PDA

View Full Version : Pujols to Cards: You have through spring



Pages : [1] 2

Brutus
01-15-2011, 06:27 PM
According to a report today published on major media outlets, the Cardinals have been told by Albert Pujols' agent that they have until the end of spring training to get an extension worked out, or he'll go ahead with free agency after the year.

I suppose this isn't earth-shattering news, as it was unlikely they'd negotiate during the season. Still, this gives them little leverage from here going forward.

Scrap Irony
01-15-2011, 07:17 PM
This has a chance to really be difficult for the Cardinals, as they really need to start well and continue to play well with no injury nor any room for error. The first time they stumble, problems could arise.

And that's good for the Reds.

Captain Hook
01-15-2011, 07:23 PM
I would be really, really happy to see the Cards loose Sir Albert.He's been carrying that team for a long time now and they've been pretty good as a result.Actually the best in the division for a long while now.It's time the Reds take control of the central for a nice long stretch(although that might happen anyway).

RedsManRick
01-15-2011, 10:43 PM
I hope Mark Teixiera is ready to DH.

hebroncougar
01-15-2011, 10:57 PM
I hope Mark Teixiera is ready to DH.

I bet, if free agency does come to fruition, he's a Met. They have a ton of money coming off of the books this year, and they need some noise after a down few years.

RedsManRick
01-15-2011, 11:10 PM
I bet, if free agency does come to fruition, he's a Met. They have a ton of money coming off of the books this year, and they need some noise after a down few years.

Hadn't thought of that. I could see the Angels making a big push for him after getting stood up this year.

muddie
01-15-2011, 11:12 PM
I believe they have until spring training, not through spring training.

From The Big League Stew Sports Blog...

“We have been notified that spring training would be the deadline,” Cardinals general manager John Mozeliak told reporters at the club’s annual charity event Saturday. When asked if that meant the start of spring training, Mozeliak nodded.

That gives Mozeliak roughly 34 days to finalize a mega-contract extension or face the very likely possibility of Pujols testing the open market next winter. Not to mention a full season of rumors, questions without answers, and, most importantly, an anxious and queasy fanbase at Busch Stadium.

hebroncougar
01-15-2011, 11:19 PM
Hadn't thought of that. I could see the Angels making a big push for him after getting stood up this year.

Even with Morales there? I think Pujols objects to DH'ing.

Brutus
01-15-2011, 11:20 PM
I bet, if free agency does come to fruition, he's a Met. They have a ton of money coming off of the books this year, and they need some noise after a down few years.

Yeah, I would actually bet that he doesn't end up with the Yankees. Mets, Angels, Dodgers seem far safer bets from what I've read about him.

RedsBaron
01-15-2011, 11:36 PM
I know this sounds crazy, since I am a Reds fan, but I actually hope that Pujols stays in St. Louis. I like to see superstars spent a career with one team, which is relatively rare.
The good thing for Reds fans if Pujols stays is that he may bust the Cardinals budget and keep St. Louis from keeping a quality team around him.

BCubb2003
01-15-2011, 11:39 PM
I believe they have until spring training, not through spring training.

And does that mean Pitchers and Catchers Day or Position Players Report?

The Operator
01-15-2011, 11:44 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing him stay in StL for one reason. If they lock him up to a huge, mind blowing contract, it will definitely hamper their ability to build a complete team.

They're already paying Holliday nearly 20M per season and I'd bet Albert will get at least 25M annually over the life of a new deal, if not more towards 30M. Those two alone would eat up a huge chunk of their payroll.

The Cardinals can be beat with Pujols if they don't have a complete team around him. We saw that in 2010 and I'd like to see it happen even more.

redsfandan
01-16-2011, 06:20 AM
Their big contracts for 2012 (I didn't include bonuses, etc):

Matt Holliday 10-16: $17M annually, 17:$17M club option ($1M buyout)

Chris Carpenter 07:$8.5M, 08:$10.5M, 09:$14M, 10:$14.5M, 11:$15M, 12:$15M club option ($1M buyout)

Kyle Lohse 09:$7.125M, 10:$8.875M, 11:$11.875M, 12:$11.875M

Jake Westbrook 11:$8M, 12:$8.5M, 13:$8.5M mutual option ($1M buyout if club declines, none if player declines)

Adam Wainwright 08:$0.5M, 09:$2.6M, 10:$4.65M, 11:$6.5M, 12:$9M club option, 13:$12M club option

Yadier Molina 08:$1.75M, 09:$3.25M, 10:$4.25M, 11:$5.25M, 12:$7M club option ($0.75M buyout)

Right now, that's $68.375M for those 6 players without counting Pujols. Add $25M for Pujols and you're already over $90M. Obviously, things will change. Some contracts will be redone and I wouldn't be surprised to see at least one of those pitchers gone. But adding a new contract for Pujols wouldn't leave much left for the other 18 players.

traderumor
01-16-2011, 09:49 AM
We are talking about Cardinals fans here. The best fans in the world will certainly pass the hat to keep Albert there. They'll probably be able to organize a telethon.

REDblooded
01-16-2011, 10:06 AM
That Kyle Lohse contract looks nice...

Eric_the_Red
01-16-2011, 10:13 AM
I don't care what it does to their budget, I want Pujols out of St. Louis, and preferably out of the NL. He is a once in a generation talent that makes any team he is on dangerous. Let him play in Anaheim and feast on the Al West pitchers instead of ours.

PuffyPig
01-16-2011, 12:36 PM
I'm not convinced that any team other than a large market team should be paying $20M+ to left fielders and first baseman.

If the Cards have about $50M per season commited to the two easiest positions to fill and play, they will have trouble fielding a competitive team.

Last year, even though they got huge years from their top three rotation starters, they still had serious depth issues throughout the lineup, and that was with paying Pujols and Holliday about $35M.

I'd rather they pay Pujols $30M and lets the chips fall where they may. In the long run, that will hurt the cards more than letting him go.

FWIW, it's likely the same story as us with Votto. In the long run, I think we will trade Votto when he has about 1-2 years left on his contract, getting a boatload of talent in return. It's likley better for the Reds longterm.

If Votto only gives us a 3 year deal now, it pretty much tells us he wants to test the FA market. That's not something we will ever win.

CarolinaRedleg
01-16-2011, 05:21 PM
How will Chris Carpenter explain that to his son?

JaxRed
01-16-2011, 06:41 PM
That Kyle Lohse contract looks nice...

If you're Kyle Lohse

bucksfan2
01-17-2011, 10:06 AM
I know this sounds crazy, since I am a Reds fan, but I actually hope that Pujols stays in St. Louis. I like to see superstars spent a career with one team, which is relatively rare.
The good thing for Reds fans if Pujols stays is that he may bust the Cardinals budget and keep St. Louis from keeping a quality team around him.

I feel the same way. You don't want the best players in the game to go to another team because of baseball's financial inequities. Don't get me wrong the Cards dug a large portion of their own grave with the contracts handed out to Holliday and the likes of Lohse and Westbrook. But I still think that it would be best for baseball in general for superstars to finish out their career in the city that developed them.

IMO the Reds won't be in a much different place when Votto enters FA. This isn't a case like Jr years ago or a case like Prince Fielder where the player wants out, Albert wants to say. It was already unfortunate when Pads traded hometown star Gonzales away for financial reasons to a big market power.

Strikes Out Looking
01-17-2011, 11:18 AM
I want Pujols to sign for $30 plus million with the Cards, break their bank and then have his numbers come back to earth.

traderumor
01-17-2011, 05:43 PM
It is starting to look like the Cards have really backed themselves into a corner here, starting with buckling on the big Holliday contract.

I can envision them being able to do little else than damage control with not signing him, which has the potential to be a PR nightmare, or resign him and cut off their nose to spite their face.

It will take some really shrewd GMing to win this one, and so far Mozeliak has not seemed up to the task.

REDREAD
01-18-2011, 12:08 PM
I don't necessarily think that giving Pujols a huge contract will cripple the Cards.

If the Cards do not have much depth on their roster, then I think it's even more important to retain the superstars. IMO, signing Westbrook to that deal makes a lot of sense, if he can maintain his current level of performance, just because they don't have a lot of depth.

The Cards have proven that you can win a World Series with 2-3 great pitchers and 3-4 great position players.

Now, I agree, giving Lohse that contract was not smart.

Plus Plus
01-29-2011, 11:50 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6070963


What happens after that remains to be seen, but the choices facing the Cardinals are expensive in different ways. Either St. Louis will negotiate a deal along the lines what Pujols has asked for -- probably something in the neighborhood of the 10-year, $275 million deal that Alex Rodriguez signed with the Yankees in fall 2007 -- or the Cardinals will pay for the backlash after Pujols walks away.

Pujols has told his agent to veto any and all trades during the season, leaving the Cardinals with only two options- sign an enormous contract extension (which was discussed on Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption as potentially needing to be 10 years for 300m to keep Pujols) or search for a new first baseman.

redsfandan
01-29-2011, 12:01 PM
The clock is ticking. They have 21 days left to get a deal done. Their fans won't be happy if they don't get something done.

MartyFan
01-29-2011, 12:05 PM
The clock is ticking. They have 21 days left to get a deal done. If they don't get something done their fans won't be happy.

I think they are going to use this as an "out" to blow up the team...they are old and have a few young players...and only pitching to trade...still I expect them to be down for a year or two.

kaldaniels
01-29-2011, 12:27 PM
Is it wrong to be rooting for the Cards to give Albert the 300 MM contract? I truly think that would decimate their franchise for a decade. :dunno:

RED VAN HOT
01-29-2011, 04:37 PM
Is it wrong to be rooting for the Cards to give Albert the 300 MM contract? I truly think that would decimate their franchise for a decade. :dunno:

As redundant as it sounds, I agree.

TheNext44
01-29-2011, 05:04 PM
Is it wrong to be rooting for the Cards to give Albert the 300 MM contract? I truly think that would decimate their franchise for a decade. :dunno:

As redundant as it sounds, I agree too.

The Operator
01-29-2011, 05:35 PM
Heck, I hope they give him 10 years at 400 million.

I want their hands to be tied as much as possible. Although that certainly won't help us when Votto's contract is up. Hmm.

KronoRed
01-29-2011, 06:22 PM
I don't necessarily think that giving Pujols a huge contract will cripple the Cards.


It won't, they can get away with it.

Besides, I don't want to see all the superstar players end up with the usual suspects in the AL east.

traderumor
01-29-2011, 07:52 PM
So, is Albert just taking care of his family?

I(heart)Freel
01-29-2011, 11:13 PM
This is one reason why the Cards will pay and overpay to keep Albert.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/2751466-419/pena-cubs-season-carlos-meetings.html

redsfandan
01-29-2011, 11:36 PM
I don't necessarily think that giving Pujols a huge contract will cripple the Cards.

If the Cards do not have much depth on their roster, then I think it's even more important to retain the superstars. IMO, signing Westbrook to that deal makes a lot of sense, if he can maintain his current level of performance, just because they don't have a lot of depth.

The Cards have proven that you can win a World Series with 2-3 great pitchers and 3-4 great position players.

Now, I agree, giving Lohse that contract was not smart.
Ok, now they've got Pujols and Holliday and ... who else?

Berkman was a great player but I'm not sure there's anyone that would say he's a great player now. And while Rasmus has potential the Cardinals have to show that they won't screw him up. And that's if they don't trade him. Pujols will require a big financial committment for the years when he'll be more likely to miss time due to injury. Just thinking about it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. lol

Big Klu
01-31-2011, 01:34 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6070963



Pujols has told his agent to veto any and all trades during the season, leaving the Cardinals with only two options- sign an enormous contract extension (which was discussed on Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption as potentially needing to be 10 years for 300m to keep Pujols) or search for a new first baseman.

It must be said....

How will Chris Carpenter explain that to his son?

redsfandan
02-04-2011, 11:43 AM
DeWitt made clear during an extended interview with the Post-Dispatch at Major League Baseball's winter meetings in Orlando that there was a limit on how much the franchise could commit to one player and that it would not be hostage to other organizations' excessive deals...


At his client's urging, Lozano has offered little public comment during the last 11 months about the process. However, that hasn't prevented sources close to Team Pujols from noting the first baseman's disappointment over a process that has never reached high gear.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_26276ce3-c727-5634-8f0c-671212cc6005.html
The clock is ticking...

traderumor
02-04-2011, 12:56 PM
DeWitt made clear during an extended interview with the Post-Dispatch at Major League Baseball's winter meetings in Orlando that there was a limit on how much the franchise could commit to one player and that it would not be hostage to other organizations' excessive deals...you mean like Matt Holliday's contract? :confused::p:

Roy Tucker
02-04-2011, 01:17 PM
I still think Pujols is the best player in the game, but I don't know how you can sign him for that kind of money for another 10 years. I'd hate to be the Cards GM that says "bye" to him though. Quite the dilemma.

On the flip side, who is going to pay that kind of money? The Yankees have Teixeira and the Red Sox have Gonzalez. Just who else? The Angels? Dodgers? There just aren't that many teams who can afford that price tag.

membengal
02-04-2011, 01:20 PM
The cubs. That's who could.

CarolinaRedleg
02-04-2011, 01:51 PM
Cue the Jack Bauer/24 clock noises...

http://www.albertcountdown.com/

medford
02-04-2011, 02:34 PM
If Albert left for the Cubs, what would his reception be in St Louis afterwords?

Chip R
02-04-2011, 02:51 PM
If Albert left for the Cubs, what would his reception be in St Louis afterwords?

Depends on if he had a TV show where he announced he was going to them. ;)

redsfandan
02-04-2011, 03:01 PM
I still think Pujols is the best player in the game, but I don't know how you can sign him for that kind of money for another 10 years. I'd hate to be the Cards GM that says "bye" to him though. Quite the dilemma.
If they don't resign him the Cardinals lose the heart of their offense and the Reds benefit. If they do resign him but with a REALLY expensive contract they could end up without that much room in their budget to do everything they want in which case the Reds still benefit. Works for me.

I thought this was also notable:

... the game's most prolific player during his 10-year career, has never been the game's highest-paid player and only briefly had one of its top 10 salaries.
Pujols might want to fix that and get paid enough to make up for being 'underpaid' all those years.

Homer Bailey
02-04-2011, 03:57 PM
Cue the Jack Bauer/24 clock noises...

http://www.albertcountdown.com/

If I told you I did not send that to every Cards fan I know, I'd be lying.

Jpup
02-04-2011, 04:04 PM
How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his son?

kaldaniels
02-04-2011, 10:14 PM
The Reds have weathered (albeit mostly without sucess) the worst of the Pujols storm. After 2011, if he is still a Card, he will really hamstring their budget. So far he has been insanely cheap. Someone give a medal to the GM who signed him long term.

The Operator
02-05-2011, 05:14 AM
Someone give a medal to the GM who signed him long term.If only The Reds could snag a guy like that.

GAC
02-05-2011, 07:16 AM
I don't think there is any way that the Card's FO will commit 10 years and 300M to a guy who is 31. He's the best player in the game, and probably the last decade, for sure; but his skills, just like every other player, are going to begin to diminish with age. They guy does take good care of himself, but that still does not make him immune to the aging process. And you're going to pay this guy guaranteed money till he's 41? So lets say he continues to put up his typical numbers for even the next 5-6 years before they start to slide. You're on hook for 4-5 years after that at 120-150M because no one else is going to take on that contract if it comes to that point.

Last year, Albert struggled with plantar fasciitis, which is a painful inflammation of the plantar fascia, which is the thick, connective tissue which supports the arch of the foot and runs to the toes. It's pretty common among athletes, is treatable, but it's symptoms can point to degenerative changes and be a chronic condition because as we age tissue tends to become weaker and more prone to damage. And it can commonly spread it's symptoms to other areas, such as the knees.

And when your "job" is a major league ballplayer, playing a position such as 1B, where a lot of pressure and stress, due to mechanics, is placed on that area, the wear and tear of 162 games is going to increase the risk. So are fans going to be happy they're paying him 30M/year if he's only playing 120+ games/year because he needs to rest/treat this condition?

It may cause a lot of anger and pain to Card fans if they decide not to resign him after this year. But he's not the first high caliber ballplayer to abandon his team for the sake of the almighty dollar. But I think they need to look farther down the road, and will that contract prevent them from doing other things to improve this ball club?

Scrap Irony
02-05-2011, 10:53 AM
Just spitballing here, but I wonder if Pujols could play 3B again. I think the OF is beyond him (possibly), but 3B could be a possibility is his arm is good enough. At one time, he wasn't bad at the hot corner. Even if he's passable only, his bat would play there for five more years. Then he might DH for the rest of the contract.

If he could indeed play those three spots, it would open up some new opportunites for the best player in the game.

That said, I'm guessing the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, Angels, Nats, Orioles, and Cardinals would all pay a pretty penny for his services. (Washington, in particular, looks like they're primed to grab him. And a batting order that includes Zimmerman, Pujols, Werth, and perhaps Harper at the corners could score an awful lot of runs.)

PuffyPig
02-05-2011, 11:01 AM
Just spitballing here, but I wonder if Pujols could play 3B again. I think the OF is beyond him (possibly), but 3B could be a possibility is his arm is good enough. At one time, he wasn't bad at the hot corner. Even if he's passable only, his bat would play there for five more years. Then he might DH for the rest of the contract.

If he could indeed play those three spots, it would open up some new opportunites for the best player in the game.



No he couldn't.

IIRC, I believe its only a matter of time until he needs surgery on his arm. He's a 1B or DH at this stage.

I(heart)Freel
02-05-2011, 11:55 AM
I posted earlier on this thread that the Cubs are the real threat here. Which means the Reds will still need to worry about and plan for and pitch around Mr. Pujols for the foreseeable future.

If the Cubs get some pitching too, the Reds will have its biggest NL Central rival from 2012-20??.

RANDY IN INDY
02-05-2011, 11:59 AM
No he couldn't.

IIRC, I believe its only a matter of time until he needs surgery on his arm. He's a 1B or DH at this stage.

You're on top of that one, Puffy. His arm is toast right now.

jmcclain19
02-05-2011, 04:42 PM
I for one can't wait for the Cards this season.

That team right now is like a time bomb on top of box of grenades inside a warehouse of gasoline.

Someone please push the button.

La Russa is in his last go round. Colby Rasmus isn't happy. Pujols has one foot out the door. Two of their three top pitchers have an injury history a mile long and their bullpen is pretty scary. Bring on the season I say.

Redsfan320
02-05-2011, 04:51 PM
I for one can't wait for the Cards this season.

That team right now is like a time bomb on top of box of grenades inside a warehouse of gasoline.

Someone please push the button.

La Russa is in his last go round. Colby Rasmus isn't happy. Pujols has one foot out the door. Two of their three top pitchers have an injury history a mile long and their bullpen is pretty scary. Bring on the season I say.

You forgot their atrocious defense, featuring Lance Berkman in RF.

320

Jpup
02-05-2011, 07:21 PM
Just spitballing here, but I wonder if Pujols could play 3B again. I think the OF is beyond him (possibly), but 3B could be a possibility is his arm is good enough. At one time, he wasn't bad at the hot corner. Even if he's passable only, his bat would play there for five more years. Then he might DH for the rest of the contract.

If he could indeed play those three spots, it would open up some new opportunites for the best player in the game.

That said, I'm guessing the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, Angels, Nats, Orioles, and Cardinals would all pay a pretty penny for his services. (Washington, in particular, looks like they're primed to grab him. And a batting order that includes Zimmerman, Pujols, Werth, and perhaps Harper at the corners could score an awful lot of runs.)

I have to believe that if he doesn't resign with St. Louis then the Yankees are going to do what it takes to sign him. They would probably move Tex to DH or trade him if they had to.

PuffyPig
02-06-2011, 12:33 AM
I for one can't wait for the Cards this season.

That team right now is like a time bomb on top of box of grenades inside a warehouse of gasoline.

Someone please push the button.

La Russa is in his last go round. Colby Rasmus isn't happy. Pujols has one foot out the door. Two of their three top pitchers have an injury history a mile long and their bullpen is pretty scary. Bring on the season I say.

Actually their entire rotation has an injury history.

All five.

Bullpen scary? Maybe on paper it looks average, but it continues to get results year after year.

GoReds
02-07-2011, 03:39 PM
Am I reading this right that the holdup may not be money as much as it is years?

The Cards are in a tough spot, that's for sure. I can see Pujols playing maybe five more years at first, but he quickly becomes a liability there. Unless the Cards could trade him at that point, they simply can't go beyond five years, can they? As a Reds fan, I sure hope they do.

Same with the Cubs.

His long-term future is in the AL. There isn't a team there that couldn't figure out some way to use the guy.

No matter how you slice it, this is going to be some kind of ugly. Should be a lot of fun!

fearofpopvol1
02-09-2011, 03:52 AM
I didn't see this posted anywhere, but according to ESPN, the deadline is one week, 2/16.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6102486

PuffyPig
02-09-2011, 11:24 AM
Am I reading this right that the holdup may not be money as much as it is years?



The years is the money.

If the Cards would pay $30M over each of 5 years, but not $30M over each of 10 years, that's $150M difference. That's the money.

lollipopcurve
02-09-2011, 11:29 AM
Votto has the same agent as Pujols, Dan Lozano. If Pujols tests the market, we can be sure Votto will too.

_Sir_Charles_
02-09-2011, 12:42 PM
I for one can't wait for the Cards this season.

That team right now is like a time bomb on top of box of grenades inside a warehouse of gasoline.

Someone please push the button.

La Russa is in his last go round. Colby Rasmus isn't happy. Pujols has one foot out the door. Two of their three top pitchers have an injury history a mile long and their bullpen is pretty scary. Bring on the season I say.

This is how I see it too. Especially with the defense added in. I simply can't understand how they keep getting rated so high. That Sporting news ranking had them in the top 10. This just baffles me. I fully expect to see the Cards finish in the bottom half of the division.

Edd Roush
02-09-2011, 03:29 PM
I fully expect to see the Cards finish in the bottom half of the division. Below the Cubs or Astros? Sorry, I don't see that. I see the Reds, Brewers and Cardinals neck and neck through the end of the year and a big gap between "The Big 3" and the rest of the division. Injuries could change things and if injuries stay equal, I think the Reds benefit most with their depth but if the Cards rotation stays healthy (a big if) than I think they are in the best position to win the division.

westofyou
02-09-2011, 03:35 PM
I simply can't understand how they keep getting rated so high. That Sporting news ranking had them in the top 10. This just baffles me. I fully expect to see the Cards finish in the bottom half of the division.

Let's three great starters, the best player in the game, a steady BP, best pitching coach in the game, owner not afraid to spend money.

Yeah it's a real head scratcher

RichRed
02-09-2011, 05:12 PM
Let's three great starters, the best player in the game, a steady BP, best pitching coach in the game, owner not afraid to spend money.

Yeah it's a real head scratcher

Averaged 91 wins per season since 2000. I just assume they're going to find a way to be pretty good every year, despite any indications to the contrary, until they start proving otherwise.

redsmetz
02-09-2011, 05:34 PM
Averaged 91 wins per season since 2000. I just assume they're going to find a way to be pretty good every year, despite any indications to the contrary, until they start proving otherwise.

Many have said it here, you just can't dismiss them. They do it year in and year out. Last year was a very down year and yet they won 86 games. Even without Pujols resolved, they'll come to play to win. They can't be taken for granted.

I'd say the same thing about the Cubs. Yes, historically, they've collapsed more times than not, but I can't suggest that they won't be a problem.

Regarding Pujols, one of my nephews, a diehard Cardinals fan, is a bit worried about the whole situation. I'm sure he's not alone.

_Sir_Charles_
02-09-2011, 05:53 PM
Below the Cubs or Astros? Sorry, I don't see that. I see the Reds, Brewers and Cardinals neck and neck through the end of the year and a big gap between "The Big 3" and the rest of the division. Injuries could change things and if injuries stay equal, I think the Reds benefit most with their depth but if the Cards rotation stays healthy (a big if) than I think they are in the best position to win the division.


Not below the 'Stros. But yes, I think the Cubs will be better than them. They seriously underperformed last year IMO. Not that there's anything wrong with that in my book. :O) And I also think that the Cubs actually improved themselves this off season...the Cards I think got worse.

westofyou
02-09-2011, 06:01 PM
Not below the 'Stros. But yes, I think the Cubs will be better than them. They seriously underperformed last year IMO. Not that there's anything wrong with that in my book. :O) And I also think that the Cubs actually improved themselves this off season...the Cards I think got worse.

Last year you were sure the pirates were way better than the astros, and they were historically bad.

_Sir_Charles_
02-09-2011, 06:04 PM
Last year you were sure the pirates were way better than the astros, and they were historically bad.

Yes, i did say that...however, that was also before they went on that trading binge before the season started.

_Sir_Charles_
02-09-2011, 06:11 PM
Let's three great starters, the best player in the game, a steady BP, best pitching coach in the game, owner not afraid to spend money.

Yeah it's a real head scratcher

3 great starters...Carpenter's one year older and still a huge injury risk, Garcia is coming of a huge jump in his workload and nobody knows how he's going to react. But after those 3 guys...quite iffy IMO.

Best player in the game...starting to show signs of aging IMO. He's starting to get nagging injuries kinda regularly. And now he's got this contract thing hanging over his head. But at the end of the day, yeah...he's still going to produce...but after him and Holiday...there's not much there to scare anybody.

The steady BP that many thought would stink last year, they overperformed IMO. There are lots of unproven arms in there and you simply can't assume they'll repeat the performance they had last year. Pitching coach or no pitching coach.

As for the owner willing to spend money...I certainly can't recall the Cardinals ever being as strapped for cash as they are right now. And that's not even counting Pooholes contract.

Just stating my opinion and how I see this season coming out.

Reds
Brewers
Cubs
Cardinals
Astros
Pirates

PuffyPig
02-09-2011, 06:38 PM
Many have said it here, you just can't dismiss them. They do it year in and year out. Last year was a very down year and yet they won 86 games.

Very down year?

They got sensational years out of Pujols, Holliday, Carpenter, Wainwright and Garcia. It would be against huge odds that they can, as a group, duplicate that.

Each of their starters had some type of injury last year. Since the odds of any 5 starters remaining healthy all year is slim anyway, I'd suggest that the odds of these 5 starters is even longer.

They had a down year becuase they had a serious lack of depth behind their star players. And little on the horizon being added from the minors. Unless they get a duplication from their big 5, they are more likely trending downwards.

muddie
02-09-2011, 06:58 PM
They had a down year becuase they had a serious lack of depth behind their star players.

This is my take as well. A friend of mine at work is a Cardinal fan. I tell him the Cardinals are 'top heavy' when trying to make my point about their payroll. They have too much money tied up in a few players and they are thin beyond that.

Last year before they signed Holliday I was telling my friend that that signing him was going to be a mistake financially. They have tied their hands in some ways now with the way they have constructed this team IMHO. I personally think Berkman is going to be a bust.

Cardinals management can't really win either way with Pujols in my opinion. As the old saying goes, they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't.

Blitz Dorsey
02-09-2011, 07:15 PM
One thing I've found interesting throughout this whole Pujols situation is the rumor that Pujols is actually 2-3 years older than his listed age. I had never heard anything about that before in regards to Albert. (Plenty of suspected PED use, but never heard the "Danny Almonte" thing until recently.)

Very intrigued to see what ends up happening here. If I had to bet, I think the Cards will re-sign him, but I could see it going either way. He wants to break the bank and they might not be willing to pay $35 million a season (or whatever astronomical number he's asking for right now). Hopefully it affects his play this year in a negative way. Although, usually players perform better in their contract years. This is the last time Pujols will truly have a "contract year." I'm sure he'll come in ready to go this season.

cincrazy
02-09-2011, 09:56 PM
Jon Heyman of si.com reporting the Cards have "virtually no chance" of signing Pujols before the deadline. Team and player aren't close in terms of years or money.

The Cards are in trouble this year. Garcia won't be nearly as good, Carpenter is older and wasn't good down the stretch last year, the bullpen is walking a high wire, and the Pujols distraction looms LARGE. Not to mention you have a manager that's basically year to year.

I don't think the Cards fall off the face of the earth, but I don't think they compete with Cincy and Milwaukee for the division crown.

PuffyPig
02-09-2011, 11:17 PM
Jon Heyman of si.com reporting the Cards have "virtually no chance" of signing Pujols before the deadline. Team and player aren't close in terms of years or money.





Not surprising when it's reported that the Cards haven't even made him an offer yet.

kaldaniels
02-09-2011, 11:31 PM
One thing I've found interesting throughout this whole Pujols situation is the rumor that Pujols is actually 2-3 years older than his listed age. I had never heard anything about that before in regards to Albert. (Plenty of suspected PED use, but never heard the "Danny Almonte" thing until recently.)

Very intrigued to see what ends up happening here. If I had to bet, I think the Cards will re-sign him, but I could see it going either way. He wants to break the bank and they might not be willing to pay $35 million a season (or whatever astronomical number he's asking for right now). Hopefully it affects his play this year in a negative way. Although, usually players perform better in their contract years. This is the last time Pujols will truly have a "contract year." I'm sure he'll come in ready to go this season.

I agree, and as much as I hate to say it, I am not looking forward to Albert's monster year. That said, if one of his 36 year old knees were to fail him, I wouldn't lose any sleep. :D

fearofpopvol1
02-09-2011, 11:48 PM
Jon Heyman also tweeted on twitter...

"1 competing gm sees archrival #cubs as 1 of many logical suitors for pujols"

yikes. cubs have the money and not a long term solution at 1B.

Blitz Dorsey
02-10-2011, 01:51 AM
Jon Heyman also tweeted on twitter...

"1 competing gm sees archrival #cubs as 1 of many logical suitors for pujols"

yikes. cubs have the money and not a long term solution at 1B.

Do the Cubs have the money though? I know a lot of people think because they are the "big city" Cubs they can afford anything, but that's not reality. They are not the Yankees or Red Sox.

Plus, isn't Soriano's horrible deal and Zambrano's terrible deal still on the books for a couple more years? Fukudome's atrocious deal expires after this season (I think) so that will help a little bit, but I still don't see them having enough $$$ to go after Pujols.

TheNext44
02-10-2011, 03:13 AM
Do the Cubs have the money though? I know a lot of people think because they are the "big city" Cubs they can afford anything, but that's not reality. They are not the Yankees or Red Sox.

Plus, isn't Soriano's horrible deal and Zambrano's terrible deal still on the books for a couple more years? Fukudome's atrocious deal expires after this season (I think) so that will help a little bit, but I still don't see them having enough $$$ to go after Pujols.

They might be a bit in a bind in 2012, but they can easily afford a $150M payroll, so if they want to add Pujols, they can.

But to be honest, I think any team who signs him will deeply regret it.

He is already showing signs of decline, losing 100 points off of his OPS last season. With his age, he's not likely to ever get those back. In fact, he's likely to keep losing OPS each year, the rest of his career.

He'll still be a great player, just not a $30M player... ever.

mth123
02-10-2011, 07:29 AM
They might be a bit in a bind in 2012, but they can easily afford a $150M payroll, so if they want to add Pujols, they can.

But to be honest, I think any team who signs him will deeply regret it.

He is already showing signs of decline, losing 100 points off of his OPS last season. With his age, he's not likely to ever get those back. In fact, he's likely to keep losing OPS each year, the rest of his career.

He'll still be a great player, just not a $30M player... ever.

Fukudome, Silva and Pena combine to make $35 Million in 2011 and will provide less production than Pujols by himself. All come off the books in 2012. Colvin Slides into RF, Pujols at 1B and somebody from within or off the scrap heep takes over as 5th starter. Pujols signed. Cubs line-up has an anchor. I'd don't think it will take $30 Million per year, but $27 or $28 Million is probable.

Aramis Ramirez, Kerry Wood, and John Grabow also come off the books after 2011. That frees another $21 Million or so. The Cubs will be able to afford him and sign replacements where needed. They could even keep Ramirez and stil have $10 Million or so to spend. Not sure how much of that will go to raises, but more comes off after 2012 that the Cubs may be able to replace for cheaper (Byrd, Dempster, Zambrano). The Cubs pretty much have their entire budget opeinig up in the next couple of years.

MattyHo4Life
02-10-2011, 02:38 PM
One thing I've found interesting throughout this whole Pujols situation is the rumor that Pujols is actually 2-3 years older than his listed age. I had never heard anything about that before in regards to Albert. (Plenty of suspected PED use, but never heard the "Danny Almonte" thing until recently.)

Pujols' age has been suspected his entire career. The Cardinals have never questioned his age though. They never had a reason to question him, because his previous deal was a good one. I have no idea how old Pujols is, but I give him the benefit of the doubt unless there is proof otherwise. However, I would expect the Cardinals would make sure he is the published age before signing a new LTC. I don't think the Cards will sign him before ST, and I don't think they should. Of course I don't want Pujols to leave, but it looks like they would be paying a premium not without even knowing how 2011 turns out. If they aren't going to get some sort of discount, then why not wait until the 2011 season plays out. Of course....there is always the chance he could leave, but it might be a risk that the organization needs to take.

PuffyPig
02-10-2011, 03:20 PM
Pujols' age has been suspected his entire career. The Cardinals have never questioned his age though. They never had a reason to question him, because his previous deal was a good one. I have no idea how old Pujols is, but I give him the benefit of the doubt unless there is proof otherwise. However, I would expect the Cardinals would make sure he is the published age before signing a new LTC. I don't think the Cards will sign him before ST, and I don't think they should. Of course I don't want Pujols to leave, but it looks like they would be paying a premium not without even knowing how 2011 turns out. If they aren't going to get some sort of discount, then why not wait until the 2011 season plays out. Of course....there is always the chance he could leave, but it might be a risk that the organization needs to take.

If the Cards are expecting some sort of discount, they are likely to be very disappointed.

Pujols has made it clear he wants FMV. If they don't make a reasonable offer (in Pujols eyes) before spring training, I expect he will feel disrespected. And once that happens, and he hits FA, he'll be gone.

MattyHo4Life
02-10-2011, 05:26 PM
Pujols has made it clear he wants FMV. If they don't make a reasonable offer (in Pujols eyes) before spring training, I expect he will feel disrespected. And once that happens, and he hits FA, he'll be gone.

I didn't suggest they did. Like you said, Pujols wnats FMV. My point is what is the purpose of paying him FMV now as opposed to waiting until the season is over? This is true for any player. If you don't get a discount ot sign that player early, then it may be best to take your chances after the season.

TheNext44
02-10-2011, 05:52 PM
I have to agree with MattyMo.

Odds are that Pujols' value goes below 10 years $300M next year.

Strikes Out Looking
02-10-2011, 06:05 PM
All I can say about the Pujols soap opera is that I enjoy viewing it and hope it is renewed for a full season run. I like the cast -- Pujols as the "ah shucks I just want what is coming to me" regular guy, John Mozelik as the young GM trying to keep up with his predecessor, Tony LaRussa as "the genuis" and Chris Carpenter as "the guy who trys to explain it to his son." I also look forward to cameos from Good Kyle/Bad Kyle Lohse, Dave "the fixer" Duncan and Lance "the insurance policy" Berkman.

westofyou
02-10-2011, 06:08 PM
Schadenfreude is not advised, for chances are good that all we are seeing is the Reds future

TheNext44
02-10-2011, 07:09 PM
Schadenfreude is not advised, for chances are good that all we are seeing is the Reds future

The Votto negotiations will likely be similar, but the Red's situation wlll be very different. They should be able afford to afford losing Votto and stay competative.

PuffyPig
02-10-2011, 07:09 PM
I have to agree with MattyMo.

Odds are that Pujols' value goes below 10 years $300M next year.

I don't think anyone really has any idea what Pujols FMV is.

But I'm willing to bet that the Cards could sign him today for less than what Pujols would get as a FA next year.

If Pujols value is less than $300M next year, its less than that now. But no one may know that.

Which is the problem with signing a player like Pujols before FA sets his value. You have to guess at his value.

I really believe if Pujols goes through this season without a contract, some one will offer him more money that the Cards can or should pay. Stupid money.

We may be real shocked of how much some one will pay for the best hitter that has come along in my lifetime. And maybe in any lifetime.

Also, if Pujols becomes a FA, he may well take it personally that the Cards didn't sign him when they had the chance.

RedsManRick
02-10-2011, 07:45 PM
Schadenfreude is not advised, for chances are good that all we are seeing is the Reds future

I don't know if we really have any thing comparable. Pujols isn't just a great player who they might not be able to afford. He's one of the all-time greats and has been the face of the franchise for a decade.

The guy has averaged 8 WAR a season. The MVP season Votto just had would have been one Pujols' worst. The Reds certainly are going to have to have some tough choices, but I don't think they have any guy who, if lost, would fundamentally alter the makeup of the franchise.

camisadelgolf
02-10-2011, 07:51 PM
Bringing up the fact that he's the face of the franchise is very relevant. So much merchandise has been sold with his name on it, and you know that has to alleviate a chunk of his high salary.

TheNext44
02-10-2011, 07:53 PM
I don't think anyone really has any idea what Pujols FMV is.

But I'm willing to bet that the Cards could sign him today for less than what Pujols would get as a FA next year.

If Pujols value is less than $300M next year, its less than that now. But no one may know that.

Which is the problem with signing a player like Pujols before FA sets his value. You have to guess at his value.

I really believe if Pujols goes through this season without a contract, some one will offer him more money that the Cards can or should pay. Stupid money.

We may be real shocked of how much some one will pay for the best hitter that has come along in my lifetime. And maybe in any lifetime.

Also, if Pujols becomes a FA, he may well take it personally that the Cards didn't sign him when they had the chance.

OK, value was a poor choice of words.

I meant two things.

Pujols will not be offered a 10 year $300M contract in the next offseason, no matter what he does in 2011.

And history tells us that he is much more likely to regress in 2011 than improve on his 2010 production. Even if a team might be willing to offer him a $300M contract right now, odds are that they will offer less in the next offseason.

Personally, I think his agent is playing this all wrong, and will cost Pujols money.

westofyou
02-10-2011, 07:55 PM
I don't know if we really have any thing comparable. Pujols isn't just a great player who they might not be able to afford. He's one of the all-time greats and has been the face of the franchise for a decade.

The guy has averaged 8 WAR a season. The year MVP season Votto just had would have been one Pujols' worst. The Reds certainly are going to have to have some tough choices, but I don't think they have any guy who, if lost, would fundamentally alter the makeup of the franchise.

Yeah I've heard he's pretty good, however I also have heard that the Cards have WAY more revenue than the Reds.

It's all relative, if you ask a 5 year old how important 100 bucks is you'll get a different answer than the one you get from a 50 year old.

blumj
02-10-2011, 08:11 PM
Bringing up the fact that he's the face of the franchise is very relevant. So much merchandise has been sold with his name on it, and you know that has to alleviate a chunk of his high salary.
I'm pretty sure merchandise is almost all shared revenue.

PuffyPig
02-10-2011, 08:30 PM
Personally, I think his agent is playing this all wrong, and will cost Pujols money.

How is his agent playing it?

I don't think anyone has any idea.

TheNext44
02-10-2011, 08:43 PM
How is his agent playing it?

I don't think anyone has any idea.

We know he is not even negotiating with the Cardinals. He wants ten years $300M and won't budge.

Pujols will not be offered more than whatever the Cards are willing to sign him for right now. That is of course assuming that the Cardinals understand how much Pujols is worth to them.

I'm guessing next offseason, his agent will be wishing he had worked something out with the Cardinals right now.

camisadelgolf
02-10-2011, 09:21 PM
I'm pretty sure merchandise is almost all shared revenue.
Okay, bad example. His picture is all over that stadium. When you think of Cardinals baseball, you think of Pujols. If Pujols leaves, a lot of fans stop showing up.

RedsManRick
02-10-2011, 11:05 PM
Yeah I've heard he's pretty good, however I also have heard that the Cards have WAY more revenue than the Reds.

It's all relative, if you ask a 5 year old how important 100 bucks is you'll get a different answer than the one you get from a 50 year old.

I guess I'm judging the situation not by how much he's going to cost as a percentage of revenue, but how much he means to the franchise and the harm that would be done if he leaves.

What I think is going to be interesting is what the Red Sox do with Gonzalez if Pujols makes it to ST without a contract. Do they still lock him up?

The Operator
02-11-2011, 01:50 AM
Pujols will not be offered more than whatever the Cards are willing to sign him for right now. Oh, I disagree.

If Albert Pujols hits the FA market - there will be some GM out there willing to back a truckload of money up to Albert's door. As much as I loathe the guy, his career 162 game average is an MVP season. He'll get his on the open market, IMO.

Strikes Out Looking
02-11-2011, 02:11 PM
Schadenfreude is not advised, for chances are good that all we are seeing is the Reds future

If the Reds can have a run like the Cardinals did for the last 10 years, I am all for having this as a problem. However, I don't see the Reds situation being much like the Cardinals with Pujols except for the maxing out of total dollars the franchise can eventually pay for salaries allowing it to be competitive, which is the problems the Cardinals now have with Pujols.

PuffyPig
02-11-2011, 02:37 PM
We know he is not even negotiating with the Cardinals. He wants ten years $300M and won't budge.



I don't believe there is any releaible report that that is his position. It's been speculated, but.....

Blitz Dorsey
02-11-2011, 04:03 PM
Someone will give him $30 mil a year if the Cards won't. And he knows it. If A-Rod is "worth" $28 mil a season, you had better believe Albert is worth $30 mil. I can understand him not wanting to settle for anything less. He's better than A-Rod, younger (allegedly) and this is two years after A-Rod signed his latest extension. The price for big-time players goes up not down as the years roll on. I actually won't be surprised if Pujols gets more than $30 mil a season. Not much more, but a tad more. But if I had to guess, it will be right around $30 million/year. Someone will give it to him.

TheNext44
02-11-2011, 04:12 PM
I don't believe there is any releaible report that that is his position. It's been speculated, but.....

I don't know what you mean by reliable. Every reporter who has reported on this has written that "word is" or "reports are" that Lorenzo is asking to top ARod's last ten year deal, which was for $270M.

No one is ever on the record when it comes to contract talks, but I have to imagine these "reports" are accurate.

My main point is that I don't think any team will offer more than the Cardinals right now. ARod got his deal because the Yankees wanted him in pinstripes when he approaches Mays', Aaron's and Ruth's career numbers. Similar with the Cardinals. Pujols is more valuable to the Cardinals than to any other team.

By forcing the Cards to wait a year, he risks Pujols having another declining year, no matter how exceptional it is, and his value decreasing as well.

PuffyPig
02-11-2011, 05:53 PM
I don't know what you mean by reliable. Every reporter who has reported on this has written that "word is" or "reports are" that Lorenzo is asking to top ARod's last ten year deal, which was for $270M.

No one is ever on the record when it comes to contract talks, but I have to imagine these "reports" are accurate.

My main point is that I don't think any team will offer more than the Cardinals right now. ARod got his deal because the Yankees wanted him in pinstripes when he approaches Mays', Aaron's and Ruth's career numbers. Similar with the Cardinals. Pujols is more valuable to the Cardinals than to any other team.

By forcing the Cards to wait a year, he risks Pujols having another declining year, no matter how exceptional it is, and his value decreasing as well.


Firstly, you have both the Cards and Pujols saying they won't be talking about the negotiations. That makes most of what is reported suspect out of the gate.

There are many teams that could potentially offer more money than the Cards, simply becuase there are many teams with more money than them.

Why wouldn't the Cubs, as an example, pay Pujols to break records for them? It's not like A-Rod was a lifetime Yankee.

Ron Madden
02-12-2011, 04:32 AM
Schadenfreude is not advised, for chances are good that all we are seeing is the Reds future

Very true, I often agree with WOY but seldom agree with Paul Daugherty on matters concerning baseball. Seems the three of us agree here.



http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110211/COL03/302110053/Doc-Don-t-rejoice-Pujols-dilemma?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports

.

redsfandan
02-12-2011, 01:49 PM
Okay, bad example. His picture is all over that stadium. When you think of Cardinals baseball, you think of Pujols. If Pujols leaves, a lot of fans stop showing up.

I disagree. If Pujols is gone there'll be alot of mad Cardinal fans waving pitchforks and swearing about the gm/owner. But, there probably won't be that much of a difference in attendance if the Cardinals keep winning.

camisadelgolf
02-12-2011, 01:53 PM
I disagree. If Pujols is gone there'll be alot of mad Cardinal fans waving pitchforks and swearing about the gm/owner. But, there probably won't be that much of a difference in attendance if the Cardinals keep winning.
The assumption I made is that the Cardinals wouldn't keep winning.

redsfandan
02-12-2011, 01:57 PM
The assumption I made is that the Cardinals wouldn't keep winning.

I wouldn't bank on it. But, let's hope you're right.

Roy Tucker
02-12-2011, 05:00 PM
I'd love to be a fly on the wall for the negotiations.

Pujols and his agent have to know that a 10 year $300M contract would cripple the Cards. These guys are no dummies. The question would be "so Albert, is that the kind of team you want to play on? All of the spare money has gone to your contract".

Makes me wonder if Pujols and agent have asked to see the Cards books and what that actually can afford.

Or maybe Albert is just out "for his family" and wants the most money he can get for the longest time. Which I can't blame his for.

The Cards really have gotten a helluva a deal on him the past few years with a salary of close to 1/2 of what his open market value is.

2001 21 St. Louis Cardinals $200,000
2002 22 St. Louis Cardinals $600,000
2003 23 St. Louis Cardinals $900,000
2004 24 St. Louis Cardinals $7,000,000
2005 25 St. Louis Cardinals $11,000,000
2006 26 St. Louis Cardinals $14,000,000
2007 27 St. Louis Cardinals $12,937,813
2008 28 St. Louis Cardinals $13,870,949
2009 29 St. Louis Cardinals $14,427,326
2010 30 St. Louis Cardinals $14,595,953
2011 31 St. Louis Cardinals $16,000,000

Earliest Free Agent: 2012
Career to date (may be incomplete) $89,532,041 Does not include future salaries

Redsfan320
02-12-2011, 06:51 PM
The Cards really have gotten a helluva a deal on him the past few years with a salary of close to 1/2 of what his open market value is.

Wow, poor Albert, only making 16M. What a ripoff...:rolleyes:

I know you didn't mean it that way Roy, it just makes me sick the kinda money these players make.

320

dougdirt
02-12-2011, 06:58 PM
Wow, poor Albert, only making 16M. What a ripoff...:rolleyes:

I know you didn't mean it that way Roy, it just makes me sick the kinda money these players make.

320

Why? For the most part, they are well worth it. They make the owner a TON of money. If you were making your boss millions upon millions of dollars, I imagine you would be getting paid a lot more than you are.

redsfandan
02-12-2011, 07:44 PM
Why? For the most part, they are well worth it. They make the owner a TON of money. If you were making your boss millions upon millions of dollars, I imagine you would be getting paid a lot more than you are.

Does the owner make tons of money by having really expensive players. Or is it mostly a given that they'll make money given the game and how it's structured.

Roy Tucker
02-13-2011, 12:15 PM
Wow, poor Albert, only making 16M. What a ripoff...:rolleyes:

I know you didn't mean it that way Roy, it just makes me sick the kinda money these players make.

320

I think a very good argument can be made for Pujols as being the best player in MLB for the past decade.

But he doesn't make the top 25 in annual salary. 2 teammates (Carpenter and Holliday) do. And Pujols has never been in the top 25.

We can talk about the meta-issue of the order of magnitude of how much MLB players make (and pro athletes and movie stars and pop stars), but I can't really blame Albert for wanting his due.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/top25.aspx?year=2010

hebroncougar
02-13-2011, 01:37 PM
I think a very good argument can be made for Pujols as being the best player in MLB for the past decade.

But he doesn't make the top 25 in annual salary. 2 teammates (Carpenter and Holliday) do. And Pujols has never been in the top 25.

We can talk about the meta-issue of the order of magnitude of how much MLB players make (and pro athletes and movie stars and pop stars), but I can't really blame Albert for wanting his due.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/top25.aspx?year=2010

He's not asking for the moon for the past decade. He's asking for the moon for the next decade. I hope the Cards do ante up, it will cripple them.

Jpup
02-13-2011, 01:46 PM
Wow, poor Albert, only making 16M. What a ripoff...:rolleyes:

I know you didn't mean it that way Roy, it just makes me sick the kinda money these players make.

320

Who should make all the money? The players bring in the money and they should make it. It's no different that any other business. If baseball wasn't such a booming business, the players would be making that "kinda money."

RED VAN HOT
02-13-2011, 02:19 PM
It seems to me that the issue is the pay for the second five years of the 10 that Pujols wants. It is natural for Pujols not to want a five year contract that expires in his late 30's when he will have less bargaining power. On the other hand, it is also likely that he will not be worth nearly as much money on the back end of a 10 year contract as the front. I believe that the compromise will be six or seven plus a series of option years with a fairly steep buy out.

BrooklynRedz
02-13-2011, 03:18 PM
It seems to me that the issue is the pay for the second five years of the 10 that Pujols wants. It is natural for Pujols not to want a five year contract that expires in his late 30's when he will have less bargaining power. On the other hand, it is also likely that he will not be worth nearly as much money on the back end of a 10 year contract as the front. I believe that the compromise will be six or seven plus a series of option years with a fairly steep buy out.

Why would Pujols compromise? He simply doesn't have to because there will be several teams jumping at the oppty to pay him what he wants.

Strikes Out Looking
02-13-2011, 04:55 PM
Why would Pujols compromise? He simply doesn't have to because there will be several teams jumping at the oppty to pay him what he wants.

Pujols knows where he has played for his career and that they really can't match NY and LA. He knows that to play in St. Louis he'll have to work with the organization, give them a small discount and probably defer money. Does he want to do this is the question.

I remember once a player who had played his entire career in Cincy who wanted top dollar. He became a free agent and to say it didn't end well is an understatement. While the situations are not exactly the same, I do believe that sometimes taking a bit less in the short run works out better in the long run.

RED VAN HOT
02-13-2011, 05:57 PM
Why would Pujols compromise? He simply doesn't have to because there will be several teams jumping at the oppty to pay him what he wants.

I'm not as sure of this as most of the pundits seem to be. Ten years is a long commitment. If his numbers dip slightly this year, to say .300 BA and 33 HR, I don't believe he will get a ten year deal. thus, Pujols will be taking a risk by going FA. As much fun as this is to watch, I think the parties will reach a compromise that balances player and club risk. I can't imagine that the deal will not hamstring the Cardinals for years to come.

BCubb2003
02-13-2011, 08:15 PM
According to USA Today, Pujols is breaking off talks.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/02/source-albert-pujols-rejects-cardinals-offer-will-end-talks-tuesday/1

Ron Madden
02-13-2011, 09:18 PM
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_e682c5fc-9426-5441-a5ad-5aa6571fb2d0.html



http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/cardinal-beat/article_5ab45950-379c-11e0-9531-0017a4a78c22.html

membengal
02-13-2011, 10:04 PM
Miklasz in the Post Dispatch:

What matters most to Pujols?

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_26a3facc-ccbe-5a32-8495-1e70d6dc4c99.html

PuffyPig
02-13-2011, 11:10 PM
Who should make all the money? The players bring in the money and they should make it. It's no different that any other business. "

In most businesses, the owner makes quite a bit more money than the employees.

fearofpopvol1
02-14-2011, 01:41 AM
ESPN is reporting too: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2011/news/story?id=6119858

bucksfan2
02-14-2011, 10:37 AM
Jason Wearth is making $20M/season. Thats a pretty good bargaining chip for the Pujols camp. If Jason Wearth is worth X then what is Pujols worth.

camisadelgolf
02-14-2011, 10:49 AM
Jason Wearth is making $20M/season. Thats a pretty good bargaining chip for the Pujols camp. If Jason Wearth is worth X then what is Pujols worth.
It's $18M/season, but still, your point is valid.

CarolinaRedleg
02-14-2011, 11:07 AM
According to USA Today, Pujols is breaking off talks.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/02/source-albert-pujols-rejects-cardinals-offer-will-end-talks-tuesday/1

How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his son? (I had to)

muddie
02-14-2011, 11:19 AM
I am enjoying this circus from where I am. Just because the contract negotiations stop doesn't mean this debate and discussion won't continue to be a distraction. Apparently Holliday is offerering to have some of his money deferred if it means signing AP. If this happens, the Cardinals are going to be so straddled with contract obligations they're going to be very limited in what they can do in the near future.

Walt Jocketty has to be enjoying this as much as anyone else.

MikeThierry
02-14-2011, 11:25 AM
Here in St. Louis, this is almost chaos. It is the main story on talk radio and nothing else. Its Albertgeddon!

Homer Bailey
02-14-2011, 11:51 AM
I'm not even sure what I'm rooting for at this point. I keep picturing him in a Cubs uniform. Part of me wants the Cardinals to blow all their cash on him and be hamstrung as he declines, but part of me wants to see what their team looks like without him.

If the Cubs sign him, it's not like its going to stop them from spending money on other players, and I could easily see them return to prominence.

hebroncougar
02-14-2011, 11:53 AM
I'm not even sure what I'm rooting for at this point. I keep picturing him in a Cubs uniform. Part of me wants the Cardinals to blow all their cash on him and be hamstrung as he declines, but part of me wants to see what their team looks like without him.

If the Cubs sign him, it's not like its going to stop them from spending money on other players, and I could easily see them return to prominence.

Come on now, you've got to be kidding. When have the Cubs been prominent? :p:

Ron Madden
02-14-2011, 11:58 AM
The deadline is now Wed @ noon.

http://twitter.com/dgoold/status/37174287454576640#

Jpup
02-14-2011, 11:59 AM
In most businesses, the owner makes quite a bit more money than the employees.

They do in baseball as well.

As far as Pujols, he better take the biggest offer he can get from St. Louis because he could easily get injured and lose millions. If he doesn't get hurt, I could see several teams offering him around 30 million, but not for 10 years. He might get 5 for 30 per, but the only team that will go 10 would be Chicago for obvious reasons.

Homer Bailey
02-14-2011, 12:11 PM
Come on now, you've got to be kidding. When have the Cubs been prominent? :p:

Touche.

I was thinking back to around 2008, when they were at least a good team, just a bunch of chokers though.

RedsBaron
02-14-2011, 01:31 PM
Come on now, you've got to be kidding. When have the Cubs been prominent? :p:

1908. The Cubs are on their 103 year rebuilding plan. ;)

Big Klu
02-14-2011, 01:43 PM
Come on now, you've got to be kidding. When have the Cubs been prominent? :p:

Ahh, the heady days of Nineteen-Aught-Six! Teddy Roosevelt was President, Henry Ford started the Ford Motor Company, the Dow Jones closed above 100 for the first time in history, and the forward pass was legalized!

MikeThierry
02-14-2011, 02:52 PM
Ahh, the heady days of Nineteen-Aught-Six! Teddy Roosevelt was President, Henry Ford started the Ford Motor Company, the Dow Jones closed above 100 for the first time in history, and the forward pass was legalized!

Don't forget that it was four years before the Titanic was launched and sank.

traderumor
02-15-2011, 07:03 AM
The deadline is now Wed @ noon.

http://twitter.com/dgoold/status/37174287454576640#And he really means it this time. ;)

redsfandan
02-15-2011, 07:10 AM
one competing baseball exec told me he believes #cubs will offer pujols the a-rod deal ($10 mil, $27.5 mil/yr).

- about 7 hours ago via web

http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman/status/37362528908480512#


Personally, I'd rather have the Cardinals make the mistake of giving in but I think I could live with it if the Cubbies do it instead.

Chip R
02-15-2011, 10:28 AM
one competing baseball exec told me he believes #cubs will offer pujols the a-rod deal ($10 mil, $27.5 mil/yr).

- about 7 hours ago via web

http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman/status/37362528908480512# (http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman/status/37362528908480512#)


Personally, I'd rather have the Cardinals make the mistake of giving in but I think I could live with it if the Cubbies do it instead.

$27.5M/yr is a nice chunk of change but it isn't $30M.

dougdirt
02-15-2011, 10:32 AM
Rob Neyer - http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/2/15/1994169/albert-pujols-contract-cardinals-300-million



Ultimately, I think the Cardinals simply aren't well-positioned to make a $300 million commitment. The Yankees could make a $275 million commitment because they can, if necessary, eat a big chunk of that $275 million and all you'll hear is a mild burp. But something like that could cripple the Cardinals for years.

RichRed
02-15-2011, 10:39 AM
Can you imagine all the good will Pujols would squander in St. Louis if he signed with the Cubs? Like Favre signing with the Vikings, minus the inappropriate texts and Wrangler commercials.

blumj
02-15-2011, 10:49 AM
Rob Neyer - http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/2/15/1994169/albert-pujols-contract-cardinals-300-million
Which is why the Yankees should sign Pujols, they'd probably wind up with both the Cards and Cubs bidding to trade for Teixeira.

CarolinaRedleg
02-15-2011, 01:31 PM
LaDoubleday calls foul:

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

Best parts:


St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa said Tuesday that he believes the Major League Baseball Players Association is attempting to "beat up" Albert Pujols and his agent in an attempt to get Pujols to sign a record-setting contract.

-snip-


La Russa said he had no specific evidence that Pujols was being pressured by the players union.

Chip R
02-15-2011, 02:48 PM
Can you imagine all the good will Pujols would squander in St. Louis if he signed with the Cubs? Like Favre signing with the Vikings, minus the inappropriate texts and Wrangler commercials.

Perhaps but he would get a lot of good will from the city where his new team is at. Plus it's not like he's holding the Cards hostage like Favre was doing with GB. The guy has been a model citizen throughout his career. I think there would be people mad at him but I also think they would appreciate all he's done for them on and off the field.

I wonder if a small-medium market franchise might take a run at him. Yeah, he's gonna cost as lot but the team may make it back from attendance. Let's say someone like FLA goes after him. He'd double their payroll but they already have some pretty good young talent there with Hanley and their pitching.

redsfandan
02-15-2011, 07:26 PM
$27.5M/yr is a nice chunk of change but it isn't $30M.
Doesn't matter that much if it's $30M or $27.5M, it would still be a mistake for St Louis/Chicago if it's 10 years.

Perhaps but he would get a lot of good will from the city where his new team is at. Plus it's not like he's holding the Cards hostage like Favre was doing with GB. The guy has been a model citizen throughout his career. I think there would be people mad at him but I also think they would appreciate all he's done for them on and off the field.
There may be a few but I doubt there will be THAT many Cardinal fans saying "Thanks for the memories, Albert". Especially if he lands with Chicago. The front office/owner will get much of the blame but if Pujols goes to the rival Cubbies he'll get some flak too.


I wonder if a small-medium market franchise might take a run at him. Yeah, he's gonna cost as lot but the team may make it back from attendance. Let's say someone like FLA goes after him. He'd double their payroll but they already have some pretty good young talent there with Hanley and their pitching.
Doubt it. The biggest driver of attendance increases is winning. With his price tag the Marlins would have to cut corners to afford him. He'd be a big upgrade at 1st but if they have to use a lesser player here, there, there, and there the overall effect of his signing could be minimal.

membengal
02-15-2011, 08:00 PM
Laughs and points at Tony Larussa. As does Scott Boras. And the MLBPA.

Lagenius...you are NOT helping matters.

Keep it up.

MikeThierry
02-15-2011, 08:37 PM
I can tell you right now, if Pujols lands in Chicago, there is going to be riots in the street in St. Louis. I might be at the front of the line in that riot.

Hoosier Red
02-15-2011, 08:39 PM
In most businesses, the owner makes quite a bit more money than the employees.

Probably in every business. Happens in baseball too.

RedsManRick
02-15-2011, 09:05 PM
The Royals are actually very well positioned to give Pujols a massive contract. He could anchor the team with the coming surge of prospects. He and his wife are very well ingrained in the Kansas City community. They could give him an out clause after 3 years to give him a chance to leave if things don't work out. But if they do, it's a nice division to be in, the DH is there in case he does need it towards the end, and he'd be a hero.

The one thing about going to the Sox or Yankees is that no matter what happens, you're only going to be seen as one of the hired guns among many.

bucksfan2
02-15-2011, 09:23 PM
The Royals are actually very well positioned to give Pujols a massive contract. He could anchor the team with the coming surge of prospects. He and his wife are very well ingrained in the Kansas City community. They could give him an out clause after 3 years to give him a chance to leave if things don't work out. But if they do, it's a nice division to be in, the DH is there in case he does need it towards the end, and he'd be a hero.

The one thing about going to the Sox or Yankees is that no matter what happens, you're only going to be seen as one of the hired guns among many.

I heard that for the first time just the other day. To be honest, outside of StL it may just make the most sence. I knew he went to juco in Kansas City but didn't know he lived there. It isn't all that far from StL either. Albert doesn't sound like a big city type of guy which makes KC more appealing.

Now for KC it could be a franchise turning move. They won't get the full value of the remanning few years out of Albert, but in terms of rebuilding a franchise in could be similar to Bonds going to San Fran. It would reenergize a fan base as well as move KC to competitors over night. They may be the dark hours in the Albert sweepstakes but it would make a whole lot of sense to me.

savafan
02-15-2011, 11:35 PM
I'd like what Pujols to KC would mean for baseball. Arguably the biggest star in the game going to one of the smallest markets. If you don't think that would be a huge statement, it would be.

westofyou
02-15-2011, 11:43 PM
I'd like what Pujols to KC would mean for baseball. Arguably the biggest star in the game going to one of the smallest markets. If you don't think that would be a huge statement, it would be.

Never will happen, the franchise only cost 96 million 10 years ago, they have even less of a revenue ceiling than the Reds.

savafan
02-15-2011, 11:47 PM
Never will happen, the franchise only cost 96 million 10 years ago, they have even less of a revenue ceiling than the Reds.

You're probably right, but whoever expected the Reds to sign the highest paid closer in baseball or land the top Cuban import?

MikeThierry
02-16-2011, 12:13 AM
I grew up a KC Royals fan because I lived there. If I didn't have my Cardinal fandom in my mind, I would be excited for Pujols to play in KC. That said, David Glass is one of the greediest owners in the game. He is all about making a quick buck rather than putting a competent team on the field. His ownership ranks up there with the Pirates as one of the worst in baseball. Not only would I be shocked if Albert went there, I would feel bad for him in a way because as soon as the Royals picked up Albert, Glass would sell off other parts to the Royals and make them less competitive than they already are.

top6
02-16-2011, 12:41 AM
I'd like what Pujols to KC would mean for baseball. Arguably the biggest star in the game going to one of the smallest markets. If you don't think that would be a huge statement, it would be.

Looking at it objectively, though, and putting aside our rivalry with and current dislike for this particular iteration of the Cardinals, isn't the best thing for baseball for him to stay in St. Louis? It is also a small market town, one of the best baseball towns, and it would mean one of the game's best players would spend his career with one team. I think that makes a pretty big statement, as much as it may not be in the Reds' interests.

Albert should call Jr. and get his opinion. Jr. might tell him it's a pretty sweet deal to stay in the place where you grew up as a player, and where the fans will love you almost no matter what. I have to be honest, I hope he stays there.

Matt700wlw
02-16-2011, 03:15 AM
How is Chris Carpenter going to explain this to his son????

Ron Madden
02-16-2011, 04:54 AM
Looking at it objectively, though, and putting aside our rivalry with and current dislike for this particular iteration of the Cardinals, isn't the best thing for baseball for him to stay in St. Louis? It is also a small market town, one of the best baseball towns, and it would mean one of the game's best players would spend his career with one team. I think that makes a pretty big statement, as much as it may not be in the Reds' interests.

Albert should call Jr. and get his opinion. Jr. might tell him it's a pretty sweet deal to stay in the place where you grew up as a player, and where the fans will love you almost no matter what. I have to be honest, I hope he stays there.

Nice post.

RedsBaron
02-16-2011, 07:55 AM
Looking at it objectively, though, and putting aside our rivalry with and current dislike for this particular iteration of the Cardinals, isn't the best thing for baseball for him to stay in St. Louis? It is also a small market town, one of the best baseball towns, and it would mean one of the game's best players would spend his career with one team. I think that makes a pretty big statement, as much as it may not be in the Reds' interests.

Albert should call Jr. and get his opinion. Jr. might tell him it's a pretty sweet deal to stay in the place where you grew up as a player, and where the fans will love you almost no matter what. I have to be honest, I hope he stays there.

I agree.

WVRed
02-16-2011, 11:46 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2011/news/story?id=6127623

Doesn't look like there is going to be a deal.


How is Chris Carpenter going to explain this to his son????

He won't. He'll just have Pappaw Tony tell him that the players union is to blame.

Oxilon
02-16-2011, 12:02 PM
He'll be an Angel next season.

_Sir_Charles_
02-16-2011, 12:26 PM
He'll be an Angel next season.

IIRC, the Cubs have a ton of money coming off the books after this season. I wouldn't count them out. But considering the length of contract that I've been reading (8 to 10 years), an AL team would certainly make more sense considering the DH option.

Homer Bailey
02-16-2011, 01:01 PM
"Deadline" has passed.

Oxilon
02-16-2011, 01:07 PM
IIRC, the Cubs have a ton of money coming off the books after this season. I wouldn't count them out. But considering the length of contract that I've been reading (8 to 10 years), an AL team would certainly make more sense considering the DH option.

Perhaps. But I know the Angels were on his list of teams he would accept a trade to. Not sure about the Cubs. Angels have the owner, the city (in regards to high Hispanic population), and the money to lure him in.

HeatherC1212
02-16-2011, 01:12 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing Albert go to the Angels. Then I'd get to cheer for him since I'm a fan of that team, LOL :laugh:

This whole thing is becoming a bit like a circus. I have a few friends who are Cards fans (they're 'sane' fans, LOL) and I feel kind of bad for them because it's really making them crazy. :eek:

Sea Ray
02-16-2011, 01:21 PM
Looking at it objectively, though, and putting aside our rivalry with and current dislike for this particular iteration of the Cardinals, isn't the best thing for baseball for him to stay in St. Louis? It is also a small market town, one of the best baseball towns, and it would mean one of the game's best players would spend his career with one team. I think that makes a pretty big statement, as much as it may not be in the Reds' interests.

Albert should call Jr. and get his opinion. Jr. might tell him it's a pretty sweet deal to stay in the place where you grew up as a player, and where the fans will love you almost no matter what. I have to be honest, I hope he stays there.

It shouldn't be about money at this point. He ought to play wherever he wants. He's earned that. I wouldn't think there'd be a better place than St Louis but maybe he feels differently

WVRed
02-16-2011, 01:23 PM
Perhaps. But I know the Angels were on his list of teams he would accept a trade to. Not sure about the Cubs. Angels have the owner, the city (in regards to high Hispanic population), and the money to lure him in.

I'll throw a curveball in there, Florida.

High hispanic population, and the chance to make a big name free agent signing to open a new ballpark with.

_Sir_Charles_
02-16-2011, 01:30 PM
I'll throw a curveball in there, Florida.

High hispanic population, and the chance to make a big name free agent signing to open a new ballpark with.

Those are all true, but I don't think they can come close to covering that kind of contract. Not exactly a big market there.

Cyclone792
02-16-2011, 01:56 PM
Label me skeptical, but I think there is a high probability that "talks" between the Cardinals and Pujols occur at some point during the season.

Pujols has long indicated he doesn't want the distraction, but the rub is that the key distraction with contract talks is the constant media bombardment. The way around that is to simply list a firm deadline publicly, which has been done, and then hold talks throughout the year behind the scenes while nobody's looking.

Now I don't know what the odds are that Pujols will sign an extension with the Cardinals during the season, and those odds could still be very low, but I just wouldn't be terribly surprised if we woke up one morning this summer to precisely that news.

RedEye
02-16-2011, 02:06 PM
Those are all true, but I don't think they can come close to covering that kind of contract. Not exactly a big market there.

With a new stadium set to open soon, that would be quite an important publicity stunt (and an expensive one at that). Doubt it would happen, but it would be fun to see Albert and Hanley in the same lineup...

_Sir_Charles_
02-16-2011, 02:12 PM
With a new stadium set to open soon, that would be quite an important publicity stunt (and an expensive one at that). Doubt it would happen, but it would be fun to see Albert and Hanley in the same lineup...

As bad as they draw there in Florida, I really don't see how much of a difference a new stadium will make. IIRC, most fans go to see the players and the game...not the building. Even if the new stadium doubled their attendance (18 k per game)...it would still be less than the Cards draw (40 k).

WVRed
02-16-2011, 02:38 PM
As bad as they draw there in Florida, I really don't see how much of a difference a new stadium will make. IIRC, most fans go to see the players and the game...not the building. Even if the new stadium doubled their attendance (18 k per game)...it would still be less than the Cards draw (40 k).

I think the old saying regarding Dolphin Stadium was that it was where "Senior Citizens go to die".

I don't know that a new stadium will improve the Marlins fortunes, given the history of fire sales and ownership problems, but the comfort level of playing in a retractable roof stadium is something that will definitely play a role IMO.

I could see it happening. If the Marlins are remotely competitive this year and some of the talent starts to come together, it could be pretty attractive. Add Pujols to a lineup with Hanley Ramirez, Mike Stanton, and Matt Dominguez and it would definitely be one of the top in the NL.

That being said, it depends on if Loria would decide to open up the checkbook. Probably won't happen.

RichRed
02-16-2011, 03:51 PM
LaDoubleday calls foul:

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



St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa said Tuesday that he believes the Major League Baseball Players Association is attempting to "beat up" Albert Pujols and his agent in an attempt to get Pujols to sign a record-setting contract.




Jeff Passan was on Jim Rome's show a little while ago and said this is just LaRussa "being stupid." He went on to call LaRussa the "biggest enabler in MLB" and referenced how he let McGwire deny steroid use all those years. In short, Mr. Passan is NOT a fan of Mr. LaRussa.

westofyou
02-16-2011, 04:17 PM
Jeff Passan was on Jim Rome's show a little while ago and said this is just LaRussa "being stupid." He went on to call LaRussa the "biggest enabler in MLB" and referenced how he let McGwire deny steroid use all those years. In short, Mr. Passan is NOT a fan of Mr. LaRussa.

Jeff Passan's a one way street concerning that subject.

LaRussa was never a 6 year man in MLB, he doesn't have the power of the pension, he was on managements side of the yard when the big fights started, I'll never expect him to take the unions POV.

That said, he's deflecting, classically.

bucksfan2
02-16-2011, 04:19 PM
As for LaRussa's comments I think they are spot on and just because I don't like the guy doesn't mean I disagree with him.

It happens when ever big time FA hits the market. You hear rumblings that the Union wants them to take the highest pay day instead of playing where they want to play. Its nothing new really.

RedsBaron
02-16-2011, 04:38 PM
I've read speculation that Pujols carries some resentment over the relative bargain he has given the Cardinls during the first ten years of his career and that he absolutely will go for top dolllar this time with no "home team discount." I have no way of knowing if that is true.
I frankly hope he stays in St. Louis. I wonder if Albert has watched the affection shown to Stan Musial this week. Generally speaking, if you want that much admiration and affection you will likely only get it by staying with one team.

Chip R
02-16-2011, 04:59 PM
I wonder if BOS will be so quick to sign Gonzalez to an extention if Pujols is going to be on the market.

hebroncougar
02-16-2011, 05:55 PM
I wonder if BOS will be so quick to sign Gonzalez to an extention if Pujols is going to be on the market.

I think he goes to one of two or three places: NYM, LAA, or TEX.

blumj
02-16-2011, 07:29 PM
I wonder if BOS will be so quick to sign Gonzalez to an extention if Pujols is going to be on the market.

"Well, we really enjoyed Adrian's time here, but Albert was available, and by the time the Cubs signed Albert, well, we really can't blame Adrian for getting a little upset with us, so, anyway, we are really thrilled to bring Carlos back home."

The Operator
02-16-2011, 10:19 PM
I've read speculation that Pujols carries some resentment over the relative bargain he has given the Cardinls during the first ten years of his career If that's true, wow. No one held a gun to his head and made him sign that deal.

TheNext44
02-16-2011, 11:01 PM
http://mobile.twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/37959650280341504

According to Ken Rosenthal, the Cards offer was much lower than expected. Around $20M a year for 8 years.

Griffey012
02-16-2011, 11:11 PM
http://mobile.twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/37959650280341504

According to Ken Rosenthal, the Cards offer was much lower than expected. Around $20M a year for 8 years.

That is a pretty pitiful offer on their part. I would think 28 over 7 would be the cheapest they could get him for. 20 over 8 is a bit of a slap in the face due to what he would pull on the open market.

Oxilon
02-16-2011, 11:17 PM
Not trying to wish harm or anything, but what do you think would happen if Albert tears a ACL or an achilles and misses the entire year. Still think he'd get $30 mil a season?

The Operator
02-16-2011, 11:29 PM
Not trying to wish harm or anything, but what do you think would happen if Albert tears a ACL or an achilles and misses the entire year. Still think he'd get $30 mil a season?I would guess he'd take a 1-year deal hoping to have a huge year and cash in after that.

Phhhl
02-16-2011, 11:48 PM
The Reds really have a chance to strike here. If they can win the division again and keep the Cardinals out of the playoffs, it will cast doubt in both the Cardinals' and Pujols' camp about their ability to win with him as their centerpiece. Because of the humongous financial comittment St. Louis would have to make to keep him, it is difficult to imagine that team ever being as good as it is right now without ridding themselves of Pujols' contract and rebuilding. They simply aren't weatlthy enough to keep Holliday, Carpenter, Wainright, Rasmus, Garcia AND Pujols together much longer. If they can't win now, they probably can't win at all in the next decade. The Reds can put the boot to their throats and show them that the stars and scrubs formula isn't going to work anymore. They have been living large on the shoulders of the best player in baseball while he made chicken feed for the last 11 years. But it is time for the same dose of reality that the majority of major league teams have had to deal with in the modern game to visit St. Louis.

We're going to lose Votto in three years. There won't be any deadline specials on MLB TV when we do. Everybody knows it is going to happen, and the only people who care outside of Cincinnati are those who might be able to sign him to rake for their teams. St. Louis is not so much better that they should expect to keep Pujols. They are not the New York Yankees, or Boston Red Sox. One of the biggest charades in the game for the last 11 years is that they were in the same ballpark. It is ridiculous for anyone to think so. Their payroll is around 110 million, not 250 million. There are not enough seats in their ballpark to make up the disparity. If they force Pujols to fit their modest environs, it is going to be JR. Griffey all over again.

I am glad this is happening, and not because I am a Reds fan who despises any other team in our division. I am glad because it might be the one thing that forces those who continue to argue that there is nothing wrong with baseball to rethink their position. All the pundits love the St. Louis Cardinals. They are the darlings of the media, and "King" Albert has been the magic elixer for everything that is wrong with baseball for the last ten years. Well, now the shine has worn off. The man wants to be paid, and he doesn't seem to care by whom.

Bravo! Try to tell me nothing is wrong with baseball now, Mr. Selig

WVRed
02-17-2011, 11:29 AM
Does anybody else find this extremely similar to LeBron James, minus the dog and pony show?

You have a star athlete who has spent his entire career in one city. In Cleveland, LeBron had an owner who would not surround him with the players LeBron needed to win. They did fire the coach but it was too late, and basically tried to bank on LeBron resigning with the Cavs because it was his hometown.

Pujols is somewhat different in that St Louis isn't his "hometown". However he has spent his entire career there and took less money in doing so. As with LeBron, the Cardinals expect Albert to resign there (for less money) because of the fan support.

If/when Pujols does leave, I will feel the worst for the St Louis fans the same way I do with Cleveland fans after LeBron left. However, the ownership and leadership is a completely different story. John Mozeliak should be the first one shown the door.

You have to think that Walt Jocketty is smiling somewhat at all of this.

Homer Bailey
02-17-2011, 11:45 AM
Does anybody else find this extremely similar to LeBron James, minus the dog and pony show?

You have a star athlete who has spent his entire career in one city. In Cleveland, LeBron had an owner who would not surround him with the players LeBron needed to win. They did fire the coach but it was too late, and basically tried to bank on LeBron resigning with the Cavs because it was his hometown.

Pujols is somewhat different in that St Louis isn't his "hometown". However he has spent his entire career there and took less money in doing so. As with LeBron, the Cardinals expect Albert to resign there (for less money) because of the fan support.

If/when Pujols does leave, I will feel the worst for the St Louis fans the same way I do with Cleveland fans after LeBron left. However, the ownership and leadership is a completely different story. John Mozeliak should be the first one shown the door.

You have to think that Walt Jocketty is smiling somewhat at all of this.

The main difference is the Cavs offered LeBron everything they could (max years, max money), and he left for other reasons (which we are now seeing why, because the Cavs are one of the worst teams in history).

I get what you're saying to a certain extent, but this doesn't sound like the Lebron saga if you ask me.

lollipopcurve
02-17-2011, 11:56 AM
Don't be surprised if they quietly do groundwork over the next few months that would make it possible for the team to offer Pujols an ownership stake in its next offer. It would have to take effect after his playing days are over, of course.

I still see him staying in St. Louis.

medford
02-17-2011, 12:03 PM
Its slightly different in one regard, due to the NBA cap rules, LeBron could only make max money (I think he makes slightly less to fit all of the big 3 in, but I doubt anyone's crying for him too hard) In a truely open market, like baseball, LeBron could have commanded twice as much money. Miami wouldn't have been able to compete w/ the likes of New York or Chicago.

Additionally, as LeBron proved last season, basketball is a sport where a single individual can make a much larger impact. In baseball you only get so many at bats/innings where you can affect things. Certainly Albert carried that lineup far more than your replacement level 1b could, but not nearly to the extent that LeBron carried that Cavs squad the last couple of years.

I think Cards fans have several more opportunities to rationalize why its good for the team to move on from Albert, if Albert is going to indeed sign the biggest deal in the history of the sport. Cavs fan knew LeBron was the sole reason that team was any good. Additionally, the Cards are generally a well run organization, have been since the 80s and before. If/when Albert leaves, they'll be back competing for division titles before too long. The cavs are more like the Bengals. They had some brief periods of success in the 80s, but have mostly sucked aside from the LeBron period. Its far easier to feel sorry for the fan that grew up following the local team, only to see them below par for much of his fandom.

In the end, I feel sorry for neither, both cities got ample time to enjoy the talents of both. Both cities were taken to the heights of their respective leagues (though Cleveland came up a shade short in the finals). There are no garuntees in sports, I expect no one to feel sorry for me as a Bengal fan for how long that team has been, for how bad the owner is. I expect no one to feel bad for me if/when Votto leaves for big money somewhere else. I expect no one felt bad for me as often as Griffey got injuried here and never lived up the Seattle days, nor that Austin Kearns never lived up to they hype after Ray King sat on him at home plate that fateful August night.

bucksfan2
02-17-2011, 12:09 PM
Don't be surprised if they quietly do groundwork over the next few months that would make it possible for the team to offer Pujols an ownership stake in its next offer. It would have to take effect after his playing days are over, of course.

I still see him staying in St. Louis.

I thought that offering an ownership stake was not allowed.

I think Albert and the Cards really are at an impasse. The Cards offered a top 10 salary and according to everyone else Albert wants to be the highest paid player in baseball.

RedsBaron
02-17-2011, 12:29 PM
The Cards offered a top 10 salary and according to everyone else Albert wants to be the highest paid player in baseball.

The problem, from Albert's point of view, is that he isn't just a top 10 player. He is a top 1 player, based upon the last decade. Nobody in MLB put up as good a set of numbers as Albert did the last ten years.
The problem, from the point of view of the Cardinals, is that Albert probably will not be the best player in the game the next ten years.

WVRed
02-17-2011, 12:32 PM
The main difference is the Cavs offered LeBron everything they could (max years, max money), and he left for other reasons (which we are now seeing why, because the Cavs are one of the worst teams in history).

I get what you're saying to a certain extent, but this doesn't sound like the Lebron saga if you ask me.

Both teams are microcosm's of each other. If anything, the "stars and scrubs" analogy works for both, because you see how bad the Cavs are right now. Take Pujols out of St Louis and see how far they fall.

My point was that it is similar in one area, both of the teams are banking on their players resigning because of their "love for the city". LeBron being from outside of Cleveland, Pujols spending his entire career in St Louis.

lollipopcurve
02-17-2011, 12:36 PM
I thought that offering an ownership stake was not allowed.

I think that while the player's playing, it requires commissioner approval. But there's nothing stopping the team from offering him a stake after he retires, so far as I know.

Caveman Techie
02-17-2011, 01:41 PM
I can't decide how I want this to go.

On one hand I think it would be fun to watch St Louis tie up an insane amount of money in an aging first baseman who even should he start aging backwards would find it hard to live up to a 30million dollar a year contract. Think of how hamstring'ed the Cards organisation would be.

On the other hand, it would be nice to face the Cards next year without having to worry about Pujols.

Chip R
02-17-2011, 01:52 PM
I can't decide how I want this to go.

On one hand I think it would be fun to watch St Louis tie up an insane amount of money in an aging first baseman who even should he start aging backwards would find it hard to live up to a 30million dollar a year contract. Think of how hamstring'ed the Cards organisation would be.

On the other hand, it would be nice to face the Cards next year without having to worry about Pujols.

I agree.

blumj
02-17-2011, 02:13 PM
Does anybody else find this extremely similar to LeBron James, minus the dog and pony show?

You're not the first, thread title:
Albert Pujols: The Decision 2?

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/63201-albert-pujols-the-decision-2/

Brutus
02-17-2011, 02:21 PM
I think that while the player's playing, it requires commissioner approval. But there's nothing stopping the team from offering him a stake after he retires, so far as I know.

It's not allowed under any circumstances. That's expressly forbidden by the collective bargaining agreement.

lollipopcurve
02-17-2011, 02:29 PM
It's not allowed under any circumstances. That's expressly forbidden by the collective bargaining agreement.

Are you sure? Then why this......?

"Under the current labor agreement in baseball, there is nothing that prohibits a player from owning a part of his team, but the ownership interest must be sold if the player leaves that team for another." -- Fay Vincent in the Wall Street Journal, November 2010

bucksfan2
02-17-2011, 02:30 PM
I can't decide how I want this to go.

On one hand I think it would be fun to watch St Louis tie up an insane amount of money in an aging first baseman who even should he start aging backwards would find it hard to live up to a 30million dollar a year contract. Think of how hamstring'ed the Cards organisation would be.

On the other hand, it would be nice to face the Cards next year without having to worry about Pujols.

If the Cards sign Pujols to a deal he wants he will still have 4-5 years in his prime. That is the same window that many see the current Reds competing in. Heck 6-7 years down the road who knows what shape the Reds will be in, or even the Central for that matter. In 2017 the Pirates may be at the top of the division.

lollipopcurve
02-17-2011, 02:34 PM
Further on the Crads offering Pujols a piece of the team (an AP story quoted in the KC Star):


The Cardinals would not reveal their offer, though it was believed to be somewhere around $200 million for eight years, possibly with an opportunity for Pujols to obtain an ownership stake in the franchise once his playing days are complete.

That's where I see the agreement happening -- he'll get an ownership stake post-playing days.

Brutus
02-17-2011, 02:35 PM
Are you sure? Then why this......?

"Under the current labor agreement in baseball, there is nothing that prohibits a player from owning a part of his team, but the ownership interest must be sold if the player leaves that team for another." -- Fay Vincent in the Wall Street Journal, November 2010

I'll double-check. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. But I could have sworn I read that part ownership during their career was not allowed.

Brutus
02-17-2011, 02:54 PM
Further on the Crads offering Pujols a piece of the team (an AP story quoted in the KC Star):



That's where I see the agreement happening -- he'll get an ownership stake post-playing days.


I was misremembering where it's located, as it's actually from the Major League rules and Paragraph 4 of a player's Uniform Player Contract.

That said, you are correct that it's allowable under conditions.

First, here is the language as found in a player contract:



Interest in Club

4.(c) The Player represents that he does not, directly or indirectly, own stock or have any financial interest in the ownership or earnings of any
Major League Club, except as hereinafter expressly set forth, and covenants that he will not hereafter, while connected with any Major League Club, acquire or hold any such stock or interest except in accordance with Major League Rule 20(e).

Here is Major League Rule 20


(e) WITHIN CLUB. No manager or player on a Club shall, directly or indirectly, own stock or any other proprietary interest or have any financial interest in the Club by which the manager or player is employed except under an agreement approved by the Commissioner, which agreement shall provide for the immediate sale (and the terms thereof) of such stock or other proprietary interest or financial interest in the event of the manager or player's transfer (if a player or playing manager) to or joining another Club. A manager or player having any such interest in the Club by which the manager or player is employed shall be ineligible to play for or manage any other Club in that League while, in the opinion of the Commissioner, such interest is retained by or for the manager or player, directly or indirectly.

So that is apparently correct. I'd always seen the language that it wasn't permitted in the UPC, but had not seen the exception made in ML Rule 20.

Blitz Dorsey
02-17-2011, 03:09 PM
I love that the Cardinals are going through this. They've been good for so long ... they're due for some bad news/stress. There's still a chance Pujols will re-sign with them of course after the season, but I bet he ends up leaving.

Good thing they put all that money in Matt Holliday and they can't afford the best player in the game now. LOL.

RANDY IN INDY
02-17-2011, 03:23 PM
I love that the Cardinals are going through this. They've been good for so long ... they're due for some bad news/stress. There's still a chance Pujols will re-sign with them of course after the season, but I bet he ends up leaving.

Good thing they put all that money in Matt Holliday and they can't afford the best player in the game now. LOL.

A curious strategy to say the least.

Brutus
02-17-2011, 03:26 PM
A curious strategy to say the least.

It's kind of darned if you do, darned if you don't.

If they put the money into him, they might not be able to afford Pujols. But if they don't, then they come across like they're not committed to winning.

It was the same paradox that the Cavs went through with LeBron.

pedro
02-17-2011, 03:51 PM
If it's true he's demanding a 10 year contract I'd let him walk.

Strikes Out Looking
02-17-2011, 07:42 PM
If it's true he's demanding a 10 year contract I'd let him walk.

Especially since he's probably 33-34 years old right now;)

kaldaniels
02-17-2011, 08:09 PM
So the question that needs to be answered, is what will Albert's total WAR be over the next 10 years.

MattyHo4Life
02-17-2011, 08:16 PM
If it's true he's demanding a 10 year contract I'd let him walk.

According to Pujols, all of the numbers that have been reported are way off. It's amazing that all of these reports seem to know how much was offered/demanded when neither the Cardnals or Pujol's side are talking about it.

MattyHo4Life
02-17-2011, 08:31 PM
Good thing they put all that money in Matt Holliday and they can't afford the best player in the game now. LOL.

The plan was to sign Holliday to show Pujols that they were committed to winning. I doubt that plan has changed, so they will probably sign Pujols still.

cincrazy
02-17-2011, 11:25 PM
Maybe I'm crazy, but I think it's awful to see St. Louis in this predicament. And I wouldn't get too gleeful as a Reds fan, because we have less revenues than the Redbirds, and in three years will be facing much the same scenario with Votto and others.

Slyder
02-18-2011, 01:35 AM
Jon Heyman also tweeted on twitter...

"1 competing gm sees archrival #cubs as 1 of many logical suitors for pujols"

yikes. cubs have the money and not a long term solution at 1B.

Anaheim Angels
Baltimore Orioles (they were in on Teix)
New York Mets (as a sign that the black clouds are gone)

After this I would consider the Cubs. Pujols isnt going somewhere that he doesn't feel he can win. And after all they are still the Cubs and they still find a way to screw it up.

MikeThierry
02-18-2011, 01:50 AM
I'm calling it now that Pujols will never be in a Cubs uniform. The Cards will do anything to outbid the Cubs even if it means a crazy deal just to save face with the Cardinal fan base. It would be like Jeter going to the Red Sox. Yankee fans wouldn't stand for it.


By the way, it was reported by Joe Strauss that in talking with Bill DeWitt, DeWitt mentioned something about offering Pujols interests in the team. The amount of interest was never revealed but the whole part ownership idea was on the table.

TheNext44
02-18-2011, 02:08 AM
The plan was to sign Holliday to show Pujols that they were committed to winning. I doubt that plan has changed, so they will probably sign Pujols still.

Yeah, the Cards were in a dammed if do, damned If you don't situation with Holliday. They don't sign someone to protect Pujols, and he's definitely gone next year. They sign Holliday and they can't afford to give Pujols what he deserves.

I know Card fans hated this idea, but I recommended last year that they trade Pujols, blow up the team and rebuild for the future. It really was the wisest baseball move, even if it was the worst marketing move. It would have put them two years ahead of where they are now. Sorry for the hard truth Matty and Mike. :(

MikeThierry
02-18-2011, 02:16 AM
TheNext, I may have agreed with you about trading Pujols if the Cards had a bad pitching staff. In that scenario, they wouldn't have won even with Pujols on the team. However, every year with this pitching staff they have an opportunity to win. The objective is to win WS so I don't know if going with the Royals and Pirates 15 year rebuilding plan was the way to go :)

TheNext44
02-18-2011, 03:17 AM
TheNext, I may have agreed with you about trading Pujols if the Cards had a bad pitching staff. In that scenario, they wouldn't have won even with Pujols on the team. However, every year with this pitching staff they have an opportunity to win. The objective is to win WS so I don't know if going with the Royals and Pirates 15 year rebuilding plan was the way to go :)

If they made the right trade of Pujols, they would be ready to contend for years as soon as next season. I would have traded Carpenter too. Imagine how many top prospects the Cards could have gotten for Carpenter and Pujols last season. Plus they would have as much payflex as the need to sign free agents or trade for veterans next year.

2010 and 2011 would be painful, and they would need to do some marketing magic, but in the end, I think it would lead to more playoff appearances this decade.

Ron Madden
02-18-2011, 04:08 AM
Maybe I'm crazy, but I think it's awful to see St. Louis in this predicament. And I wouldn't get too gleeful as a Reds fan, because we have less revenues than the Redbirds, and in three years will be facing much the same scenario with Votto and others.

Sad but true.

Besides it's bad karma to find pleasure in the misery of others. ;)

redsfandan
02-18-2011, 06:36 AM
Doubt it will happen but I think it would be interesting if Pujols, Fielder, and Adrian Gonzalez were all free agents next year.

Eric_the_Red
02-18-2011, 08:09 AM
Pujols will go to the highest bidder, regardless if that is the Cards, Cubs, Mets or a team in Japan.

GoReds
02-18-2011, 09:58 AM
I think this article lays out the issues with the Cards and Pujols well. Damned if they do - damned if they don't.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/02/what-locking-up-pujols-would-mean-for-the-cardinals.html


Unless the team boosts payroll significantly, GM John Mozeliak and the St. Louis front office would be gambling on themselves to fill out a roster with less spending power than they're accustomed to. Owner Bill DeWitt Jr. committed between $75-100MM in payroll every year from 2001-10. Fitting a $25-30MM player into that type of budget would limit the Cardinals' ability to spend on other needs and would likely leave them with a weakened bullpen and infield as soon as 2012.

bucksfan2
02-18-2011, 10:38 AM
Anaheim Angels
Baltimore Orioles (they were in on Teix)
New York Mets (as a sign that the black clouds are gone)

After this I would consider the Cubs. Pujols isnt going somewhere that he doesn't feel he can win. And after all they are still the Cubs and they still find a way to screw it up.

Baltimore was on Tex because he was a hometown boy.

The Wilpon's are in some serious financial peril and I doubt they will have much cash to throw around.

I can see the Angles as suitors but what do they do with Morales? But Pujols > Morales.

NY has Tex and Boston has Gonzales. Pujols > Gonzales but not buy much. I would imagine Boston signs Adrian to a long term extension soon.

Chip R
02-18-2011, 10:48 AM
The problem with trading Pujols - besides the fact that he has said he would reject any trade - is that no matter who you get back for him, it's not fair value. They could trade him to BOS for Gonzalez, Youkilis and Pedroia and it would look like a joke to Cards fans.

Phhhl
02-18-2011, 10:57 AM
The Cardinals have been a "house of cards" for the last 10 years, and the entire foundation is Albert Pujols. The "stars and scrubs" approach they have taken to building their teams, especially in the last few years, is just inviting the type of collapse they are likely to experience when Albert Pujols walks. You simply cannot experience sustained success trying to get by with team that is half-loaded with marginal scrubs like Skip Shumaker, Kyle Lohse, Ryan Theriot, Ryan Franklin, Jason Simontocchi, Brad Thompson, etc.... The arrogance of their front office to believe they can coach these guys up has been vindicated with sporadic success so long because their foundation (Pujols) was so incredibly cheap and the Central division has been one of the weakest in all of baseball.

All of that is about to change, whether the Cardinals sign Pujols or not. They are simply going to have to finally try and find a way to field an entire baseball team for the first time in a decade if he leaves. If he stays, his talent will erode and they will have to try and squeeze even more orange juice out of the lumps of coal they typically bring in to fill out the roster than ever. Either way, the future must look kind of bleak in St. Louis right now.

lollipopcurve
02-18-2011, 11:01 AM
I get the sense Pujols wants to stay, and the Cards want him there. When two sides want a deal to get done, it gets done eventually. I'll be surprised if Pujols is anywhere but in St. Louis in 2012.

GoReds
02-18-2011, 11:03 AM
The problem with trading Pujols - besides the fact that he has said he would reject any trade - is that no matter who you get back for him, it's not fair value. They could trade him to BOS for Gonzalez, Youkilis and Pedroia and it would look like a joke to Cards fans.

Cards fans may think that's a joke, but I would be more worried about the Cardinals if they did this. There's two additional spots in the lineup to worry about, not to mention a lot more pay flex for the Cardinals in the future.

_Sir_Charles_
02-18-2011, 11:23 AM
The Cardinals have been a "house of cards" for the last 10 years, and the entire foundation is Albert Pujols. The "stars and scrubs" approach they have taken to building their teams, especially in the last few years, is just inviting the type of collapse they are likely to experience when Albert Pujols walks. You simply cannot experience sustained success trying to get by with team that is half-loaded with marginal scrubs like Skip Shumaker, Kyle Lohse, Ryan Theriot, Ryan Franklin, Jason Simontocchi, Brad Thompson, etc.... The arrogance of their front office to believe they can coach these guys up has been vindicated with sporadic success so long because their foundation (Pujols) was so incredibly cheap and the Central division has been one of the weakest in all of baseball.

All of that is about to change, whether the Cardinals sign Pujols or not. They are simply going to have to finally try and find a way to field an entire baseball team for the first time in a decade if he leaves. If he stays, his talent will erode and they will have to try and squeeze even more orange juice out of the lumps of coal they typically bring in to fill out the roster than ever. Either way, the future must look kind of bleak in St. Louis right now.

Top notch post there SA. I agree 100%

medford
02-18-2011, 11:40 AM
There's a thread in the minor league forum by Doug, linking a stud done on a Royals board about the success rate of "top prospects" Basically if you take BA top 100, about 30% of them will become successful major leaguers. That's a pretty high fail rate for guys considerred the best of the best.

thru late August, the Cards had a legit shot at the playoffs, and a top of the rotation that would provide a decent shot of advancing if they got there. Unless the cards were really good at identifying the right prosects in deals for Pujols & Carpenter, they're likely better going for the ring last season and this, building up goodwill with the fans, than trading away their two cornerstones for guys that may never pan out.

Roy Tucker
02-18-2011, 12:12 PM
I just wonder if the Cards and Pujols are discussing deferred money (like what the Reds did with Junior).

I just can't see the Cards affording $30M per year no matter how motivated they are to keep Pujols.

OnBaseMachine
02-18-2011, 12:20 PM
I get the sense Pujols wants to stay, and the Cards want him there. When two sides want a deal to get done, it gets done eventually. I'll be surprised if Pujols is anywhere but in St. Louis in 2012.

I agree. I'd say there's about a 90% chance Pujols remains with the Cardinals. I just hope he signs for about $300 million and handicaps the organization.

TheNext44
02-18-2011, 12:46 PM
There's a thread in the minor league forum by Doug, linking a stud done on a Royals board about the success rate of "top prospects" Basically if you take BA top 100, about 30% of them will become successful major leaguers. That's a pretty high fail rate for guys considerred the best of the best.

thru late August, the Cards had a legit shot at the playoffs, and a top of the rotation that would provide a decent shot of advancing if they got there. Unless the cards were really good at identifying the right prosects in deals for Pujols & Carpenter, they're likely better going for the ring last season and this, building up goodwill with the fans, than trading away their two cornerstones for guys that may never pan out.

Thats why you don't trade them for top 100 prospects. You trade them for a mix of top young MLB ready players and a team's top prospects. For instance, if it were the Reds, you trade Pujols for Bruce, Cueto, Mesoraco, and Hamilton. Or if it were the Dodgers, for Kemp, Kershaw and the two best Dodger prospects. The key would be finding the right team with right players available.

WVRed
02-18-2011, 12:50 PM
You're not the first, thread title:

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/63201-albert-pujols-the-decision-2/

When I said "Dog and Pony Show", I was referring to the "Decision". I doubt Pujols will drag St Louis through the mud the way LeBron did with Cleveland fans.

bucksfan2
02-18-2011, 02:09 PM
I agree. I'd say there's about a 90% chance Pujols remains with the Cardinals. I just hope he signs for about $300 million and handicaps the organization.

Why?

Here is the way I look at it. With Albert any team is going to stay competitive until he is about 35-36 just on the virtue of Albert. Its similar to what the Giants did with Bonds. You know you have the best player in the game, now you just need to do a good job of surrounding him with some talent. It will get a little more dicey but Albert is good enough to carry an offense. Lets say the Cards do sign Albert for a contract around $25M/year. Even if they let Carpenter walk after next season they could have a team composed of Holiday-Albert-Rasmus-Wainwright-Garcia-Shelby Miller. Its a team good enough to compete in the NL Central.

The issue I see with the Reds is they are built for the next 5 years or so, the same time period in which Albert likely won't see a drastic decline. In essence it will hamstring the Cards 5 years down the road, but no one really knows what the Reds will look like then.

traderumor
02-18-2011, 02:38 PM
Why?

Here is the way I look at it. With Albert any team is going to stay competitive until he is about 35-36 just on the virtue of Albert. Its similar to what the Giants did with Bonds. You know you have the best player in the game, now you just need to do a good job of surrounding him with some talent. It will get a little more dicey but Albert is good enough to carry an offense. Lets say the Cards do sign Albert for a contract around $25M/year. Even if they let Carpenter walk after next season they could have a team composed of Holiday-Albert-Rasmus-Wainwright-Garcia-Shelby Miller. Its a team good enough to compete in the NL Central.

The issue I see with the Reds is they are built for the next 5 years or so, the same time period in which Albert likely won't see a drastic decline. In essence it will hamstring the Cards 5 years down the road, but no one really knows what the Reds will look like then.He didn't carry it real well by himself last year...

MattyHo4Life
02-18-2011, 02:54 PM
Pujols will go to the highest bidder, regardless if that is the Cards, Cubs, Mets or a team in Japan.

What makes you think that? Pujols has never seemed to be about the money. He hasn't said anything recently to make me think that has suddenly changed. He has been underpaid compared to his peers for years.

bucksfan2
02-18-2011, 02:57 PM
He didn't carry it real well by himself last year...

86 Wins and a second place performance in what many are considering a down year. Dude makes the Cards relevant in the NL Central each year he suits up.

Brutus
02-18-2011, 03:06 PM
What makes you think that? Pujols has never seemed to be about the money. He hasn't said anything recently to make me think that has suddenly changed. He has been underpaid compared to his peers for years.

Pujols had a chance to get this over with and accept darn near $200 million to be set for life beyond anyone's wildest imagination (more than he already is). If he were so adamant about wanting to remain a "Cardinal for life", all he had to do was sign on the dotted line and not drag this out beyond his self-imposed deadline.

To me, that's a move that reeks of being "about the money."

If he's not about the money, then sign the Cardinals' offer and be done with it.

There's absolutely nothing about how he's doing this that can be construed as being anything other than about the money.

MattyHo4Life
02-18-2011, 03:08 PM
[QUOTE=Brutus the Pimp;2325450]Pujols had a chance to get this over with and accept darn near $200 million[QUOTE]

How do you know what Pujols was offered? Nobody else does.

fearofpopvol1
02-18-2011, 03:20 PM
[QUOTE=Brutus the Pimp;2325450]Pujols had a chance to get this over with and accept darn near $200 million[QUOTE]

How do you know what Pujols was offered? Nobody else does.

Good sources have claimed it.

I think it's a respect thing. He wants to be and should be the highest player ever. If he wasn't even offered Top 10 money, that's a slap in the face.

MattyHo4Life
02-18-2011, 03:24 PM
[QUOTE=MattyMo4Life;2325451][QUOTE=Brutus the Pimp;2325450]Pujols had a chance to get this over with and accept darn near $200 million

Good sources have claimed it.

I think it's a respect thing. He wants to be and should be the highest player ever. If he wasn't even offered Top 10 money, that's a slap in the face.

Lots of people have claimed it. Yesterday Pujols said that nobody was even close with the numbers. Last night, Dewitt said that nobody has had the number right yet. Just because somebody claims that it's true, doesn't make it true.

PuffyPig
02-18-2011, 03:25 PM
What makes you think that? Pujols has never seemed to be about the money. He hasn't said anything recently to make me think that has suddenly changed. He has been underpaid compared to his peers for years.

He actions speak louder than words, I would say.....

MattyHo4Life
02-18-2011, 03:32 PM
He actions speak louder than words, I would say.....

What actions? turning down the first contract he was offered? Lots of players have done that. I know I'm a minority as far as Cards fans go, beecause most Cards fans are against Albert now. I don't think he has done anything wrong though. I don't see the urgency of signing a contract now for either side. There is time for that after the season and before free agency.

lollipopcurve
02-18-2011, 03:39 PM
don't see the urgency of signing a contract now for either side.

I think the Cards would have loved to get him signed this offseason. Unless he gets hurt or has a career-worst season, Pujols' leverage is only going to increase.

All we really know right now is that Pujols was not willing to make this easy for the team. I think he'll stay, but he'll get more later than he could have a few days ago.

Phhhl
02-18-2011, 03:41 PM
What actions? turning down the first contract he was offered? Lots of players have done that. I know I'm a minority as far as Cards fans go, beecause most Cards fans are against Albert now. I don't think he has done anything wrong though. I don't see the urgency of signing a contract now for either side. There is time for that after the season and before free agency.

Are you serious? History has indicated that just about every time a superstar player enters the final year of a contract without a new deal, he is pretty much as good as gone to another team. That is why there was so much hysteria about Pujols' "deadline". He may re-sign with the Cardinals, but it is unfathamable that the greatest hitter alive would not want to find out what he is worth on the open market. It is cute the way all these sports writers and fans are acting as if the 5-day "window' between the end of the World Series and free agency in 2012 is signifigant. Two days ago we were on the brink of "Albertageddon". That disaster has "happened", that's ok... we'll just reset the timer. I think the whole theory is delusional. Albert is much more likely to walk than be a Cardinal in 2012.

MattyHo4Life
02-18-2011, 03:48 PM
I think the Cards would have loved to get him signed this offseason. Unless he gets hurt or has a career-worst season, Pujols' leverage is only going to increase.

All we really know right now is that Pujols was not willing to make this easy for the team. I think he'll stay, but he'll get more later than he could have a few days ago.

Maybe, but I just didn't sense that urgency from Mo and Dewitt. I doubt Pujols' leverage can get any greater than it is now. I think he will stay with the team, and it will be for less than 300Mil even though another team would probably offer $300 Mil or more.

Brutus
02-18-2011, 03:50 PM
What actions? turning down the first contract he was offered? Lots of players have done that. I know I'm a minority as far as Cards fans go, beecause most Cards fans are against Albert now. I don't think he has done anything wrong though. I don't see the urgency of signing a contract now for either side. There is time for that after the season and before free agency.

I have a hard time believing the Cardinals have made just one offer this entire offseason.

If so, they are inept.

Either way, if he turned down any fiscally attractive offer, even if it fell short of $200 million, it's still "about the money" if you're not accepting it for financial reasons.

lollipopcurve
02-18-2011, 03:56 PM
I doubt Pujols' leverage can get any greater than it is now.

Are you kidding? When he has other teams competing to sign him, his leverage goes way, way, WAY up. Most likely, that will happen.

medford
02-18-2011, 04:05 PM
[QUOTE=fearofpopvol1;2325455][QUOTE=MattyMo4Life;2325451]

Lots of people have claimed it. Yesterday Pujols said that nobody was even close with the numbers. Last night, Dewitt said that nobody has had the number right yet. Just because somebody claims that it's true, doesn't make it true.

I think neither Pujols nor Dewitt would be the first player and/or GM to claim that published rumors are false despite their relative accuracy. You say others have it wrong, who says Pujols & Dewitt aren't lying to cover face?

Pujol's agent isn't stupid. Once he starts getting offers from the Cardinals, he's going to use his back channels to get those numbers out to the teams that may have interest in his client next offseason. Pujol's agent should know what the market generally bares for Albert next offseason. I'm sure the Yankees, Sox, Cubs, Angles, etc.. have used the same back channel to let it be known that they're prepared to go X years of $Z dollars. That's pretty much how the numbers get out. Timmy K has an in w/ the yankees who tell him the rough contract numbers, he confirms it with someone else that has an in w/ another club who is hearing the same thing.

I generally believe the whispers out there. From Albert's standpoing, he's better off denying it publically so the average fan doesn't look at him and say "you turned down how much?". Meanwhile, Dewitt is better off denying the rumors as well so as not to specifically lay down his hand for all to see. You'd never get either side to admit that any contract rumors out there are correct, no matter how close to reality they are.

And yes, Albert has a ton more leverage next offseason. right now, its the cards and the cards only that can present a formal offer to him. Next offseason, he can be looking at 4-5 offers, and use one teams emotions to bump their offer even higher if he likes.

MattyHo4Life
02-18-2011, 04:35 PM
And yes, Albert has a ton more leverage next offseason. right now, its the cards and the cards only that can present a formal offer to him. Next offseason, he can be looking at 4-5 offers, and use one teams emotions to bump their offer even higher if he likes.

Well, if we believe the reports.. he wants 10 years for $30 Mil per year. I don't believe that, but you all are free to believe the whispers if you would like. You don't get much more leverage than saying pay me 10 years at $30Mil per year or I'm leaving. lol

Homer Bailey
02-18-2011, 04:41 PM
Well, if we believe the reports.. he wants 10 years for $30 Mil per year. I don't believe that, but you all are free to believe the whispers if you would like. You don't get much more leverage than saying pay me 10 years at $30Mil per year or I'm leaving. lol

Except he hasn't said that. He's said give me "blank blank" (we don't know what that number is) "or I'm not negotiating with you until after the season." And AFTER the season he will have even more leverage, such as, well "so and so offered me $800 million".

TheNext44
02-18-2011, 04:44 PM
[QUOTE=Brutus the Pimp;2325450]Pujols had a chance to get this over with and accept darn near $200 million[QUOTE]

How do you know what Pujols was offered? Nobody else does.

Normally we have a good idea where negotiations are going, but I agree that that is not the case here.

Reports from very reliable sources contradict each other concerning the Cardinals' offers. One had it at 8 years - $160M, another at 9 years - $200M+, and one at 8 years and above $180M.

That's a big range and my opinion of each side changes based on which one is true.

I will say this, he may not be all about the money, but if doesn't play for the Cardinals next year, clearly money was more important to him than his legacy.

TheNext44
02-18-2011, 04:47 PM
Concerning leverage, that will depend on what happens in 2011. A lot can happen to increase or decrease his leverage. He is definitely taking a risk by not signing now.

klw
02-18-2011, 04:48 PM
Concerning leverage, that will depend on what happens in 2011. A lot can happen to increase or decrease his leverage. He is definitely taking a risk by not signing now.

Just ask Nomar