Pujols Signs With Angels

[skmsw]

But I don't think when they signed Holliday 2 years ago they were thinking "We have 0% chance of retaining Pujols." Or "We have no interest in retaining Pujols."

Yeah, that must be the 5% you're saying we disagree on ... I think the above is a distinct possibility. I think they very well, at around the time of the options, could have been thinking "He produces enough to fill two lineup spots, I think we can make the money work if we want to. But the dollars are getting so big for so long ... we have to float that ten year, $300mm deal as a liability on the books all that time, Tom Hicks owned a freaking cable empire and his biggest liability was ARod ... the insurance on a 300mm contract is going to cost as much as him just missing an entire year anyway, and no insurance will help if he just ages early (or turns out to be older than we think) ... there's no way. There's no way we're going to carry that kind of liability for that kind of duration. Pick up the options, we're still making money on this contract, and plan for him being gone, if we can really shrink the numbers or the years because he really wants to stay we may get lucky, but we can't really count on that."

[Hungary Jack]

Cardinals fans are predictably very upset with Albert Pujols for choosing to leave St. Louis and sign with the Angels for considerably more money, but it’s worth remembering that because of MLB’s service time and financial structure he’s spent most of his career being significantly underpaid.

Pujols was paid around $104 million for his 11 seasons with the Cardinals, during which time Fan Graphs calculates his overall value as being approximately $330 million.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/ ... -paid-for/

Bill DeWitt is a business man, and it occurs to me that he considers that he received ten years of HOF performance at below market value as a win on the Good Business Scoring System. If he had signed AP at his market value today then this business deal would have been reduced to, at best, break even , and likely a loss.

I really DISLIKE those type of articles. No one forced AP to sign through arb. and his first 4 years of FA. He could have easily went to arb. each year raked in a bunch of dough and left in his first year of FA...yankees or red sox would have gladly given him 10/300. It is careless journalism...Pujols is the one who chose security over the $ first time around. No one to blame but himself

Agree. Such logic is also an egregious embrace of the sunk cost fallacy.

[MDCardsFan]

Yeah, this just sucks. And it never should have happened. Even though none of this surprises me, it still leaves a little more jaded than I was a day before.

People seem to be taking sides or simply accepting it as business.

I can't take sides because frankly, I'm a bit angry at both, or maybe just disappointed. I agree to an extent on Burwells piece, but I don't absolve Albert on it entirely either. In the end, I'm quite sure that If I did know the details of the negotiations, I'd take exception on both sides. In the end, it was a battle between egos. It didn't have to get to this point and it shouldn't have. Both parties should have recognized that it was best for all parties involved to make it work. They should have made it work a long time ago. And they didn't.

[greenback44]

I really DISLIKE those type of articles. No one forced AP to sign through arb. and his first 4 years of FA. He could have easily went to arb. each year raked in a bunch of dough and left in his first year of FA...yankees or red sox would have gladly given him 10/300. It is careless journalism...Pujols is the one who chose security over the $ first time around. No one to blame but himself

He signed that lengthy contract in the middle of a mini-collusion period that forced overall salaries down, and long after that stuff was fixed, he was still stuck with his contract. I don't know whether he agitated the Cardinals for more favorable terms, but he was on solid moral ground if he did.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Yeah, it's not the Cardinals fault, but AP outperformed his contract by $200 million +....

[cARdsfan]

I think I first heard Kirkjian mention this yesterday, but if Kendry Morales doesn't injure himself celebrating a walkoff home run, is Pujols still a Cardinal?

[Slider]

I really DISLIKE those type of articles. No one forced AP to sign through arb. and his first 4 years of FA. He could have easily went to arb. each year raked in a bunch of dough and left in his first year of FA...yankees or red sox would have gladly given him 10/300. It is careless journalism...Pujols is the one who chose security over the $ first time around. No one to blame but himself

He signed that lengthy contract in the middle of a mini-collusion period that forced overall salaries down, and long after that stuff was fixed, he was still stuck with his contract. I don't know whether he agitated the Cardinals for more favorable terms, but he was on solid moral ground if he did.

And yet in this mini-collusion AP signed the largest contract an arb. player ever got...richest contract in Cardinal history and AP was raked over the coals by many fans calling him greedy, etc. and many were frustrated with the cards for giving out such a huge contract in length and years to a guy who had been around for 3 years.

At the time it was no discount at all...when a player like AP signs for security early on they have to know the risk of taking security may mean less money in the end. His choice, his problem.

Are people going to be crying for Longoria, and Matt Moore here in a few years as well? In fact the only one who seems to be going at it differently than those guys is Tim Lincecum...he is bypassing security to get the biggest pay day (yeah signed a 2 year deal but only through arb.)

[Slider]

I think I first heard Kirkjian mention this yesterday, but if Kendry Morales doesn't injure himself celebrating a walkoff home run, is Pujols still a Cardinal?

I say yes and here is why

Morales is no AP
They are thinking of trading Trumbo because of AP...which is dumb, they should keep him
If they are considering trading Trumbo, then they would consider trading Morales and his escalating salary to afford AP or trade Trumbo and get a huge return and let Kendry DH

[heyzeus]

I think I first heard Kirkjian mention this yesterday, but if Kendry Morales doesn't injure himself celebrating a walkoff home run, is Pujols still a Cardinal?

I say yes and here is why

Morales is no AP
They are thinking of trading Trumbo because of AP...which is dumb, they should keep him
If they are considering trading Trumbo, then they would consider trading Morales and his escalating salary to afford AP or trade Trumbo and get a huge return and let Kendry DH

In 2009, Morales turned 29 and posted a .924 OPS with 34 HR. They must really think he's never coming back.

[vinsanity]

But I don't think when they signed Holliday 2 years ago they were thinking "We have 0% chance of retaining Pujols." Or "We have no interest in retaining Pujols."

Yeah, that must be the 5% you're saying we disagree on ... I think the above is a distinct possibility. I think they very well, at around the time of the options, could have been thinking "He produces enough to fill two lineup spots, I think we can make the money work if we want to. But the dollars are getting so big for so long ... we have to float that ten year, $300mm deal as a liability on the books all that time, Tom Hicks owned a freaking cable empire and his biggest liability was ARod ... the insurance on a 300mm contract is going to cost as much as him just missing an entire year anyway, and no insurance will help if he just ages early (or turns out to be older than we think) ... there's no way. There's no way we're going to carry that kind of liability for that kind of duration. Pick up the options, we're still making money on this contract, and plan for him being gone, if we can really shrink the numbers or the years because he really wants to stay we may get lucky, but we can't really count on that."

Right, I think we agree just saying it two different ways.

Some will say the Holliday contract prevented them from going to 10/250 with Pujols. I'd say they didn't want to go to 10/250. They thought it may take 10/250 to land him, and it eventually did, but they had a number in mind, say 10/200, they would take him back at. If it went above, Holliday was the insurance policy to build around.

I thought you were saying they decided 2 years ago that Pujols 100% for sure gone and any offer from the Cardinals side was just a show of 'good faith'. That they were doing the 'make an offer they know won't land a player just to look good to the fans' kind of offer. I think they read the market and, correctly, valued him at a number and left room for that number. I think they legitimately thought their offers would be good enough to land him but weren't willing to write a blank check if it didn't.