Toggle sidebar

Interesting Pujols news...

P

PineGroveBully

Redshirt
Nov 13, 2007
8,508
0
0
I don't think team ownership shares are legal as compensation under current MLB rules, seems like I saw this conversation, proposal on cowherd a couple weeks ago.
 
D

dawgged

Redshirt
Mar 17, 2009
46
0
0
Wouldn't doubt it in the least. I'm about sick of MLB and the players union. Last year I had to pay $9 for a beer at Busch Stadium. Hell, you have to take out a second mortgage just to go to a game. Don't mind players like Pujols getting paid the big bucks but when journeyman utility infielders start getting $5-6M a year, something's bad out of kilter.
 
B

boomboommsu

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2008
1,045
0
0
unless you mean that other'union', known also as the 'owners', who prevent a free market by dictating which teams get to base in which cities?

i love MLB. it's 100 times better than the SEC or the NCAA.
 
DawgatAuburn

DawgatAuburn

All-Conference
Apr 25, 2006
10,981
1,765
113
but you are not mediocre without those two. Any team that runs out Wainwright, Carpenter, Garia, Westbrook and Lohse is not going to be mediocre. Holliday and Rasmus are good middle of the order bats, and the Cardinals always have some annoying little middle infielders who get on base and play good defense. Best NL record without Albert? Probably not, but better than mediocre for sure.
 
T

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
Where the hell did LaRussa get that from? That's a good way to strain a relationship with a player.

When I read/saw his comments, I was like WTF? This has been the longest period of labor peace in baseball for awhile.

The real problem is A-Rod's contract, because that's what Pujols and his people are basing this off of. And if there is any pressure, it's coming from the media and the fans, but not player's union.
 
R

russb7591

Redshirt
Oct 3, 2010
98
0
0
Im obviously negative.... But Pujols is a HUGE part of our club..... I just hope he takes the offer!
 
W

WP4

Redshirt
Sep 2, 2010
81
0
0
As my avatar shows, I'm a fan of Ozzie. My favorite Cardinal ever. But Pujols is probably the most important part of the organization since Stan Musial. Whether it be before noon tomorrow or during the next off season, they MUST sign him. No one player is bigger than an organization, but they absolutely cannot let what looks to be one of the 10-15 best players ever be anything but a Cardinal.
 
missouridawg

missouridawg

Junior
Oct 6, 2009
9,388
287
83
The Cardinals have a good nucleus of players... losing Pujols hurts... but I think we'd still be legitimate contenders for the central. With him, we're favorites.
 
T

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
But what I heard was that the Cardinals offered Pujols a share of team ownership and he turned it down.

Either way, that would be a bad, bad, bad idea to offer to an active player. Could you imagine if Brett Favre had a share in the Packers before he left for the Jets and then Vikings? What if the team has to let Pujols go after they sign him to a new long term contract?

I know the arguements for not signing him to a 10 year deal- which are all valid, but to be honest, as much as he has done for the team, if I were the Cardinals ownership, I would just say, "How much and for how long?" And really, 30 million for 10 years, say six are productive and he is decent the other four. And that's not counting all of what he has brought the team over the other 10 years he was with the team- including a World Series Championship- it's gotta be worth the windfall when it's all said and done. I wonder how much the Cardinals make off of Albert Pujols merchandise a year. If he does put them in a crunch- just jack up ticket prices and make that 10 bucks for a beer.

This is typically how it happens- it's like buying a car. Player and agent make offer- let's say in this case they want 30 million at 10 years.

The team- Cardinals- counter with something like let's say 28 million at 8 years.

I bet when it's all said and done they settle at something like 30 million at 8 years, 28 million at 10 years, or something like 28-29 million at 9 years with a club option for the 10th year.
 
DesotoCountyDawg

DesotoCountyDawg

Heisman
Nov 16, 2005
27,105
19,610
113
Holliday and Rasmus are good middle of the order bats, and the
Cardinals always have some annoying little middle infielders who get on
base and play good defense.
Click to expand...
The only thing I can agree with in this is that Holliday is a good player. Rasmus is an average outfielder that has a horrible arm and did you see the middle infield last year? They didn't get on base and played sub par defense.
 
T

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
On what they do with the money that they save from not signing him.

Let's say they lose him, but they for the sake of arguement go out and get Prince Fielder and Jose Bautista as free agents. Or they get Fielder and Jimmy Rollins and can then move Theriot to second and then Shumaker to RF and Holliday to LF and lose Berkman. Either of those scenarios is not bad.

If they try to replace him with Mark Kotsay- well not so good.

It's also worth noting that if they lose Pujols, that they are going to get two first round draft picks for him. So, it also depends on who they get with those picks and how those players turn out.
 
S

state2006

Redshirt
Aug 30, 2006
84
0
0
i know st. louis has probably one of the (or the) best fanbase in baseball but you can't tell me all ticket sales, merchandise sales, advertising deals and tv viewership won't drop without him. a-rod and the yankees set the bar on salary and if the cards want to keep him they got to give him the years and pay him. he's the best player in baseball and has been for a while....also he doesn't get hurt like a lot of other great players. unless they sign tomorrow, management better hope pujols messes up something in spring training and has to sit the season out because if not they're going to lose way more money if they have to wait till nov/dec.
 
T

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
with A-Rod. Otherwise, you're right.

At least money doesn't seem to be the issue. It's the years. And that is understandable to me from the Cardinals perspective, despite what I said. Unless anyone believe that he Pujols will be as good as he is now at age 42.
 
S

state2006

Redshirt
Aug 30, 2006
84
0
0
(rangers fan speaking here) the rangers screwed up royally with that one without a doubt. signing a-rod was the worst free agent signing in the history of baseball. he had 4 incredible years with texas but lets get real here. they essentially gave him a $35 million/year salary when it was all said and done.... and attendance was very poor as well and they lost. but the yankees in 2007 gave a 32 year old a 10 year contract (who does spend time on DL) a 10 year deal worth $275 mill (the new standard is giving 30+ year old mvp caliber players 10 year deals). by the way a-rod's WAR (win above replacement, MVP quality is 8+) since his 9.9 mvp season of 2007 has been 5.4 (2008), 3.9 (2009) and 2.9 (2010)......so in 2010 yankees have 3 less losses if they did not have him....great deal right? oh and his range factor defensively is becoming one of the worst at the position. so essentially the yankees may have the worst left side in baseball (defensively speaking)until a-rod becomes a full time dh and they move Jeter to outfield.<div><div>
</div><div>anyways albert pujols has led the NL in WAR for the past 6 seasons and 7 of the past 8. thats 7 of the 10 years he's been in the league he's been the most important (statistically speaking) to his team than any other player in the national league. also his salary is nearly half of a-rod's current contract. st. louis now must pay up for what he has done for that team and what he'll continue to do. in my opinion he has done everything to show that he can and will continue to put up record numbers for that team. the cards will be a lot worse without him without a doubt.</div></div>
 
T

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
And you are right on the money with all of that.

What I am saying is because the Rangers gave A-Rod that ridiculous contract to start with, it has caused his value to stay inflated to the point where he got another ridiculous contract because it's hard to justify a 25 million (random number) decrease in salary to a player that is still productive like that. And you're right- the Yankees will regret it when he is 42. I know that they have unlimited funds, but let's be honest here- they could use the 20 million or whatever he is being paid on something else that would be more productive for them.

And Pujols and his agent are using that salary as a baseline- and well they should.
 
DesotoCountyDawg

DesotoCountyDawg

Heisman
Nov 16, 2005
27,105
19,610
113
tying up 30% of your payroll long term on an aging player doesn't appear to be too prudent.
Click to expand...
That's what bothers me more than anything. They are going to tie up the payroll in about 4 players and be unable to keep a good team around them. You can't say that they can build around them at the moment with talent because there is none in the minors.
 
O

Ol Blue.sixpack

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
1,681
0
0
Todd4State said:
that he is going to veto any trade.
Click to expand...
Of course he did. What would you expect him to say? <div>
</div><div>If he were to take any stance BESIDES threatening a veto, his handlers would have a stroke. And he would be an idiot because that no-trade clause has great value. But like anything else with value, it can be bought.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
 
T

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
1. You're saying that they could pay him to change his mind about a trade. So, they have to pay him either way.

2. This is the most important reason why it's a bad idea- what team has enough talent to get him and it not be a deal where the Cardinals get something of equal value back? And then what team is going to want to strip mine their farm system and then either blow up their payroll or have to try to sign Pujols, whom they may or may not get. So, I don't know what team would want to make the trade, either.

3. The Cardinals are not going to trade the face of their franchise. They would look a lot better if they can make Albert look greedy. Trading him would be seen as "we quit" to a lot of their fans.

4. All in all, they would be better off letting him walk and signing two big name free agents and then getting the two first round draft picks for losing him. And it would be a lot easier to pull that off than a trade.

He is a 10-5 player so, that's why he can veto any trade. I do agree that he would be foolish to not veto any trade because he can use it as leverage.
 
O

Ol Blue.sixpack

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
1,681
0
0
Todd4State said:
1. You're saying that they could pay him to change his mind about a trade. So, they have to pay him either way.

2. This is the most important reason why it's a bad idea- what team has enough talent to get him and it not be a deal where the Cardinals get something of equal value back? And then what team is going to want to strip mine their farm system and then either blow up their payroll or have to try to sign Pujols, whom they may or may not get. So, I don't know what team would want to make the trade, either.

3. The Cardinals are not going to trade the face of their franchise. They would look a lot better if they can make Albert look greedy. Trading him would be seen as "we quit" to a lot of their fans.

4. All in all, they would be better off letting him walk and signing two big name free agents and then getting the two first round draft picks for losing him. And it would be a lot easier to pull that off than a trade.

He is a 10-5 player so, that's why he can veto any trade. I do agree that he would be foolish to not veto any trade because he can use it as leverage.
Click to expand...
I apparently confused you so much, that you went off on a long-winded tangent that really had nothing to do with my post. I'll give you a break and try not to muddy the water any more.<div>
</div><div>You're welcom.

</div>
 
Bulldog Bruce

Bulldog Bruce

All-Conference
Nov 1, 2007
4,583
4,863
113
Check out his salaries over the years on Baseball Reference.

Pujols Stats and Salaries

His first three years he made under 1 million each year. The fourth year he got 7 million. Each of those years was very productive. The Cardinals conveniently forget those years when he far out produced his salary. Now they want to balk that at the end of a deal they might pay him more than he produces. That would really just be making up for the first 3 or 4 years.

You can argue that he has been grossly underpaid throughout his career. He has averaged about 9 million per year over these 10 most productive seasons a player has ever had at the start of his career. A-Rod has averaged about 15 million for 17 years. So the moral is get what you can get when you can get it. No one will ever make it up to you in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom