I think this is a great example of the pros and cons of unions.  My thought is that no organization is perfect, but it often takes a great counterweight to balance things out, and the owners of MLB have never come out smelling like roses.  Hate unions if you want, but there's not much else that will stand up to owners.

Heyman reports an 8 year , 200  mil. offer from Cards


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jon_heyman/02/15/cardinals-pujols-negotiations/index.html#ixzz1E4zcCpfR

don.rob11 wrote:

Heyman reports an 8 year , 200  mil. offer from Cards


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jon_heyman/02/15/cardinals-pujols-negotiations/index.html#ixzz1E4zcCpfR

"La Russa, a lawyer as well as a manger, might just be trying to set things up for blame for someone other than his Cardinals or his favorite player should a deal not get done."

I like the way this reporter thinks!

JUPITER, Fla. -- St. Louis Cardinals general manager John Mozeliak remained in contact with Dan Lozano, the agent for Albert Pujols, as today's 11 a.m. deadline for a new contract approached.

Before Tuesday, the Cardinals had refused to guarantee more than seven years to a player who will turn 32 before playing his first game under its term, but they may offer some sort of modification before the deadline.

As of Tuesday night, however, the club continued to weigh whether to guarantee an eighth year or to raise the average annual value within a shorter structure.

The Cardinals' initial proposal failed to reach the $25 million average that the Philadelphia Phillies gave first baseman Ryan Howard last April in a five-year extension.

The Cardinals subsequently submitted a formal bid that apparently fell short of a $30 million per season average and was rejected.

Despite a recent increase in pace of talks, today's deadline is still expected to pass without a contract extension in place.

Mozeliak and Chairman Bill DeWitt Jr. are expected to address the matter shortly after the deadline passes.

Pujols, who had been expected to reach camp today, may postpone his arrival until Thursday.

Both parties agreed to move the deadline from 11 p.m. Tuesday out of deference to Stan Musial receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Mozeliak refused to characterize the talks' status.

Check back at STLtoday.com/sports for updates to this story.

So we are supposed to hear from Dewitt this afternoon sometime.  I have been one of the people on this board who was trying not to judge ownership for not meating Pujols' demands.  However if his is true then ownership is alot ot blame.  They have had months to think about this, they have had years to think about this.  This is what they came up with?  7 years at less then 25 million.  That is a true lowball offer IMO.  That is less than 7/175.  It is clear they are going to let the market judge Pujols' value.  They are trying to decided if a higher annual value will sway him or a longer contract.  I doubt he excepts either if it isnt at least 8/240.  Why make offer that you know he wont take?  What a dog and pony show.

forsberg_us wrote:

This has nothing to do with Pujols, but I thought it might relate a little to AP's last post.  On Monday, I was in Kansas City participating in a mediation to try to settle a lawsuit I was working on.  The plaintiff made an opening demand of $85,000.  We countered with an offer of $1,100.

When the mediator left the room after receiving our opening offer, the client asked "how do you know that the plaintiff won't be so angered by the nominal value of the opening offer that she and her attorney simply walk out."  My response was that you don't know for sure, that a lot of it is based on gut instinct and educated guesswork.

Five hours and several rejected proposals later, the case was settled for an amount much closer to the number we first put forward.

Obviously, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.  Our plaintiff didn't have 29 other defendants from whom she could negotiate a settlement.  My only point is that you have to assume both sides are experienced negotiators who have a pretty good feel for the other side and who were fully aware that neither side was going to accept the first proposal made by the other.  It doesn't necessarily mean that a deal doesn't eventually happen.

But if you knew you were in a bad spot and had to either settle now or take it to trial you wouldnt have lowballed.  You would have either gave them a reasonable offer or no offer.  Clearly you had had the stronger case.  I guess the Cardinals feel that either Pujols isnt worth as much as suggested on the open market or they dont need him.

alz wrote:

"We made every effort to extend his contract," Cardinals chairman Bill DeWitt Jr. said.

Uh . . . , except a successful one.

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

This has nothing to do with Pujols, but I thought it might relate a little to AP's last post.  On Monday, I was in Kansas City participating in a mediation to try to settle a lawsuit I was working on.  The plaintiff made an opening demand of $85,000.  We countered with an offer of $1,100.

When the mediator left the room after receiving our opening offer, the client asked "how do you know that the plaintiff won't be so angered by the nominal value of the opening offer that she and her attorney simply walk out."  My response was that you don't know for sure, that a lot of it is based on gut instinct and educated guesswork.

Five hours and several rejected proposals later, the case was settled for an amount much closer to the number we first put forward.

Obviously, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.  Our plaintiff didn't have 29 other defendants from whom she could negotiate a settlement.  My only point is that you have to assume both sides are experienced negotiators who have a pretty good feel for the other side and who were fully aware that neither side was going to accept the first proposal made by the other.  It doesn't necessarily mean that a deal doesn't eventually happen.

But if you knew you were in a bad spot and had to either settle now or take it to trial you wouldnt have lowballed.  You would have either gave them a reasonable offer or no offer.  Clearly you had had the stronger case.  I guess the Cardinals feel that either Pujols isnt worth as much as suggested on the open market or they dont need him.

Not necessarily.  You're correct that we had the much stronger of the case, but the week prior I participated in one of these settlement mediations with a much worse case and I started at about the same point.

At times you have to convey a certain confidence in your position, even when you really aren't.  Otherwise the other side doesn't make much movement.

Let's play amateur detective.

"A source close to the negotiations told ESPN's Karl Ravech the biggest issue is not the number of years, but the amount of money the Cardinals offered. St. Louis' offer would place Pujols in baseball's top 10 in salary, but not in the top five in average annual salary, the source said."

Per Cot's, the Top 10 contracts by value

1. Alex Rodriguez, $275,000,000 (2008-17)
2. Joe Mauer, $184,000,000 (2011-18)
3. Mark Teixeira, $180,000,000 (2009-16)
4. CC Sabathia, $161,000,000 (2009-15)
5. Troy Tulowitzki, $157,750,000 (2011-20)
6. Miguel Cabrera, $152,300,000 (2008-15)
7. Carl Crawford, $142,000,000 (2011-17)
8. Todd Helton, $141,500,000 (2003-11)
9. Johan Santana, $137,500,000 (2008-13)
10. Alfonso Soriano, $136,000,000 (2007-14)


Top 10 by Average Annual Value

1. Alex Rodriguez, $27,500,000 (2008-17)
2. Ryan Howard, $25,000,000 (2012-16)
3. Cliff Lee, $24,000,000 (2011-15)
4. Joe Mauer, $23,000,000 (2011-18)
. . . CC Sabathia, $23,000,000 (2009-15)
6. Johan Santana, $22,916,667 (2008-13)
7. Mark Teixeira, $22,500,000 (2009-16)
8. Carl Crawford, $20,285,714 (2011-17)
9. Roy Halladay, $20,000,000 (2011-13)
10. Miguel Cabrera, $19,037,500 (2008-15)

Since Mauer and Sabbathia are tied for 4th at $23M, if Ravech's information is correct, the Cardinals offer was for something less than an average of $23M per season.  Note the choice of words used in the ESPN story.  They report that the deal would have placed Pujols in the Top 10 in salary rather than saying Top 5.  Maybe I'm being too literal, but that says to me somewhere between 6-10.  If length wasn't an issue, we have to assume 7 or 8 years.  I'm guessing 7 because if it was 8 years, even $20M per year would put it in the Top 5.  Based on all of these assumptions, I'm guessing they offered something in the neighborhood of 7/$154 ($22 per season).

Last edited by forsberg_us (2/16/2011 2:55 pm)

tkihshbt wrote:

I hope that wasn't a serious offer and just something to keep the market from setting his rate.

Yeah if Fors is correct or even in the ballpark I think that offer is lowball BS.  If I was Pujols I wouldnt even take that offer serious.  The only reasoning I can see behind offering that contract is that they are comparing Pujols to Joe Mauer.  Mauer got an 8 year 23million (AAV) contract from the smaller market Twins.  In ways that is more comparible then ARod and the contract he got from the Yankees.  I still hate to think we could watch Pujols for another 8 years if they just would have given him a couple more million a year.  He should be worth at least what Ryan Howard is worth.   If you want to compare him to other first baseman Mark Teixeira contract sits at 8 years 22.5 (AAV).  If Pujols would agree to 7 years 25million it would be a steal for the Cardinals.  That is more or less Howards contract. 

I wouldnt have offered less then 7 years 25 million and I wouldnt have offered more then 8 years 30 million this late in the contract talks.  If they would have started exchanging offers in November starting with a 23 million (AAV) might have been alright. 

Clearly the Cardinals dont see a need to get this deal done now or they would have offered more.

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

This has nothing to do with Pujols, but I thought it might relate a little to AP's last post.  On Monday, I was in Kansas City participating in a mediation to try to settle a lawsuit I was working on.  The plaintiff made an opening demand of $85,000.  We countered with an offer of $1,100.

When the mediator left the room after receiving our opening offer, the client asked "how do you know that the plaintiff won't be so angered by the nominal value of the opening offer that she and her attorney simply walk out."  My response was that you don't know for sure, that a lot of it is based on gut instinct and educated guesswork.

Five hours and several rejected proposals later, the case was settled for an amount much closer to the number we first put forward.

Obviously, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.  Our plaintiff didn't have 29 other defendants from whom she could negotiate a settlement.  My only point is that you have to assume both sides are experienced negotiators who have a pretty good feel for the other side and who were fully aware that neither side was going to accept the first proposal made by the other.  It doesn't necessarily mean that a deal doesn't eventually happen.

But if you knew you were in a bad spot and had to either settle now or take it to trial you wouldnt have lowballed.  You would have either gave them a reasonable offer or no offer.  Clearly you had had the stronger case.  I guess the Cardinals feel that either Pujols isnt worth as much as suggested on the open market or they dont need him.

Not necessarily.  You're correct that we had the much stronger of the case, but the week prior I participated in one of these settlement mediations with a much worse case and I started at about the same point.

At times you have to convey a certain confidence in your position, even when you really aren't.  Otherwise the other side doesn't make much movement.

True but what you are doing is different then what Pujols and DeWitt is doing.  If you leave and both parties hate eachother as long as you got the best deal for  your client then you did what you needed to do.  Pujols and the Cardinals have to have a good relationship for the next 8-10 years.


I am the last person to understand negotiations though.  I think you should be able to sit in a room, have an honest conversation with one another and leave the room with a solution.

Well you have options here. You either buck up short term, and seriously.... BUCK UP. Forget 25 million, forget 30 million. 5/160 is about as cheap as you're going to get him on a 5 year plan... The more years you add to this? The bigger discount you get on the AAV. What will require 32-35 million a year for 5 years can be had for 30 million @ 7/8, or possibly 28 million @ 10. If you don't see 5/150-175, 7/210 or 8/240, or 10/280, then you don't see a deal.

Food for thought...
Anyone remember Tatis' contract year? God help the Cardinals if AP goes off this year. He's pissed, dedicated, driven, and spunked up about this... A contract year for AP is difficult to even fathom, but imagine what happens if he puts up something like this in 2011.

.363 BA, 210 Hits, 51 HRs, 60 2Bs, 140 Runs, 140 RBIs, with 125 walks and 65 strikeouts?

Anyone want to bet me he can't find someone willing to give him 30 million for this???

Here's water-cooler talk.  FWIW, I am emotionally opposed to Dan O'Neill's response, not for the content, but the argument.  His logic and style of argumentation is that of a lawyer--designed to "win" and not inform--and not the logic and argumentation of a philosopher or scientist. It is spin.  I don't need to read spin on this subject.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/round-two/article_ae3e309a-3a09-11e0-81cd-00127992bc8b.html

Yeah, the Cardinals are not going to turn money earmarked for Pujols into 10 wins.

Bernie raised some excellent points about TLR and the union bashing: 1) that it takes the distraction away from the players and puts it on him and 2) that he's trying to help Pujols take any damage from a PR hit. There are many issues I have with La Russa, but throwing himself under the bus here is admirable, if that's indeed what he's doing.