Pujols to Aneheim (And then MLB Talk Started)

[louiemdj]

This from twitter:

@PayneInsider Think #AlbertPujols decision was $$ based? Think again! #Miami #Marlins offered $275M + INCENTIVES! Factor NO-STATE TAX! Left $45M on table!

Seems pretty weird if you ask me.

[JSpauny]

(12-08-2011 01:27 PM)louiemdj Wrote:  This from twitter:

@PayneInsider Think #AlbertPujols decision was $$ based? Think again! #Miami #Marlins offered $275M + INCENTIVES! Factor NO-STATE TAX! Left $45M on table!

Seems pretty weird if you ask me.

Wow. So did he just want to get out of StL? I'm so confused by this whole thing. So it wasn't money, it couldn't possibly be winning, couldn't be weather, what the hell was his reasoning?

[louiemdj]

(12-08-2011 01:32 PM)JSpauny Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 01:27 PM)louiemdj Wrote:  This from twitter:

@PayneInsider Think #AlbertPujols decision was $$ based? Think again! #Miami #Marlins offered $275M + INCENTIVES! Factor NO-STATE TAX! Left $45M on table!

Seems pretty weird if you ask me.

Wow. So did he just want to get out of StL? I'm so confused by this whole thing. So it wasn't money, it couldn't possibly be winning, couldn't be weather, what the hell was his reasoning?

I guess that is the 250 million dollar question now.

[RyanB]

(12-08-2011 01:02 PM)JSpauny Wrote:  The only wrong part is 32 years old at the beginning of next season. There are only a handful of non-steroid era power hitters who maintained their numbers into their late 30s (Hank Aaron for example). And the pitchers then weren't nearly as good top to bottom. The contract is 100% fair though. Just the age is worrisome.

We have no idea how contracts will look in 5 years, much less 10, so hell 25MM could wind up being a bargain. And as far as hitting goes, Albert is the best pure hitter in baseball right now imo. He plays baseball like it's his job, not a game. Reminds me of another player who was a soulless hitter as he got up in years, Edgar Martinez. I think Pujols from 37-41 could easily but up numbers like the last 5 for Martinez.

In those 5 years Martinez only missed significant time once (97 games) but never failed to rake at least 23 doubles and hit 12 HRs.

Now if you can get the best hitter in baseball for the next 5 years at no matter the cost, and use him to propel your franchise to the World Series, then I say you fuck the last 5 years and call it the cost of doing business. Keep in mind those last 5 years he'll still put up better numbers than what Torii Hunter put up this year, or what Carl Crawford shit all over Boston's LF this past season.

[JSpauny]

I agree with you and Edgar is a great comparison, but for every Edgar there are many more that fell off a cliff at 36+. Now none of those guys are Pujols, but he's played banged up his whole career. That body is going to breakdown to the point he can't play eventually. His elbow ligament is one very hard swing away from tearing.

I'd like to hope (even though I'm bitter I still love the guy) that he continues to put up these numbers, but the odds are not in his favor.

[jimmysingh9]

The fact that he can DH is HUGE!

He had much more value to an AL team than a NL team. That the problem with different rules. A Prince Fielder or Albert Pujols isnt as valuable later on in their careers because they will be a liability in the field but in the AL, they can DH and put up big numbers.

[Skating Tripods]

(12-08-2011 01:32 PM)JSpauny Wrote:  Wow. So did he just want to get out of StL? I'm so confused by this whole thing. So it wasn't money, it couldn't possibly be winning, couldn't be weather, what the hell was his reasoning?

He did STL a favor.

This reminds me of when Jim Thome left Cleveland in 2002. Granted, we were heading for a rebuild where we clearly weren't going to win (STL still can), but had he signed here, that contract would have crippled us.

A Pujols contract like that would have crippled the Cardinals. They're riding high on the World Series bump right now and it's a great baseball city, with revenues still coming in from the new stadium, but in a few short years, that contract would have been an albatross.

To be honest, I don't think the Cardinals were willing to go that high. I think they were just feeding information to sources to save face and make it look to the fans like they were giving it their all.

He'll still go into the Hall as a Cardinal and be welcomed back with open arms when they retire his number.

Edit: After I posted, I saw this:

mlbtraderumors MLB Trade Rumors
RT @BNightengale: Cards actually had only the fourth-largest offer to Pujols, behind the Marlins, Angels and the mystery team.


Like I said, Cards simply weren't willing to go that high. And as much as we want to believe in it, loyalty doesn't really exist in sports.

[JSpauny]

(12-08-2011 02:27 PM)Skating Tripods Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 01:32 PM)JSpauny Wrote:  Wow. So did he just want to get out of StL? I'm so confused by this whole thing. So it wasn't money, it couldn't possibly be winning, couldn't be weather, what the hell was his reasoning?

He did STL a favor.

This reminds me of when Jim Thome left Cleveland in 2002. Granted, we were heading for a rebuild where we clearly weren't going to win (STL still can), but had he signed here, that contract would have crippled us.

A Pujols contract like that would have crippled the Cardinals. They're riding high on the World Series bump right now and it's a great baseball city, with revenues still coming in from the new stadium, but in a few short years, that contract would have been an albatross.

To be honest, I don't think the Cardinals were willing to go that high. I think they were just feeding information to sources to save face and make it look to the fans like they were giving it their all.

He'll still go into the Hall as a Cardinal and be welcomed back with open arms when they retire his number.

Edit: After I posted, I saw this:

mlbtraderumors MLB Trade Rumors
RT @BNightengale: Cards actually had only the fourth-largest offer to Pujols, behind the Marlins, Angels and the mystery team.


Like I said, Cards simply weren't willing to go that high. And as much as we want to believe in it, loyalty doesn't really exist in sports.

I agree with you. I hate that he's leaving but for what they paid and how long the contract is, I don't mind losing him.

[kreatture]

(12-08-2011 12:56 PM)RyanB Wrote:  Quick question: What's wrong with the 10yr 250 million dollar contract for Pujols? I think it's a fair market value for him???

The fact no one even blinked an eye about this question just goes to show what is wrong with MLB..

$25 million/yr.. MLB is probably my favorite sport along with NFL, but as long as they don't have a Salary Cap, MLB will continue to be the joke of all Professional Sports.

That's a pretty major flaw when $25 million is fair market value.

[bwaters81]

"The Cardinals were the Cardinals before Albert. The Cardinals will be the Cardinals after him, too."

DeWitt holds firm, sends Albert packing

Great writeup here in the Post-Dispatch by Jeff Gordon that puts it all into perspective. Whatever the numbers were that other teams threw at him, the Cardinals did it right in only going as high as they thought they could afford without jeopardizing being able to make any further moves to better the team. Time to move on and see who the next star will be to wear the birds on the bat.

[RyanParrill]

(12-08-2011 03:41 PM)Mr Lucky Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 12:56 PM)RyanB Wrote:  Quick question: What's wrong with the 10yr 250 million dollar contract for Pujols? I think it's a fair market value for him???

The fact no one even blinked an eye about this question just goes to show what is wrong with MLB..

$25 million/yr.. MLB is probably my favorite sport along with NFL, but as long as they don't have a Salary Cap, MLB will continue to be the joke of all Professional Sports.

That's a pretty major flaw when $25 million is fair market value.

Haha, I actually completely disagree with it. I don't think "fair market value" is any way to describe the top 1% of contracts.

You could argue it's not a bad business deal. And I'd agree. Especially since nobody really knows the economic impact it could have on the Angels franchise.

But fair market value is determined, by the market. This contract was in no way, shape, or form, determined by the market; the Angels created it.

[kreatture]

I was just more referring to the state of MLB contracts and the fact they are ridiculously over-priced.

Pujols is the best hitter in the game, so you're right there is no market value to compare to him. He will always be setting the market price and other player contracts will fall in line according to this one now.

The fact these outrageous contracts just keep getting higher and higher and setting new standards in the market is what's wrong with MLB. Their is no ceiling and it makes the sport very non-competitive when smaller market teams can't compete with this type of contract offer.

[JSpauny]

(12-08-2011 05:01 PM)Mr Lucky Wrote:  I was just more referring to the state of MLB contracts and the fact they are ridiculously over-priced.

Pujols is the best hitter in the game, so you're right there is no market value to compare to him. He will always be setting the market price and other player contracts will fall in line according to this one now.

The fact these outrageous contracts just keep getting higher and higher and setting new standards in the market is what's wrong with MLB. Their is no ceiling and it makes the sport very non-competitive when smaller market teams can't compete with this type of contract offer.

The worst part might be that the best idea they came up with to balance large/small markets in the new CBA is to cap rookie spending. Rookie spending wasn't the issue. The Yanks/BoSox/Phillies throwing out massive contracts to whoever they want is the problem.

[RyanParrill]

(12-08-2011 05:06 PM)JSpauny Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 05:01 PM)Mr Lucky Wrote:  I was just more referring to the state of MLB contracts and the fact they are ridiculously over-priced.

Pujols is the best hitter in the game, so you're right there is no market value to compare to him. He will always be setting the market price and other player contracts will fall in line according to this one now.

The fact these outrageous contracts just keep getting higher and higher and setting new standards in the market is what's wrong with MLB. Their is no ceiling and it makes the sport very non-competitive when smaller market teams can't compete with this type of contract offer.

The worst part might be that the best idea they came up with to balance large/small markets in the new CBA is to cap rookie spending. Rookie spending wasn't the issue. The Yanks/BoSox/Phillies throwing out massive contracts to whoever they want is the problem.

So, if you cap rookie spending and deter the way the Royals and Pirates have composed their teams, it may actually increase the gap?!

MLB ~>

[EddieD]

NBA owners just sent Pujols back to St. Louis.......its true I 'm not kidding

[RyanB]

(12-08-2011 05:06 PM)JSpauny Wrote:  The worst part might be that the best idea they came up with to balance large/small markets in the new CBA is to cap rookie spending. Rookie spending wasn't the issue. The Yanks/BoSox/Phillies throwing out massive contracts to whoever they want is the problem.

Actually capping rookie draft slots is about the dumbest thing MLB could have done.

Small market clubs cant afford to take Pujols to the dance but they can sure as hell sign a 15 year old for 1mil (when the yanks would only go 250k) and wait for her to sprout tits. If the kid never turns into a swan it's not a 250MM mistake. If it turns out to be a massive score/shrewd move then congrats!

Now all teams have to pay the exact same, which is going to force kids to opt to go to college (and wait 3 years to go back into the draft) or to go to JuCo and decide after each year if they want to come out.

Or they could opt to play hoops/football/soccer whatever else altogether, meaning that the overall "talent" in the game will suffer. So baseball eliminates the only advantage that small market teams had, as the BEST case scenario, and turned kids off from thinking about baseball as a way "to buy their mom a house" altogether as the worst case. At least the owners will save 5 mil a year in rookie bonuses and contracts to 16 year old Domincans. Fucking short-sighted Selig and his hunger for rich man-cock.

[mount187]

If I'm understanding the rule correctly, this will be a huge help for smaller clubs. If you follow the MLB draft, the best players don't always go to the teams that need them the worst. There are guys with big-time agents that know they can force a team to skip their player in the draft by demanding a huge contract before the draft starts. So the teams like the Royals, Pirates, Reds, etc. don't end up taking the best available talent, because they can't afford to pay them anyways. Those guys end up dropping down to the end of the first round, and the better teams scoop them up anyways. And baseball isn't like the other sports, because a player can get drafted and still choose to go back to school. So if a player is drafted by a team that isn't going to give him a huge contract, he can go to college and get re-drafted after his Junior season (or go to JuCo and re-enter whenever). With a rookie slot cap, if a player is drafted in the top-15, they don't have as much of a reason to go back to school, because they're going to be capped at about the max they can earn anyways (why risk three years of college ball to move from a top 15 pick out of HS to a top 5 pick out of college, when the contract isn't going to be worth that much more?). The MLB draft is so much unlike the other major drafts, that to me, this wage cap is going to be a huge advantage. In theory, it should allow the best players to go on the worst teams, instead of pooling up in places like NYY, BOS, PHI, etc. where they use them as trade chips to poach talent from small market teams.

It's also going to level the playing field for International FA's as well. The days of spending whatever you want to secure the best IFA talent are done. Everyone will either stay under the set cap, or be taxed / lose draft picks.

I think these are great changes. Letting small market teams get the best available young talent with less risk is a very good thing. As you guys have pointed out, these outrageous contracts ($75m for a #3 starter, really?) have no place in the smaller markets, but if they can actually get their hands on the best young talent, they have a chance.

[RyanParrill]

(12-09-2011 10:57 AM)mount187 Wrote:  It's also going to level the playing field for International FA's as well. The days of spending whatever you want to secure the best IFA talent are done. Everyone will either stay under the set cap, or be taxed / lose draft picks.

How so? I see the market for Cespedes being the opposite of this.

[mount187]

(12-09-2011 11:06 AM)RyanParrill Wrote:  

(12-09-2011 10:57 AM)mount187 Wrote:  It's also going to level the playing field for International FA's as well. The days of spending whatever you want to secure the best IFA talent are done. Everyone will either stay under the set cap, or be taxed / lose draft picks.

How so? I see the market for Cespedes being the opposite of this.

From MLB.com (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=...c_id=mlb):

The international system will be somewhat similar, with a pool and penalties for exceeding that pool. For the 2012-13 signing period, every team will have the same pool of $2.9 million. Starting in 2013-14, the pools will be based on the prior season's winning percentage, with a range of approximately $1.7 million to $4.8 million.

Major League Baseball is also trying to maintain some equity in the system, mandating that all international players must be registered with the MLB Scouting Bureau in order to be eligible to sign. That's a direct parallel to how the Draft system works in North America.

"They are putting the brakes on the spending in the amateur ranks," former general manager and MLB Network analyst John Hart said. "They wanted to try and level the playing field.

[Edit] Answer to your question in bold.

[JSpauny]

(12-09-2011 10:57 AM)mount187 Wrote:  If I'm understanding the rule correctly, this will be a huge help for smaller clubs. If you follow the MLB draft, the best players don't always go to the teams that need them the worst. There are guys with big-time agents that know they can force a team to skip their player in the draft by demanding a huge contract before the draft starts. So the teams like the Royals, Pirates, Reds, etc. don't end up taking the best available talent, because they can't afford to pay them anyways. Those guys end up dropping down to the end of the first round, and the better teams scoop them up anyways. And baseball isn't like the other sports, because a player can get drafted and still choose to go back to school. So if a player is drafted by a team that isn't going to give him a huge contract, he can go to college and get re-drafted after his Junior season (or go to JuCo and re-enter whenever). With a rookie slot cap, if a player is drafted in the top-15, they don't have as much of a reason to go back to school, because they're going to be capped at about the max they can earn anyways (why risk three years of college ball to move from a top 15 pick out of HS to a top 5 pick out of college, when the contract isn't going to be worth that much more?). The MLB draft is so much unlike the other major drafts, that to me, this wage cap is going to be a huge advantage. In theory, it should allow the best players to go on the worst teams, instead of pooling up in places like NYY, BOS, PHI, etc. where they use them as trade chips to poach talent from small market teams.

It's also going to level the playing field for International FA's as well. The days of spending whatever you want to secure the best IFA talent are done. Everyone will either stay under the set cap, or be taxed / lose draft picks.

I think these are great changes. Letting small market teams get the best available young talent with less risk is a very good thing. As you guys have pointed out, these outrageous contracts ($75m for a #3 starter, really?) have no place in the smaller markets, but if they can actually get their hands on the best young talent, they have a chance.

This is the correct theory. One of the main reasons to cap it was the middle rounds. Teams like Boston and NY would load up on high level talent in the middle rounds knowing that they could give them million dollar contracts while a team like Pittsburgh isn't going to give a big signing bonus to a 7th round draft pick. Boston and NY could use their money to convince kids to go pro rather than go to college or return to college. The cap should and most likely will stop this kind of thing from happening, but I'm skeptical. There's always a loop hole just have to wait and see what its going to be.

The Cardinals had this situation a few years ago. Drafted Austin (I think) Wilson in the 14th round (or something similar). He was pretty committed to Stanford but was widely considered to be among the best 100 or so players just fell because most teams knew he was heading to college. Cards tried to force his decision with money, but he still turned them down. That's the kind of thing that smaller-market clubs just can't afford to do and puts them at a major disadvantage. Hopefully the CBA stops that.