Cashman: Yankees won’t pursue Pujols

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=sportsxchange-000463036_cashman-yankees-wont-pursue-pujols

"Cubs will, though."

I'm sure they will. But as I've said before, why would he go there?

Pujols has said many times that it's about winning. The Cubs are stuck with Zamboner, Soriano and Fukudome. Ramirez re-uped for a year and I think Dempster has another year. They aren't winning in the near future, if ever.

If Pujols signs with the Cubs, it will be purely about money. He's absolutely entitled to do that, so please don't think I'm suggesting otherwise. But if he decides to sign on to wear blue pajamas, he better not show up on TV saying that he did it because he felt they were closer to being a winning club, because if he does that, his credibility goes out the window.

Fors, I believe Fukudome is a free agent and I have not heard anything about ARam signing a one year contract.  Some rumors are that David Ortiz might sign with the Cubs.  With Jim Thome in Philly hitting the ball to the right side of the infield might not be a bad idea.

I'm not saying it's likely that Pujols will sign with the Cubs, or that the Cubs will be good anytime soon, but they should have mountains of money to rebuild.

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Keeping with my thoughts that a creative solution that works for both sides would be the best approach, anyone know if the rule prohibit some sort of benevolent gesture by the team?

What if the Cardinals offered to build some sort of clinic in the DR through a series of donations to Pujols' foundation?  Pujols does a ton of work in the DR, and he might respond favorably to something like that. The Cardinals should get a tax deduction for the donation which provides them with tax relief. It seems almost too simple, so I have to assume it's against the rules, but does anyone know for sure?

I doubt this is the plan, because simply pay Pujols $30 million per year and he can build all the clinics he wants.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the Cardinals aren't going to pay Pujols $30M/yr.  I'm not sure anyone will, but I'm confident it won't be St. Louis.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Keeping with my thoughts that a creative solution that works for both sides would be the best approach, anyone know if the rule prohibit some sort of benevolent gesture by the team?

What if the Cardinals offered to build some sort of clinic in the DR through a series of donations to Pujols' foundation?  Pujols does a ton of work in the DR, and he might respond favorably to something like that. The Cardinals should get a tax deduction for the donation which provides them with tax relief. It seems almost too simple, so I have to assume it's against the rules, but does anyone know for sure?

I doubt this is the plan, because simply pay Pujols $30 million per year and he can build all the clinics he wants.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the Cardinals aren't going to pay Pujols $30M/yr.  I'm not sure anyone will, but I'm confident it won't be St. Louis.

Agreed.  But why would he sign for 7 years at 22.5, PLUS a million dollar clinic, when someone else will give him 10 years 25 million???

It's hardly the point.  The point is whether building a clinic in DR will get the job done, instead of the paying extra millions to bump up to market rate.  My hunch is that the difference between what the Cards want to offer, and market rate is very large . . . several tens of millions of dollars.

AP, I share your optimism, but will steel my heart against the breaking that will occur should he leave. Mostly because I know what free agency does. Someone is going to flash AP an offer that the Cardinals will be relunctant to match.

The Cubs? Maybe. Why would he go there?
1) It's not a major relocation.
2) He'll get a chance to stick it to the team that wouldn't pay him what he was worth.
3) He'll have a GM who's not afraid to really work with a team and find out what works (Epstein's tenure in Boston cannot be called anything but a massive success).
4) Larussa isn't here to make him want to stay.
5) There's no indication Oquendo will be the new Manager.
6) There's no indication Francona will be the new Manager.
7) Outside of Molina, there's not much on the team that would keep him on the team.
8) You just gave Holliday 17 million a season to protect the man, but now you won't pay the man.
9) You just played 162 games where a career ender was a money ender, risking everything to get through your contract and get a new one. That tends to really piss off athletes.

Some of those spell disaster for your bargaining position as an ownership.

For the Cubs? While we throw around "they won't win!", I now have no reason as to "why not?" unless I'm believing in Curses. If Epstein gets Francona back in there, and a few years to move players in/out to take advantage of a cash source nearly as large as Bostons, I see no reason to believe they won't win. ESPECIALLY if they get Pujols.

Still it's a "wait and see" and I'm hopeful he'll stay.

"For the Cubs? While we throw around "they won't win!", I now have no reason as to "why not?" unless I'm believing in Curses. If Epstein gets Francona back in there, and a few years to move players in/out to take advantage of a cash source nearly as large as Bostons, I see no reason to believe they won't win. ESPECIALLY if they get Pujols."

The "why nots" are that their starting pitching sucks, their lineup is awful and their closer is still Carlos Marmol.  Other than that, they're a perfect team.

And I don't say this to start an argument, really I don't, but it makes no sense for Pujols to go to a team that might be good in a "few years."  His window is now and it's starting to close.  I know you believe that Pujols will continue to produce Pujols numbers into his 40s, but common sense suggests that's unlikely.  In a "few years" Pujols is highly unlikely to be producing Pujols numbers and will just be an above-average player, except that he'll be making more than $25M.

That's why I still think his return to the Cardinals makes the most sense.  If, at age 37, Pujols is a .280/25/80 hitter, no one in St. Louis is going to care that he's being paid $20+M.  We'll all look back at this last contract, and say things are evening out and happily watch him pass a bunch of Cardinal milestones.  But if he's putting up those numbers some place else and being paid $25+M, the fans aren't going to care what he did in St. Louis, and their going to let him hear it.  And the occasional attendance bump that the ownership might get when he passes 3,000 hits or 500/600 HRs isn't going to be enough to make the contract worthwhile.

If the Cubs were closer, I'd be a little more concerned.  If Pujols can go to Chicago and bring that franchise a World Series, he'd be an icon regardless of what he does in his later years.  But it just seems that franchise is too far away right now, and I'm not sure I see him going to a 3-4 year rebuilding process.

forsberg_us wrote:

And the occasional attendance bump that the ownership might get when he passes 3,000 hits or 500/600 HRs isn't going to be enough to make the contract worthwhile.

Just for fun:
AGE YEAR HR/HITS
(32) 2012: 485/2261
(33) 2013: 525/2449
(34) 2014: 565/2637
(35) 2015: 605/2825
(36) 2016: 645/3013

(Assumptions: Pujols can continue at his career average until 36 years old, which is not that uncommon for HoF-ers)

forsberg_us wrote:

If the Cubs were closer, I'd be a little more concerned.  If Pujols can go to Chicago and bring that franchise a World Series, he'd be an icon regardless of what he does in his later years.  But it just seems that franchise is too far away right now, and I'm not sure I see him going to a 3-4 year rebuilding process.

FWIW, I think the Cubs have the money to buy a competitive team next year if they choose to do so.   Guys like Pujols and to a lesser extent Francona, might insist on it as a precondition to signing.

forsberg_us wrote:

The "why nots" are that their starting pitching sucks, their lineup is awful and their closer is still Carlos Marmol.  Other than that, they're a perfect team.

I understand your sentiment, but my logic on this is simple.

Albert's flowchart (opinion)

Can I get a fair and solid career deal from St. Louis?
(Yes)
Sign with St. Louis
(No)
Can I get the deal I want with any other team?
(Yes)
Sign the deal
(No)
Can I stick it to the Cardinals for making me go through this shit after 11 seasons of excellent and underpaid service?
(Yes)
Sign with the Cubs, try to be a part of another World Series, while sticking it to St. Louis. Join the Hall of Fame as a Cub.

So unless he's going to get the 25+ million dollar deal over 8+ seasons, which nobody thinks he'll get, I can EASILY see him signing with the Cubs.

I could see the Carinals losing 5,000,000 tickets over te corse of the contract by not resigning Pujols.  If they lost 1/2 million ticket sales over the corse of an 8 year contract that would be 4 million tickets.  Still if the Cardinals keep winning people will keep coming no matter who is standing at first.  I am sure that is how th front office is looking at it.  No matter what they have to be productive, even if Pujols stays.

"FWIW, I think the Cubs have the money to buy a competitive team next year if they choose to do so. "

Maybe, but have you looked at the list of available free agents?  It's not a great list, expecially considering their needs.