Pujols rejects offer

[Magdal]

Just heard this on the late news: Cards have 48 hours to make a bigger offer. (per USA Today)

Very interesting, I must say. I wonder what NL Central teams he is talking to? How about it, Mr. Jockety?

[DirtyBaker]

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

[Roush's socks]

No player is worth 20 mil/yr, let alone 30 mil. If you look at the numbers there is no way to justify it. You can sign 5 guys making 6 mil/yr for that and they will give you way more production than any one player.

[Magdal]

link (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/02/source-albert-pujols-rejects-cardinals-offer-will-end-talks-tuesday/1)No link...just turn on ESPN news, Man.

[Magdal]

No player is worth 20 mil/yr, let alone 30 mil. If you look at the numbers there is no way to justify it. You can sign 5 guys making 6 mil/yr for that and they will give you way more production than any one player.You got that right! The greedy Pujols wants to gut his team for all he can and don't give a damn if there are good players around him.

I cannot prove this, but I have heard repeatedly that the sticking point is him demanding a 10 year contract. 10 years to a no hustle, bellyaching prima donna that really may be 33 or 34 (a Dominican, see?) is beyond rediculas.

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.

[Magdal]

This just in: Whitey Herzog says (on TV) that 10 years for AP is completely unreasonable and that there is no way he gets that from the stingy ownership.

He damn sure knows more about this stuff than us.

[Razzle]

You got that right! The greedy Pujols wants to gut his team for all he can and don't give a damn if there are good players around him.

I cannot prove this, but I have heard repeatedly that the sticking point is him demanding a 10 year contract. 10 years to a no hustle, bellyaching prima donna that really may be 33 or 34 (a Dominican, see?) is beyond rediculas.

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.
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?

[Magdal]

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?He has embarrssed his teamates on the field, most notably the SS...it's no secret..he has embarrest Ochindo many times by running thru his stop signs at 3rd base...LaRussa has absolutely no control over this man.

A bouncing ball to 3rd and AP will just stop 30 feet from the 1st base bag....Tony makes excuses for him, but it's BULL! Run out grounders! Molina, APs little buddy does the same.

[joe51391]

I find this very funny st louis is so screwed. lets see if they let him go they have nobody to replace him because there farm system is very weak and if they do sign him they will be so straped for cash that they will have to get rid of some of there best talent to keep him. if i'm not mistaken i think the reds had that same problem in 2000 and look how long it took them to recover. I'm loving this :thumbup:

[Vottomatic]

I find this very funny st louis is so screwed. lets see if they let him go they have nobody to replace him because there farm system is very weak and if they do sign him they will be so straped for cash that they will have to get rid of some of there best talent to keep him. if i'm not mistaken i think the reds had that same problem in 2000 and look how long it took them to recover. I'm loving this :thumbup:

St. Louis is screwed if they do or don't sign him. That's what makes this entertaining.

If AP is asking for the moon, sun, and stars.........they can't afford it. And it will hamper the teams payroll if they give in. And when he's 38, hitting .260 and knocking in 20 HR's, 90 RBI, instead of his .320, 40 HR, and 130 rbi........they will be one hurting organization.

Plus, The Cardinals already toasted their farm system.

All of this is a good reminder to appreciate Joey Votto while he's here and hopefully what the team accomplishes with him...........but DON'T FALL IN LOVE WITH HIM. He won't be here forever.

Watching them go down the tubes is going to be very enjoyable. :beerme:

[Vottomatic]

A buddy of mine has season tickets in St. Louis. He says he is going to boo the heck out of Pujols every time he comes up to bat this season.

[DaytonFlyer]

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.

[webbbj]

yea, really makes no sense to boo the guy, he has helped give that organization everything for the past 8 years or so. If he leaves they should just appreciate what he did for the organization and move on.

[texasdave]

A buddy of mine has season tickets in St. Louis. He says he is going to boo the heck out of Pujols every time he comes up to bat this season.

Nothing new here. I already boo the heck out of Pujols every time he comes up to bat. :)

[Roush's socks]

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.

[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. :)

:beerme:

[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=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.

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=Roush's socks;2324210]

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.

[lonewolf371]

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.
A-Rod's Yankee career is supposedly clean, and his average stayed about the same, the home runs kept coming, and so did the RBI. Steroids seem to affect you more from an injury perspective rather than a performance one.

[signalhome]

A-Rod's Yankee career is supposedly clean, and his average stayed about the same, the home runs kept coming, and so did the RBI. Steroids seem to affect you more from an injury perspective rather than a performance one.

Possible example: Barry Bonds continuing his unbelievable performance well into his 30's (guy was the best player in baseball before he ever allegedly started using PEDs). His body never broke down as a result of using PEDs.

Or maybe he never used PEDs and is just a freak of nature. Who knows.

[Josh]

Possible example: Barry Bonds continuing his unbelievable performance well into his 30's (guy was the best player in baseball before he ever allegedly started using PEDs). His body never broke down as a result of using PEDs.

Or maybe he never used PEDs and is just a freak of nature. Who knows.

I always heard that he grew alot fast would this true?

[lonewolf371]

Possible example: Barry Bonds continuing his unbelievable performance well into his 30's (guy was the best player in baseball before he ever allegedly started using PEDs). His body never broke down as a result of using PEDs.

Or maybe he never used PEDs and is just a freak of nature. Who knows.
No, I think he used PEDs, his body never broke down as a result like you said. I think it's possible that steroids give some performance boost, but there has to be a lot of talent there to start with.

If steroids were as widespread as we're led to believe, the assumption that it would pump up your average and slugging would have led to the whole league pelting 40 HRs with a .300 AVG and .600 SLG over the '90s.

[Girevik]

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?


The difference there is that when Votto hits the market, he will be in his prime and probably worth whatever he gets (relatively speaking). Pujols is looking for a huge contract where he will most likely be on the decline for at least half of it and become a detrimemt to his team in order to make up for paying for less than market value up until now.

I can see Pujols' point, but I also don't think the Cardinals are under any obligation to handcuff themselves for the next 10 years to make up for Pujols' "hometown discount".

[bounty37h]

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.

I think there is a rule that allows how little a player can sign for too, if not a written rule, an understanding at least. Market Value is one thing, but when you are risking your entire organizations abilities for your own account, I think thats a pretty shallow move.

[757690]

According to Jon Heyman via twitter...


word is, the #cardinals 8-year offer was for south of $30 mil per yr. exact figure hasnt been ascertained yet.

I think Pujols is making a mistake if he turns that down. He might do better, but not by much, and if he does turn it down, his legacy will be tarnished, which no amount of money will ever buy back.

What Pujols does here says everything about what he really cares about.

[signalhome]

According to Jon Heyman via twitter...



I think Pujols is making a mistake if he turns that down. He might do better, but not by much, and if he does turn it down, his legacy will be tarnished, which no amount of money will ever buy back.

What Pujols does here says everything about what he really cares about.

I absolutely see what you're saying and even sort of agree. However, I do see Pujols' line of thinking in this. If Mark Teixeira is worth $22.5 million a year, then Pujols is definitely worth $30 million a year (this idea belongs to Fangraphs, http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/teixeira-is-no-pujols/). Here's a graph of their cumulative WAR by age:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/1177_1281___ograph_-blog_2_15_2011-1.png

Over the first eight years of their career, Pujols has posted a WAR total of 64.6 -- Teixeira, 36.3. There's really no comparison. Over the last three years, Pujols 25.3, Teixeira 16.2.

Nobody is worth $30 million a year right now, plain and simple. That's just way too much money. The fault lies in the Yankees giving a huge contract to someone who does not even come close to deserving it, thus driving the market value to unreasonable heights. Now it can actually become a matter of respect to Pujols (I've read a few things saying that to some athletes, their contract is as much about how they're compared to other players as it is the money; this came up a lot in Darrelle Revis' contract dispute). He knows he's better than Teixeira by a long shot, so he feels he deserves much more than Teixeira gets.

You're right, Pujols should see the big picture, swallow his pride, and take equal to or less than the player who is far inferior to him. It is what's best for his team. However, I do see his side of the matter.

I bet the Cardinals higher-ups really hate the Yankees right about now.

[texasdave]

The fault lies in the Yankees giving a huge contract to someone who does not even come close to deserving it, thus driving the market value to unreasonable heights.
Just one more reason to hate the Yankees. As if we needed another reason.

[mroby85]

ESPN is reporting that talks are done between Pujols and St. Louis, and the deadline will come and go with no deal.

[texasdave]

ESPN is reporting that talks are done between Pujols and St. Louis, and the deadline will come and go with no deal.

If the 8-year, 200 million deal was actually on the table, this is a huge roll of the dice for Pujols. It isn't likely but he could suffer a severe injury. One never knows.
And for what? I can't imagine he is going to get much more money than that in free agency. Of course, I never ceased to be amazed at how much money players eventually get. See Jayson Werth.
Maybe it really is a matter of "respect" for Pujols.

[Cuban_Missile]

ESPN is reporting that talks are done between Pujols and St. Louis, and the deadline will come and go with no deal.

Good I knew that was going to happen and if that 8yr 200million was right then Pujols really did just want out of St. Louis and they were literally going to have to give him the St. Louis Arch to keep him.

[mroby85]

ESPN was saying the 8 year 200 million offer wasn't accurate at all. They reported it earlier in the night, but then came back and said it wasn't true. They're saying the Cubs could afford him which wouldn't really benefit the Reds at all, but they also mentioned the Nationals, and Angels which would be great fits as far as i'm concerned, lol. They also said it's about money for Pujols, not the length of the contract, and that he and his agent had mentioned something in the ballpark of 10 years 300 million, which would put him at 41 when the contract was up.

[757690]

I absolutely see what you're saying and even sort of agree. However, I do see Pujols' line of thinking in this. If Mark Teixeira is worth $22.5 million a year, then Pujols is definitely worth $30 million a year (this idea belongs to Fangraphs, http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/teixeira-is-no-pujols/). Here's a graph of their cumulative WAR by age:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/1177_1281___ograph_-blog_2_15_2011-1.png

Over the first eight years of their career, Pujols has posted a WAR total of 64.6 -- Teixeira, 36.3. There's really no comparison. Over the last three years, Pujols 25.3, Teixeira 16.2.

Nobody is worth $30 million a year right now, plain and simple. That's just way too much money. The fault lies in the Yankees giving a huge contract to someone who does not even come close to deserving it, thus driving the market value to unreasonable heights. Now it can actually become a matter of respect to Pujols (I've read a few things saying that to some athletes, their contract is as much about how they're compared to other players as it is the money; this came up a lot in Darrelle Revis' contract dispute). He knows he's better than Teixeira by a long shot, so he feels he deserves much more than Teixeira gets.

You're right, Pujols should see the big picture, swallow his pride, and take equal to or less than the player who is far inferior to him. It is what's best for his team. However, I do see his side of the matter.

I bet the Cardinals higher-ups really hate the Yankees right about now.

Nice find.

However, the article misses the main point.

No one, not even the Cardinals, is arguing that Pujols doesn't deserve to be the highest player in the game. The issue is for how long.

Tex's contract will run out when he is 36 years old. If Pujols gets his desired contract of 10 years at $30M a season, he will be getting paid that much when he is 42 years old.

The Cards, according to reliable sources have offered close to $30M a year for 7-8 years. That is more than fair, and I can't see any team topping that by enough to matter.

If he agreed to that contract, Pujols would be the top paid player until he is 38 years old, well past his prime. I have lost a lot of respect for him knowing that he has turned that down. Respect that he will never get back.

[Vottomatic]

I may be wrong, but I can see no team wanting to go 10 years. I see most teams offering a 7 year deal and that's it.

He probably is the greatest player of the 2000's. But I also think that these high priced contracts are starting to reach that line where most, if not all, teams say "is it really worth it?" I mean......what's next? $35M for 10 years? $40M for 10 years? Are teams really going to go there? I don't see it. But I never thought we'd see $30M players either.

It's kind of like what the economy is doing to America. The divide between the have's and have nots is getting wider. Same with MLB. You either try to get by with bargain players or pay gazillions of dollars to one player. It's ridiculous. You have your Cabrera's and Renteria's............and then you have your Pujols and A-Rods.

Unless Pujols is angry at Cards management and just wants out of there no matter what, otherwise he may find that theirs could end up being the best offer, considering his age and likelihood of declining. In the end, he means more to St. Louis and marketing with their fans than other clubs. I see the same thing happening with Prince Fielder. I think the market will start getting smaller and smaller for alot of these players.

[Vottomatic]

The latest article on this:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20110216/SPT04/302160126/

[757690]

From Ken Rosenthal, who usually has beat on such matters...


Ken_Rosenthal Ken Rosenthal
Source: #Cardinals' offer would have given Pujols about 10th-highest salary in game. Likely translates to $19M-$21M per. #MLB

If this is true, then I understand why Pujols is moving on. He can get much more than that easily in the next off-season (and should), no matter what happens this season (barring career ending injury).

If $20M a year can be an insult, than this is an insult of an offer, imo.

[signalhome]

Nice find.

However, the article misses the main point.

No one, not even the Cardinals, is arguing that Pujols doesn't deserve to be the highest player in the game. The issue is for how long.

Tex's contract will run out when he is 36 years old. If Pujols gets his desired contract of 10 years at $30M a season, he will be getting paid that much when he is 42 years old.

The Cards, according to reliable sources have offered close to $30M a year for 7-8 years. That is more than fair, and I can't see any team topping that by enough to matter.

If he agreed to that contract, Pujols would be the top paid player until he is 38 years old, well past his prime. I have lost a lot of respect for him knowing that he has turned that down. Respect that he will never get back.

I agree, nobody is going to give him ten years. He has to know that. Should have taken what the Cards offered, he's going to be hard-pressed to find a better deal on the market. I can't believe he's being this stubborn over two years on the contract.

EDIT: Just saw what Rosenthal said. Disregard all of this. If the Cards only offered him $20 million a year, I absolutely understand him walking.

[Girevik]

From what I heard, the sticking point is more the years than the money. Pujols simply seems to want a longer term contract that STL is willing to give.

This is one of those cases where I see both sides as totally justified. Pujols has signed below market value contracts before and now he wants his payday. StL is saying that while me may be one of the top players in the game now, he won't be in 10 years and can't hamstring themselves for 4 or 5 years because Pujols feels entitled.

I think SOMEONE will offer him a contract that's longer than makes sense to get the last few good years out of him. Ot would make more sense to me for it to be an AL team so he could spend his last few years as a DH (oh, can we please go back in time and correct this mistake??!!??).

[nmculbreth]

While I wouldn't offer Pujols the contract that he's allegedly demanding, I have a tough time feeling sorry for the Cardinals organization. Pujols has been the best player in baseball for nearly a decade and they've had the good fortune of paying him well below his fair market value for the entire duration of his tenure with the team. The fact that people are insinuating that Albert Pujols is greedy or selfish for wanting fair market value for his services is downright laughable.

[wlf WV]

I think it's a matter of principle.Pujols believes he was treated disrespectfully.They made a bad choice,essentially signing Holliday instead of Pujols. Something is wrong with baseball ,when a team that has the support as StL. is in this predicament.

[Vottomatic]

While I wouldn't offer Pujols the contract that he's allegedly demanding, I have a tough time feeling sorry for the Cardinals organization. Pujols has been the best player in baseball for nearly a decade and they've had the good fortune of paying him well below his fair market value for the entire duration of his tenure with the team. The fact that people are insinuating that Albert Pujols is greedy or selfish for wanting fair market value for his services is downright laughable.

I don't feel sorry for either of them.

The Cardinals have had him below market value for a decade and he has made them one of the best teams in baseball year in and out, along with a World Series banner. They have had him in their organization and were stupid to wait until the last minute to try and extend him. Really, really dumb on their part. So if he leaves, they deserve it.

As for Pujols, demanding 10 years when he'd be 41 or 42 at the end of the contract, and a mediocre version of the player he is now, is really unfair. I would not pay him for longer than 6 years. He will be 32 when that new contract starts with whatever team that signs him. I wouldn't pay him past 38 years old, and I'm not crazy about that age either.

Honestly, he would have been smarter to get them to tear up that existing contract a couple of years ago and ask for an 8 year contract at like $20M per year. They probably would have done it, and he would have been around 36 to 37 when the contract was up. But I think his age and length of the contract are a bigger deal than Pujols probably thinks it is at this point.

[nmculbreth]

Honestly, he would have been smarter to get them to tear up that existing contract a couple of years ago and ask for an 8 year contract at like $20M per year. They probably would have done it, and he would have been around 36 to 37 when the contract was up. But I think his age and length of the contract are a bigger deal than Pujols probably thinks it is at this point.

This is right on the money. If they would have offered him a 7 or 8 year extension two years ago they would have effectively offered him a 9 to 10 year deal without being forced to pay for as many years where he likely won't be able to perform at a high enough level to justify his salary. In all likelihood he'd have offered enough surplus value at the beginning of the deal to justify a little bit of dead money at the end of the deal, at this point I'm not sure if that is possible if he sticks to his guns and demands a 10 year deal.

[Razzle]

I don't see a reason that Pujols can't get 8 or 9 years on the market. Jayson Werth just got 7 years and he's as old as Pujols will be when his new contract starts and I think it's fair to say Pujols is a bit better than Werth.

I agree with many of those here that think the Cards should have gotten this done before this season (and probably before last season even). Doing this last year would've taken off years and dollars imo, as I think the Howard contract is what killed any reasonable contract hopes the Cards had for Pujols. I really don't think Mozeliak should have let Pujols get 10/5 rights without a contract extension.