walt.

I'd add that Sandoval is incredibly likely to get an extension.

As a sabermetrically-inclined baseball fan, I think the Reds are paying far too much to see what a 40ish year old Joey Votto will do. As a lifelong Reds fanboy, I couldn't be happier that my favorite team has locked up my favorite player for a cool decade. Ahh, the paradox of fandom.

My reaction entirely. I remember how happy I was when the Reds got Ken Griffey Jr. and locked him into a long-term contract. Those memories temper my head's reaction, but my heart is happy.

So why go to 150m now?

So that in a couple years when bad money comes off the books you have some excellent players around to build from. Do you really think a core of Pujols/Fielder, Castro, Jackson, and the last bits of ARam and maybe Garza and whoever else we might have signed/extended isn't a pretty nice core entering 2014?

If buying talent is a big part of your strategy (as it should be for a high-revenue team like the Cubs), you buy it when it's available not when it's convenient. We don't see an FA market this good until 2016 at the earliest and probably not for longer than that (seeing as how this was one of the best FA talent pools ever).

What could they do? Assuming Rizzo, Castro and Jackson all pay off (unlikely), they could grab Pence, one of the 2B and maybe swing a deal for Hanley over the next couple of years and then 2014 has a good level of talent. Then you hopefully can chunk some money into pitching (Hamels and Lincecum maybe). But that requires getting pretty much everybody you want.

That's really pretty much it for 8-9 WAR players under 30 over the last 3 years. While guys like BJ Upton or Erick Aybar (not for the Cubs) would likely provide pretty nice value for the money, they aren't going to turn losers into winners. And, if the kids develop, the Cubs won't need a SS or CF so double bad luck for us. Sure the Tigers might want to move Cabrera in the next year or two (Rizzo) or the DBacks might pull a Padres/Gonzalez level of dumb and move J Upton or if you believe Mauer can stay healthy and catch he might be available.

You know Pujols wasn't under 30, either.

Fielder was, I guess, but I don't particularly want him at that price.

But let's just take your list...

The Rox dealt Ubaldo... if they win 70 games this year and 60 the next... Do they look to deal Tulo? Maybe.

If the Rays pitching flames out, Maddon leaves town, Jennings/etc can't replace Upton, and the Rays sink back into ineptitude... Does Longoria ask to be traded?

I think we can take it as a near guarantee that multiple players on that list -- even amongst the "tied up" players -- are going to be traded in the last 2-3 years.

Sure, sure - they won't just be given away, but then, if you don't have faith in the regime to add enough chits to acquire them, why have faith in them adding enough talent (and it would need to be cheap talent) to complement a spending free that would still make a 70 win team a fringe contender?

So that in a couple years when bad money comes off the books you have some excellent players around to build from. Do you really think a core of Pujols/Fielder, Castro, Jackson, and the last bits of ARam and maybe Garza and whoever else we might have signed/extended isn't a pretty nice core entering 2014?

The last bits of A-Ram could be Charlie Hayes by 2014... Fielder may become his dad by 2014... Pujols might be playing 100 games a year from 2014...

As several players on your list prove - there are no guarantees you'll be happy to have any of this year's FA's in 2014... Mauer... Crawford... Heck - add Teixeira...

I'm not going to be unhappy that a 70 win team didn't spend like nuts in preparation for a lot of maybes in a couple years.

So instead of the Cubs spending money, of which they have an abundance of, they are going to spend prospects, and a ton of them, to get a player or two from teams looking to dump players? How is this going to make them good? AGain, the Cubs don't have to choose between building up the farm system or getting FA. They can do both. The Cubs don't need to trade away prospects to get good players. They can simply buy good players and keep their good prospects.


I'm not going to be unhappy that a 70 win team didn't spend like nuts in preparation for a lot of maybes in a couple years.

But you will be unhappy that they have a lot of 70 win seasons in the hopes that they can build from within but never quite get there.

What could they do? Assuming Rizzo, Castro and Jackson all pay off (unlikely), they could grab Pence, one of the 2B and maybe swing a deal for Hanley over the next couple of years and then 2014 has a good level of talent.

And 2014 has a good level of talent mainly because there's no need to extend those players yet. But many of them will be locked up when the time comes.

As a sabermetrically-inclined baseball fan, I think the Reds are paying far too much to see what a 40ish year old Joey Votto will do. As a lifelong Reds fanboy, I couldn't be happier that my favorite team has locked up my favorite player for a cool decade. Ahh, the paradox of fandom.

My reaction entirely. I remember how happy I was when the Reds got Ken Griffey Jr. and locked him into a long-term contract. Those memories temper my head's reaction, but my heart is happy.

My exact same reaction. I would feel somewhat better about this if the 10 year deal replaced the 2 years he's currently under contract. That'll push up the payroll in '12, '13, but also exponentially decrease the degree that this will burn the organization at the end. This deal feels a helluva lot like Helton's deal. I can almost anticipate Votto's power numbers disappearing in 6-7 years, but he still has enough plate discipline & defense to keep the contract from being a complete albatross. If Votto ends up with a near HOF career like Helton's, I'll take that; it'll be a fun ride over the next decade.

It might be the fan in me, but I like Votto's contract better than Fielder's, Pujols', and Texeira's. I think Boston won this round of best contract for an elite-1b in his prime.

And 2014 has a good level of talent mainly because there's no need to extend those players yet. But many of them will be locked up when the time comes.

It's also missing a bunch of guys who are going to break out between now and then. The later years even more so obviously. 2 years ago, who would have wanted to spend big bucks on guys like Wilson, Bautista, Ellsbury, Napoli...

It's also missing a bunch of guys who are going to break out between now and then.

And the vast majority of them will get locked up as well.

The Rox dealt Ubaldo... if they win 70 games this year and 60 the next... Do they look to deal Tulo? Maybe.

You think Ubaldo and Tulo are similar situations? Man, you're looking for a fastball in the ribs.

Things seem to have changed. There is virtually no young player who doesn't have at least his first 2 FA years bought out already. For crying out loud, the Derek Hollands and Jon Nieses of the world aren't coming available.

Top WAR, position players, 2009-11, no older than 29 in 2011:

Isn't the pitching list dramatically better? Off the top of my head, Zack Greinke, Cole Hamels, Shaun Marcum, Anibal Sanchez and Colby Lewis are free agents after this year.

Isn't the pitching list dramatically better? Off the top of my head, Zack Greinke, Cole Hamels, Shaun Marcum, Anibal Sanchez and Colby Lewis are free agents after this year.

Yes. Those guys plus Edwin Jackson, Tim Hudson, Brandon McCarthy, and Jeremy Guthrie.

And the offensive side has some real talent too. Mike Napoli, Brandon Phillips, BJ Upton, Josh Hamilton, Erick Aybar, David Ortiz, Andre Ethier, Lance Berkman, Chris Ianetta, Delmon Young, Michael Bourn, Torii Hunter.

No one you're giving a $100M+ contract too (which could be a very good thing) but plenty of wins out there to add to a team with money to spend. You don't need to add 5-6 WAR players for FA to work, you can build a team 2-4 WAR at a time as well.

bump

Looking at the list above - Cano is going to be retained by the Yankees. Shin-soo Choo is going to be very rich.

Dan's write up and ZIPS projection for votto's extension (INSIDER)

If 10/225 (starting 2 years in the future) is true, I can't get behind this. Obviously the end of the contract will be ugly, and I'd rather that the Reds return to mediocrity in two years than be stuck in sub-mediocrity for the last five years of this deal because they have too much money invested in their old first baseman.

If 10/225 (starting 2 years in the future) is true, I can't get behind this. Obviously the end of the contract will be ugly, and I'd rather that the Reds return to mediocrity in two years than be stuck in sub-mediocrity for the last five years of this deal because they have too much money invested in their old first baseman.

To be fair the Rockies had some of their best seasons stuck with an over-priced former star at 1B!

the end of the contract will be ugly

Who knows. In 10 years we might see $10M/marginal win.

And the offensive side has some real talent too. Mike Napoli, Brandon Phillips, BJ Upton, Josh Hamilton, Erick Aybar, David Ortiz, Andre Ethier, Lance Berkman, Chris Ianetta, Delmon Young, Michael Bourn, Torii Hunter

Let's not get carried away now -- Torii Hunter? Delmon Young?

Of the remainder, which are good fits for the Cubs? Soto's still the C, Rizzo is (hopefully) the 1B which rules out Napoli, Ortiz, Ianetta, and realistically Ortiz. Jackson is our CF of the future which doesn't rule out but reduces the attractiveness of Upton and Bourn. Aybar is a SS where the Cubs are hopefully set. So it's Phillips, a 32-year-old 2B; Hamilton, 32 and fragile and apparently wanting to play CF; and Ethier, 31, and apparently such a defensive disaster that he's barely above-average for the last 3 years. (ages are 2013 ages.)

Now I personally don't have a problem with signing guys in their 30s ... but most of the people here spent a good chunk of the offseason deeply concerned about how likely it is that Pujols will fall off a cliff in the next 2-3 years so I don't want those people now coming along talking about all the great talent available over the age of 30.

If you didn't like what was available this offseason you're not gonna like what's available next offseason. And if you didn't think the pre-2012 Cubs were in a spot to compete and therefore shouldn't have spent money in a much better FA market, why would you thinjk the pre-2013 Cubs will be ready to compete and should spend in a crappy FA market?

The pitching side is better ... but, if you're scared of giving big money to Pujols or Fielder, why would you be comfortable giving it to Greinke? If you want Edwin Jackson on a long-term (3+ years) contract starting in 2013, why not offer it for 2012? Or if you don't want Jackson on a long-term contract, why would you offer him a short-term contract if the 2013 Cubs aren't going to be ready to compete?

There are three names I did leave off the list though:

Castro -- tied up
Rizzo -- tied up
Jackson -- tied up

Hopefully by 2014 but more realistically 2015, those guys will deserve to be on tht list above (which is basically everybody under 30 with 8+ WAR over 2009-11). If they're a combined 12 WAR then that's a core you can supplement with 2-4 WAR players.

Now I personally don't have a problem with signing guys in their 30s ... but most of the people here spent a good chunk of the offseason deeply concerned about how likely it is that Pujols will fall off a cliff in the next 2-3 years so I don't want those people now coming along talking about all the great talent available over the age of 30.

How many of them are going to be asking for a 10 year deal?

This deal will only look good if there is some serious US Dollar inflation over the next 12 years...

Well that's guaranteed so they needn't worry.