Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Backtobanks]

Yeah, any money issues teams may seem to be having will go out the window if Pujols actually becomes available as a FA. Teams like the Mets and Dodgers will be lining up front and center as if any financial troubles they had were a thing of the past. There's really no way you can count any of the major teams out if he hits the market. They'll find the money.

 

Yeah, all of those numbers are smoke and mirrors anyway after tax write-offs. 70%-80% of the teams could fit a $20 million contract into their payroll if they choose to do it and probably 20%-30% could afford a $30 million contract.

[davell]

Jayson Werth just got a 7 year deal and he'll be 32 in May.

 

I wouldn't use the Nationals as an example of what 29 other teams will do.

 

I have no doubt about the AAV approximating $30 million. But paying Pujols $30 million when he's 42 is going to be a tough pill for any team to swallow, especially with the plantar fasciitis.

 

 

I have no problem using the Nationals at all. It shows that teams ante up when they see what they want. The Red Sox just gave Carl Crawford 7 years and 142 mill. He'll turn 30 this season and his skillset is NOT going to age well, in all likelihood. Cliff Lee will turn 33 this year and while he signed a 5 year 120 mill contract with the Phils, he was offered 6 years guaranteed with vesting options for 7th seasons by both the Yanks and Rangers. And no pitcher is a good investment when they're damn near 40 years old.

 

So, it's not just the Nats that were wanting to spend big last offseason on risky investments. And it certainly won't be that way for the best player in the game. Not to mention, the other reasons I already listed as to why teams would ante up for a player like this.

[javy knows my name]

I have no problem using the Nationals at all. It shows that teams ante up when they see what they want. The Red Sox just gave Carl Crawford 7 years and 142 mill. He'll turn 30 this season and his skillset is NOT going to age well, in all likelihood..

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable?

 

Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed?

[Sammy Sofa]

According to ESPN.com's Buster Olney, talks between the Cardinals and Albert Pujols are "not moving at all."

 

Olney suspects that Pujols is seeking a "Mt. Everest" contract -- something similar to the 10-year, $275 million pact that Alex Rodriguez is currently operating under with the Yankees. As baseball's best hitter, Albert has no real reason to budge from that asking price because he could probably have it met as a free agent next winter. But the Cards are obviously having trouble justifying such a lofty commitment. The club's payroll rarely tops $100 million in a given year. Pujols wants talks to cease once spring training opens.

Source: ESPN.com

 

So are the Cardinals just cheap? It seems that with their fanbase they should be making more than enough money to send their payroll to the $130+ million range if they wanted to.

[Formerly Snayke]

It's been floated that the Cardinals use a good chunk of their revenue to pay down stadium debt.

[Clem Fandango]

If they can't justify a 10-year commitment to a guy who is not only the greatest baseball player of this generation, but who is the greatest baseball player in their franchise's history since Stan Musial, and who might even wind up substantially GREATER than Stan Musial when all is said and done, then they don't deserve to keep him.

 

How stupid can you be to let Albert Pujols walk? He IS the Cardinals. Even at the tail end of a 10 year contract if he's fallen off a cliff and they're paying a mint for it, he still brings so much to the franchise because of who he is and what he represents to the team.

 

The Cardinals are idiots if they let him slip through their stingy fingers

[davell]

I have no problem using the Nationals at all. It shows that teams ante up when they see what they want. The Red Sox just gave Carl Crawford 7 years and 142 mill. He'll turn 30 this season and his skillset is NOT going to age well, in all likelihood..

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable?

 

Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed?

 

 

Beertown, I'm not sure what you're asking. We're in agreeance on Crawford having young player skills. That's why I brought him up: I think it's a risk to give him that type of contract at his age. Him and Cliff Lee were brought up to show that other teams spent bigtime money on players other than just the Nats. (granted, I also think the Red Sox have the luxury of this, because they develop enough cheap guys to put around their expenditures) But I do think his contract will be a hindrance the last couple of years of it.

 

And I think someone like Pujols who's strengths are clearly not based on speed or even playing a premium defensive position. You're buying his OBP and his SLG. And those skills in a player his size should hold up better than what speed typically does in a guy hiting his mid 30's for instance.

[davell]

According to ESPN.com's Buster Olney, talks between the Cardinals and Albert Pujols are "not moving at all."

 

Olney suspects that Pujols is seeking a "Mt. Everest" contract -- something similar to the 10-year, $275 million pact that Alex Rodriguez is currently operating under with the Yankees. As baseball's best hitter, Albert has no real reason to budge from that asking price because he could probably have it met as a free agent next winter. But the Cards are obviously having trouble justifying such a lofty commitment. The club's payroll rarely tops $100 million in a given year. Pujols wants talks to cease once spring training opens.

Source: ESPN.com

 

So are the Cardinals just cheap? It seems that with their fanbase they should be making more than enough money to send their payroll to the $130+ million range if they wanted to.

 

 

That's what I would think too. I think that they HAVE to keep him, whether they like it not and that's even if he wants 12/360, 10/350 or some other assinine number that we haven't even thought possible.

 

They'll find a way to defer his contract for a very long time, in the end. I could see them settling on something like this: 10/300 as the contract, with a 20 million a year salary for the duration of the contract, then 5 mill a year for the next 10 years afterwards and 10 mill for the 5 years after that, with interest going to Albert as well.

 

 

But, the bottom line to me is this: If it IS actually 10/300 that Albert wants, then the Cards had better ante up and do it in a way that they aren't turning their fans against him, kind of like what I thought the Yanks did to Jeter earlier this offseason.

[javy knows my name]

I have no problem using the Nationals at all. It shows that teams ante up when they see what they want. The Red Sox just gave Carl Crawford 7 years and 142 mill. He'll turn 30 this season and his skillset is NOT going to age well, in all likelihood..

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable?

 

Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed?

 

 

Beertown, I'm not sure what you're asking. We're in agreeance on Crawford having young player skills. That's why I brought him up: I think it's a risk to give him that type of contract at his age. Him and Cliff Lee were brought up to show that other teams spent bigtime money on players other than just the Nats. (granted, I also think the Red Sox have the luxury of this, because they develop enough cheap guys to put around their expenditures) But I do think his contract will be a hindrance the last couple of years of it.

 

And I think someone like Pujols who's strengths are clearly not based on speed or even playing a premium defensive position. You're buying his OBP and his SLG. And those skills in a player his size should hold up better than what speed typically does in a guy hiting his mid 30's for instance.

 

You and I agree, but there is a school of thought (to which I alluded) that disagrees. I was inviting someone to defend it.

[CubColtPacer]

I have no problem using the Nationals at all. It shows that teams ante up when they see what they want. The Red Sox just gave Carl Crawford 7 years and 142 mill. He'll turn 30 this season and his skillset is NOT going to age well, in all likelihood..

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable?

 

Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed?

 

 

Beertown, I'm not sure what you're asking. We're in agreeance on Crawford having young player skills. That's why I brought him up: I think it's a risk to give him that type of contract at his age. Him and Cliff Lee were brought up to show that other teams spent bigtime money on players other than just the Nats. (granted, I also think the Red Sox have the luxury of this, because they develop enough cheap guys to put around their expenditures) But I do think his contract will be a hindrance the last couple of years of it.

 

And I think someone like Pujols who's strengths are clearly not based on speed or even playing a premium defensive position. You're buying his OBP and his SLG. And those skills in a player his size should hold up better than what speed typically does in a guy hiting his mid 30's for instance.

 

You and I agree, but there is a school of thought (to which I alluded) that disagrees. I was inviting someone to defend it.

 

I think the thought is that people who only have old player skills in their primes typically have bad conditioning and won't age well. So even though players with young player skills will lose a step as they age, they still will be in good condition with their bodies and will age better than the pure power hitter who once their natural skills start to erode they really can't make up for it.

 

A guy like Edmonds had plenty of both types of skills which helped him age gracefully. Pujols should be the same way.

[javy knows my name]

I have no problem using the Nationals at all. It shows that teams ante up when they see what they want. The Red Sox just gave Carl Crawford 7 years and 142 mill. He'll turn 30 this season and his skillset is NOT going to age well, in all likelihood..

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable?

 

Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed?

 

 

Beertown, I'm not sure what you're asking. We're in agreeance on Crawford having young player skills. That's why I brought him up: I think it's a risk to give him that type of contract at his age. Him and Cliff Lee were brought up to show that other teams spent bigtime money on players other than just the Nats. (granted, I also think the Red Sox have the luxury of this, because they develop enough cheap guys to put around their expenditures) But I do think his contract will be a hindrance the last couple of years of it.

 

And I think someone like Pujols who's strengths are clearly not based on speed or even playing a premium defensive position. You're buying his OBP and his SLG. And those skills in a player his size should hold up better than what speed typically does in a guy hiting his mid 30's for instance.

 

You and I agree, but there is a school of thought (to which I alluded) that disagrees. I was inviting someone to defend it.

 

I think the thought is that people who only have old player skills in their primes typically have bad conditioning and won't age well. So even though players with young player skills will lose a step as they age, they still will be in good condition with their bodies and will age better than the pure power hitter who once their natural skills start to erode they really can't make up for it.

 

A guy like Edmonds had plenty of both types of skills which helped him age gracefully. Pujols should be the same way.

 

That's actually an angle I've nver heard before. That makes some sense

[Cubs Fan Dan]

Pujols will sign with the Cubs and shortly after people will find out he used roids and is 47.

[davell]

Pujols will sign with the Cubs and shortly after people will find out he used roids and is 47.

 

 

Well, we all know this. :D

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Pujols will sign with the Cubs and shortly after people will find out he used roids and is 47.

I'm fairly confident he was 47 about 4 years ago.

[TruffleShuffle]

I have no problem using the Nationals at all. It shows that teams ante up when they see what they want. The Red Sox just gave Carl Crawford 7 years and 142 mill. He'll turn 30 this season and his skillset is NOT going to age well, in all likelihood..

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable?

 

Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed?

 

he was not lumbery. maybe he became lumbery in his later years but he was a very good fielder for a long time. plus he always hit around .300. the traditional "old player skills" guy is like adam dunn, where most of their value is tied up in a good batting eye and power.

 

as for the argument as to why those players do not age well, it's because guys who survive on skills like power and batting eye are generally not great athletes, so their athletic ability is already marginal, and when they age a little bit their defense and speed go from "poor" to "atrocious." plus they don't hit for high average, suggesting marginal hitting ability, and if they lose a little bat speed their average drops even more and they lose some of the power, so pitchers aren't so afraid to pitch to them any more, and they don't walk as much.

 

the main thing to take out of the bill james theory of old player skills and young player skills is that players who get by on old player skills at a young age tend to peak early and decline quickly.

Edited February 7, 2011 by TruffleShuffle

[javy knows my name]

I have no problem using the Nationals at all. It shows that teams ante up when they see what they want. The Red Sox just gave Carl Crawford 7 years and 142 mill. He'll turn 30 this season and his skillset is NOT going to age well, in all likelihood..

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable?

 

Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed?

 

he was not lumbery. maybe he became lumbery in his later years but he was a very good fielder for a long time. plus he always hit around .300. the traditional "old player skills" guy is like adam dunn, where most of their value is tied up in a good batting eye and power.

 

Ok, that's true, he became lumbery. What I don't understand, then, is why the quintessential "old player-skilled" Adam Dunn is some sort of lock to not age well when the first things that go, BA and speed, were never a part of his game to begin with. One would think that having a good eye and good power would have more longevity in baseball than the former.

[shnsajax]

Yeah, any money issues teams may seem to be having will go out the window if Pujols actually becomes available as a FA. Teams like the Mets and Dodgers will be lining up front and center as if any financial troubles they had were a thing of the past. There's really no way you can count any of the major teams out if he hits the market. They'll find the money.

 

Yeah, all of those numbers are smoke and mirrors anyway after tax write-offs. 70%-80% of the teams could fit a $20 million contract into their payroll if they choose to do it and probably 20%-30% could afford a $30 million contract.

 

David Wright also thinks the Mets will be affected by the Madoff lawsuit who will be selling off up to 25% of the ownership to pay for the settlement of that case. Finances could become more of an issue than people think.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, any money issues teams may seem to be having will go out the window if Pujols actually becomes available as a FA. Teams like the Mets and Dodgers will be lining up front and center as if any financial troubles they had were a thing of the past. There's really no way you can count any of the major teams out if he hits the market. They'll find the money.

 

Yeah, all of those numbers are smoke and mirrors anyway after tax write-offs. 70%-80% of the teams could fit a $20 million contract into their payroll if they choose to do it and probably 20%-30% could afford a $30 million contract.

 

David Wright also thinks the Mets will be affected by the Madoff lawsuit who will be selling off up to 25% of the ownership to pay for the settlement of that case. Finances could become more of an issue than people think.

 

This could very well be true, but I'm thinking we should wait to hear from someone other than David Wright on such matters.

 

That said, even with such a sale it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way to get it done.

[TruffleShuffle]

Ok, that's true, he became lumbery. What I don't understand, then, is why the quintessential "old player-skilled" Adam Dunn is some sort of lock to not age well when the first things that go, BA and speed, were never a part of his game to begin with. One would think that having a good eye and good power would have more longevity in baseball than the former.

 

edited my post above - hopefully that answers your question.

[davell]

As far as Dunn goes, personally I think that a 4 year deal for him would have been OK. But, I think he is better off in the AL, just in case the grind gets to be too much and he needs a day or two off from the field. And they can DH him and still go out and sign a better defensive 1B if they truly feel the need to do something like that.

 

I didn't want to sign him for the most part due to what else was possibly available. In A-GON, Fielder, and Pujols. Of course, none may make it to FA and my gamble would have failed. I guess we'll see how things pan out. But, I can definitely see the people's point of views that would rather take what's available now instead of waiting for what may be available later.

[javy knows my name]

Ok, that's true, he became lumbery. What I don't understand, then, is why the quintessential "old player-skilled" Adam Dunn is some sort of lock to not age well when the first things that go, BA and speed, were never a part of his game to begin with. One would think that having a good eye and good power would have more longevity in baseball than the former.

 

edited my post above - hopefully that answers your question.

 

It does. So it really comes down to athleticism and conditioning, which can be predicted based on what types of things the player does well on the field.

[TruffleShuffle]

Ok, that's true, he became lumbery. What I don't understand, then, is why the quintessential "old player-skilled" Adam Dunn is some sort of lock to not age well when the first things that go, BA and speed, were never a part of his game to begin with. One would think that having a good eye and good power would have more longevity in baseball than the former.

 

edited my post above - hopefully that answers your question.

 

It does. So it really comes down to athleticism and conditioning, which can be predicted based on what types of things the player does well on the field.

 

pretty much. if you take a guy like albert pujols, even if he loses some bat speed, foot speed and defensive ability, he still hits for a solid average, good power, and plays solid defense (as right now he's among the best at his position as far as hitting (for average) and defensive ability). then take a player like mark bellhorn, who was never a good fielder, hit for low average and didn't have much foot speed. he had good power and patience for a 2B, but when what little "young player skills" he did have began to slip, he collapsed as a ballplayer and was out of the game by his early 30s.

[Backtobanks]

Pujols will sign with the Cubs and shortly after people will find out he used roids and is 47.

 

 

Then we had better hope he ages gracefully. :lol:

[A New Era]

My Uncle thinks the Cubs are going to get Pujols. Ofcourse he thinks every single prospect from the Cubs is going to be great, and when they aren't and you mention it he acts like he always thought the guy sucked. Ofcourse he is kinda slow, he slurs his words and he's kinda mentally [expletive]. But not in a way that makes you feel sorry for him, more the way that makes him an annoying loudmouth.

 

He called me stupid when I told him the Cubs aren't going to get Pujols and not to get his hopes up. I can't wait until Pujols sign somewhere else so I can call him a stupid moron. Oh I'm not gonna let this go, I can't wait to remind him how stupid he is every time I see him. Am I bitter? Yeah but he blantantly insulted me and he's got it coming.

[javy knows my name]

Yeah, you give that [expletive] all the put-downs he can handle.

 

U-S-A!!!!!