Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Sammy Sofa]

Am I the only one who wouldn't give Pujols 10 years? Haven't we learned our lesson giving a lot of years to players already? As great as Pujols is I can't imagine him still being great from 37 to 42 years old. This talk of 10 years to a 32 year old is insane.

 

It's not ideal, but I think it's worth it even if it just nets you 5-6 years of truly great production from one of, if not THE, best hitter ever to play the game. Comparing this to the Cubs given "a lot of years to players" doesn't really work because they've never had an opportunity to do so. Besides, when have they really shelled out way too many years recently besides the Soriano contract?

[Formerly Snayke]

If the Cardinals are not willing to increase payroll, they're in a very difficult position. Obviously they need Pujols really badly. But at the same time, signing him to a 30 million a year deal means they between him and Holliday they only have 50-55 million left for the other 23 players.

 

Correct, although I think any deal will contain deferred money.

 

It's like TT said at GRB, they are in a lose-lose regardless. Lose him next year and they win 80 games. Sign him and they're in a budget crunch.

[Banedon]

If the Cardinals are not willing to increase payroll, they're in a very difficult position. Obviously they need Pujols really badly. But at the same time, signing him to a 30 million a year deal means they between him and Holliday they only have 50-55 million left for the other 23 players.

 

Correct, although I think any deal will contain deferred money.

 

It's like TT said at GRB, they are in a lose-lose regardless. Lose him next year and they win 80 games. Sign him and they're in a budget crunch.

 

How do they defer money though? I mean, if they sign a 10yr $300 million deal, then deferred money means they're either paying huge sums of money in the final years (and likely worst, performance wise) of the contract. If they defer the money till after the contract is complete, well do you want to be paying for Pujols 11, 12, or 13 years from now?

[Formerly Snayke]

well do you want to be paying for Pujols 11, 12, or 13 years from now?

 

Probably not, but unless they decide to expand payroll it's probably their only option. I suspect that their offer won't come anywhere close to $300 million for 10 years and that they've already resigned themselves to losing him. I've heard (and it might not be reliable info) that last year they hired a PR firm to estimate what the impact would be if he left.

[Wheelimus]

Hell, on some level the bump in merchandising we'd get from Pujols would be worth his contract. As would the 50 million World Series DVD/Blu-Ray's we'd sell.

 

Back in the day Hawk gave us a blank check. Tomorrow we'll need to give Pujols one. Something tells me we wind up winners on both deals.

[Tyrant]

I'm at the point where if Pujols helps the Cubs win a WS at any point during the first few years of a 10-year contract, I don't care about the rest of it.

[MWV]

I'm at the point where if Pujols helps the Cubs win a WS at any point during the first few years of a 10-year contract, I don't care about the rest of it.

I agree. I felt the same way in 2007-2008 Re: Soriano's contract. If we had won the WS, all was forgiven.

[apete6]

Would Pujols take a contract that is 10 years, $250 million plus a $50 million cash bonus if his new team won the World Series?

 

Let's say they win it the first year, that's more like an extra $100 million or so over the 10 years.

[Formerly Snayke]

Flags fly forever and when a team has a chance to add one of the game's best, you shouldn't care what happens. Cubs fans seem to understand this, while Cardinals fans sound like a bunch of Williston, ND natives who are demanding frugality. Some are even complaining about the Holliday contract. Again.

[Banedon]

Flags fly forever and when a team has a chance to add one of the game's best, you shouldn't care what happens. Cubs fans seem to understand this, while Cardinals fans sound like a bunch of Williston, ND natives who are demanding frugality. Some are even complaining about the Holliday contract. Again.

 

I can understand complaining about the Holliday deal though, if you think that deal will prevent the team from re-signing Pujols.

[Sammy Sofa]

Flags fly forever and when a team has a chance to add one of the game's best, you shouldn't care what happens. Cubs fans seem to understand this, while Cardinals fans sound like a bunch of Williston, ND natives who are demanding frugality. Some are even complaining about the Holliday contract. Again.

 

Well, I can't really fault people for complaining over the Holliday contract. I remember at the time plenty of people were questioning it given that Pujols was going to have to be re-signed in the very near future.

 

I mentioned it before, but I don't understand why the Cardinals are even in this money crunch in the first place. They're a very popular team with a very large fanbase. They sell a ton of tickets and merchandise. Is it that they CAN'T go over a $100 million payroll or that they WON'T? Is it because of the cost of the stadium and the whole "ballpark village" debacle?

Edited February 15, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Formerly Snayke]

I can understand complaining about the Holliday deal though, if you think that deal will prevent the team from re-signing Pujols.

 

Aye, but at the time, it was myopic to complain about Holliday making $16 million per year because unless something big happened with the U.S. economy to deflate salaries, Holliday was going to wind up being underpaid early into the contract.

 

When Holliday signed the deal, Pujols was still asking for around $25 million. The Howard contract blew that to pieces.

 

Is it because of the cost of the stadium and the whole "ballpark village" debacle?

 

Paying for the stadium seems to be the popular guess.

[rocket]

no one's mentioning the best part of pujols becoming a cub. creepy cardinals fan would certainly come out of youtube retirement and literally drown in his own tears for our enjoyment.

[UK1679666180]

Am I the only one who wouldn't give Pujols 10 years? Haven't we learned our lesson giving a lot of years to players already? As great as Pujols is I can't imagine him still being great from 37 to 42 years old. This talk of 10 years to a 32 year old is insane.

 

I would give him that amount, there isn't much better value you'll find for 27-30 mil in the FA. The last 4 FA contracts of Wood, Byrd, Bradley, and Fukudome isn't close to the production of Pujols despite similar value per year. He's got a likely 5-6 year window of exceeding his dealn its worth the risk to worry the back half of the contract. Signing him would a much greater emphasis of building within to surround him.

 

I would be all for his rumored demands.

[shnsajax]

no one's mentioning the best part of pujols becoming a cub. creepy cardinals fan would certainly come out of youtube retirement and literally drown in his own tears for our enjoyment.

 

I forgot all about him, this is now my primary reason for wanting Pujols. Though he might go on a killing spree at his local Walmart prior to making the video.

[Guest]

I'd be happy with him leaving the Cardinals and NL Central. I can't imagine my reaction if the Cubs sign him.

[Guest]

no one's mentioning the best part of pujols becoming a cub. creepy cardinals fan would certainly come out of youtube retirement and literally drown in his own tears for our enjoyment.

 

http://northsidebaseball.com/forum/topic?p=2575451#p2575451

[kujay]

no one's mentioning the best part of pujols becoming a cub. creepy cardinals fan would certainly come out of youtube retirement and literally drown in his own tears for our enjoyment.

 

I forgot all about him, this is now my primary reason for wanting Pujols. Though he might go on a killing spree at his local Walmart prior to making the video.

 

Haha, that would be awesome.

 

Less than 24 hours to the deadline now. There is talk here that not signing him now doesn't foreclose the possibility of signing with the Cardinals after the season. I don't see how it doesn't. If the team goes south this year, he's gone. If the team wins it all, he's accomplished what he needs to (two titles in five years) and he's gone. Anything in between, he's already got his ring, so no "unfinished business" argument to make.

 

This is obviously oversimplifying things, but the team will be in just as much of a financial bind in November as they are now.

 

It's going to be so awesome when he leaves, and I don't care what it costs, he needs to be in Mesa next spring.

[squally1313]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2011/news/story?id=6124272

 

I believe that's what they call "panic" from the Cardinal's camp.

 

Also, I hate Tony La Russa.

[javy knows my name]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2011/news/story?id=6124272

 

I believe that's what they call "panic" from the Cardinal's camp.

 

Also, I hate Tony La Russa.

 

I love it. Way to divorce Pujols from his own decision-making. And he's contradicted twice in that short article.

[MWV]

The MLBPA responds to La Russa's allegations:

Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports was told Tuesday that the MLBPA is not involved in Albert Pujols' contract negotiations with the Cardinals.

Cardinals skipper Tony La Russa went on a bit of a tirade against the union Tuesday morning in camp, saying that the MLBPA is "dropping an anvil" of pressure on Pujols to push for a 10-year contract worth nearly $300 million. That apparently isn't the case. MLBPA director Michael Weiner told Passan on Tuesday afternoon that he has "had no conversations" with Pujols or his agent Dan Lozano. The saga continues.

Perhaps next La Russa can blame the Tides Foundation? Maybe Soros?

That aside, the implication from La Russa is that Pujols' camp is being unreasonable in their demands, and Albert is not that kind of guy, so someone (MLBPA) must be coercing him. If the reality, as it appears to be, is that Pujols' team is negotiating absent of explicit, external pressure, does not the substance of La Russa's gripe become "Pujols is asking for too much"?

This season could be an interesting one to watch in St. Louis. Never underestimate TLR's ability to hold a grudge.

[shnsajax]

The MLBPA responds to La Russa's allegations:

Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports was told Tuesday that the MLBPA is not involved in Albert Pujols' contract negotiations with the Cardinals.

Cardinals skipper Tony La Russa went on a bit of a tirade against the union Tuesday morning in camp, saying that the MLBPA is "dropping an anvil" of pressure on Pujols to push for a 10-year contract worth nearly $300 million. That apparently isn't the case. MLBPA director Michael Weiner told Passan on Tuesday afternoon that he has "had no conversations" with Pujols or his agent Dan Lozano. The saga continues.

Perhaps next La Russa can blame the Tides Foundation? Maybe Soros?

That aside, the implication from La Russa is that Pujols' camp is being unreasonable in their demands, and Albert is not that kind of guy, so someone (MLBPA) must be coercing him. If the reality, as it appears to be, is that Pujols' team is negotiating absent of explicit, external pressure, does not the substance of La Russa's gripe become "Pujols is asking for too much"?

This season could be an interesting one to watch in St. Louis. Never underestimate TLR's ability to hold a grudge.

 

Plus he will be able to use this as his blame for his upcoming drinking and DWI.

[Guest]

The dude has OPS'ed under 1.000 twice in his career, both of which were over .900... and one of those years was .997...

 

 

RIDICULOUS

[UMFan83]

no one's mentioning the best part of pujols becoming a cub. creepy cardinals fan would certainly come out of youtube retirement and literally drown in his own tears for our enjoyment.

 

I forgot all about him, this is now my primary reason for wanting Pujols. Though he might go on a killing spree at his local Walmart prior to making the video.

 

Haha, that would be awesome.

 

Less than 24 hours to the deadline now. There is talk here that not signing him now doesn't foreclose the possibility of signing with the Cardinals after the season. I don't see how it doesn't. If the team goes south this year, he's gone. If the team wins it all, he's accomplished what he needs to (two titles in five years) and he's gone. Anything in between, he's already got his ring, so no "unfinished business" argument to make.

 

This is obviously oversimplifying things, but the team will be in just as much of a financial bind in November as they are now.

 

It's going to be so awesome when he leaves, and I don't care what it costs, he needs to be in Mesa next spring.

 

I strongly disagree. IMO, the Cardinals are still the heavy favorite to retain Pujols if the season passes without a deal. But it would be more like 70-30 instead of 95-5. It's not unprecidented for a star player to become a FA and then resign with the same team. ARod did it a few years ago, Aramis did it with us in 2006 to give 2 examples. All it means is that Pujols put a deadline on a new deal, the Cardinals didn't meet it so now they have to wait until after the season to negotiate. Don't forget they have an excluside window to negotiate with him before other teams can. By then, after 6 months of evaluating what Pujols means to the Cardinals, they might find a way to offer him the money he wants to stay there. Or they might decide its too much, and stand firm with their offer. If that's the case, I can't see Pujols at that point, refuse a contract offer from another team that might make him $50-100 million more over the life of the contract than what STL is offering.

[Formerly Snayke]

Less than 24 hours to the deadline now. There is talk here that not signing him now doesn't foreclose the possibility of signing with the Cardinals after the season. I don't see how it doesn't. If the team goes south this year, he's gone. If the team wins it all, he's accomplished what he needs to (two titles in five years) and he's gone. Anything in between, he's already got his ring, so no "unfinished business" argument to make.

 

That's not really a good argument anyway. Barring collapses from Wainwright and Carpenter, they're still going to win 85 games and compete for the division title. And I don't see how winning the World Series this year would somehow make it less likely that he returns. When has a player ever left because of finished business?

 

This is obviously oversimplifying things, but the team will be in just as much of a financial bind in November as they are now.

 

Yes they will.