tkihshbt wrote:

Max wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

That's still too much.

That's a bit like saying $3.49 is too much for a gallon of gasoline.  As a moral argument, perhaps, but that's what it costs.  $125/5 for Albert Pujols to play between the ages 30-34 is a fucking steal that DeWitt would counted profits in the tens of millions of dollars from, like spending $1.50 a gallon of gas.

Wait, what?

You think the Cardinals should've ripped up Pujols' original contract in 2010 and 2011 and just started voluntarily paying him $25 million? Jeez, even the Phillies weren't that stupid with Ryan Howard.

Oh yeah, you're right.  THIS is much better.

Did AP sign a deal for 20 years ? What's this about ?




http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/quick-hits-davis-.html

Max wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

Max wrote:

That's a bit like saying $3.49 is too much for a gallon of gasoline.  As a moral argument, perhaps, but that's what it costs.  $125/5 for Albert Pujols to play between the ages 30-34 is a fucking steal that DeWitt would counted profits in the tens of millions of dollars from, like spending $1.50 a gallon of gas.

Wait, what?

You think the Cardinals should've ripped up Pujols' original contract in 2010 and 2011 and just started voluntarily paying him $25 million? Jeez, even the Phillies weren't that stupid with Ryan Howard.

Oh yeah, you're right.  THIS is much better.

Better than paying a DH $25 million into his early 40s? I agree.

don.rob11 wrote:

Did AP sign a deal for 20 years ? What's this about ?




http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/quick-hits-davis-.html

Wow, that sucks.  I suppose that means he wears an Angels uniform in the Hall of Fame.

Nice going DeWitt-less!

I was replying to your "this is much better."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you wanted the Cardinals to rip up Pujols' original contract and just start paying him an AAV of $25 million beginning in what would have been the 2010 season. Yes? And what would the Cardinals have done after 2014? Pujols was not going to take a pay cut, so would you have been OK with the team parting ways with him after that point? Or keep paying him an extravagant amount of money to decline?

I really don't believe Pujols when he said he wanted a five-year deal, especially when it would have begun in his age 30 season. The whole point of shooting for a 10-year contract was to keep himself employed (and handsomely) when he's in his twilight years. A five-year contract would've made him a free agent going into his age 35 season. It's highly unlikely a team would've said "oh yeah, we'll gladly pay you at the same level even though you're probably not going to be the same player."

tkihshbt wrote:

I was replying to your "this is much better."

That's why you need to keep track of the argument, just as you need to keep track of the history of the Pujols extension talks, not just jump in shooting from the hip at any point that you think you can get a clean shot off.  "THIS is much better" was a response to your attempt to ridicule my post about $125/5.

tkihshbt wrote:

If I'm understanding you correctly, you wanted the Cardinals to rip up Pujols' original contract and just start paying him an AAV of $25 million beginning in what would have been the 2010 season. Yes?

Yes, if that's what he was offering.

tkihshbt wrote:

And what would the Cardinals have done after 2014?

You've missed the point again.  Sometime before 2014 they would have worked out a new contract.  Say they did it after year 4.  If Pujols is still hitting 300/30/100, then they'd have to pay through the nose again.  If he had started to decline, like say, Beltran, then he'd probably be looking at 2-4 year deals for $10-20 M.  That's the way the game works.  And if it were such a stupid idea to do something like this, then why did the Cardinals sign their first long-term extension with Pujols, instead of letting him go through a year or two of arbitration and then to free agency?  Why did they give him a pay raise for those last few years they controlled him?  Why did they give him job security for years beyond that when they did not need to?  It's obvious why: because it was in their interest to take those risks. 

tkihshbt wrote:

Pujols was not going to take a pay cut, so would you have been OK with the team parting ways with him after that point? Or keep paying him an extravagant amount of money to decline?

blah, blah, blah

tkihshbt wrote:

I really don't believe Pujols when he said he wanted a five-year deal, especially when it would have begun in his age 30 season.

Take that up with Fors.

tkihshbt wrote:

The whole point of shooting for a 10-year contract was to keep himself employed (and handsomely) when he's in his twilight years. A five-year contract would've made him a free agent going into his age 35 season. It's highly unlikely a team would've said "oh yeah, we'll gladly pay you at the same level even though you're probably not going to be the same player."

blah, blah, blah

Last edited by Max (12/11/2011 12:11 am)

Max wrote:

That's why you need to keep track of the argument, just as you need to keep track of the history of the Pujols extension talks, not just jump in shooting from the hip at any point that you think you can get a clean shot off.  "THIS is much better" was a response to your attempt to ridicule my post about $125/5.

I have kept up quite well on the Pujols extension talks, thank you.

Anyway, my comment stands.

tkihshbt wrote:

If I'm understanding you correctly, you wanted the Cardinals to rip up Pujols' original contract and just start paying him an AAV of $25 million beginning in what would have been the 2010 season. Yes?

Yes, if that's what he was offering.

Thank goodness you aren't the GM.

tkihshbt wrote:

You've missed the point again.  Sometime before 2014 they would have worked out a new contract.

Umm, what? If this is your point, it's not a very good one. They should have signed Pujols to an extension, only to revisit that extension again?

Say they did it after year 4.  If Pujols is still hitting 300/30/100, then they'd have to pay through the nose again.  If he had started to decline, like say, Beltran, then he'd probably be looking at 2-4 year deals for $10-20 M.  That's the way the game works.

No, it's definitely not how it works. Your scenario is completely implausible.

And if it were such a stupid idea to do something like this, then why did the Cardinals sign their first long-term extension with Pujols, instead of letting him go through a year or two of arbitration and then to free agency?  Why did they give him a pay raise for those last few years they controlled him?  Why did they give him job security for years beyond that when they did not need to?  It's obvious why: because it was in their interest to take those risks.

You're comparing the Pujols situation from 2004 -- when he was 24-years-old -- to the situation now, when he's 32, has balky elbows, knees and hips and just came off the worst season of his career?

Take that up with Fors.

I never said I didn't believe Fors; I said I didn't believe Pujols. Strauss backs that up.

Pujols refused to discuss his departure from the Cardinals during the open-air phase of Saturday's appearance but later described a process that included eight phone conversations Wednesday with chairman Bill DeWitt Jr. and general manager John Mozeliak. The marathon left Pujols drained, admittedly emotional and finally resigned to the fact that Angels' owner Arte Moreno's long-distance lightning strike offered a greater sense of belonging as well as more dollars.

"It was about the way he made me feel," Pujols said. "Arte made me feel like he wanted me to be with the Angels forever. He doesn't want me to be 37 years old and go somewhere else."

The comment was an oblique reference to the Cardinals' five-year, $130 million offer earlier this month — their first bid since Pujols rejected the club's nine-year, $198 million bid during spring training. Pujols' new contract also includes a 10-year personal service provision, something the Cardinals were reluctant to discuss, according to sources familiar with the process.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/pujols-it-was-about-the-commitment/article_e73b3daa-688c-58f0-b068-a06f0f4547e7.html#ixzz1gD19z5Dt

Forgive me if I don't believe him when he said he wanted a five-year deal. He wanted to be paid like one of the best (which he still is) and he wanted a commitment for the rest of his career.

Your "blah, blah, blah" stuff makes me believe you don't have a retort ready. I'll wait.

tkihshbt wrote:

Max wrote:

That's why you need to keep track of the argument, just as you need to keep track of the history of the Pujols extension talks, not just jump in shooting from the hip at any point that you think you can get a clean shot off.  "THIS is much better" was a response to your attempt to ridicule my post about $125/5.

I have kept up quite well on the Pujols extension talks, thank you.

That's good to know, because your argument doesn't reflect that.

tkihshbt wrote:

Anyway, my comment stands.

Which one: $125/5 was 'still too much money'?

tkihshbt wrote:

If I'm understanding you correctly, you wanted the Cardinals to rip up Pujols' original contract and just start paying him an AAV of $25 million beginning in what would have been the 2010 season. Yes?

Max wrote:

Yes, if that's what he was offering.

Thank goodness you aren't the GM.

Why, because AP would be playing for us for $25 M for the next three years, and because the $10 M that DeWitt put in his pocket for '09 and '10 might have had to come out and go to Pujols?  Someone should call the cops to pepper spray me for suggesting that DeWitt should have spent the money he was pocketing.

tkihshbt wrote:

Max wrote:

You've missed the point again.  Sometime before 2014 they would have worked out a new contract.

Umm, what? If this is your point, it's not a very good one. They should have signed Pujols to an extension, only to revisit that extension again?

Weird how that works, huh?

Max wrote:

Say they did it after year 4.  If Pujols is still hitting 300/30/100, then they'd have to pay through the nose again.  If he had started to decline, like say, Beltran, then he'd probably be looking at 2-4 year deals for $10-20 M.  That's the way the game works.

tkihshbt wrote:

No, it's definitely not how it works. Your scenario is completely implausible.

Totally implausible in the way that it was totally implausible that the Cards would be leading the division by 10 games by the end of August 2009--which you still owe me a poem for, by the way--or a different kind of totally implausible?

Max wrote:

And if it were such a stupid idea to do something like this, then why did the Cardinals sign their first long-term extension with Pujols, instead of letting him go through a year or two of arbitration and then to free agency?  Why did they give him a pay raise for those last few years they controlled him?  Why did they give him job security for years beyond that when they did not need to?  It's obvious why: because it was in their interest to take those risks.

tkihshbt wrote:

You're comparing the Pujols situation from 2004 -- when he was 24-years-old -- to the situation now, when he's 32, has balky elbows, knees and hips and just came off the worst season of his career?

Once again, follow your own argument.

Last edited by Max (12/11/2011 11:46 am)

"DeWitt selected a different risk: that Pujols would get injured or otherwise wear down.  He lost that gamble and either had to:

1) say pretty please
2) pay up
3) give up

In hindsight, it appears he gave up"

OK Max, for the sake of ending this silly argument, let's assume you're 100% correct and Dewitt decided in 2009 that they were only going to sign Pujols on their terms (i.e., some sort of discount)--so what?  That's smart business.  As much as you don't like to acknowledge it, this sport is also a business.  It is about risk assessment and risk avoidance--particularly for franchises that don't have unlimited payrolls.  They're going to make that analysis with every player, even Albert Pujols.  Doesn't mean they'll always be right, but it would be a bigger mistake (IMO) to not make the analysis.

At the end of the day, Pujols had no obligation to give the Cardinals a hometown discount.  Similarly, Dewitt had no obligation to keep Pujols a Cardinal for life.  The Cardinals will still play games next season.  For the first time in 11 years they'll play them with a new first baseman (for the first time in 16 years, they'll play them with a new manager) and that's OK.

Albert Pujols is an Angel, but the sun still came up today.  Dewitt will be judged going forward, not looking back.  If they continue to field a competitive team (and Braun's 50 game suspension doesn't hurt), few people around St. Louis are going to care that Albert Pujols isn't playing first base.  Time to move on.

" Hell, Joseph Mengele retired to Brazil and wrote children's books.  If there is a better example of how we should think of DeWitt, I don't know if it."

Seriously???  You're comparing not re-signing a baseball player to medical experimentations conducted during the Holocaust?  You've lost your mind.

Max wrote:

No not seriously.  But were you serious about that idea that DeWitt will not be judged by what he's done in the past???

I suppose it depends on your version of the past Max.  You want to view him based solely on not getting Pujols signed.  But you could also judge Dewitt based on being the owner who rescued the team from the Busch family and oversaw 2 World Series titles, 3 pennants and 9 playoff appearance.  An owner who is fiscally conservative, sometimes maddenly so, but whose teams, with few exceptions were consistently competitive.

What we're about to find out is how much of that was attributable to others.  Was it Jocketty's roster building?  Was it Larussa's guidance?  Was it Pujols' on-the-field presence?  A combination of these factors?  I don't know.  The team survived the loss of Jocketty and won another World Series.  Now it has to move past Larussa's retirement and Pujols' defection. 

You're judging Dewitt based on information that isn't in the public domain.  Whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, more people in St. Louis are siding with Dewitt over the decision to not match, or approach the Angels' offer.  Pujols is coming off as greedy, and he didn't help his case in St. Louis when he came out yesterday and emphatically denied it was about money.  What do you call that, the denial that proves the denial?   

But here's why I say the future determines the interpretation of the past:  Dewitt doesn't have a widely respected industry-savvy GM that he brought from another organization.  He doesn't have a future Hall-of-Fame manager, and he doesn't have Pujols.  This team has very much taken on his persona.  With his hand-picked GM, hand-picked manager, hand-picked player personnel team, etc...  If it wins going forward, then Dewitt will likely be judged as the most successful owner in Cardinals history.  If it doesn't he'll probably be viewed as someone whose team won in spite of him and whose fiscal conservativism cost him the pieces that brought him success. 

Time will tell.

Last edited by forsberg_us (12/11/2011 3:18 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

If it wins going forward, then Dewitt will likely be judged as the most successful owner in Cardinals history.  If it doesn't he'll probably be viewed as someone whose team won in spite of him and whose fiscal conservativism cost him the pieces that brought him success. 

Time will tell.

We agree on that, but I would add "narcissism" alongside "fiscal conservatism" to describe his heroic flaws.

windwalker wrote:

Anybody watching this Todd Marinovich program on BSPN? Its like a horrifying auto accident, I cant stop watching it.

The shitstorm that is my life goes from category 3 to category 4 ...