" the stupidity was in not doing this 2 years ago, when a ten year, $225-250 M deal would have made sense."

Really???  You'd give a guaranteed $225-250M to a player coming off his second elbow surgery in as many years when every doctor who had examined the elbow suggested it wasn't a matter of if, but when the elbow ligament would blow?

It's really easy to spend someone else's money, and hindsight is 20-20.


"If we lose Pujols it is 100% on DeWitt"

Funny, because Strauss is reporting that the Cardinals latest offer is 10 years for more than $220M.  Seems to me if Pujols is playing in another uniform next season it's because he chose to, not because the team didn't make a fair, competitive offer.

http://www.stltoday.com/cards-boost-offer-to-pujols/article_968bf333-74e8-5b87-b245-ae4ae5b33301.html


Bernie hit the nail sqarely on the head

If Pujols leaves, I'd be reluctant to demonize either side ... well, at least not until we know exactly what was offered by both teams. Let's go over this again: baseball is a business, period. Pujols isn't morally obligated to re-sign with the Cardinals. This is his first crack at free agency and he has every right to take advantage of it to steer his career in a way that pleases him. On the other side, the Cardinals are under no obligation to give an aging Pujols a silly contract that could complicate the club's ability to compete down the road.

The only way I'd change my opinion -- and cast blame -- is if Pujols walks from a deal that puts the Cardinals reasonably close to the Marlins' offer. If it's close, (relatively speaking) then why would he leave? It would expose Pujols as a phony given his previous statements about wanting to be here forever.

Or, I would change my opinion and assign blame on the Cardinals is if they make no attempt to adjust what they've already offered, and basically push Pujols into South Florida through their ambivalence.


Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-bytes-takes-on-pujols-marlins/article_c05123ec-2021-11e1-98e2-001a4bcf6878.html#ixzz1fpQLuYjD

It's a two way street.  You can blame Dewitt, but let's not kid ourselves, if the Cardinals offered him 10/$220M, Pujols is equally culpable, if not more.

Max wrote:

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.  Until we know more details all these figures we are hearing are wild speculation.  If Pujols takes $225/10 from Florida, instead of $220/10 from St. Louis I would be stunned.  But we have no idea how accurate any of that is yet.

On the other hand, we have had about 10 months to get the details on last years offer, and they have converged on $198/9.  You want to know why failure will be 100% on DeWitt?  Just ask yourself why the fuck they would be offering $220/10 this year, if their best effort last year was just $198/9???!!!???

DeWitt has been playing hard-nosed business with a guy who has given 100% to the Cardinals.  In these cases, erring a bit on the side of the hero isn't a terrible idea.  Holding the hero's toes to the fire waiting for him to scream uncle is a terrible idea.

Again, I'll let Bernie say it for me:

"If Pujols leaves, keep this in mind: you will be hearing and reading claims (coming out of the Lozano camp) that the Cardinals could have prevented this with a preemptive strike. Here's what I think: not much of a chance of that. Unless the Cardinals agreed to top the Alex Rodriguez contact (10 years, $275 million) with their initial offer, a preemptive stike wasn't going to happen. Without an A-Rod deal, Lozano and Pujols were determined to go to the market to explore offers. As they should have. They always knew that the Cardinals would be waiting to take a last shot as long as Pujols/Lozano were willing to give them one. Lozano and Pujols weren't going to settle for "less" from St. Louis until and unless they absolutely had to. It was in their best interest to go to the market and see if some drooling owner would rush in and change the marketplace. That's why Pujols/Lozano broke off the talks before the 2011 season."

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-bytes-takes-on-pujols-marlins/article_c05123ec-2021-11e1-98e2-001a4bcf6878.html#ixzz1fqzfDaly

You're not talking about "erring a bit" you're talking about overpaying a guy by $50-60M.  That would be absolutely foolish.

Again, plain simple facts--the Cardinals have put an offer on the table.  Joe Strauss--the guy you fawn over when his information meshes with what you want to see--reports it's for 10 years and "about $220M."  Beyond that, we don't know any of the other specifics such as deferred money, structure, etc...  Now, the decision is Pujols', but if he isn't a Cardinal, it's because he decided not to be.

forsberg_us wrote:

But at the end of the day, if we lose Pujols because Moz/Dewitt weren't stupid enough to offer a 32 year old player a 10 year deal, no that won't make me sad.

Easy fors, my immediate comeback to this is something to the effect of.... "But they were too stupid to take a 5/125 when they had a chance." If Pujols leaving St. Louis under any circumstances doesn't make any Cardinal fan sad, then I would immediately question how much of a fan they really were. This is the same as losing Stan Musial.

Anyway, let's not go back into the Jihad de Pujols campaigns just yet, and see how this resolves before we throw up cover and take firing positions.

And to address the "won't make me sad" comment--no, if Albert Pujols leaves it won't make me sad.  If you think that makes me less of a fan, so be it.  But the idea of offering a 32 year old player a 10 year deal scares the crap out of me.  The Yankees did the same, and already regret having done so.  The Yankees are much in a much better position to eat a bad contract than the Cardinals.  Maybe Dewitt will shock me and suddenly spend freely, but based on his track record, I highly doubt it.  I have a feeling that if Pujols re-signs with the Cardinals, his contract is going to be offered as Reason #1 why the team is unable to make moves needed to improve the team when the time comes to make such moves.  Depending on how the money is structured, this deal has the potential to paralyze this team for a decade.

I know it isn't a popular topic to discuss, and few people seem to want to accept the facts, but the cold hard facts are that Pujols' number have been in a decline for 2 years.  From .327/47/135 to .312/42/118 to .299/37/99.  Does that mean he can't have a bounce back season?  Of course not.  But to ignore the trend and to assume it's a mere anomoly is extremely short-sighted.  And that's not even taking into consideration the possibility of time lost to injuries as Pujols ages.

Pujols has a long way to fall before he's an average player.  Hell, he has a long way to fall before he's merely above-average.  But to expect Albert Pujols at 41 to be a $22M player is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

I dont think any one baseball player is worth what Pujols is going to get paid or what Arod makes.

Last edited by APRTW (12/07/2011 11:29 am)

Not so much the amount of money in general but the amount in reference to what it would take to get other players is what I see as not worth it.  I was making a case before the Holliday signing that they might be wasting a chance to fill several needs for the same price his contract would be.  In the end I think they did fine on Holliday.  That line of thinking is still in my head someplace though.  For the 22 million-25 it will take to get Pujols say they could add another starter, ss and second baseman.

Say they could get Alex Gonzalez, Kelly Johnson and  Mark Buehrle.  Wouldnt they make as much of a difference as Pujols without the long term risk?  I am not saying they could get those 3 for 25million but it is an example of my line of thinking.

alz wrote:

APRTW wrote:

I dont think any one baseball player is worth what Pujols is going to get paid or what Arod makes.

That's the terrible economics of entertainment compared to the rest of the country.

I'm not sure what other field has drawn a 550% payraise (Canseco @5Million a Season to ARod @ 27.5Million a Season) from 1990 - 2007 other than entertainment.

You obviously have missed the news that the entire 99.9th percentile experienced a raise about that large, meaning that virtually the entire increase in American productivity over two decades went into the pockets of the 1 in 1000 richest people in the country.  That's about 300,000 Americans who experienced similar pay raises.

Read Krugman more often if you suffer from low blood pressure.

But in addition to entertainers there is a swath of people connected to finance and banking, hence OWS.

The latest from the world of Twitter

http://twitter.com/#!/SurfingTheMets/status/144475729860632576

http://twitter.com/#!/Jon_Heyman/status/144491536485330945

Max wrote:

But in addition to entertainers there is a swath of people connected to finance and banking, hence OWS.

I hate to sound heartless, but I have a certain (and highly critical) view of the OWS folks. I want to tell them to Occupy a job.

Wonder if Albert and Lozano got a turn off of a pending Securities Exchange Comm. investigation  of the Marlins new stadium .

Latest from Twitter

Jerry Crasnick (ESPN)- "Agent Dan Lozano has called the #Marlins and told them they are out on Pujols, says source"

https://twitter.com/#!/jcrasnick/status/144552103837315073