Does he have to fall of a cliff for this to be a terrible contract? He doesn't have to pull a soriano. If he's merely above average for his position for 6-8 years of the contract, was it a bad deal? For it to be terrible? Yes. I mean, you can declare this to be a "bad deal" pretty much regardless of what he actually puts up because it was essentially impossible for him to be worth all of the money/years regardless of this slow start. The Angels obviously would have been aware of that. Singing him goes beyond just stacking his performance vs. his contract. Right. But the expectation is he's at least very good from the start. I don't think the angels are banking on him being worth $25m in 10 years. Well, yeah, but we're still way too early to do anything like writing this off as a bust. As last year showed, a "different" Pujols can still be a very, very productive Pujols. I'm not saying its a bust. I'm agreeing with the earlier post that they should be worried now if they weren't already.