Pujols rejects offer

[DocRed]

Why would the Reds be in the market for Pujols when they have Votto under control for 3 years? If they could find the money to sign Pujols for 10 years, they would just extend Votto through his prime years and save a ton of cash while doing so.

Also, what has Pujols "bellyached" about in the past?

Platoon

[DirtyBaker]

But I tell you what: If Walt gets the OK he will sign AP.

riiiiiiight...

[Vottomatic]

It's one thing to get paid a fair value, but asking for 30/mil for 10 years is like trying to bankrupt your franchise. There have been times in the past when great players took less than they could so their team could be competitive and sign quality players around them. If you really care at all about winning championships you would. Look at Tim Duncan and the Spurs, who signed a less than max contract at the height of his career, but he has 4 rings to show for it. Even though NBA players are considered money grubbing thugs by many fans, I can think of more NBA superstars who have passed up more money to help their teams than in NFL and MLB.

Yeah, it's kind of funny to watch some of these players equate how much they're paid with how great they are.

They tend to forget that greatness is helped along by having that guy hitting in front of you that gets on base and that guy hitting behind you that protects you in the order. Along with a good defense, good starting pitching, and a bullpen that can hold a lead when you hit a three run homer to take the lead.

Plenty of great players playing on mediocre teams.

Didn't Rod Carew never make the playoffs? There are probably others too.

Not everyone can play for the Yankees or Red Sox.

Part of me wonders if Pujols has already gotten word behind the scenes that the Cubs are going to pay him $30M over 10 years. Because he seems very stubborn about all of this.

[webbbj]

we'll find out in FA what he's really worth. With only one team in on the bidding it would be silly for the cards to give out $300m/10yrs w/ no other competition. If its necessary to go that high then they can make their decision.

I really dont think Pujols is gonna get what he wants. If Arod at a younger age at a more valuable position got 10yr/250m, I cant see someone going higher for Pujols. Salaries have increased but I dont know if by that much.

Their highest bidders will be NYY and Red Sox and they will go after him but I dont think even they will over pay to get him when they have established 1B.

Yanks have a greater need in SP, and getting younger at 3B, SS, and C.

Sox just went out on a huge spending spree this year and probably value SP more than a 1B since their pitching was not as elite as they once thought.

Mets and LAD are in some financial flux right now. That leaves LAA and each Chicago team.

I guess the Nats could be a big darkhorse.

In the end I think the open market will prove Pujols not worth 10y/$300M

[RedsLvr]

But I tell you what: If Walt gets the OK he will sign AP.

Edit: Imagine the best offence in the NL adding even a deminishing Pujols? The Reds will become a Central division dynasty, much like the Braves were at one time.

Nothing beats giving a guy a couple hundred million dollars for us to downgrade at a position. Unless good ole Pujols wants to play some SS, then I wouldn't touch him with a 10ft pole..

[757690]

He is going to boo Pujols because he won't take below market value to re-sign?

How stupid. I hope it doesn't come to this with Votto. If Joey decides he wants to test the free agent market when it comes time, why would we, as fans, begrudge him that chance?

Now, if you are going to do it LeBron James style, THEN I'll boo the crap outta you.

There is a a bit of the LeBron saga here in St. Louis with Pujols. He had made clear for years that he wanted to be a lifetime Cardinal and said directly that money would not be an issue. He said he wanted to be this generation's Stan Musial. Now he has changed his tune, and is more dedicated to being the top paid player instead of the most respected player, or a lifetime Cardinal.

He also must understand what giving into his demands will do to the organization. It will mean that they will have a hard time competing for years, especially the last five or so of the contract. So he is putting his own wealth ahead of the team's health.

Holiday is willing to defer some of his money to help pay for Pujols because he wants to win. You would think Pujols would want to win just as bad and not make that necessary.

[signalhome]

It's one thing to get paid a fair value, but asking for 30/mil for 10 years is like trying to bankrupt your franchise. There have been times in the past when great players took less than they could so their team could be competitive and sign quality players around them. If you really care at all about winning championships you would. Look at Tim Duncan and the Spurs, who signed a less than max contract at the height of his career, but he has 4 rings to show for it. Even though NBA players are considered money grubbing thugs by many fans, I can think of more NBA superstars who have passed up more money to help their teams than in NFL and MLB.

I understand what you're saying, but you can't expect everyone to be willing to take less than what they're worth on the market like Tim Duncan did, or how Tom Brady restructured his contract to help the Patriots. I don't think it's a matter of not caring at all about championships, I just think those that take contract hits for the better of the team care a little less about money than the other guys. I mean, if Duncan and Brady really wanted to help their teams even more, they could sign a contract for about 1/10th of their market value. To me, taking that much of a hit to your bank is insanity. However, you've got to look at it from other people's perspectives. There are plenty of people who think taking anything less than market value is insanity, that you're just giving up way too much money. I don't think either view on it is right or wrong, they're just different.

[signalhome]

Nothing beats giving a guy a couple hundred million dollars for us to downgrade at a position. Unless good ole Pujols wants to play some SS, then I wouldn't touch him with a 10ft pole..

Haha, as good as Votto has been, I'd still rather have Pujols for the next two or three years, before Pujols' inevitable decline; remember, we only have Votto locked up for a few more years, then he's hitting the market.

Look at it this way: Votto had a 1.024 OPS and a .439 wOBA last year. Pujols has had a better OPS than that six times in his ten-year career (four years with a 1.100+ OPS) and an equal or higher wOBA five times.

Votto was amazing last year, but that year doesn't even come close to stacking up to Pujols at his best. It does look like his defensive abilities may be trailing off, but he had two straight years of 1.100+ OPS before last year's down year (haha, 1.010 is considered a down year). No reason to write off Pujols yet. He's not worth 30 million a year for the next 10 years -- nobody is at age 31 -- but he's still the best first baseman in baseball.

[New York Red]

Looks like Pujols has put the Cards organization in a difficult situation.

[Roush's socks]

I understand what you're saying, but you can't expect everyone to be willing to take less than what they're worth on the market like Tim Duncan did, or how Tom Brady restructured his contract to help the Patriots. I don't think it's a matter of not caring at all about championships, I just think those that take contract hits for the better of the team care a little less about money than the other guys. I mean, if Duncan and Brady really wanted to help their teams even more, they could sign a contract for about 1/10th of their market value. To me, taking that much of a hit to your bank is insanity. However, you've got to look at it from other people's perspectives. There are plenty of people who think taking anything less than market value is insanity, that you're just giving up way too much money. I don't think either view on it is right or wrong, they're just different.

Believe it or not there is more to life than money and once you're making more than 10 mil/yr it becomes less and less important. As you get older you start thinking about your LEGACY, how will people remember you. This goes not only for baseball players but also regular people. When you get to the very top players like Pujols, Brady, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, -- those guys are shooting gfor greatness and they want to remembered as great players 100 years from now. Winning championships is a big part of any player's legacy.

Also if you want to look at it just by the money, winning championships puts you in the media spotlight which leads to more endorsements which can sometime outweigh the money that players make in salary. Look at Drew Brees who has all kinds of commercials now, whereas if he was a great quarterback for a losing team he would not be on TV.

[RedsLvr]

Haha, as good as Votto has been, I'd still rather have Pujols for the next two or three years, before Pujols' inevitable decline; remember, we only have Votto locked up for a few more years, then he's hitting the market.

Look at it this way: Votto had a 1.024 OPS and a .439 wOBA last year. Pujols has had a better OPS than that six times in his ten-year career (four years with a 1.100+ OPS) and an equal or higher wOBA five times.

Votto was amazing last year, but that year doesn't even come close to stacking up to Pujols at his best. It does look like his defensive abilities may be trailing off, but he had two straight years of 1.100+ OPS before last year's down year (haha, 1.010 is considered a down year). No reason to write off Pujols yet. He's not worth 30 million a year for the next 10 years -- nobody is at age 31 -- but he's still the best first baseman in baseball.

True, but I seriously doubt Votto is quite in his prime at this point

[Roush's socks]

[QUOTE=RedsLvr;2324209]True, but I seriously doubt Votto is quite in his prime at this point[/QUOTE

It would be crazy to take Pujols over Votto. Pujols has peaked and is on his way down, while Votto should be at his best over the next 3-5 years. And Pujols has had to lay off the roids a little because of the heat, you can visibly see that he is less bulky now than a couple years ago.

[RedsLvr]

[QUOTE=Roush's socks;2324210]

True, but I seriously doubt Votto is quite in his prime at this point[/QUOTE

It would be crazy to take Pujols over Votto. Pujols has peaked and is on his way down, while Votto should be at his best over the next 3-5 years. And Pujols has had to lay off the roids a little because of the heat, you can visibly see that he is less bulky now than a couple years ago.

Nah I don't think he's on roids, or ever was. Steroids don't help you hit for average, they just give you good endurance. And as for his power, it's quite easy to see how he generates it in his swing. Either way, Votto would be a much smarter choice.

[ezluke]

[QUOTE=RedsLvr;2324214]

Nah I don't think he's on roids, or ever was. Steroids don't help you hit for average, they just give you good endurance. And as for his power, it's quite easy to see how he generates it in his swing. Either way, Votto would be a much smarter choice.

Steroids most certainly can help you hit for average. You say they help with endurance(its more than that, ask the shot putters) if you are fresher in aug/sept than the pitchers you have an advantage, if the roids give you that lil' bit that turns that warning track shot into a HR, or that ground out to short into the bouncer up the middle, than you have an advantage.

I hate when people say that roids can't help you hit a baseball. If it increases bat speed, or at the least holds your bat speed over the course of a year then it most certainly helps. If it didn't help they wouldn't do it, and it wouldnt have had such an impact on our game.

[signalhome]

Believe it or not there is more to life than money and once you're making more than 10 mil/yr it becomes less and less important. As you get older you start thinking about your LEGACY, how will people remember you. This goes not only for baseball players but also regular people. When you get to the very top players like Pujols, Brady, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, -- those guys are shooting gfor greatness and they want to remembered as great players 100 years from now. Winning championships is a big part of any player's legacy.

Also if you want to look at it just by the money, winning championships puts you in the media spotlight which leads to more endorsements which can sometime outweigh the money that players make in salary. Look at Drew Brees who has all kinds of commercials now, whereas if he was a great quarterback for a losing team he would not be on TV.

Preaching to the choir buddy, I absolutely believe there's more to everything than money. However, not everyone shares our view of that. Most athletes care quite a bit about money, but they care about championships as well. They don't see why they should have to sacrifice one to get the other. Obviously taking less money would help win a championship, but to just give up all that money makes no sense to them, and they believe that to be a stupid move. They just have a different view of it than us. As I said, neither way is right or wrong, they're just different. It's all in how you value things.