forsberg_us wrote:

Even more difficult is when the Yankees or Red Sox set the bar because they are in so much better position to absorb a bad contract.  The Yankees just paid $12M per season to a set-up man.

That is a deal the GM doesnt even support.  I cant think imagen a situation that had DeWitt willing to spend money that Mobagz wasnt.

forsberg_us wrote:

My friend Greg and I had this discussion the other day--as a Cardinal fan, would you be happy watchin Pujols play his entire career as a Cardinal, even if his contract left the team uncompetitive during its final years?  Greg's answer was yes.  I suspect Alz would give the same answer.  But I think that's a very legitimate question because a $30M/year contract is going to cripple this team if they aren't getting $30M production.

My anwser to the wording of that question is yes.  If the Cardinals can compete for the 3/5 of Pujols 10 year contract and not for the final 4 years I would be for it.  The Cardinals had 5 below .500 seasons in the 90s and 4 in the 80s.  Having 6 above .500 season in the next 10 years would be better then those decades.  My fear is that the contract would cause 10 uncompetitive years.

Adding to my last post I dont feel the team has been very good the last 4 years or so.  Giving Pujols a 14 million dollar raise and being able to do less around him  isnt going to change that.  I think you could make a strong case for letting Pujols walk even for 25 million a year.  Of course that isnt a case I want to present to ownership.

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

Yeah, and another analysis would be to skip them and move to the next four non-roided players on the list.  I'm not sure what to do with records from the roid era, but I would guess that long-term roid use decreases a players playing days.

That isnt true.  Steroids help increase the amount of time a player can stay in the league because it prevents age from effecting there strength and injuries from derailing their careers.  That is why users like Bonds, McGwire, Ramirez, Plamerio, Cansaco and Juan Gonzalez were able to retain their power deep into their careers.

I'm not sure that the data are all there.

First, did those guys have long careers?  Bonds: 43, yes; Palmeiro: 40, yes; Canseco & McGwire: 36, no; Gonzalez: 34, no.  Manny is still playing at 38 but presumably he is no longer on roids and he hasn't hit 40 HR since 2005.

Second, I was under the impression that long-term steroid use undermines other parts of a person's health (that's why the use of PEDs is frowned upon), and particularly if it affects cartilage and does things to joints, athletes could see a short, but brighter, career as a result of PEDs. 

If I am demonstrably wrong, please correct me.

Being able to playing into your mid 30s and early 40s are long careers.  Cansaco played 16 years, McGwire 15, Gonzalez 16.  I consider those long careers for power hitters or any player really.  I think your expectation for HRs is fogged by the steroid era.  McGwire hit 29 HRs in his finally season.  A shitty season.  29 HRs used to be considered alot.  Manny is tailing off but in 2009 he had 19 HRs in 350 AB.  That is alot.  If those guys didnt do roids they wouldnt even have been in the league. 

The health issues related to steroids are heart and liver issues later in life.  Most of the users who have early issues are bodybuilder or wrestlers.  Baseball players and other sports figures are not as heavy users as those guys.

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

That isnt true.  Steroids help increase the amount of time a player can stay in the league because it prevents age from effecting there strength and injuries from derailing their careers.  That is why users like Bonds, McGwire, Ramirez, Plamerio, Cansaco and Juan Gonzalez were able to retain their power deep into their careers.

I'm not sure that the data are all there.

First, did those guys have long careers?  Bonds: 43, yes; Palmeiro: 40, yes; Canseco & McGwire: 36, no; Gonzalez: 34, no.  Manny is still playing at 38 but presumably he is no longer on roids and he hasn't hit 40 HR since 2005.

Second, I was under the impression that long-term steroid use undermines other parts of a person's health (that's why the use of PEDs is frowned upon), and particularly if it affects cartilage and does things to joints, athletes could see a short, but brighter, career as a result of PEDs. 

If I am demonstrably wrong, please correct me.

Being able to playing into your mid 30s and early 40s are long careers.  Cansaco played 16 years, McGwire 15, Gonzalez 16.  I consider those long careers for power hitters or any player really.  I think your expectation for HRs is fogged by the steroid era.  McGwire hit 29 HRs in his finally season.  A shitty season.  29 HRs used to be considered alot.  Manny is tailing off but in 2009 he had 19 HRs in 350 AB.  That is alot.  If those guys didnt do roids they wouldnt even have been in the league. 

The health issues related to steroids are heart and liver issues later in life.  Most of the users who have early issues are bodybuilder or wrestlers.  Baseball players and other sports figures are not as heavy users as those guys.

Unless I am shown otherwise, I will assume that it is age, and not length of service, that puts the twilight on a baseball players career (NFL, NHL . . . different story).  35/36 is not a long career in my opinion, particularly not for a "Top 20 of All-Time" player.  Everyone ages at a different rate, roiding or not.  Looking at Albert, I'm guessing he ages gracefully.  I think that expecting him to be effective, although not necessarily irreplaceable, until 39-40 is around even money or better.  The bigger risk is in career ending injury (or, in the case of Gehrig, disease).

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

My friend Greg and I had this discussion the other day--as a Cardinal fan, would you be happy watchin Pujols play his entire career as a Cardinal, even if his contract left the team uncompetitive during its final years?  Greg's answer was yes.  I suspect Alz would give the same answer.  But I think that's a very legitimate question because a $30M/year contract is going to cripple this team if they aren't getting $30M production.

Again, I'd do it.  The Braves kept trotting Hank Aaron out there after he could have been replaced with a more effective player, as did the Cubs with Ernie Banks.  Ask fans and owners in Atlanta and Chicago if there are any hard feelings over letting Aaron and Banks play.

The two dont compare to Pujols.  First off Aaron and Banks couldnt have been replaced with more effective players untill the very last few years of their careers.  It is yet to be seen if that will be the case for Pujols.  Secondly I doubt Aaron or Banks were making twice as much as the second highest paid player on the team.

Maybe you and I are on different wavelengths here, because we seem to be saying the same thing but interpreting it to the mean exact opposite.  As with Banks and Aaron, I am assuming that Pujols will be awesome for the next several years at least, and won't be replaceable in an 8-10 year contract until the final 1-3 years . . . -ish.  As for the second part, free agency changed the game, and salaries and payrolls before and after probably are not comparable.

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

I'm not sure that the data are all there.

First, did those guys have long careers?  Bonds: 43, yes; Palmeiro: 40, yes; Canseco & McGwire: 36, no; Gonzalez: 34, no.  Manny is still playing at 38 but presumably he is no longer on roids and he hasn't hit 40 HR since 2005.

Second, I was under the impression that long-term steroid use undermines other parts of a person's health (that's why the use of PEDs is frowned upon), and particularly if it affects cartilage and does things to joints, athletes could see a short, but brighter, career as a result of PEDs. 

If I am demonstrably wrong, please correct me.

Being able to playing into your mid 30s and early 40s are long careers.  Cansaco played 16 years, McGwire 15, Gonzalez 16.  I consider those long careers for power hitters or any player really.  I think your expectation for HRs is fogged by the steroid era.  McGwire hit 29 HRs in his finally season.  A shitty season.  29 HRs used to be considered alot.  Manny is tailing off but in 2009 he had 19 HRs in 350 AB.  That is alot.  If those guys didnt do roids they wouldnt even have been in the league. 

The health issues related to steroids are heart and liver issues later in life.  Most of the users who have early issues are bodybuilder or wrestlers.  Baseball players and other sports figures are not as heavy users as those guys.

Unless I am shown otherwise, I will assume that it is age, and not length of service, that puts the twilight on a baseball players career (NFL, NHL . . . different story).  35/36 is not a long career in my opinion, particularly not for a "Top 20 of All-Time" player.  Everyone ages at a different rate, roiding or not.  Looking at Albert, I'm guessing he ages gracefully.  I think that expecting him to be effective, although not necessarily irreplaceable, until 39-40 is around even money or better.  The bigger risk is in career ending injury (or, in the case of Gehrig, disease).

So you think Bonds could have been just as effective late in his career without steroids?  We must be looking at this all wrong.  Instead of thinking there numbers should be less we should adjust them upwards because they were on those proformance reducing drugs.  Think how many HRs bonds could have hit if he just would have taken roids.  He would have played till he was 60 I am sure.

alz wrote:

Couple of notes. Fors, I watched a piss poor mediocre Cardinals team for years because McGwire (albeit juiced) was knocking baseballs 500 feet. It was a gift, it was great to watch. I would happily do the same for Pujols. We weren't that good, but the team made CRAZY money because McGwire made fans want to come watch.

McGwire is a perfect example.  You're absolutely right, people came in droves to watch batting practice and hung around until they were certain he had taken his last swing.  It was like a circus side show, but a lot of people loved it.  But as you said, the team wasn't very good and that was the trade-off.  That may be what they're considering now.  Will people come to watch Pujols play even if the team isn't much better than it was during the late-90s

alz wrote:

Pujols does this right now. Pujols isn't juiced, he's been loyal, considerate, patient, quiet. He's also made ~125 million dollars less then he could have to play here.

Not really.  The Cardinals bought Pujols out of his first 5 years of free agency at a price of $16M per season.  If you use A-Rod's first 10 year deal as a comparable, Pujols could have earned about $25M per season.  So he's probably about $45M in the hole, not $125M.

alz wrote:

So I think anyone who wants to point a finger and accuse him of greed needs to walk into work and demand a 50% paycut.

That's a bit of an overstatement.  I seem to recall you were out of work for a period of time.  I think AP was in the same position.  Imagine if your employer came to you tomorrow and offered you an 8 year guaranteed contract with an annual raise of 5%.  It's possible that 3 years from now people in your same job will make more than you.  It's also possible that others will receive more than a 5% annual raise.  But if you sign the contract, you know you have a job for the next 8 seasons and you know exactly how much you're being paid.  Do you sign the contract?  If it turns out that others are being paid more than you, does that mean your employer treated you unfairly? 

No one forced Pujols to sign an 8 year deal.  A lot of very good players simply play out their arbitration years.  Prince Fielder has done it and will enter free agency next season.  Joey Votto just signed a 3 year deal that simply runs through his arbitration years, but without losing any of his free agent years.  Pujols asked for and was given long term security. 

alz wrote:

I never considered St. Louis to be a farm team, but this will rank them with Seattle in my opinion. I'd never root for them simply because they could never keep and hold their superstars. I won't cheer for that type of shit here.

Even if they use the money to lock up Wainwright, Rasmus and Garcia.  Maybe bring in a free agent or two?


That's what is so devisive about this issue.  There are a lot of people like yourself who say sign Pujols at any cost and I'll take my chances on what the team looks like 3, 5 or 7 years down the road.  Others are saying let him walk and use the $25-30M wisely to build a better all-around team.  I understand both points of view.

If they knew he would hit another 400 HR over the next 10 years, the deal would be done. 

After 12 seasons, Ken Griffey Jr. had 438 HR (36.5 per season).  That included the strike-shortened 1994 and half a season lost to injury in 1995.  Griffey had 438 HR and was a year younger than Pujols is today.

Griffey played 10 more seasons and only hit 192 HR during those 10 seasons.  The Reds bought into the idea of "watching history," and they were a second tier ballclub for the entire decade Griffey played there.

I'm not suggesting Pujols follows Griffey's path.  But given Pujols' elbow, back and hamstring issues, you can't disregard the threat of injuries either.

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

Unless I am shown otherwise, I will assume that it is age, and not length of service, that puts the twilight on a baseball players career (NFL, NHL . . . different story).  35/36 is not a long career in my opinion, particularly not for a "Top 20 of All-Time" player.  Everyone ages at a different rate, roiding or not.  Looking at Albert, I'm guessing he ages gracefully.  I think that expecting him to be effective, although not necessarily irreplaceable, until 39-40 is around even money or better.  The bigger risk is in career ending injury (or, in the case of Gehrig, disease).

So you think Bonds could have been just as effective late in his career without steroids?

Not at all.  But Bonds is the exception in playing until he was 43.  I think using roids takes its toll on the body and long-term habitual roiders might wear out faster, not slower.  But I am open to seeing data one way or the other.

One thing we don't know about the steroid people is an honest accounting of when they did/didn't take them.

A-Rod seems to be breaking down a bit.  Is that the result of prolonged steroid use or the result of no longer taking them?  There's no way for us to know the answer.

Another issue is the risks associated with the new substances that are being created.  We know that the anabolic steroids used by so many football players, body builders and pro wrestlers caused catostrophic health issues.  I don't know if similar research is available on the current designer substances that are more prevalent these days.

Last edited by forsberg_us (2/09/2011 4:57 pm)

Or maybe the reason Bonds lasted longer then everyone else was because he was the biggest user and one of the few that went threw the effort of doing so systematicly.  Been seen over by a group of wanabe doctors is a couple step up from being stuck in the butt by Cansaco.

Fors A-Roid is the only one close to knocking Balco Bonds off the career list in HR's and that's like trading HGH for Testosterone in my opinion. (insert cheesy drum crash here)

Nobody is going to nail the owners to a cross if Pujols can't live up to the contract. I heard a guy on ESPN sum this up pretty good. Do not rule out NY or Boston. If you want to market your franchise Pujols is a BRAND. If the ownership issues of the Mets/Dodgers are corrected in time, they might be bidding, Chicago seems likely. Someone will offer him a monster deal willing to take the risk that he'll come through historically. If St. Louis wants him, they will have to ante up, but to play monday morning quarterback on it, you have no business signing Holliday until you have Pujols wrapped up. In any/every sense of the word that was a terrible mistake.

I did the  creatine  thing for a month or two once.  I thought it helped some but mostly I just looked bloated.  I need  substance that gets me motivated to just start working out.  Once I start I enjoy it.  Then the next day I drag my feet again.